(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearing"

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 08678 7869 







San Francisco Public Library 



GOVERNM-:.n-,..r^. MT|OA/CfNTW 






SA . -»«r 

to 



i>W 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




GOVERNMENT 
DOCUMENTS DEPT 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009 

1:39 P.M. 



AUG 2 7 Z009 
SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



609-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
- -0O0- - 



HEARING 

STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

- -0O0- - 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009 
1:39 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 



Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6713 



3 1223 08678 7869 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

- - oOo- - 



p 9 q g 



3 Proceedings 

4 Governor's Appointees: 

5 Taken Together: 





STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 








6 

7 


RICHARD J. SUBIA, Associate Director, 
Division of Adult Institutions, Department 
of Corrections and Rehabilitation 




- -oOo- - 








8 


WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, JR., Associate Director, 
Division of Adult Institutions, Department 




WEDNESDAY. MARCH 11. 2009 
1:39 P M. 
- -oOo - - 








9 
10 
11 
12 
13 


of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2 




INTRODUCTION BY SENATOR COX 2 




OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. SUBIA 7 




OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. SULLIVAN 9 




Questions to both by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 












14 


What is going well and what is 












15 


not going well with the Department 












16 


of Corrections 11 




Reported By: INA c. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6T13 






17 
18 
19 
20 


Literacy program that is working 
within the adult system 19 




Best practice 2 1 




Impact of budget on institutions.. 26 












21 


Cell phones inside prisons 28 












22 


X-ray process at institutions .... 30 












23 


Employees smuggling cellphones 












24 


into institutions 31 












25 


lii 


1 

2 


APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 








1 
2 


Questions to Mr. Sullivan by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 
How present job interrelates with 


3 










3 


programs departm ent and comments 


4 


SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG, Chair 








4 
5 


regarding the new structure 15 

Office of correctional education . 16 


5 


SENATOR SAMUEL AANESTAD 








6 


Questions to Both by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 


6 


SENATOR ROBERT DUTTON 








7 
8 


Reality of programs and structure . 16 
Questions to Mr. S u b ia by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 


7 


SENATOR JENNY OROPEZA 








9 
10 


Where position connects with 
programs 18 


8 










11 


Questions to Both by SENATOR AANESTAD re: 


9 


STAFF PRESENT 








12 
13 


Working with the community/paying 
bills on time 23 


10 










14 


STATEMENT BY SENATOR DUTTON 32 


11 


GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 








15 


Witnesses in SuDDOrtofboth RICHARD J. SUBIA and 


12 


JANE LEONARD BROWN, Committee Assistan 


t 




16 


WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN: 


13 


NETTIE SABELHAUS, Appointments Consultant 








14 


BILL BAILEY, Assistant to SENATOR AAN 


S S T A D 




17 


DARLENE E S T E S - D A N G E R F I E L D , Association of 
Black Correctional Officers 33 


15 


CHRIS BURNS, Assistant to SENATOR DUTTO 


N 




18 




16 


BRENDAN HUGHES, Assistant to SENATO 


R 


R P E Z A 


19 


DAVID WARREN, Taxpayers for Improving 
Public Safety 34 


17 




18 
19 


ALSO PRESENT 








20 
21 


Witnesses in SuDDOrt of RICHARD J. SUBIA: 


20 


RICHARD J. SUBIA, Associate Director, D 
Institutions, Departm ent of Corrections a 
Rehabilitation 


iv is io n o 

n d 


f A d u It 


22 


HARRIET SALARNO, Crime Victims United of 


21 




22 


WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, JR., Associate Directo 
of Adult Institutions, Departm ent of Correctio 


r, D 
n s ^ 


vision 
n d 


23 


MARTIN RYAN Amador County Sheriff 36 




23 


Rehabilitation 








24 


DENNIS GREENHAUGH, Chlcano Correctional 


24 
25 


CAROL A. DEAN, Member, Water Quality 
North Coastal Region 


Con 


tro 1 


Board, 


25 







of 20 sheets 



Page 1 to 4 of 6 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 PF 



KEN PIMLOTT, Cal Fire 



E. FALCON RENTERIA, Chicano Correctional 
Workers Association 38 

FR. DIEGO BAPTISTA, Mule Creek State Prion .. 39 

FR. GEORGE HORAN, Office of Restorative 
Justice, Archdiocese of Los Angeles 40 

THEODORE F. NOVELLI, Board of Supervisors, 
AmadorCounty 40 

JACQUELINE LUCIDO, Amador County Chamber of 
Commerce 41 



-oOo- 



CAROL A. DEAN, Member, Water Quality Control 
Board, North Coastal Region 44 

OPENING STATEMENT BY MS. DEAN 45 



Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 
Time remaining to serve as board 

mem ber/reappointment 49 

Alleged reference to bicyclists 

as "fringe radicals" 50 

Belief water board allocates 

water 52 

Witnesses in Support of CAROL A. DEAN : 



RICHARD HARRIS, Water Reuse Association 53 

BOB ANDERSON, North Coast Regional Board .... 54 

ALLEN THOMAS, Former member, Santa Rosa 
Planning Commission 55 



1 PROCEEDINGS 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The Senate Rules Committee 

3 will come to order. 

4 Please call the roll. 

5 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

6 Dutton. 

7 SENATOR DUTTON: Here. 

8 MS. BROWN: Dutton here. 

9 Oropeza. 

10 SENATOR OROPEZA: Here. 

11 MS. BROWN: Oropeza here. 

12 Aanestad. 

13 SENATOR AANESTAD: Here. 

14 MS. BROWN: Aanestad here. 

15 Steinberg. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Here. 

17 MS. BROWN: Steinberg here. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

19 Senator Cedillo is absent today due to an 

20 important family matter, so we will operate, obviously, 

21 with four members today. 

22 I would like to welcome everyone. Let's begin 

23 with number two. I want to begin with number two, the 

24 governor's appointees appearing today, and I would like 

25 to ask both Richard J. Subia, who is up for confirmation 

1 



1 JOHN SAWYER, Santa Rosa City Council .... 

2 JANE BENDER, Santa Rosa City Council 

i 3 Witnesses in Opposition to CAROL A. DEAN : 



56 
57 



4 DON McENHILL, Russian Riverkeeper 58 

5 JOHN KRAMER, Sonoma County Conservation 
Action 62 



7 STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN STEINBERG 

8 STATEMENT BY SENATOR OROPEZA .... 

9 STATEMENT BY SENATOR AANESTAD ... 




66 
68 
68 



— o0o— 

Proceedings Adjourned 71 

Certificate of Reporter 72 

APPENDIX (Written responses of Appointees) .. 73 



1 as the associate director of Division of Adult 

2 Institutions, Department of Corrections and 

3 Rehabilitation, and William J. Sullivan, Jr., associate 

4 director, Division of Adult Institutions, Department of 

5 Corrections and Rehabilitation, and I want to invite our 

6 esteemed colleague, Senator Dave Cox. 

7 If you can get a chair for Senator Cox there, 

8 please, to come on up and introduce -- I believe it's 

9 Mr. Subia, correct? And I have a brief opening 

10 statement to make, and I will turn it over to the 

11 nominees. 

12 Okay. Senator Cox, welcome. 

13 SENATOR COX: Thank you, M r. President Pro Tern 

14 and Members of the Committee. 

15 This is my eleventh year in the legislature. 

16 First time, by the way, that I have been before the 

17 Rules Committee for the purpose of asking you to vote 

18 for the affirmation of a gubernatorial appointment. 

19 Let me just tell you that in the first sense, 

20 we have five penal institutions, if you will, and in the 

21 city of lone we have Mule Creek. We were having 

22 significant problems in the community because of the 

23 relationship staff at Mule Creek had with the residents 

24 of lone. 

25 Rich Subia was ultimately appointed as the 



C 16/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 5 to 2 of 6 



2 of 20 sheets 



acting warden at Mule Creek, and we began to talk about 
what the problems were. What he said to me was, "Dave, 
let's work this together. Let's see if we can't take 
the steps that are necessary to protect the institution, 
but at the same time to take care of the needs of the 
community," and that's precisely what he did. 

And so we were disappointed, Mr. President Pro 
Tern, not because he was given a step up, but because he 
left Mule Creek as the warden, and we had, then, to go 
through the process of trying to retrain the next 
person. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: It's a pretty familiar 
problem. 

SENATOR COX: But at any rate, I couldn't be 
more pleased to be here today to ask that you all affirm 
the nomination, the appointment by the governor of the 
State of California, for Mr. Subia for the position 
which you just outlined, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 
much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
Senator Cox. You're welcome back to the Committee at 
any time. 

SENATOR COX: Thanks very much. I think I'll 
leave now. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Believe me, I know you 

3 



1 in high-level positions. We'll continue that 

2 discussion. Nothing is off-limits in terms of CDCR. 

3 We want to make sure that some of the 

4 improvements that have, in fact, been made, that CDCR 

5 builds on them, that you continue to replicate smart 

6 programs. We're looking for change, not just in the 

7 country, but, obviously, in California and within the 

8 department. 

9 I want to just speak very briefly to a specific 

10 focus of mine, and I hope it will be a specific focus of 

11 others as well, and that is the alarming rate of 

12 illiteracy among the inmate population. If we're ever 

13 going to be serious about rehabilitation or reducing 

14 recidivism, what are we going to do to fund and 

15 replicate the effective strategies to help prison 

16 inmates read so that they can, in fact, qualify for a 

17 job once they are released. I'd appreciate you touching 

18 on that as well. 

19 Welcome to you both, Mr. Subia and 

20 Mr. Sullivan, to the Committee. Before you begin, if 

21 you would like to introduce any member of your family or 

22 any other special guest, let's launch right in. 

23 Welcome. 

24 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. With me today is my 

25 wife, Jane. 

5 



have a busy day, but we appreciate you coming. 

Before I ask the two nominees to make some 
brief opening statements and we open it up to questions, 
let me just make a comment or two, because this is the 
first of several weeks of CDCR appointees, and for, I 
think, all the obvious reasons, we're going to carefully 
scrutinize all of the nominees, because you, in part, 
are responsible for overseeing a $10 billion budget, and 
because public safety is obviously one of the 
legislature's highest priorities. 

We're not the only committee in the legislature 
that, of course, is looking at CDCR. The agency is also 
being scrutinized by Senator DeSaunlnier's Budget 
Subcommittee, Senator Leno's Public Safety Committee, 
and, of course, the Assembly as well. And I think it's 
fair to say all Members are concerned about the 
astronomical increase in Corrections' budget and with 
the continuing relationship, unfortunate relationship, 
between the federal courts, the federal receiver, and 
the department, and the administration in general. 

You know, there's many things that we have an 
obligation to focus on when it comes to Corrections as 
well. Certainly, prior Rules Committee hearings have 
focused on the high level of vacancies, why it's been so 
difficult for the department to keep high-level people 

4 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome. 

2 MR. SULLIVAN: And my daughter Kelly - 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to you as well. 

4 MR. SULLIVAN: - with our potential 

5 grandchild, my son-in-law, Pete, and my son John. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to all of you. 

7 You can have a seat if you want. The children and the 

8 nominees get a seat. That's one of the rules of the 

9 Committee. 

10 MR. SULLIVAN: And then probably watching right 

11 now is my other son, who is in Bakersfield in a fire 

12 station, if he hasn't been called out yet, Bill. Bill 

13 Sullivan. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Subia. 

15 MR. SUBIA: Thank you, Senator. I'm fortunate 

16 I have my mother and father here, Manuel and Francia, my 

17 son Tony and my wife Maria. And I would be remiss if I 

18 didn't mention the other support I have, which is my son 

19 Philip and daughter Jennifer, who are in Southern 

20 California in school and work. Thank you. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome. Welcome to all 

22 of you. Welcome to an exercise in democracy. This is 

23 what the confirmation process is about. 

24 Let us begin. Whoever wants to go first, 

25 either Mr. Subia or Mr. Sullivan, tell us why you want 

6 



of 20 sheets 



Page 3 to 6 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 PI 



to be confirmed here today. 

MR. SUBIA: Good afternoon, Chairman Steinberg 
and honorable Committee Members. I'm extremely honored 
and humbled to appear before you today. 

After 23 years of public service to the State 
of California, I'm proud to have been selected by the 
administration to be appointed to the position of 
associate director of the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

As a young man, I was taught by my parents that 
the two most important things in my life are family and 
service. My father was a dedicated civil servant over 
38 years, and I knew early on in life that dedication to 
the family and service to the community were required to 
live a complete life. 

After four years of serving in the United 
States Navy, I embarked on a career in state service as 
a correctional officer with the then CDC. It was then 
that I met my wonderful wife of 22 years, who as well 
has dedicated over 28 years serving the State of 
California. 

While continuing to work for the CDC, I also 
balanced a home life, involving myself in community 
activities which included coaching youth sports, serving 
as a scout master with the Boy Scouts of America, and 

7 



1 solely responsible for the success of this agency and no 

2 one person is any more important than another. 

3 I have been fortunate to have worked for and 

4 with some outstanding people over the past 20 years -- 

5 23 years. All in some way are responsible for my 

6 success, and, as such, I feel I have an obligation to 

7 continue to assist all Corrections employees in their 

8 career endeavors. I have continuously ensured that I am 

9 a mentor to my staff, a role model to the inmate 

10 population, and a partner to the community. 

11 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

12 you today and ask for your support in my role as the 

13 associate director with the California Department of 

14 Corrections and Rehabilitation. And I'm available to 

15 respond to any questions you may have. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

17 Mr. Sullivan. 

18 MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, 

19 Chairman and Members of the Senate Rules Committee. My 

20 name is Bill Sullivan, and I'm currently the associate 

21 director for the level-three and -four general 

22 population mission. 

23 I would like to also thank the mission staff 

24 and headquarters and the various prisons within our 

25 mission, for without all their efforts, this would not 



president of the school PTAs. 

I have been extremely fortunate in my career 
with the CDCR and believe that the rewards I have 
received are best returned through community service. 

Throughout my tenure, I promoted through the 
ranks holding the position of correctional officer, 
sergeant, lieutenant, captain, associate warden, chief 
deputy warden, warden, and for the past 14 months, 
associate director for the Division of Adult 
Institutions. 

This current assignment finds me charged with 
the oversight of nine level-two and -three institutions, 
41 male-offender conservation camps, and 12 community 
correctional facilities. 

My career has provided me opportunities to work 
in the field of institution operations, employment and 
labor law, communication, gang suppression, and internal 
affairs, and narcotics investigation. I have had the 
opportunity to work at five institutions and with 
inmates of all security levels. Whether working as a 
staffer supervising a contingency of staff, or 
overseeing a major prison operation, I have always had a 
complete understanding that it is the dedicated, 
hard-working staff at the CDCR who handle the day-to-day 
operations in this huge agency, and no one person is 

8 



1 be possible. 

2 Additionally, I would like to thank my 

3 counterparts and the staff in the other missions and 

4 divisions who also provide support. I would especially 

5 like to thank my wife Jane, who I introduced earlier, 

6 and my family, some of whom are here today, for their 

7 understanding and support throughout my career with the 

8 department. 

9 I received a bachelor's degree in industrial 

10 arts from California State University, Los Angeles, in 

11 1976, and a master's degree in education administration 

12 from Cal State LA in 1987. 

13 I began my career with the department as a 

14 vocational instructor in 1984 at the California 

15 Rehabilitation Center and progressed through the 

16 education department within Division of Adult 

17 Institutions, as well as Juvenile Justice. 

18 My professional responsibilities evolved into 

19 assuming administrative duties within the department 

20 culminating with my appointment as warden at the 

21 California Correctional Institution in 2003. The 

22 specific assignments I have assumed during my career are 

23 outlined in the application resume that has been 

24 provided to you. 

25 At this time, I will be happy to answer any 

10 



.6/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 7 to 10 of 73 



4 of 20 sheets 



questions that you may have. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. Welcome to 
both of you. 

I'm going to begin with a general question for 
both of you. What is going well and what is not going 
well when it comes to the Department of Corrections? 

MR. SUBIA: I think -- 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Easy. 

MR. SUBIA: That's an easy question. Very 
narrow focus. 

Senator, I think what's going well is we now 
have the ability with our new organizational structure 
to work across the board with each other to identify 
those best practices that we identify with some of our 
respective institutions and share them. 

Some examples are, we are looking at some 
visiting processes that have been successful at some 
of our institutions and are now working with some of our 
other stakeholders and other institutions in order to — 
to try and provide the same opportunity to the visitors 
who come within our prison, to do that in a more 
expedient manner. It has moved a little slower than we 
would have liked, but we are beginning to see that 
happen at some of our various institutions. 

We also -- When we have problems within some of 

11 



1 that's another one of our major problems that we are 

2 attempting to tackle and believe that we can tackle that 

3 and resolve some of the safety issues that we currently 

4 have. 

5 MR. SULLIVAN: In addition to those, you 

6 mentioned the population earlier. One of the biggest 

7 things we're confronting right now is the narrowly 

8 defined elements of our population and the difficulty 

9 that presents for us to find a bed for an inmate. 

10 To explain that, we have four levels of custody 

11 within the Department of Corrections. We also have 

12 medical needs that we have to address that a specific 

13 institution may or may not be able to provide. We have 

14 mental-health issues that we have to also consider. We 

15 have safety-type issues that we need to deal with for 

16 inmates that might have those kinds of problems that we 

17 also have to provide for. 

18 To displace one or to make room for one element 

19 of the population, it almost takes displacing another 

20 element, because virtually all the beds are taken. So 

21 we're in a constant state of projecting, analyzing 

22 population needs and strategies, to accommodate those. 

23 One of the other biggest -- I think the biggest 

24 difficulty that impacts all of this is the budget. We, 

25 like everyone else within state government, are faced 

13 



our specific institutions, with the five associate 
directors we have now, we can work together to move 
forward in handling problematic inmates. Programs that 
are effective, we have the ability to work together as 
associate directors and reach out to our partners in 
adult programs to roll these same type of programs out 
to our various institutions. 

So I think with -- something that's working 
well would be our ability to work together in the new 
operational structure. 

In my opinion, some of the struggles we're 
having right now is with our population. We have such a 
diverse population, and, as you see in the community, 

14 the rising gang activity and the rising criminal 

15 activity, it's now become a major part of our prison 

16 operations to where there's so many different factions 

17 and disruptive organizations, that it's difficult for us 

18 to provide appropriate programming on a daily basis. 

19 The other problems that we are having is some 

20 of our contraband issues, which we are working at. 

21 There's a bill that's in front of the legislature this 

22 year that has to do with cell phone interdiction. And 

23 the use of cell phones within our prison has become a 

24 very, very serious security and safety issue for us, 

25 which we believe reaches out to the community. So 

12 



1 with trying to provide these programs and trying to 

2 develop strategies that will, hopefully, reduce the 

3 recidivism rate for the inmate population, but we've got 

4 to find other creative ways right now to put those into 

5 play. 

6 One of the things that we've talked about, and, 

7 again, me being from a vocational background, is looking 

8 at vocational programs and ways of providing legitimate 

9 training activities for inmates utilizing, for instance, 

10 community service projects where the community would 

11 benefit from the labor force that we provide from the 

12 inmate population vocational program, as well as reduce 

13 cost, because they provide the materials to the voc 

14 program for the inmates to work through. 

15 It benefits the inmates, because now they're 

16 getting realistic-type projects that would be later 

17 utilized in the community, so they're developing some 

18 sense of self-worth through leaving something that they 

19 did back in the community that they may have come from. 

20 It's a lot different training an inmate on a 

21 project like that that's going to be utilized, you know, 

22 a real-life-type training project, than it is something 

23 that you have them do that we end up throwing away 

24 because there's no use. 

25 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Oropeza. 

14 



of 20 sheets 



Page 11 to 14 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42 37 Pl< 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Can I follow up on that, 
Mr. Sullivan. 

It's my understanding that under the new 
structure, programs are not really what you're 
responsible for. And I'm happy to hear about your 
interest in those programs. 

Can you talk to me about how your job 
interrelates with whomever is responsible for that and 
how that actually can manifest in reality, because of 
this new structure, and any comments you have on the new 
structure as well. 

MR. SULLIVAN: With the new structure, the 
program division or department is responsible for 
education, in this particular instance. 

In my part of the operation, the Division of 
Adult Institutions, I'm responsible for the seven level- 
three and -four prisons. And programs -- I feel a sense 
of responsibility for those programs that are in those 
facilities, whether they go up through my chain or a 
different chain. 

I see myself as sort of a facilitator bringing 
the institution and that program unit together. The 
institution identifying the needs that they have, the 
resources that they have, and the available space, for 
instance, is one of the difficulties we have right now, 

15 



1 what you were talking about, in terms of the programs, 

2 and the reality of this structure. So if either of you 

3 can comment on that, that would be useful. 

4 MR. SUBIA: Senator, one of the things that I 

5 think has been beneficial for us is being able to work 

6 with adult programs and the Division of Adult 

7 Institutions together, so we're having experts in both 

8 prison operations at the table and those experts in 

9 education and programs. 

10 So there's a weekly meeting that takes place 

11 that I attend as a representative for the Division of 

12 Adult Institutions, and I represent our division to 

13 ensure that when the adult programs want to bring 

14 forward a specific program within an institution, I can 

15 be there in order to operationalize that, to make sure 

16 the institution staff have the ability to get the 

17 inmates access to those programs. And if I see any 

18 obstacles and I see any stumbling blocks that could 

19 occur, I could raise those at that time. And we work 

20 together -- I work together with the undersecretary of 

21 adult programs in order to resolve those issues. 

22 We may put together smaller teams in order to 

23 find how we get some resolution so we can get the most 

24 programs to those inmates, and then working through our 

25 division to make sure that we have the right inmate at 

17 



the eligible population that will require these kinds of 
programs, and then through me developing a strategy to 
present to, in this case, the office of correctional 
education, to provide the necessary resources to us. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Where do I find the office of 
correctional education? 

MR. SULLIVAN: Office of correctional education 
is actually DVOP. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: It's not on here. It's not 
on the chart. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: It's there, but it's 
vacant. I'm looking at it here. 

If I may, you've got the program -- Looking at 
the - 

MR. SUBIA: For all of you following at home. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You have the programs 
here, and as you go down here, the division of education 
vocational programs, it's empty. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: This is my question. I don't 
understand how on the ground -- you know, here in 
Sacramento we are often dinged, and appropriately so, 
for adopting policies, laws, that don't make practical, 
on-the-ground sense. 

What I'm trying to glean here is what the 
on-the-ground reality is around what I embrace, which is 

16 



1 the right facility in the right program. 

2 So we're able to do that with the new 

3 organization, so we have the operational experts at the 

4 table and the program experts at the table. 

5 SENATOR OROPEZA: Where does that connect? At 

6 what level? At what place does that connect? 

7 You know, it's so hard to tell from the boxes, 

8 but I must say it seems very clear that there is a 

9 separation of functions, operations with an 

10 undersecretary, programs with an undersecretary. So 

11 where do you connect? I see, you know, your position 

12 here. Where does it connect with the programs? 

13 MR. SUBIA: Depending on what the discussion is 

14 would be dependent on what folks we have at the table. 

15 I connect typically with the chief deputy 

16 secretary of adult operations. And in order to ensure 

17 that we have an operations entity at the table, either 

18 myself, in this case, would be at that table, or one of 

19 my staff members, or another staff member in the mission 

20 who is the expert within that field. 

21 If it's a classification issue, I would make 

22 sure that a person representing the classification side 

23 of our division is at the table with me. 

24 So it connects at the undersecretary, director, 

25 and associate director level, chief deputy secretary. 

18 



6/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 15 to 18 of 73 



6 of 20 sheets 



CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Can I follow up, because I 
think it's a very, very important line of questioning. 

I guess the only editorial comment I would make 
is -- before I ask the question is, if you look at local 
government, for example, not that they do everything 
perfectly, but there's this notion now of organizing 
themselves around one-stop shopping. I mean, in other 
words, so a citizen who needs -- a person who needs city 
services can go to one place to get them. 

And I guess as I look at this org. chart as 
well, I just wonder whether or not these various 
functions are so spread out that despite your best 
efforts to coordinate with the program side, that, you 
know, you have your duties and your 12, 14-hour days, 
they have their duties and 12, 14-hour days, and how 
much, you know, interaction is there really? 

So let me ask the question in this way: Let's 
take literacy, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, 
where the studies have shown that the average inmate 
reads at about a seventh-grade level. Can you give an 
example of a literacy program within the adult system 
that is working, and how the programmatic side works 
together with the custody side, which you're responsible 
for, in making it work, and then in seeking to replicate 
it throughout other institutions that don't have it? 

19 



1 the regular academic or vocational programs, and to 

2 increase the self-help groups, which is what the.... 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Is there a best practice? 

4 Is there an institution you can point to to say: Wow! 

5 This is where we are making the most progress when it 

6 comes to increasing the literacy skills of inmates, 

7 thereby the job skills. Is there a place where it is 

8 working well that you can point to that might serve as 

9 the basis for us to say, "Okay. Let's put some more 

10 resources into this program so we can do it elsewhere"? 

11 MR. SUBIA: We have most recently looked at all 

12 of our institutions and done surveys of the institutions 

13 with regard to reading levels, with regard to programs 

14 that were being provided, to try to really see if we 

15 have the right programs in the right institutions. 

16 What we have found is the reading level is, 

17 interestingly enough, separated based on the type of 

18 inmate. Where you may have an institution such as Mule 

19 Creek, that is a sensitive-needs facility, with a 

20 reading level of over ninth-grade reading level and 

21 above, you find your inmate population is much older, 

22 much more sophisticated, because of the type of inmate 

23 that we have there. 

24 If you look at an institution down in the 

25 valley, such as some of the desert prisons near the 

21 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Great question. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I had some help. 

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll answer that one, Senator. 

Basically, we have the basic education program. 
We start off with ESL, English as a second language, and 
progress up through a GED to the ABE series. That's the 
basic education, the academic component that we have. 

From a literacy perspective, I think Senate 
Bill 949, the Sterling bill, wanted us to get the inmate 
population to a 9. -- ninth-grade level. This goes 
back a number of years. That sort of got the 
Limbach (phonetic )tutors going, the tutor training 
where inmates will tutor other inmates, assist them in 
their literacy needs, which is basic reading. We also 
have teaching assistants in the academic programs that 
do that as well. And then the vocational programs, we 
have time dedicated to literacy as well. 

In the PIA programs, they also -- we have 
had -- in fact, there was a news article that came out 
today where they had several graduations of inmates that 
are currently assigned to PIA that had attained their 
GEDs. 

So it's sort of a cumulative effort, and, 
again, it comes down to our ability to keep programs up 
and running, reduce modified programs that would impact 

20 



1 Mexican border, the reading level is lower down there 

2 because we have our ICE inmates there, some of our 

3 inmates who are Mexican nationals and don't have a 

4 really good grasp on the English language, and for 

5 testing purposes, their reading level looks quite low. 

6 Recently, it was important for us to do that 

7 overall survey, and adult operations or adult programs 

8 went to every one of our prisons, did a complete survey 

9 of the programs that are offered, a survey of the type 

10 of inmates, and so now we're at the point where we can 

11 adjust the type of programs that we're offering at those 

12 facilities to do just what you asked, Senators, to 

13 ensure we find the best practice and we send that 

14 practice out to other adjoining prisons, other prisons 

15 within the state. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So just to press the point 

17 a little farther, we don't yet have identified best 

18 practice, but you're in the process of trying to 

19 determine the best practices for, to use one program, 

20 literacy? 

21 MR. SUBIA: Yes, sir. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: When will we have that 7 

23 When will the public and the people's representatives be 

24 able to stand up in a community meeting or in a 

25 legislative hearing and say, "This is one great example 

22 



7 of 20 sheets 



Page 19 to 22 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 1 



of what we want to replicate"? Is it six months? Is it 
a year? Is it 18 months? 

MR. SUBIA: I know that the programs side of 
our organization has a timeline that they've set out 
with the roll-out of their literacy programming, and I 
don't have that information available here, Senator, but 
I would be more than happy to get back with your offices 
after I have the opportunity to speak with them. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Ms. Hayhoe, you 
This is going to be a theme, so we want to push you in 
the right way towards, again, trying to identify the 
best practices in the education and the rehabilitation 
field, get it out there, timelines on spreading them far 
and wide where they're working, and let's start turning 
this thing around. You know, that's what we're 
interested in. 

Senator Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Both of you are in the 
operations section logistics, which really has an impact 
on the communities that your facilities are in. 

The complaints that I get from my facilities 
have to do with payment of bills, transportation and 
taking care of prisoners in the local healthcare 
facilities. 

In your opinion, since the -- coupled with the 

23 



1 One of the things that we can look at, and I 

2 think we're always trying to do, is get as much of the 

3 service provided on grounds as we can, and primarily the 

4 emergency-type services or those specialty-type services 

5 that we can't get a handle at the facility would be the 

6 ones we would take them outside to try to reduce the 

7 impact. But, Senator, I was unaware of the budgetary 

8 aspect of this. 

9 MR. SUBIA: With the placement in the 

10 department of healthcare now falling under the receiver, 

11 there's been some transition issues that have taken 

12 place over the last couple of years that I think had an 

13 effect on what you're speaking of. 

14 There have been some issues, and many of those 

15 affected, of course, by the budget and our ability to 

16 draw as much money and have that money last as long as 

17 possible, that had an effect on the payout of some of 

18 our contracts that we have, and then the transition into 

19 the receiver's office with regard to the enhanced 

20 medical services, we're seeing an exorbitant amount of 

21 inmates now that get transported out for medical 

22 services to more and more locations with regard to 

23 specialized services. 

24 So we're really trying to utilize our folks 

25 within our organization and our budget and contract 

25 



budget crisis that we have, in your opinion, in the last 
couple of years, both as your experience as wardens of 
individual facilities and now multiple responsibilities, 
has the problem with working with the community, paying 
bills on time, using medical services, the court 
services -- I have courts that haven't been paid for a 
year and a half by the corrections department for the 
use of their facilities. I have hospitals that are 
hurting also, ambulance services going out of business 
because they're not being paid for transporting the 
prisoners. Has that gotten any better or worse in the 
last two years? 

MR. SULLIVAN: Senator, I've heard - this is 
the first I've heard of the bills aspect, the budgetary 
aspect of it. I know there's a heavy impact on the 
local community and the medical facilities for the 
inmates to go out and get those services. 

One of the things that we are trying to do, 
again, is to maximize the access to care for the inmate 
population. With that we have got access positions, 
basically, correctional officers, where we need to have 
the ability to escort inmates to the services if they're 
on grounds, as well as transport them into the community 
hospitals, the community facilities, and back to the 
institution. 

24 



1 shop, working with the receiver's staff in order to 

2 really resolve many of those issues. And when there are 

3 payment issues, we do what we can on the operations side 

4 to get the right people in the room to resolve those 

5 issues. But many of those have to do with the 

6 transition over -- as far as medical services are 

7 concerned, the transition to the receiver's staff. 

8 SENATOR AANESTAD: I appreciate that, but don't 

9 forget the district attorneys who also have complained 

10 to me that they're incurring expenses that they're not 

11 getting reimbursed for and are sometimes 18 months in 

12 arrears. Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Dutton, do you 

14 have any questions? 

15 SENATOR DUTTON: No. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Aanestad touched 

17 on contracts and budget-related impacts. I want to ask 

18 about the budget and furloughs, and how that is 

19 affecting the ability of the institutions you are 

20 responsible for for public safety. 

21 Can you touch on that a little bit? What 

22 impact is the budget specifically having on your 

23 institutions? 

24 MR. SULLIVAN: I think from an impact 

25 perspective, obviously it's having an impact on staff 

26 



6/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 23 to 26 of 73 



8 of 20 sheets 



morale. That's what we're dealing with from a 
leadership perspective. 

As far as the operations, there's three 
categories of this furlough: category one, category 
two, category three. Category three is the one where we 
need to keep an operation going, a 24/7 type of an 
operation. We can't afford to let someone off and burn 
furlough and continue to provide services and the things 
that need to occur within the prison. They're allowed 
to bank their time. 

So currently what's happening with the staff 
that are associated directly with the prisons, they're 
allowed to bank that time and utilize that time at 
sometime in the future, like two years after the 
closure — I think it's July of next year — the ending 
of this particular budget cycle. 

MR. SUBIA: One thing, Senator. In my 
discussions with staff and my travels to the 
institutions, one thing I do hear — and our staff 
realizes the downturn in the economy and the effect it's 
having in general in the State of California, where 
people are actually losing their jobs. And we have 
those discussions that in our organization, in state 
government, although we may be taking a furlough time, 
we are fortunate that we're not in a small business and 

27 



1 MR. SULLIVAN: They come in through numerous 

2 with visitors, there's staff issues, there's packages, 

3 and there's numerous ways where these devices can be 

4 secreted and then moved into the institution. 

5 That's something that — Mr. Subia actually is 

6 heading up a work group or task force that's looking at 

7 the different types of technologies to prevent the 

8 interdiction of cell phones into the prison, as well as 

9 detect cell phones if they do happen to make it inside. 

10 We continue to monitor the conversations 

11 between inmates and their visitors, or as we get 

12 allegations, potentially, of staff maybe becoming 

13 overfamiliar and possibly introducing them that way, and 

14 following through on those investigations that deal with 

15 those through a job-action perspective. 

16 We're also — We had an operation over at 

17 Solano where they went through a very intensive search 

18 process, basically, of all the staff coming into the 

19 prison. We're looking at replicating that at all 

20 prisons statewide, as well as a more aggressive approach 

21 to dealing with people bringing things into the 

22 institution, even outside of a specified operation like 

23 that. 

24 When we do get information that there are cell 

25 phones in specific areas that may be on specific inmates 

29 



are losing our job as a result of what's happening 
nationally. So those are the kind of discussions that I 
try to have. 

I think that there are some things that we 
really have to look at purchasing, and we are being more 
frugal in our purchases. The associate directors and 
director level review purchases. We review where people 
can travel, and we review all appointments to ensure 
that they're critical appointments and are within 
budget. 

So we have taken the approval steps even higher 
to make sure that we are not spending just because we 
believe the money is there. We are ensuring that the 
institutions know what the situation is, not only to our 
agency but to the State of California, and are 
monitoring what's going on within the facilities. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So I have to ask a 
question — just shift for a minute -- about the cell 
phone issue that you raised earlier. How in the heck 
are 2,800 cell phones getting inside the prison? I 
mean; obviously, it's through visitors. Do they not 
go through -- 

I can't take my cell phone through an airport 
detector, right? I've got to put it down on the x-ray 
machine, otherwise I beep. 

28 



1 or in specific cells, we do targeted cell searches, and 

2 that's resulted in a significant number of cell phones 

3 being discovered, probably over the last six months in 

4 my mission. 

5 So there's a number of things, including 

6 technology as well as our practices, at the points of 

7 entry into an institution to try and eliminate the 

8 possibility of cell phones coming in. 

9 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Don't packages and peopl 

10 who enter the institution have to go through some sort 

11 of x-ray process? 

12 MR. SULLIVAN: No. 

13 MR. SUBIA: No. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: No? Or I should say metal 

15 detector. 

16 MR. SULLIVAN: No. 

17 MR. SUBIA: The visitors to the institution go 

18 through a metal detector, but we do find that a number 

19 of the cell phones that enter into our institution are 

20 brought in through our own staff, and those staff 

21 members aren't required at this point to go through a 

22 metal detector. 

23 But as part of the task, we are looking at 

24 rolling out different types of ingress and egress 

25 activities within our institutions to move towards 

30 



) of 20 sheets 



Page 27 to 30 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 P 



things that you see in some of the other penal 
institutions, something more like an airport-type 
security process. Of course, we would move that issue 
forward through the legislature for funding in order to 
make that happen. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Oh, sure. We have lots of 
money. 

(Laughter.) 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I don't want to take the 
import of your answer in the wrong way, but are you 
suggesting that there may be hundreds of employees that 
are sort of complicit in smuggling cell phones in to — 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Other things, drugs. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: -- to assist inmates? 

MR. SUBIA: I don't know if the number 
"hundreds" is an accurate number. I do know that in 
some cases it has become a lucrative business for some 
of our staff to enhance their salary by being paid to 
traffic in contraband. 

It's been an ongoing issue with our department 
with regard to controlled substances, but at a low 
number, because it's a felony if you're arrested doing 
that. With cell phones and tobacco, for instance, two 
other items that are illegal within our facility, it is 
not a felony, and there is not a significant criminal 

31 



1 Come on up, and we've got the mic right there. 

2 Witnesses in support. 

3 MS. ESTES-DANGERFIELD: Good afternoon. My 

4 name is Darlene Estes-Dangerfield. I am the president 

5 of the Association of Black Correctional Workers. I am 

6 here today on behalf of and to support Mr. Subia and 

7 Mr. Sullivan. 

8 I have to say that you've done an excellent 

9 choice of appointments. Both individuals have 

10 personable personalities, knowledgeable, honor, and 

11 fair. And, again, we are here to support those 

12 individuals. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

14 MS. ESTES-DANGERFIELD: One tiny thing. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes. 

16 MS. ESTES-DANGERFIELD: I looked over, and the 

17 person -- I see the new faces here, recognize those. 

18 But Evelyn -- Evelyn was the bright-colored, smile face. 

19 So would you let her know that we're going to miss her? 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

21 MS. SALARNO: Honorable Senators, I'm Harriet 

22 Salarno. I'm president/chair of Crime Victims United of 

23 California. I personally wanted to come here in support 

24 of Richard Subia. I have known him for over 15 years. 

25 I first met him through the Correctional Peace Officers 

33 



charge to an employee who's caught doing so. They may 
I lose their job, but they don't go to jail. As such, 
J we're moving forward some legislation to make some of 
I those violations a felony so it takes away the 
5 encouragement from our staff that If I get caught, I can 
> just go get a job somewhere else. No. If you get 
caught, you'll be charged with a felony. So that's one 
of the reasons why we're hoping to move that legislation 
forward. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Interesting. 
Senator Dutton. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Just on that point, we've got 
over 60,000 employees in the system, so 1 percent would 
actually be over 600, so it could be, actually, 
hundreds. 

MR. SUBIA: It could be. I just don't have an 
accurate number, and I didn't want to.... 
SENATOR DUTTON: No problem. 
CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Let's hear from the 
witnesses in support of the nominees. We may want to -- 
I don't know how to do this logistically here. 

Gentlemen, you might want to take the seats in 
the front row, if you don't mind. People can come up 
there. I apologize. Stay right where you are. That's 
great. 

32 



1 Foundation at a memorial service. 

2 However, on a professional basis, I have worked 

3 with him when he was a warden at Mule Creek and also 

4 when we were going through the reorganization, and we 

5 found him very dedicated, compassionate, and accessible, 

6 and that is so important to us. So we are very proud to 

7 put our name on the list for support. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

9 Ms. Salarno. 

10 Mr. Warren. 

11 MR. WARREN: Good afternoon. My name is David 

12 Warren. I know this going to bother Mr. Dutton that I'm 

13 speaking in support, because it's contrary -- 

14 SENATOR DUTTON: I'm ready to move. 

15 MR. WARREN: I've known Mr. Subia for quite 

16 some time, and I'm glad to support his nomination today. 

17 I recently met the other nominee, and his 

18 background in education is extraordinarily important, 

19 because that's what we do in the prison system. 

20 Mr. Subia has assisted me in the programming, 

21 because programming religious activity tends to be in 

22 conflict with security, and it's an ongoing problem. 

23 And I think that we should recognize not only these two 

24 nominees, but Ms. Hubbard, who is their immediate 

25 supervisor, has led the way in trying to make sure the 

34 



6/2009 12:42:37 



PM 



Page 31 to 34 of 73 



10 of 20 sheets 



programming has adequate access. 

Mr. Steinberg, I would like to address three of 

> 

the questions, if I may, that you raised. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Briefly. 

MR. WARREN: Number one — very briefly. One 
of the issues that a tremendous number of inmates want 
to program are prevented from doing so because, as an 
example, single-yard environments. You have a small 
number of individuals who you can easily describe -- 
best example. At Folsom, we planned a Passover seder. 
Some individuals who never would know a national 
socialist if they ran over them, but who believe they 
are Nazis, caused a disruption in the yard which closed 
down the entire prison. And the warden there was kind 
enough and gracious enough to bring -- now a retired 
warden, was gracious enough to bring all the Jewish 
members to the service. But for that, that programming 
would have been stymied. We need to address the honor 
yard concept so we can bring those people who want a 
program into an environment where they can succeed and 
continue to do so. 

Number two, I strongly commend to you the C-ROB 
reports. I attend every one of their meetings, and the 
programming and the progress on AB 900, or the lack 
thereof, is clearly outlined there, and I have to say 

35 



1 events, showing up at fundraisers, participating with my 

2 office in our annual toy drive. His staff collected 

3 thousands of toys, thousands of dollars that went to 

4 needy kids in our community. He's always out there. 

5 He's outside the prison walls. He's engaged in the 

6 community, whether it be an issue with the community 

7 itself or as a partner with law enforcement. 

8 He was instrumental in getting a CDCR employee 

9 as part of our narcotics task force, I think the first 

10 one in the state, to address the needs of the prison and 

11 to address the needs of the community with regards to 

12 that issue. He's one of those quality guys. 

13 I've been in this business for 34 years. 

14 There's people who claim to be leaders; there's a lot 

15 that aren't. Rich Subia is one of them. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thanks very much. 

17 Other witnesses in support. Briefly, if we 

18 can. 

19 MR. GREENHAUGH: I'll be brief. Hi. My name 

20 is Dennis Greenhaugh. I'm a correctional officer at 

21 Mule Creek State Prison. I'm currently the vice 

22 president of the local chapter of the Chicano 

23 Correctional Workers Association. I worked with 

24 Mr. Subia at Mule Creek through his tenure as the 

25 employee relations officer, correctional captain, and as 

37 



that Ms. Hood and Ms. Jett have done yeoman work in 
getting that information together. And it is truly 
amazing, going from zero to maybe 30 in a very short 
period of time. They're not up to 60 yet. 

Last, but surely not least, I think the real 
problem in the California prisons is not the very 
competent individuals we have running them. It's the 
fact that there's too many people in insufficient space. 
And until that issue is resolved, we're going to 
continue to have difficulties with education. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 
Excellent testimony. 

Please, anybody else in favor of the witnesses? 
Excuse me. In favor of the nominees. In favor of the 
witnesses, if you would like, or be opposed. Whatever 
you want. 

MR. RYAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. My name is Martin Ryan. I'm 
the sheriff of Amador County. I've known Rich Subia -- 
and I'm here to support -- since I took over in January 
of '07. I can tell you that from personal experience, 
that Rich Subia has become a close, personal partner 
with the community in which he resided when he was the 
acting warden at Mule Creek, participating in social 

36 



1 acting warden. 

2 In corrections, there's two things that you can 

3 do that will earn your respect: That's being consistent 

4 and being fair. And that is what Mr. Subia is. And on 

5 behalf of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, 

6 we offer him our full support. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next. 

8 Thank you for your testimony. 

9 MR. PIMLOTT: Good afternoon. I promise to be 

10 brief. Ken Pimlott, assistant deputy director for fire 

11 protection for Cal Fire, and I just want to testify that 

12 over the last 14 months, Mr. Subia has worked in our -- 

13 with us cooperatively in our conservation camp program, 

14 which, as you know, as you commented on, over 41 

15 conservation camps that supplied 4500 inmates for our 

16 inmate firefighter program, as well as daily work 

17 activities in the communities throughout California. 

18 As we face the challenges of inmate population 

19 and working through these, Rich Subia has been 

20 instrumental in helping us work through those challenges 

21 and making it work, so Cal Fire supports. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you for coming 

23 today. We appreciate it. 

24 Next. 

25 MR. RENTERIA: Hello. My name is Falcon 

38 



11 of 20 sheets 



Page 35 to 38 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 



1 Renteria. I'm a correctional officer at Mule Creek 

2 State Prison in lone. I am also the CCWA lone chapter 

3 president. I am here to fully support and endorse 

4 Richard Subia for associate director. 

5 He was our acting warden at our institution. 

6 He had an open-door policy, and we were able to come and 

7 see him with our concerns. He listened to all sides and 

8 was always fair. He heard the facts and issues before 

9 making decisions. He was well-liked and had great 

lO support among all staff. I had a great pleasure to work 

1 with Mr. Subia. I'm confident he will succeed in any 

2 position. Thank you. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

4 MR. RENTERIA: And also on behalf of the state 

5 president, she sends her regards. She has full support 

6 for Mr. Subia. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much for 
■8 coming to testify today. We appreciate it. 

9 FR. BAPTISTA: My name is Father Baptista. I 

work as a Catholic chaplain at Mule Creek State Prison, 
and I have worked with Mr. Subia for the last 11 years 
or so, and he has been very supportive of the programs, 

3 especially among one program called CGA, Criminals and 

4 Gang Members Anonymous, which I sponsored since the 

5 beginning and now has spread to many other prisons, and 

39 



1 and gentlemen. Theodore F. Novelli, chairman of the 

2 board, Amador County Board of Supervisors. I'm here on 

3 behalf of Richard Subia. 

4 One of our questions was asked about what do we 

5 do with the deputy — district attorneys and the 

6 district attorneys getting their bills paid. We've had 

7 that problem, and with Richard Subia and the past 

8 secretary of prisons, we had those problems taken care 

9 of. They had an open-door policy. And I could say that 

10 as far as the people of Amador County, we are supportive 

11 of Richard Subia. 

12 And Senator Steinberg, I haven't seen you since 

13 the Cappuccino days. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Oh my God! We went to 

15 high school together? 

16 MR. NOVELLI: I went to Riordan, but I met you 

17 at Cappuccino. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Really? We'll have 

19 another hearing on those days. 

20 MS. LUCIDO: He's always a hard act to follow. 

21 My name is Jacqueline Lucido. I'm with the 

22 Amador County Chamber of Commerce, the Business Bureau, 

23 and the Economic Development. 

24 I really — I have a compassion for you people, 

25 and I'm probably very similar to what we're doing. We 

41 



1 he has been very supportive of it. And so I'm here to 

2 endorse his confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Father. 

I Appreciate it. 

FR. HORAN: Good afternoon. I'm Father George 
Horan from the Office of Restorative Justice, 
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and also the L.A. Sheriffs 
I Department. I'm the Catholic liaison, although I'm not 
> representing either of those groups here. This is 
I personally my own experience with Mr. Subia. 
I'm, as Father just mentioned, a group 
that's -- Criminals and Gang Members Anonymous. I'm on 
their general service board. We wanted to make some 
videos so the program could be taken to many other 
prisons and outside on the streets, and Mr. Subia — I 
don't know how he ever did it, but he allowed us to come 
over with a full film crew for five days to Mule Creek 
to make these films so we could get this program out. 

It is a program that really does promote 
rehabilitation. To me, that's the strongest thing with 
Mr. Subia, is that he understands what rehabilitation is 
all about and will do everything he can to promote that. 
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, sir. 
MR. NOVELLI: Good afternoon, Senators, ladies 

40 



1 are overworked, underpaid, and understaffed, so I think 

2 we can agree what we have to do is to move forward. 

3 Rich came to Mule Creek and made a terrific 

4 impact. Some of the questions you asked, I could 

5 probably answer for him. He started programs that were 

6 rehabilitation oriented, very much so. He was never too 

7 busy to come to any of the meetings, whether they be at 

8 the crack of dawn or in the evening. Small meetings, 

9 big meetings. His door is always open for individuals 

10 or groups. 

11 I can't say anything but the highest praise for 

12 this man. He made Mule Creek something that we can be 

13 justifiably proud of in the county. And I hope he'll 

14 have special success in his new job, and I wish him 

15 well. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much for 

17 coming to testify. Next. Anybody else? No. 

18 All right. Anybody in opposition to the 

19 confirmation of the two nominees? If not -- 

20 SENATOR AANESTAD: So moved. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So moved by Senator 

22 Aanestad. 

23 I want to thank you both for your public 

24 service. You're obviously dedicated professionals who 

25 have gained a lot of respect. You're working in a very, 

42 



6/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 39 to 42 of 73 



12 of 20 sheets 



1 


very difficult environment, and it's going to be all our 


1 


MS. DEAN: I have two former mayors from the 


2 


jobs together to make sure we improve the environment 


2 


City of Santa Rosa, Jane Bender and John Sawyer. 


3 


and improve the system. And I hope you don't view this 


3 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to both of you, 


4 


confirmation process as the end of your relationship 


4 


mayors. 


5 


with the legislature and the Rules Committee, but only 


5 


MS. DEAN: And I also have the CEO of the 


6 


the beginning, because we need to continue hearing from 


6 


Regional Board, Cat Kuhlman, and our chairman, 


7 


you. 


7 


Robert Anderson. 


8 


Please call the roll. 


8 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome. 


9 


MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 


9 


MS. DEAN: And also I have a neighbor that I 


10 


Dutton. 


10 


have shared many responsibilities with for the past 


11 


SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 


11 


15 years, Allen Thomas. 


12 


MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 


12 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome. 


13 


Oropeza. 


13 


All right. If you would like to speak about 


14 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 


14 


why you want to be confirmed, and I don't know if you're 


15 


MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 


15 


familiar with some of the opposition that arose, but if 


16 


Aanestad. 


16 


you want to address any of that in your opening 


17 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 


17 


comments, you're welcome. 


18 


MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 


18 


MS. DEAN: Thank you. Well, I think, because 


19 


Steinberg. 


19 


I'm sure you're going to be asking me questions, I'd 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 


20 


like to tell you a little bit about me personally. 


21 


MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 


21 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Of course. 


22 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very, very much. 


22 


MS. DEAN: My husband and I have been lifelong 


23 


These nominations will move to the floor of the State 


23 


outdoor enthusiasts. We camp, backpack, were climbers, 


24 


Senate and will be taken up within the next couple 


24 


are scuba divers and sailors. We have traveled all over 


25 


weeks. Thank you very much. 


25 


the United States and have explored the Caribbean and 




43 




45 


1 


MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. 


1 


Central America and have always come back home with an 


2 


MR. SUBIA: Thank you. 


2 


appreciation for preserving our natural resources. 


3 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let's take five minutes. 


3 


In 1983, my husband and I got a home in the 


4 


Thank you. 


4 


West End neighborhood, which was built in the late 


5 


(Recess taken.) 


5 


1890s. It was a blighted neighborhood but what we could 


6 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The Committee will come 


6 


forward. We helped form a neighborhood association and 


7 


back to order, please. 


7 


reclaimed our neighborhood park, which was known as 


8 


I would like to welcome Carol Dean, who is up 


8 


"Needle Park." 


9 


for confirmation for the North Coast Regional Water 


9 


The West End became a historic district in 


10 


Quality Board. 


10 


1996. We spearheaded 13 neighbors to sue a landlord in 


11 


If you want to come forward, please. Thank 


11 


small claims court who habitually rented to drug 


12 


you. 


12 


dealers, and we won. Neighbors have participated in 


13 


Let me say as an opening — Please have a seat 


13 


general plan updates, redevelopment issues, and specific 


14 


and make yourself comfortable. 


14 


area plans. We are now an old-fashioned neighborhood 


15 


Ms. Dean was initially not asked to appear 


15 


that is rich in diversity with a first-rate live 


16 


before the Rules Committee, but we have received several 


16 


theater, many restaurants, and retail shops from yoga to 


17 


letters opposing her confirmation. And just as a matter 


17 


appliances and antiques. 


18 


of practice, when the Committee receives some 


18 


I was appointed to the Santa Rosa Board of 


19 


opposition, we do ask the appointee to appear in person. 


19 


Public Utilities in 2000 and served until 2007. During 


20 


Let me begin by asking you if there's any 


20 


my tenure on the board, I saw the geysers recharge 


21 


member of your family or special guest that you want to 


21 


project completed and become operational. It now 


22 


introduce and then make a brief opening statement. 


22 


generates 85 megawatts of greenhouse gas free electrical 


23 


MS. DEAN: Yes, thank you. I do have some 


23 


power using recycled water, a truly sustainable project. 


24 


supporters here. My husband, Harold Dean. 


24 


The City now recycles 95 percent of its wastewater in 


25 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to you, sir. 


25 


normal years, and this year we recycled 100 percent. 




44 




46 



13 of 20 sheets 



Page 43 to 46 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 



My philosophy is that most future development 
shouldn't occur within the urban growth boundaries of 
the cities, and that way we know that wastewater will be 
treated and recycled. 

Also during my tenure on the BPU, we planned 
the pilot urban reuse project, instituted a prescription 
drug take-back program, which has kept more than 3,000 
pounds of prescription drugs out of the landfill and 
wastewater stream, and we increased its educational 
outreach regarding water quality issues. 

When a summer fire broke out in the geysers 
area, part of the Audubon sanctuary was burned over. 
The board of public utilities voted to donate plans it 
had for its restoration of the area to Audubon to help 
it regenerate its bird sanctuary and wildlife habitat. 

One of my proudest accomplishments was that I 
was instrumental in creating a public-private 
partnership between the City of Santa Rosa and the 
Laguna Foundation, and that enabled the Laguna 
Foundation to establish a learning center on City 
property along the Laguna de Santa Rosa and also to 
assist the foundation with riparian restoration 
projects. 

My first meeting on the regional board was held 
in Weed, where the board heard updates on the 

47 



1 possible without environmental health. 

2 I am committed to fully consider all available 

3 information in making decisions to uphold state and 

4 federal water quality laws and regulations. And I have 

5 some handouts that I can give you that show some of the 

6 things that I think -- either the educational materials 

7 that I helped produce and some other information, in 

8 case you're interested. Thank you. 

9 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. So you have 

10 six months left on your term, correct? 

11 MS. DEAN: Correct. Until October. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Are you going to seek 

13 reappointment after six months? 

14 MS. DEAN: Well, I was planning on it, but I 

15 have to tell you this has been quite a grueling 

16 experience. 

17 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: What, the confirmation 

18 process? 

19 MS. DEAN: The confirmation process and knowing 

20 that a lot of the opposition that has come out against 

21 me has not actually been water-quality issues in some of 

22 those letters. And it seems to be much more of a 

23 political thing than a truly environmental issue, and 

24 that kind of has me -- 

25 I think it actually detracts from what my job 

49 



implementation of the Shasta and Scott TMDLs. I was 
impressed that such divergent interest groups, including 
other governmental agencies, tribal interests, 
individual landowners, environmental groups, and 
U.C. Davis came together for the health of the watershed 
in a process facilitated by the regional board. 

The TMDL process is an excellent example of how 
the regional board sets policy, approves permits, and 
that the success of the policy and permit restriction 
) depends not only on the authority of the regional board 
but also on the credibility of the regional board. 

We all know where the authority comes from -- 
you, the legislature. Credibility is established 
through a fair and honest consideration of all issues 
surrounding a particular decision. We are in the final 
stages of adopting the Klamath TMDL, and my goal is to 
work on the implementation of both the Russian River and 
I the Laguna de Santa Rosa TMDLs, which are just 
beginning. 

The regional water board is responsible for 
protecting water quality. Policy, permit, and 
enforcement decisions it makes can have far-reaching 
implications for the environmental and economic health 
of the region. State law requires a balancing of these 
considerations, and I believe economic health is not 

48 



'16/2009 12:42:37 PM 



_L 



1 is on the water board, and it bothers me that the focus 

2 is going to be more on political issues than what the 

3 charge of the board is. 

4 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, if I could summarize 

5 the way that I sort of have read some of the opposition, 

6 that there have been some concerns expressed about -- 

7 let's call it political temperament, in terms of how you 

8 approach issues, how you work with others, et cetera. 

9 There was one allegation in which you were 

10 alleged to have referred to bicyclists as, quote, 

11 "fringe radicals." Is that true, and what do you mean 

12 if it's true? 

13 MS. DEAN: Well, again, that has nothing to do 

14 with water quality, but what I would tell you is that my 

15 neighborhood -- and there's some information there on 

16 the West End neighborhood. We have the Smart Rail 

17 corridor coming through our neighborhood. I don't know 

18 if you're familiar with Smart, but this is going to be a 

19 commuter rail line from Cloverdale to Larkspur. It's 

20 going to be 71 miles. 

21 Adjacent to the track is going to be a class 

22 one bicycle path, off-the-road path. But there are a 

23 group of bicycle advocates that wish to put a class two 

24 lane down a neighborhood street that is less than 

25 50 feet from this bicycle path. The only way they can 

50 



Page 47 to 50 of 73 



14 of 20 sheets 



1 accomplish putting in this class two bicycle lane is to, 

2 one, tear down historic buildings, or, two, remove all 

3 the parking from viable businesses that are located 

4 along that street. And they are not willing to look at 

5 any other option except a class two bicycle lane. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I'm not arguing the merits 

7 of the policy or who's right or wrong, and we all 

8 sometimes use, you know, colorful rhetoric at times in 

9 the political arena. I just — "fringe radicals." 

10 It's just of some concern because — 

11 MS. DEAN: Actually, I called them "special 

12 interest groups" -- 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Not fringe radicals. 

14 MS. DEAN: -- "that had radical viewpoints." 

15 But, you know, again, that was not from behind a dais. 

16 SENATOR OROPEZA: It goes to who you are, hon'. 

17 You have to recognize — 

18 May I? 

19 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead. 

20 SENATOR OROPEZA: I can appreciate what you're 

21 saying. We're all human beings, but when you're being 

22 evaluated as to whether or not you are qualified to seek 

23 and serve in a public -- on a public board, then who you 

24 are is relevant. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is 

25 the truth. 

51 



1 was made on water delivery would have been made as a 

2 statement as a city council member, not as a regional 

3 board member. 

4 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do we have questions? I 

5 not, why don't we hear from the witnesses. Witnesses in 

6 support. Witnesses in support here? 

7 You can stay at the table, if you would. 

8 MR. HARRIS: Sure. 

9 Mr. Chairman, Richard Harris of the Nossaman 

10 firm on behalf of The Water Reuse Association. I 

11 apologize to the Committee. I think the client got the 

12 letter of support in late yesterday to the consultant, 

13 so maybe it hasn't been put out to the entire Committee. 

14 But The Water Reuse Association is the State's 

15 water recyclers' public agency to treat sewage water to 

16 beneficial uses, and we are quite strongly in support of 

17 her nomination here, confirmation. 

18 Based on her practical ability and her 

19 experience with the recycled water facilities in Santa 

20 Rosa and the geysers project, it's really a -- it would 

21 be great if we had that same sort of opportunity all 

22 around the state to be able to do that. But I think for 

23 these purposes, a person whose abilities and 

24 understanding of recycled water, we think that's a 

25 perfect person to have on this regional water board. So 

53 



1 So it's very appropriate to ask, I think, you 

2 know, why would you call people something like "fringe 

3 radical." It goes to how you handle yourself in the 

4 public arena, even though you weren't behind a dais. Do 

5 you see my point? 

6 MS. DEAN: Um-hmm. 

7 SENATOR OROPEZA: I just want you to understand 

8 where we're coming from on this. I don't think it's 

9 particularly trying to, you know, cast aspersions on you 

10 or anything, but you have to be held accountable for the 

11 things you say. We all are. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: But you're saying you 

13 didn't make the statement? 

14 MS. DEAN: I did not call them fringe radicals. 

15 I called them a special interest group with a radical 

16 viewpoint. 

17 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Some others said 

18 you were -- initially when you got appointed to the 

19 board, you thought the water board allocated water. 

20 MS. DEAN: No. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's not true? 

22 MS. DEAN: That is not true. When I sat on the 

23 Santa Rosa City Council, one of the things that the 

24 council was concerned with was the water shortage and 

25 the possibility of a drought. And any statement that 

52 



1 we're in strong support. Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

3 Mr. Harris. 

4 Other witnesses in support, please. 

5 MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Bob Anderson. I'i 

6 a member of the North Coast Regional Board, currently 

7 serving as the chair, and wanted to come and offer up my 

8 support. 

9 Carol is a very knowledgeable person, very 

10 experienced. As a board member, she does her homework. 

11 She's honest. She's fair. She listens. And during her 

12 tenure, I haven't officially checked the record, but 

13 it's my sense during her time on the board all of the 

14 votes have been unanimous. And you've had other board 

15 members excused from appearing, so if those are okay, I 

16 believe Carol's votes with those votes would be okay in 

17 terms of her regional board participation. 

18 To the discussion I heard earlier on the other 

19 issues, I would just offer up I was in the room when the 

20 city council was — found itself with -- Santa Rosa City 

21 Council has seven members. One of them chose to leave 

22 before his term ended, and the council found itself in a 

23 three-three split and having to face appointing a new 

24 member and finding who they could all agree to, or at 

25 least find four votes that somebody could agree to, and 

54 



15 of 20 sheets 



Page 51 to 54 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 



there was something over 20 citizens of Santa Rosa 
willing to step up and be considered for that post, and 
they chose Carol. So I think that speaks well for her. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you for coming to 
testify. We appreciate it. 

Any other witnesses in support? 

MR. THOMAS: Mr. Chairman and Committee. Can 
you hear me okay? 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes. 

MR. THOMAS: My name is Allen Thomas, and I 
reside in the city of Santa Rosa, and I've known Carol 
for over 15 years. 

I had a great opportunity to serve with Carol 
in the function of being appointed to the City of Santa 
Rosa's planning commission where I served as chairman 
for two years, 2004 and 2005. And Carol was -- Also, 
I'm a neighbor of Carol's and have had the great 
opportunity to see Carol in the leadership role with 
our neighborhood and then her tenure on the City of 
Santa Rosa's BPU. 

She has the ability to bridge the gaps that the 
previous speaker talked about. Having the ability -- 
and I'm sure none of you have these different groups in 
your particular areas -- but in Santa Rosa there's a 
development group and there's also kind of a slow-growth 

55 



1 I think her commitment not only to her constituency but 

2 to the Board of Public Utilities for those seven years, 

3 which gave her a great deal of knowledge that we 

4 depended on as a council, but her commitment to the 

5 citizenry, to her constituents, to the environment, and 

6 to the people she serves, definitely during the last 

7 year, speaks for itself, and I wholeheartedly support 

8 her affirmation to this board and hope that you see 

9 likewise. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

11 Welcome. 

12 MS. BENDER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 

13 Committee Members, my name is Jane Bender. I've been on 

14 the Santa Rosa City Council for nine years, and I was 

15 the mayor for two years. 

16 Carol was on the Board of Public Utilities 

17 while I was mayor. During her seven years, I have never 

18 heard one negative thing about her. Her work has been 

19 stellar on the Board of Public Utilities. 

20 All of us in public life get opposition. That 

21 goes with the territory. 

22 SENATOR OROPEZA: That's true. 

23 MS. BENDER: It does, doesn't it? 

24 However, I do have to say that we have just 

25 come off a horrendously divisive election, and I don't 

57 



or a more pro environment, depending on how people 
define themselves. And Carol's been able, in my 
opinion, through the years, to transcend those 
divisions. 

So I would wholeheartedly ask for you to look 
at her record based on the merits, and I would think 
that she would be a perfect candidate for the Regional 
Quality Control Board. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next. If there are other 
witnesses in support, maybe you can line up so I know 
how many more we have here. 

MR. SAWYER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, thank you for hearing me this afternoon. I 
think the speakers have spoken very well. It is Carol's 
balance that impressed not only the citizenry of Santa 
Rosa when they enthusiastically supported her as our 
appointee to the city council. I was part of the 
six-member city council and the immediate past mayor. 
She was -- 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Could you say your name 
for the record. 

MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. John Sawyer. I 
apologize. 

She was indeed a bridge in the two factions 
that exist in Santa Rosa, and a very effective one. And 

56 



1 know how much of the opposition you're hearing could be 

2 spillover from the last election. But I'm here to tell 

3 you — Please look at what she has done over her seven 

4 years, her stellar performance and what she's done over 

5 the last year on the Water Quality Control Board, and I 

6 hope you will confirm her appointment. Thank you very 

7 much. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

9 Mayor. We appreciate it. 

10 Witnesses in opposition. Is there one witness 

11 or more? 

12 MR. McENHILL: I think there's probably a 

13 couple. 

14 Thank you, Chair. My name is Don McEnhill. 

15 I'm here representing Russian Riverkeeper. I'm also 

16 appearing on behalf of a number of other river- 

17 conservation organizations, Russian River Watershed 

18 Protective Council, The Coast Action Group, Redwood 

19 Empire Trout Unlimited, and a dozen other groups 

20 unfortunately could not be here due to declining funding 

21 for nonprofits and other issues. 

22 I want to thank you for conducting this 

23 hearing. Listening to the previous comments about 

24 Ms. Dean being a consensus player, one of the things 

25 that really has bothered us about the decisions of the 

58 



II 16/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 55 to 58 of 73 



16 of 20 sheets 



Board of Public Utilities during Ms. Dean's tenure has 
been several attempts to fight 303(d) listings. I have 
turned in a number of letters that show how -- and I can 
actually quote a few things. 

In January of 2006, a letter from the City of 
Santa Rosa to the state water board argues that listing 
the Laguna for nutrients is not supported by materials, 
and they argued about the U.S. EPA's application of 
criteria which is used around the country to determine 
whether a water body is polluted with nutrients or not. 

This was one of about nine communications to 
the water board arguing against the listing, and one of 
the biggest sources of those nutrients is the City of 
Santa Rosa, their previous waste-water discharges and 
their current storm-water discharges. 

We have -- I've got a number of documents, if 
you would like the record of those decisions, but in the 
2006 listing process, 29 entities, 29 groups, supported 
the listing, including the executive officer of the 
Regional Board for Nutrient Impairment Laguna. One 
entity opposed it. The City of Santa Rosa and Mrs. Dean 
certainly did not oppose that action while she was on 
the board of public utilities. 

The City has been trying to institute mixing 
zones on the north coast. I think it's opposed by all 

59 



1 and Sonoma County storm water permit. That item was 

2 heard by the city council a few months ago, and I made 

3 comments and actually shared water-quality data which we 

4 developed with citizen bond readers and, actually, in 

5 conjunction with the city as well, that showed 

6 incredible amounts of nutrients, metals, and other 

7 things which are polluting the Laguna de Santa Rosa. 

8 Several of the council members asked questions and 

9 indicated they supported it, but there seemed to be no 

10 comments coming from Ms. Dean. 

11 The opposition to the storm water permit was 

12 purely economic reasons. And, certainly, a recent field 

13 poll showed that Californians, even in this budget 

14 crisis, support environmental regulations to protect our 

15 environment, and we do not feel comfortable with 

16 Ms. Dean on the board, being that her constituency does 

17 not seem to be the general public or in support of clean 

18 water, from our view of her record. 

19 I think the other thing -- When we hear things 

20 like "consensus player," if that was really true, you 

21 would have a lot of support or some support from the 

22 environmental community, and to the best of my knowledge 

23 in polling ali the different groups, we have seen none. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You haven't seen outright 

25 opposition, though, either. Usually, if this was a big 

61 



the environmental groups. And what we're really 
concerned about is that in reviewing over 80-plus sets 
of minutes from the Board of Public Utilities and a 
year's worth of minutes from her tenure on the city 
council, there is not one instance where she is on 
record in speaking out in favor of clean water. 

And the other thing we're concerned about is 
the constituency Ms. Dean might represent. I'm not an 
environmental advocate. We are fairly apolitical when 
it comes to elections and things, but, certainly, not 
having a lot of information in the form of her making 
comments at meetings, we reviewed the funders who 
supported her candidacy for city council, and out of 
$25,800 raised, or 24, all but $400 came directly from 
developer interests. 

And our concern is that Ms. Dean certainly has 
learned everything she's learned about water quality 
from her tenure on the board of public utilities, which 
represents the City's interest. She seems to have broad 
support from the development community. But if she's 
confirmed, she is no longer an elected official or an 
appointed official from the City, and she would not have 
a duty to recuse herself from voting on Santa Rosa 
items. 

One of the most contentious is the Santa Rosa 



60 



1 deal to the environmental community, we would hear from 

2 them directly. 

3 MR. McENHILL: I don't know what letters you 

4 have -- what letters you received. 

5 SENATOR OROPEZA: We don't even have the groups 

6 that you mentioned. 

7 MR. McENHILL: You don't have Brenda Adelman's 

8 from the Russian River Watershed Protection -- 

9 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, but the 12 groups that 

10 you mentioned. 

11 MR. McENHILL: I can't speak for those groups. 

12 I have told them, and they have told me they have sent 

13 letters, and I guess they did not make it in. That is 

14 what I've been told. And people like Ken Macintosh, who 

15 intended to be here representing -- he's the president 

16 of Redwood Empire Trout Unlimited -- called me yesterday 

17 and said he was horribly sick, because he was in a 

18 conference this weekend, and I can't speak for those 

19 people who didn't send. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You've spoken well for 

21 yourself and the entity you represent. We appreciate 

22 very much your testimony. Thank you. 

23 MR. McENHILL: Thank you. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next witness. 

25 MR. KRAMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name 

62 



17 of 20 sheets 



Page 59 to 62 of 73 



03/16/2009 12:42:37 1 



is John Kramer. I'm hear representing the -- how would 
we describe it -- the largest environmental organization 
in Sonoma County. It's Sonoma Conservation Action. We 
have 7,500 members -- dues-paying members in the county. 

We are -- in fact, have been for years 
concerned about water quality, and we are probably the 
organization most responsible for the geysers project 
that takes a lot of the sewage from Santa Rosa and pumps 
it up to the geysers where it's made into electricity, 
so.... 

I have a letter that we have sent to you — I 
have a copy of it. I didn't know whether it got here, 
so I've made copies -- signed by our executive director. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We have the letter, and we 
will make the letter part of the records. 

Mr. KRAMER: You don't need the copies from 
Sonoma County -- 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: No. Recycle them. 

MR. KRAMER: Recycle them. I'll do that. 

About six or seven or eight years ago, the City 
of Santa Rosa proposed to dump wastewater, treated to 
some degree, into the Russian River, and that was the 
number one plan chosen by the City. 

Our members sent to the city council 
approximately 200 letters of opposition, and these are 

63 



1 minus for how well she listens and responds to the 

2 public. 

3 SENATOR AANESTAD: This is when she's on the 

4 city council or — 

5 MR. KRAMER: My mistake, Counsel. This was the 

6 last -- this was 2008. 

7 SENATOR AANESTAD: Okay. Not her work on the 

8 board. 

9 MR. KRAMER: Not her work on the public 

10 utilities board. This is on the -- 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Or on the current board 

12 that she's up for confirmation on. 

13 MR. KRAMER: That's right. This is on the city 

14 council, on her city council. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

16 MR. KRAMER: And that scorecard is attached to 

17 the letter that we sent to you -- 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We'll review it. 

19 MR. KRAMER: The comments were "A real 

20 disappointment so far. Went back on her promise not to 

21 run after her appointment." 

22 She was chosen as a neutral to replace the city 

23 councilman who resigned, with a pledge that she wouldn't 

24 run again, that she would do the work for two years and 

25 then someone else -- we would have a full-blown 

65 



letters individually written, not a postcard that we had 
preprinted for them. But they felt strongly about it, 
as did everybody in the county, and a lot of the 
counties downstream of the river. 

As a result, the city council turned around and 
it created this project, which wasn't the cheapest 
project, but it involved keeping the sewage out of the 
river and -- and reusing it to make -- using it to make 
electricity up at the geysers. So those are our 
credentials. 

In addition, we — our members and our elected 
officials monitor other elected officials, and once a 
year we put out for every city in the -- in our area, in 
Sonoma county, a scorecard of the elected officials. We 
do that through the lens of the -- of our environmental 
concern. There are two scores. One score is for how 
well people listen to the — There are remarkable 
differences, as you all well know, how people listen and 
then how people react on our issues. 

So with that kind of background, let me read to 
you our next-to-last paragraph -- 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

MR. KRAMER: -- concerning Ms. Dean. 

Our report card watchers gave Ms. Dean a grade 
of D minus for her voting, on a scale A to F, and C 

64 



1 campaign. And that pledge was reported in the paper. 

2 And I think her going back on that promise is one reason 

3 the local newspaper did not support her for reelection. 

4 She voted against campaign finance reform and advanced 

5 planning fee. 

6 And one last comment. At the time she was 

7 appointed to the water quality control board, there is a 

8 quote from her — Miss Dean stated -- this is from the 

9 newspaper, The Press Democrat. "She expects the biggest 

10 issue the Regional Water Board will face during her 

11 tenure will be allocating water among competing 

12 interests and developing the infrastructure to deliver 

13 it." That's a quote from our local newspaper. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

15 MR. KRAMER: In sum, it's - Miss Dean is a 

16 nice person and, no doubt, a well-meaning person, but 

17 these -- this seat on the Water Quality Control Board 

18 could be personed by someone that has real expertise in 

19 water quality and is dedicated to making sure that we 

20 maintain.... 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Thank you very 

22 much, sir. We appreciate it. 

23 I appreciate the well-articulated concerns in 

24 opposition of the people who traveled here to testify, 

25 but a couple things stand out. 

66 



» 6/2009 12:42:37 PM 



Page 63 to 66 of 73 



18 of 20 sheets 



1 


Number one, in terms of Ms. Dean's actual 


1 


political process. This is what many of us live with 


2 


record on the Water Quality Control Board, no one has 


2 


every day in this building, and it's just part of the 


3 


pointed to an action or a vote which raises some 


3 


deal. 


4 


concern. In fact, but for two recusals because she 


4 


Whether or not you get confirmed this time or 


5 


recognized, I suppose, a conflict of interest, she voted 


5 


next time, at the end of the day you're going to go out 


6 


with the board majority, in fact, unanimous decisions 


6 


and have supper, and it's going to be just as good, and 


7 


across the board. 


7 


life will be just as good the next day. So I would urge 


8 


The other thing is that the criticisms 


8 


you to continue to be the independent, well-thought-of 


9 


themselves do relate to positions she took, or 


9 


person that you have shown and that your witnesses have 


10 


performance, if you will, in other chapters of her life. 


10 


shown you to be and remain independent. 


11 


When you factor — When you factor that with the fact 


11 


I can forgive you for a bad vote — for 


12 


that there's only six months remaining on the term for 


12 


example, when you voted to impeach President Bush and 


13 


this particular seat, on balance, I'm inclined to 


13 


Cheney -- and I'm hoping that the environmental 


14 


support the confirmation, because I don't think there's 


14 


community can forgive some of the things they think are 


15 


been overriding evidence presented to the contrary. 


15 


on that bad list, because what I have seen when we 


16 


I will say this: That if you are seeking 


16 


review your actions -- and not just what people are 


17 


reappointment, I think you have some fences to mend 


17 


writing on a piece of paper, which is a political 


18 


here. And usually for this sort of seat, we don't get 


18 


exercise, but, you know, that's part of the game. I've 


19 


significant local opposition here. 


19 


seen someone who is thoughtful and who has got the 


20 


So I'm prepared to support you and have you 


20 


recommendations of people that she's worked with and has 


21 


serve the last six months, but if you're going to want 


21 


proven that she is independent and knows what the job is 


22 


to continue, I think we would prefer, obviously, not to 


22 


and does it. And I hope you continue to do that. 


23 


see -- You've got to reach out and talk to some of the 


23 


And my fear is -- is that with the admonition 


24 


people who are skeptics. 


24 


to reach out and try to mend fences, you'll start to 


25 


Senator Oropeza. 


25 


actually believe that you need to do it their way 




67 




69 


1 


SENATOR OROPEZA: I just want to share that I 


1 


instead of your way, and then you might lose my vote the 


2 


have -- I will support the chair's recommendation on 


2 


next time. 


3 


this, but I do have to say I have a little bit of a 


3 


So I would just urge you to be your own 


4 


different spin just in this regard: I think that when 


4 


independent person and make each vote the best vote that 


5 


candidates come before us, they come before us as whole 


5 


you can think of, and your training in this job, and 


6 


people, with everything that they've done, with their 


6 


you'll be back again in another year, and, hopefully, 


7 


entire record. 


7 


we'll confirm you again. 


8 


What I feel comfortable in this six-month 


8 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The only thing I would 


9 


appointment is that while I have heard that Ms. Dean has 


9 


add, and I agree with what you said, Senator Aanestad, 


10 


not been an outspoken advocate, I haven't heard that she 


10 


it's not inconsistent to reach out to the skeptics and 


11 


has aggressively worked against the issues -- 


11 


opposition and still vote independent. You can do both. 


12 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Right. 


12 


In fact, I would argue that you have to. So good. 


13 


SENATOR OROPEZA: -- related to the work of the 


13 


Is there a motion on the nomination? 


14 


Water Quality Board or other environmental concerns. 


14 


SENATOR DUTTON: Moved. 


15 


And so it's sort of in that vein that I would 


15 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Moved by Senator Dutton 


16 


certainly support this, and I would also chime the same 


16 


Please call the roll. 


17 


tune as the chair relative to we have to learn from the 


17 


MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 


18 


experiences that we go through, and if you -- in this 


18 


Dutton. 


19 


next time, should you be confirmed by the entire Senate, 


19 


SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 


20 


I hope you take it as an experience which has taught you 


20 


MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 


21 


some things about how to proceed in the future. 


21 


Oropeza. 


22 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Aanestad. 


22 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 


23 


SENATOR AANESTAD: I intend to support you 


23 


MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 


24 


today and, hopefully, next time. Just because this has 


24 


Aanestad. 


25 


been, maybe, a distasteful occurrence — This is the 


25 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 




68 




70 



19 of 20 sheets 



Page 67 to 70 of 73 



03/16/2009 12 42 37 



1 MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 


i 


APPENDIX 


2 Steinberg. 


2 




3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 


3 




4 MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 


4 




5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: This will move to the 


5 




6 Senate floor. Thank you very much. 


6 




7 (Thereupon, the Senate Rules Committee hearing 


7 
8 




8 adjourned at 3:19 p.m.) 

9 

-0O0-- 


9 




10 
11 




1 


12 




2 


13 




3 


14 




4 
5 
6 

7 


15 
16 
17 
18 
19 




8 


20 




9 


21 







22 




1 


23 




2 


24 




3 


25 




4 






5 




73 


71 






1 -oOo- 






2 I, INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand 






3 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify 






4 that I am a disinterested person herein; that the 






5 foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 






5 hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, 






1 INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 






3 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 






J typewriting. 






3 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 






1 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 






I any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 






3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
X this l(}+ l /davof tAe^-C Lv .2009. 






5 
5 

1 ^Aiud .%ifil — . — 

5 INA C. LeBLANC 






CSR No. 6713 






) -oOo— 

1 
i 






72 


73 of 73 




16/2009 12:42:37 PM Page 71 tc 


20 of 20 sheets 



Senate Confirmation 

Richard J. Subia, Associate Director 

Division of Adult Institutions 

Responses to Senate Rules Committee Questions 

February 18,2009 



Statement of Goals 

The associate director, General Population Institutions (Levels 2 and 3) and 
Male Offender Camps, is responsible for nearly 41,000 men incarcerated in the 
following eight medium- and lower-security institutions: Avenal State Prison; California 
Training Facility; Chuckawalla Valley State Prison; Folsom State Prison; Ironwood State 
Prison; California State Prison-Solano; and California Correctional Center and Sierra 
Conservation Center, which both supply inmates to 41 fire camps. In addition, the 
associate director has responsibility for 13 community correctional facilities with about 
5,400 inmates, about the same population as two years ago. 

Under the department duty statement for this position, the largest share of the associate 
director's time - 40 percent - is to include visiting prisons to discuss, among other 
things, security arrangements, housing policies, labor relations, and litigation. 
The associate director is also supposed to collaborate with other associate directors to 
ensure uniformity in the way prisons are managed. 

1 . Please provide us with a brief statement of goals. What do you hope to 
accomplish during your tenure as associate director for General 
Population Institutions and Male Offender Camps? How will you measure 
your success? 

I consider the Associate Director's position within the California Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to have a primary responsibility in providing 
operational oversight, direction, and consistency in policy and practice within the nine 
General Population (GP) Levels 2 and 3 prisons, along with the Community Correctional 
Facilities (CCF) and Conservation Camps, in the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI). 
My goals as the Associate Director of the General Population Levels 2 & 3, Camps, and 
Community Correctional Facilities Mission are multifaceted. To accomplish these goals, 
I must focus on making certain that the prison environment is safe for our staff, 
offenders, and the public. The three main areas I focus on are: 

1. Staffing 

In order to maintain a safe and secure environment, I must ensure vacant 
positions are filled, overtime is decreased without jeopardizing safety, staff are 
properly trained to perform their job functions, and appropriate tracking measures 
are instituted to assist in evaluating procedural compliance. 



A PPointmeirts 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 2 of 31 



I work closely with each of the GP 2/3 institutions in identifying problem areas 
with respect to hiring. Also, I will continue to work with the CDCR Human 
Resources Department on focused recruitment methods for difficult to fill 
positions and locations. While each of the prisons in the mission have similar 
custody requirements, the mission has a very diverse blend of 
locations: Ironwood State Prison (ISP) and Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 
(CVSP) in the far south by the Arizona border; the California Rehabilitation 
Center (CRC) in the Los Angeles basin; Avenal State Prison (ASP) in the 
San Joaquin Valley; the California Training Facility (CTF) in the Salinas area; and 
the California Correctional Center (CCC) in the far northern Lassen area. Due to 
these diverse locations, various methods to fill vacancies need to be employed 
including using focused recruitment methods, allowing Correctional Officer 
candidates willing to accept positions in remote locations priority to attending the 
Basic Correctional Officer Academy, and providing monetary incentives and 
stipends. 

My management style involves working closely with the wardens at each of the 
nine prisons within the GP 2/3 mission. In addition to regularly visiting each 
institution, I hold monthly conference calls with each prison to discuss common 
issues and best practices which can be incorporated to best meet the CDCR's 
goals associated with staffing issues. 

2. Inmate Programs 

As the Associate Director over the mission with the lowest custody level prisons, 
I firmly believe I am in a position to deliver more programming time to the 
inmates whom I oversee. I work collaboratively with counterparts in the Division 
of Education, Vocations and Offender Programs (DEVOP), Division of Addiction 
and Recovery Services (DARS) and Division of Community Partnerships (DCP) 
toward expanding current treatment, education and leisure time activities. 
My goal is to maximize the amount of programs and programming time offered at 
each of the mission's institutions. 

To accomplish this goal, I meet with wardens to ensure they are facilitating 
full-time participation in rehabilitative programs. The GP 2/3 mission is able to 
offer programming on substance abuse, Prison Industry Authority (PIA), 
Conservation Camps, and CCFs to a much greater degree than any of the other 
missions. 



75 



Senate Rules Committee 
Richard J. Subia 
Page 3 of 31 



February 18,2009 



3. Inmate Fire-Fighting Conservation Camps 

I am privileged to have Conservation Camps assigned to the mission. 
The Conservation Camps are an outstanding example of how inmates are able to 
provide public safety to the community. One of my goals is to increase 
awareness within the various government agencies on the valuable service 
inmates programming within the 41 fire camps provide in fighting fires throughout 
the entire state. I work closely with two of my prisons, Sierra Conservation 
Center (SCC) and CCC, who are responsible for training inmates for placement 
in the camps. 

I maintain a liaison with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 
(CAL FIRE) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD); I have the 
responsibility for the research, planning, organizing, coordinating and operational 
analysis of the Conservation Camps Program of the CDCR. I monitor Camp 
Management Reviews, and Corrective Action Plans of all CDCR Conservation 
Camps to ensure that camps are operating in accordance with all relevant laws, 
policies and procedures. I also coordinate efforts with the CAL FIRE and LACFD 
to develop and implement methods to improve the role of the Camp 
Commanders as CDCR Agency Representatives on major incidents (fire, flood, 
earthquake, etc.). 



In addition to my three main goals, 
achievement: 



have also targeted the following areas for 



• Reducing violence by offenders towards staff and other offenders; 

• Working with the Division of Correctional Health Care Services (DCHCS) to 
ensure offenders are provided full access to essential health care; 

• Incorporating corrective actions and training needs identified through various 
audits by departmental staff and external agencies; 

• Identifying and developing future candidates to assume warden and other 
manager positions in our department; 

• Ensuring visiting programs are monitored for quality and consistency. 

The measurement of my success will be in continually monitoring progress made in the 
aforementioned areas. 

I believe my experience serves me well in selecting, mentoring, and monitoring the 
wardens within the mission. I believe my subordinates, peers, and supervisors view me 
as a resilient, ethical leader. These qualities and my professional experience will serve 



76 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 4 of 31 



me well in managing the day-to-day operations of this complex adult prison system and 
in accomplishing my goals. I fully appreciate the magnitude of the responsibility vested 
in me as the Associate Director of the GP 2/3 correctional facilities. I recognize the 
opportunity I have to be an integral part of the CDCR shift back to a model that 
facilitates offender change. I fully appreciate the opportunity to "give back" to the public 
benefits I have enjoyed as a civil servant. 

2. As you evaluate the institutions under your management, what are your 
highest priorities? 

As I evaluate the multifaceted needs of the nine institutions, 41 Conservation Camps 
and 12 male CCFs under my management, I have identified a common theme of 
prominent priorities that exist at each institution. 

• Maintain appropriate offender population at each facility 

As the Associate Director of the low-level offender population, I work to ensure 
that the institution population levels are appropriate and that each offender is 
housed in the facility that will provide him the greatest benefits. 
The Conservation Camps provide the highest opportunity for rehabilitation 
through a tangible skill-building work program and by providing support for the 
surrounding communities through fire fighting and wild land fire protection 
support. The 12 CCFs provide a community dorm setting and the opportunity for 
rehabilitation through community work crews, therapeutic self-help groups and 
vocational programs. The Department is experiencing a significant decrease of 
inmates eligible for the camp and CCF programs. Inmates who meet the camp 
and CCF program criteria are also eligible for other minimum custody programs 
within the Department. In an effort to identify additional eligible inmates for these 
programs, I have developed task forces for each program to identify strategies 
that will increase inmates in these pipelines. 

Through weekly population meetings with the Department's stakeholders 
including the Population Management Unit, Transportation Unit, DCHCS, DARS 
and the Associate Directors from each mission, we are able to make decisions 
regarding the appropriate housing of our offenders. 

• Support the visiting programs at each facility 

I support each warden's inmate family reunification efforts and ensure their 
visiting programs operate within departmental policy making certain that 
approved family and friends have access to the visiting facilities at each 
institution. As the Associate Director, I have the responsibility to address 
complaints related to an institution's visiting program. I ensure the visiting staff at 
each institution are provided the departmental-approved training and I review 



77 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 5 of 31 



their weekly visiting statistics reports. I monitor the Inmate Family Council (IFC) 
minutes from each institution and attend the statewide IFC meetings in an effort 
to identify any barriers to a successful visiting program. I participate in the 
Visiting Warden's Activity Group (WAG) and work to provide recommendations to 
further enhance the visiting program. 

• Identify the structural needs of each facility 

I rely on the wardens and their management staff to continuously monitor the 
structural soundness of their institutions. By addressing, prioritizing and 
correcting the structural deficits, the goal of ensuring the safety and security of 
the institution is met. Facility modification and development is needed to support 
the program expansions and litigation requirements. Through audits, monthly 
reports, management reviews and personal tours, I ensure that plant operation 
issues are identified and addressed via the appropriate state processes. 
I work in conjunction with the Facility Planning, Construction and Management 
Division (FPCMD) to ensure the proposals are approved timely and resources 
are available to complete the projects. 

3. Please describe the management training you received for your current 
assignment. 

My management experience began prior to my employment with the State of California 
while enlisted in the United States (US) Navy. I served in the US Navy for four years 
receiving an Honorable Discharge at the level of Petty Officer 2 nd Class. During my 
enlistment, I was responsible for managing a significant portion of flight operations on a 
US air craft carrier. This experience taught me the importance of identifying the 
strengths and weakness of individuals from diverse backgrounds and ensuring they are 
trained and being utilized to their utmost abilities. I believe this experience assisted me 
in my transition to a law enforcement career. 

I began my career with the CDCR approximately 23 years ago. I have gained an 
extensive working knowledge throughout my tenure, promoting through the ranks 
holding the positions of Correctional Officer, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Associate 
Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, Warden and, for the past 14 months, Associate Director 
for the DAI. 

My current assignment finds me charged with oversight of nine Level 2 and 3 
institutions, 41 male offender Conservation Camps, and 12 CCFs. My career has 
provided me opportunities to work in the fields of institution operations, employment and 
labor law, communications, gang suppression, internal affairs, and narcotics 
investigation. I have had the opportunity to work at five institutions and with inmates of 
all security levels. 



78 



Senate Rules Committee 
Richard J. Subia 
Page 6 of 31 



February 18, 2009 



I have completed studies in management and criminal justice at Central Texas College 
and Sacramento City College. I have also completed specific coursework in 
administrative and labor law at University of California - Davis and McGeorge School of 
Law. 



In addition to my practical management experience, 
classroom training. These programs include: 



have participated in formal 



Internal Affairs Investigation 

Administrative Hearing Advocacy 

Criminal Investigation 

Homicide/Death Investigation 

High Stakes Employment Litigation 

Advanced Course of Study 

Selected Issues in Workers Compensation 

Fundamentals of Employment Law Practice 

Criminal Investigation 

National Incident Management Systems 

Conflict Management Training 

Training-for-Trainers 

SPB Precedential Decisions 

State and Federal Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Labor Relations and Grievance Handling 
Leadership Development Training 
Discipline and Labor Problems 

Employment and Labor Law 

Leadership Development Studies Program 



San Jose State University 
University of California - Davis 
Sacramento City College 
Sacramento City College 
Continuing Education of the Bar 

Continuing Education of the Bar 
Continuing Education of the Bar 
California Department of Justice 
Office of Homeland Security 
Department of Corrections 
Department of Corrections 
California State Personnel Board 
Office of Environmental, Health 
and Safety Management 
State Training Center 
IBM Work Force Solutions 
Americans for Effective Law 
Enforcement, Inc. 
Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy 
and Mathiason Law Offices 
Phi Theta Kappa 



Budget Crisis 

4. Please describe how the prisons under your management have been 
affected by the state's budget crisis. What specific program and staffing 
reductions have your prisons experienced? 

Each of the institutions under my management have been negatively impacted by the 
state's budget crisis. In order to meet this challenge, fiscal resources have had to be 
re-directed from pre-approved projects to cover basic operational needs. The program 



79 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 7 of 31 



areas that have suffered the greatest impact include plant operations and institution 
maintenance, inmate self-help and leisure time activity groups and staff training and 
professional development. 

Facility repairs and preventative maintenance have been scaled back and their 
resources directed to cover higher priority projects that relate directly to the security of 
the institution or satisfy recent litigation. Court mandates for the Armstrong case ordered 
the facility operation programs to ensure program and housing accessibility for each 
inmate covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but did not provide any additional 
staff resources. Although hundreds of special repair projects have been approved by 
the FPCMD, the Department has been forced to prioritize its needs and allocate funds 
only to select projects. My staff and I continue to work with each institution to identify 
their priority needs and collaborate with FPCMD and/or the Budget Management 
Branch (BMB) to secure the needed approvals and funding. 

Inmate self-help and leisure time activity programs were temporarily suspended on 
July 31 , 2008, due to the state's budget crisis. The majority of the self-help programs 
are funded through temporary help dollars which are allocated by the DCP. These 
suspensions led to the cancellation of established self-help programs and inmate leisure 
activity groups. Self-help programs were reinstated effective November 10, 2008, yet 
suffered a lag time in recruiting and resuming their programs. As permanent full-time 
employees, staff are dually-appointed to their position and to a sponsor position. 
Each institution's Community Partnership Manager (CPM) was instrumental in 
re-establishing the groups and tracking the inmate participation. Through collaborative 
efforts with DCP, I was able to address the barriers related to reinstatement of the 
inmate programs. 

Travel and training not directly related to prison operations were suspended during this 
current fiscal year. The outcome resulted in the decrease of staff training and 
professional development. The Department-sponsored leadership development training 
for managers, correctional academies and various promotional exams have been 
postponed until the next fiscal year. This has a direct negative effect on the staff in 
each of our institutions and in headquarters. I have encouraged the wardens at each 
institution to seek out no-cost alternatives for their staff to gain professional 
development experience through acting assignments or working in other classifications. 
I have always practiced this management technique and have seen the success it has 
provided to my staff. 



80 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 8 of 31 



5. Administrative segregation is the most costly form of incarceration at 
CDCR. The Inspector General recently released a report stating that too 
many inmates stay in "ad seg" too long. How do you respond to this 
criticism? Are you taking any of the Inspector General's 
recommendations? Which ones? What role do you and your wardens 
play in monitoring the time inmates spend in this costly housing? 

The Inspector General is accurate in stating many inmates stay in Administrative 
Segregation Housing Units (ASU) too long. In the past, housing and transfer of inmates 
from ASU was contingent only upon the custody level of the inmate. However, in recent 
years, a number of additional categories related to the housing of ASU inmates have 
been added to the equation. While the custody level of inmates is still a major factor in 
the safe placement of ASU inmates, institutional staff must now also consider the 
inmate's need for Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) placement, medical status, mental health 
status, physical disabilities, and developmental disabilities prior to being able to release 
an inmate from an ASU. These additional categories place limitations on where an 
inmate is eligible to be housed or what institutions are available for transfer. 

On a weekly basis, the population management unit produces reports that reflect 
numerical information related to ASU filled/vacant beds and staffed capacity. I review 
these reports and discuss the identified issues with the wardens of the impacted 
institutions. 

During a weekly "Beds Meeting" at headquarters, all departments involved with offender 
population management work collaboratively in assessing statewide population issues. 
Through these interactions, focus is placed on various options for movement of specific 
types of populations. I provide a copy of the department's weekly ASU overcrowding 
report to each of my assigned wardens with direction to focus on reducing the need for 
ASU overflow. 

While the Inspector General's report addressed issues at one prison in the GP 2/3 
mission; the California State Prison, Solano (CSP-Solano), I am involved in addressing 
many of the recommendations at each of my assigned institutions as follows: 

1. Investigation Timelines 

Whenever an inmate is placed in an ASU, the institution is required to see the 
inmate in an Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) within ten days to 
determine the appropriateness of placement and steps needed to address the 
placement issues for release back to a GP setting. I hold wardens, as 
chairperson of the ICC, responsible for ensuring issues are addressed in an 
expedited manner consistent with the need to maintain safety and security of the 
institution. 



81 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 9 of 31 



I believe most investigations into issues related to ASU placement should be 
completed within 30 days and in many cases prior to the initial ICC hearing which 
is held within 10 days. In my recent conference calls with GP 2/3 wardens, 
I have reiterated this expectation. On a monthly basis, I review each institution's 
ASU populations and the average length of stay for their ASU inmates. Within 
the past six months, I have been involved in audits completed at four of the eight 
GP 2/3 institutions which have ASU's. Three of the four institutions audited have 
average length of stays under 70 days, and the forth institution (CSP-Solano) has 
seen a recent decrease in their average length of stay by 50 days. 

2. ASU Tracking Logs 

The standardization of ASU tracking logs is a CDCR issue. In December 2008, 
I directed staff to perform an audit of each GP 2/3 institution as to the type of 
tracking log utilized and the information captured. While all institutions appeared 
to be capturing similar information, I discovered each institution uses different 
formats for their tracking log. 

The wardens all have systems in place to monitor and track disciplinary matters 
and active investigations that may have an impact on the duration of an 
offender's placement in ASU. Recent meetings have been held to explore 
standardization of ASU tracking logs department wide. I will remain proactive in 
the process of improving this system. 

3. Effective Comparative Statistics Tracking 

One of the Inspector General's recommendations concerned capturing 
information on inmates who had been in ASU longer than 200 days. 
In December 2008, I directed my staff to perform this audit. I discovered the 
majority of inmates remaining in ASU over 200 days was due to two reasons; the 
inmate was pending transfer to a Security Housing Unit (SHU) facility, or the 
inmate was pending outcome of a court action. I will remain proactive in 
exploring options to allow for the creation of additional SHU beds in the 
department and working with local District Attorney's Offices to remove barriers 
in the prosecution of cases for those offenders housed within ASU. 

I take a multifaceted approach in monitoring time inmates spend in ASU housing. On a 
regular basis I review issues at each of the GP 2/3 institutions. I talk to each of my 
wardens on measures they are taking to reduce the need for overflow housing, and in 
reducing their institution's average length of stay. The majority of the GP 2/3 institutions 
have very efficiently-run ASUs. When auditing each institution, I also look at "best 
practices" from the efficiently-run ASUs in an effort to incorporate these practices 
mission-wide. Whenever issues arise with one of my ASU's, I instruct the warden to 



82 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 10 of 31 



develop a corrective action plan to best address the deficiencies, and I follow-up to 
ensure the deficiency is effectively resolved. 



Prison Operations and Consistency 

Until the department's 2005 reorganization, prisons were overseen by four regional 
administrators. With the reorganization, the structure changed to five mission-based 
associate directors who report to the department secretary. Under this system, similar 
institutions are organized together and overseen by an associate director. 

6. The stated goal of the mission-based system is to achieve consistency 
over prison policies and practices in areas such as custody 
arrangements, visiting, and programs. After more than three years, what 
are your examples of success and what issues are needing more 
attention as you seek consistency? 

The mission-based system has achieved consistency in my mission in the areas of 
housing, offender services, lockdowns, and use of force reviews. The GP 2/3 
institutions, based upon their lower custody levels, are better able to offer programming 
options to our offenders. As such, my mission is able to work as a team in sharing best 
practices, and being able to discuss possible solutions amongst peers. 

An example of success would be in the ability for the mission's wardens to network with 
each other in transferring inmates amongst the GP 2/3 institutions on occasion. 
For instance, SCC is the pipeline for inmates transitioning into the southern 
Conservation Camps. A number of the Level 2 inmates housed at SCC are not eligible 
to participate in the camps program. At ASP, we have a PIA poultry farm program. 
Some of the inmates at SCC who are ineligible for Conservation Camps do meet the 
criteria for the PIA program at ASP. Through the mission-based program we are 
working together in transferring inmates to better provide access to inmate programs. 

Within the GP 2/3 mission are a number of institutions which are older physical plants, 
and a few newer constructed prisons. For instance, Folsom State Prison (FSP) was 
first opened in 1880, and ISP was opened in 1994. Therefore, plant operations and 
needs are significantly different among the mission's prisons. Also, geographical 
locations within the mission are greatly varied. Issues related to the community are 
indigenous to each individual prison, and do not necessarily translate to common issues 
within the mission. 

Areas that need more consistency include revising the methodology used to allocate 
funding for those institutions that support the conservation camps (SCC and CCC). 
Operating expenses such as feeding and protective work clothing are more costly at the 
camps. Working within the Mission process, I have identified the need to have 



83 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 11 of 31 



consistent special repair and maintenance funding to support the plant operations and 
structural needs for those institutions that were built from the original prison design plan. 
Five of the nine institutions under my management (FSP, CRC, CTF, SCC and CCC) 
are among the oldest prisons within the department and would benefit from an increase 
in facility operations allotments. 

7. As you scrutinize institutions, what do you look for to determine whether 
a prison is operating well? What are the red flags you look for? Is there a 
mechanism in place to share this information/best practices among the 
prisons you oversee? 

The first impression anyone has when visiting and evaluating an institution is on the 
cleanliness. I believe much can be determined operationally immediately upon walking 
into my institutions. A warden, who takes pride in how their prison is maintained, is 
paying attention to details. In evaluating an institution operationally, the following areas 
need to be scrutinized: 

• Is the physical plant well maintained? 

• Is the institution maintaining appropriate staffing to facilitate all necessary 
operations? 

• Do the warden and staff have sound knowledge and physical application of the 
Department's Classification System? 

• Are the Operational Procedures and Post Orders up to date? 



• 



Does effective communication exist between staff and offenders in order to bring 
resolution to issues? 



• Is there an effective training program to maintain the needs of staff? 

I monitor key indicators that provide a view of the status of significant areas of 
institutional operation. Red Flag issues are brought to my attention generally through 
my personal tours of the prisons, monitoring the day-to-day issues which arise at each 
of my institutions, and through the Department's standardized Computer Statistics 
(COMPSTAT) reporting process. Areas I monitor for Red Flags include: 

• Communication with Inmate Advisory Groups, Inmate Family Councils, and 
Citizen Advisory Groups; 

• Inmate access to programs; 

• The inmate appeal process focusing on overdue appeals and recurring issues; 



84 



Senate Rules Committee 
Richard J. Subia 
Page 12 of 31 



February 18,2009 



Efforts of drug interdiction and suppression; 

The use of excessive employee sick leave; 

The effective management of the employee grievance program; 

The presence and use of an effective employee discipline process; 

Correspondence received from offender families and inmate advocacy groups; 

Management of the institution's authorized staff capacity; 

Management of ASU Beds and overcrowding; 

Management of fiscal resources within Operational Budget allocation; 

Systems related to the management of lockdowns and modified programs; 

Unusual or significant Workman's Compensation injuries and claims; 

Functioning academic and vocational education programs and the availability of 
religious and self-help group programs; 

Offender and employee morale; 

The number and nature of significant inmate disturbances; 

Inmate access to medical, mental health, and dental appointments; 

The appropriate housing of inmates with physical disabilities; 

Work orders submitted and the addressing of plant operation issues; 

Efforts to control contraband within the institution. 



At a minimum, on a monthly basis I hold conference calls with the GP 2/3 wardens to 
discuss current issues and to share best practices. Wardens take this opportunity to 
talk about issues they are encountering and solicit ideas from their peers. On an almost 
daily basis I share e-mails with all of my wardens on current issues facing institutions 
and on current CDCR events. I encourage my wardens to keep open lines of 
communication with each other, and regularly discussions are opened amongst us via 
e-mail on the various issues. In addition, several times each year CDCR holds warden's 
meetings where all of the Department's wardens have the opportunity to discuss current 
events and share best practices. During these events, breakout meetings are held with 
the GP 2/3 wardens where issues can be discussed in a face-to-face setting. 



85 



Senate Rules Committee 
Richard J. Subia 
Page 13 of 31 



February 18,2009 



8. What role do you play in ensuring that prisons under your supervision are 
fully engaged in their rehabilitation missions? How do you communicate 
with program staff that provide education and treatment? 
Are improvements needed? If so, please describe. 

As the Associate Director, my role is to support and monitor each prison's rehabilitation 
mission. In collaboration with the Division of Adult Programs, the wardens, their 
community and their inmate population needs, the team is able to best identify 
rehabilitation opportunities. 

I recently participated in the Performance Accountability and Improvement Process 
(PAIP) meeting led by Division of Adult Programs at each of the institutions. 
This process was developed by Adult Programs, in collaboration with DAI and Division 
of Support Services, to ensure that performance expectations relative to inmate 
rehabilitative programming are clearly defined and directly linked to budgeted 
resources. The purpose of the meetings is to provide an overview of the PAIP process, 
identify overall rehabilitation programming goals and objectives unique to each 
institution, review the budget allocation and set the performance expectation and 
timeframes. The goals of the PAIP for in-prison rehabilitative programming are 
threefold: 

1. To create a statewide approach, structure and process through which to expand 
rehabilitative programming; 

2. To establish a shared understanding about current and future performance 
expectations relative to rehabilitative programming; 

3. To establish a fair, equitable and accountable process for establishing 
performance targets and monitoring the progress of each institution in expanding 
rehabilitative programming and achieving outcomes. 

As a result of this program, I have the ability to review and provide input to the initial and 
annual program performance plan along with any corrective action plan for the 
programs. The COMPSTAT process and report also provide me with an overview of 
how each institution is managing their rehabilitation mission resources and will identify 
any barriers to programming. 

I provide oversight during the implementation of any new rehabilitation program within 
the institution. A current example is the initial Assembly Bill (AB) 900 pilot program at 
CSP-Solano. Each week I meet with Adult Programs, DEVOP, DARS and other 
department stakeholders involved in implementing the "Proof Project" at CSP-Solano. 
These weekly status report meetings allow me to monitor the progress and ensure 
departmental policy is integrated within the new program. In conjunction with BMB and 
FPCMD, I review each institution's request for resources whether it be staffing via a 



86 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 14 of 31 



Budget Concept Statement or for additional program space via the Capital Outlay 
Budget Change Proposal (COBCP) process. 

Improvements are needed to ensure that the offender is placed in the most beneficial 
program in a timely manner. Through the use of the COMPAS Assessment Tool, staff 
are able to classify the offender's risk category for re-offending and place him in the 
correct treatment module. The Department is currently evaluating COMPAS processing 
in the Reception Centers to determine the possible need for expanded resources. 

9. When there is a lockdown or modified program, meaning that activities of 
some inmates are limited, what role do you play in reviewing the situation 
and making recommendations about whether the lockdown should be 
lifted? 

As the Associate Director, anytime there is a lockdown, modified program, or change in 
program status lasting more than 24 hours, I receive notice from the GP 2/3 institution. 
The affected institution will notify me via a Program Status Report (PSR) which 
describes the actions taken and efforts being used to move the institution back towards 
normal programming. On a daily/weekly basis, the institution will provide updates on 
the PSR until such time as circumstances provide for the safe return to a full program. 

A PSR contains several components that are reviewed and monitored by the Associate 
Director: Part A, provides the initial notification and is submitted within 24 hours of the 
precipitating incident; Part B, identifies the daily plan of operations for the effected 
yard/offenders; Part C, provides a weekly recap of efforts and progress toward 
resolving/closing the issues that created the need for the modified program; Part D, is a 
mission group roll-up of all of the institutions that may be on modified program during a 
given week; and Part E, is a 60 day evaluation of a modified program and provides for 
additional strategies that may be implemented to bring resolution to a modified program. 

In the event a lockdown or modified program lasts beyond 60 days, I require my 
wardens to conduct telephone conference calls with me in an effort to assist in 
evaluating information available that may lead to the need for the extended modified 
program/lockdown, and to share ideas which could lead to resolution. I offer insight and 
guidance in moving forward with investigations, assist in the transfer of offenders, as 
well as functioning as liaison with the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) for conducting 
independent threat assessments, and share "best practices" which have been beneficial 
at other institutions. I encourage my wardens to consider methods of resolution 
"outside the box." For example, ASP recently had a slow resolving issue between two 
factions of inmates. In an effort to bring resolution to the conflict, ASP offered anger 
management courses to inmates willing to participate as an incentive to ending the 
lockdown. I have also worked with wardens on developing "step down processes" such 
as resuming programming for inmates based upon age, and developing in-cell study 
programs. When appropriate, I will direct wardens on moving forward with de-escalation 



87 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 15 of 31 



efforts when contradictory indicators no longer exist. 

Upon resolution of lockdowns, I share effective techniques with other wardens in the 
mission. 

10. How do you keep yourself apprised of what is happening inside the 
prisons? How often do you personally visit the prisons under your 
management? 

I am exceedingly fortunate that CDCR has a variety of internal and external tools to 
measure performance. Invaluable tools, such as Daily Briefing Reports, Incident 
Packages, Monthly Budget Plans, audits, Corrective Action Plans, offender information 
database generated reports, appeals, monthly conference caNs, red flag reports, week 
at a glance report, office binders, court compliance monitoring reports, Adult Program 
participation reports, lockdown reports, Office of Inspector General reports, Bureau of 
State Audit reports, litigation driven reports and Legislative Analysts Office reports are 
all available to me to assess benchmarks of performance. 

However, the enormity of available information requires that I rely on the experience of 
various division chiefs to assist in monitoring the information and informing me of areas 
of concerns. I also interact with various divisions in the organization, such as Office of 
Court Compliance, Office of Research and the Office of Audits and Compliance, to 
assist me in evaluating individual institutional performance. The reinstitution of the 
Operational Peer and Security Reviews in the prisons has been extremely effective in 
recognizing areas in the institutions that are very successful and areas that require 
improvement. I routinely review these performance measure tools to identify "red flags" 
and seek solutions to address them, whether the information demonstrates deficiencies 
such as low attendance in institutional programs or that a facility is projected to exceed 
its budget authority. 

To remain informed of potential issues and review performance, I have regular meetings 
with the GP 2/3, Camps, and CCF mission staff who are charged with assisting me in 
the oversight of the institutions. During those meetings, we discuss and share 
information, review management reports, identify red flag issues, and develop strategies 
to address those issues. When necessary and appropriate, I advise the CDCR 
leadership when a significant issue of concern should be elevated above my level for 
information and potential support in implementing a resolution. 

Since assuming the responsibilities as Associate Director, I have maintained my 
commitment to establishing collaborative partnerships with my wardens and executive 
staff. To this end, I am in continual contact with all of the wardens and evaluate 
performance based upon the outcomes of systemic audits, statistical data and analysis 
provided through our COMPSTAT process, open lines of communication and personal 
visits to the institutions. 



88 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 16 of 31 



I have visited all GP 2/3 institutions numerous times; I have conducted physical tours 
of 25 percent of the 41 Conservation Camps and several of the CCFs. I make it a goal 
to conduct site visits twice per month based on need and budgetary constraints. I also 
avail myself 24-hours per day to provide effective oversight and guidance to all 
institutions in the mission under my leadership. 



Proof Project 

In September 2008 CDCR publicly announced the launching of the "Pathways to 
Rehabilitation" project, designed to identify needs of inmates within three years of 
release and provide them with necessary academic and vocational programs to make a 
successful transition into the world outside of prison. This idea had previously been 
described as the "Proof Project." In the program, inmates will be given a risk and needs 
assessment upon entry to the Deuel Vocational Institution, and then when inmates 
arrive at Solano State Prison, under your jurisdiction, they are to receive the identified 
services. 

11. What is its status? What role has the custody staff under your 
supervision played in helping develop and coordinate this initiative with 
the program staff and what role will you play in evaluating its success? 

The "Pathways to Rehabilitation" Project has progressed from Track I to Track II at 
CSP-Solano, which is the GP pilot site. 

In Track I, CSP-Solano, with the assistance of staff from the DAI and Adult Programs, 
maximized inmate access to rehabilitative programs within existing resources. Custody 
staff at CSP-Solano played a vital role by reviewing existing custody practices and 
procedures which would conflict with programs. Through that review, a 24-hour master 
calendar was completed to address all institutional activities in 15-minute increments. 
Where conflicts existed, they were addressed through changes in operations or 
adjustments to time. 

In regards to the risk and needs assessment, the Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) 
Reception Center completed the COMPAS risk/needs assessment training in 
October 2008, and is currently utilizing the tool as a part of the intake processing. 
In addition, all reception center staff have been trained on the COMPAS tool and are 
utilizing the tool as a part of the intake process. The next step in the process is the 
utilization of the COMPAS tool to assign inmates to rehabilitative programs, not only at 
CSP-Solano, but at all GP institutions. Adult Programs has developed a draft Case 
Management Plan to address the process for assigning inmates to rehabilitative 
programs, tracking their progress, and transition to parole. Adult Programs is in the 
process of preparing a notice to the affected bargaining units to implement Case 
Management as a pilot at CSP-Solano, with an eventual roll-out to all institutions. 



89 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 17 of 31 



The custody staff under my supervision have played a vital role in the implementation of 
the "Proof Project" (as it has been titled by Adult Programs) at CSP-Solano. I have 
been directly involved in the weekly project update meetings, chaired by Carole Hood, 
Chief Deputy Secretary, Adult Programs, which includes all her team leads. In addition, 
I identified an Associate Warden at CSP-Solano to be a co-project lead to work closely 
with the project lead in Adult Programs. This Associate Warden was assigned to 
ensure that all facets of custody operations are considered and addressed with the 
realignment of existing programs and roll out of new programs. In addition, the 
Associate Warden was responsible for the removal of any custody "barriers" to program 
success. 

Over the past six months, CSP-Solano has successfully implemented, through 
negotiations with affected bargaining units, a traditional 5/8/40 work schedule for 
rehabilitative programs staff and custody staff. This change will not only maximize the 
number of hours an inmate is actually assigned to a rehabilitative program, but also 
maximizes the effectiveness of that time, as the inmate is no longer required to be in the 
same classroom for up to eight hours a day. CSP-Solano has also implemented a new 
500-slot Substance Abuse Program (SAP) utilizing newly constructed modular 
buildings. In the coming months, the inmate assignment office at CSP-Solano will be 
changing program assignments from the existing week on/week off process (an inmate 
will be assigned to SAP and education on alternating weeks) to a half day work 
assignment (e.g.: SAP in the a.m. and education in the p.m.). 

Although there is much work remaining to be done, the custody operations at 
CSP-Solano are prepared to assist Adult Programs in the full implementation of the 
"Pathways to Rehabilitation" Project. I and my staff will remain directly involved in the 
weekly project update meetings with Adult Programs. 



Visiting 

A key to rehabilitation is ensuring inmates maintain contact with their families through 
prison visits. At Solano, inmates and family members say visitors often must wait two to 
four hours, often without protection from sun or inclement weather, because visitor 
processing takes far too long. Visits can often be terminated early due to overcrowding. 

12. Please describe any efforts you are making to reduce the wait times and 
improve visiting conditions. 

With the support of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Reducing Recidivism 
Strategies (RRS) savings for Fiscal Year 2007-08 was reallocated to enhance visitor 
processing centers at those institutions with inadequate space. Both CSP-Solano and 
CTF were approved for modifications to their visitor centers to be accomplished with the 



90 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 18 of 31 



purchase of modular buildings. These proposed modular buildings were priced at 
$500,000 each and were approved in support of the importance of family and 
community support in effective offender programming as recommended by the Expert 
Panel. Savings from the Third Day Visiting program ($500,000) that resulted from staff 
positions being filled later than budgeted, as well as $1,000,000 from other RRS 
savings were allocated to refurbish the visitor centers at additional prisons and enhance 
the visiting children's playgrounds. 

The PIA received the purchase orders for the two modular buildings and began the 
preliminary planning and design for CSP-Solano and CTF. Due to budgetary cuts, 
the $1,000,000 in allocated funding for the modulars was disencumbered in August of 
2008. As the Associate Director for these two facilities, I will continue to seek funding in 
the current fiscal year to support the purchase of these visitor processing modulars. 

I regularly attend the statewide IFC meetings on a quarterly basis to ensure that inmate 
family issues are being heard and addressed pertaining to visiting and other areas. 
Additionally, I have assigned mission-based staff to attend all local IFC meetings at the 
institutions in an effort to ensure visiting programs are being monitored for quality and 
consistency. 

I am working within the WAG to review two appointment process models developed at 
ASP and ISP, which have proven to be successful in minimizing visitor processing wait 
times at the respective institution. 

At ASP, prior to developing the appointment scheduling process, the visiting 
department experienced the following issues: 



• 



Visitors lining up on the side of the road or in the institution parking lot at 0400 
hours in the morning on visiting days; 

• Large group of visitors standing outside the entrance to the Visitor Processing 
door; 

• Due to the visitors arguing over who was to be processed next, the institution 
was unable to process all visitors in a timely fashion. This resulted in visitors 
being turned away and unable to visit when many had traveled hundreds of 
miles to visit. 

After developing the visitor appointment scheduling process the institution no longer 
experienced the aforementioned issues. The visitors utilizing the appointment 
scheduling process are very pleased with the process. Some of the benefits 
accomplished were: 



91 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 19 of 31 



• The visitors no longer arrived on institution grounds at 0400 hours. Most visitors 
currently arrive on grounds no more than one half hour prior to their appointment 
time; 

• The visitors line up in an orderly fashion which has improved visiting staffs 
processing time. The institution is able to process approximately twenty-five 
visitors through the computers every fifteen minutes; 

• The institution allows the visitors to schedule their appointments two weeks in 
advance while at the institution attending a visit. This allows for frequent visitors 
(visitors that visit every weekend) to make their appointment in person and 
reduces the amount of telephone appointments received. 

ISP has developed an online visitor reservation system. Visitors have the ability to 
register their visit online. The process grants groups of 25 visitors, who register online, 
the ability to be processed efficiently in sequential order starting at one half hour 
intervals on specific visiting days and also provides a number of stand-by slots for those 
visitors not using the online registration system. This process: 

• Assists the institution in alleviating the congestion at the visitor processing 
centers; 

• Reduces the number of visitors waiting for extended periods of time in their 
vehicles in an attempt to be first in line for a visit; 

• Gives institutional staff an estimate of the number of visitors and the inmates who 
will be receiving a visit; 

• Allows for feedback from the visitors via an online survey. 

13. Why do some prisons such as Avenal use an appointment system that 
appears to reduce visitor processing times while institutions like Solano 
continue to struggle with long waiting times? 

As indicated in the previous response, the WAG is reviewing the implementation of the 
appointment scheduling process model that has successfully been used by ASP, as 
well as the ISP visitor reservation project model in which appointments are made using 
the internet. We are using the best practices approach with intent to implement a 
combination of the ASP and ISP models statewide. 

Prior to the implementation of the appointment scheduling process, ASP was 
experiencing many of the same problems as CSP-Solano, such as long visitor lines, 
early morning line-ups on visiting days, large groups of visitors standing outside of the 
entrance to the visitor processing area. 



92 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 20 of 31 



It is anticipated that once the new system has been implemented, long visitor lines will 
dissipate. Visitor processing will also be conducted orderly and expediently. 

Additionally, the warden I recently hired at CSP-Solano was previously assigned to ASP 
as the Chief Deputy Warden and was instrumental in the implementation of the 
appointment scheduling process. I have discussed CSP-Solano's visiting issues with 
the Warden and immediate attention has been placed on correcting the deficiencies 
CSP-Solano is experiencing in the visiting program. 



Staffing 

The prison population remains around 172,000. The average annual cost to incarcerate 
an inmate is about $46,000. Your prisons had 280 correctional staff vacancies as of 
November 2008, down more than 370 from November, 2007. 

14. What are you doing to reduce the number of staff vacancies and recruit 
and train new officers, especially at such remote prisons as the California 
Correctional Center in Susanville or at prisons near locations with high 
cost of living such as those in Soledad? To what do you attribute the 
staff vacancy rate dropping over the past year? 

In early 2004, the Correctional Training Center in Gait was closed. Due to the closure, 
CCC had 55 vacant Correctional Officer positions. CCC and High Desert State Prison 
(HDSP) (which also was experiencing high vacancy rates) partnered in creating a 
satellite academy in Susanville, California. With a vision of recruiting candidates that 
would prefer to work in Susanville, the satellite academy initiated an aggressive focused 
recruitment of local candidates. Advertisement of the satellite academy was 
accomplished via local radio stations, newspapers, and the Employment Development 
Department. Staff from both prisons held job fairs in Susanville and in the surrounding 
cities/counties. After receiving applications, personnel from both prisons made personal 
telephone contacts with each of the applicants, to verify the applicant was committed to 
attending the academy. Testing was conducted in Susanville in a joint effort between 
the Office of Peace Officer Selection and staff from CCC and HDSP. Gait academy 
staff conducted the cadet training. The satellite academy began in May 2006, and 
concluded with graduation in August 2006. The academy graduated 82 cadets, which 
were evenly divided between CCC and HDSP. 

In addition, interested supervisors were hired to work in secondary appointments as 
Correctional Officers, to fill remaining vacancies. Also, eligible retired employees were 
recruited to work as Retired Annuitant Correctional Officers. 

Due to retirements, promotions and transfers, CCC and HDSP continued to experience 
high Correctional Officer vacancy rates. The two prisons continued their aggressive 



93 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 21 of 31 



recruitment efforts and proposed conducting a second satellite academy. Radio and 
newspaper advertisements were successful in identifying interested candidates. Again, 
staff from both prisons attended fairs in surrounding counties (including Reno, Nevada) 
providing interested individuals with information how to pursue a career with CDCR, 
focusing on the Correctional Officer classification. Custody supervisors were present to 
address specific questions about what to expect as a cadet, and eventually, as a 
Correctional Officer. Staff with personnel expertise were present to assist the interested 
parties in completing the applications and to explain the testing process and timelines. 
Over 500 applicants expressed a desire to pursue a career as a Correctional Officer. 
Testing was conducted at the local high school, administered by staff from the Office of 
Peace Officer Selections. As a result, 155 candidates successfully completed the 
testing process. A second satellite academy was not approved however, as the Gait 
Correctional Officer Academy had resumed in January 2005. Candidates interested in 
continuing their pursuit were afforded the opportunity to attend the Gait academy, and 
were assured that they would be assigned to the institution of their choice, upon 
successful completion of the academy. 

Since that time, CDCR has streamlined the application/background/testing process and 
successfully filled vacancies at all 33 adult facilities. The intra-institutional transfer 
process has also been altered to allow the wardens to manage their vacancies more 
efficiently and not release a staff member for transfer if it were to negatively affect their 
staffing. This has been successful in reducing the vacancies at the prisons located in 
high cost of living areas such as CTF. 

In October 2007, the Level III Lassen gymnasium at CCC was deactivated as an inmate 
housing unit. Due to this deactivation, CCC lost approximately 16 Correctional Officer 
positions. Staff assigned to the Lassen Gym were utilized to fill various vacant posts. 
In June 2008, the CCC main gymnasium was deactivated. Due to this deactivation, 
approximately 19 additional Correctional Officer positions were lost. Again, staff 
assigned to posts in this gym were utilized to fill various vacant posts within the 
institution. 

As of this date, CCC has all Correctional Officer vacancies filled. 

15. What role do you play in developing a "bench" so that senior managers 
are available and ready to step into associate warden and warden roles? 
Senior managers always seem to be in short supply at CDCR. What could 
be done improve this situation? 

Mentoring of wardens and future wardens is essential to producing effective 
departmental leaders of tomorrow. Mentoring is fostered by means of several different 
methods. Wardens participate in enhanced training utilizing the national correctional 
model, sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections; peer and leadership training; 
team building exercises; associate director acting roles; quarterly meetings held with all 



94 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 22 of 31 



institutional wardens; and continuous interaction with their executive staff, and 
Associate Directors of the other missions. 

While assigned as the Warden at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), I played a very 
active role in developing my management team under my supervision. I encouraged 
my management team to read books on leadership, to examine the different concepts 
and philosophies of successful leaders. I dedicated time to discuss the concepts and 
philosophies outlined in the different books read, and I would ask thought provoking 
questions. I also met with them after their attendance of departmental leadership 
training, reviewing their "Leadership Practices Inventory," and shared my views on their 
ratings. I was open and honest about my perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses 
and challenged them to set personal goals for leadership growth. 

I spent a significant amount of time with the management team as a group, discussing 
strategies for addressing particular issues. For instance, I would meet with them prior to 
meetings (with outside entities, Men's Advisory Council, bargaining units, etc.) and talk 
about defining the objective of the meeting and putting together a strategy to meet the 
objective. After the meeting was over, I would meet with the management team again 
to debrief and discuss what we could learn from the experience. I also met with the 
management team numerous times to develop strategies for improving relationships in 
the community. MCSP had serious issues at the time I took over as Warden; the 
perception in the community was that the institution was a bad neighbor who had 
broken promises for years and polluted the groundwater. I implemented a 
multi-pronged approach to address the issue. I routinely met with the local City Council 
and County Board of Supervisors, cultivated a positive relationship with the local press, 
and implemented Christmas toy drives and other charity events to give back to the 
community. I implemented a number of other strategies as well and as a result, 
community relationships and public perception of MCSP improved dramatically during 
my tenure as Warden. During the entire process, the management team was kept in 
the loop and I personally learned a lot about changing perceptions by implementing well 
thought out courses of action. 

I believe in spending time explaining my actions to my management team, and more 
importantly, explaining why I take specific actions. I believe in putting actual "tools" in 
management team toolboxes that they can use at a later date. Many of the 
management team that I supervised at MCSP have promoted and have moved on to 
various management positions within the Department. They have shared with me that 
they have employed many of the management techniques learned from me on a regular 
basis. 

As a manager I have continually invested in the success of future leaders by practicing 
the latest types of management techniques; identifying potential leaders; and by 



95 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 23 of 31 



providing constructive criticism. I am involved with the Human Resources Department 
in establishing a succession plan and an appropriate mentoring tool to include course 
work. 



Contraband 

16. Department officials have warned about the growing security threat from 
the smuggling of mobile telephones into prisons. It was reported that 
over 600 cell phones were found inside Solano State Prison alone. How 
are you addressing the problem of inmates' access to cell phones? 

The issue of inmates having access to cell phones is a departmental-wide issue, not 
just at CSP-Solano. Over the past three years, over 4,000 cell phones have been found 
in CDCR prisons statewide. The wardens at CSP-Solano have taken a very proactive 
approach to searching in an effort to find all contraband, not exclusively cell phones. 
Largely due to their efforts over the last three years, this prominent issue directly related 
to the safety and security of inmates and staff has been highlighted. 

I am the executive sponsor of a WAG which is exploring available options to stem the 
flow and use of cell phones in prisons by inmates. The WAG is looking at ways to stop 
cell phones from entering prisons, methods to discover cell phones within the secure 
perimeter, how to render cell phones inoperable in a prison, and on increasing penalties 
for inmates caught in possession of cell phones. The following options are being 
explored: 

1 . Stopping Cell Phone Entry into Prisons 

The three main methods of contraband, including cell phones, being introduced 
into a prison are; staff, visiting, and packages. I am working with the OCS and 
the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) on conducting "Operation Disconnect" at 
various prisons within the GP 2/3 institutions. "Operation Disconnect" involves 
OCS staff arriving unannounced at an institution and conducting thorough 
searches of all items being brought into the prison by staff. The operation has 
been successful in several instances of discovering staff bringing cell phones, 
and other forms of contraband, into a prison's secure perimeter. 

In addition, the WAG is exploring the development of staff entries into a prison 
being similar to security checks at airports. My staff has also been involved in 
determining methods used by Corrections Departments from other states to 
ascertain a viable system for CDCR. 



96 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 24 of 31 



2. Cell Phone "Jamming" Options 

The WAG is collecting data on available systems which would render cell phones 
inoperable within their secure perimeters without effecting surrounding 
communities. 

3. Cell Phone Detection Options 

The WAG, in conjunction with OCS, is collecting data on cell phone detection 
systems available for purchase. In addition, the use of canines is a viable option 
in detecting cell phones. This option is still in the evaluation stage. 

4. Increased Penalties for Cell Phone Possession in a Prison Setting 

Currently, it is not against the law for an inmate to possess a cell phone or for a 
staff member to bring a cell phone into a prison for an inmate. Also, CDCR 
regulatory policy prohibiting inmate possession of a cell phone is commensurate 
to an inmate found in possession of minor contraband. Regulatory policy is in 
the process of being changed to increase penalties for inmates found in 
possession of a cell phone. CDCR is attempting to sponsor legislation which 
would make introduction and possession of cell phones in a prison setting a 
crime. 

17. Efforts have been discussed to strengthen the inspection of items being 
brought into prisons by visitors and employees. What are you doing to 
address the continuing problem of inmate access to illegal substances? 

As discussed in the previous response, the three primary means of contraband entering 
a prison are through staff, visitors, and packages. Within the GP 2/3 institutions, we 
have taken a hands-on approach to address inmate access to illegal substances. 

With regards to staff bringing contraband into institutions, I am working with the OCS 
and the OIA on conducting "Operation Disconnect" at various prisons within the GP 2/3 
institutions. "Operation Disconnect" involves OCS and OIA staff arriving unannounced 
at an institution and conducting thorough searches of all items being brought into the 
prison by staff. FSP, San Quentin State Prison (SQ), and CSP-Solano were piloted in 
this operation. The operation has been successful in finding staff bringing contraband 
including cell phones, tobacco, and even weapons into a prison's secure perimeter. 

Within the Cell Phone Interdiction WAG of which I am the executive sponsor, we are 
evaluating instituting enhanced security measures for all persons entering a prison. 
The security provided upon entering an institution is envisioned as being similar to the 



97 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 25 of 31 



security provided at airports. Both staff and visitors would be subject to these 
requirements. 

I believe the gathering of intelligence is vital to discovering contraband in a prison. 
The more training we provide CDCR staff, the more secure we can make our prisons 
from inmates possessing contraband. I encourage the GP 2/3 wardens to provide 
training to all of their staff on identifying signs of staff misconduct related to contraband 
introduction, and on keeping their work places secure from inmates accessing items 
which can jeopardize safety. When touring my institutions, and during audits performed 
at each institution, I pay close attention to the warden's efforts in conducting regular and 
thorough searches of all areas under their purview. 



Cell Integration 

In the summer of 2008, CDCR announced that it would begin implementing the racial 
integration of cells - as per a court settlement - at two prisons, including Sierra 
Conservation Camp under your jurisdiction. At Sierra, many inmates initially balked at 
cooperating with the program. 

18. Please give us your assessment of cell integration and its current status 
at Sierra. What are the barriers to successfully implementing the program 
at your facilities? When will widespread implementation be a reality? 

Integrated housing at SCC has been operating effectively on the Level III SNY facility 
which contains celled housing. This facility is the only area with celled housing at SCC. 
The challenges that are presented are on the Level I and II facilities that are GP inmates 
living in the dorms and gyms. The inmate "culture" is not allowing inmates to accept the 
Integrated Housing Program (IHP). Currently, we are experiencing a 90 percent non- 
participation rate for inmates received into the institution. This also affects the 
Conservation Fire Camp pipeline as the inmates that are eligible for camp placement 
come from this population. These refusals occur during the housing process as the 
correctional officers are escorting the inmates to their assigned beds. If they are not 
assigned a double bunk with their own race, they are refusing and stating inmates won't 
allow them to bunk with another race without retaliation of violence. Although there has 
been minimal violence behind IHP, currently, the black population is the only race willing 
to comply with the program. SCC is not having a problem following the 
procedures/policies as they are written; however, CDCR is evaluating a change in the 
current regulations (increasing the seriousness of the rules violation) as it will 
encourage the inmates to "want" to participate in the IHP. 

It is extremely difficult to attempt to change the inmate culture with only 3,000 GP 
inmates at SCC. As more institutions come online, the inmate population will participate 
more readily, and this will show that participation in the program has become routine. 



98 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 26 of 31 



The I HP process is still very new and we have yet to complete a full cycle of the 
process. It will take approximately six months for a full cycle of the I HP process to be 
completed. This will include the process beginning at reception and continuing through 
the appeals process, as well as the inmate disciplinary process or impact to the 
inmate's credit earning status (such as zero-earning status) that the inmates may be 
subject to for failure to participate. It is anticipated that implementation for the next two 
prisons will begin in three to six months. 



Self-Help 

The reorganization of 2005 redesigned the chain of command, separating program and 
custody administration into distinct units. The reshuffling has changed how different 
parts of the department relate to one another. Organizationally, for instance, the 
Division of Community Partnerships is responsible for self-help programs such as A.A. 
and N.A., but in practical terms, wardens have maintained operational control over self- 
help programs at their own institutions. 

19. What role do you play in the operation of self-help programs? How do 
you coordinate with the Division of Community Partnerships? 

The implementation and operation of inmate leisure time activity groups is the 
responsibility of the wardens and their administrative staff. The warden has the 
authority to use existing resources such as staff sponsors, community volunteers, 
existing vocation or education programming space to meet the needs of the offenders. 

My role as the Associate Director is to ensure that coordination occurs with the DCP 
during the creation and operation of self-help programs. A benefit of the 2005 
reorganization has been the addition of the CPM position at each institution. This staff 
serves as the liaison between the warden and DCP. Through communication with the 
warden and the DCP, I ensure that the CPM position is filled in a timely manner and 
assist with any barriers to the hiring or training process. I have the ability to monitor 
each institution's self-help programs via the COMPSTAT reports. 

During monthly conference calls with the prisons, I encourage the wardens to share 
their best practices used for inmate self-help groups as it relates to custody coverage, 
lockdowns, program space, and community involvement. The CPMs are encouraged to 
work together especially when they are in close proximity to each other as is the case 
with ISP and CVSP. 



99 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 27 of 31 



20. As a result of the state not having a final budget for several months in 
2008, contracts for self-help programs such as A.A. and N.A. were 
cancelled or suspended. But in mid-December when Senate staff visited 
Solano, A.A. and N.A. still had not been reinstituted. Please explain the 
lag in restarting self-help programs, such as A.A., at your institutions. 

The Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous programs at CSP-Solano fall 
under Inmate Leisure Time Activity Group (ILTAG) operations. During the budget 
restriction period in 2008, while the self-help programs were temporarily suspended, 
CSP-Solano administrative staff had an opportunity to thoroughly review the program's 
operational process. During this review, discrepancies were discovered between CDCR 
regulations and the ILTAG staff payment methods. 

The program was restructured with specific rules, regulations, training, and supervision 
to be put in place prior to reinstatement to ensure compliance with departmental rules 
and regulations. Restructuring also led to the loss of primary sponsors due to vacancies 
resulting from resignations, removals, and/or changes in positions which no longer 
allowed for the qualifications and participation of the previous sponsors. CSP-Solano is 
currently actively recruiting to fill vacancies which will allow for the ILTAG programs to 
resume. 

It should be noted that during the time used for restructuring the ILTAG programs, 
CSP-Solano has continued to offer 13 community based volunteer self-help programs, 
13 religious based self-help programs, and 3 employee sponsored programs. 

I have worked closely with CSP-Solano administrative staff and the OCP to establish a 
standardized template of bylaws, drafting Department Operations Manual supplemental 
policies, establishing comprehensive training curricula for sponsors, and actively 
recruiting sponsors to fill vacancies within the programs. 

Other institutions in the mission were not affected in the same manner as CSP-Solano. 

Substance Abuse 

The department's internal statistical report for October 2008 listed about 3,400 
substance abuse treatment slots at your institutions. Approximately 2, 700 were filled. 

21. What responsibility do you have for initiating or monitoring substance 
abuse treatment programs? If you have a role, how do you relate to the 
Division of Addiction and Recovery Services? With more than 700 
inmates waiting to get into these programs at prisons under your 
jurisdiction as of October 31 st , who decides which inmates are admitted? 



100 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 28 of 31 



How do you assess the needs of inmates? What is the status of these 
programs in light of budget cuts? 

I have a direct role in initiating and monitoring substance abuse programs within the 
institutions and facilities under my jurisdiction. Within my mission, I provide oversight of 
six institutions and one Conservation Camp (Baseline) that provides a SAP. 

I work closely with DARS and the Classification Services Unit (CSU), and on a constant 
basis closely monitoring and evaluating patterns of SAP vacancies within my mission 
institutions. I work collaboratively in assessing and developing effective strategies for 
reduction of inmates on the SAP waiting list. The decision of admitting inmates to the 
program falls upon criteria developed by DARS and CSU. 

The needs of the inmates under SAP are assessed by institutional classification 
committees, local SAP counseling staff and the aforementioned units of DARS and 
CSU. However, it is my responsibility to ensure identified needs of the inmates involved 
in SAP are being addressed at the institutions. I do this by staying in constant contact 
with my wardens via telephone conference calls or sight visits to the institutions to 
provide guidance and oversight on the issues. Additionally, I have provided an 
expectation to the wardens that during times of institutional modified programs or 
lockdowns, SAP inmates are identified and assured their needs are being met via 
programs and services. 

Since implementation at the Baseline Conservation Camp, the SAP has experienced 
success in facilitating full time participation in the program. The success of the program 
has warranted the consideration of expanding the program to other camps in close 
proximity to institutions with SAP. I strongly believe camp inmates are of lower risk, less 
likely to recidivate, and more likely to optimize from benefits offered in the SAP. 



Infrastructure 

The Los Angeles Times recently reported on the quality of drinking water at North Kern 
State Prison, referring to high levels of arsenic. CDCR staff at a number of prisons 
bring their own water, choosing not to drink the water produced. 

22. What is your responsibility for monitoring drinking water quality at the 
prisons under your management? If it is not your responsibility, who is 
responsible? Are you aware of any institution where water is judged 
unhealthy to drink? 

My responsibility as Associate Director is to ensure the wardens are providing 
appropriate housing and programs for their offender population. The wardens within my 
mission have a clear understanding of my expectation to report significant events and 



101 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 29 of 31 



issues concerning their institution, including unsafe drinking water conditions. 
Any unusual occurrence is immediately reported along with the recommendation for 
resolution. It is the warden's responsibility to ensure preventive maintenance and 
facility repairs are completed appropriately and timely. The warden and their 
management staff work in conjunction with the FPCMD to elevate major construction 
projects in the form of Section 6 requests, Special Repair Projects or Capital Outlay 
Projects. I review these proposals and ensure the project is in line with the institution's 
mission or need and work in collaboration with FPCMD executive staff to approve the 
project. 

I believe having served as warden of a prison which faced significant waste water 
issues, I have a clear understanding of the Department of Public Health and the 
California Regional Water Quality Control Board mandates. Within CDCR, the FPCMD 
has the ultimate responsibility for monitoring and correcting drinking water quality. 

The following institutions within the GP 2/3 mission have water quality compliance 
issues: 

• CRC: On a rare occasion the institution's drinking water has tested high in 
coliforms. The water is treated with chlorine on a continuous basis to bring the 
water within acceptable drinking standards. Efforts to obtain a secondary system 
from the city of Norco are ongoing. 

• SCC: Has noted reoccurring issues with turbidity within its water supply during 
periods of heavy rain. During these time periods, a secondary filtration system is 
rented and utilized until the periods of heavy rains pass and the water supply is 
within acceptable drinking water standards. SCC has received approval and 
funding via a Major COBCP to begin the process of installing a permanent 
secondary filtration system. SCC is working in conjunction with the FPCMD to 
complete the project. 

Upon consulting with the FPCMD, I discovered that the California Institute for Women 
(CIW), which is managed within the Female Offender Program Services mission, has an 
existing water quality compliance issue: 

• CIW: Drinking water has tested high in nitrates due to surrounding agricultural 
operations. The staff and inmates have been informed to stop using the water 
for drinking purposes. The institution has provided an alternate water source for 
consumption by means of bottled water. Efforts are ongoing to install a de- 
nitrification plant at California Institute for Men which provides the water source to 
CIW to remove nitrates from the drinking water. 

I am fortunate to have an extraordinary team of wardens who consult with me and with 
each other on a daily basis to resolve the myriad of operational issues. 



102 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 30 of 31 



Board of Parole Hearings 

The Board of Parole Hearings typically will describe to life-term inmates the type of 
programs - such as obtaining a high school diploma or Alcoholics Anonymous - a 
prospective parolee should enroll in. 

23. How do you communicate with the Board of Parole Hearings regarding 
logistical support for the parole revocation and lifer hearings scheduled 
at your prisons? What processes do you have to ensure that this 
coordination is as seamless as possible to avoid postponed hearings? 
Do you encourage wardens to initiate discussions to inform 
commissioners of the programs available at your facilities? 

It is my expectation that the Board of Prison Hearings (BPH) Lifer Hearing process shall 
be conducted with the highest level of professionalism. In accordance with the 
Rutherford litigation, all efforts shall be made to prevent the hearing from postponement. 
Additionally, the Commissioners, Attorneys, Victim Next of Kin and inmates are to be 
treated with dignity and respect at all levels of the hearing process. 

Communication with the BPH regarding logistical support for the Parole Revocation and 
Lifer Hearings is accomplished in two ways; by speaking directly to the Commissioners, 
either prior to the hearings or during the exit interview, and through direct 
communication with the Classification and Parole Representative (C&PR) to discuss 
issues that may have a negative impact on the BPH hearings. 

As an example, the following process was implemented at ASP where the C&PR is the 
liaison between the BPH and the institution. 

• The C&PR meets and introduces himself to the BPH Commissioners on the first 
day of their arrival to the institution; 

• The C&PR ensures that the hearing rooms are clean and well maintained; 

• The C&PR inquires if the Commissioners have any special requests or needs 
that would enhance the BPH process; 

• The C&PR provides the Commissioners with an updated listing of the education, 
vocation and self-help programs currently available at the institution. He also 
provides the Commissioners with a telephone number should assistance be 
required during the BPH process. 

The C&PR stays in direct contact with the Case Records Manager and the BPH desk 
for potential problems that could result in a postponed hearing. 



103 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

Richard J. Subia 
Page 31 of 31 



Policies are currently in place and followed to ensure Lifer Hearings are not postponed, 
including the appropriate document production, adequate scheduling of attorneys and 
BPH psychologists for interviews, ensuring that reasonable accommodation and 
interpreter services are provided, if needed, and ensuring that the inmates are afforded 
their hearing rights prior to the hearing. 

The C&PR has been delegated with ensuring that the Lifer Clipboards are completed 
prior to mailing them to the District Attorneys, Inmate Attorneys and the Commissioners, 
timely. 

Additionally, the C&PR has been diligent in accessing and updating the Lifer Scheduling 
and Tracking System for the Lifer Hearings and the Revocation Scheduling and 
Tracking System for the Revocation Hearings. 

This process has proven to be effective and is being shared as a "best practice" with 
other missions in the GP 2/3 mission. 



104 



105 



Senate Confirmation 

William J. Sullivan, Jr., Associate Director 

Division of Adult Institutions 

Responses to Senate Rules Committee Questions 

February 18, 2009 



Statement of Goals 

The associate director of Levels III and IV is responsible for more than 35,000 men 
incarcerated in the following seven institutions: Calipatria State Prison, Centinela State 
Prison, California Medical Facility, California Men's Colony, Mule Creek State Prison, 
Pleasant Valley State Prison, and the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at 
Corcoran. In addition, starting in May a longtime Division of Juvenile Justice facility at 
Paso Robles is scheduled to be converted into the Estrella Correctional Facility for 
lower-level adult inmates. 

Under the department duty statement for this position, the largest share of the associate 
director's time - 40 percent - is to include visiting prisons to discuss, among other 
things, security arrangements, housing policies, labor relations, and litigation. Part of 
the function is also to serve as a mentor and sounding board for wardens. 
The associate director is also supposed to collaborate with other associate directors to 
ensure uniformity in the way prisons are manages. 

1 . Please provide us with a brief statement of goals. What do you hope to 
accomplish during your tenure as associate director for Level III and IV 
Institutions and describe your short- and long-term strategy? How will 
you measure your success? 

The responsibilities of the Associate Director include the provision of leadership and 
guidance to the wardens and executive staff of the seven institutions that comprise the 
General Population Levels 3 & 4 Mission (GP lll/IV). Additionally, this position monitors 
institutional operations to ensure they are in compliance with state and federal law, 
departmental policy, and institution procedures. 

During my tenure as Associate Director, I hope to establish a strong connection 
between the mission staff in headquarters and the institutions to foster an environment 
that will allow me to accomplish specific goals and objectives. My short-term strategy is 
to develop an environment where the staff in my mission are actively engaged in the 
issues being faced by our institutions. It is my vision to create a team approach where 
headquarters staff are a valuable resource to the institutions and to coordinate the 
efforts of other offices, departments, divisions and missions within the California 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) with institution efforts to 
successfully achieve their goals. I believe this approach will allow mission staff to 
recognize the vital role they play in ensuring the success of operations within the 
institutions to which they provide service. I also believe that this will better prepare 
them to assume positions of leadership and greater responsibility in the future. 



' ste *»*<x Committee 
^H 8 flog 106 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 2 of 34 



To achieve this goal, I have tasked the associate warden within my mission to assign 
specific institutions and duties to the GP lll/IV Mission staff. I have also solicited input 
from the staff on how to enhance their effectiveness and that of the mission. He and the 
other mission associate wardens have established a regular meeting schedule to 
address common issues between the missions, plan coordinated responses to 
assignments, and share best practices. This helps to ensure consistency of operations 
between institutions and missions, reduces duplication of effort, and allows for adoption 
of efficient and effective practices. 

My long range strategy is to ensure the mission staff are included in the various reviews 
of institutional operations, as well as on-site peer reviews, to help develop relationships 
to ensure effective communication and resolution of issues faced by the institutions. 
I initiated this process by including mission staff in the Computer Statistics 
(COMPSTAT) review process. I have shared the same expectation of the wardens at 
the institutions. CDCR uses the COMPSTAT process as a tool for institution managers 
and mission staff to assess and manage institution operations and make needed 
adjustments before issues become unmanageable. Empowering the staff to assess 
data, identify problems and develop coordinated resolutions is the first step toward 
preparing our future leaders to better manage their areas of responsibility. 
The legacy I hope to leave is that staff I have worked with are well prepared to 
continually assess and evaluate their areas of responsibility, identify issues or concerns 
early on, make needed adjustments before problems grow, and ensure all impacted 
stakeholders are involved in problem resolution. Some of the specific goals I hope to 
accomplish are: 

• Prepare inmates for re-entry through programs - To provide each inmate with 
the maximum opportunity for participation in programs that give him the best 
chance at a successful parole. Having followed an education based career 
path in CDCR, my focus will be on enhancing education programs in three 
basic areas. First, I am striving to ensure there are enough academic and 
vocational education programs to provide each inmate the chance to develop 
skills and abilities needed to succeed upon parole. Second, I want to make 
certain that existing programs are fully utilized and waiting lists are established 
to ensure program vacancies are filled immediately. Third, I am concerned with 
validating the effectiveness of programs in teaching inmates needed skills and 
abilities. Program effectiveness is probably the most important aspect of this 
approach because inmates are less likely to take advantage of programs that 
lack credibility with the inmate population. 

The Substance Abuse Program (SAP) is also available at three of the 
institutions in the GP lll/IV Mission. These programs are operated through 
contracted agencies specializing in the area of substance abuse treatment and 
the "therapeutic community." This is a holistic approach involving half-day 



107 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 3 of 34 



assignments with substance abuse counselors and the other half-day in an 
academic or vocational education program. My office monitors program 
attendance, the inmate population assigned to programs, and works with the 
institution, the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) and 
Population Management to ensure maximum inmate participation. 

Self-help programs are also important in the inmate's preparation for his 
eventual return to the community. The interesting thing about these programs 
is the fact that they are voluntary, which to me means the inmates participating 
find them to be credible and worthwhile. As a warden at the California 
Correctional Institution (CCI), I attended self-help group banquets, met with the 
volunteers and sponsors, and spoke to the participants. These visits were 
gratifying to me and demonstrated the Department's interest in and support of 
the self-help programs, and the participants' efforts at self improvement. 

I will measure my success in advocating these programs by touring the 
programs at the institutions, talking to the staff, inmates and volunteers about 
the programs, and reviewing enrollment, attendance and program completion 
data provided by responsible areas and the COMPSTAT unit. Lockdowns and 
modified programs are monitored to ensure that program suspensions are 
limited in duration, and that uninvolved inmates are allowed to participate in 
programs during modified programs. I also personally participate in the 
Performance Accountability and Improvement Process (PAIP) process at each 
institution allowing me to observe the process and become familiar with the 
institutional obstructions that must be overcome to maintain an effective 
program. 

To ensure access to medical, dental and mental health care - The Associate 
Director assists the warden at each institution to address obstacles that prevent 
or adversely impact the inmates' ability to access care. Most of these relate to 
inadequate treatment space and vacancies in clinical staff positions that 
provide the service or staff/resources to get the inmate to appointments. In 
order to measure our success in this area, we constantly monitor inmate 
appeals, inmate or outside correspondence or other complaints relating inmate 
access to care. I also work with the institutions to resolve issues brought to the 
Office of the Ombudsman and ensure they are appropriately addressed by the 
warden. Additionally, I work with the individual ombudsman to assess these 
areas when they tour the institutions. While assigned as the Warden at CCI, 
I found the ombudspersons to be extremely effective in identifying and 
resolving problems and continue to utilize their services in my current position 
to provide an objective evaluation of the processes institutions have employed 
to resolve access to care issues. I coordinate with the wardens and 
ombudspersons to ensure that identified institutional operations deficiencies are 
appropriately addressed by the institution, and specific health care related 



108 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 4 of 34 



issues are referred to the Division of Correctional Health Care Services 
(DCHCS) and Medical Receiver's Office where their intervention is necessary. 
One example of these efforts is an ongoing backlog of medical appeals at the 
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) and the number of 
overdue appeals was growing at an overwhelming rate. My office worked with 
the warden, the SATF health care administrators and DCHCS staff in 
headquarters to develop a cooperative process that has subsequently dropped 
the number of overdue medical appeals substantially. We continue to evaluate 
our efforts during monthly conference until the issue has been completely 
resolved. Maintaining an open dialogue between the institutions, my office, and 
DCHCS is the most effective way to resolve the issues that arise. 

Ensure the timely implementation of the Integrated Housing Program (IHP) - 
Phase II of the IHP was implemented at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) and 
Sierra Conservation Center (SCC) in October 2008. This was accomplished 
through the Department's significant efforts to develop an overall plan which 
included regulation changes, development of program policy, a training plan 
which included the curriculum, communication and education of stakeholders 
impacted by the plan, establishing racial compatibility codes for each inmate in 
the Department, infrastructure modifications, and additional training to staff at 
MCSP and SCC prior to the implementation. Following the Phase II 
implementation, staff from the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) continued to 
meet with the wardens and institution staff through our IHP Executive Steering 
Committee to evaluate and discuss issues encountered by each institution. 
During these meetings, we identified best practices, barriers to implementation, 
and developed policy and procedure changes to address issues related to 
technology infrastructure, inmate discipline and classification. 
These adjustments and changes are being incorporated into our 
implementation plans for future sites. We also continue to meet with the 
directorate and agency to share progress and discuss ideas and as we move 
forward. 

Success will be measured via benchmarks being incorporated into the 
COMPSTAT monitoring process, IHP Peer Reviews and IHP-related incident 
reviews. The involved missions and institutions have worked with the 
COMPSTAT unit to develop IHP monitoring benchmarks. Additionally, the 
audit instrument has been completed and tested at MCSP to evaluate the 
institution's compliance to the IHP policy and the audit instrument's success in 
capturing the information we need to accurately assess the program. Incidents 
associated with the implementation are being monitored to ensure we progress 
while preventing unnecessary threats to inmate, staff and institutional safety 
and security. These processes will continue until the IHP has been successfully 
implemented at all institutions. 



109 



Senate Rules Committee February 1 8, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 5 of 34 



In addition to these goals, the GP lll/IV Mission is involved in the development of a 
standardized protocol for addressing communicable and infectious disease exposure 
control incidents in the institutions. The protocol has been developed in conjunction 
with DCHCS to ensure these diseases are identified and contained rapidly, and to 
standardize CDCR's approach to exposure control incidents. 

Another critical role of the Associate Director is to work with budget staff to ensure that 
our institutions are fiscally responsible. To accomplish this, our mission is working with 
the Program Support Unit (PSU) to identify staffing concerns that require correction, 
action, explanation or justification. Conference calls with the warden and institution 
administration are used to develop a plan for addressing problematic budget concerns. 
A common issue among the institutions is aging facilities in desperate need of repair 
such as leaking roofs, dilapidated kitchens, insufficient lighting, and deteriorating 
perimeter security fencing. When these issues are identified, institutions submit Capitol 
Outlay Budget Change Proposals, Special Repair Requests and Section 6 Requests to 
obtain funding and approval to commence with repair and replacement projects. 
Our mission works with the Facility Planning, Construction, and Management Division 
(FPCMD) to identify the necessary funding to complete these repairs. 

2. -As you evaluate the institutions under your management, what are your 
highest priorities, and how do you allocate your time and resources? 
How often do you visit each of your institutions? 

My first priority is to develop and maintain consistency of operations between 
institutions. Many of the complaints we receive relate to inconsistent procedures 
between institutions, inconsistent enforcement of policies between staff, and 
inconsistent interpretation of policies between institutions. These inconsistencies result 
in additional workload in the inmate appeals and staff complaint processes. In addition, 
identified misconduct creates an additional workload on the staff and inmate disciplinary 
process. Occasionally these inconsistencies result in incidents of increasing magnitude. 
The directorate has recognized the impact these issues have on operations and has 
developed work groups and Warden's Advisory Groups (WAG) to address areas of 
immediate concern. The associate directors, mission staff, and representatives from 
the institutions consider all areas of concern related to an issue, and work 
collaboratively to develop and revise policies that will provide operational consistency 
across the institutions. 

The typical areas of concern are regulations related to inmate property, visiting, access 
to medical care, lockdowns and modified programs. One method of addressing these 
issues in our mission is to develop subject matter experts who are responsible for 
reviewing specific issues at all prisons within the GP lll/IV Mission. Examples of these 
specific areas are visiting, use of force review, and program status reviews for 
lockdowns and modified programs. By evaluating our institutions relative to specific 
areas, we identify problems early, identify best practices to share with other institutions, 






110 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 6 of 34 



and make necessary adjustments through institution management. When we see 
significant differences between institution practices, we review governing policy to 
ensure it is clear, request clarification as warranted, and incorporate the review into any 
recommendations for application of the policy by the institutions. 

My next priority is the coordination of resources from the Office of Correctional 
Education (OCE) and the Division of Community Partnerships (DCP) to maximize 
program availability within the institutions. Thus far, I have committed a great deal of 
effort toward this goal. As previously related, I personally attend the PAIP meetings at 
the GP lll/IV institutions. I also attend the COMPSTAT review meetings for all of the 
institutions within my mission and address the education component with the executive 
staff and principal. During COMPSTAT reviews, I have shared the importance I place 
on these programs and the need to fill program vacancies quickly, operate programs 
regularly, and resume suspended programs safely and rapidly. 

I have met with Larry Small, Warden (A), Calipatria State Prison, and his executive staff, 
to develop a proposal for rebuilding an education program that has slowly diminished 
over the past fifteen years. I participated in their initial meeting, informed the OCE of 
their efforts, and will be soliciting OCE's assistance, guidance and resources to 
reactivate these programs. Mission staff are working with the Classification Services 
Unit (CSU) and Population Management to ensure that Calipatria has an appropriate 
population meeting custody requirements necessary to access affected program areas. 
It is my intention to continue this effort at all institutions within the mission. 

As previously mentioned, I am concerned with program effectiveness. Lockdowns and 
modified programs create major impact to program effectiveness. Program 
effectiveness is reduced when inmates are prevented from participating in programs 
due to lengthy lockdowns or modified programs. Lockdowns and modified programs 
are tracked through the Program Status Report (PSR) process and inmates' access to 
these programs are monitored through this process to ensure they are given priority as 
facilities are returned to normal programming. 

Visiting is another high priority area for me because it provides a significant opportunity 
for inmates to develop and maintain family ties. The primary concerns related to visiting 
are; inconsistent enforcement of policies, discourteous treatment of visitors by staff, 
delays in processing visitors and inmates into visiting, and exposure to inclement 
weather while awaiting processing. Consistent enforcement of the visiting policy by 
staff at the same institution, and between different institutions, would alleviate many of 
the problems encountered. The inconsistent enforcement of policy leads to many 
complaints by visitors, inmates, and staff, often resulting in complaints of staff 
misconduct based on unprofessional conduct. I monitor this area through visitor and 
inmate complaints, inmate appeals and review of the local Inmate Family Council (IFC) 
meeting minutes from the institutions. Additionally, I attend the statewide IFC meetings 
to become aware of issues at other prisons and share best practices with the wardens 



111 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 7 of 34 



in my mission. Visiting is another area where I frequently work with the ombudspersons 
who often visit the institutions and provide me with an objective assessment of the 
visiting operation. I relied on them extensively as a warden and continue that 
relationship in my current assignment as associate director. The ombudspersons 
assigned to the GP lll/IV institutions keep me apprised of the complaints they receive, 
make unannounced visits on visiting days and provide me with their observations and 
interactions with staff, visitors and inmates. They also share these observations with 
the wardens, allowing them to address any issue that may have come to light through 
this process. 

Lockdowns and modified programs are another area of priority to me because of their 
impact on everything that occurs in an institution. They disrupt inmate access to 
education programs, substance abuse programs, work assignments, self-help 
programs, visiting, and even non-emergency health care in serious incidents. I monitor 
each lockdown and/or modified program at least weekly. One GP lll/IV Mission staff 
member is responsible for gathering all of the reports and other information related to 
each lockdown or modified program. The information is compiled and evaluated every 
Monday with regard to efforts by the institution(s) to resume normal programming. 
Any questions or concerns are immediately addressed with the warden to ensure the 
institution is progressing at an acceptable pace in returning to a normal program. 
Also, any concerns with specific program closures such as education, visiting, 
substance abuse programs, and California Prison Industries Authority (CALPIA) 
assignments are discussed with the warden and institution staff to ensure these 
programs are not unnecessarily delayed in reopening. Any modified program that 
exceeds 60 days results in a bi-weekly conference call to discuss issues preventing a 
return to normal program. These calls continue until the facility has returned to normal 
program. All efforts are made to ensure uninvolved groups are returned to a normal 
program as soon as possible while the issues between the involved groups are 
resolved. 

My goal is to visit every institution in the mission at least once per quarter, and more 
often when fiscally prudent. I have been able to do this by attending the COMPSTAT 
reviews, PAIP meetings, and during visits related to institution-specific issues. 
I normally include a tour of the institution during these visits. During the past year, I 
have visited each of the GP lll/IV Mission institutions at least three times. It is my hope 
to visit each institution often enough to be viewed as an integral part of their team, and 
not being viewed as a distraction because of infrequent visits. 

3. Please describe the management training you received for your current 
assignment. What sort of training do wardens receive, and is it on an 
ongoing basis? 

I have received a significant amount of training over the years beginning with receiving 
my Master's Degree and credential in Educational Administration from California State 



112 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 8 of 34 



University, Los Angeles in 1987. Additionally, I have participated in several programs 
provided by the CDCR. Some of the programs include: 

CDCR : 

Penal Code 832 Training 

Basic Supervision 

Equal Employment Opportunities Investigator Training 

Internal Affairs Investigator Training 

Skelly Officer Training 

Seven Habits of Highly Effective People 

Theory of Constraints Training 

Conflict Resolution Training 

Cultural Diversity Training 

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) : 

• Warden Peer Interaction Training 

• Newly Appointed Warden Training 

• Emergency Preparedness: Incident Command System for Corrections 

California State University : 

• Leadership Development Program, CSU, Sacramento 

• The Leadership Institute, CSU, Chico 

Office of Homeland Security : 

• National Incident Management System 

I continue to seek and participate in programs to enhance my skills and abilities that will 
benefit the CDCR. I readily share the information gained in training with my colleagues 
and mission staff to further enhance their abilities and prepare them as departmental 
leaders in their and CDCR's future. 

In addition to the training I have received over the years, I have gained a wealth of 
knowledge and experience through my various assignments and increasing 
administrative responsibilities. These included Supervisor of Vocational Instruction, 
Supervisor of Correctional Education Programs, Associate Warden, Chief Deputy 
Warden, culminating with my appointment to the position of Warden at the California 
Correctional Institution in 2003. I continue to learn and grow as a leader in my current 
assignment as the Associate Director - GP Levels III and IV Mission. 

Wardens continue to be offered opportunities to participate in some of the programs 
mentioned above. I recently submitted the names for two wardens in my mission to be 






113 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 9 of 34 



considered for participation in a training program for newly appointed wardens offered 
by the NIC in April 2009. These are great opportunities for the wardens and all costs 
associated with the training are borne by the NIC. All wardens are required to complete 
the National Incident Management System training sponsored by the Department of 
Homeland Security. In addition to these opportunities, wardens are provided a 
significant amount of training at the regularly scheduled warden's meetings, 
participation on special assignments and Warden's Advisory Groups designed to take 
issues facing the Department and to develop resolutions that can be applied 
department-wide. As mentioned earlier, I use the COMPSTAT and PAIP processes as 
training opportunities for wardens and executive staff at the institutions and for the 
GP Ill/IVteam in headquarters. 



Budget Crisis 

4. Please describe how the prisons under your management have been 
affected by the state's budget crisis. What specific program and staffing 
reductions have your prisons experienced? 

All of the institutions in the GP lll/IV Mission have been impacted by the State's budget 
crisis. They continue to face many challenges, including base budget reductions, 
compliance with legal mandates, costly litigation issues, continuing operational 
changes, and major structural issues. Each year the institutions are faced with reduced 
resources and expected to maintain mission critical activities, exercise fiscal restraint 
and continue to remain in compliance with Health & Safety regulations, Americans with 
Disabilities Act compliance issues, construction projects and programs ordered 
by the Medical Receiver in Plata v. Schwarzenegger and the Special Master in 
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger. Two programs that were directly impacted by the budget 
crisis earlier in the fiscal year were the substance abuse programs and self-help 
programs that were suspended on July 31, 2008. The substance abuse programs re- 
opened at SATF on August 26, 2008, Pleasant Valley State Prison on September 2, 
2008 and at California Men's Colony on September 3, 2008. The self-help programs 
were re-activated in November 2008, and are currently fully operational. 

As a result of the budget crisis, institutions have been directed to suspend or cancel 
contracts unless the services were related to a fire, life or safety issue. Institutions are 
restricted from hiring unless the position provides direct care or custody of inmates and, 
virtually all non-critical business related travel has been suspended. A freeze exemption 
process has been implemented by CDCR to ensure compliance with the restrictions for 
hiring, purchases and travel. The institutions' annual operating budgets are also 
impacted by having to defer services/functions in the following areas: job related training 
for staff, preventative maintenance of the physical plant, replacement of major 
equipment, and procurement of materials and supplies necessary to maintain the 
facilities. In addition, institution budgets have been negatively impacted by increased 



114 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 1 of 34 



costs for postage, utilities, food and specialized diets. The cost of overtime for medical 
guarding and transportation, and a general increase in the cost of other goods and 
services are some of the obstacles faced by wardens managing their budget during 
these difficult times. 

The program reductions over the years have included the closure of vocational 
education programs both from a budgetary perspective and an operational perspective. 
We are currently working collaboratively with OCE as mentioned earlier through the 
PAIP process as well as our own assessment of each institution's operations to 
increase vocational program opportunities to the inmate population. A good example of 
this process is the one I mentioned earlier currently underway at Calipatria State Prison. 
It is our hope that once completed; the proposal will be developed and provided to OCE 
for approval and identification of the position authority and funding for necessary 
equipment and training supplies/materials to re-activate the programs. 

Wardens are being asked to do more with less to overcome the diminishing resources. 
One such way that enhances vocational program effectiveness at no cost is increased 
use of community service offerings by the programs. These are beneficial in many 
ways and several institutions currently take advantage of this opportunity. Vocational 
programs can produce products related to their program to tax supported agencies for 
just the cost of materials they would supply. This offers a significant cost savings to the 
agency and ultimately taxpayers. Because the supplies and materials to complete the 
project are supplied by the end user, the vocational programs can provide a training 
project to their students at no cost. More importantly, the students in the programs 
benefit because they are working on a project that will be utilized in the community as 
opposed to normal training projects that are discarded once they are completed. 
Working on "real life" and meaningful projects gives credibility to the program from the 
inmate's eyes as well as those of everyone involved; from the agency receiving the 
product, those evaluating the programs to prospective employers of the inmates 
completing the program. The Mill and Cabinet program at MCSP is an excellent 
example of this process. 

5. Administrative segregation is the most costly form of incarceration at 
CDCR. The Inspector General recently released a report stating that too 
many inmates stay in "ad seg" too long. How do you respond to this 
criticism? Are you taking any of the Inspector General's 
recommendations? Which ones? What role do you and your wardens 
play in monitoring the time inmates spend in this costly housing? 

Administrative Segregation is a very costly housing option within the CDCR. The high 
costs associated with this type of housing are related to the increased staffing required 
for feeding, escorts, medication administration, property collection and distribution, and 
facilitation of other programs and activities within the units. It is my expectation that the 
wardens monitor their Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) population regularly to 



115 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 1 1 of 34 



ensure that the issues resulting in their ASU placement are addressed quickly. 
They are also expected to ensure that once the issues are resolved, the inmate is then 
scheduled for classification and released back to the general population or referred to 
the Classification Services Representative (CSR) for transfer to an appropriate 
institution. From that point, it is the responsibility of the Associate Director and mission 
staff to assist the warden and institution in conjunction with the Population Management 
and Transportation Units to facilitate the transfer as soon as possible. 

The CDCR is well aware of the delays in releasing inmates from ASU as described in 
the report produced by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Many of the delays 
are inherent to the classification process, and the need to ensure that inmates can be 
housed and program appropriately and safely while the issues resulting in their ASU 
placement are addressed. Some delays are directly attributable to other agencies over 
which CDCR has no control. In spite of this limitation, CDCR regularly interacts with the 
District Attorney's Offices and courts to request rapid resolution of pending case reviews 
and accepted cases. 

Wardens are responsible for monitoring the length of stay of inmates in ASU. This is 
managed via the classification process, COMPSTAT reviews, weekly ASU overflow 
reports from the PSU, and Population Management Issue Papers developed by the 
Population Management Unit. As the chairs of Institution Classification Committees, 
wardens and chief deputy wardens are responsible for ensuring that investigations 
related to ASU placement are assigned to specific individuals and work areas, and 
given specific due dates. 

As the Associate Director, I review the same reports and interact with the wardens to 
ensure that these reviews are completed expeditiously, and appropriate action taken to 
resolve outstanding issues. It is my expectation that the inmate is then seen at the next 
regularly scheduled classification committee hearing for return back to the general 
population or referred to the CSR for transfer to an appropriate institution that will 
address the issues resulting in his ASU placement. 

Based upon the findings of the OIG, DAI initiated a survey that is being administered 
through the GP lll/IV Mission, designed to assess issues resulting in delayed release 
from ASU. The survey asked that each institution identify the number of inmates 
pending a variety of processes which must occur prior to the referral for transfer, 
endorsement and ultimate transfer or release from ASU. The processes included in the 
survey were cases pending: Investigation, completion of a Rules Violation Report, 
District Attorney Referral, court proceedings, CSR action, completion of a Security 
Housing Unit (SHU) term and endorsed awaiting transfer to another institution. Each of 
these categories was further separated to provide data specific to inmates housed in 
ASU for: 91 to 180 days, 181 to 270 days, 271 to 360 days, and 361 or more days. 



116 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 1 2 of 34 



The information gathered in this survey will be used to identify the most common 
causes of delays to the ASU release process, and to establish benchmarks in the ASU 
length of stay that will prompt discussions between the Associate Director, warden and 
administrative staff of identified prisons. It is anticipated that this additional level of 
oversight will decrease the duration and number of unnecessarily extended ASU stays 
for inmates. 

As committed to in CDCR Secretary Matthew L. Cate's response to the OIG report, 
CDCR is developing a standardized ASU tracking system, implementing appropriate 
management review tools as the one mentioned above, and providing appropriate 
training to staff involved in the ASU classification process. In developing a standardized 
ASU tracking system, the missions have obtained numerous tracking systems currently 
in use in the institutions, to help identify best practices. The aforementioned survey will 
help with the implementation of appropriate management review tools and processes. 
Training will be provided to appropriate staff in regard to changes in the tracking, 
review, investigation, and follow-up actions required for improving the ASU release 
process. 



Prison Operations and Consistency 

Until the department's 2005 reorganization, prisons were overseen by four regional 
administrators. With the reorganization, the structure changed to five mission-based 
associate directors who report to the department secretary. Under this system, similar 
institutions are organized together and overseen by an associate director. Your position 
was filled by a number of acting administrators before your 2008 appointment. 

6. The stated goal of the mission-based system is to achieve consistency 
over prison policies and practices in areas such as custody 
arrangements, visiting, and programs. After more than three years, what 
are your examples of success and what issues are needing more 
attention as you seek consistency? 

The CDCR has worked diligently to meet the goal of achieving consistency in prison 
policies and practices. Staff employed by the missions have become familiar with 
departmental policies and related institution practices, and are better prepared to 
evaluate practices to ensure that they are applied equitably within comparable 
institutions. The reorganization has lead to the development and centralized oversight 
of the Property Regulations for inmates housed in institutions of similar levels. 
In addition, each mission has been tasked with oversight of various department-wide 
issues. The responsible mission coordinates the efforts of the five missions to develop, 
review, revise, and implement departmental policies related to these issues. 



117 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 13 of 34 



One example of this is the Female Offender's Programs and Services (FOPS) Mission 
oversight of all inmate visiting policies and procedures. In November 2008, FOPS staff 
coordinated a training session in Sacramento for custody supervisors and Family 
Services Coordinators (FSC). The three-day training session allowed staff from all 
institutions to be provided with departmental expectations, ask questions related to 
visiting and receive training by departmental experts in visiting policies and procedures. 
CDCR has also initiated a work group comprised of departmental experts in visiting, 
security and regulations. This work group meets regularly to evaluate departmental 
policy and institutional procedures/practices and assess the need for policy and 
regulation changes, training, and revision of the Visitor's Handbook. 

Within the GP lll/IV Mission institutions, I have worked toward consistency in the 
application of departmental policy through coordination of and communication with the 
wardens and institutional staff. I have worked diligently to fill all vacancies within the 
GP lll/IV Mission, and to train the staff regarding my expectations and the 
responsibilities of each of their positions. As mentioned in my goals statement earlier, 
the GP lll/IV Mission staff are being trained to become more engaged with their 
assigned institutions, be more aware of institutional issues, and to work collaboratively 
with staff in other missions on common issues. 

The PSU recently resumed an effort to standardize the naming of yards and positions 
within the institutions. This work was begun in 2004, prior to the reorganization effort. 
However, with the dissolution of the former PSU and massive turn over of staff in 
headquarters, the assignment was not meted out to another area for completion. 
With the reestablishment of PSU in 2008, this important function has been resumed, 
which will greatly aid the CDCR in achieving consistency in staffing within like prisons 
and for like programs. 

The reorganization has had both positive and negative impacts on rehabilitative 
programs within the institutions. The primary benefit to programs has been the 
advocacy of these important rehabilitative elements within the Department. In the prior 
organizational structure, while being recognized as useful tools to occupy inmates and 
reduce violence, these programs were often secondary considerations when institution 
operations were discussed. Since the reorganization, inmate education, substance 
abuse and self-help programs are a primary concern when program is disrupted or 
modified significantly. The DAI staff work closely with DARS to: track program 
attendance; reduce the frequency of program closures; to identify the causes of 
program closures; and to work collaboratively to resume education programs and 
self-help programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, parenting 
classes and Substance Abuse Programs as quickly and safely as possible. 

I think the area I am focusing on that continues to be in need of attention is the 
improvement in the connection between the DAI to the other divisions and departments 
that operate programs in our institutions. It is my belief that we in the mission need to 



118 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 14 of 34 



be the conduit between the institution and those other areas. By strengthening that 
connection, those programs will continue to become more effective and the 
administration at the institution can align their operations with the needs of the inmates 
utilizing these programs. 

7. As you scrutinize institutions, what do you look for to determine whether 
a prison is operating well? What are the red flags you look for? Is there a 
mechanism in place to share this information/best practices among the 
prisons you oversee? 

As the Associate Director of the GP Levels III & IV Mission, I review and interpret a 
number of reports and documents to monitor each institution's operations. I use the 
COMPSTAT reporting process, Peer Reviews, Inspector General's audits and reports, 
and a variety of periodic reports generated by the institutions and various headquarters 
offices. The periodic reports include the Administrative Segregation Weekly 
Population Analysis, CALPIA Lost Hours Report, Monthly DNA Data Collection Form, 
DPW (Disability Placement-Wheelchair) Wait List, Hunger Strike Log, Population 
Management Issue Papers, Monthly 3 rd Level Appeals Reports, and Visiting Statistical 
Report. 

During COMPSTAT reviews and the review of the periodic reports, data is analyzed to 
identify significant increases or decreases in reported information as compared to 
previous reports. These variations, or "red flags," are compared with information about 
institutional operations that may provide insight to the source of the change. If the 
variations cannot be logically linked to known factors such as modified programs, policy 
changes, or vacancies, I work with the wardens to identify potential sources of the 
variations. When the variations are attributed to factors under departmental or 
institutional control, I work with the wardens to develop and implement an appropriate 
plan of corrective action, or in the case of positive variations, to share the information or 
practice with the other institutions in GP lll/IV Mission. These issues are also shared 
with the other missions using the weekly associate directors meeting. These corrective 
action plans are provided to my office and are tracked through completion. 

In addition to the reports that I review, careful attention is paid to inmate appeals and 
correspondence from inmates and their families and friends for common issues either at 
a single institution or several institutions within the mission. I consider these common 
issues "red flags" of institution operations, inconsistent application of operational policy 
or lack of clarity of those policies. These issues are evaluated and referred to the 
institution for resolution. In the case of common issue involving several institutions, the 
evaluation is made to determine if the issue is departmental in scope requiring a 
resolution involving the other missions or if we need to provide clarity and guidance to 
those institutions in our mission. These issues are then shared with the other institutions 
if necessary to ensure continuity across the mission. 



119 



Senate Rules Committee 
William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 1 5 of 34 



February 18,2009 



I have found that some of the most compelling insight to prison operations is discovered 
while touring the prisons in the GP lll/IV Mission. During tours I have the opportunity to 
talk with staff and inmates, observe actual prison operations, assess the condition of the 
physical plant, and talk to representatives from the various labor organizations. 

The morale, attitude and pride of institution staff and inmates are an immediate indicator 
or "red flag" of how well a prison is operating. On the contrary, when staff and inmates 
are dissatisfied, negative or obviously complacent about substandard physical plant 
conditions, it is a very strong indicator that the institution needs strong leadership and 
direction. Observing prison operations provides the opportunity to evaluate prison 
practices for safety, security and efficiency and also to ensure they are in compliance 
with departmental policy. It also allows me to better understand the challenges faced by 
the institutions on a daily basis, and as new programs, staffing or construction are 
considered by headquarters. The condition of the physical plant gives insight into the 
daily involvement of institution leadership and helps identify serious funding needs for 
repairs and replacement of equipment. During discussions with labor representatives I 
am presented with the concerns of staff and labor representatives as well as 
recommendations for improving operations within the institution and the Department. 

As these issues are identified and resolved, they are communicated between the staff 
and institutions within the mission and across the missions by the interaction of staff 
within my mission and those from the other missions when they involve all institutions 
within DAI. I use conference calls with all wardens in the mission and include mission 
staff in headquarters to address common issues and to ensure the information is 
communicated to all for uniformity. Additionally, issues are shared at our weekly 
Associate Directors meeting and then shared at meetings within our mission. We use 
these opportunities and venues to share best practices and ensure more consistent 
institution operations statewide. 

8. What role do you play in ensuring that prisons under your supervision are 
fully engaged in their rehabilitation missions? How do you communicate 
with program staff that provide education and treatment? 
Are improvements needed? If so, please describe. 

As the Associate Director, I facilitate the connection between the GP lll/IV institutions 
and the DAI, the Division of Education, Vocations and Offender Programs (DEVOP), 
DARS and DCP to improve and expand education, drug treatment and leisure time 
activity programs. The goal of the GP lll/IV institutions is to safely provide rehabilitative 
programs and recreational activities as frequently as possible. To this end I evaluate 
the success of current programs, assess proposed programs to ensure implementation 
in a locale with the greatest opportunity for success, and assist the responsible 
Divisions in overcoming institutional barriers to program operations. 



120 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 1 6 of 34 



I communicate with program staff that oversee education and treatment on a regular 
basis. I make myself and my staff available to program staff, as needed, to assist with 
coordinating existing or proposed programs, and interact with institution and program 
staff to develop strategies to ensure maximum program operation. I monitor education 
programs via the Monthly Education Reports, audits of education programs, and 
through the COMPSTAT process where I can discuss directly with executive staff of the 
institution, issues of concern related to these programs or derive best practices that can 
be shared with the other missions and institutions. 

In addition, I personally attend the PAIP meetings to ensure that performance 
expectations relative to inmate rehabilitative programs are clearly defined and directly 
linked to budgeted resources. These meetings are intended to create a standardized 
process to expand rehabilitative programming, establish current and future performance 
expectations relative to rehabilitative programs, ensure fair performance targets are 
established, and monitor each institution's progress toward expanding rehabilitative 
programs and achieving outcomes. Thus far, I have personally attended the PAIP 
meetings at California Medical Facility (CMF) and MCSP to demonstrate to institution 
staff the importance that I place on the rehabilitative programs offered to the inmate 
population. 

The PAIP meetings are a recent addition to the other program management and 
coordination efforts designed to evaluate new and proposed programs, and ensure 
appropriate attendance and assessment of the programs. It is too early in the PAIP 
process to fairly assess the extent to which improvements or changes to the process 
are warranted. Thus far, the PAIP meetings have been a valuable tool for program and 
institutions staff to achieve the stated goals. 

All programs can be improved regardless of how effective we feel they may be. 
It is obvious when looking at recidivism rates that the programs operating within the 
institutions are not as effective as we would like them to be. It is my belief that all of 
these programs should be infused into the very fabric of the daily institutional 
operations. Replicating the community the inmate will be returning to while incarcerated 
is high on my priority list of things I would like to accomplish during my tenure. We are 
currently looking at ways of making participation in academic and vocational programs a 
prerequisite to being placed into work assignments. By working with CALPIA, for 
instance, vocational programs can be utilized to provide them with a trained workforce 
at least with entry level skills. This also instills more credibility to the programs from the 
inmate's perspective in that participation in these programs provides the opportunity to 
inmates at quality work assignments. Touring the program areas of each institution is 
the best way to ensure that the programs are operating effectively. This way I can talk 
to the staff involved in operation of the various rehabilitative programs and inmates 
taking advantage of them to get their perspective of program effectiveness. 
As mentioned earlier, I am personally engaged in the process for expansion of the 
vocational programs at Calipatria State Prison and have made it a priority with their 



121 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 17 of 34 



executive team to develop a proposal after they complete their assessment of existing 
space and resources. Once completed, the mission will work with OCE to get the 
approval and additional resources necessary to activate the programs. 

9. When there is a lockdown or modified program, meaning that activities of 
some inmates are limited, what role do you play in reviewing the situation 
and making recommendations about whether the lockdown should be 
lifted? 

The institutions are required by departmental policy to notify the Associate Director of 
serious incidents as soon as safe and practical to do so. In addition, within 24 hours, 
the institution is expected to complete and submit an Incident Package which includes a 
synopsis of the incident and information about all involved inmates, staff and visitors. 
The institution is responsible for notifying the Associate Director when an incident 
results in modification of inmate programs beyond 24 hours. This reporting process is 
documented on a PSR. Each Mission has one or more staff assigned to review PSRs 
for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness. The PSRs are updated whenever 
significant changes to the modified program are implemented, but at least weekly. 

It is my expectation that once a program has been placed on lockdown or modified 
programs status, the process for return to a normal program begins immediately. 
I discuss this expectation regularly with the wardens as has the directorate on many 
occasions. Outside of the departmental reporting requirements as described above, the 
institution should immediately begin conducting a threat assessment to evaluate the 
circumstances surrounding the incident and the issues that need to be addressed in 
order to begin an expeditious return to a normal program. Meetings should be 
convened involving all stakeholders, including supervisors of the various rehabilitative 
programs, to ensure minimum impact or allow the Alternative Education Delivery Model 
(AEDM) to begin in the interim. The AEDM is not designed to be a long term method for 
providing access to educational opportunities and a return to the classroom setting must 
be the priority. Also the education programs, substance abuse programs and critical 
work assignments must be opened for at least the non-involved inmate population at the 
earliest possible time once security concerns have been addressed. These issues as 
well as access to medical, mental health and dental care are closely monitored to 
ensure the minimal amount of adverse impact is achieved. 

As the Associate Director, I remain informed about each of these incidents through 
review of the PSRs, discussion with the mission staff responsible for tracking and 
regular contact with the warden at the institution. If the duration of the modified program 
reaches 60 days, the Mission PSR coordinator(s) schedule conference calls with the 
affected institution(s). These calls occur every two weeks until the institution is able to 
return the facility to normal programming. During the program status conference calls, 
the warden and institution management staff provide updates to us on their efforts to: 
Identify the cause of the incident; assess the ongoing ramifications of the incident; and 



122 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 18 of 34 



efforts at returning the facility to a normal program. These calls provide me the 
opportunity to evaluate the institutions' handling of incidents and their aftermath, as well 
as provide feedback and insight to the institution staff on their plans to resume normal 
program. Lengthy or difficult modified programs are discussed providing ideas and 
options for strategies or best practices that have had successful results in similar 
situations in the past. 

As necessary, I offer guidance on investigations into staff and inmate misconduct, 
facilitate the transfer of involved offenders, if necessary, and function as liaison with the 
Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) for conducting independent threat assessments. 
I am responsible for being informed on the institution's efforts to return to normal 
programming and providing expectations to institutional staff when it is clear that this 
action is warranted. 

10. How do you keep yourself apprised of what is happening inside the 
prisons? How often do you personally visit the prisons under your 
management? 

There are a variety of ways in which I keep myself apprised of what is happening inside 
the GP lll/IV Mission prisons. Touring the institutions gives me the best feedback 
because I can directly observe and evaluate institutional operations. Additionally, 
through my staff, I constantly monitor correspondence from staff, inmates and inmate 
friends and family. As mentioned earlier, I monitor inmate appeals, employee 
grievances, Monthly Budget Plans, Peer Reviews and a variety of periodic reports. The 
periodic reports include the Administrative Segregation Weekly Population Analysis, 
CALPIA Lost Hours Report, Monthly DNA Data Collection Form, DPW (Disability 
Placement-Wheelchair) Wait List, Hunger Strike Log, Population management Issue 
Papers, Monthly Third Level Appeals Reports, and Visiting Statistical Report. 
Reviewing these reports helps me to identify areas of institution operations that are 
excelling and others that may require additional attention or resources. 

Departmental policy also requires that wardens and their designees report major 
incidents or incidents which may be of significant interest to the Department. 
This information comes in the form of electronic mail, telephone calls and Daily Briefing 
Reports, and typically includes a brief synopsis of the incident and identifies involved 
staff, inmates and visitors. Following particularly significant or sensitive incidents, the 
institution staff will provide regular updates to the initial information until the incident or 
unusual occurrence is largely completed. 

Another important way to stay apprised or what is happening inside the institutions 
within my mission is through communication with the Office of the Ombudsman. 
They are a valuable resource and a virtual clearinghouse of issues, information, 
concerns and/or complaints regarding the institutions within my mission. They also 
make periodic visits to the institutions and I can use their visits in conjunction with mine 



123 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 19 of 34 



to evaluate prison operations. I have been working with them on issues related to 
visiting that I have encountered and complaints that they share with me to evaluate and 
provide resolution. I consider them an extension of my office for monitoring institutional 
operations. As mentioned earlier, I utilized their services as a warden and will continue 
to do so in my current position. 

As mentioned earlier, my goal is to visit each institution on a quarterly basis and more 
frequently if possible. Attending the COMPSTAT and PAIP meetings gives me the 
opportunity for those additional visits. Thus far I have visited every institution at least 
three times and others more frequently as issues have arisen. 



Visitation 

A key to rehabilitation is ensuring that inmates maintain contact with their families 
through prison visits. At Pleasant Valley State Prison, a facility under your supervision, 
inmates complain about uneven treatment of visitors by staff. 

1 1 . Please describe training of visiting officers to ensure consistency among 
institutions and within different visiting areas within the same prison. 

Consistency and standardization are two goals of the Department and present difficult 
and interesting challenges. The Department Operational Manual provides policy for 
administering the inmate visiting programs. The California Code of Regulations, 
Title 15, provides regulations governing the Department's visiting programs, and 
additional clarity to the facilitation of visiting programs. It is my expectation that all 
visiting programs conform to these policies and that each visiting room within the same 
institution follow those same guidelines. Visiting supervisors should be addressing 
those issues as they are brought forward or discovered during tours to achieve the 
desired consistency and improving the visiting experience for all involved. 

It is a departmental expectation that CDCR custody supervisors conduct meetings on a 
daily basis with their assigned staff. These meetings allow the supervisors an 
opportunity to provide ongoing on-the-job training. During these meetings Visiting 
Lieutenants and Sergeants train visiting staff regarding revised policies and issues or 
concerns related to the visiting program. I stress the importance of visiting staff having 
ready access to their supervisors to address problems quickly and at the lowest level 
possible. The Lieutenants and Sergeants continue to emphasize the value of inmate 
visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community 
connections, and preparing inmates for successful release and rehabilitation. During 
visiting operations, there is a Lieutenant and/or Sergeant present in the visitor 
processing centers to strive for consistency in processing visitors into the institutions. 



124 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 20 of 34 



I have clearly stated my expectations to the GP lll/IV wardens that staff adhere to 
approved policies and procedures related to the visiting program. When issues arise 
that are not clearly governed by the regulations or policies, the visiting supervisors are 
expected to address the situation in a professional and courteous manner while 
ensuring the safety of staff inmates and visitors and the security of the institution. 

In November 2008, the DAI sponsored a week-long training seminar for visiting 
supervisors and FSC from the institutions to address the exact issues expressed by 
inmates at Pleasant Valley State Prison and other institutions throughout the state. The 
training provided current visiting supervisors with insight into interpretation of visiting 
regulations, general training about facilitating a visiting program, clearance of visitors, 
application of sanctions against visitors and inmates, and guidelines for responses to 
visiting complaints. The training provided visiting staff with an opportunity to ask 
questions of headquarters staff familiar with visiting regulations and programs. 
In addition, the Director was able to share her expectations and the training allowed 
headquarters staff to share best practices with the visiting staff from the institutions. 

The IFCs are typically very involved in addressing concerns related to the visiting 
program. Under my direction, the GP lll/IV wardens continue to meet with the IFCs on 
a monthly basis. These meetings provide the IFCs with a venue to address issues and 
complaints from inmate families. The issues are presented by the IFC, discussed with 
institution representatives, and when appropriate, corrected by the institutions. 
Corrective actions developed as a result of interaction with the IFC are reported on at 
subsequent IFC meetings. As the Associate Director, I review the IFC meeting minutes 
from each GP lll/IV institution in order to monitor issues that are brought to the attention 
of the warden and responsiveness of the institution to bring resolution to those issues. 
It is also my intent to visit each institution to attend an IFC meeting to become familiar 
with each of their formats and evaluate their effectiveness. This way I can share my 
expectations of the local IFC as well as those same expectations of the institution. 
I will also be touring the visiting rooms during my visits to observe operations as well a 
talking to staff, inmates and visitors relative to their views of and experiences in the 
program. 

I also attend the statewide IFC meetings in headquarters. At these meetings I can 
become familiar of issues impacting other institutions and share those with the 
institutions in my mission as well as become aware of issues at institutions within my 
mission in need of a remedy. I consider this a form of sharing best practices and a way 
of bringing consistency to our visiting programs statewide. 

This is an area where I utilize the resources of the Office of the Ombudsman as an 
extension of my office. They have the ability to visit and tour institutions to observe the 
operations of the visiting program. They also receive the complaints associated with the 
program allowing us in the mission or the warden at the institution to address those 
complaints. If I have issues or concerns, I will regularly meet with the ombudsperson 



125 



Senate Rules Committee February 1 8, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 21 of 34 



assigned to the institution to look into those concerns on their next visit. They also will 
conduct unannounced visits to observe the visiting operation and share those 
operations with the warden and me. When complaints or concerns have been resolved, 
I rely on them to return to evaluate the effectiveness of the resolution rather than waiting 
for another complaint. 

12. Please describe any efforts you are making to reduce the wait times and 
improve visiting conditions. 

Visiting supervisors ensure they utilize visiting staff resources in the most effective 
manner in order to reduce the wait times for visitors. All institutions have received 
direction to continue processing visitors during count times to reduce delays. 
Depending upon the physical plant and institutional visiting staffing complement, when a 
visitor arrives in the visitor processing center staff identify the inmate that is receiving 
the visit. Visiting staff contact the inmate's assigned housing unit in order to notify the 
inmate of the visit, to prepare for the visit. 

Facility supervisors have been directed to provide on-the-job-training to facility/housing 
staff and reiterate the need to expedite the processing of inmates to their visits. 
Additionally, program/facility staff encourage communication between inmates and their 
visitors to schedule the visits, which prompt the inmates to be prepared. 

Visiting conditions are an extremely high priority. Staff ensure the visiting rooms and 
surrounding areas are clean and orderly. In addition, all staff assigned to these areas 
are trained to conduct themselves professionally and courteously during their 
interactions with visitors and inmates. Visiting supervisors are required to routinely tour 
the visiting areas under their supervision, ensuring policy and procedures are being 
consistently followed and enforced, as well as speaking with all the staff, visitors and 
inmates. 

The DAI has assembled a work group to address changes needed in the Department's 
visiting regulations. The focus of the work group is to revise regulations and policies to 
eliminate areas within the regulations that allow for interpretation, and ultimately lead to 
misapplication of the regulations or unequal enforcement from institution to institution. 
The current areas of concern include revision of the CDCR Visitor Handbook, 
modification of the minor visiting regulations, and improvement of the visitor dress code. 
Additionally, a Warden's Advisory Group has been formed to look into the issues around 
improving processing times. One such idea currently being utilized at an institution is 
scheduling appointments in order to reduce the time involved. That proposal is currently 
being evaluated for possible implementation statewide. These types of best practices 
are shared through the WAG and other work groups in our effort at continual 
improvement to the visiting programs at all institutions. 



126 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 22 of 34 



In addition, during the past year, CDCR has moved forward with requests from many 
institutions to construct covered visitor waiting areas for use by visitors awaiting 
processing. 

Finally, I work closely with the GP lll/IV institutions and my staff to evaluate visiting 
complaints and ensure that assessed terminations, suspensions and exclusions are 
appropriate and completed per departmental regulations. I have on several occasions 
requested copies of video evidence to evaluate complaints by visitors requesting review 
of the circumstances leading to their disciplinary action. 

Lastly, as mentioned in my response to the previous question, in addition to my visits to 
observe the visiting operation, I rely heavily on the resources and efforts of the Office of 
the Ombudsman to observe and share their impressions of the visiting program to 
include the efficiency of visitor processing with the warden and myself. 

I am a firm believer in visiting as a means to maintain strong family ties and prepare 
inmates for re-entry into their communities. To this end, I encourage the GP lll/IV 
wardens to resolve visiting issues at the lowest possible level and provide an 
environment that encourages visiting. 



Staffing 

The prison population remains around 172,000. The average annual cost to incarcerate 
an inmate is about $46,000. Your prisons had about 95 correctional staff vacancies as 
of November 2008, but the Legislative Analyst in February 2008 estimated CDCR 
annually receives 130,000 applications for correctional officer positions. 

13. What are you doing to reduce the number of staff vacancies and recruit 
and train new officers? With so many applicants, is there a way for you to 
further reduce the officer vacancy rate? 

As a Department, CDCR strives to keep staff vacancies at a minimum. However, 
through retirements, promotions, transfers, and a variety of other influences, CDCR is 
required to continually recruit and hire new Correctional Officers to keep the vacancy 
rate at a manageable level. In order to keep pace with the statewide vacancies, a 
specialized unit recruits, tests, and interviews applicants for the position of Correctional 
Officer. When successful applicants complete the testing process, they are scheduled 
to attend the 16-week CDCR training academy. 

During the 16-week academy, cadets are trained in all aspects of the Correctional 
Officer position. The training is very comprehensive and is designed to provide the 
cadet with the skills and abilities necessary to perform the duties of a Correctional 
Officer in a correctional setting. Upon graduation from the academy, Correctional 



127 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 23 of 34 



Officers are assigned to one of the State's correctional facilities to protect the public by 
safely housing inmates in a state prison facility. In this role, Correctional Officers are 
responsible for the security of the institution and the safety of staff, visitors and inmates. 

In 2003 and 2004, in an effort to reduce costs, the CDCR Academy was closed for 
approximately 12 months. Ultimately, the vacancy rate at several institutions resulted in 
the reactivation of the academy in late 2004. Since the reactivation of the academy, the 
Department has operated overlapping academy classes and satellite academies to 
produce a larger number of Correctional Officers to fill the statewide vacancies. 
The overlapping and satellite academies have significantly reduced the number of 
officer vacancies throughout the state. 

In addition, the Department repurposed the deactivated Northern California Women's 
Facility to a CDCR Academy Annex. This enabled the Department to produce a greater 
number of sworn custody staff more quickly, and ensured that the mandated training of 
newly promoted Correctional Sergeants, Lieutenants and Parole staff would continue 
uninterrupted. 

Although the Department receives over 130,000 applications per year, only a small 
percentage of those applicants pass the entrance exams and background check to 
successfully attend the academy. 

The Correctional Officer vacancy rate is very low at this time, although an increased 
demand is expected based upon the Inmate Access to Care units being established by 
the Medical Receiver in Plata v. Schwarzenegger. As these needs increase, academies 
will also increase to keep pace with the expected vacancies. Additionally, as population 
reduction strategies continue, the deactivation of overcrowding beds will result in 
closures of dayrooms and gymnasiums. Staff associated with those deactivations will be 
utilized to fill the remaining vacant posts. 

14. What role do you play in developing a "bench" so that senior managers 
are available and ready to step into associate warden and warden roles? 
Senior managers always seem to be in short supply at CDCR. What could 
be done to improve this situation? 

As an Associate Director, I am responsible for preparing staff within the GP lll/IV 
Mission and institutions to assume senior manager roles within the CDCR. I approach 
this task with a three-pronged strategy including training, experience and leadership 
modeling. 

Throughout my career I have been afforded the opportunity to attend a variety of 
training that has prepared me for leadership positions. This training has been developed 
and provided by the Department, presented and coordinated with the California 
University systems, and offered to departmental staff sponsored by the NIC. As a 



128 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 24 of 34 



benefactor of the excellent training offered by the Department, I work actively to ensure 
my staff are afforded as many appropriate training opportunities as possible. 
In addition, I ensure that my staff are cross-trained with other positions to provide 
continuity of operation and improved morale. To this end, I recently recommended two 
of the GP lll/IV Mission wardens for new warden training sponsored by NIC. In addition, 
I expect the GP lll/IV wardens to comply with departmental requirements regarding 
leadership training for supervisors and managers within the institutions. Attending 
work-related training helps to prepare potential candidates for success as leaders within 
the Department. 

In addition to formal and informal training, I ensure that my staff in headquarters and in 
the institutions are afforded the opportunity to learn from experience. These learning 
opportunities are provided through out-of-class assignments, Training and Development 
(T&D) or acting position assignments, and through increased responsibility to assist with 
assignments typically handled at higher levels. Serving in out-of class assignments 
allows employees to work in classifications other than their appointed classification. 
This familiarizes the employee with additional skills and responsibilities, making the 
employee a better candidate for leadership roles. T&D and acting assignments allow 
staff to serve temporarily in a classification above their current appointed position, but 
outside of the same promotional chain. This exposure makes them better employees in 
the short-term by giving them a better understanding of institutional operations outside 
of their normal career path. In addition, it gives the employee a broader understanding 
of the unit's overall operation and more detailed understanding of each employee's 
responsibilities within the institution. Finally, I challenge staff to assist with and 
complete assignments that are typically handled at higher levels. These opportunities 
help prepare staff by giving them an understanding of the work completed by managers, 
and helps to instill a sense of ownership with the staff. 

Most importantly, I help to prepare staff to become senior managers by modeling 
leadership in my everyday actions. To be an effective and successful leader, a person 
needs to confirm organization expectations regarding behavior by being a role model, 
be willing and able to make difficult decisions, and be prepared to accept the 
consequences of the decisions made. Every member of an organization is expected to 
act as a role model for peers and subordinates. This expectation is magnified for senior 
managers as they are departmental leaders and are scrutinized with increased intensity. 
I believe that my actions as a leader have demonstrated my understanding and support 
of departmental expectations regarding behavior for senior managers. In addition, I 
have empowered the wardens to make necessary decisions based upon departmental 
policy, understanding that I will support their decisions. The GP lll/IV wardens also 
have a very clear understanding that they are responsible for the operation of their 
institutions and are accountable for all aspects of the facilities' operations. It is my goal 
that future leaders will observe the behavior of positive role models, and model their 
own behavior to become the departmental leaders of the future. 



129 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 25 of 34 



CDCR has taken an aggressive approach to filling senior manager positions and in 
preparing staff to assume these leadership roles. Departmental leaders have taken an 
active interest in filling senior manager vacancies as quickly as possible. In addition, 
CDCR's leadership has worked diligently to ensure that capable candidates are 
identified, mentored and prepared for eventual leadership roles. Capable candidates 
are identified via the progression planning process, departmental examinations, and 
personal observation of current departmental senior managers. These potential 
candidates are mentored through training, opportunities for expanded experience and 
personal mentoring by supervisors and managers. 

In order to ensure that sufficient numbers of eligible candidates are available to fill 
senior manager vacancies, the Department needs to continue identifying and 
developing candidates through training, experience, and leadership modeling. 



Contraband 

15. Department officials have warned about the growing security threat from 
the smuggling of mobile telephones into prisons. It was reported that 
over 600 cell phones were found inside Solano State Prison alone. 
How are you addressing the problem of inmates' access to cell phones? 

The CDCR has expressed serious concerns over the rising number of cellular 
telephones discovered in the possession of inmates within the secure perimeters of our 
institutions. These very real concerns include the potential for coordination of an 
escape attempt with outside resources, planning for narcotics smuggling into the 
prisons, the potential for information breaches, and the influence gained by inmates 
over staff who participate in over-familiar activities such as smuggling contraband. 

In order to address the problem of inmates' access to cellular telephones, I ensure that 
all allegations of cell phone introduction and possession are thoroughly investigated. 
In addition, I ensure that perimeter security operations are facilitated per departmental 
policy via conversations with the GP lll/IV wardens and the Peer Review process. 
I have ensured that all GP lll/IV institutions have developed and are using cellular 
telephone accountability processes for all state-issued cellular telephones allowed into 
the institutions by policy. I have authorized surprise, targeted cell searches in response 
to confidential information received regarding inmates in possession of cellular 
telephones. 

The CDCR has established a WAG responsible for reviewing all issues related to 
cellular telephones in institutions. The WAG continues to evaluate many 
recommendations regarding the interdiction, confiscation, and obsolescence of cellular 
telephones in institutions. These potential resolutions include enhanced search 
processes for staff entering the institutions, increased sanctions authorized by proposed 



130 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 26 of 34 



legislation, increased sanctions via the inmate disciplinary processes, and purchase of 
technology to detect or prevent cellular telephone signals within an institution. 

Many other custodial departments within California and in other states have 
implemented more stringent search policies including staff processing through metal 
detectors, x-ray of staff lunch boxes and belongings brought into the secure perimeter, 
and clothed-body searches of staff entering the institution's secure perimeter. 

The CDCR continues to seek sponsors for legislation focused on increased sanctions 
for inmates found in possession of cellular telephones within the secure perimeter of the 
Department's institutions. Additionally, the WAG has tasked a work group with 
developing proposed regulations within the disciplinary section reflecting increased 
administrative sanctions for inmates found in possession of cellular telephones as 
another deterrent. The WAG has begun interacting with various vendors to evaluate 
available technology designed to detect cellular telephone signals, or disrupt cellular 
telephone signals within a controllable area. 

All of these potential resolutions are being considered and pursued with an 
understanding that in the current fiscal situation there will be limited resources available 
for new equipment and technology. 

16. Efforts have been discussed to strengthen the inspection of items being 
brought into prisons by visitors and employees. What are you doing to 
address the continuing problem of inmate access to illegal substances? 

The introduction of contraband into the secure perimeter of CDCR's institutions is of 
particular concern to all staff. The possession of contraband by inmates is detrimental 
to the core functions of the institutions and the Department from both a custodial and 
rehabilitative perspective. 

Inmates in possession of cellular telephones, illegal drugs, weapons or other 
contraband present a threat to the security of the institution, the safety of staff and 
inmates, and potentially, the safety of the public. Inmate conversations on cellular 
telephones cannot be monitored by custodial staff as they are on calls made by inmates 
on the institutional telephone systems. This allows inmates the freedom to coordinate 
narcotics transactions, facilitate over-familiar relationships with staff, conspire to commit 
criminal acts inside and outside of the institutions, and potentially plot an escape 
involving outside assistance. Illegal drugs in the institutions are a primary source of 
gang violence, victimization of inmates, and manipulation of and over-familiarity with 
staff. Inmates in possession of weapons present a very obvious threat to the safety of 
staff, visitors and inmates. Possession of these same items perpetuates an inmate's 
criminality and prevents or delays the rehabilitative effort. These types of contraband in 
the institutions significantly impact the Department's ability to effectively provide 
rehabilitative programs. 



131 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 27 of 34 



As previously discussed, the CDCR is exploring a variety of options designed to reduce 
the introduction of contraband into the institutions by staff and visitors. The GP ll/lll 
Mission has successfully implemented "Operation Intercept" at California State Prison, 
Solano, and other institutions. This program is designed to intercept contraband being 
introduced into the institution by staff as they are processed through the staff entrance. 
The program is facilitated through a joint effort of institution investigative staff, the OCS, 
and the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). In addition, staff are continuously reminded of 
the dangers and ramifications of introducing contraband into the institution for an 
inmate. Staff receive annual training on over-familiarity with inmates and their family 
members. 

In order to reduce or prevent inmates' access to contraband, I ensure that all allegations 
of contraband introduction and possession are thoroughly investigated. In addition, 
I ensure that perimeter security operations are facilitated per departmental policy via 
conversations with the GP lll/IV wardens and the Peer Review process. I have ensured 
that all GP lll/IV institutions have developed and are using cellular telephone 
accountability processes. I have authorized surprise, targeted cell searches in 
response to confidential information received regarding inmates in possession of 
contraband. Institutions are also tasked with identifying potential institution security 
breaches that could provide access points for contraband introduction and to mitigate 
the threat in those areas. 



Disease Management 

The federal receiver overseeing prison health care said in his fourth bimonthly report 
that prison overcrowding has increased the number and seriousness of infectious and 
communicable diseases, jeopardizing prisoners, staff, and the public. However, 
inmates at Pleasant Valley complain that items necessary for basic public health, 
including soap and toilet paper, are not regularly made available to them. A similar 
contention was made about Pleasant Valley five years ago, though it was denied by 
administrators. 

17. How does your office coordinate with the receiver to prevent the spread 
of infectious and communicable diseases? While soap and toilet paper 
may be in plentiful supply in warehouses, how do you monitor that it is, in 
fact, being provided to all inmates on a regular basis? 

The DAI, represented by the Associate Directors, is working collaboratively with the 
Assistant Secretary, Office of Risk management (ORM), to build a proactive risk 
management program for CDCR to promote a safe and healthy environment for 
inmates, staff, visitors and surrounding communities. 



132 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 28 of 34 



ORM has developed a strong partnership with the Medical Receiver's Public Health Unit 
(PHU) since the environment is the same for both inmates and staff. Some of the 
coordinated efforts at protecting staff and inmates within the institutions are described 
below: 

• Immediate response by ORM and PHU with prison officials to contain disease- 
related outbreaks in the prisons. 

• Development of a standardized Injury, Illness, Prevention Program (IIPP) to 
address health and safety hazards in the workplace and prison environment. 

• System-wide Exposure Control Plan (ECP) for MRSA. The ECP promotes 
vigilant environmental cleaning and sanitation of premises and contents that can 
be contaminated with MRSA, and the importance of the proper use of personal 
protective equipment and hand washing. This plan will be rolled out over the 
next 3-12 months and includes: 

An alcohol-based hand sanitizer program recommended by the Center for 

Disease Control and by the Medical Receiver's PHU. A 90-day pilot recently 

began at five locations. 

A Surveillance System being developed for both staff and inmates to 

determine skin and soft tissue infection prevalence. 

On-the-job training component and Academy training program fully 

developed by Office of Training and Professional Development; In-Service 

Training program under development. 

Flu vaccines offered to employees at no cost (PHU provides). 

Elimination of $5 co-pay for inmates (Medical Receiver authorized) to 

encourage self-reporting of skin infections. 

• Yearly, mandated food facility inspections that ensure safe and healthful 
practices are being followed to avoid food-borne illnesses (such as Norovirus). 

• Valley Fever (Cocci) Exposure Control Plan under development for endemic and 
hyperendemic areas of the Central Valley. 

• Respiratory protection plan is being reassessed via a Department-wide risk 
assessment. 

The DAI has worked very hard to coordinate with the Medical Receiver to prevent the 
spread of infectious and communicable diseases. I have been involved in developing a 
Contagious or Infectious Disease Incident Management Protocol to ensure appropriate 
stakeholders are involved in decision the making process, all appropriate notifications 
are made, preventive measures are taken when active cases of infectious or 
communicable disease are identified, and follow-up actions and evaluation are 
completed. I have provided the GP 1 1 l/l V wardens with specific expectations related to 
their handling of these types of incidents and the coordination of efforts to prevent the 
spread of these diseases. 



133 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 29 of 34 



During a contagious or infectious disease incident, administrative and medical staff from 
the impacted institution(s) coordinate mitigation, containment and contact investigation 
efforts with staff from the Mission(s), Health Care Services in headquarters, the 
Transportation Unit, Classification Services Unit, ORM and other affected stakeholders. 
Regular communication with all of the stakeholders ensures that everybody is aware of 
the efforts to prevent the spread of the disease, and to treat patient-inmates. The status 
of the incident is documented in written form on medical program status reports at the 
initiation of the incident, and at critical points throughout the management of the 
incident. 

Correctional Officers assigned to the housing units are typically responsible for 
distribution of housekeeping and sanitation supplies to the inmate population. 
Correctional Sergeants and Correctional Lieutenants are the first and second level 
supervisors responsible for ensuring that the Correctional Officers complete this and 
other duties as required. 

I became aware of a concern expressed by inmates regarding the inadequate provision 
of soap and toilet paper during a recent tour. The warden addressed the immediate 
concern but also mandated training to staff assigned to posts responsible for the 
provision of these supplies regarding his expectations and compliance with the 
institution's policy. It is also his expectation that the supervisors of the facilities ensure 
newly assigned staff to these posts are aware of the warden's expectations in an effort 
to prevent this issue from arising again. During my tours, this will be a question I will 
ask of staff, inmates and the warden to ensure it doesn't become an issue again, 
especially in light of the purchasing restrictions resulting from the budget crisis. 
Wardens will continue to be reminded in our conversations of the need to ensure there 
are adequate supplies in the warehouse to prevent those types of shortages. Finally, I 
will monitor this issue through inmate and family correspondence, increases in inmate 
appeals related to conditions of confinement, touring and talking with inmates, and 
through the review of Men's Advisory Committee meeting minutes. 



Self-Help 

The reorganization of 2005 redesigned the chain of command, separating program and 
custody administration into distinct units. The reshuffling has changed how different 
parts of the department relate to one another. Organizationally, for instance, the 
Division of Community Partnerships is responsible for self-help programs such as A.A. 



134 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 30 of 34 



and N.A., but in practical terms, wardens have maintained operational control over self- 
help programs at their own institutions. 

18. What role do you play in the operation of self-help programs? How do 
you coordinate with the Division of Community Partnerships? 

As the Associate Director, I oversee all functions of operations for the institutions 
assigned to the GP lll/IV Mission. I serve as a liaison between the GP lll/IV institutions 
and the DCP to ensure that programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics 
Anonymous continue to be offered within the institutions. My role is to ensure that the 
institutions safely provide rehabilitative programs as frequently as possible. To ensure 
the success of these programs, I evaluate the attendance in current programs, assess 
the viability of proposed programs, and assist the DCP in overcoming institutional 
barriers to program facilitation. 

I regularly communicate with program staff that oversee the implementation and 
facilitation of self-help programs. I ensure that my staff are available to program staff, 
as needed, to assist with coordinating existing or proposed programs. They also 
interact with institution and program staff to develop the strategies necessary for 
ensuring maximum program operation. I monitor self-help programs via the Men's 
Advisory Committee meeting minutes, correspondence, and COMPSTAT. 

Additionally, as mentioned previously, institutional lockdowns and modified programs 
can have a significant adverse affect on the self-help programs. As part of the Program 
Status Review process, I place significant emphasis on the resumption of these 
programs at least for the non-involved elements of the population as soon as it is safe to 
do so. This issue is followed until the institution or facility returns to full normal program. 

Although not necessarily under the "self-help" umbrella, I also pay close attention to 
inmates participating in the college program, taking advantage of the Corrections 
Learning Network and correspondence courses. These programs are typically 
connected to the education program however; inmates are voluntarily participating and 
trying to improve their chances at a successful parole which I would also consider self- 
help. We will continue to monitor these programs and encourage efforts directed at 
increasing inmate participation. 

As discussed in a previous response, I attend the PAIP meetings to ensure that self- 
help programs are functioning appropriately. Thus far, I have attended PAIP meetings 
at CMF and MCSP. No other PAIP meetings have yet been scheduled for the 
institutions in the GP lll/IV Mission. 

19. As a result of the state not having a final budget for several months in 
2008, contracts for self-help programs such as A.A. and N.A. were 
cancelled or suspended. But even after the budget was approved, the 



135 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 31 of 34 



programs were not immediately reinstituted. Did your office play a role in 
that? If so, please explain the lag in restarting self-help programs, such 
as A.A., at your institutions. 

As a result of the delayed State budget, many self-help programs, including Alcoholics 
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, were suspended pursuant to the Governor's 
Executive Order. A freeze exemption process was initiated which included the payment 
of staff sponsors for the self-help programs at the institutions as part of CDCR's 
Cost-Control directives. On November 10, 2008, the self-help sponsor freeze 
exemption was approved and resumption of the programs authorized. 

The staff within the Level lll/IV Mission worked with the institutions to reinstate 
programs as quickly as possible given the scope of the closures. All self-help programs 
were fully activated within two weeks. 

As previously stated, I value the self-help programs as a means of increasing safety in 
institutions, improving inmates' self-image, and preparing inmates for successful release 
and rehabilitation. These programs help to prepare inmates to assume the mantle of 
valued members of society, and important parts of their families upon release. 



Substance Abuse 

The department's internal statistical report for September 2008 listed about 2,500 
substance abuse treatment slots at your institutions. Almost all of them were filled. 

20. What responsibility do you have for initiating or monitoring substance 
abuse treatment programs? If you have a role, how do you relate to the 
Division of Addiction and Recovery Services? How do you assess the 
needs of inmates? What is the status of these programs in light of 
budget cuts? 

I am responsible for assisting DARS in the operation of existing programs in the 
institutions within the GP lll/IV Mission as well as the identification of potential locations 
for additional SAP's. Existing and proposed programs are evaluated on an ongoing 
basis as changes to the needs of the inmate population are identified. The individual 
needs of the inmates are assessed at each institution and waiting lists are established 
for those inmates meeting the criteria for inclusion in the SAP program. I monitor the 
waiting lists and program vacancies in the programs located in the GP lll/IV institutions 
to ensure there is an adequate population identified for each program. This is 
accomplished by reviewing weekly reports produced by DARS that identify the total 
vacancies and current waiting list at each institution with a SAP. When vacancies are 
identified in a specific program, the warden is contacted to ensure that appropriate 
inmates are identified, evaluated, and assigned to the program or placed on the waiting 



136 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 32 of 34 



list. If vacancies cannot be filled through this process, waiting lists at other institutions 
with similar programs and custody levels are canvassed to identify appropriate program 
candidates that may be eligible for transfer to fill the vacancies. This coordination is 
accomplished through meetings with DARS, the Classification Services Unit, and the 
Population Management Unit. 

I also monitor the effectiveness of the programs through the weekly Program Closure 
Report produced by DARS. Using that report, I am able to monitor program closures 
and work with wardens to ensure the programs are fully functioning on a regular basis. 
Institutions with limited or suspended operations are contacted to determine the causes 
of program closures. Discussions are initiated with identified institutions to overcome 
the impediments to full operation. This allows the inmate population the maximum 
opportunity to benefit from the program. 

As previously mentioned, I monitor the Substance Abuse Program operations during 
lockdowns and modified programs using the Program Status process. These programs 
as in the education and self-help programs are given top priority for reopening as soon 
as it is safe to do so. Additionally, the non-involved inmate population is returned while 
the institution continues to address the issues with the involved groups. This issue is 
monitored throughout the process until the entire institution or facility is returned to 
normal program. 

Budget shortfalls resulted in closure of rehabilitative programs for two months at the 
beginning of the current fiscal year due to a lack of funding to pay contractors operating 
the programs. These programs have since been returned to full operation. 
As non-essential contracts have been identified for suspension or cancellation during 
these difficult fiscal times, those associated with the SAP programs are not currently 
being considered for elimination. These programs are deemed essential for the 
department to meet part of its core mission of rehabilitation and recidivism reduction. 



Infrastructure 

The Los Angeles Times recently reported on the quality of drinking water at North Kern 
State Prison, referring to high levels of arsenic. CDCR staff at a number of prisons 
bring their own water, choosing not to drink the water produced. 

21. What is your responsibility for monitoring drinking water quality at the 
prisons under your management? If it is not your responsibility, who is 
responsible? Are you aware of any institution where water is judged 
unhealthy to drink? 

As Associate Director over the GP lll/IV Mission, I am responsible for overseeing the 
operation of the institutions in my Mission. The wardens within my mission are 



137 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 33 of 34 



responsible for overseeing the operation of their assigned institutions, including 
monitoring the drinking water quality. Staff in the GP lll/IV prisons typically become 
aware of issues with drinking water quality via reports produced by the Department of 
Public Health (DPH) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In some 
cases, institutions have a documented history of marginal drinking water which prompts 
the institution to conduct periodic testing of the drinking water independent of the DPH. 
I ensure that institutional staff are aware of their responsibility to inform me of any 
significant events and issues concerning their institution, including unsafe drinking 
water. When institutional water supplies are tested and found to be unsafe, the 
institution's administrative staff initiate procedures to ensure the inmates and staff are 
provided with safe drinking water in the short-term, as long-term solutions are 
developed, proposed, approved and implemented. The Warden and institution staff 
collaborate with the FPCMD to gain approval for Section 6 requests, Special Repair 
Projects or Capital Outlay Projects related to long-term safe drinking water solutions. 
Within CDCR, the FPCMD has the ultimate responsibility for monitoring and correcting 
drinking water quality. I am responsible for reviewing and approving or denying each of 
these requests. 

In regard to the GP lll/IV institutions, there have been no recent issues related to water 
quality. However, Centinela State Prison recently experienced a water main break, 
resulting in the water supply for the institution being temporarily disrupted. 
The institution responded by purchasing bottled water for staff and inmates, and 
facilitated the repairs to the water main concurrently. The incident was resolved quickly 
and with very little disruption to normal operations. This type of response demonstrates 
the institutions' preparedness for managing water related incidents efficiently and 
effectively. 



Board of Parole Hearings 

The Board of Parole Hearings typically will describe to life-term inmates the type of 
programs - such as obtaining a high school diploma or Alcoholics Anonymous - a 
prospective parolee should enroll in. 

22. How do you communicate with the Board of Parole Hearings regarding 
logistical support for the parole revocation and lifer hearings scheduled 
at your prisons? What processes do you have to ensure that this 
coordination is as seamless as possible to avoid postponed hearings? 
Do you encourage wardens to initiate discussions to inform 
commissioners of the programs available at your facilities? 

Communication between DAI staff and Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) is critical to the 
success of parole revocation and lifer hearings. The BPH conducts numerous hearings 
throughout the state on a weekly basis. I ensure that the commissioners assigned to 



138 



Senate Rules Committee February 18, 2009 

William J. Sullivan, Jr. 
Page 34 of 34 



the institutions under my authority have my contact information, as well as that of the 
wardens. This information is periodically updated as changes in institution 
administrative positions are made, and shared with the commissioners via the institution 
Litigation Coordinators and the BPH headquarters office. In addition, an informational 
binder has been assembled at each of the institutions and is located in the BPH board 
room that provides information to the commissioners regarding all of the programs and 
services provided at that institution. This information is periodically updated by the 
Litigation Coordinator's office at each institution as program changes are implemented. 

Processes have been established to ensure process for admitting attorneys, victims, 
and/or victim's next-of-kin is expeditious and that they are treated respectfully and 
courteously throughout the process. The Classification and Parole Representative is 
fully engaged throughout the process to ensure all notifications have been made in a 
timely manner and that all documentation and reports are completed and made 
available to ensure the hearings can proceed as scheduled. Additionally, the wardens 
have been made aware the need to ensure that assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, 
are available to those in need ensuring there are no cancellations or unnecessary 
delays for this reason. This is monitored at each institution on a regular basis. 

The Board of Prison Hearings also provides a monthly Life Parole Consideration 
Hearing Postponements Executive Summary that outlines the reasons these hearings 
were postponed during that month. We utilize these within the mission to ensure 
wardens are aware of these issues and have taken corrective action to prevent future 
occurrences. These action plans are monitored to ensure similar issues do not continue 
to present themselves. 

During Warden's Meetings, conference calls with the wardens and institution 
administrative staff, and during mentoring conversations with individual wardens, I have 
established my expectation that BPH hearings are scheduled on time and that the 
commissioners are provided with the necessary resources and support to complete the 
hearings. The wardens have dedicated sufficient resources and staff to ensure all lifer 
hearings and parole revocation hearings are timely and continue to stay within 
compliance. 



139 



CAROL DEAN 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Board 
STATEMENT OF GOALS 

1 . What do you hope to accomplish during your tenure as a member of the board? 
What goals do you have for the board, and how will you accomplish them? How 
will you measure your success? I applied for a position on the North Coast Regional 
Water Quality Control Board as an individual who is concerned about quality of life 
issues and as a community activist who sees the needs to balance government, 
regulations and costs to the public. Water is a precious commodity that needs to be 
conserved and protected for all beneficial uses and users. Water is also important in 
controlling the economy and quality of life for all those who reside in the North Coast 
region, California and beyond. I believe everyone should be committed to 
environmental protection, conservation, reuse and compliance. My goal when I 
joined the board was to ensure that all communities, large and small, have a level 
playing field in dealing with governmental regulations and boards. Since serving on 
the board I have discovered that this is also a goal of the regional board staff as well. 
We have had to make some painful decisions that we know create hardships but have 
seen water quality improve. There is no better way to measure success than to see an 
improvement in water quality. My goal for the board is to see it continue to work on 
distressed water sheds in a comprehensive and consistent manner. 

2. What do you believe are most serious issues facing your board? At this period of 
time, I would have to say the budget, and having enough staff to do the work already 
required and that which the board would like to mandate. 

3 . How does your board help the public understand the state of water quality in your 
region? Do you believe that the information on your website is adequate? Where 
should the public go for information on water quality issues, such as beach 
closures, sewage spills, or the overall quality of water in rivers and streams in your 
region? Study sessions and workshops help attendees of board meetings understand 
the complex issues regarding water quality in the region. Staff is also very willing to 
meet with any individual at additional times to explain and educate those who ask. 
Our website is quite comprehensive and all documents are easily assessable. The 
only suggestion might be links to various cities and counties in the region. The web 
site is a perfect medium for public information. But it cannot be the sole means of 
information. Beaches must still be posted and in serious health threats or life 
threatening situations, the paper, radio news and television should still be utilized. 
City and county websites can also post information for their particular area in the 
region. 

state and regional board roles Senate Rules Committee 

FEB 3 2009 
Appointments 140 



The issues addressed by regional water boards are often scientifically complex. Preparation 
for hearings can be time-consuming for board members, particularly considering these are 
part-time positions. 

4. Who is available to assist you at the state board and your regional board to better 
understand some of the complex issues before you? Do you have any suggestions 
on how the state water board's staff might better assist you? Whenever I have a 
question, I ask the executive director and since I live close to the office she arranges a 
meeting with the appropriate staff member to meet with me to go over my questions 
or concerns, or through e-mail exchanges. To date, I have always been able to get the 
information I need. If my question is a legal one, one of the attorneys assigned to our 
region will get back to me either via e-mail or telephone. Going to the EO first gets 
me routed to where I need to go for information. I find this is an efficient way to 
obtain the necessary information. 

5 . What training have you received to help you better understand when you might 
have a conflict of interest regarding an issue on your board's agenda? How do you 
know when to withdraw yourself from voting on an issue? Have you ever done so 
since being appointed to this board? When I was first appointed to the board Phil 
Wyels, the Assisgtant Chief Counsel to the SWRCB came to Santa Rosa and gave me 
an in depth orientation. At the time I had just been appointed to fill a vacancy on the 
Santa Rosa City Council so the City of Santa Rosa also provided me with council. 
My term on the council has expired. If I have any question about my ability to vote 
on an item I notify the Executive Officer who then asks the appropriate attorney for 
the board for a ruling. I would rather be safe than sorry. Yes, I have abstained twice 
from voting. 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act generally establishes the relationship between 
the state and regional boards. Regional boards usually set water quality goals in their basin 
plans, develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and enforce permit and discharge 
requirement, as well as state and federal water quality laws. However, regional board 
budgets are not reviewed individually by the Governor or the Legislature, and most regional 
board staffing decisions are made at the regional level, not the state level. 

The state and regional board structure has been criticized by both industry and environmental 
groups for being cumbersome and lacking accountability, efficiency, and transparency. Both 
sides note that major policy issues often are decided through the state board appeals process 
instead of through a consistent statewide policy that is proactively established by the state 
board and implemented by the regional boards. 

6. What is your view of the relationship between the state board and your regional 
board? Could coordination and accountability be improved? If so, how? 

California is a large state with complex ecosystems which means it is hard to have 
one regulation that fits all regions. I see the roll of the state board as the overseer and 
delegator of basic regulations and the regional boards as the implementer of the 



141 



regulations based on what is feasible for that particular region. Each area is unique so 
even within a region one TMDL does not address each watershed in the region. The 
current set up gives each regional board the ability to really know the region and how 
best to deal with those particular issues. The current relationship takes the "political" 
pressure out of the arena and focuses on the health of water quality. They hear 
complaints as well but understand that no one likes to be regulated. 



California State Budget Crisis 

California's dire fiscal situation has affected all parts of state government. 

7. How do you, as a board member, stay informed of the fiscal resources available to 
your board? How does your board prioritize activities if not all can be undertaken? 
What are your priorities? Most of our resources come from permit fees and penalties 
the board handles and not much from the general fund of the State. My priority is 
how to get the biggest bang for the buck. I look to staff to give advice on what can be 
accomplished, what the results will be vs. costs. Regulatory programs are supposed 
to support themselves. 

Enforcement of Water Quality Laws 

Several years ago, the Office of the Secretary of Cal/EPA reported to the Legislature on 
environmental enforcement and suggested that the state and regional water boards were 
among the worst agencies in enforcing the law. The report stated that the boards were very 
slow to enforce clean water laws, almost never sought criminal penalties for serious 
violations, and generally did not aggressively pursue violators. 

8. What enforcement options do you believe provide the most effective tools for 
violations of board orders? Obviously financial impacts get attention. I am in favor 
of mandatory fines with significant portion going to mitigation, preferably to a project 
that will eliminate or reduce the probability of repeat violations. In my short tenure 
on the board we have threatened referral to the attorney general and are closely 
monitoring the situations. There are several options available to the regional board 
and I am in favor of issuing a warning which encourages the violator to comply and 
then get more aggressive and punitive. 

9. What staff is available to assist you in enforcing water quality laws? Is the number 
of staff adequate for enforcement purposes? If you must prioritize enforcement 
efforts, what are the priorities and how are they determined? From my perception, 
staff is very responsive to any report of violations and the board is continually 
updated. Our efforts are to rectify the cause of the violation and to mitigate the 
impacts of the violation. Penalties are always invoked. Staff has its own council to 
advise them legally and the board has a separate attorney to make sure we follow the 
rules and laws. I would say staff functions well but any cutbacks will threaten the 
board's ability to function at today's standards. Priorities obviously will go public 



142 



health and safety. The sheer number of discharges requires more funding than is 
available for enforcement. Self reporting helps but is not the answer. Enforcement is 
driven by mandatory minimum penalty directives from the state board. Staffing and 
funding are the biggest hurdles. 

Septic Rule 

Chapter 781, Statues of 2000 (AB885, Jackson), requires the state board to develop, adopt 
and implement statewide regulations for permitting and operation of on-site wastewater 
treatment systems (OWTS), commonly referred to as the "Septic Rule". The board recently 
proposed draft regulations which are currently available for public comment until February 9, 
2009. 

1 0. Has the state board articulated a role for the regional boards in implementing this 
rule? There is a workshop in Santa Rosa later this month which will help me 
understand what concerns the public may have. My understanding is that the state 
will be setting minimum standards which will be incorporated into the various basin 
plans. 

1 1 . How does the board intend to monitor, enforce and improve septic systems that 
contribute to surface and groundwater pollution? The regional board and local 
governmental agency may have more stringent regulations than the statewide 
standards. The North Coast Regional Board has given the counties the authority to 
issue permits and deal with violations. The board will continue to coordinate and 
track the various county programs. Regulation of septic systems is long overdue and 
as with any new regulation will be closely watched. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution - Freshwater Creek and Elk River 

At the board's strategic plan workshop last year, one of the most identified pollution sources 
in the North Coast region was nonpoint pollution, which includes sedimentation. 

For at least five years, your board has tried to deal with the issues of water quality 
specifically due to sedimentation buildup in the Freshwater Creek and the Elk River areas of 
Humboldt County. Your executive officer has issued orders for technical reports on 
abatement actions for dischargers who harvest timer in the area. The board has issued 
cleanup abatement orders on these same timer harvest operators, however, Freshwater Creek 
and Elk River residents still complain about the impairment of their water, both for 
agricultural and domestic uses. 

12. What do you believe the board should be doing to address nonpoint source 
pollution in these two areas? Specifically should additional action be taken to 
mitigate the sedimentation buildup? What is the timetable for resolving these 
issues, and how do you monitor progress? As you may know, ScoPac/PalCo filed 
bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court has approved the purchase of the property to 
Humboldt Redwood Company who's owners have a proven track record of working 
with the regional board and achieving results in Mendocino County (Mendocino 



143 



Redwood Company). This change of ownership just recently took place. HRC will 
practice selection harvesting which will be less of an impact, has a good public 
relation track record and will be particularly mindful of water quality. Future actions 
. planned include, but are not limited to, combining all orders and WDRs into a single 
WDR, one for Freshwater and one for Elk to comply with the TMDL to be adopted 
for each area. The TMDLs final adoption is about 1 8 months away. Funding seems 
to be limiting factor in expediently dealing with flooding and stream restoration. 

Fee Collection/Timber Harvest Review 

13. How does your regional board pay for the costs of timber harvest plan review? 
Does your board collect a fee for review to pay for the regional board's costs 
associated with the water quality review of such plans? If so, what is the amount of 
the fee? Does fee revenue stay with the regional board or is it forwarded to the 
state board? This program is currently funded from the state's general fund. 
However, our board does charge a $1226 yearly for each timber harvest plan and the 
state board collects the fees and puts them into their waste discharge fees fund. The 
regional board does not receive any allocation from the state board for timber harvest 
review. 

1 4. Do you have any suggestions as to how to better ensure any fees collected by the 
regional boards stay with those boards to help pay for staffing and other review and 
enforcement costs? The state board could change its policy to allocate funds from 
the fees collection to pay for the program. 

Harmful Algal Blooms and Klamath River TMDL 

Blue-green algae blooms have been found in the Klamath River, Big Lagoon, and the Eel 
River. A study by the Center for Integrated Marine Technologies (CIMT) points out that 
these blooms negatively affect fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. Some algal species 
cause large fish kills by clogging up or lacerating the fish's gills. 

The CIMT report said that there is growing evidence that human contributions of phosphorus 
and nitrogen are causing the blooms to occur more frequently and contributing to their 
duration and severity. A presentation to your board on December 1 1 th discussed the TMDL 
process for the Klamath River. Staff said that 76 to 80 percent of the phosphorus and 
nitrogen would have to be eliminated in the river to achieve TMDL compliance. Staff also 
indicated that the TMDL would not directly deal with blue-green algae. 

15. What is the extent of harmful algal blooms in inland and marine waters in your 
region? How serious are the negative effects on fisheries and marine mammals? 
How does your board determine the seriousness of those effects? The Klamath 
River is actually more impaired at its source in the State of Oregon than it is at its 
outfall in the State of California, which is most unusual. The area of most concern for 
harmful algal blooms is in the hydro reservoirs on the Klamath River. Blooms are 
also found in areas below the hydro dams. Blue-green algae toxins have been found 



144 



in fish in the Klamath, but we have information that it has been found elsewhere. We 
consider the algal blooms to be of significant concern. 
1 6. Is it feasible to eliminate 76 to 80 percent of the nutrient loading in the Klamath 
River? What type of restrictions would have to be imposed to achieve this level of 
reduction? As stated above, the Klamath originates in the State of Oregon and the 
largest portion of nutrient loading of the Klamath originates from Oregon in the 
Upper Klamath Basin and Lost River watershed which effects and impacts the hydro 
reservoirs. The Shasta River further impacts the nutrient loading but the Shasta River 
TMDL implementation has show water quality improvements in the Shasta. Oregon 
would have to reduce its nutrient loading levels by treatment, infrastructure 
improvements and long-term restoration projects. If dam removal does not occur, 
there are some in-reservoir engineered options that may provide some relief. All 
together it is possible, but will take many years to achieve. 



1 7. When will the TMDLsfor the Klamath River be completed? As information is 
developed by the board, can it be released to contribute to the discussions and 
negotiation regarding the Klamath River? The regional board's website already 
contains information regarding the Klamath TMDL and will be updated as new 
information is available. The current timeline for the TMDL is for public draft to be 
released this coming May with regional board consideration scheduled in October 
2009. From there it will go to the state board for final adoption. 

1 8. Are the adoption of the Klamath River TMDLs integral to the broader discussion of 
poor water quality and dam removal on the river? Absolutely. When the public 
draft is released it will show that the technical analysis to be a comprehensive look at 
water quality - its current condition, causes of impairment and solutions. 

Emerging Contaminants 

New and emerging contaminants are unregulated. They may be new contaminants present 
but not detected. Among these are pharmaceuticals and personal are products, industrial 
chemicals present at low concentrations, and chemicals that may affect the hormone system, 
referred to as "endocrine disruptors." 

Additionally, new testing by independent organizations has turned up pharmaceuticals and 
over-the-counter medicines affecting drinking water supplies across the country. While the 
findings reported by the Associated Press in Parch 2008 involve miniscule amounts of 
various pharmaceuticals, concerns over long-term consequences to human health and 
possible additional testing have resurfaced. 

Under current law, required testing and standard limits for pharmaceutical and over-the- 
counter drugs in drinking water are limited. Beginning in January 2008, several water 
systems began monitoring under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for contaminants detected from the 
contaminant candidate lists. These are potential contaminants that the U.S. EPA may 



145 



regulate in the future. Federal and state laws give authority to U.S. EPA, the California 
Department of Public Health, or the regional water boards to regulate contaminants, which 
could include pharmaceuticals. 

The Department of Public Health has developed draft regulations and is proposing to require 
an analysis of specific unregulated chemicals and report detections for certain groundwater 
recharge and reuse projects. These chemicals include pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, 
and other wastewater indicator chemicals. 

19. In your view, what is the role of regional water boards regarding required testing 
and standard limits for pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter drugs in drinking 
water? Should the state water board, through regional boards, be working with the 
California Department of Public Health re require testing and set safety limits for 
drugs in drinking water? I see this as an emerging issue and will need to be hashed 
out similar to the septic issue. Well users already test their water. As the science 
improves we will be better equipped to address the issue. 

20. To what degree is your board monitoring these and other emerging contaminants? 
How are you informed of new sources of pollution? Staff and board members attend 
workshops sponsored by various national and state water associations such as 
California Association of Sanitation Agencies. 

2 1 . What other state agencies are involved in this monitoring process? Do you share 
your information with other drinking water and public health agencies? We are 

always willing to share information with other state agencies or associations. 
California Department of Public Health and the state board are great sources of 
information. 



146 



609-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications & Flags 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)651-1538 

Make checks or money orders payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Credit cards not accepted. 

Please include stock number 609-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




GOVERNMENT 
DOCUMENTS DEPT 

AUG I 7 Z009 
SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009 

1:40 P.M. 



610-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
- -0O0- - 



HEARING 

STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

- -0O0- - 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009 
1:40 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 



Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6713 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 


1 


INDEX 




STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
- - 0O0- - 


2 


Pa ae 






3 






HEARING 


4 
5 


Governor's Appointees: 

MARGARET G. FORTUNE, Member, Trustees of the 




STATE CAPITOL 


6 
7 
8 
9 


California State University 1 




ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 

- - 0O0- - 


INTRODUCTION BY ASSEMBLYMAN NIELLO 


1 


OPENING STATEMENT 3 


Question by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 


WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18. 2009 
1:40 P.M. 
- - oOo - - 


10 
11 

12 


A ch ie ve m e n t g a p 5 

STATEMENT BY SENATOR AANESTAD 


8 


Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 




13 


Maximizing use ofCSU's physical 






14 


capacity 10 






15 


Quality of online education 12 






16 


C re d e n t ia lin g discrepancy in 






17 


schools with high poverty rate ... 14 




Reported By : INA C LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No 6T13 


18 
19 


Balance being a supporter and a 
critic of the institution 17 






20 


Questions by SENATOR CEDILLO re: 






21 


Relationship with Parents of 






22 
23 


W a tts 19 




Theodore Roosevelt High School/ 


i 


24 
25 


Alberto Vaca 22 


iii 




APPEARANCES 








MEMBERS PRESENT 


1 


Questions by SENATOR CEDILLO (cont.): 






2 


Challenges in recruiting quality 




SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG, Chair 
SENATOR GIL CEDILLO 
SENATOR SAMUEL AANESTAD 
SENATOR ROBERT DUTTON 


3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 


leadership in teaching and 
management 23 


2 8 


Role digital divide plays in 
access 24 


STATEMENT BY SENATOR AANESTAD . 


Witnesses in Support of MARGARET G. FORTUNE: 


STAFF PRESENT 


9 
10 


RAE BELIILE, Ed Voice 26 




BRANCHE JONES, California Charter Schools 


GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 


11 


Association 27 






JANE LEONARD BROWN, Committee Assistant 
NETTIE SABELHAUS, Appointments Consultant 
DAN SAVAGE, Assistant to SENATOR CEDILLO 
BILL BAILEY, Assistant to SENATOR AANESTAD 


12 
13 

14 

15 


--oOo -- 

TROY E. ARBAUGH, Member, Board of Parole 
Hearings 29 






CHRIS BURNS, Assistant to SENATOR DUTTON 


16 


OPENING STATEMENT 30 








17 


Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 




ALSO PRESENT 


18 
19 


Observation of rehabilitation 
programs in prisons and determining 




MARGARET G. FORTUNE, Member, Trustees of the California 
State Univers ity 

HENRY J. AGUILAR, Member, Board of Parole Hearings 


20 
21 
22 
23 
24 


suitability for parole 32 




Usefulness of ris k - a s se s s m e n t 

tool in determining level of 

risk for paroled lifer 33 


TROY E. ARBAUGH, Member, Board of Parole Hearings 


Response to opposition by David 




25 


Dahle 3 8 




ii 






iv 


19 sheets Page 1 I 


4 of 6 03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG (cont): 

Present ability to conduct 

thorough hearings 49 

Response to opposition by Jill 

Klinge 53 

STATEMENT BY SENATOR AANESTAD 40 

Witnesses in Opposition to TROY E. ARBAUGH: 
DAVID WARREN, Taxpayers for Improving 
Public Safety 34 

DAVID DAHLE, Los Angeles County District 
Attorney 36 

JILL KLINGE, Alameda County Deputy District 
Attorney 41 

FRANCISCO PANCHO ZARATE, California District 
Attorneys Association 45 

CHRISTINE WARD, Crime Victims Action 
Alliance 46 

-oOo- 

HENRY J. AGUILAR, Member, Board of Parole 
Hearings 54 

OPENING STATEMENT 55 

Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 
Does DJJ work for its intended 

purpose 56 

Role in advising DJJ on quality of 
programs Fines 57 



1 PROCEEDINGS 

2 SENATOR AANESTAD: We'll start as a 

3 subcommittee. The chair will be here momentarily, but I 

4 think we'll skip to agenda three. 

5 First of all, I'll have you take the roll. 

6 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

7 SENATOR CEDILLO: Here. 

8 MS. BROWN: Dutton. 

9 SENATOR DUTTON: Present. 

10 Oh, Cedillo here. Dutton here. 

11 Oropeza. 

12 Aanestad. 

13 SENATOR AANESTAD: Here. 

14 MS. BROWN: Aanestad here. 

15 Steinberg. 

16 SENATOR AANESTAD: We have a quorum. We'll get 

17 started as a committee. 

18 We have with us first today Margaret Fortune, 

19 and I understand Assemblyman Niello wants to go ahead 

20 with the introduction, so please get started. 

21 ASSEMBLYMAN NIELLO: Yes. Thank you very much, 

22 Mr. Chair and Members. Margaret Fortune is here before 

23 you for confirmation today. She is a good friend of 

24 mine and has a long and distinguished career in 

25 education locally. 

1 



Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG (cont.): 
Criteria used for add-on provisions 

of the law 58 

Improving successful educational 

outcomes for wards 59 

Wards with significant mental 

health issues 59 

Questions by SENATOR DUTTON re: 

Hoover study 61 

Cost savings 62 

Witness in Support of HENRY J. AGUILAR : 
RICK OULES, Friend 63 

-0O0-- 

Vote-Only Item re Confirmation of: 
SONJA (SUNNY) M. MADEN, Member, 
Rehabilitation Appeals Board 65 

LILLIAN M. SCAIFE, Member, Rehabilitation 
Appeals Board 65 



--0O0-- 

Proceedings Adjourned 66 

Certificate of Reporter 67 

APPENDIX (Written responses of appointees)... 



68 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



Before I met Margaret, I sort of followed her 
on things she was then doing locally. And she has 
worked in the administration, as you know, I'm sure, 
from her agenda. She is particularly successful in 
areas of trying to close that achievement gap that we 
struggle with so much here in California. And I'm just 
here to introduce Margaret for support for her 
confirmation, and I enthusiastically recommend that. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Thank you very much. 

And welcome to you, Ms. Fortune. Do you have 
anybody nere that you would like to introduce as far as 
family, friends, support groups, et cetera? 

MS. FORTUNE: Yes, Senator Aanestad. First, I 
want to thank Mr. Niello for his introduction. I know 
he has to go off to another meeting, but I appreciate 
his friendship. 

And I would like to introduce my parents who 
are here with me today, Dr. and Mrs. Rex and Margaret 
Fortune. 

Stand up, Mom and Dad. 

(Applause.) 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

MS. FORTUNE: Senator Steinberg, always great 



timing. 



I'd also like to introduce some very special 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 5 to 2 of 6 



2 of 19 shee 



people here, my staff at Project Pipeline. Ladies and 
gentlemen, would you please stand. 

I want to thank them for coming today and 
acknowledge among them are three Sac State graduates, 
graduate students, who staff our research and evaluation 
department which my father runs at Project Pipeline. We 
train and credential teachers for California public 
schools with specialty in math, science, and special 
education. So thank you all for coming and for being so 
supportive. 

(Applause.) 

MS. FORTUNE: Senator Aanestad and Senator 
Steinberg, those are the guests that I have with me 
today. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
Senator Aanestad, for chairing the meeting, and I 
apologize for being late. 

Welcome to you, Ms. Fortune. 

MS. FORTUNE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Margaret, I've known you 
for a long, long time. 

MS. FORTUNE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Would you like to make an 
opening statement? 

MS. FORTUNE: I would. Thank you, Senator 

3 



1 challenge in a way that many of our public systems, 

2 frankly, have not. 

3 The other night, the co-directors of our newly 

4 established Center for Closing the Achievement Gap 

5 invited me to be a part of their advisory board, and I 

6 gladly accepted. And I know that one thing for sure, 

7 that on these boards, we, as volunteer citizens, have to 

8 focus on a few items that we intend to do well, and so 

9 this item of closing the achievement gap and dealing 

10 with high-school dropouts and providing people the 

11 opportunity to better themselves through higher 

12 education and delivering on the promise of the CSU is my 

13 agenda that, if this group sees fit to confirm me, I 

14 will be honored to spend the next seven years pursuing. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

16 Ms. Fortune. Of course, this is an important 

17 appointment. The job itself is important, but also the 

18 length of the tenure. So I would like to ask you how 

19 you would break down the achievement gap, because I 

20 would assert that though the achievement gap is a subset 

21 of education reform, it, in and of itself, is a huge 

22 issue. 

23 Where do you begin as a CSU trustee to begin 

24 impacting the achievement gap? Question. 

25 MS. FORTUNE: Thank you for the question. 

5 



Steinberg. I'm really excited to be here today. This 
appointment to the California State University Board of 
Trustees is an important one to me, and I thank the 
governor for acknowledging my work and appointing me to 
this board. 

Education is my life's work, and I follow in 
the footsteps of my parents and their parents in doing 
this work. The year that my father retired as a school 
superintendent, I became one, starting schools to serve 
kids that were in schools that were low performing. 

So as I take on this position as a CSU trustee, 
and as I have served for the past year, my number one 
priority is closing the achievement gap. I think that 
we have a terrible waste of human capital in the 
dropouts from our high schools in this state, and that 
they represent an incredible potential as we look at 
restoring California through our fiscal crisis and 
making sure that every citizen has an opportunity to 
live up to their true potential. 

So I am particularly pleased to be a part of 
the board, Senators, that has, before I got there, 
embraced the mission of halving the achievement gap in 
ten years. One of my first votes was to adopt the 
Access to Excellence strategic plan that established 
that goal, and I salute the CSU for bellying up to the 

4 



1 You really reinforced my point that a trustee 

2 who is serious about that mission could spend the next 

3 seven years just focusing on that and still not get 

4 finished. 

5 It's a complex question. One is -- The reason 

6 why I think it's a good thing that the CSU has taken the 

7 question on is that the CSU is a system. However you 

8 argue that it's difficult to marshal 23 campuses behind 

9 a particular agenda, the reality is they all -- the 

10 presidents report to one chancellor, who I want to thank 

11 for being here in my support, Chancellor Reed — they 

12 all report to a board of trustees. They're not 1,065 

13 different systems with different governing boards, which 

14 the K-12 system frankly is. 

15 So, first, to have adopted it as a strategic 

16 mission for which we are willing to be held accountable 

17 is the first step in a public institution of our size, 

18 the largest university in the United States. That's the 

19 first step. 

20 Second, I think the thing I'm most interested 

21 in having our Center for Closing the Achievement Gap do 

22 is the math. If we had students who were proficient in 

23 their — in the K-12 academic contents standards, how 

24 many more would we have to move to proficiency in what 

25 subjects, and where are they, and, therefore, have that 

6 



.9 sheets 



Page 3 to 6 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



1 logic drive our mission behind establishing pilot 

2 projects and establishing partners. 

3 And then I think we have to back into our goal. 

4 If we're going to halve the achievement gap in ten 

5 years -- First of all, we have about nine years and six 

6 months left, and we have to pace ourselves and be 

7 specific about how we intend to accomplish that. 

8 One of the levers that the CSU has to pull is 

9 the fact that we prepare most of the educators in the 

10 state, so I think we have to be very purposeful and 

11 deliberate about preparing teachers and administrators 

12 and counselors that are about the business of closing 

13 the achievement gap, which means they're very good in 

14 assessment, which means they are willing to spend more 

15 time, which means they believe in high expectations, and 

16 they're willing to work with parents and students who 

17 may have shown that they were unwilling or unable to get 

18 there before to reach that goal. 

19 The other lever that we have to pull is access 

20 to college. That is the golden carrot for students who 

21 are dropping out. It's more so than parents, in my 

22 experience, embrace and understand what it means to be 

23 proficient in algebra by the eighth grade and to get 

24 what it means to have your kid go to college. And that 

25 is an attainable dream if we prepare kids in the right 

7 



1 programs. 

2 I think she understands that very well, and I'm 

3 not going to go into any questions here unless there is 

4 anything about that that you want to comment on. 

5 MS. FORTUNE: Thank you, Senator. I do 

6 understand it very well and understand we have a 

7 shortage of nurses, and I understand that as we 

8 encourage students to come into the CSU system, I also 

9 personally encourage them to come in strategic majors, 

10 like nursing. 

11 And I think there's a lot of room for 

12 partnership at the CSU and community colleges, 

13 particularly as we look at facilities for these 

14 programs, to look at how we can do more. We have had a 

15 strategic nursing initiative. We encourage enrollment 

16 in that direction. I think it's the right thing to do. 

17 And on the additional topic that you brought up 

18 along those lines in terms of the preparation of 

19 teachers, we also had a very nice discussion about my 

20 work and my knowledge as a part of doing that on a 

21 day-to-day basis. So I thank you very much for our 

22 conversation this morning. 

23 SENATOR AANESTAD: That's fine. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let me ask a couple - 

25 Senator Cedillo. I'm sure you -- 

9 



1 way. 

2 So I think there's also, Senator Steinberg, a 

3 communications piece to this, that the CSU has to be on 

4 the front lines of communicating that college is an 

5 opportunity, that you can have it, that these are the 

6 steps. And when you get there, we expect you to be 

7 prepared, while at the same time owning our 

8 responsibility for remediation that we take on because 

9 so many come to us unprepared. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. Let's take 

11 questions from other members of the Committee. 

12 Senator Dutton. Senator Aanestad. 

13 SENATOR AANESTAD: I just want to say that we 

14 had a nice conversation regarding some of my concerns, 

15 namely, the shortage of nurses, the shortage of 

16 teachers. We discussed that at length. I'm not going 

17 to bring that up here again. 

18 Suffice it to say, I think I'm very satisfied 

19 that Ms. Fortune understands the complexity of trying to 

20 train more nurses, the costs involved, and what we need 

21 to do. And that is a priority that I think we should be 

22 looking at for the state. And the university system 

23 needs to address even more than it has, starting from 

24 basic entry into nursing and then developing more 

25 instructors of nursing so that we can have more 

8 



1 SENATOR CEDILLO: Not yet. 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Not yet. Okay. 

3 Let me ask you a couple of specific questions, 

4 if I may, Ms. Fortune. One question that arises at 

5 every level of government is whether we're maximizing 

6 the use of our physical resources, and in this instance 

7 with the CSU, whether we are maximizing the use of the 

8 physical capacity of our system. 

9 Students are having a hard time getting courses 

10 during the year, and yet summer school does not seem to 

11 be widespread within the university system. What are 

12 your feelings on that? 

13 MS. FORTUNE: My feelings are, Senator 

14 Steinberg, that we have a tremendous opportunity to 

15 maximize our resources, but it doesn't have to do with 

16 our facilities. It has to do with going more 

17 aggressively into the space of offering online degrees. 

18 This is an issue that I brought up at the 

19 trustee level. And, in fact, next week we will be 

20 hearing a presentation at the board of trustees, at my 

21 request, on online degrees within the system. 

22 Those of you -- I know you don't have a lot of 

23 time, but if you have any time to watch television, you 

24 may have seen some of the advertising that's going on 

25 from private, for-profit, proprietary institutions that 

10 



33/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 7 to 10 of 68 



4 of 19 shee 



1 are talking about getting into the online space, any 

2 time, anywhere education, and being where the student is 

3 as opposed to making the student come to you. 

\ There are some of our campuses that have gone 

5 very aggressively and very successfully in this phase. 

5 CSU East Bay is an example of such a campus, and 

7 President Mo', as we affectionately call him, who is on 

3 "Mo' Time," which means do it, do it fast, and get it 

9 done, has an excellent model. And we will be hearing 

from him at the board of trustees. 

1 I think that looking at online degrees, not 

2 just online courses, but online degrees, allows us to 

3 turn this question of access on its head, because it 
I opens up the possibility that those who are in rural 
5 regions, like the regions you represent, Senator 

5 Aanestad, those that are in the cities but are taking 

T care of children and home-bound, those who are 

I retraining in this economic downturn to do something 

) else, it opens up the door to those career changes and 

) also takes advantage of the fact that students who are 

I coming in straight out of high school have a different 

! level of expectation about how courses are delivered and 

( that it is entirely feasible -- and this is done at CSU 

[ East Bay — that they have a menu of courses that 

i they're taking, some in a very traditional fashion but 

11 



1 students. 

2 It's actually a very high-touch environment, 

3 because it requires faculty to be on, and on more as 

4 students are engaging them, whether it's Skyping them or 

5 whether it's e-mailing them. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Skyping? 

7 MS. FORTUNE: You're worrying me, Senator 

8 Steinberg. 

9 But it is different, and it's also not 

10 exclusive. In their experience, it's not as if students 

11 are only taking online classes. They're mixing up their 

12 plate of classes, and it includes that. 

13 So I think that if, one, the faculty embraces 

14 it where they have some training in this mode of 

15 delivery, and where it is part of a mixed plate for 

16 students where they've got a diverse learning 

17 experience, it will enhance quality and show that this 

18 university system, the largest in the United States, is 

19 keeping with the times. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Two more questions, if I 

21 may. 

22 One, since you devoted, I know, a number of 

23 years of your professional life to teacher training and 

24 creating the pipeline, you're familiar with the work, 

25 historical work, with the Center for the Future of 

13 



others right there in the dorm room, online, as a part 
of a mix. 

So -- I am on the facilities committee, but I 
actually believe that online delivery of instruction 
will change our notion of what we need by way of 
facilities and open up this access question that you 
have so appropriately raised. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You don't worry about the 
quality suffering? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but, you 
know, the idea of sitting in class and having sort of a 
real interaction with the instructor and other students, 
and the give-and-take, all of that, do you worry at all 
that there's another side to the access issue when it 
comes to online learning, namely that quality can 
suffer? 

MS. FORTUNE: I don't. I don't worry about 
that as much, because I think that there are 
contingencies that can be taken as we look at 
undertaking this on a broader scale. 

One of the things that I have learned as a 
trustee is that -- going back to the CSU East Bay 
example, the first thing they did was offer a master's 
in online education, and the number one consumer of that 
master's degree were their own faculty, to learn how to 
offer online education in a way that was engaging to 

12 



1 Teaching and Learning -- 

2 MS. FORTUNE: Yes, I was on their board. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You were. 

4 — which has shown pretty consistently that if 

5 you're a kid who goes to school with a high poverty 

6 rate, you are much more likely to be taught by someone 

7 without a credential; and if you are in a low poverty 

8 school, you're much more likely to be taught by teachers 

9 with full subject-matter credentials. 

10 MS. FORTUNE: Uh-huh. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you believe that CSU is 

12 doing enough to address that gap? And, if not, what do 

13 you intend to do as a trustee to ensure the pipelines 

14 we're creating through the CSU system are geared towards 

15 trying to deal with that serious discrepancy? 

16 MS. FORTUNE: I think that when the Center for 

17 the Future of Teaching and Learning put out their first 

18 report -- and I remember that year you were entering the 

19 Assembly, and I was assistant secretary for education in 

20 the Davis administration -- and what they pointed to was 

21 a huge proliferation of emergency permit holders that 

22 were teaching in these schools of high poverty and where 

23 there were high numbers of minority children. 

24 When I was chair of the commission on teacher 

25 credentialing, I took that on, and to reduce the 

14 



19 sheets 



Page 11 to 14 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



reliance of school districts on emergency permits and 
the emergency -- there's been a significant decline in 
emergency permits to the extent that the agency actually 
had to find another funding source to maintain 
themselves, because they were so relying on the fees 
coming in from emergency permit holders. 

So I think that since the center started its 
work, the story has changed, and I think that they 
should take a lot of credit for calling our attention to 
it. 

There's one area in which I have always 
differed with the center, even when I was a board 
member, and that is the characterization of intern 
teachers, or teachers who become certified through 
alternative certification, as under qualified and 
lumping them in with the emergency permit population. I 
think that that is wrong, and I think it's inaccurate. 

I think alternative certification offers a 
valid pathway, typically for career-changers, always for 
people who know their subject matter, to get into the 
teaching profession and to learn by doing, which is a 
model that we actually promote at the CSU through such 
institutions as Cal Poly Pomona, Cal Poly San Luis 
Obispo. Those institutions are based on the premise 
that you do learn by doing. 

15 



1 better job of is producing teachers that have a point of 

2 view, and that point of view is that it's their job and 

3 their responsibility to close the achievement gap; that 

4 if that requires taking more time, having higher 

5 standards than what the State would require, getting 

6 greater levels of proficiency, that that's what it 

7 takes, and that's what we'll get. 

8 And the CSU, as a part of the Center for 

9 Closing the Achievement Gap, I think has an opportunity 

10 to foster that attitude amongst our faculty as we 

11 prepare them to go into some of the most challenging 

12 teaching environments. Challenging, but not impossible. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. My last question is 

14 this: As a member of the board of trustees, how do you 

15 balance being a supporter of the institution and being a 

16 critic of the institution where appropriate? 

17 MS. FORTUNE: I thought you were going to ask 

18 me how do I balance this with my day job. It's those 

19 people back there (indicating). 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: There's that too. 

21 MS. FORTUNE: Well, I think that by the very 

22 nature of my work, having pontificated as I did for -- 

23 what was it, three months -- on alternative 

24 certification, that's not an institutional view when it 

25 comes to the CSU. 

17 



I think that teachers who come through these 
pathways, the data shows that they tend to stay in those 
schools at higher rates than their colleagues who go 
through traditional teacher preparation. They tend to 
be from the communities in which the schools are. They 
tend to be more diverse. 

For our own program that I run, and there are 
many of these programs that are also run by the 
California State University system, our sweet spot is 
career-changers. Fifty-three percent of the 
participants in Project Pipeline are between the ages of 
35 and 45. Twenty-five percent of them are older than 
that. So a minority of folks are coming in brand 
spanking new out of college. And I would contest the 
notion that someone who is 20 or 21 coming right out of 
college with student-teaching experience has more to 
offer children than somebody who is 45, competent in 
their subject, has gone through a two-year credentialing 
program with intensive support in the classroom, and 
that that's not a valid way. So that's where I would 
challenge the Center for the Future of Teaching and 
Learning. 

Let me get to the point of: What does the CSU 
have to offer this conversation, given the volume? I 
think the number one thing that we could be doing a 

16 



1 The CSU does most of its work in a traditional 

2 teacher-preparation space, and so that is the voice of 

3 dissent, and I think that it's important to allow the 

4 voice of dissent in the room. And so one area where I 

5 intend to have an impact is in teacher preparation, and 

6 I do represent another point of view than is the 

7 standard point of view. 

8 I think the other thing that I bring to the 

9 table, Senators, is that I'm a trained policy analyst. 

10 That's my profession. That's my vocation. And so while 

11 I am not going to claim to know every aspect of this 

12 huge institution, I do know how to be analytical, and I 

13 do know how to ask questions, and I know how to hold the 

14 organization to account. 

15 The other thing that I bring to the table that 

16 I think allows me to have a critical eye is that I have 

17 made a choice in my own career to be with the community 

18 and to be in a setting in a nonprofit organization where 

19 I have contact with schools, and to -- and where I'm 

20 very comfortable going into the black church and talking 

21 about college opportunity. 

22 Just using that as an example, that can 

23 oftentimes be a pretty cynical environment when it comes 

24 to authority, or the government, or how people have been 

25 treated by the establishment. And I think the fluidity 

18 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 15 to 18 of 68 



6 of 19 she 



with which I can move from the community to the board 
table actually creates a lot of value in my ability to 
have a critical eye but also a fair one. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

Witnesses in support. 

Gil, sorry. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Couple things. Is this on? 

Couple of things. I was very impressed for you 
to have the chancellor and Roger Niello come and 
introduce you, one of the prominent members of the 
legislature. I was very impressed with two other 
endorsements that you have here. Parents of Watts. 

MS. FORTUNE: Yes. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Tell me about your 
relationship there. 

MS. FORTUNE: Sweet Alice. Sweet Alice is a 
dear friend of mine, and it's funny what happens when 
you go to the neighborhood escorted and when you go 
unescorted. 

I came to know Sweets, as she likes to be 
called, when I arranged for her to meet Governor 
Schwarzenegger and Maria. She is a very big fan of 
Maria Shriver, because Sargent Shriver, after the Watts 
Riots, came and had a march in her neighborhood in the 
streets of Watts and helped to restore order there. 

19 



1 know, everybody is ready for. But then one day I 

2 decided -- I was in Watts, so I stopped by. So I stop 

3 by, and I drive in, and all of a sudden these whistles 

4 started happening. There's a stranger in the 

5 neighborhood. What that told me is this is an organized 

6 neighborhood. 

7 And so I was really honored when Sweet Alice 

8 said that she would support me, because I consider her 

9 work to be legendary work, but it also teaches you the 

10 lesson that you don't have to wait for folk to do for 

11 you. Folk need to get up and do for themselves. And, 

12 yes, when you get that seed, your leadership in your 

13 community should support you, and that's what happened 

14 with Sweet Alice; but I like the fact that she went out 

15 there and struck out on her own, and she did it. And I 

16 really have learned lessons from her as I think about my 

17 own community organizing that allows me to think in 

18 unconventional ways. 

19 The other thing I want to say is it's a modest 

20 operation. It's modest. And while it's wonderful to be 

21 in these kind of well-funded, comfortable nonprofit 

22 organizations where all the furniture is great, you know 

23 what? You can do the same work at the kitchen table. 

24 And there's a woman that does it every day, and I think 

25 she's remarkable. So thank you for asking me about her. 

21 



So when you go to Sweet Alice's home and her 
offices in the Parents of Watts, there are all these 
historical photographs that are very much rooted in the 
legacy of the Kennedy family and of the Shrivers. But 
she had never met Maria. So I arranged for the governor 
and Maria to meet her, and she gave them a tour of her 
neighborhood. 

And if you have never been there or seen her on 
that show -- what is it? Something about home 
renovations. It's an extraordinary thing. Here's a 
woman who started her work basically cooking barbecue 
and handing it out to the neighbors to feed the 
neighborhood, and then it got bigger than that. Then 
she found there was a need for child care, so she bought 
one of the houses and she started a child-care center. 
Then she found that there were people coming back from 
the neighborhood, from prison, that needed to be 
retrained, so she bought a house and she started to work 
with the phone company to retrain those that had been 
released from prison to enter into the fiber optics and 
work for the phone company. So little by little, she 
has purchased every home on this neighborhood, these 
little shotgun houses that she runs social programs out 
of. 

So when you come with a big entourage, you 

20 



1 SENATOR CEDILLO: Tell me about, which is 

2 really near and dear to me, Theodore Roosevelt High 

3 School, Alberto Vaca. 

4 MS. FORTUNE: Yes. That's your alma matre. 

5 Albert and I went to college together. We were 

6 student organizers at Berkeley in an organization called 

7 Cal Students for Equal Rights and Valid Education. And 

8 we kept up with each other. We learned coalition 

9 politics together. 

10 I met Albert sitting on the floor in the 

11 hallway of a building in Berkeley waiting to get grilled 

12 by all the heads of the organization, Mensa, 

13 Organization of African Students, Organization of Asian 

14 Pacific Islanders, and we were all terrified — we were 

15 18 -- and we went in there and defended our positions. 

16 Why did you ask? 

17 SENATOR CEDILLO: Had to ask. 

18 MS. FORTUNE: Let me just close by saying I had 

19 an opportunity to make recommendations -- 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Take your time. 

21 MS. FORTUNE: — to the governor, Governor 

22 Davis. I recommended that Albert be appointed to the 

23 commission on teacher credentialing, because we had 

24 history. 

25 SENATOR CEDILLO: I have two other questions, 

22 



19 sheets 



Page 19 to 22 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



if I may. 

MS. FORTUNE: Thank you. Jeez. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Tell me a little bit from 
being on the trustees. I'm interested in the challenges 
you will have, that the system has, in recruiting 
leadership both in teaching and in management, the 
challenges that confront you, to make sure we have the 
quality leadership at both levels. And how do we 
compare at the private sector and how do we compare with 
other states — 

MS. FORTUNE: Are you talking about leadership 
in terms of presidents, vice presidents, faculty? 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Exactly. Exactly. 

MS. FORTUNE: Well, it's an important question, 
particularly for this time in which I will serve. In 
the next seven years, I anticipate we will see 
retirements. 

I've already had an opportunity to help select 
the president of CSU — of San Jose State. I think 
that's, actually, the most important decision that a 
trustee makes, are -- you know, who will the campus 
leadership be. 

I think that we are challenged as a system in 
recruiting campus presidents because of issues of 
compensation. Now I know that the legislature and the 

23 



1 divide play in this, in online — I'm interested in 

2 that. I mean, in both those areas. Also, to what 

3 extent does collective bargaining play in this? But I'm 

4 really interested, because on some levels I appreciate 

5 the -- 

6 We live in a changed world. The workplace is 

7 different, so there's no reason why the classroom should 

8 be the same when everything else around it has changed. 

9 Obviously, it makes sense that our approach to the 

10 delivery of educational services, education, would 

11 likewise be changed. 

12 The question is how — What role does the 

13 digital divide play in that? 

14 MS. FORTUNE: I think that increasingly, even 

15 in our high schools that sit in the middle of the 

16 digital divide, the state has made an effort to fill in 

17 that divide by offering — by wiring, and on top of 

18 that- 

19 Having been a high-school principal and taken 

20 away my share of cell phones, I know that even poor kids 

21 in the inner city have plenty of access to hand-held 

22 devices, and I think that that is the basic 

23 infrastructure on which online course degrees is built 

24 on a society in which people are increasingly plugged 

25 in, whether it's plugged in through their cell phones, 

25 



state auditor have had more than a few things to say to 
the CSU system with regards to executive compensation, 
and as a board member I am sensitive to that. But I 
also have seen, in just this one experience with a very 
important campus, that to come and be a campus president 
in our system means that to get the best talent, people 
are taking a pay cut. So I think that will be something 
that this board confronts and — So that's one thing. 

I think also as you look at comparable 
institutions, you'll see not only are our executives 
behind, but so are our faculty. And so as a board of 
trustees, you know, we're committed to getting both 
groups there. 

I think that the reality is that the fiscal 
crisis puts that entire conversation on hold, because 
everybody in the state is hurting, and everybody is 
going to be asked to do more. And so it's a precarious 
time to be in a position to want to recruit the best and 
the brightest and yet have less in our pocketbooks to do 
it with. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Finally, on this - you 
brought this up, but on this -- On the access question, 
the question that Pro Tern -- I have a different 
viewpoint on this, or concern. 

On this access, what role does the digital 

24 



1 or plugged in through their laptops, or plugged in 

2 through laptops or computers that are in the library or 

3 at Starbucks, or whatever it is. There are lots of 

4 opportunities. And I think that for those that are in a 

5 mode of retraining, that there's opportunity and that 

6 there's access. Not that the digital divide is 

7 nonexistent. Certainly, there are a lot of people 

8 working on that problem; but I think our society has 

9 changed enough for there to be some opportunity in this 

10 space that will be an opportunity for everyone. 

11 SENATOR CEDILLO: Thank you. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

13 I'm going to now ask for witnesses in support 

14 and ask the witnesses to come up and be brief, please. 

15 We have a lengthy agenda. We would like to hear some 

16 brief words of support. If there's any opposition, 

17 we'll ask them to be brief too. 

18 Ms. Beliile. 

19 MS. BELIILE: I'm Rae Beliile. I'm CEO of 

20 Ed Voice, which is an advocacy network that advocates 

21 for all students, but especially for ethnic minority 

22 children who we think are especially hit by the teacher 

23 issues that Margaret raised in her testimony. We think 

24 that her input as a CSU trustee will be pivotal in 

25 closing that gap and preparing teachers, and we support 

26 



)3/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 23 to 26 of 68 



8 of 19 she 



her nomination. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

MR. JONES: Good afternoon. Branche Jones, 
California Charter Schools Association. 

It's a pleasure to support Margaret's 
confirmation. She's a friend and also has been a 
colleague, and we've been able to see pointblank her 
commitment to everyone in the educational system, 
especially underserved youth. Appreciate the governor 
making the appointment and urge an aye vote. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
Mr. Jones. 

Other witnesses in support. All right. Any 
witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? 
No witnesses in opposition. That's very good. 

Well, you know, I've known Ms. Fortune for a 
long time, and she brings a great deal of expertise and 
thought, and a very articulate way of presenting some 
very, very difficult issues. I'm pleased to support the 
nomination. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Moved. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. Moved by 
Senator Cedillo. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: One comment. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes, of course. 

27 



1 forthwith. 

2 MS. FORTUNE: Thank you very much, Senators. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

4 Margaret. Keep fighting. 

5 (Applause.) 

6 SENATOR AANESTAD: Mr. Arbaugh, why don't you 

7 come on up and get ready, and as soon as the room 

8 clears, we'll get started here, and the Chair will 

9 return quickly. Okay. We have Troy Arbaugh, member of 

10 the Board of Parole Hearings. Welcome. 

11 Do you have anybody here that you would like to 

12 introduce? Family, friends? 

13 MR. ARBAUGH: I have some family here. 

14 SENATOR AANESTAD: Okay. 

15 MR. ARBAUGH: I have my wife of 37 years, 

16 Karen; our daughter Jennifer and her son Michael; our 

17 oldest son James and his wife Nicole and their two 

18 children Corey and Alexa; and our youngest son Thomas. 

19 SENATOR AANESTAD: Welcome to the entire 

20 Arbaugh family. Good to see you here. 

21 MR. ARBAUGH: Not quite. 

22 SENATOR AANESTAD: Have you any opening 

23 statements? 

24 MR. ARBAUGH: I do. 

25 SENATOR AANESTAD: Let's get started. 

29 



SENATOR AANESTAD: You were talking about 
compensation of CSU people. I think that CSU is 
about to get the most underpaid person involved with 
them in the next few minutes. Your testimony was just 
so impressive. I think that you're just doing us a 
favor, and you're going to be really underpaid. I just 
want you to know that. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Public service. 

MS. FORTUNE: Right. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

Please call the roll. 

MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Cedillo aye. 

Dutton. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 

Oropeza. Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That will move now to the 
Senate floor, and confirmation will be taken up 

28 



1 MR. ARBAUGH: Good afternoon, Senators. Thank 

2 you for the opportunity to come before you today. I 

3 look forward to responding to any questions that you may 

4 have regarding my qualifications for the position of 

5 commissioner on the Board of Parole Hearings. 

6 As with any position, I have, over time, become 

7 more comfortable in my role as commissioner. I have 

8 improved my skills at hearing time management, 

9 questioning inmates, and evaluating the facts of each 

10 case with suitability factors to arrive at this 

11 decision. 

12 There may exist concerns that there are 

13 inconsistent results in the hearings that I chair as 

14 commissioner. I believe this is a misconception. At 

15 every hearing, there are competing applicants of 

16 interest, each with their own personal and professional 

17 opinion. Each party is heard and their perspective 

18 considered while weighing relevant facts with applicable 

19 law. 

20 Each hearing has a life-span of its own, 

21 whether there are multiple victims or next-of-kin, 

22 questions and statements by district attorney 

23 representatives and inmate attorneys, and/or inmate 

24 statements each will be heard and considered at each 

25 hearing. 

30 



19 sheets 



Page 27 to 30 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



1 


My role as commissioner is to allow all to have 


1 


California Association of Alcohol and Substance Abuse 


2 


their voice while balancing the interest of efficiency 


2 


Counselors. 


3 


and fairness. 


3 


There were 50 members of — inmates in that 


4 


If an inmate is suitable for parole and not a 


4 


program, 42 of which were lifers, and they will be 


5 


present risk of danger to society or a threat to public 


5 


trained to mentor to other inmates. It was very 


6 


safety, that inmate deserves a grant of parole. The 


6 


professionally done. That organization actually offers 


7 


alternative is also true. When an inmate remains a 


7 


paid positions to the inmates when they are released. 


8 


danger and a risk to the public, an appropriate denial 


8 


The day I was there, there was actually one inmate that 


9 


length is determined by the panel. 


9 


had been offered a paid position as a counselor upon 


10 


I bring to bear the necessary characteristics 


10 


release. 


11 


of integrity, thoughtful decision-making, and fairness 


11 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 


12 


to my work as commissioner for the Board of Parole 


12 


How useful is this risk-assessment tool 


13 


Hearings. With your support today, I would like to 


13 


provided by the trained clinician in your determination 


14 


continue that important work. 


14 


of the relative level of risk for a lifer who you may 


15 


And with that, I will answer any questions that 


15 


parole? 


16 


you may have. 


16 


MR. ARBAUGH: I look at it as a tool. I read 


17 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Okay. And now that the 


17 


the full report. It's a lot of information in there. 


18 


Chair is back, we'll hand the gavel to him and start 


18 


He kind of summarizes what's in the files before us. 


19 


questioning. 


19 


It's a place to look at -- The doctor looks at the 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. Excuse me for 


20 


insight/remorse, determines, in his opinion, the risk of 


21 


having to step out for just a moment. 


21 


the inmate. It opens the door to questions of the 


22 


So Mr. Arbaugh has made his opening statement. 


22 


inmate in order to delve — for our insight into the 


23 


Very, very good. Why don't I open it up to the other 


23 


inmate's insight, the questions that it does raise. 


24 


members for just a second, Senators Dutton, Cedillo, 


24 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I know we're going to 


25 


Aanestad. 

31 


25 


hear -- There's some opposition, and maybe we should 

33 


1 


SENATOR AANESTAD: I think I'd rather wait to 


1 


allow you to, you know, wait to respond to the 


2 


see what witnesses — 


2 


opposition. Why don't we first hear from witnesses in 


3 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, I can begin, then, 


3 


support. The witnesses in support. 


4 


now that I've got my bearings, coming back in. 


4 


Witnesses in opposition. 


5 


Couple of things in your written response to 


5 


Mr. Warren, how are you doing? 


6 


our questions I would like to ask you about. You do 


6 


MR. WARREN: Well, to put it bluntly, it's 


7 


mention in your written response that you have not yet 


7 


fortunate that Jewish people don't believe in hell, 


8 


observed any rehabilitation programs within the prisons, 


8 


because as a lawyer, God's not going to let me in 


9 


but you hope to find some time. 


9 


heaven. 


10 


You've been serving since last May. Is the 


10 


I had a handout that I left with the 


11 


intent to make the time sometime soon, and do you view 


11 


sergeant-at-arms that I hoped to be shared. 


12 


that as an essential piece of determining suitability 


12 


My name is David Warren. I'm appearing on 


13 


for parole? 


13 


behalf of Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety. And if 


14 


MR. ARBAUGH: I have taken the time, and I am 


14 


I slur a little bit, please excuse me. I'm on some new 


15 


sorry that I didn't visit programs earlier. I visited 


15 


medication, and I'm slower than normal. 


16 


the -- The one that really impressed me was down in 


16 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Don't worry about it. 


17 


Solano. 


17 


MR. WARREN: We appear here in opposition both 


18 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So you have since you 


18 


generally and because of personal knowledge and 


19 


filled out -- 


19 


experience. I have submitted our letter, and I would 


20 


MR. ARBAUGH: Yes, I have. 


20 


like to point out one most -- what I believe to be an 


21 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 


21 


egregious example of an inmate at Folsom State Prison, 


22 


MR. ARBAUGH: I attended the substance abuse 


22 


Mr. Paul Sandoval, who I've known for half a decade. 


23 


program down in Solano, a new program and a new building 


23 


Here's an individual who clearly has come to understand 


24 


set up down there for mentors, and it is co-chaired or 


24 


the nature of the crime, his insight into the crime. We 


25 


co-sponsored by the California Substance Abuse -- the 


25 


have talked extensively over the last half decade, and 




32 




34 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 31 to 34 of 68 



10 of 19 she 



yet he was denied parole but provided a three-year 
hearing date. Three-year hearing date indicates to me 
that there's a strong belief that the man has been 
paroled and is just simply postponing what should have 
been done already. 

I fear that — One of my greatest concerns in 
approving this individual is that we have repeatedly 
pointed out that there's a sense that the Board of 
Parole Hearings is here specifically to demonstrate that 
we are going to be tough on crime. 

I provided you a recent editorial from the 
Fresno Bee today which points out that we have an 
extraordinary expense in our older and elderly inmates, 
and it's eating up the budget. I've provided you with 
two examples in my letter. Both of these are women 
which I knew personally, Helen Loweak, who was suffering 
from dementia, who was being transported three days a 
week for dialysis and two days a week for inhalation 
therapy, and, as a consequence, was costing the State of 
California half million dollars. She could never have 
been a threat to public safety and was denied release. 

We have lost our view with the Board of Parole 
Hearings, and I think it's very important — pardon me. 
I hope you'll read my letter. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We'll read the letter. 

35 



1 attorney, the head of the lifer hearings division for 

2 the Los Angeles County District — I'm sorry. 

3 My name, again, is David Dahle, deputy district 

4 attorney from Los Angeles County. We are here today, 

5 unfortunately, not in support but in opposition of the 

6 confirmation for this commissioner. It is with heavy 

7 heart that I do so. It is, to my knowledge, the first 

8 time that our department has taken a position against an 

9 appointee in this area. 

10 Addressing the issues of concern that our 

11 office has pertain specifically to the ability of 

12 Commissioner Arbaugh to control his proceedings, which 

13 is a significant factor. 

14 At one hearing which I was present, the inmate 

15 essentially rested control of the hearing away from the 

16 commissioner, and the deputy commissioner assigned at 

17 that hearing had to take control of the proceedings and 

18 restore order so that the hearing could resume. 

19 Subsequent to that, in another institution in 

20 another facility, and of even greater concern to the 

21 prosecutors in our office who do hearings, a grant of 

22 parole was given by Commissioner Arbaugh in a case in 

23 which the clinical assessment done for that particular 

24 prisoner rated the prisoner a moderate risk on one test, 

25 a low to moderate risk on another, and a medium risk of 

37 



Let me ask you a question, though. 

Mr. Arbaugh specifically, 397 hearings, 34 
grants. That's almost 10 percent. How does that 
compare -- How does his performance, in your view, from 
your perspective, compare to other members of the board? 

MR. WARREN: His performance is better, but 
that doesn't mean anything. To me, that's not a good 
measure. 

Essentially what's being stated by the Board of 
Parole Hearings is that the State of California 
Department of Corrections has a 99.99 percent failure 
rate for rehabilitating these individuals. That is 
either a condemnation of the Department of Corrections, 
or it's a statement that there's something wrong with 
the determination of who should be granted parole. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Very good. Thank 
you very much. 

MR. WARREN: I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's okay. Hope you 
feel better. 

MR. WARREN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Any other witnesses 
in opposition? Sir. 

MR. DAHLE: Members of the Committee, good 
afternoon. I'm David Dahle. I'm a deputy district 

36 



1 recidivism, overall a moderate risk for recidivism in 

2 the future. That decision to grant parole with that 

3 information before the panel was so beyond a reasonable 

4 decision that we were not — could not accept that as a 

5 just and reasonable outcome for the hearing. 

6 Given those circumstances, we believe that it 

7 would be inappropriate to continue to have Commissioner 

8 Arbaugh sitting, and we unfortunately must ask that you 

9 deny. Thank you. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, sir. 

11 Do you want to respond to the instance that the 

12 deputy district attorney just talked about, sir? 

13 It's hard for us to dissect cases. We can't, 

14 you know, relitigate the cases here before us, but I'd 

15 like you to respond. 

16 MR. ARBAUGH: I believe they were both early-on 

17 cases. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Early what? 

19 MR. ARBAUGH: Early on in my hearings. And I 

20 think I've gained control over those cases. I do recall 

21 a particular hearing where the DC jumped in and talked 

22 to the inmate -- talked to the inmate and the rest of us 

23 in the room. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The DC? 

25 MR. ARBAUGH: The deputy commissioner. Sorry. 

38 



19 sheets 



Page 35 to 38 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



The deputy commissioner. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Sorry. I'm A-okay, but -- 

MR. ARBAUGH: And as far as the granting -- or 
giving the date of the grant for the person with the 
risk assessment -- 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes, the moderate risk 
assessment. 

MR. ARBAUGH: Again, that's a tool that we use, 
and based on the information that we have at that 
hearing that is brought forward, the information in the 
file, that hearing at that time on that day, myself and 
the other panel member, the deputy commissioner, felt 
the person deserved a date. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you remember what the 
significant fact of mitigation was that had you, 
essentially, overcome the risk-assessment tool? 

MR. ARBAUGH: I do not. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Okay. 

Is there a tendency of the DAs in these 
hearings to try to essentially run them, take them over? 
Is that a point of tension between the commissioners and 
the district attorney, that you're in control, but they 
want to take some control? Is that a phenomenon? 

MR. ARBAUGH: I have not observed that. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You have not observed 

39 



1 on philosophy, but it's our job to judge the 

2 qualification, the mindset, the objectivity of the 

3 person, and I haven't heard anything here today that 

4 makes me question that. 

5 So, is there a motion? 

6 MS. KLINGE: There are other speakers. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Oh, I didn't know there 

8 were other speakers. I apologize. Opposition? 

9 MS. KLINGE: Yes. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Of course. 

11 MS. KLINGE: We'll be brief. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: How many? 

13 MS. KLINGE: Two -- three, I think. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Everybody come on up. 

15 MS. KLINGE: My name is Jill Klinge, and I'm an 

16 Alameda County district attorney. I've been a DA for 22 

17 years there, and I've handled lifer hearings for 

18 approximately three years. For my county, I'm the sole 

19 person that does them. 

20 And to respond to Senator Aanestad's comments, 

21 it's not easy for us to come here and oppose. This was 

22 a very — a decision that was gone over time and time 

23 again, and it's not a philosophical position about our 

24 position on cases. I frankly don't look at grant rates 

25 or denial rates. I strictly look at how a hearing is 

41 



that. Okay. 

Questions from members. Okay — 

Go ahead, Sam. Senator Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: I guess my question is more 
for the district attorney from Los Angeles. We're 
talking about out of 313 hearings, specifically 
referring to two, one where they disagreed with the 
finding, and yet what about the 228 denials? Did they 
disagree with any of those findings? I don't think so. 

Again, you know, I'm asking folks who come here 
to testify in support or opposition of these people to 
talk to us specifically about the work quality of the 
person that is here for a confirmation hearing and not 
come in with a political agenda because maybe they don't 
satisfy the findings that they want to have enough of. 

You know, in this case, I don't think the 
opposition has swayed me one bit. In fact, I'm a bit 
embarrassed at the testimony of the opposition simply 
because they have not been able to demonstrate, to me, 
anyway, any incompetence or inability to do the job. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I agree with most of what 
you just said. I might put it a little bit differently, 
but I agree. 

People have the right to use the public forum 
here to come up and oppose or support the nominee based 

40 



1 conducted, and if it's a fair, impartial hearing. And 

2 the commissioner has the tools to conduct the hearing in 

3 a manner necessary to come to a just result. 

4 So it's not a philosophical belief for me that 

5 everyone should stay in prison. I've submitted cases. 

6 I believe people can be rehabilitated. I believe they 

7 deserve to get out if they've met certain criteria. 

8 The reason that I'm here today is a couple 

9 reasons. No one is going to argue that Commissioner 

10 Arbaugh s not a nice gentleman. He certainly is. But 

11 he's not effective as a commissioner. 

12 Now we've had discussions -- in fact, recently, 

13 Commissioner Arbaugh has had discussions with several 

14 DAs, including myself, because he became aware we would 

15 be opposing his confirmation. And, yes, I know he's 

16 spoken tc -- that he tried to do his time management 

17 better, and I'm sure you'll hear about and have heard 

18 about people being in Avenal until 1:30 in the morning. 

19 I was in Folsom State Prison on a Friday on two morning 

20 cases. I didn't get off until 6:30 at night. 

21 Certain cases, yes, need to be lengthy, based 

22 on the information in the case. But when it's 

23 consistent that cases are taking much longer than 

24 necessary for the information to come forward, it's not 

25 only a hardship on the DAs, the inmates that have to 

42 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 39 to 42 of 68 



12 of 19 shee 



1 wait to start their hearing until very late in the 

2 evening when we're all tired, the commissioners, the 

3 prison staff are required to stay, and an inability to 

4 manage the time is extremely important. 

5 Due to recent case law, it's become very 

6 important to determine the veracity of an inmate when 

7 he's claiming that he has insight into the crime and 

8 remorse. The commissioner takes the lead on questioning 

9 the inmate on those things. And Commissioner Arbaugh, 

in my experience, and I've appeared in front of him 

1 several times, numerous times, doesn't have the innate 

2 ability -- the ability to effectively question an inmate 

3 and get to the core of the matter. You can tell when 

4 people instinctually can do it, or they can learn to do 

5 it over time. Unfortunately, I just have not seen that. 
5 A lot of law enforcement officials don't work in the 

7 capacity of interviewing people repeatedly, and that's a 

5 skill that you either pretty much have or don't have. 

J I'm also concerned that his recent 

) acknowledgments of the issues he's had, which he 

I presented in his opening statement, that he's spoken to 

I us about have only come very recently, when they've been 

J mentioned to him over the last year. And in the past 

I times, it's been more of a defensive response, "I don't 

5 have any issues," and now, just recently, he's saying, 

43 



1 DA that's interested in public safety, and certain 

2 people are right for a job, and certain people aren't. 

3 It doesn't mean that I'm philosophically opposed. I'm a 

4 strong law-enforcement background. 

5 So with that -- That's just my comments. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, thank you. 

7 MR. ZARATE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 

8 Members of the Committee. My name is Francisco Pancho, 

9 P-a-n-c-h-o, Zarate, Z-a-r-a-t-e. I represent the 

10 California District Attorneys Association. I'm a member 

11 of the board of directors as well as the lifer 

12 committee. 

13 I want to make certain that you have received 

14 the letter that this does oppose the confirmation of 

15 Mr. Arbaugh for commissioner of the Board of Parole 

16 Hearings. 

17 As you have seen from the letter, as well as 

18 the speakers, the concern is with the ability to 

19 effectively and efficiently conduct an administrative 

20 hearing and focus in on the issues. Conducting a 

21 hearing that's concluded at 1:30 in the morning is 

22 obviously unacceptable. 

23 SENATOR AANESTAD: Can I interrupt for a 

24 second? I have been in this building recently past 1:30 

25 many, many times, and are you saying the person who ran 

45 



"Oh, I'm going to address those issues. I wouldn't have 
made those decisions before that I made had I known what 
I know now." So I have a concern about that and the 
timing of that. 

I've recently had a decision, and, granted, I 
don't -- you know, I don't look to grants and denials, 
like I said -- where an inmate in the 2007 hearing had 
become extremely agitated with the commissioner that had 
done that hearing, and it was all over the record. And 
one of the things you look at is can they maintain their 
anger-management issues. This was a series of robbery/ 
kidnaps. And in the next hearing, Commissioner Arbaugh, 
which it was recent, in the last few months, because it 
was -- ended up going abunk (phonetic) basically just 
said, "Did you get agitated in 2007?" 
. "Yeah, I did." 

"Did you feel like you had the right to get 
agitated?" 

"Well, under the circumstances, I would," and 
left it at that. There was no -- you know, no further 
follow-up and no -- he did not address it in his 
decision at all as to any anger-management issues that 
that would have exemplified, which it did. 

So that's just a small example, and I'm not 
speaking on a philosophical basis. This is a basis of a 

44 



1 the Senate at the time is incompetent because we were 

2 here at 1:30? 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Hey, better not say that. 

4 SENATOR AANESTAD: Maybe we were doing our job 

5 and it took longer. That entire argument, the length of 

6 the hearing, is absolutely out the window if we're 

7 getting to the truth of the matter. And sometimes you 

8 can't do it in two hours, and maybe it takes four hours, 

9 or maybe it takes four days being shut up in the 

10 building here to get the job done. So don't use that 

11 argument anymore. 

12 MR. ZARATE: The problem is: What kind of 

13 judgment does a person exercise at that time? 

14 Again, on behalf of the District Attorneys 

15 Association that represents the 57 counties, as well as 

16 the members of the lifer committee whose sole purpose is 

17 to address the issues of lifer hearings, as well as 

18 public safety, opposes confirmation. Thank you. 

19 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next. 

20 MS. WARD: My name is Christine Ward. I'm the 

21 executive director of the Crime Victims Action Alliance. 

22 And I apologize you do not have a letter. I was out on 

23 a family emergency, so I'm appearing before you today. 

24 We are opposed to Commissioner Arbaugh's 

25 confirmation as well for many of the reasons that the 

46 



19 sheets 



Page 43 to 46 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



DAs have already brought up, so I won't go into great 
detail. But we are concerned with Mr. Arbaugh's ability 
to assess the suitability of an inmate for release. And 
we do follow numbers. We do follow what's happening at 
the parole board, but unlike other crime victims' 
organizations, we actually do believe that there are 
inmates who are absolutely suitable for being released 
back into our society. We just want to make sure that 
those coming out are ready and will be safe, 
contributing members to society. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Have you observed the 
commissioner conduct a hearing? 

MS. WARD: No, sir. I've pulled transcripts. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you have concern about 
his conclusions or about his ability to actually conduct 
a thorough hearing? 

MS. WARD: It's more the conduction of the 
hearing, not so much the conclusion of the hearing. 
Certainly, I'm not going to agree with all of his 
decisions, but it's more so the process that occurs. 

I'm not an attorney. I'm a victim advocate. 
So I'm simply looking at it from the viewpoint of a 
victim advocate. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Can you give an example of 
what you read in the transcript or series of transcripts 

47 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: A factor. But you 

2 wouldn't automatically support an inmate's parole just 

3 because the risk-assessment tool came in low? 

4 MS. WARD: I would say that everything — the 

5 short answer, no, taking everything into consideration 

6 in that hearing. There's so much more that goes on in 

7 that hearing than just the risk assessment as a factor. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Thank you very much 

9 for coming and testifying. 

10 Anybody else? I mean, this is -- Here's what 

11 I'd like to do: I'd like to move the nominee here, but 

12 I would ask — I would like the staff to at least take a 

13 second look at some of these complaints before we 

14 actually take this up on the floor, I would, just to 

15 again review some of the transcripts and look at the 

16 issue of how the hearings are conducted. 

17 It doesn't bother me that a hearing would go to 

18 1:30 in the morning. Like Senator Aanestad said, 

19 sometimes the public process is a little bit messy, and 

20 sometimes when there's a lot at stake for people and for 

21 society -- I mean, these are big decisions here, right, 

22 for all parties involved. Maybe it is better to take a 

23 little bit more time than not. So I'm not sure that's 

24 definitive. 

25 However, if there's this pattern of just not 

49 



that troubled you? 

MS. WARD: Sir, I would be more than happy to 
follow up with that. Unfortunately, like I said, I was 
on a family emergency — 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I'm sorry. I'm not trying 
to push you. I'm just trying to gain some insight into 
what the problem is. 

MS. WARD: It's the length of the hearing, the 
concern over the risk assessment and not taking all of 
the information from the risk assessment, in our belief, 
into as much consideration as we believe. And, again, 
this is an opinion of our organization only. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let me ask you one 
question about the organization, and I probably should 
have asked this of others as well. But where a 
psychological risk assessment comes back low, do you 
believe that that ought to be at least close to a 
definitive statement or conclusion about the inmate's 
suitability for parole? 

In other words, it goes both ways. We heard 
some complaint where the risk assessment is high, the 
gentleman is not giving it enough weight. What's your 
view when the risk assessment comes in low? 

MS. WARD: That it should absolutely be weighed 
the same as if it comes in high. It's a factor. 

48 



1 being able to conduct a hearing, and that has sort of 

2 continued up to the present, I would kind of like to 

3 know that, and it leaves me just a tiny bit uncertain 

4 about whether that's the case. 

5 Maybe you can address it, Mr. Arbaugh. You 

6 alluded to the fact that initially, you were sort of new 

7 at conducting the hearings. How do you assess, now, 

8 your ability to actually conduct a thorough hearing? 

9 SENATOR CEDILLO: Before that, if we're going 

10 to ask that question, I think we also need to ask the 

11 inverse, because the other question is, perhaps, the 

12 handling of the hearings is the appropriate way. 

13 There's jeopardy, and maybe it's a -- due process 

14 requires what's due, and maybe this is what is due, 

15 given what's the jeopardy. 

16 These are lifers. These are now, given the new 

17 law, something that would require at least some sense 

18 that those who are before him have had the full 

19 opportunity for the expression of their appeal. I 

20 didn't hear anybody say that "We didn't have an 

21 opportunity," or that "We only heard one side, and we 

22 didn't hear the other side." There's not a qualitative 

23 distinction on the results. No one seems to have an 

24 issue with the results, so it appears at this moment 

25 that some people seem to be upset that it's not, 



50 



D3/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 47 to 50 of 68 



14 of 19 she* 



perhaps, more perfunctory, and not more ministerial, 
right? 

And I would say to you, having done hearings 
like you, that it seems to be the minimum for someone 
whose life is in jeopardy that the process may require 
that. So we have to ask the other question and find out 
from the other side are people concerned that they're 

8 not getting their day in court, and particularly now 

9 that the law has changed, that they're not getting their 
day in court, that their issues aren't being fully 
heard, and at the time not one party came up and said 
"Well, there was some advantage to a party or a point of 
view versus another." 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's true. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: They lamented the time 
involved in affording the due process. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I certainly have not come 
3 to a negative conclusion. I want to make that clear. I 
9 have not come to a negative conclusion. It's just -- A 
3 couple of the witnesses, I just think, raised the 
1 concern. 

I I'm ready to move the nomination to the floor. 

J I just want to maybe look at a couple of the transcripts 
I between now and the floor session just to make sure. 



That's just me. 



51 



1 from them. And the hearings that I've had, the deputy 

2 commissioners that have been with me, especially early 

3 on, were seasoned deputy commissioners. Most of them 

4 had been commissioners and brought up. There was never 

5 a split decision. It is a joint effort in reaching a 

6 decision based on the information that is before us. 

7 The only time there's been any great discussion 

8 is the length of time of denial, whether it be two years 

9 or one year, or two years or three years, but there has 

10 never been a split decision as far as parole. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Can you respond to the 

12 specific case referenced by the Alameda County deputy 

13 district attorney where she alleged that in reviewing 

14 the conduct of an inmate back in the 2007 case who had 

15 exhibited all kinds of anger issues in the hearing 

16 itself, that you didn't adequately question the inmate 

17 about that? 

18 MR. ARBAUGH: No, I could not. No. I can't 

19 recall that specifically. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. That may be one 

21 that I want to -- that I want to look at. 

22 Okay. I'm ready to move the motion. Ready to 

23 move the nominee. 

24 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

25 SENATOR CEDILLO: Aye. 

53 



SENATOR CEDILLO: But it's -- Again, I just 
would look at -- We need to compare apples to apples. 
We need to get a sense, because this may really open up 
questions, and perhaps the other hearings may be too 
ministerial, given the jeopardy that's involved here and 
given the rights of the victims, given the rights of the 
person whose time and liberties are in jeopardy. Maybe 
the others may be -- The results are the same. No one 
can lament it, the results. Perhaps that may be a 
process we want to engage in. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Arbaugh, what do you 
say about your own conduct -- Not conduct -- your own 
experience in conducting these important hearings. 

MR. ARBAUGH: It's been a learning experience. 
Time-wise they're down to mid-average, is what I've been 
told. Two, two and a half hours is what they are as far 
as the time goes. But some hearings have gone four, 
four and a half hours, based on the information. 

Most of my career as a law enforcement officer 
was involved in investigation. Most of those were with 
crimes against people and interviews of people. I've 
also done interviews with -- in workers' comp fraud 
cases after I retired from the sheriff's office. Again, 
interview techniques that I have learned and used. And 
I think I can read people pretty well, sitting across 

52 



1 MS. BROWN: Cedillo aye. 

2 Dutton. Oropeza. Aanestad. 

3 SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

4 MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

5 Steinberg. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

7 MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. Thank you very 

9 much. Appreciate you being here and answering all of 

10 our questions. 

11 (Applause.) 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: (To the reporter): Are 

13 you okay? 

14 THE REPORTER: Five minutes. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We'll take a five-minute 

16 break. 

17 (Recess taken.) 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. The Committee 

19 will come back to order here. 

20 I'd like to welcome Henry J. Aguilar, who is up 

21 for confirmation as commissioner of the Juvenile Parole 

22 Board. 

23 Welcome to you, sir. 

24 MR. AGUILAR: Thank you. 

25 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And I would like to give 

54 



19 sheets 



Page 51 to 54 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



1 you the opportunity to introduce any family members or 

2 special guests in the audience. 

3 MR. AGUILAR: You bet. Chuck Supple, the 

4 executive officer of the Juvenile Parole Board; fellow 

5 commissioner, Rob Cameron -- 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome. 

7 MR. AGUILAR: -- Rick Oules, who is probably in 

8 the men's room. He will be in shortly. And that's -- 

9 Oh, and Janine Smalley from the Juvenile Parole Board as 

10 well. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to all of you. 

12 All right. If you would like to make a very 

13 brief opening statement, we will ask you a few 

14 questions, and we will move through this. 

15 MR. AGUILAR: Chairman Steinberg, Senators and 

16 staff members, and invited guests. Good afternoon. 

17 It's a pleasure and an honor to be here today. My name 

18 is Henry Aguilar, and I would like to thank you for the 

19 opportunity to come before you today seeking your 

20 support in my confirmation as a commissioner of the 

21 Juvenile Parole Board. 

22 My goal as commissioner is to protect the 

23 public and serve the residents of California. During my 

24 tenure, I intend to help the youth open their eyes to 

25 new possibilities by sharing my personal examples and 

55 



1 the adult correctional system eventually? 

2 MR. AGUILAR: Yes, I do, sir, and I base that 

3 on — The good part of my job is when I go on Friday to 

4 do what they call calendar at the local offices where we 

5 conduct discharges. And I always take pride and extra 

6 time when I see an honorable discharge, where we 

7 actually discharge a parolee who has done very well out 

8 in the community who is employed, going to school, and 

9 who is no longer a threat to public safety. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. One of the things 

11 we were pleased about in reviewing your application was 

12 the fact that you have really observed a number of rehab 

13 programs and, you know, your commitment to vocational 

14 training as the key to independence and rehabilitation. 

15 What role do you play, if at all, in advising 

16 DJJ on the quality of its programs? What are you doing 

17 to be an advocate for what it is you have seen. 

18 MR. AGUILAR: I try to advance programs and 

19 services that work -- that I see work. I think aligning 

20 more with vocational colleges, trade colleges -- The 

21 bottom line when these kids get out is that they have 

22 very minimal employability skills. School is another 

23 factor I try to tell the executive officer as well as 

24 the director of DJJ, that we ought to be aligning 

25 ourselves a little bit more with higher education, 

57 



1 experiences. My past employment with the Department of 

2 Social Services, law enforcement, afforded occasional 

3 nursing and psychiatric admissions, and as a member of 

4 the California Council on Criminal Justice has provided 

5 me with the training, the experience in helping a 

6 diverse population. 

7 Throughout my life, I have assisted others by 

8 being a youth mentor, a fellowship counselor, and 

9 athletic coach. As a commissioner, I will be able to 

10 continue my passion of community service to help the 

11 lives of our youth. In the last ten and a half months, 

12 I found this job to be challenging, rewarding, and 

13 fulfilling all at the same time. 

14 My greatest accomplishment was raising my three 

15 children who have blessed me and my wife of 36 years 

16 with six healthy grandchildren. I'm still getting used 

17 to being called "Grandpa." 

18 I thank you again for this opportunity, and 

19 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you again for being 

21 here. 

22 Let me begin with a threshold question here. 

23 Do you think the DJJ works for the purpose that it's 

24 intended, to help protect the public safety but 

25 rehabilitate juvenile offenders to avoid being part of 

56 



1 getting these kids into these colleges. Luckily, over 

2 at Heman G. Stark, we do have a local university 

3 partnering up with them, but we need more of those 

4 relationships to get the kids educated and them a job 

5 when they get out. Otherwise, they return back to doing 

6 what they were doing. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Talk, if you would for a 

8 moment, about the criteria you used at times to award 

9 sentence, the so-called add-on provisions of the law. 

10 What — Tell me what the context of that is. 

11 That means if you paroled a ward and they come back or 

12 if they misbehave within the institution, you can add 

13 time onto their sentence. What's your criteria? 

14 MR. AGUILAR: Well, I am being currently 

15 trained on parole revocation where you can do the time 

16 adds. They issued a new procedure to do that, and I'm 

17 being currently trained on that. But we look at the 

18 performance of the behaviors, what they did and how they 

19 did it, their amenability to any rehabilitative efforts. 

20 Back in the old system, they had what they 

21 called corrective action plans. Under the new system, 

22 they don't. They have a table of sanctions and how much 

23 time you can give them. 

24 You take the whole case in totality and see if 

25 this ward is amenable to the treatment, training, and 

58 



J3/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 55 to 58 of 68 



16 of 19 shee 



education offered by DJJ. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Other questions from 
Members. Questions from Members. 

A little -- Then I'll ask another, if nobody 
else has one. 

A little bit more detail on what you observe in 
terms of the quality of DJJ's education programs, what 
we can do, as a legislature, to help the department 
improve successful educational outcomes for the wards. 

MR. AGUILAR: When they come before the 
juvenile administrative committee, we usually have a 
representative of the school in these hearings, as well 
as a representative of the mental health component. And 
we've talked about that with the school folks. How can 
we get these kids either their GEDs or their high-school 
diplomas before they get out of here? Perhaps putting 
computers in the school so they can access and go at 
their own rate as far as how they can go online and get 
some of those classes completed and/or find other 
methods to get these kids interested in education. 

Unfortunately, and I've said this many times in 
the hearings, that you can lead that horse to the water, 
but if it doesn't want to drink it, it won't drink. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Talk about mental health 
for a moment. What percentage of the wards that you 

59 



1 to be nonviolent. 

2 MR. AGUILAR: That's correct. 

3 SENATOR DUTTON: The ones that you're dealing 

4 with are considered to be, for lack of any better words, 

5 the worst of the worst. These are young people that 

6 have pretty substantial problems, I would assume, right? 

7 MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir. 

8 SENATOR DUTTON: There was a Hoover study, 

9 because there was concern the cost has gone up to 

10 house -- to almost $250,000 per year to house a 

11 juvenile, and there's been some work done, according to 

12 the Little Hoover Commission, that's suggested maybe 

13 we're better off switching everything over to counties, 

14 including the worst of the worst, because they might be 

15 in better shape to continue to provide the necessary 

16 services and so forth. Do you have an opinion about 

17 that one way or the other? 

18 MR. AGUILAR: I think the numbers are so high, 

19 and that when you have a decreasing population, you make 

20 the simple division of 2,000 wards into how much you're 

21 actually spending. That's why you get the 250,000; 

22 whereas, when the population was 10,000, it wouldn't be 

23 that high. 

24 I would say that because we get the worst of 

25 the worst, so to speak, DJJ can handle these people, 

61 



observe have significant mental health issues, and are 
they being adequately addressed, in your opinion? 

MR. AGUILAR: The ones that I usually see are 
at the northern -- excuse me -- at the southern clinic 
there at Norwalk, and they have adequate resources, I 
think, at this point, to — because of the population 
decreasing, to be seen by the treatment team and 
assessed, anger management, trauma, whatever -- a lot 
of -- all this is organic. If they are accessible to 
their meds, they're under the treatment of the 
psychiatrist, and I — Again, I've visited the clinic in 
the back and see, actually, group therapy. 

And, again, what happens with the ones that are 
seriously mentally ill, it's their ability to understand 
they're ill as well as taking the medication that's 
prescribed to them. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Dutton. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Maybe I will ask a couple 
questions here. 

There's been some changes with regards to the 
juvenile program and so forth because of some of the 
changes that took place. Right now, my understanding is 
that a lot of the juvenile offenders that used to be in 
the system are now actually going through county 
probation, or they've been assigned. They're considered 

60 



1 have been doing it for many, many years, and they do 

2 have their high success rate in dealing with that type 

3 of individual. What I mean by that is the staff in the 

4 institutions, the programs that they have, et cetera. I 

5 haven't visited any county facilities with the advent of 

6 them taking over those other wards in the counties. 

7 SENATOR DUTTON: Okay. So you don't feel we 

8 would be able to provide at least the same program, 

9 level of service and so forth. You don't think there 

10 would be any cost savings being the county is already 

11 set up to handle some of this? You don't think 

12 future -- 

13 Unless you're planning to warehouse these youth 

14 offenders, we're still trying to do rehabilitation. You 

15 don't think the counties are capable of providing that 

16 service for less than 250,000 per year per juvenile? 

17 MR. AGUILAR: My understanding, given all the 

18 stuff in the paper, is that they're having the same 

19 issues that DJJ is, race riots in the juvenile camps, 

20 et cetera, et cetera. So I really can't give you a 

21 qualified opinion on that, because I don't know. 

22 SENATOR DUTTON: Okay. 

23 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Witnesses in support. 

24 Very briefly, if you would. 

25 MR. OULES: Very briefly. 

62 



19 sheets 



Page 59 to 62 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, sir. 

MR. OULES: Good afternoon. My name is Rick 
Oules, O-u-l-e-s. I'm the retired director of the 
division of law enforcement for the California 
Department of Justice, and a 31-year veteran of law 
enforcement in California. 

I've known and worked with Hank Aguilar for the 
past ten years. I worked closely with him when he was 
president of the Latino Peace Officer's Association, as 
a fellow member of the California Council on Criminal 
Justice, and as a hearing officer for the Department of 
Justice internal personnel board. 

Mr. Aguilar served as a third-party neutral 
hearing officer for a case involving the revocation of a 
concealed weapon permit for a retired employee. 
Mr. Aguilar was agreed upon by labor and management as 
someone who would be fair and impartial to both sides. 
Both sides recognized Mr. Aguilar's outstanding 
reputation for honesty, fairness, and as an individual 
who maintains the very highest ethical standards. 

Although Hank eventually ruled against 
management, against the side that I was on, I completely 
respected his decision, how he came to that decision, 
and how he articulated that decision. He evenly weighed 
the evidence that was submitted, evaluated witness 

63 



1 essential to success for anyone you may parole. 

2 MR. AGUILAR: Thank you, sir. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

4 Please call the roll. 

5 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

6 Dutton. 

7 SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 

8 MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 

9 Oropeza. Aanestad. 

10 SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

11 MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

12 Steinberg. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

14 MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Keep the roll open for 

16 Senator Cedillo. 

17 You have sufficient votes to head to the Senate 

18 floor. 

19 MR. AGUILAR: Thank you very much. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

21 Okay. Can I have a motion on item four, 

22 please, 4D and E. So moved by Senator Aanestad. 

23 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

24 Dutton. 

25 SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 

65 



testimony fairly, and based his judgment solely on the 
facts that were discussed in the hearing. 

Even though we may have disagreed, I would not 
hesitate to have Mr. Aguilar participate in any future 
panel as a third-party neutral; and, in fact, I would 
strongly recommend him as a fair and impartial hearing 
officer. I worked with Mr. Aguilar closely, and we 
reviewed reports, and he became prepared, he asked 
detailed questions, and it was a pleasure to work with 
him. 

Knowing Mr. Aguilar as I do and having worked 
with him as a commissioner and as a hearing officer, I 
know that he'll be an outstanding selection for the 
juvenile parole board. Mr. Aguilar is honest, fair, and 
impartial, and he's dedicated to serving the people of 
California. 

Hank Aguilar is a good man, and he'll serve 
this board with distinction. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

Any other witnesses in support? 

Any witnesses in opposition? 

A motion from the members. 

I support your nomination. You sound fair, 
hard working, dedicated, and I appreciate any effort you 
have taken to look at the program side, which is 

64 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 

Oropeza. Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Three nothing. Again, 
sufficient vote. 

Keep the roll open for Senator Cedillo. 

(Thereupon, the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
adjourned at 3:16 p.m.) 



-oOo- 



66 



13/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Page 63 to 66 of 68 



18 of 19 shee 



-oOo- 

I, INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand 
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify 
that I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 
hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, 
INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 
typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

-j ? IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this< ?S W dav of YW.Qs\CU 2009. 



Jkuu c ■ $jJ) 



INA C. LeBLANC 
CSR No. 6713 



-0O0- 



67 



APPENDIX 



Page 67 to 68 of 68 



03/23/2009 09:15:17 AM 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 



1 



!> .-. 



Statement of Goals 

1. Please provide a brief statement outlining the goals you hope to 
accomplish while serving as a member of the CSU Board of Trustees. How 
will you measure your success? 

I am honored to serve as a member of the CSU Board of Trustees. Together with my 
colleagues, my role is to govern a diverse and complex twenty-three campus system. 
My overall objective is to be a good steward of the largest university system in the 
United States. It is important to protect the quality of the University during this time 
of economic recession. 1 bring unique attributes to my service as a Trustee. My 
experience as a high school principal, school superintendent, Chair of the California 
Commission on Teacher Credentailing, and education advisor to two governors 
provides me with a rich background to draw upon as 1 assess issues that come 
before me as a Trustee. My career in public education reflects a strong commitment 
to student achievement and a passion for creating a public school system that lives 
up to its promise for everyday Californians. As a Trustee, I want to provide CSU 
students with an excellent and memorable college experience. 1 consider faculty 
and staff to be my partners in this work. 

My goals as a CSU Trustee are to: 

• Promote system-wide expansion of online degrees 

• Improve K-12 student achievement by preparing effective teachers 

• Increase and advance African American student enrollment and achievement 
within the CSU 

Goals & Measures 



GOALS 


MEASURES 


Promote system-wide expansion of 
online degrees 


Review enrollment reports of students in 
online courses and degree programs. 
Monitor the number of online degree 
programs the system offers. 


Improve K-12 student achievement by 
preparing effective teachers 


Review reports produced as a result of 
Carnegie Foundation funded research on 
impact of CSU credential program grads 
on student achievement. 


Increase and advance African American 
student enrollment and achievement 
within the CSU. 


Review enrollment trends and 
graduation rates of African American 
students. 



Sessair &ufes C 






i-tb ! s. : ~ turn 



Appointments 



69 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 

2 | P J LI c 

2. How will you evaluate the extent to which the CSV system is succeeding in 
its mission? What yardsticks are most important to you as you make this 
deter m ination ? 

In May 2008, the CSU Board of Trustees adopted a new strategic plan called Access 
to Excellence: A New System-wide Strategic Plan and a Process for Implementation. 
I voted in favor of the plan. It gives the system specific action items to help us 
accomplish the University's mission, includes implementation plans and provides a 
focus for the next ten years. I particularly like the University's boldness in taking 
responsibility for closing achievement gaps. We have committed to reduce the 
achievement gap by 50 percent over the next ten years. 

At the time of adoption, the board directed staff through a resolution to develop 
indicators, metrics and timetables to achieve strategic plan outcomes. We also 
established our expectation that the Chancellor would return to the board and 
report periodically on the system's progress towards achieving the goals of the 
strategic plan. Here's an excerpt from the May 2008 agenda that describes what the 
plan includes: 

Access to Excellence identifies three major domains within which action in the next 
ten years is viewed as urgent: (1) increasing student access and success; (2) 
meeting state needs for economic and civic development, through continued 
investment in applied research and meeting workforce and other societal needs; 
and (3) sustaining institutional excellence through investments in faculty, 
innovation in teaching, and better access to student research and service. 

Fourth, as an approach to action and progress within these important domains, 
Access to Excellence identifies two important categories of goals and necessary 
actions. The first category identifies eight goals to which the CSU will unilaterally 
commit: 

• Reduce existing achievement gaps 

• Plan for faculty turnover and invest in faculty excellence 

• Plan for staff and administrative succession and professional growth 

• Improve public accountability for learning results 

• Expand student outreach 

• Enhance student opportunities for "active learning" 

• Enhance opportunities for global awareness 

• Act on the CSU's responsibility to meet post-baccalaureate needs, including those 
of working professionals 

The second category includes two overarching objectives that the CSU sees as 
priorities for public policy attention: 

• Public policy to grow expectations for degree attainment 

• Strengthened cross-sector (P-16) strategies and structures 



70 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 

3 | l\i Lie 

Governing Board Oversight 

3. What role does the board play in reviewing and approving executive 
compensation policies? Do you believe the board should reassess these 
policies? Why or why not? 

Prior to my appointment as a Trustee, the Board recently updated its compensation 
policy through a resolution adopted on September 17, 2007. Among other things, 
the policy establishes the intent of the Board to: 

• Attract motivate, and retain highly qualified individuals as faculty, staff 
administrators, and executives whose knowledge, experience, and 
contributions advance the University's mission. 

• Compensate CSU employees in a manner that is fair, reasonable, competitive 
and fiscally prudent. 

• Attain parity with the average of the 20 comparison institutions for CSU 
faculty and executives by 2010-2011. 

The policy is consistent with the Board's role to approve all salary actions for 
executives. It is important to note that the language of the resolution expresses the 
"intent" and "goals" of the Board. This policy is flexible enough to adapt to changes 
in the fiscal environment in which the University is operating. For example, on 
January 9, 2009, Chancellor Reed announced cost saving measures taken due to the 
state's current fiscal crisis. They include a hiring freeze on all positions except those 
essential to the operation of the university, a salary freeze for all vice president level 
positions and above including presidents' and vice chancellors' salaries and the 
chancellor's salary effective immediately. 

As a new Trustee, it is my observation that the University is constantly in the 
process of reviewing its practices as it relates to executive compensation. The 
Board's long-standing committee for university faculty and personnel reviews and 
approves recommendations on appropriate compensation levels for executives that 
are then ratified by the full board. 

4. What is the CSU board doing to reevaluate its overall capacity to oversee 
and hold the system accountable on matters of compensation and other 
key issues? 

The Board of Trustees created an ad hoc committee in 2007 to evaluate the 
recommendations the State Auditor released in its critical November 6, 2007 report 
about the University's compensation practices. The committee made specific 
suggestions to address the issues that were raised by the State Auditor which were 
adopted by the Board in January 2008. The Chancellor is monitoring 
implementation and issued a report on progress to the State Auditor on November 
4, 2008. 






71 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 



5. What meaningful information enables board members and the public to 
fairly evaluate compensation proposals? 

The Board receives a total compensation report, which includes benefits and an 
annual presidents' compensation study. Both are posted to the CSU website under a 
special section on executive compensation, ( http://www.calstate.edu/exec comp/ ) 
The report is compiled by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, a management 
consulting firm recognized nationally for its expertise in compensation. I find the 
reports a useful tool to put CSU compensation proposals in context of a market of 20 
comparison universities used in California Postsecondary Education Commission 
(CPEC) studies from 1995-2006. 

6. Do you think the CSU has adhered to the auditor's recommendations that 
CSU committed to adopt? If not, why not? 

Yes, as I mentioned in my earlier response to question #4, the CSU adopted a formal 
response to the State Auditor's recommendations in January 2008, after having 
convened an adhoc committee to advise the Board on the matter. The Board's 
resolution includes the action plan that the CSU will implement as a result of the 
Auditor's recommendations. Chancellor Reed recently updated the State Auditor in 
detail on the actions the University has taken in a November 4, 2008 letter. The 
letter provides: 

• specific responses to Auditor's recommendations, 

• discussion of considerations for implementation, 

• adhoc committee recommendations 

• six month status report 

• twelve month status report 

7. When the university receives no funding for COLAs (as is the case in 2008- 
09), the university must shift funds from other sources in order to cover 
any COLA that it chooses to grant Where did the money for the 2008 
salary increases come from? Do you think this money was best spent on 
executive salary increases? 

The Board only voted to approve one pay increase for a CSU executive in 2008. An 
interim vice chancellor was promoted to vice chancellor and received an increase. 

Effective January 9, 2009, as a cost saving measure due to the budget crisis, CSU 
instituted a salary freeze for all vice president level positions and above including 
presidents' and vice chancellors' salaries and the chancellor's salary. 



72 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 



College Affordability 

8. The board has the authority to establish, adjust and abolish student fees. 
How does the board ensure that it is accountable to the public each time 
it increases fees? As a board member, what are the key factors you will 
consider when deciding whether to approve student fee increases. 

The CSU negotiated a Higher Education Compact — an agreement between Governor 
Schwarzenegger, the University of California, and the California State University 
2005-06 through 2010-11. The Compact is an important vehicle through which the 
CSU ensures it is accountable to the public each time it increases student fees. In 
addition, the University makes its decisions about student fees in public meetings 
and communicates extensively with the public through the media and other means 
to notify parents, students and families of student fee increases before they happen. 

The Compact is consistent with the principles that I share that all student fee 
increases meet the test of being moderate, predictable, and affordable in terms of 
the state's fiscal environment, CSU comparison institutions, and Board policy. 

It is important to note that while the Compact has not been funded, its guidelines on 
how we think about student fee increases are still instructive. As you know, among 
other things, the Compact provides that: 

• Student fees for the CSU will continue to be on average lower than 
comparable universities across the country. 

• To create stability in tuition hikes and give families the ability to plan ahead, 
fee increases will not exceed 10 percent on average in the first three years of 
the Compact. 

Below is some language directly from the Higher Education Compact that I find 
useful in thinking about the CSU's commitment to affordability and access. These 
principles are particularly important against the backdrop of an ever-growing fiscal 
crisis we confront as a state. 

The student fee policy contained in this Compact assumes that UC and CSU will 
retain student fee revenue without a corresponding reduction in state funds which, 
together with state funds provided each year, will be used to help meet their 
budgetary needs as well as help the segments recover from the current fiscal crisis. 

■ Undergraduate Students. The Administration and segments agree that it is 
important to implement a more stable fee policy that recognizes the desire to 
keep student fee increases reasonable, while also providing adequate funding for 
cost increases for student fee-funded programs and preserving the quality of the 
universities. The Administration has proposed a long-term student fee policy 



73 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 



that calls for increases in student fees based on the rise in California per capita 
personal income. However, in years in which the UC and CSU governing boards 
determine, based on fee policies developed by their governing boards and in 
consultation with the Administration, that fiscal circumstances require increases 
that exceed the rate of growth in per capita personal income, consistent with the 
Governor's proposed student fee policy, UC and CSU may decide that fee 
increases of up to 10 percent are necessary to provide sufficient funding for 
programs and to preserve quality. However, in years that the UC and CSU 
governing boards believe fiscal circumstances may require increases that exceed 
the Administration's per-capita personal income policy, the segments shall 
consult with the Administration about those compelling circumstances. After 
consultation, UC and CSU may decide that fee increases of up to 10 percent are 
necessary to provide sufficient funding for programs and to preserve quality. UC 
and CSU will develop their annual budget plans based on the assumption that 
student fees will increase by 14 percent for 2004-05, and by 8 percent for 2005- 
06 and for 2006-07. Thus, undergraduate fees will have increased by 10 percent 
per year on average over the three-year period, consistent with the intent of the 
Governor's proposed student fee policy. This fee policy is contingent on the 
provision of resources for the basic budget at the level called for in this Compact. 
It also is contingent on no further erosion of the segments' base budget, and it 
assumes that revenue from student fees will remain with UC and CSU, and will 
not be used to offset reductions in State support. 

It continues to be the priority of the State and of UC and CSU to provide financial 
aid to ensure students are not denied the opportunity for a higher education 
because of financial barriers. An amount equivalent to no less than 20 percent 
and no more than 33 percent of the revenue generated from student fee 
increases is to be used to provide aid to needy students who qualify for financial 
aid, based on the federal methodology for determining need. 

9. California lacks a consistent fee policy for postsecondary education. 
During tight budget years, student fees often increase quite steeply. Do 
you believe the state should develop a long-term state funding and 
student fee policy? If so, what role should the board have in developing 
such a policy? To what extent should the Governor and Legislature be 
involved in CSU's decision about fees? 

The Governor and the Legislature are involved in CSU fee decisions through the 
budget process. The CSU Board of Trustees has had a consistent fee policy in place 
since 1993. It calls for the state to share the preponderance of a students' education 
costs; requires fee rate increase to be gradual, moderate, and predictable; requires a 
portion of the fee revenue increase to be set aside for student grant aid; and 
recognizes differential costs of graduate/post-baccalaureate education. 



74 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
7 | P a g e 

The state had a statutory fee policy in the past and the Legislature chose to abandon 
it. Even when a statutory policy was in place, the state's fiscal environment typically 
drove fee policy. 

10. What is the CSU board doing to evaluate the affordability of a CSU 
education, beyond just the cost of student fees? Has the board examined 
the increase costs of textbooks and whether more state university grant 
aid should be available to help students cover this expense and other 
costs of attending college? To what extent does CSU take into account 
opportunities for federal financial aid, such as Pell Grants and Hope tax 
credits? 

As a system, we ensure enrollment growth funding from the state covers all costs 
related to student instruction, including student services, academic support, plant 
operations, and institutional administrative costs requirements related to student 
access (ie: financial aid billing costs, information technology, etc.) 

As for the cost of textbooks, the CSU is on the cutting edge nationally, in reducing 
textbook costs by creating a Digital Marketplace. The Digital Marketplace is a one- 
stop shop for faculty and students to find academic curriculum — from textbooks to 
online tutorials — at a lower price and with greater choices. CSU's Digital 
Marketplace was recognized as a critical strategy for addressing textbook 
affordability issues in the 2007 Congressional Report, "Turning the Page." 
( http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/turnthepage.pdf ) The report 
highlights CSU's Digital Marketplace as a long-term solution — an innovation that 
uses technology to change how textbooks are produced and distributed in a way 
that reduces costs and also provides consumers with free academic content. These 
are the types of strategies I am interested in promoting as a Trustee — the types that 
seek innovation to change the paradigm for how students receive academic content 
and results in reduce costs. 

You asked, "to what extent CSU takes into account opportunities for federal financial 
aid, such as Pell Grants and Hope tax credits?" Here's what I have learned from my 
staff on this topic. CSU students must complete the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA) to apply for financial aid. This application is the basis for 
determining eligibility for federal, state, and institutional aid programs, including 
the State University Grant (SUG). Students are then typically awarded a package of 
financial aid from the various programs for which they are eligible (Pell and other 
federal grants, SUG or Cal grant, student loans, work-study, etc.) 

Hope tax credits are not a direct form of assistance to the student for current 
expenses (it may be claimed on their federal tax return after the calendar year in 
which the expenses were incurred.) Hope tax credits are therefore not a factor or 
considered in determining student financial aid awards. 



75 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 

8 | P a sj c 



11. Affordability is affected by how much it costs CSU to provide education 
services. What steps has and should CSU take to hold down these costs? 

I agree that affordability is affected by how much it costs CSU to provide education 
services. While there are many strategies I could highlight that effect the cost of 
education at CSU, I want to focus on one about which I am particularly passionate. I 
believe the CSU should move very aggressively into offering online degrees to 
provide a college education anytime, anywhere to our students. I raised this topic in 
the course of the Board's November 19, 2008 discussion about system-wide 
impaction and was encouraged by my colleagues' interest. I anticipate that we will 
hear an information item regarding online degrees at our next meeting. I believe by 
increasing our online degree offerings, the system could gain long-term cost savings 
in facilities associated with the traditional brick-and-mortar university. We also 
have the potential to extend our reach as a university. The impact of CSU entering 
the online degree space could be profound for students. We are the largest 
university system in the country. Our full participation in online education could 
change the norms for how a university education is delivered. The result could be to 
open up access to a college education in ways that are beyond our current 
imagination. This is important now more than ever as millions of Americans who 
are out-of-work due to a failing economy seek to retrain. I'm sure that what I have 
suggested will require investment in new technology, professional development, etc. 
However, I suspect the long-term gains for students and the system would make the 
investment worthwhile. 

Enrollment Growth 

12. Potentially, CSU may curtail enrollment by up to 10,000 students 
throughout the system. Who are the students that you expect to lose? Will 
certain parts of the state be more adversely affected than others? 

The CSU continues to use the enrollment priorities assigned it by California 
Education Code 66202. Among other things, the statute says, it is the intent of the 
Legislature that the following categories be followed . . .in the following numerical 
order, for the purpose of enrollment planning and admission priority: 

1) Continuing undergraduate students in good standing 

2) California Community College students who have met all requirements for 
transfer 

3) California residents entering at the freshman or sophomore levels 

With regard to regions of the state, the campuses most likely to curtail enrollment 
will be those that were over-enrolled in 2007-08. These include San Francisco, 
Chico, Northridge, Fullerton, San Jose and Long Beach. 1 understand that modest 



76 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
9 | P a g e 

curtailment may also occur at San Marcos and Channel Islands. The impact would 
therefore be felt across the state — in other words not localized to any single region. 

13. For the last several years, CSV has been engaged in efforts to reach out to 
students who have historically not been part of higher education in 
California. What impact will the system-wide impaction have on these 
students? What steps is CSV taking to inform underserved communities 
and the high schools serving these students of the changes in application 
deadlines along with the potential for differing admissions criteria 
among the CSV campuses. 

Through the last several admissions cycles, the CSU and its campuses have 
encouraged prospective students as well as our school and community college 
partners to make early application for admission a priority. This has been 
accomplished via the World Wide Web, in CSU counselors conferences as well as 
press released and our Road to College bus tour. This year, 1 will participate in a 
very special outreach program called Super Sunday where CSU leaders will visit 100 
African American churches throughout the state to talk directly to African American 
students and families about college and the CSU. Applications to CSU from 
historically underrepresented populations including African American and Latino 
high school seniors have increased. My staff has informed me that early indicators 
are showing that earlier closing of application cycles has not been accompanied by 
any decrease in the diversity of the CSU applicant pool. This is something I am 
watching closely as a Trustee. 

14. How will system-wide impaction affect specialty programs, such as 
architecture at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, or nursing, science and 
engineering programs? 

Specialty programs such as architecture, nursing, science, and engineering have not 
been adversely impacted by system-wide impaction and closing the application 
period early. In some cases, like in Fullerton, nursing and engineering programs 
have been kept open after other majors have closed. Other campuses such as Long 
Beach have permitted applications to engineering and nursing by persons who 
already hold bachelor's degrees in other fields. The number of enrollment spaces in 
the CSU's programs in architecture (San Luis Obispo and Pomona) is static, and 
there is always an over-supply of qualified applicants. Therefore, such programs are 
not likely to be subject to enrollment curtailment. 

15.CSV's latest Compact Performance Measures report shows that almost 
3,400 full-time equivalent students (FTES) were used up last year in the 
form of "excess course units" -that is, students taking courses beyond 
120 percent of the minimum number required for graduation. As 
another example, more than one-third of regularly admitted freshman 



77 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
10 | P .. q e 

never graduate from CSU. What steps should CSU take more efficient use 
of its enrollment funding? 

If 1 understand the concern correctly, the issue being raised here is that 3,400 
students of 450,000 (less than 1%) have taken more courses than required for 
graduation. This data does not lead me to the conclusion that CSU uses enrollment 
funding inefficiently. I can think of a number of examples that would justify why a 
student would take more courses than required for graduation — pursuing a double 
major or minor to be more competitive in the workforce, pursuing a highly technical 
course of study in engineering or science that requires more coursework. Having 
said this, I am aware that CSU has a graduation initiative in which the campuses are 
charged to identify places where the system can do an even better job. 

The second issue raised about graduation rates is an important concern and I am 
interested in addressing it from the standpoint of the University meeting its mission 
as an education institution. We received a report as recently as our November 18- 
19, 2008 Board of Trustees meeting on this topic. My observation is that the system 
examines itself with a critical eye as it relates to public accountability for learning 
results, including graduations rates. In our new strategic plan — Access to Excellence, 
we state our commitment to using accountability data to improve our performance: 

"The CSU commits to strengthen its accountability to the public for learning results, 
through implementation of programs like the Voluntary System of Accountability. It 
will be important to use findings from the accountability measure to inform 
curriculum and program improvements at the campus level." 

16. What can the CSU board do to ensure that its teacher preparation 
programs are preparing teachers capable of meeting the challenges of 
high-need schools, core subject matter areas, geographic regions, and 
special needs programs? 

Examples of what the CSU Board can do are as follows: 

• Reinforce the priority on teacher recruitment and preparation within the 
CSU system. For more than twenty years, CSU has had a Teacher 
Recruitment Project on each campus, and programs of this nature must be 
continued despite fiscal challenges. 

• Recognize successful programs like the CSU Mathematics and Science 
Teacher Initiative, a system-wide effort through which the numbers of math 
and science teachers prepared by CSU has increased 68% over the past four 
years, and the production of middle school Algebra teachers has more than 
tripled. 



78 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
11 | Page 

• Encourage collaborations with groups like Just for the Kids, already a close 
partner of the CSU, to identify effective models for serving high need schools 
and overcoming the achievement gap. 

• Underscore the value of partnerships with school districts, particularly high 
need districts, in implementing successful strategies to advance achievement 
of all students, including those with special needs, in all regions of the state. 

• Ensure measurement of progress on a continuing basis including measures 
that assess our graduates' impact on student achievement. 

Teacher Preparation and Algebra Readiness 

1 7. How does the board monitor the effectiveness of the early assessment 
program and whether it has helped increase the graduation rates of CSU 
students needing remediation in basic skills? Do you have empirical 
data? Are you satisfied with how the policy is being implemented? 

In collaboration with the California Department of Education and the State Board of 
Education, the California State University developed the EAP to provide students, 
their families, and high schools the opportunity to assess 11 th grade student 
readiness for college-level English and mathematics, i.e. skills that students who 
choose either to enter college or the workforce directly out of high school will need 
to be successful. 

The EAP consists of questions from the 11 th grade California Standards Test (CST) in 
English-Language Arts, Algebra II, and Summative High School Mathematics, plus 
fifteen additional multiple-choice questions and a written essay. 

The spring, 2008 administration was the fifth year that the EAP was available to all 
students enrolled in 11 th grade who were eligible to take the 11 th grade CSTs in 
English and the CSTs in Algebra II and Summative High School Mathematics. 

All 11 th grade students are encouraged to participate in the EAP because the EAP 
provides valuable information to high schools about student readiness for college 
level English and mathematics, and the EAP report enables the student, family, and 
high school to identify the student's need for additional preparation in English and 
mathematics while still enrolled in high school. 

As appropriate, working with high school counselors and teachers, students have 
the opportunity to enroll in mathematics classes in 12 th grade or participate in web- 
based mathematics interactive tutorials. They may also enroll in English classes that 
include additional instruction in expository reading and writing, essential skills that 



79 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 

12 | Pa u c 

high school teachers have identified as necessary for success not only in English, but 
across the curriculum. 

While the EAP questions are voluntary for 11 th grade students, the response to the 
EAP has been overwhelming. 

Nearly 352,943 high school juniors have received an "early signal" (79 percent 
participation rate] of their readiness for college English. This represents a 
significant increase from 2007 when 342,348 juniors opted to take the voluntary 
assessment. Of these 352,943 students, 17 percent were assessed as college-ready. 

Approximately 147,885 (70 percent of all high school juniors eligible to take the 
California Standards Test in math) opted to complete the CSU's voluntary EAP. Of 
these students, 55 percent were judged to be ready for college-level work in 
mathematics. This represents an increase in the number of students taking the test 
(from 141,648 in 2007). 

The EAP not only provides an opportunity to high schools to identify students who 
need additional work in English and mathematics in 12 th grade, but it also provides 
an additional benefit to students who attend any of the California State University's 
twenty-three campuses. 

Students who are determined to be college-ready on the basis of EAP are exempt 
from taking the California State University's placement tests in English and 
mathematics and move directly into baccalaureate-level classes upon enrollment. 

Students who are not college-ready at the end of 11 th grade have the opportunity to 
strengthen their skills in 12 th grade, which will help to increase their mastery of the 
subjects and ability to demonstrate proficiency on the California State University's 
English and mathematics placement tests. 

Responding to requests from the California Department of Education and high 
schools, the California State University, working with college and high school 
English faculty and reading experts, developed a curriculum for a 12 th grade 
Expository Reading and Writing Course that may be used by the high school as a full, 
one-year course or from which modules may be integrated into existing 12 th grade 
English classes. 

The Expository Reading and Writing Course is aligned with the English-Language 
Arts content standards and consists of lessons based on non-fiction and fiction texts. 
It may fulfill the "B" requirement of the UC/CSU (a-g) college preparatory course 
pattern. 



80 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
13 | P a y c 

In 2007-08, each CSU campus promoted the Early Assessment Program within its 
assigned service areas. CSU redirected $3.9 million in academic outreach funds and 
$1.2 million (total of $5.1 million) from other CSU resources to cover the costs of the 
11 th grade assessment and scoring, outreach to all California high schools, 
development and implementation of the 12 th grade Expository Reading and Writing 
Course, and teacher professional development. 

The board monitors the effectiveness of EAP by receiving reports on the outcomes 
of remediation each year. There is not yet any data on whether it affects graduation 
rates. This is part of a research agenda that the University is coordinating. 

Empirical data indicate that remedial students that attain proficiency during their 
first year exhibit graduation rates that are on par with the graduation rates for 
students that are Math/English proficient at entry. 

18. How does the board evaluate which types of outreach programs are most 
effective in helping disadvantaged students enroll in college? Is the board 
kept informed of students' remediation needs once enrolled at CSU and 
whether they are being met appropriately? 

The Board and the Legislature receives an annual outreach report from the CSU. The 
CSU measures college preparedness of eligible first-time freshmen through annual 
and biennial reports. The Board's Committee on Educational Policy recently 
reviewed the CSU Accountability Process -Fifth Biennial Report. It includes data on 
how our remediation programs are impacting student preparedness. The report 
states that: 

The CSU recognizes the problem that large numbers of eligible first-time freshmen are 
not fully prepared to enroll in entry-level college mathematics and English 
composition. To ensure that these students would be able to make timely and 
appropriate progress to degree, the CSU made it a high priority to provide them with 
pre-baccalaureate instruction and other opportunities to attain full proficiency within 
their first year. The percentage of freshman prepared for college level English 
increased slightly— from 53 percent to 55 percent — between fall 1998 and fall 2007. 
In contrast, the percentage of freshmen prepared for college-level math increased from 
46 percent to 63 percent over the same ten-year period. 

The report goes on to say that "the deeper and broader issue underlying this 
challenge is serious gap that exists between high school and students' successful 
completion of college prep coursework and their actual readiness for college-level 
instruction." It is in the context of this observation that it is important to note that 
in our latest strategic plan adopted in May 2009, the Board committed to halving 
existing achievement gaps within the next ten years. This is a bold and significant 
commitment. 



81 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
14 I P a a c 



1 9. How do you evaluate the quality of coordination between CSU outreach 
programs and K-12 schools to determine if it provides the best mix of 
outreach interventions? Is this an appropriate area for the board to 
weigh in? 

Staff reports to the Board on our outreach programs and K-12 relationships. Given 
the aggressive goal the CSU has to halve the achievement gap in the next ten years, it 
is important for the CSU to closely examine our relationships and partnerships with 
the K-12 community. 

20. High school students who want to pursue a college prep curriculum in 
California must devote nearly their entire schedule to completing A-G 
coursework, leaving little room for career tech or other electives. How 
does the board monitor this issue and weigh in? Do you believe the 
current requirements are the best ones, or have you considered easing 
them even slightly as some have suggested by requiring A-F? 

The Board just received a presentation on career technical education (CTE) at our 
January 2009 meeting. This is the vehicle through which we monitor and weigh-in 
on the issue. 

In my opinion, high school students who want to pursue a college prep curriculum 
in California can also participate in CTE. The two are not mutually exclusive and can 
be combined very effectively to give students an engaging high school experience. 
At theme high schools across California, core classes are often taught in the context 
of a career field, plus students have substantial opportunity to take elective courses 
in CTE. 

High school students must take 22 courses to graduate. CSU and UC require 
completion of 15 courses of specified coursework to become eligible for admission. 
Students must also complete P.E. [2 courses) and Health [1/2 course) requirements 
for high school graduation. Adding the CSU/UC eligibility requirements with 
additional high school graduation requirements, students must complete 17.5 
courses, leaving 4.5 courses for CTE. The typical CTE path expects students to take 
one CTE course per year, in other words, 4 courses during their high school careers. 
Thus, it is manageable for a student to meet the requirements for CSU eligibility, 
high school graduation requirements, and take CTE courses. 

Title IX 

21. Title IX violations at Fresno State have resulted in very costly settlements. 
How is your board monitoring the situation to assure compliance with 



82 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
15 | P a g c 

the law? Are you satisfied that the problems at Fresno State have been 
addressed? How do you monitor Title IX activities at other campuses? 

In 1993, the CSU and California National Organization for Women (Cal NOW) 
entered into a consent decree on gender equity in women's athletics. The final 
report under the consent decree was for 1998-99, but the CSU has continued to 
issue the self-monitoring report on a voluntary basis. 

A council of campus presidents monitor campuses compliance with Title IX and 
athletic equity status at all campuses. In cases where campuses are unable to 
demonstrate compliance, they are required to offer a remedial plan. 

The Board of Trustees now receives an annual report on the compliance with the 
law and effort by the campus to meet equal opportunity in athletics for women. 

CSU Response to Workforce Needs 

22. What is the board doing to analyze the state's long-term workforce needs 
and determine the system's capacity to respond to educating students to 
enter high-growth fields? 

The Board and the CSU have a wide variety of initiatives throughout the system to 
analyze the state's long-term workforce needs and determine the system's capacity 
to respond to educating students in high growth fields. There are many examples 
that could be given. Here are some specific ones that 1 find particularly interesting: 

• One specific example of CSU's broad commitment to analyzing the state's 
long-term workforce needs and acting on recommendations from industry is 
its creation of more than 15 Professional Science Masters' (PSM) Programs in 
high-growth disciplines such as biotechnology, biostatistics, medical product 
development, and environmental sciences. These highly applied programs, 
which combine science and business coursework and hands-on, industry- 
based internships, clearly illustrate CSU's capacity to rapidly design and 
implement degree programs in high-growth fields that are key to California's 
economic competitiveness and growth. The biotechnology programs, which 
comprise the larger group of PSMs, have been developed in association with 
CSU's Program for Education and Research in Biotechnology (CSUPERB). 

• Preparing CSU students for entry to high-growth, high-demand fields in 
health professions is another area in which CSU is responding rapidly to both 
challenging health care emphases, and changes in the level of training 
required for many health professions careers. This year, with support from 
the California Endowment, the CSU is convening a series of meetings 
between CSU, UC, and CCC health professions faculty and staff, and health 



83 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
16 | P a g e 

care industry representatives, to develop action plans to increase the 
numbers and diversity of CSU students entering health professions careers. 
The action plan deriving from these meetings will set forward specific 
directions to broaden the health professions pipeline, and will be presented 
to CSU leadership for review within the next year. 

• The CSU recently launched the first apprenticeship program of the 
Governor's Engineering Initiative through a partnership between CSULA, a 
community college, the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards and 
Stellar Microelectronics. The program is designed specifically to be veteran- 
friendly. More such programs are currently in the development stage. 

• The CSU offers many outstanding programs in hospitality, tourism, and 
natural resources management. System-wide, the CSU produces 76 percent 
of the state's total degrees in tourism and natural resources. This includes 
100 percent of the state's degrees in such disciplines as natural resources 
management and policy, wildlife and land management, and parks, 
recreation and leisure studies. 

23. Should the board help campuses strengthen their capacity to respond 
more quickly to student demand for enrollment in programs that train 
them to enter high-growth fields? Conversely, should the board respond 
to declines in enrollment in programs that are no longer in demand 
because of changing workforce needs? What is the appropriate role for 
the board? 

The Board reviews and approves or declines new degree programs that are 
responsive to workforce demands, and provides the same service when programs 
are slated for discontinuation because demands have fallen off. 

The Board delegated to presidents the authority to approve experimental pilot 
degree programs as well as new options, concentrations, and special emphases, 
which all provide education and training in fields experiencing a high demand for 
training the labor force. The presidents' authority allows the campuses to respond 
quickly to changing workforce and industry needs. 

As described above in response to question 22, Professional Science Master's (PSM) 
programs are one example of a workforce-sensitive initiative in which campuses 
were authorized to implement a variation on certain master's programs that would 
give students training in the sciences and in management. 

24. How does the CSU propose to align the opportunities for California's 
green economy with educational and career development programs at its 



84 



Margaret Fortune 
January 29, 2009 
17 | P a g e 

campuses? Is this an issue area on which your board provides guidance? 
If so, how? 

In our Board-approved strategic plan, Access to Excellence, CSU identifies 
sustainability issues, including the design and implementation of new degree 
programs as a priority for the system. The Board has provided guidance through 
the adoption of its strategic plan. 



85 



86 



Senate Confirmation 

Troy E Arbaugh, Commissioner 

Board of Parole Hearings 

Responses to Senate Rules Committee Questions 

February 27, 2009 



Statement of Goals 

BPH decides whether to parole life-term inmates and has responsibility for parole 
revocation decisions. Members hold hearings at prisons throughout the state and have 
responsibility for determining whether life-term inmates are fit for release. 

1. What are your goals and objectives as a member of BPH? What do you 
hope to accomplish during your tenure? How will you measure your 
success as a board member? 

My goals and objectives as a member of Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) are to serve 
the public and enhance public safety, in other words, protect the public. I accomplish 
this by evaluating the prisoners that come before me at parole suitability hearings, using 
the tools provided - laws, rules, policy and training, to ensure that the prisoner does not 
pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if they are recommended for parole. As the 
hearing officer, there are laws, rules, regulations and policy that need to be followed and 
I endeavor to be fair, impartial and consistent in following these. I conduct myself 
professionally through fair, honest, and ethical behavior. I have the courage to do what 
is right, even when it is not the popular thing to do. I accept responsibility for my actions 
and decisions as well as their consequences. I measure success by ensuring that the 
hearings I preside over are conducted in a fair, non-discriminatory, impartial manner, 
following the applicable laws and policy. 

2. What lessons, if any, from your former position as Nevada County Sheriff 
do you consider especially helpful in carrying out your current duties, and 
how do you apply them on a day-to-day basis? 

During my career with the Sheriff's Office I learned and used many skills that I put to 
use as a Commissioner, to include decision making, insight and interview techniques. 
I have been involved in the investigation of several horrific crimes, therefore when I read 
and listen to the accounts of the crimes that have been committed by those sitting 
across the table from me at a hearing, I am not shocked or in disbelief. Although many 
of the acts committed by the inmates are appalling and horrific, I am able to move 
beyond just "the crime" and look at the person across from me and consider all of the 
parole suitability factors in making a decision. Much of the training and education that I 
had while working in law enforcement dealt specifically with interview techniques, such 
as detection and deception, which has been particularly useful during my hearings. 



Senate Rules Committer 

FEB 2 7 2009 
Appointments 87 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 2 of 8 



3. Do you believe that an inmate convicted with an indeterminate life 
sentence can be successfully rehabilitated and then safely returned to 
society? Please explain how you have come to your conclusion and what 
measures you use to assist with your analysis. 

I do believe that some convicted inmates with indeterminate life sentences can be 
successfully rehabilitated and safely returned to society. I have met a few that have 
done just that. 

I also believe that there are some "lifers" that may not rehabilitate and should not ever 
be returned to society. I say this based on the horrific nature of their crime(s), lack of 
institutional adjustment to include programming, serious disciplinary behavior, failure to 
upgrade vocationally or educationally, lack of insight and remorse, and unwillingness or 
inability to change. 

I have read the book When Prisoners Come Home - Parole and Prisoner Reentry, by 
Joan Petersilia and found it to be enlightening. The author looks at how the current 
system (in 2003) is failing, explores prisoner reentry and offers her opinion as to 
solutions to prepare inmates for release and reduce recidivism, all while keeping public 
safety in mind. The author goes into some detail in explaining how success in preparing 
inmates for return to society and reducing recidivism is based on the collaborative effort 
of all the stakeholders. 



Training 

The 2005 law that created BPH required that within 60 days of appointment and 
annually thereafter commissioners and deputy commissioners undergo a minimum of 
40 hours of training. 

4. Is your training adequate, or do you have recommendations for 
improvement? 

The training I received was adequate. I also believe there is always more to learn, 
especially in a profession where there seems to be constant change. The training has 
been, and needs to be ongoing to keep up with the changes. 

5. In the training, what factors are you told are most important in weighing 
whether an inmate should be paroled? 

I learned that all of the factors concerning parole suitability/unsuitability in Title 15, 
Section 2402, need to be considered and weighed in determining whether or not an 



88 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 3 of 8 



inmate is ready to be considered for parole. As a Commissioner sitting on a panel with 
a Deputy Commissioner, we together determine what weight to give each factor. 

6. Please describe training related to Proposition 9, including the rights of 
victims at hearings. 

We received training on the new denial length scheme, the "clear and convincing 
evidence" standard and the victims/victims-next-of-kin's rights. 

Proposition 9 did not alter the fundamental suitability analysis used during hearings. 
Penal Code (PC) section 3041 remains unchanged by Proposition 9. A panel still goes 
through the same analysis, including "Lawrence" and "Shaputis," which require that 
denials be based upon a finding of current risk to the public. 

The changes that were made to PC section 3041.5 as a result of Proposition 9 were 
covered in detail during our training during the week of December 8, 2008. 

The "victim" is now any victim of the inmate, not just the victim of the life crime 
(commitment offense). The victim, next of kin, all members of victim's family (not just 
immediate family) and two representatives can appear to express their views about the 
prisoner and the case. The Life Panel must consider the entire and uninterrupted 
statements of the victim, representative, etc. and allow them to adequately and 
reasonably express their views regarding the inmate and the inmate's crime(s). 



Programs and Consistency 

Prisons have a wide variety of academic and vocational programs as well as self-help 
offerings such as Alcoholics Anonymous. CDCR has struggled to ensure that programs 
are standardized from prison to prison. At the same time, commissioners may 
recommend an inmate enroll in a particular program to better prepare himself or herself 
for life outside of prison. 

7. What should the Legislature expect from commissioners regarding a 
consistent format for lifer hearings? Should all of the commissioners and 
deputy commissioners weigh the various factors in a consistent manner? 
For example, what should be the appropriate emphasis on the facts of the 
inmate's original crime? 

Lifer hearings should follow the format wherein commitment case factors are reviewed 
and considered. The inmate's pre-commitment factors (social history, including gang 
activity, criminal history, etc.) need to be closely examined. Post-commitment factors 
including disciplinary, programming, education endeavors, psychological assessments 
and/or treatment, etc. have to be evaluated as well. The inmate needs to have viable 



89 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 4 of 8 



parole plans. The closing statements by the attorneys, the inmate and victim(s) or 
victim's next of kin should also be considered with the caveat that any of those 
statements may not be wholly factual and should not be considered as such. 

Each hearing is and should be treated as a new hearing. As far as each panel member 
weighing the various factors in a consistent manner, that is difficult. So much 
information is before the commissioners and can be presented in such varying fashion 
(affect, emphasis, theatrical, etc) by the inmate and/or the attorneys that the same thing 
could be said at two different hearings and resulting in different interpretations and in 
different outcomes. 

8. How do you learn about educational, vocational, or self-help programs in 
state prisons? Which programs have you observed and when? If you have 
been unable to observe a particular program, how do you know if it is or is 
not effective? Please explain. 

We have been provided an Institutional Profile as to what in the way of academic, 
vocational, substance abuse, religious and other programming is offered at each of the 
institutions. The plan is to have the list updated on a regular basis. I also ask the 
Deputy Commissioners, Institutional staff and the inmates what programs are available 
at the various institutions. 

I have not yet been able to observe any specific programs but anticipate doing so in the 
next several weeks. I have observed the effectiveness of programming through the 
prisoner's testimony. Most of the time it is very obvious during the questions, answers 
and presentations at the hearing whether the prisoner took the programming "to heart" 
or is just "regurgitating" what he/she thinks the panel wants to hear. 

9. As the department moves to focus academic and vocational programs on 
inmates with three years or less to serve on their sentences, have you 
been informed how life-term inmates will receive the programming you 
recommend for them to qualify for release? 

BPH has received presentations and information from the Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicating that Programming for life-term inmates will not 
decrease and will remain at current levels of service. I am aware of the programming 
that is available at Solano and Avenal, the two institutions where I conduct the majority 
of my hearings. 



90 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 5 of 8 



Proposition 9 — Victims Rights and Protection Act 

An inmate with an indeterminate life sentence is required to receive an initial hearing 
one year prior to the inmate's minimum eligible parole date. Until now, subsequent 
hearings have occurred between one and five years apart for murder convictions, and 
between one and two years apart for non-murder convictions. With the passage of 
Proposition 9 on the November 2008 election ballot, these intervals have been 
dramatically changed and there are no one-year hearings. Under the new law, the time 
between hearings would be extended to between three and fifteen years, with 
"emphasis on the requirement to show clear and convincing evidence" the inmate is 
eligible for release sooner, according to Martin Hoshino, the BPH executive officer. 
Inmates, however, could periodically ask that the board advance the hearing date. And 
a board official said inmates can request a one-year postponement of their hearing. 
Another key change in the law allows victims, their relatives, and their representatives to 
testify at hearings of life-term inmates. 

10. What changes in hearings do you foresee as a result of passage of 
Proposition 9? How do you believe they will impact the board's workload? 
How is your training being adjusted to factor in Proposition 9? 

There are and will be legal challenges that alter the requirements under the law. Shortly 
after Proposition 9 passed, there seemed to be an initial increase in requests for a 
waiver at scheduled hearings. I'm not certain, but the inmates and/or their attorneys 
may have been seeking a delay just to see how the legal challenges to Marcy's Law will 
"shake out". 

As stated previously, we received training in December 2008, regarding implementation 
of Proposition 9. This training covered the new denial length scheme, the 'clear and 
convincing evidence' standard, and the victims/victims next of kin rights. 

11. Are inmates requesting a waiver but are refused because they have failed 
to meet the request deadline of 45 days before the hearing? How are 
those waivers impacting the board's workload? 

I have had several inmates (or their attorney) request a waiver at their hearing after the 
45-day deadline has passed as provided in Title 15, section 2253 (b). A few have met 
the criteria per section 2253 (request must be reasonable and the prisoner must show 
"good cause" for the late request) and those requests have been considered and 
granted by the panel, but many have not as they did not meet the criteria. 

The few waivers granted at hearing reduce the panel's workload the week of the 
hearing. Pre-hearing waivers which are granted permit another case to "backfill" into 



91 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 6 of 8 



the now vacant slot. When new cases are inserted into the hearing calendar, the 
panel's weekly hearing schedule does not decrease. 

12. If the board denies parole, what criteria are used for determining how 
many years until the next hearing? How were you trained regarding this 
issue? Are there written criteria that prescribe what the length of a denial 
should be? 

If there is clear and convincing evidence regarding the suitability factors found in 
Title 15 Section 2402, showing that, upon considering public and victim's safety, the 
prisoner doesn't need more than 10 years of further incarceration, then there is no need 
to give a 15 year denial and the panel can consider a 10 year denial. 

The denial period is 10 years unless there is clear and convincing evidence showing 
that, upon considering public and victim's safety, the prisoner doesn't need more than 
7 years of further incarceration. 

Seven, five or three year denial may be issued when the inmate needs more time in 
prison but not more than seven years. 

We received classroom training, handouts and information on how to apply our 
discretion to determine the length of the denial until the next scheduled hearing. This 
decision is left to the discretion of each panel in weighing and considering each of the 
suitability factors. 



Proposition 9 significantly expands rights of victims, their family members, and some 
others to testify at hearings for life-term inmates. 

13. In your experience, are more victims or their family members testifying? 
How has the board been able to comply with the new notification 
requirements? How have these changes impacted your proceedings and 
workload? 

I personally have not seen much of an increase in the number of victims or their family 
members attending the hearings. However, the new 90-day notices became effective in 
December 2008, and will not be fully implemented until March 2009. I do see where it 
might lead to lengthier hearings, but so far there has not been an impact on the 
hearings that I have conducted. 

The Board has been working with CDCR and Office of Victim and Survivor Services and 
is providing the required notices to the victims and the victims' next of kin via the use of 
the BPH website. 



92 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 7 of 8 



Psychological Evaluations 

The packet of materials available to the hearing panel traditionally includes a 
psychological evaluation of the inmate. The timeliness and quality of the evaluation has 
been criticized in the past by all parties. The historic lack of clear BPH policy regarding 
the appropriate interval between evaluations has been discussed regularly by the Rules 
Committee. The absence of a "current" psychological evaluation is often the reason for 
a hearing postponement, though under current policy it is supposed to be done every 
three years. 

Effective January 1, 2009, as part of its effort to reduce the backlog of lifer hearings, 
BPH introduced a new strategy. A new psychological evaluation, called a 
Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), will be implemented and will be valid for five 
years. A secondary report, known as a Subsequent Risk Assessment, will be conducted 
as an update for hearings held prior to the five-year expiration of the CRA. Reports 
completed prior to January 1, 2009, will remain valid for three years from their 
completion date or until used in a hearing resulting in a decision. 

14. BPH policy on psychological assessments seems to be evolving. Please 
explain the current policy and whether you expect further fine tuning in 
the coming months. 

As stated above, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) will be valid for five 
years. A secondary report, known as a Subsequent Risk Assessment, will be conducted 
as an update for hearings held prior to the five-year expiration of the CRA. Reports 
completed prior to January 1, 2009, will remain valid for three years from their 
completion date or until used in a hearing resulting in a decision. I have been made 
aware that historically there was an issue with the assessments and the reports used at 
the hearings. However, since July (when I started conducting hearings), I have had 
very few postponements related to an issue with a psychological report. 

15. What is your understanding of how recent or how old an inmate's 
psychological evaluation can be for it to be a relevant and useful tool in 
the lifer hearing process? 

As of January 1, 2009, existing reports will be considered valid for three years. 
The new reports (CRA) will be valid for five years from the date of completion. 
Thereafter, and prior to each subsequent Lifer Suitability Hearing, an addendum, called 
a Subsequent Risk Assessment, will be completed and provided to the hearing panel, if 
a hearing is scheduled prior to the expiration of the CRA (five years). 

16. How have you been trained regarding the role a psychological evaluation 
should play in your decision regarding parole suitability? How do you 



93 



Senate Rules Committee February 27, 2009 

Troy E. Arbaugh 
Page 8 of 8 



incorporate this tool into your final decision? If a clinician describes an 
inmate as a moderate risk for violence, does that automatically disqualify 
him or her from parole? 

I use the psychological report to gather information and create questions for the inmate 
to respond to at the hearing. I then compare what I learn from the inmate's answers 
with the other information I have reviewed in the documents before me. The panel 
considers all information in determining the inmate's current risk to public safety. 
A moderate risk assessment for violence does not necessarily disqualify an inmate from 
receiving a parole date. A psychological report is a tool to help the panel determine the 
mental state of the prisoner. The psychological report is just one of many factors 
considered at a hearing. It provides a clinician's opinion as to the inmates' potential risk 
for future violence at the time of the evaluation. It is not a substitution for the panel's 
determination as to insight, remorse, mental state or attitude towards the crime. 

17. Do you believe the risk assessment information contained in the 
psychological evaluation is useful to you in making a decision? How will 
the new assessment be more effective? 

I consider the psychological report and risk assessments a very valuable tool in my 
decision making process. It is used to assist the life panel in making a determination of 
a prisoner's mental state, including the clinician's opinion of the inmate's potential for 
future violence. 

The CRA will foster more consistent and accurate evaluations by the various clinicians 
and provide a standardization of the psychological reports. The assessment includes 
an evaluation of the prisoner's remorse, insight, and an exploration of the commitment 
offense, as well as the need for additional institutional programming. 



b 




(B 




6 




E 




3 




CO 




x. 


o> 


Q> 


o 
o 


C 


CM 


o 


CO 


U) 


Ol 


.52 

£ 


CO 

3 


E 




o 


U_ 


o 


O 




■fcj 


J 


<n 




o 


(0 


o 


h«; 


cs 


■^^» 




3 


^ 


8 


CO 

3 


ft: 


o> 


XI 


c 


U. 






*- 




«D 




Q) 




a: 




w. 




,0) 









9 


CM 


CN 
CO 

cm 


CO 

en 


in 

CD 


CM 

T- 


CO 


T— 


o 






o 


O 


O 


CD 
CO 


m 


o 


o 


o 






m 


T 


o 

T 


- 


CM 


T— 


o 


o 




% 1 


O 


co 


CD 


- 


m 


o 


o 


o 




1 

V 


o 


O 
ro 


CO 


CM 


•v 


o 


o 


o 




1 


co 


CO 


CO 


T 


<T 


o 


- 


o 






CM 


CM 
CN 


CM 


m 


m 


CM 


o 


o 




\ 




ro 


CO 


CO 


- 


r-~ 


o 


o 


o 




9- 


- 


h- 


T 


■c- 


cd 


O 


o 


o 




X 


UO 


m 

CM 


CM 


- 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


c 
o 


% 




CM 


CD 


CD 


rr 


CM 


o 


o 


o 


CO 
to 

E 
E 
o 
o 


^ 

X 

*• 


9 


t — 


CO 


-fr 


CO 


CM 


o 


o 


o 


cu 
a 
« 

"5 
to 
co 
£ 

c 

— 

re 

a> 

X 




cm 


in 

CM 


in 


CO 


in 


o 


o 


o 




in 


o 

CM 


CO 


CO 


■^r 


o 


o 


o 


*-* 
2 

a 

3 
CO 

••— 

o 

2: 

JO 

E 

E 

3 




9 
a 


in 

c 
ro 

<(5 


to 

CD 

tr 
Q 


c: 
o 

ro 

3 
Q. 

CO 


CO 

cu 

> 

CO 


w 
c 
cu 

E 
cu 
c 
o 
3 

o 


10 

s 

c 
ro 

n 
c 

c 
o 
O 


Ico 


to 
c 
o 

-.3 

m 

"55 
o 

c 

CO 

O 



El m 






to I 
■ol 

raj 

— I 

— I 

cl 
ol 

ol 

Ol 

E 

31 

col 



0) 
C0| 



si 

E 
ol 



CD 



5 



CD 



CO 



O) 



in 



■ >. > 



CD 



0)1 

cl 

ol 

o>| 

— I 

£ 

E 

ol 



CM 



«0 

< 5 



r? - 



■r * to 



si 



3 CD 

CD 



E 
E 
ol 



| 
: 8" 



ro 

1/5 - 



5 5 



to 

CN 



CM 



CU 

C 

o 

Q. 
"in 

o 

Q- 

cu 

c 
o 

10 



CO 

5 

cu 
■> 
cu 
rr 

o 

c 
ro 
CO 

c 
LU 

T5 

C 

ro 

* 

ro 

C 
cu 
Q 

ro 
cu 

>< 

m 



cu 

'> 
cu 

rr 

ro 

0) 



C 

CU 

E 

3 
O 

o 
Q 



o 
o 
o 
co 

O 

a. 



CO 

CU 

L_ 

O) 

o 



c 
o 

<0 
<0 

o 

to 
cu 

tr 

M 
CO 

JZ 

o 
co 

10 

c 
o 

"o 
ro 

cu 

o 
cu 
■o 

_2 
o 
c 

ro 
o 

»- 
rj) 

_c 

ro 
a> 

X 



95 



<B 



3 




CO 




0) 


o 


c 


o 


o 


CM 


•^ 




(0 


CO 


.2 


P* 


s 


3 


s 


C 
CO 


o 


-> 


o 


o 




■*-> 


t 


o> 




o 


(0 


o 


** 


CM 


^^^ 




3 


^ 




(0 


o: 


3 




C 


D) 


(0 


c 


~) 






c 




cb 




0) 




£ 




v. 




.Q> 





























o-Kg 
i-Jjj 


Ico 
hi- 


CO 


CO 

o 

r— 


CD 


o 
r- 


O 


o 


co 




«5o ! 
V- 


9 


lo 


O 


•^- 


O 


oo 
o 


o 


o 


CO 




% 




















% I 


in 


CM 
CO 


o 


■<- 


CM 


O 


o 


o 




•<> ■ 




















.-; c 






















*o 




















h, i 


U- 


CM 
CM 


en 


CM 


m 


o 


o 


o 




-,;%• ■ 






















Im- 


00 
CM 


co 


CO 


in 


O 


o 


o 




% 1 

VI 


Ico 


CM 


O 


CO 


r- 


o 


o 


o 






















-,;j ;■ 'O'i 






















X 


lo 


CO 
CM 




CD 


O 


o 


o 


o 




■-.'. 'S) j 


1 




















\ 


- 


CD 
CM 


CD 


O 


■* 


o 


o 


o 




^ ■ 


Im 


00 


CD 


CO 


in 


o 


o 


o 




o m 






















u 


Icm 


CD 


CM 


CO 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


b_ 
0) 

c 


V 


[cm 


00 


00 


CD 


m 


o 


o 


o 













































(/> 




















(A 






















^ H 


















E 


\ 1 


loo 


o 

CM 


LD 


CO 


*- 


o 


o 


o 


o 


















u 




















cu 




















Q. 


^ 1 


















"5 

(A 


X i 


lo 


CD 
CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


V 




















£ 








































c 

A3 
O 




u 


Im 


O 
CM 


CD 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


^ 








































.o 




c 


















5 


. 


: 


















3 






















(0 




£ 
































1_ 


</) 




tn 


o 


' :- 


s 






m 

c 
o 




cu 
E 

CD 


(0 

o 

m 




c 
o 

jl 

"a> 

o 


re 

E 
E 


; 


E 
E 




m 


3 


cu 

> 


'— 

o 

Q. 






■ 


s 


m 


!_ 


Q 




m 


t_ 


— 


c_ 


3 








CO 




O 


o 


o 


CD 


CO 




£ 


O 


Q 


CO 


Q. 


O 


CO 


o 





Sin 
gjen 


o 
o 


5 


co 

CM 


CD 


Q-4- 


o 


o 


o 


O 


flcN 
|2| CM 


en 


CO 


co 


o 


§*1 CD 


m 

T — 


m 


- 


o 


3cn 


CD 


•q- 


CM 


o 


3^° 


CM 


o 


- 


CM 


3 CM 


!-~ 


CM 


CM 


r™ 


3"^ 

Qcm 


CT> 


CM 


o 


O 


3^r 


r-- 


,— 


,_ 


,- 


1?B 










(-^" 










o| 




















-*- J H 










foB 










=0 <° 


o 


1^ 


CO 


^- 


- J "^M 










^ B 










col 






















cB 










r 'fl 










wfcjlcxi 


in 


CO 


co 


CD 












rail 




















cm 




















ol 










•*- H 












i^ 


a> 


CO 


CM 










ul 






















!>■ 










:■ 










oE|m 


r- 


CO 


CM 


CM 


u|m 










u "'B 










=■__ 










e| 










o| 










CjElr- 


CD 


o 


CM 


«- 


oH 










._ H 










H ■• 










>i 


•q 










1 
































■C 












•(M 












g 


s 










Q> 












- 1 

re 


- ffl 


m 


in 

m 


in 
TO 


v> 

cu 


r 


J CO 


m 


cu 


>. 


>. 


a 
Q 


Is 


LO 


>< 
r^ 


o 


in 



CD 



CM 



CD 



CM 



s 
c 

if**—* 

co 



E 

E 

°l 

o| 



CO 



-I 

(A I 

"re 

c 
< 



-i 5 

L. E w 



CM 



CD 



CM 



0) 

c 
■2 C 



E 
E 
ol 



-I 

(A | 

"re 
c 
< 



c 

3 2 .e 

O 



51 



CM 



0) 

c 
o 

Q- 
m 

o 
EL 

ea 

o 



96 



w 


co 


m 


O) 


c 


o 


c 


o 




a 


CM 


ra 






CD 




00 


X 


O 


CM 


0) 

n 


o 


£ 
CO 




n> 


a 








0- 


ra 


to 


O 


CO 


—> 


TJ 




CD 






m 


o 




Q 


m 




c 



< CM 

2 rr 

KiUl 

O h CD 

£ 5 s 
5 O uj 

°°£ 

III 

§8$ 

R >- 3 

O m 2 
UJ < 

-J -» 

o rr 
5 ° 



C 

o c 

II 

CO > 

c Q 
.2 to 

CD o 
§1 

0) 

c W 

~Z « 

c > 

0) « 

e5 

<d to 
2? c 

1 E 



O) 
O) 
O) 

g 


« 

a. 
u 
o 
o 




5 
to 




o 




<- 


o 


o 


T— 


o 


o 




- 


T- 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CM 




CM 

to 


o> 

00 
CM 


co 

T— 


m 
m 




r- 




in 

o 

Q 


"5 
o 

2 




CO 

o 

CM 




in 




CM 


o 

CO 


in 


CO 
CM 


CO 


CO 




(^ 


o 


o 


m 


CO 


CO 


- 


o 




CO 
CM 




5- 




T- 


CO 
CM 




m 




o 

g 


CO 
ID 

C 

o 

1- 

o 




CO 
O 
CM 




cn 




in 

CO 


CM 

m 


m 


CO 


in 


c~ 




to 


o 


o 


CO 


- 


o 


i" 


- 




CM 
CM 




m 

CO 




co 


in 




CO 




ro 

o 

9 


E 
ro 

sz 

O) 

c 
O 




CM 
CM 




cn 




in 
in 


in 


m 


CO 
CM 


CO 


- 




r~- 


- 


o 


T 


CM 


o 


o 


o 




in 

CM 




CO 


CO 


CM 


CO 




oo 




CM 

o 

9 


o 
c 
ro 




in 
m 

CM 




o 

CM 




to 


to 


m 


00 
CM 


CO 

r- 


CM 




co 

CM 


o 


o 


CO 


in 


CM 


o 


o 




CM 




CO 


in 


- 


CM 




r-- 




o 

q 


•a 

c 
o 
E 
E 

3 
i- 

o 




CO 




cn 




r- 


CM 
in 


cn 

CM 


m 


00 


CO 




CO 


o 


o 


cn 


CM 


- 


- 


o 




CM 

CM 




in 


m 


o 


o 




CM 




o 
r- 
O 

a 

9 


sz 

Ol 

3 

ro 

5 




CO 

CO 




CM 
CO 




o 

CM 


o 
cn 


o 


00 


cn 

T- 


o 




CM 


o 


o 


en 


- 


O 


T— 


o 




o 
in 




to 


00 


- 


03 




*3/ 




to 
o 
*t 
9 


c 
o 
to 

TJ 
5 




00 




o 

CO 




m 

CO 


CM 
CO 


o 
o 


o 

CO 


co 

CO 


o 

CM 




>» 


o 


o 


f- 


m 


o 


o 


CM 




in 




CO 
00 




o 


CO 
CO 




CM 




CO 

o 

9 


CD 

>< 


a 




in 




CO 




CO 


CM 

•tr 


00 

cn 


CM 


o 

CM 


cn 




- 


CM 


- 


co 


- 


o 


- 


o 




cn 




Tt 


CO 


o 


m 

CO 




cn 




to 

(O 

o 

9 


10 
13 
O 
O 

5 




00 




CM 






CO 


cn 


CO 


•<r 


CO 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CO 




CO 


cn 


o 


00 
CM 




o 




in 

(O 

o 
9 


JZ 

o 

I 

_N 

l. 

a. 




CO 

en 
m 




CO 
CM 




m 

00 

to 


CO 

in 


CO 


CM 

CO 


« 
t 


cn 




o 
to 


o 


o 


in 


CO 


m 


o 


■V 




in 




to 

CO 


o 


T- 


m 
cn 




- 




(O 

o 

9 


!E 
o 

JS 




CM 




o 




CO 


CM 


m 


o 


" 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




- 




T 


to 


o 


- 




o 




CM 
(O 

o 

9 


O) 

c 

UJ 




CO 
CM 




CD 




to 

CO 


m 


CO 


m 

CM 


CO 
CM 


■t 

^ 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




r-- 

CM 




CO 
CM 


CO 


o 


o 




o 




o 
tt 
9 


N 

a 

c 

r 

ro 

2 




CM 




T 




CO 

to 


o 
m 


o 
in 


CO 

T- 


CM 


CO 
CM 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CO 




CN 


co 

CM 


o 


CO 




o 




CO 

If) 
o 

9 


c 
o 

"3 

.c 

CO 




CO 

c~ 

CM 




CO 




00 


CD 

in 


m 
m 


CM 
CM 


T- 


CO 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CO 
CM 




O 
CO 


co 


o 


en 




o 




i- 
m 
o 

9 


U) 

> 
ro 

a 




cn 

CM 

to 




to 




00 

T— 


CM 

en 


m 


CO 
<M 


CM 


T 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




to 




in 

CO 


CO 


o 


o 




o 




to 
in 
o 
tt 
9 


V) 

ai 
O) 
O) 

CD 




in 
m 
m 




cn 




to 

CM 
■"3- 


00 


m 

CO 


o 
m 


00 
CM 


CO 
CM 




CO 
CM 


o 


o 


00 


T 


cn 


- 


- 




CM 




o 
r— 


CM 
CO 


o 


03 
CO 




r- 




m 

o 
* 

9 


c 
o 

CO 
& 

m 




CO 

in 




|o 




in 

r— 
to 


m 

T- 


CM 


in 


CO 
CM 


CO 

m 




T 


o 


o 


- 


o 


- 


- 


- 




■3- 
CO 




o 

CM 


CO 

in 


o 


•fl- 
ic 




- 




to 
m 

o 

«: 
Q 


CU 

c 

10 




to 

r» 

in 




CO 

■a- 




a 

CO 


m 

^1- 


cn 


CO 
CO 


CO 


CM 
CM 




in 


o 


o 


(M 


- 


o 


CN 


o 




in 






CO 


CO 


in 




00 




E 
E 
o 
o 


0) 

E 

CO 




to 

ro 
cu 

X 




V) 

c 

CO 

a 


!2 

1 


c 

CD 

Q 


>. 


12 

>- 

CM 


i2 
>. 

CO 




cn 
>- 
in 


! 

«) 


c 
a> 
Q 


>- 


CN 


to 

>. 
CO 


in 

>• 
in 


to 


(A 

o 


>- 
in 




to 
CO 




CD 

c 
o 

Q. 
U) 

o 
a. 


< 


c 
cu 
cn 

X 

LU 


cr 

Q 
CJ 

0. 

m 




> 

CD 
2 





CU 








ro £ 


f- 








■o c 


cu 








cn 2 


c 








c E 


o 










Q. 








ro ro 










CU 3 


O 








■c -o 


n 








■o > 


to 








3 C 


eg 








"O T 


c 
tu 

a 

■o 






to 

CU 

r 
ro 

3 
tT 


W X) 

tu cu 

jr 3 


ro 






*" CO 

,co 




k. 




ro 


i- to 


a. 


<D 




tu 


o r 




c 




I 


c o 


cn 
cu 

> 
o 


O 
CO 
CO 

F 




X 
0. 
CD 


Q. CL 

cu <u 

XI _ 

ro co 


Q. 


F 




sz 


b 2. 


a. 

CO 


o 
u 




3 
O 


ro 2 




l_ 










tu 




i~ 




O 

X 

T 


a. 
to 

o 

c 




■D 

tu 
to 

10 


a> c 

SI 

£ cu 


0. 


CD 

cu 




tu 
u 


JS co 


>. 


T 






.2x) 


n 












o 




to 




c 


L_ 




c 


ii in 


o 

L) 

ca 


CU 

n 

E 

3 
C 




g 

o 
ro 


tu S, 
3 ™ 


to 




2 


tu j: 


CJ 
CD 

c= 


ro 
o 




tu 

3 
X) 


ro " 
ro .E 




tu 




X) 


- 1 F 


c 
F 


£ 




4> 

ro 


^a 


3 
O 
U 
CO 


O 

E 

3 




> 
tu 
tu 
tu 


CO u 

ro c= 
5 2 


^ 






-O 


o rr 


t- 


o 

c 


CU 

n 


co 


c ro 
o E 


10 
O) 


5 


ro 


b 


S E 


c 


10 


r~ 


r in 


CD 


"c 


£ 


to 
o 


ll 


T 


tu 




« 


cd is 


C 
o 

ro 
cu 
■o 
io 

c 
o 


b 


T) 


D 




cu 

c 
o 

_D. 

"to 
o 
Ol 
T3 


CU 

■o 

3 
O 

£ 



c 


cu 

■?> 
o 
O 

tu 
c 


ro o 
•I 

° ^ 

Q. 3~ 
cu ~ 
■- ro 

CO 3 

ro o- 
tu . c 


O 
o 

3 
TZ> 

c 
o 

o 


CO 

to' 

a. 

W 
to* 


10 

U) 

c 

ro 
cu 

.c 

■0 

3 


'to 
to 

E 
E 
o 
O 


o 


ro 


O 




X) o 


c 


c 


cu 




!_ Ol 




cu 


c; 




ro A 


tu 
o 


D 


ro 


Zo 


X3 


c 
ro 


tu 
o 
to 

I 


cu 

E 
cu 
c 
o 


1? 

"D to 


» 




cu 


CL 




Q 


o 


.c 


to 


Q> 03 


(T 


tu 


o 
o 


o 

CL 


o < 


o 


b 


tu 


LU 




u 


3 


3 






o 


Z 


T3 


o 





5 

-J 

o 
E 

CO 

& 

CL 



97 



98 



Senate Confirmation 

Henry J. Aguilar 

Commissioner, Juvenile Parole Board 

Responses to Senate Rules Committee Questions 

March 3, 2009 



Statement of Goals 

Prior to the July 2005 Department of Corrections reorganization, juvenile parole issues 
were heard by the Youthful Offender Parole Board. However, in 2005 the Board of 
Parole Hearings was established as part of the broad reorganization of the former Youth 
and Adult Corrections Agency (now known as the California Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation). Initially, the five juvenile commissioners were part of a board with 
the 12 adult commissioners. However, on January 1, 2007, the five members 
responsible for juvenile matters were transferred to the jurisdiction of the chief deputy 
secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), pursuant to SB 737 (Romero), 
Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005. As a result, the Juvenile Parole Board is now part of DJJ. 

The duties of the five members of the Juvenile Parole Board include establishing the 
terms and conditions of parole for soon-to-be paroled youthful offenders, determining 
whether parolees should be returned to an institution for parole violations, and 
conducting annual reviews to assess progress of an offender. 

The juvenile offender population under state jurisdiction has decreased markedly over 
the past decade, from 10,000 to less than 2,000 as counties have been given more 
responsibility for handling these offenders. At the same time, partly because of 
lawsuits, the annual cost of housing juvenile offenders in state facilities has risen to 
more than an estimated $250,000, according to the Little Hoover Commission. 

1. What are your goals and objectives as a commissioner? What do you 
hope to accomplish during your tenure? How will you measure your 
success as a board member? 

My goal as a Juvenile Parole Board commissioner is to protect the public and serve the 
residents of California. I plan to observe, assess and determine the granting, revoking 
and discharging of the parole process to ensure a successful reintegration of Division of 
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) wards into society. During my tenure, I intend to help the youth 
open their eyes to new possibilities by sharing my personal examples and experiences. 
The best measure of success is when you see a former DJJ ward in the public and 
he/she thanks you for the opportunity of allowing them to participate in a normal, law 
abiding life. 



Senate Ruies Committee 

MAR 3 2009 
Appointments 



99 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 2 of 10 



2. What in particular has prepared you to evaluate the readiness of 
youthful offenders to parole and be independent citizens? 
What lessons, if any, from your former job as a Los Angeles County 
sheriff's deputy do you consider especially helpful in carrying out your 
current duties, and how do you apply them on a day-to-day basis? 

My past employment with the Department of Public Social Services and in law 
enforcement has provided me the training and experience in helping a diverse 
population. Throughout my life, I have assisted others and as a commissioner I will be 
able to continue my passion of community service to help improve the lives of the youth. 
The lessons learned from my former job as a deputy sheriff are many: stay true to the 
golden rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), believe that people 
can rise to expectations placed upon them, and personal accountability. I have worked 
in the Juvenile Court as a Supervising Deputy Sheriff for twelve years. During that 
assignment, I was part of our juvenile justice system. Some say that the system is too 
lenient and others say that it is too harsh. I believe that part of growing up involves 
making mistakes. I understand that the objective of juvenile law is to rehabilitate and I 
strive everyday to that end. Daily, when evaluating the readiness of youthful offenders 
to parole, I consider what is in the best interest of the youth and the public's safety. 



Training and Policies 

The 2005 reorganization of the correctional system requires new commissioners to 
undergo a minimum of 40 hours of training within 60 days of appointment and annually 
thereafter. Senate staff has been told that commissioners participate in trainings 
provided by DJJ facility and parole staff, including motivational interviewing, a risk 
assessment and integrated behavior treatment model, and an overview of aggression 
replacement training. Staff has also been told that commissioners are being trained on 
new tools for decision making. 

3. Please describe your initial training, including content and details of 
who provided the instruction and the length of the training. In your view, 
did it adequately prepare you for your job? 

During my first week, training was provided at DJJ headquarters that was a thorough 
orientation on the Juvenile Parole Board, DJJ Programs, Facilities, and Parole. 
In addition, an overview of the Farrell lawsuit and subsequent remedial plans were 
reviewed with me. During this week, I also attended three hours of Board training with 
David Robinson, PhD, and Marilyn Vandieten, PhD, with Orbis Partners, Inc., on the 
development of the Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) and the Integrated 
Behavior Treatment Model (IBTM). 



100 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 3 of 10 



After the initial training at headquarters, I was trained in the field by veteran 
Commissioner Susan Melanson, who instructed me on the overall juvenile parole 
decision making process and helped me understand and apply the policies, procedures, 
and codes governing our work. The length of the training was approximately 
three months involving hours of reading and applying that knowledge to the cases I 
observed and increasingly participated in. 

I have also received four hours of training on recognizing signs and symptoms of mental 
illness and understanding related communication issues, provided by DJJ Chief 
Psychologist, Dr. Eric Kunkel, and DJJ Chief Psychiatrist, Dr. Ed Morales. Regarding 
the LH lawsuit, I have received 28 hours of training on the history of the lawsuit and 
stipulated agreement, newly developed policies and procedures, and operating the 
Juvenile Scheduling and Tracking System (JSTS). 

4. Much of your work takes place at DJJ facilities. How much time did you 
spend observing DJJ rehabilitation programs and living conditions 
during your training? How much time do you spend observing now, 
and are you able to observe community programs where parolees might 
be sent? 

I have observed DJJ rehabilitation programs at the Heman G. Stark facility. I have had 
the opportunity to attend group sessions on drug counseling and graduations of various 
rehabilitation programs. I have visited the Ventura Correctional Facility dog grooming 
program and observed their Dress for Success program. I also observed its high school 
classes and computer laboratory. At the Southern Clinic in Norwalk, I have observed 
classes in anger management and Dress for Success. I have visited Homeboy 
Industries in the city of Los Angeles and spoke to Father Boyle regarding his crusade to 
help former gang members change their lives. I visited the Phoenix House in Santa 
Monica and observed their group therapy sessions. I toured the Strive Right program in 
San Diego and was impressed with its one-stop service concept. I visited a transitional 
group home in Whittier and spoke to some of their DJJ residents. I am planning to visit 
more community programs in the future. 

5. Do you receive legal or other guidance on the most effective strategies 
in dealing with juvenile wards, witnesses, and attorneys when 
conducting a hearing? Who provides that guidance, and is it available 
during a hearing? 

I receive legal guidance from the legal staff at the Department of Corrections and 
Rehabilitation and DJJ headquarters, as well as from experienced commissioners and 
board staff. Legal support staff assigned to JPB in general and specific to the 
LH lawsuit attend our board meetings and receive our calls during hearings to provide 
legal guidance. The CDCR legal team assigned to work with board members includes 
Bruce Slavin, Marc Remis, Michael Brady, and Simone Renteria. 



101 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 4 of 10 



6. When you consider parole for a ward, how have you been trained to 
determine whether he or she is adequately rehabilitated? To which 
factors do you give the most weight? Please describe how you use the 
new decision-making and assessment tools. 

I have been trained to consider all the information in the case file, evaluate the ward's 
presentation, and make a reasonable assessment as to their rehabilitation and the 
likelihood to become a law abiding citizen. I equally evaluate all aspects of the ward's 
progress or lack of it in treatment and training and make necessary considerations for 
individual abilities and programming opportunities. Discipline write-ups are important in 
determining parole readiness as I often tell the youth that being in custody is a 
controlled environment and that the write-ups indicate they lack impulse control. 
In addition, time cuts earned through the ward incentive program provides a good 
indication of positive progress. I have been exposed to the new assessment tool 
utilized by the facilities and anticipate incorporating it into the board's decision making in 
a systemized fashion in the future. 

7. How have you been trained to asses the quality of programming — 
including the adequacy of classroom instruction — the ward received? 
What are the uniform criteria used by all commissioners and hearing 
officers? How do you factor in the fact that programming is often 
hindered by lockdowns? 

The quality of programming can best be assessed by the end product, parole readiness. 
The most important criteria used by commissioners when considering parole is the 
ability of the ward to internalize and put to use her/his treatment, training and education. 
I look for a ward's demonstration of specific learning objectives associated with this 
treatment and training. This could include identifying errors of criminal thinking, 
describing impact of crime on victims, understanding restorative justice principles, 
modeling gang avoidance strategies, and presenting substance abuse relapse 
prevention plans, and sexual assault cycles. I also consider a ward's accomplishments, 
certificates and commendations during the hearing. If the ward was unable to complete 
his treatment due to no fault of his own I factor that into my decision. 



Parole Revocation Hearings 

Under a federal court agreement, in a case known as Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, adult 
parole violators have the right to counsel and other due process protections in parole 
revocation hearings. Juveniles sought similar rights in another federal case referred to 
by the juvenile plaintiff's initials — L.H. The lawsuit alleged that juveniles accused of 
parole violations were held for weeks or months without any hearings. As part of the 



102 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 5 of 10 



settlement in the case reached last year, DJJ agreed to provide legal counsel for all 
parolees subject to parole violation allegations. 

8. When considering parole revocation, what factors have you been 
trained to take into account? Specifically, do you make use of any risk 
assessment tool? What additional training do you believe would be 
useful? 

I am currently being trained on conducting revocation hearings. I have been observing 
hearings being conducted by senior commissioners and board representatives as part 
of my on-the-job training. In parole revocation hearings, I have been trained to consider 
the parolee's present behavior, life circumstances, and accomplishments since the 
youth's release from custody. My training provides that I rely on documented facts and 
observations from her/his parole agent to make an informed decision. We are trained to 
examine the behavior for which the youth is being considered for revocation and to take 
into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as the availability of 
community based treatment. The Board does not formally utilize the YASI risk 
assessment tool in parole revocation at this time, but is in the process of developing its 
application into an actual decision making instrument. 

9. Are you informed about the availability of alternative sanctions when 
considering parole revocation? Are there additional programs that you 
think should be available? If so, how? 

Alternative sanctions are always considered on a case by case basis. They are part of 
every parole disposition report provided to the commissioner along with a 
recommendation from the parole agent. The recommendation, along with employment, 
schooling, home stability and parolee obligations to encourage proper behavior is 
considered when providing sanctions in the least restrictive way. 

I think vocational training is the key to financial independence and rehabilitation. 
I believe that DJJ should partner with local trade colleges to offer programs that would 
be of mutual benefit. 



Disciplinary Decision Appeals 

When a ward has time added to his or her length of confinement, the decision is subject 
to appeal. The juvenile side of the BPH hears second level appeals of these decisions. 
The Superintendent of the DJJ facility is considered to be the first level of appeal. 



103 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 6 of 10 



10. There appear to be no written standards on which the merits of an 
appeal can be evaluated. How do you evaluate the merits of an appeal? 
What guidance is available to you? 

I review the documents and supporting evidence. I discuss with the ward each violation 
and their reason for the appeal. I determine if there was: 1) a violation of procedural 
safeguards; 2) evidence which was unavailable at the time of fact finding that is now 
available and would be material to the finding; 3) evidence not present or insufficient to 
support a finding; and 4) if a disposition hearing was not conducted correctly or the 
disposition was unfair. I make a determination based on the evidence presented, review 
of past disciplinary record, determine if the time add is within the table of sanctions and 
decide if the appeal should be granted. DJJ headquarters is always available for 
guidance and counsel on facility procedures and policies. 

11. What role do you play, if any, in assuring the appeals are heard in a 
timely manner? Are there timelines for processing appeals? 

Yes, there are timelines within the Disciplinary Decision-Making System (DDMS) 
process. I review the time frames and make inquiries if there is a delay at anytime 
throughout the process. If the delay resulted in substantial prejudice to the ward's 
interest, then I dismiss the case. 



Parole Consideration Hearings 

Hearings are conducted at youth facilities, adult prisons, and parole offices throughout 
the state. Commissioners sometimes conduct a number of hearings in a single day. 

12. Is the quality of the background material you review sufficient to allow 
you to make informed decisions? How could it be improved? 

The quality of the background material needed to make an informed decision has to be 
timely, accurate and comprehensive. The file materials are quite comprehensive, 
concluding intake documents, probation and juvenile court records, history of DDMS, all 
treatment team progress reports and psychological evaluations, and chronology of JPB 
decisions. Technology can improve our decision making process by scanning case files 
so they can be accessed by board members. 

13. Please describe how you prepare for a parole consideration hearing. 
Board members typically review a youthful offender's file on the 



104 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 7 of 10 



morning of the hearing, is this your practice? If so, do you believe it 
prepares you adequately? How could this process be improved? 

I prepare for a parole consideration hearing by reviewing the case file, asking for an up- 
to-date DDMS printout and reading all treatment summaries, action log and case notes. 
I offer recommendations to the ward's parole placement plans if necessary. It is my 
practice to arrive early to prepare for the hearings. I take notes on each case to prepare 
myself for the parole consideration hearing. I utilize the time between hearings to 
further review and prepare. 

The scanning of case files for computer access by board members would be a good 
improvement. 

14. How do you balance the recommendations of a parole agent or another 
more experienced commissioner hearing the case with your own 
judgment of a ward's case for parole? How much weight do you place 
on the advice of DJJ staff? 

I take into account all the recommendations, current information and input from DJJ 
staff when rendering a parole decision. DJJ facility and parole advice is important as 
they observe and interact with the youth on a regular basis. I listen to fellow board 
members and observe their thinking processes as to the parole readiness of the case at 
hand. Then I rely on my training and experience to make an informed decision that 
incorporates all of the input that I have received. 

15. When you recommend that a parolee be sent to a treatment program, 
such as substance abuse, as part of their parole plan, how are you 
informed about the availability and quality of these programs? Please 
describe the kind of follow-up that occurs when you recommend that a 
parolee go to a particular program. 

The proposed parole placement plan is completed by the time I conduct a parole 
consideration hearing. A substance abuse treatment placement and/or other placement 
options are recommended when I feel that a ward will be better served based on the 
individual needs of the ward and placement availability. The quality and availability of 
these treatment programs is determined by the parole agent. The case management 
officer will usually follow up and honor any reasonable request I make. I have visited 
some of these placements to get a first hand perspective. 



Time Issues 

DJJ has a disciplinary system in which additional time can be added before a youth may 
be considered for parole. Youth can appeal these "time adds" to the board. A national 



105 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 8 of 10 



team of experts who reviewed DJJ two years ago recommended that the system of 
"good time" be enhanced so that youths who participate in programs and stay out of 
trouble can earn back their disciplinary time and be considered for parole at an earlier 
date. 

16. Experts who reviewed DJJ practices stated that an average of one third 
of all time spent in DJJ was a result of additional time being added to 
confinement time. From your experience, what are the factors causing 
increases in the lengths of stay for youthful offenders? What action, if 
any, would you recommend to address this issue? 

The main factor I observe causing increases in the lengths of stay for youthful offenders 
is their negative behavior in the institution. The negative and impulsive behavior can be 
attributed to gang affiliation, drugs and immaturity. Other factors are sexual and mental 
health problems that require additional treatment and may extend the youth's detention. 
The evidence-based programs that are being instituted may help reduce time 
extensions by providing more effective interventions. Wards who work their program 
and take advantage of the treatment, training and education offered at DJJ are often 
brought up early for parole consideration. 

17. What is the board's policy on factoring in "good time" or positive 
behavior? Has the board discussed the best approach to this issue? 
How do you make this determination? 

The parole board does not give good time credit. This good time or positive behavior is 
built into the wards' incentive program, which leads to the youthful offender being 
presented to the Board for parole consideration prior to the original parole board date. 
Commissioners take into account the positive behavior along with the ward's 
presentation at the hearing and performance in all aspects of programming, education 
and daily living in making a decision to release. The Board does not have a policy on 
factoring in good time credit, but considers each case as a whole in which a time cut 
has been awarded. 



Annual Reviews 

Commissioners are responsible for an annual review of every offender's progress. 

18. What are the benchmarks you look for in this process? What additional 
information would be helpful to make the most complete assessment? 

Annual reviews are conducted by the Board only for parolees. Senate Bill 459 took 
away responsibility for annual reviews of wards in facilities from the Board. When 
conducting parole annual reviews, I look for stability and progress in employment, 



106 



Senate Rules Committee 
Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 9 of 10 



March 3, 2009 



schooling, residence, and family life, as well as any critical incidents, negative behavior 
or new arrests. I review the case file to ensure that the parole services are being 
offered and utilized to help the ward toward his/her success. More frequent 
appearances by the ward may be helpful to make a more complete assessment of 
his/her progress and/or needs. 



Farrell Lawsuit 

In 2004 the Administration reached a landmark settlement in the Farrell lawsuit on the 
conditions of confinement in juvenile facilities. DJJ is supposed to implement a broad 
array of reforms, including creating smaller living units, improving education and mental 
health services, and bolstering safety, but it has missed virtually every deadline agreed 
to in the settlement. 

Last October an Alameda County judge stated the state was "in gross violation" of court 
orders by taking too long to reform its juvenile prison system. But he delayed 
appointment of a receiver to allow the board time to speed up improvements. 
Meanwhile, the passage of SB 81, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, shifted responsibility 
to counties for all but the most violent juvenile offenders. In addition, the Little Hoover 
Commission recently recommended that the state eliminate its juvenile justice 
operations by 2011. 

19. How have you been kept abreast of developments in the Farrell case? 
Do you believe the board should have a role in ensuring that offenders 
receive the treatment agreed to in the Farrell settlement? 

DJJ sends me regular updates by mail and e-mail regarding the Farrell case. I have 
also been informed through presentations by Farrell project staff at our regular board 
meetings, teleconference calls and phone calls. The board can play a role in the Farrell 
case by observing and reporting on whether or not wards are participating in and 
benefiting from programs provided for in the Farrell case settlement. 

20. What is your understanding of the timeline for Farrell implementation? 
Has it been accelerated now that the division has a smaller caseload as 
a result of SB 81? Please describe the impact of the Farrell case on 
your hearings. Also, how has the closure of facilities in the past year or 
so changed your workload? 

My understanding is that new time frames have been agreed upon by the plaintiffs 
and Special Master in the Farrell case. DJJ is working closely with the Court, 
Special Master, and experts to accelerate the implementation dates in a responsible 
fashion. The time frames have not been accelerated as a result of a smaller 
caseload given that development of policies, procedures and programs is not 



107 



Senate Rules Committee March 3, 2009 

Henry J. Aguilar 
Page 1 of 1 



dependant on caseload. While the facility workload has decreased as a result of the 
reduction in population, there has been a corresponding increase in workload in LH 
due to the shortened timeframes and the additional of probable cause and 
revocation extension hearings. 

21. As the number of juvenile offenders in state facilities drops, what do 
you see as the continuing role of the Juvenile Parole Board? 

The continuing role of the Juvenile Parole Board can be to ensure that wards receive 
due process and fair and impartial hearings, and to serve as a monitor and catalyst of 
the reforms that are intended under the Farrell lawsuit. 



108 



February 17, 2009 

California Legislature 

Senate Rules Committee 

Darrell Steinberg, Chairman 

State Capitol 

Room 420 

Sacramento, Ca. 95814-4900 

Re: Appointment Confirmation Hearing for Sonja Maden 

Dear Senator Steinberg and Members of the Senate Rules Committee 

You do not know me, however, I feel as though I know each of you. I hope you will 
confirm my appointment to the Rehabilitation Appeals Board. 

I will strive to be available to attend Board Hearings as a Member of the Rehabilitation 
Appeals Board at any location through out the State of California on any day as requested 
by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. John Kehoe or staff. I will make every effort to give 
fair consideration to the appellant appearing before me and to the Department of 
Rehabilitation staff to enable me to arrive at decisions of the issues based on Title 9 of 
the state regulations and the federal regulations. 

I expect to be a contributing and working member of this Board to reduce travel and 
overhead expenses. I will contribute accurate, detailed information requested in the 
proper format to assist the staff. I will be on time for any hearings or meetings. I will 
prepare for the hearings and I will take accurate and detailed notes to allow me to assist 
the Board Members to arrive at decisions through deliberation. I have full access and use 
of computers, email, fax machine, photo copy equipment, cell phone and conference 
calling abilities and other technology that I can use and provide at no cost to the 
Department of Rehabilitation for use in Appeals Board related matters. I will offer 
assistance and transportation to any Board Member. 

I have the full cooperation and support of my family members and the staff I work with at 
South Hills Escrow Corp. to devote the time required to meet the responsibilities of an 
Appeals Board Member. 

I will measure my success through thoughtful and effective participation in the decision 
making responsibility of the Board of Appeals. Thank you for your consideration and 
approval of my appointment. There are no changes in Form 700, Statement of Economic 
Interests. I have enclosed it for your review. 

Very/tttuly ypurs, 

SOnjaM. Maden &M* M* CwiHtee 

Cc: Rehabilitation Appeals Board rrp <-, 



hliiv 



109 



February 16,2009 

Attn: Senate Rules Committee 

RE: Short and Long-term Goals 

This letter is in regard to the requested outlining of both my future "short and long-term goals" 
for the board. Also, mentioned in this letter is how the goals will be accomplished and measured. 



Short-term goals : 

1 . To provide prompt and independent hearings for Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) clients 
Who disagree with counselor decisions, which apply appropriate DOR regulations. 

Long-term goals: 

1 . To become more knowledgeable in the laws and regulations controlling the rights of DOR 
clients. 

2. To promote the prompt reemployment of DOR clients. 

3 . To elicit all relevant facts from DOR representatives and clients participating in a hearing to 
support a correct decision. 

4. Advocate teleconferencing or web-conferencing (i.e., phone or web-based communication) 
of board hearings where one or two board members, the Executive Secretary to the Board, 
and an appellant are situated at the actual site, while other board members access the hearing 
from a remote location(s). This cost-saving alternative addresses the financial issue of 
transporting, lodging, and meals, for all board members who attend board meetings, which 
can be quite expensive and should be questioned, especially in the current down economy. 
Lastly, I recommend that The Department of Rehabilitation should have in place such 
resources at each location for those who lack such conferencing capabilities. 

Roadmap to Goals: 

1 . Study DOR regulations and laws. 

2. To participate in all trainings to become a better appeals board member. 

Goal Metrics: 



1 . Have decisions reviewed by competent authority. 

2. Follow up on DOR clients who participated in hearings before me - to determine if their goals 
have been accomplished. 

In closing, I would also like to mention that I have not re-submitted "Form 700" as no new 
changes have taken place. Thank you. 

Best regards, 

Senate Rules Committee 

Lillian M. Scaife 

FEB 1 8 ?fW 
Appointments 

110 



610-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications & Flags 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)651-1538 

Make checks or money orders payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Credit cards not accepted. 

Please include stock number 610-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




GOVERNMENT 
DOCUMENTS DEPT 

AUG 2 7 2009 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009 

1:40 P.M. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



611-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



- -0O0 



HEARING 

STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

- -0O0- - 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 20 9 
1:40 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 



Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6713 







1 






INDEX 






SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 














STATE OF CALIFORNIA 


2 






P a a e 






- - oOo - - 
















3 


P 


roceedings 1 








4 


G 


overnor's Appointees: 






HEARING 


5 


M 


ATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary, Department of 






STATE CAPITOL 


6 


C 


orrs 


ctions and Rehabilitation 2 










ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 


7 


STAT 


EMENT BY CHAIRMAN STEINBERG 


2 








- -oOo - - 


8 


OPENING STATEMENT BY MR. CATE 


7 




WEDNESDAY. MARCH 25. 2009 


9 




Q 


uestions by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 






1:40 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 


10 
11 






Women's prisons 13 






Eligibility for programs 15 






12 






Avenal State Prison telephone 








13 

14 






reservation system 22 






Best practices 25 






15 






Status of hiring associate 








16 






director of women's prisons 55 






Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No 6713 


17 
18 
19 






Risk assessment for female 
inmates 58 






Com m unity-based facilities/ 






20 






alternative treatment programs .... 59 








21 






Sentencing females to community- 








22 






based facilities 60 








23 






Diversity in the workforce 61 








24 






Cell phones in prisons 66 








25 








iii 


1 


APPEARANCES 












2 


MEMBERS PRESENT 


1 




Q 


uestions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 




3 




2 






Expected changes in CDCR 28 




4 


SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG, Chair 


3 






Relationship with receiver 31 




5 


SENATOR SAMUEL AANESTAD 


4 






Implementation of strategic plan . 32 




6 


SENATOR ROBERT DUTTON 


5 






Plan to reduce illiteracy 36 




7 


SENATOR JENNY OROPEZA 


6 






Accountability for reducing 




8 
9 




7 






illiteracy . 38 




STAFF PRESENT 


8 






Impact of capacity on 




10 


GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 


9 

10 






Sentencing reform 40 




11 




12 


JANE LEONARD BROWN, Committee Assistant 


11 






F r e e d o m / a b ilit y to speak out on 




13 


NETTIE SABELHAUS, Appointments Consultant 


12 






issues such as sentencing reform 




14 


BILL BAILEY, Assistant to SENATOR AANESTAD 
CHRIS BURNS, Assistant to SENATOR DUTTON 
BRENDAN HUGHES, Assistant to SENATOR OROPEZA 


13 
14 
15 
16 
17 






or creative ways to reduce prison 
population 41 




15 


Mental health 43 


16 
17 


Lack of mental health treatment 


18 


ALSO PRESENT 


18 






Formal succession planning 




19 




19 










20 


MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary, Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation 


20 




Q 


uestions by SENATOR DUTTON re: 




21 




21 






Population growth and inmate 




22 




22 






population 47 




23 




23 










24 




24 










25 


ii 


25 








IV 



of 22 sheets 



Page 1 to 4 of 5 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 Ah 



1 Questions by SENATOR AANESTAD re: 

2 Contraband 64 

3 Penalties for contraband 29 

4 Witnesses in Support of MATTHEW L. CATE : 

5 CHRIS BROWN, Association of Black Correctional 
Workers 70 

NICK WARNER, California State Sheriffs 
Association 71 

DAVID WARREN, Taxpayers for Improving Public 
Safety 73 

DAVID SKAGGS, Associated Chaplains in 
California State Service 74 

CHARLENE CORBY, Correctional Peace Officers 
Foundation 74 

KAREN PANK, Chief Probation Officers of 
California 75 

MELINDA SILVA, Parole Agents Association of 
California 76 



-oOo- 



Vote-Only Item re Confirmation of: 
COLLENE T. CAMPBELL, Member, Corrections 
Standards Authority 78 

— pOo-- 

Proceedings Adjourned 79 

Certificate of Reporter 80 

APPENDIX (Written Responses of Appointees). 



1 SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 

2 MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 

3 Aanestad. 

4 SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

5 MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

6 Steinberg. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

8 MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

9 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That -- We'll leave the 

10 roll open for Senator Dutton. Is he going to be here 

11 today? 

12 SENATOR AANESTAD: Yes. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: W e'll lea ve the roll open. 

14 Maybe he'll add his name. 

15 All right. Let's move to the important piece 

16 of today's business, and today appearing for 

17 confirmation is Matthew L. Cate as secretary of the 

18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

19 Mr. Cate, love to welcome you up, and I want to 

20 make, if I may, a brief opening statement to set the 

21 context for today's hearing. 

22 I don't think it is an overstatement to say 

23 that the position of CDCR secretary is one of the most 

24 important in state government. The budget is 

25 $10 billion a year. But even more important, Mr. Cate, 

2 



PROCEEDINGS 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good afternoon, everyone. 
The Senate Rules Committee will come to order. 

Please call the roll. 

MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

Dutton. 

Oropeza. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Here. 

MS. BROWN: Oropeza here. 

Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Here. 

MS. BROWN: Aanestad here. 

Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Here. 

MS. BROWN: Steinberg here. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. We do have a 
quorum. Let's begin with item number one, which is 
reference of bills. Is there a motion on the reference 
of the bills? 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So moved. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Moved by Senator Oropeza. 

Please call the roll. 

MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

Dutton. 

Oropeza. 

1 



1 the secretary, you, of course, in this instance is 

2 responsible for a significant portion of the public 

3 safety here in California. 

4 I want to put out right away what I don't want 

5 to discuss today. And, of course, Members are welcome 

6 and members of the public are welcome to talk about 

7 anything they want, but this would just be my 

8 preference. I want to save the discussion of parole 

9 policy for another meeting. 

10 In light of the tragedies in Oakland, it would 

11 be the easiest thing in the world to have a 

12 high-powered, high-octane discussion about this, and, 

13 frankly, politicize it, and I don't want to do that. 

14 There are too many families that are suffering, a 

15 community that is suffering. There are important, 

16 important issues that underlie that terrible tragedy 

17 that we should discuss, but let's do it with a little 

18 breath and respect for the victims and their families. 

19 Hold that off for the next discussion with the 

20 secretary, if that's okay. 

21 We do, however, want to have a series of 

22 meetings with you in public, Mr. Cate, not to put you 

23 through the proverbial wringer here as an individual, 

24 because you're a fine public servant. And we've -- We 

25 know each other a little bit, and we've met, and you are 



± 



/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 5 to 3 of 5 



2 of 22 sheets 



1 working very, very hard. 

2 We want to talk about your plans for the 

3 department and for reforming this department. And so we 

4 want to begin today an evaluation, a sober evaluation, 

5 of the department, and also an evaluation of the 

6 secretary, as you have served in this role, and 

7 essentially come to an understanding or an agreement, 

8 not just today, but over the next several weeks, as to 

9 what the right yardsticks are by which we should measure 

10 your performance and by which we should measure the 

11 performance of this department, and what we can do to 

12 better protect the public. To that end, we have a 

13 series of issues that we want to talk to you about today 

14 as we begin this conversation. 

15 There's no question that this confirmation 

16 process is just a small part of the legislature's 

17 ongoing obligation to provide oversight and direction 

18 for the Department of Corrections. Certainly, we have a 

19 number of committee chairs in this house, and vice 

20 chairs, who will continue that work around a budget and 

21 around policy initiatives. And I'm going to ask them, 

22 as I'm going to ask you today, Mr. Cate, a couple of 

23 categories of questions. 

24 We have federal economic stimulus money coming. 

25 Can it help us? We have national and international 

4 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Vice chair first. 
SENATOR AANESTAD: I'm going to wait. 
CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead. 
SENATOR OROPEZA: Just to add to your list, and 



5 Mr. Cate and I met yesterday, so I think he's aware and 

6 I think you're aware also, Mr. Chair, that I'm very 

7 interested in talking specifically about what's going on 

8 and not going on at the women's prisons. So that will 

9 be part of the discussion. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Absolutely. 

11 And, again, just so nobody takes anything 

12 negative or positive from the way we intend to conduct 

13 these hearings, we're not going to vote on confirmation 

14 today. And that's not any kind of negative signal about 

15 Mr. Cate. But we don't believe we can do this 

16 appointment, frankly, justice without having a lengthier 

17 conversation about the direction of this department and 

18 where Mr. Cate intends to take it. 

19 So, welcome to you. We always like to start 

20 out by inviting you to introduce any family member or 

21 any special guest, and then we'll begin. 

22 MR. CATE: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. 

23 I would like to introduce briefly my family, my 

24 wife Rachel; my daughter Olivia, who is skipping seventh 

25 grade today to attend, so she'll be leaving shortly to 

6 



1 media scrutinizing our correctional policies; we have 

2 stacks of reports from experts; and we seem to have the 

3 courts involved at every juncture. I understand Judge 

4 Karlton just issued another order -- I believe it was 

5 today. 

6 We want to use this hearing as an opportunity 

7 to figure out how we together set benchmarks for 

8 improvement of the California Department of Corrections 

9 and a credible plan for how you and we meet those 

10 benchmarks. 

11 The benchmarks fall into a number of different 

12 categories. Today we want to focus on educational and 

13 vocational programs. We want to focus on management 

14 training, or the lack thereof, to attract and retain the 

15 highest-level administrators for the facilities 

16 themselves and for the department itself. And we want 

17 to talk about some -- We want to talk some about DJJ and 

18 what we are doing or what we need to do to help ensure 

19 that juvenile offenders don't become adult offenders. 

20 With that, I would like to welcome you and ask 

21 if you would like to make any kind of an opening 

22 statement, and then we'll begin the question. 

23 Any other Member have -- This is an important 

24 enough confirmation, I'd be happy to open it up to the 

25 Members. 

5 



1 go back to class; my mother-in-law Linda; my sister 

2 Ronda; and my mom; and my son William, who is not 

3 skipping school. He's on the infamous track program. 

4 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let us thank you, family 

5 members, for your public service, because we all know 

6 that it's a family endeavor oftentimes. 

7 MR. CATE: And so I would just briefly like to 

8 introduce myself a little more fully to the Committee 

9 and thank you for this opportunity to address you today 

10 about CDCR and about my vision for CDCR as its leader. 

11 It was about a year ago that I was first 

12 approached and asked if I was interested in this 

13 position. And my predecessor and friend, Mr. Tilton, 

14 was going to retire for some health-related reasons, and 

15 so we had this discussion about whether I was 

16 interested. 

17 And as I began to talk to some colleagues and 

18 friends here in the Capitol, the question that came back 

19 was: Why would you want the job? Why do you want to be 

20 involved in this, give up your position as Inspector 

21 General and take on a department that has the challenges 

22 that the Chair has described? And there's really three 

23 reasons. I'd like to discuss those briefly, as I think 

24 it impacts why I'm here and where I would like to see 

25 the department go. 

7 



of 22 sheets 



Page 4 to 7 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22 34 AK 



The first is a commitment to the mission of the 
department, which is public safety. It's 15 years ago 
this month I left private practice to become a 
prosecutor and for ten years spent my career in that in 
local and state prosecutorial agencies. 

I will confess that during those years, my 
vision and understanding of public safety was narrow. I 
believed it was my job to prosecute the guilty and see 
that they were properly sentenced. Once they went to 
prison, as long as they were safely, securely there, I 
didn't think much about what happened next. 

But after becoming Inspector General five years 
ago and having responsibility to oversee the entire 
department, investigate misconduct, look for systemic 
problems, I began to have a broader understanding of its 
public-safety mission. 

I learned that 95 percent of those people we 
put in prison are coming back out to the streets. I 
learned that only half of the people in prison will ever 
be involved in a treatment program of any kind, and that 
our historic recidivism rate, the rate at which our 
offenders re-offend, is 70 percent. That's not a strong 
public-safety statement. And so I'm passionate about 
improving in those areas and taking on the broader scope 
of public safety for the department. 



1 the Chair, I won't address that issue today other than 

2 to say that I'm proud of the work that our parole 

3 agents ~ fugitive-apprehension team did in Oakland. 

4 That doesn't mean we have a perfect system. I think we 

5 can improve the system. So I'll save my discussions on 

6 that topic for later today or another day. 

7 So those two ways to address overcrowding. 

8 Next is rehabilitation. A program of — 

9 academic program, a literacy program, we know nationwide 

10 reduces recidivism by 5 percent. That's only one 

11 less -- or one more person in 20 whose life is impacted. 

12 But, Senators, we release 120,000 parolees to the 

13 streets every year, 10,000 a month, 3500 a month to L.A. 

14 county alone, so a 5 percent reduction in recidivism, at 

15 that level, that's 6,000 changed lives. That's 6,000 

16 more taxpayers and, more importantly, 6,000 fewer active 

17 criminals on our streets. So we must have 

18 rehabilitative programming. 

19 We must improve our clinical care. We are in 

20 receivership, as you have mentioned. We are under 

21 scrutiny with class-action suits and mental health and 

22 dental as well. In my view, the State needs to provide 

23 constitutional care not because the courts say so, but 

24 because it's the right thing to do. We've got a moral 

25 and ethical obligation to do so. I don't think we 

10 



I'm also an optimist, and so the second reason 
I took this job is I think we can fix it. I know most 
people, at least many, won't agree with me. But I think 
the circumstances are right right now to make major 
strides, and I think we should focus -- and, really, my 
vision is to focus on six areas. I'll just touch on 
each one very briefly. 

One is overcrowding. We're at 195 percent of 
capacity. It makes everything we do more difficult, as 
I testified in front of a three-judge panel several 
months ago. 

Two, because of the overcrowding, really, it's 
all we can do to make sure the prisons are safe and 
provide constitutional care, and we don't always do 
that. Two ways, in my opinion, to address it. Two 
primary ways. One is for our most serious and violent 
offenders who are going to spend years and years behind 
bars, we need to expand our capacity so that we can have 
safe prisons for our serious and violent and so that we 
have the room, the space, to provide programs. In the 
next five years, those folks who went away for three 
strikes in 1994 are coming back out, and so it is 
imperative that they receive rehabilitative programming 
as well. 

The other is parole reform. In deference to 

9 



1 should need the courts to tell us that. I think we need 

2 to show the competence to get that job done ourselves. 

3 Fourth is Division of Juvenile Justice. We 

4 have the fewest offenders in the nation in our state 

5 system, per capita, 1800 in all of California. 

6 Ninety-nine percent have a violent history -- most have 

7 been the subject of abuse themselves -- mental health 

8 issues, co-occurring drug and alcohol programs, the most 

9 needy wards of this state; and we must do a better job 

10 of treating them, and we've got to do it for less than a 

11 quarter million dollars a year. 

12 Fifth is administration. When I spoke to 

13 Secretary Tilton upon his departure, he said the one 

14 thing he thought he would be able to fix, as a former 

15 member of the Department of Finance, was the budget, and 

16 he said he couldn't do it. Well, we're going to do 

17 that. We need to know where this money is going and 

18 why. We need to fix the HR system in the Department of 

19 Corrections. We need to fix IT. 

20 And the last thing is leadership. I think that 

21 there has been a leadership void in Corrections. Part 

22 of it is the revolving door at the top; part of it is 

23 the lack of training; part of it is that almost everyone 

24 but me will retire at age 50. And so it is a real 

25 challenge, and it's something that I think we should 

11 



/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 8 to 11 of 81 



4 of 22 sheets 



take on together. 

So those are the six areas where my vision lies 
for this department. 

The last thing I would like to say is that in 
the ten months I've been here, I have come to understand 
that the department has some of the hardest working, 
most dedicated employees that I've ever worked for and 
with. They are under-appreciated and under a great deal 
of scrutiny every day. And I'm proud of the job they 
do, and I'm humbled at the opportunity to be their 
leader. 

So it's for those reasons that I sit here, and 
it's for those reasons that I hope at the end of this 
process that I'm confirmed. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
again, Mr. Cate. 

Let's try to organize the hearing again today, 
just because there are so many different categories. 
Senator Oropeza has put on the table the issue of the 
women's prisons, and I think we should cover that 
today — begin covering that today. 

I'd like to cover the education and vocational 
training programs, and I'd like to cover as well the 
issue of management as you just described it in your 
opening statement. And I think those three categories 

12 



1 And I guess I'd begin by asking you — I know 

2 there are classifications or levels, levels of 

3 incarceration, levels of, I guess, crime, and people are 

4 categorized one through four, correct? 

5 MR. CATE: (Nods head.) 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: How do the women sort of 

7 shape up in that regard in terms of the profile of the 

8 women in our prison system? 

9 MR. CATE: Well, 95 percent - between 90 and 

10 95 percent of the women in our prisons are what would be 

11 categorized as nonserious, nonviolent offenders. 

12 SENATOR OROPEZA: So that would be level one 

13 and '-- level one? 

14 MR. CATE: Well, you know, the classification 

15 system also deals with your in-prison conduct and other 

16 issues. 

17 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, I see. 

18 MR. CATE: But, really, for the female 

19 offenders -- most level offenders can be at any female 

20 institution. There are some at CIW, California 

21 Institution for Women, who we have moved to a little 

22 more high-secure area; but on the whole, women can be at 

23 any of those prisons. 

24 We are actually in the process of developing a 

25 new female classification system, and so — It will 

14 



today. We can come back next week or the week after, 
and we can continue through the other categories as 
well. All right? Is that okay? 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Fine. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Oropeza, do you 
want to start? 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Oh, sure. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Sure. 

Mr. Cate appreciate the time that we spent 
together yesterday, and I appreciate your opening 
remarks about why you want to do this really difficult 
job. You know, when I — I look at the challenges, the 
breadth of the challenges that you face in managing the 
CDCR and that we all face as Californians, it's pretty 
mind boggling. You go just a bit below the surface and 
it blows your mind. So I'm grateful that you're 
interested in taking that bull by the horns. 

I have a particular interest and have actually 
been involved with the Women's Caucus of the 
Legislature, both Senate and Assemblywomen, in a multi- 
year effort to learn more and have some kind of positive 
impacts for the women in our women's prisons, and so I'd 
like to ask you a few questions about specifically how 
women are handled in the system. 

13 



1 probably be later this summer before that's complete, 

2 but, again, it's a move towards being gender-specific 

3 and responsive in how we do corrections. But for the 

4 most part, it's not as vital as it is for the men, where 

5 we are very careful about adhering to classification. 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: Mixing levels and that kind 

7 of thing? 

8 MR. CATE: Right. The truth is you can walk 

9 out onto a female prison, and you would feel much safer 

10 than you would in most male prisons. 

11 SENATOR OROPEZA: Now, aren't there certain 

12 benefits or opportunities for program that come with 

13 certain levels in the women's program right now 7 In 

14 other words, if you are a lower level, you then might be 

15 eligible for certain programs, let's say, that a level 

16 four is not eligible for? 

17 MR. CATE: The most restrictive, of course, are 

18 women on death row. So that is very restrictive. But 

19 it's really -- Institution by institution is different. 

20 So at CIW, for example, in the Chino -- Chino Hills 

21 area, they have a lot of programs that are staffed by a 

22 large contingent of visitors, a large contingent of 

23 volunteers from that community. Those in the Chowchilla 

24 area have less, but that doesn't mean that they are out 

25 of the loop. 

15 



of 22 sheets 



Page 12 to 15 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 At 



For example, we're placing 250 trauma-informed, 
gender-specific substance abuse programs at 
California -- at the two facilities in the Chowchilla 
Valley area. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So, again, to be very 
specific -- 

MR. CATE: Right. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: - the levels, the four 
levels -- and I understand that you're amending them, 
changing them, so this may be a short-term circumstance, 
but my understanding was that at certain levels of 
categorization, the inmate is eligible or not eligible 
for certain kinds of programs. Is that true, or is that 
not true? 

MR. CATE: It is true, especially as to 
programs outside -- you know, moving from a facility 
like Valley State Prison for Women to a female reentry 
facility or a community program. That's true. 

I don't believe that as to the vast majority of 
women in our prisons that we say, "You're level three, 
so you can't be involved in this program, because it's 
only for level two offenders." But — 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So there aren't those 
policies? 

MR. CATE: As I said, I think there definitely 

16 



1 inmates relative to what educational rights they had, 

2 what programmatic rights they had, because they were 

3 considered at a higher level. 

4 Can you speak to that? Can you speak to the 

5 responses on that point in the study that the department 

6 has had, or enlighten on the point at all? 

7 MR. CATE: I think the point of - is well 

8 taken that whether it's our classification system or how 

9 we do substance abuse, we need to be cognizant of the 

10 differences between our female and male offenders. And 

11 I'm talking to the women at the prisons. They tell me 

12 that's their number-one issue, making sure we understand 

13 they're female inmates, not just inmates. 

14 And while we have modified our assessment, risk 

15 needs assessment -- 

16 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, we talked about that 

17 yesterday. 

18 MR. CATE: — for female offenders, that has 

19 been adjusted to be gender-responsive. We are still 

20 waiting to have the classification system revamped, but 

21 we try to make decisions on who gets into a program 

22 based upon who needs that program, regardless of the 

23 level of the offender. 

24 SENATOR OROPEZA: So when do you think - Is 

25 that classification, that process, ongoing right now, 

18 



are in deciding who can be treated and who can't be 
treated. There definitely are also — 

SENATOR OROPEZA: In terms of the community 
programs. 

MR. CATE: But for offenders who are 
incarcerated, I mean, they're still in locked 
facilities, and also at the highest levels, yes. But 
for the vast majority in the middle, my understanding is 
no. Obviously, I'll have a week to go and learn if I 
was wrong about that, but that's my understanding. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: The reason why the issue of 
levels is of interest to me is one of the things that 
I've been able to sort of discern in my research is that 
the CDCR actually contracted with an outside consultant 
out of the University of Cincinnati to conduct a study 
of the female prisoners' level, classification, and 
whether they were being applied accurately. And that 
study was concluded, and the findings came out in 
December of '06. So that was, you know, what? Two, two 
years ago plus. And in that study they indicated that, 
in fact, there were over -- there was an over- 
classification in the female prison population, in other 
words, folks were being classified at level three who 
should actually be at level one. 

My concern about that is how that impacted the 

17 



1 the reclassification process? 

2 MR. CATE: Yes. My staff have told me it's 

3 going to be ready in the late summer or early fall. 

4 SENATOR OROPEZA: Late summer or early fall. 

5 Do you foresee that as a result of that, there 

6 may be changes at the facilities relative to programs, 

7 educational programs and others? 

8 This is really -- Mr. Steinberg -- a big 

9 concern of Mr. Steinberg, generally, about the entire 

10 population. I'm just sort of focusing in here on the 

11 women a little bit. 

12 MR. CATE: And, again, this is an area where I 

13 really rely on the expertise of my staff. Wendy Still, 

14 for example, who I ran into today, really helped create 

15 this. And we have a female offender master plan that 

16 lays out where we want to go, which we've delivered to 

17 the legislature. We have a female offender associate 

18 director who is in charge of that entire mission, and we 

19 have a gender-responsive strategies commission, state 

20 stakeholders who work with our associate director in 

21 this area. 

22 So I don't claim to be the expert on this area, 

23 but I do understand that once this is in place, it will 

24 inform our decisions about who goes where and why. But 

25 I have to say from talking to my staff on the whole, 

19 



/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 16 to 19 of 81 



6 of 22 sheets 



1 right now, our staff understands that women's 

2 classification issues shouldn't keep women from 

3 attending one program or another within those three 

4 institutions. 

5 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, but it does impact, 

6 because if you want to, perhaps, consider somebody for a 

7 community program, it would impact there, wouldn't it? 

8 MR. CATE: Yes. 

9 SENATOR OROPEZA: This is an area that needs to 

10 be fixed. We need to feel -- I need to feel, my 

11 colleagues need to feel, that there is an accurate 

12 assessment going on where these women are given -- I'm 

13 not talking about coddling people. They certainly have 

14 committed crimes. But within the context of the rules 

15 of the game, that they're getting what they should get 

16 because they're being classified appropriately. 

17 So this, I think, should be a front-burner 

18 issue, and it's one that despite the fact that — What 

19 did you say the female population is? I have it here 

20 somewhere. But the overall female population is 

21 obviously a fraction of — it's 14,000 women. It's a 

22 fraction of what the male population is, but this is a 

23 population that also predominantly has children. So 

24 we're talking about whether or not we will raise another 

25 generation of criminals, or whether we will raise 

20 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We'll do this by category, 

2 and parole is better talked about later. 

3 SENATOR OROPEZA: I will wait. I will wait. I 

4 will wait. 

5 So let me ask you about the Avenal State Prison 

6 telephone reservation system, and this will go to 

7 something you and I spent some time talking about 

8 yesterday about best practices. 

9 It's my understanding — As I mentioned, many, 

10 many of the women in these facilities are mothers. My 

11 understanding is that at Avenal State Prison, they've 

12 developed this reservation system which has helped to 

13 make it possible for the families who go to the prison 

14 to actually see their loved one. 

15 The current situation at a lot of our 

16 facilities, including the women's facilities, is that 

17 there's no plan, so there can be a crunch, and too many 

18 people and not enough opportune time for ail the 

19 families to be able to see their loved ones. So this 

20 reservation system has helped with that, because people 

21 plan ahead, and then they know if they can or can't go. 

22 Are you familiar at all with that? 

23 MR. CATE: I am. 

24 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yeah. So it's been a very 

25 successful program, hasn't it? 

22 



1 another generation -- I mean, a generation of healthy 

2 children who can be productive, and helping their 

3 mothers to become productive. 

4 The recidivism rate, as I understand it, is 

5 much lower on the women's side. Isn't that true? 

6 MR. CATE: It is true. 

7 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes. So we have real hope 

8 with these inmates, and I guess I feel like even though 

9 it's a fraction of what the overall population is, I'd 

10 like to see that you track that with your experts, not 

11 that you just take their word for it, but there's some 

12 data backing it up, and, you know, there's some 

13 accountability on it so we know we're doing right by the 

14 women. 

15 Let me ask you about a specific situation. I 

16 recently went on a tour of a residential multiservice 

17 center here in Sacramento, and I was very impressed. 

18 You and I talked about it yesterday. It was a sort of 

19 holistic approach to -- oh, this is parole, so I'll wait 

20 till tomorrow. I'll wait till next time, because it's 

21 about parole. I'll put that on my parole list, or can I 

22 talk about it now? 

23 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I think if you wait, that 

24 will be great. 

25 SENATOR OROPEZA: I will wait. 

21 



1 MR. CATE: It has been, especially at a place 

2 like Avenal, with 7,000 inmates. 

3 SENATOR OROPEZA: Well, what I'm told is that 

4 same problem occurs at other facilities, the same 

5 problem of the families not being able to get in to see 

6 the inmate. 

7 Can I ask you why we don't have that kind of a 

8 program at any of the other prisons? Because it seems 

9 like -- and this goes, really, to this best practices 

10 concept that I would just love to see more of in the 

11 system overall. When you find something that works 

12 well, why not duplicate it at other places to help solve 

13 a problem? 

14 So can you talk to me about the logic behind 

15 not having it at any other.... 

16 MR. CATE: Sure. This is an area where I get a 

17 little bit of a break in that this Committee has raised 

18 this issue before, so -- 

19 SENATOR OROPEZA: I'm new on the Committee, so 

20 I wouldn't know that. 

21 MR. CATE: As a result, we are rolling out that 

22 program at other prisons, but I can't take a great deal 

23 of credit for it. I think it was public scrutiny that 

24 drove us to it. So it is happening at other prisons, 

25 and many others are evaluating it. Those prisons that 

23 



of 22 sheets 



Page 20 to 23 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 Ah 



don't cancel visiting because of overcrowding don't need 
it. So if everybody can see their loved one on a 
particular day, you know, then they don't necessarily 
need the program like you would at a prison where people 
are going to have their visits cut short because of the 
crowding at that facility. Each warden has the ability 
to look at this and is being asked to look at it and 
make a decision for his or her own facility. 

I know at women's facilities, the wardens have 
been very upfront or proactive on the issue. For 
example, busing families from the Los Angeles area to 
the prisons for visits, those kinds of things, have 
really been the output not of my work but of the work of 
our directors and our wardens of those facilities in 
reaching out to the communities. I think they -- And I 
share your view that that family connection is 
important. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, and of course now that 
you're going to be at the helm, I assume, ultimately, 
after this process, on a permanent basis, and we hope 
for a longer time than your predecessors, it will be 
your responsibility to make sure that that happens, 
right? 

I mean, in the end, the buck stops with you. 
And I don't mean that in a rude way. I just mean in the 

24 



1 foot level, primarily. So one piece of it is you have 

2 to hire terrific administrators, great wardens, great 

3 associate directors, directors, who understand that 

4 that's what we're after and are clear on what the vision 

5 is in that regard. So that's step one. 

6 Step two is you have to have an overarching 

7 plan that is based upon best practice. And so this 

8 legislature, along with the governor, has put together 

9 an expert panel on recidivism reduction. They have 

10 produced a master plan for California that uses those 

11 best practices, that defines for us that we must assess 

12 inmates, risk inmates, that we must assign the right 

13 inmate to the right program for the right duration, that 

14 we must follow up with those inmates and make sure that 

15 we get successful reentry. 

16 Those things, those basic programmatic system- 

17 wide things, that's my job, to make sure we have the 

18 right plan in place. And then I need to stay on top of 

19 it to ask: How far have we gone? How much have we done 

20 so far? 

21 Now, I'll tell you, again, in this female, 

22 gender-responsive area, we have had national leaders at 

23 Department of Corrections in this area for some time. 

24 Now, the receiver stole one, and I just started talking 

25 to him again after that offense. But kidding aside, we 

26 



end, it's good that your folks are out there 
implementing. It's just that you've got to keep track 
that they do. 

So what I'm asking you is, if you could, 
between now and the next time we get together, find out 
what the status is at those three prisons, I would be 
very appreciative of that. Because two of them are 
pretty good size. One is over 4,000; the other one is 
right at 4,000. So that's a pretty hefty number. But 
the third facility in Corona is smaller and may not have 
a need. 

I'll finish up here in just a minute. 

I wanted to ask about the big-picture question 
of the use of best practices. How do you -- And when I 
say "best," I know that's sort of a buzz term, but what 
I mean is: When you see a program that's working well 
at one place, then maybe that's the best way to do it, 
if it's really working well, and maybe we ought to see 
if it will work well at other places. So that's the 
"best practices" sort of definition, from my point of 
view. 

How do you, as secretary, ensure that those 
best practices are happening around your very large 
system? Do you — Well, how do you do that? 

MR. CATE: Well, I have to focus on the 30,000- 

25 



1 have seen some terrific people come through. 

2 And so before we had a plan for the entire male 

3 population, we had a plan for the women, and I think it 

4 is based on best practices. Now, can we be subject to 

5 criticism for not looking at each facility hard enough 

6 to say, "What's the best at CIW that can go to CCWF," 

7 et cetera? Perhaps, but I think on the whole, those 

8 wardens, they talk to one another all the time. And the 

9 associate director, who actually we just lost to go back 

10 to become a warden in the Central Valley, was committed 

11 to have those women work together. So I think we're 

12 doing, Senator, a pretty good job in that area. 

13 SENATOR OROPEZA: I hope so, because, you know, 

14 change is hard for everybody. It's human nature. And I 

15 believe there's communication going on between wardens, 

16 but to make a major change in your institution takes 

17 guts, takes energy, takes work, and it's not always easy 

18 to move an institution. So I hope that your optimism is 

19 well-founded and that they are taking the best from each 

20 other. 

21 MR. CATE: If I - 

22 SENATOR OROPEZA: You know, it's hard to do 

23 unless there's pressure from above to say, "Do it," I 

24 guess is what I'm saying, to say, "Get out there -- Get 

25 out there," you know, "and let's have a system that is 

27 



/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 24 to 27 of 81 



8 of 22 sheets 



sort of understandable across the state." 

It just sort of makes horse sense to me too. I 
mean, inmates are inmates. Yes, they're each unique 
people, but you've got a certain charge, a certain 
mission, for them, and I just feel like maybe, you know, 
uniformity in some ways might be useful if it is 
something that really works. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Can I pick it up from 
there, because I think it's actually a very good segue 
to my line of questioning. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Please. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Senator 
Oropeza. 

MR. CATE: Um-hmm. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I want to talk about 
program, and as we talked about today, I also want to 
talk about management. And as we proceed through this 
hearing, there are sort of two levels of conversation. 
One is about you as the secretary; the other is about 
the department itself. And I think in some way the 
elephant in the room for me that I just kind of want to 
put out on the table here is whether or not this 
department, under any circumstances or any leader, is, 
in fact, governable. 

One hundred sixty-eight thousand inmates, 

28 



1 that, I think, touches on what you said in that we have 

2 now a plan for how to roll out rehabilitative 

3 programming throughout the system. So we decided to 

4 take on one prison to act as a pilot to try to do the 

5 whole thing at this one prison, soup to nuts, as they 

6 say. Well, that one prison houses 5,000 inmates. 

7 So in talking with my colleagues from -- my 

8 colleague from Rhode Island in particular, I found that 

9 our pilot program is larger than his entire system. So 

10 I think your point is well taken, that it is an enormous 

11 ship to try to turn, and it will take time. And it 

12 takes a consistent vision and consistent application 

13 over time to see change. 

14 But I would point out just a couple things that 

15 I think are good already that I don't think get enough 

16 notice, and I won't go on very long with this. But it's 

17 only been -- 18 months ago, we had 20,000 inmates in 

18 gyms and dayroom floors. We have 12,000 today. That's 

19 a good thing. We had 20,000 people who had absconded 

20 from parole supervision. We're down to 16,000 now. 

21 That's a good thing. We've developed a new model of 

22 evaluating parole violation, which I won't go into, and 

23 it's a good thing. 

24 I'll end with this, although I can go on. We, 

25 for the first time, are developing a good relationship 

30 



capacity for about 100,000. You have a federal — well- 
known, well-documented federal court — not just one 
federal court, but a series of federal courts and 
federal judges overseeing the constitutional 
deficiencies in the department related to overcrowding, 
related to healthcare, related specifically to mental 
health. 

You have -- We're not going to talk in detail, 
again, about parole today, but you have a parole system 
with -- the ratio between officer and parolee is high. 

I sort of want to ask you: What should we 
expect from you, as the department director, in terms of 
change? How quickly can we expect the kind of change 
that people — the people of California and its elected 
representatives would look at and say, "Okay. That's 
fundamentally different, and here's a system that we can 
be proud of"? 

MR. CATE: Well, that's a multilevel question, 
and I'll try to address it at a couple different levels 
as well. We are not going to go from 195 percent 
overcrowding to significantly less overnight, absent a 
federal court order, probably. I think we should work 
our way down, though. And part of that is parole 
reform, so I'll save those comments. 

I think that it is -- I'll use one example 

29 



1 with the receiver, and I think for a number of years, 

2 you know, since maybe the beginning, people thought that 

3 was impossible. I think we're making progress. 

4 And there is a lot to do, sir. You're 

5 absolutely right, but I think we've got to take this 

6 on -- have a big plan, and, as you said, let's set up 

7 some measurements and then see if we can't kick some of 

8 these off together. And that's why I took the job. 

9 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Did the effort to remove 

10 the receiver put any chill in the relationship? 

11 MR. CATE: Of course it did, as did the 

12 receiver's attempt to hold the governor in contempt. It 

13 was very chilly for a while; but the receiver and I got 

14 together and said, "We've got people -- employees in the 

15 field and inmate patients that need to be governed now," 

16 and so I think we are doing that for the first time. 

17 I'm proud of that effort. We're still lobbing 

18 cannonballs kind of back and forth from the legal teams, 

19 which makes it even harder, but I think we can fix that 

20 too. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Let me see if - 

22 First of all, I want to announce to folks I 

23 have a couple questions here. We are planning to take 

24 public testimony today, even though we're not planning 

25 to have a vote. So the public can be heard on these 

31 



of 22 sheets 



Page 28 to 31 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 1 



issues or any other issues if you want and you can't 
come back another time, so we will get to that after our 
questioning. 

Let's get right into what constitutes adequate 
progress, and not just your general vision, which I know 
and appreciate, but your specific implementation plan 
for fulfilling that vision. We know that 14,400 inmates 
are participating now in traditional academic programs, 
and that's an increase from '05-'06. We know that 9300 
inmates are participating now in vocation programs, and 
yet we have a prison population of 168,000. The ratio 
is abysmal in terms of the percentage of those in 
programs versus the number of inmates. 

Can you give us a sense or a detail as to how 
you intend to improve those numbers and over what period 
of time? 

MR. CATE: Well, I think that we have been 
making progress incrementally; and it is a large system, 
and at incremental rates it would take a long time. 

Your question -- and I'll -- I want to address 
it first by saying that the department has to have a 
really effective strategic plan, so not only a vision 
and a mission, values, goals, and objectives, but a work 
action plan, Senator, that addresses each of those 
objectives. 

32 



1 MR. CATE: I told her that if I raise my hand, 

2 to choke and buy time. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. Very good. 

4 MR. CATE: You're going to hear choking from my 

5 children and my grandmother in turn, if you keep asking 

6 me hard questions. 

7 And so I don't -- I can't come in today and say 

8 we're at 14,600 today; we need to be at 15,300 tomorrow. 

9 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: When the strategic plan is 

10 completed, will you be able to set those sorts of 

11 benchmarks to give the legislature and the public some 

12 confidence that those numbers are going to increase 

13 aggressively over time? 

14 MR. CATE: Absolutely. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: When is that plan going to 

16 be done? 

17 MR. CATE: Well, we have vision mission values 

18 goals done; we have now engaged our extended executives 

19 to review those; we've hired our consultant; and we are 

20 on the way. 

21 I would expect to have -- I'll just share this 

22 with you as we go along. We'll have our objectives done 

23 in the next 30 to 60 days and work action plans set this 

24 summer. So I don't have -- I don't know the date we'll 

25 be done, because it's interactive. I've got to find out 

34 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



So for the last six months, we've been working 
on a new strategic plan, because in my experience as an 
administrator, you've got to know exactly how you're 
going to take on each of these issues, because we're 
going to fight over resources otherwise. Again, you 
asked me not to do big picture, and I just did big 
picture. 

Specifically for education, we have -- For the 
first time, every offender who walks into the reception 
center is being assessed for their academic need. Every 
offender is being assessed for their academic need that 
goes through the normal reception-center process and who 
are going to go to a general population prison. That's 
a good thing, because at least we'll know what the need 
is, finally. We can assess that. Because not all those 
inmates need -- some of them are in the college program, 
for example, and we need to continue to expand our 
ability to, for example, get substitute teachers so we 
get the classrooms open when the teacher is absent. 

But my impression overall about the academic 
system, to be quite candid, is that we have far too many 
inmates and far too much need to do this the traditional 
way. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Your sister's choking. 
I'm trying to be of help today. 

33 



1 from my staff whether they buy it or not, because if 

2 they don't buy into it, if this isn't our shared vision, 

3 then we're all in trouble. But I think we'll have this 

4 done by this summer. 

5 I've been through this process before, and 

6 that's about how long it took. This is a gigantic 

7 organization. It should have been done at this level. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's the point. The 

9 sense of frustration you'll hear from me is -- There are 

10 a zillion strategic plans, right? We call them dusty- 

11 shelf reports. I want to know why is it that difficult 

12 to be able to report back to the legislature within a 

13 short period of time that the department plans to 

14 increase that 14,400 number to 25,000 by X date, and 

15 then 50,000 by X date. 

16 I don't need the value and the mission 

17 statement and all that. I know your values. I know 

18 what you want and what your intent is and what you're 

19 trying to do, but we don't need a value statement. What 

20 we want to know -- 

21 You know, President Obama is pretty fond of 

22 saying lately, "Be patient. We're not going to turn it 

23 around overnight." I can accept that. I can accept 

24 that from you, certainly, given the nature of the job 

25 and the size of the department; but to wait seven, eight 
35_ 



/31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 32 to 35 of 81 



10 of 22 sheets 



months to get a strategic plan that may or may not have 
the kind of specific benchmarks that I think are 
important to generate some confidence that we're 
actually moving in the right direction, that's troubling 
to me. 

And so let me go through, if I might, Matt, 
Mr. Cate, a couple other areas. I want to make a 
specific request. And maybe we need to help in terms of 
our staff assistants working with the administration, 
et cetera, but I want to get to a specific ask here in a 
moment. 

We talked about education and vocational 
programs. Literacy. Here's another one. All we know 
is that the department has 628 so-called lifers who are 
trained to be literacy tutors, and we know that the 
illiteracy rate in state prison is large. I don't know 
what that number 628 means, and I don't know what 
they're doing exactly, and I don't know if there's a 
strategic plan with actual benchmarks to cut the 
illiteracy rate in half over the next X period of time. 

Can you provide us any specificity on not only 
your vision but your plan to reduce illiteracy within 
the state prison system as part of rehabilitation? 

MR. CATE: Sure. I've been meeting with my 
undersecretary and chief deputy secretary of program 

36 



1 familiar with the testing program. Do you think that 

2 the department should be accountable for reducing 

3 illiteracy in the state corrections system? 

4 MR. CATE: Yes, I do. And I think that we 

5 should — well, and this is — 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: How? How would you 

7 measure -- How would you hold yourselves accountable? 

8 MR. CATE: I think it would be the same way 

9 that we utilized at the Inspector General's Office. Set 

10 your facts. The rate is 15 to 20 percent now. Figure 

11 out exactly what that is. You give yourself a year, or 

12 three years, or five years, and you measure your 

13 progress on bringing that down. It's like running any 

14 other business. 

15 I think for too long the department has been 

16 run like a mom-and-pop shop and largely has just been 

17 moving from fire to fire, and I think that's part of the 

18 reason. And I'll push back a little bit on the 

19 strategic plan thing. There is not enough room in these 

20 prisons to have a literacy program, and the law library, 

21 and the additional clinic space for the dentist, and the 

22 security folks are worried about this new fence that 

23 needs to be built, and we need to address the cell 

24 phones, which I'm sure we'll talk about at some time, 

25 and those all pull on the same resources. 

38 



about the literacy issue, and we are taking that issue 
on as a special project, so we're not waiting for the 
entire strategic plan to be done. And we're working now 
to have -- so that each prison has its own literacy 
plan. The reason that's important is that at a place 
like San Quentin where 80 percent of the state's 
visitors and volunteers are, we have a lot of people who 
help with literacy. In Blythe, we have very few, and so 
inmates have to do that work, because it's a lot of 
one-on-one, and librarians do that work, and teachers do 
that work on the side. 

It has to be a ground -- grass-roots kind of 
prison-by-prison plan that's wrapped up, because each 
prison is so different as to how they conduct this issue 
of literacy. 

We're going forward with adult programs and 
adult education everywhere where we have a general 
population, and we're rolling out our plan on reducing 
recidivism; but as to literacy itself, I think it has to 
be institution by institution to make sure we reach as 
many as we can as fast as we can. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I want to ask you a 
philosophical question. Our public schools are held 

24 accountable through an academic performance index that 

25 measures student test scores. As parents, we're 

37 



1 So while we'll do a literacy program prison by 

2 prison to make sure that we move that forward, it does 

3 require, at some level, 30,000-foot planning. I know 

4 you weren't saying it doesn't, but -- I mean, we should 

5 measure ourselves the way business does. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Your last comment is very 

7 interesting to me, and I put it under the category of 

8 candor, because I asked you a moment ago about 

9 expectations and what we should expect, and basically 

10 what I just heard you say is, you know, unless and until 

11 we reform our criminal justice system, sentencing 

12 reform, parole reform, that we are going to continue to 

13 have a capacity issue that's going to make it -- not 

14 impossible, but extraordinarily difficult to actually 

15 provide the level of programming that we expect. Is 

16 that a fair statement? 

17 MR. CATE: Yes. We will not - We will not 

18 improve as quickly as everyone would like at the current 

19 level of crowding. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you favor a sense -- 

21 I'm sorry. Senator Aanestad. 

22 SENATOR AANESTAD: I think you left out one 

23 option, and that is building more capacity. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That is an option. 

25 Thankfully, we don't have a budget problem in 

39 



1 of 22 sheets 



Page 36 to 39 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 Af 



California. But, you know, that's an option. That's 
right. And that ought to be debated. 

I just had another thought, and I forgot what 
it was. 

Do you favor sentencing reform? 

MR. CATE: You know, really, I can speak as — 
I'll put my former prosecutor's hat on to say that I 
certainly saw there were low-level offenses that were 
treated extraordinarily harshly and high-level offenses 
that weren't, and that there are issues within our 
sentencing laws that could be reformed. I don't know 
anybody who would disagree with that. 

Obviously, the difficult question is: Who 
decides, and what is their power and authority? And, 
frankly, I think that's -- you know, a little bit of -- 
that's a decision for this body and the governor to 
make, ultimately. 

But I'm not — I don't think from the 
corrections point of view that there's anything in 
particular about sentencing reform that impacts one 
way or the other what we're doing, other than to the 
extent that it results in less inmates. And I don't 
know what sentencing reform would do that — again, I 
don't know how it would come out. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, my notion of 

40 



1 attorney's or the sheriffs and locals. 

2 I can tell you what the impact would be -- what 

3 the impact is on corrections and overcrowding, and I can 

4 tell you in areas like parole reform, that I'm more 

5 involved with, I can speak with a little more certainty 

6 at another time. 

7 But, again, I do -- The governor has given me 

8 some leeway to speak on issues that relate to 

9 correctional policy. I just don't want to go far beyond 

10 that, because I'm not an expert in that area. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I understand. My 

12 suggestion, and this is just one country senator 

13 speaking here, is that you, in fact, see it as part of 

14 your mission, to speak out on issues like sentencing 

15 reform. I'm not saying your opinion should necessarily 

16 be my opinion. I'm not prejudging that. But I think 

17 you are in the -- 

18 You have the most credibility. You potentially 

19 have the most credibility, because you are the one who 

20 is being asked to administer and to manage the 

21 consequences of this system that we and previous we's 

22 have established here in California. 

23 And so if you don't become an expert, or you 

24 don't speak out on what needs to change, all we're left, 

25 then, with is the federal court, the judges for lives, 

42 



sentencing reform is to differentiate between violent, 
high-risk offenders and nonviolent, lower-risk 
offenders, and to ease the capacity issue, which you 
just said is at the root of the problem, and reduce the 
prison population. That's what the courts are telling 
us to do. 

Do you view — And I know your job is just like 
ours. It's a political job, right? And we are 
certainly -- We certainly have a significant amount of 
freedom as long as we're working consistent with what 
our million constituents or so want us to do, but you 
work for the governor. 

Do you view yourself as a corrections 
administrator or a -- or a criminal justice leader here 
in California? And if I need to clarify, I'm happy to 
do so. 

Do you view yourself as having the freedom and 
the ability to speak out on issues like sentencing 
reform or creative ways to reduce the prison population 
in California? 

MR. CATE: I think that the governor has given 
me the leeway to speak out on policy issues related to 
corrections. I don't claim to be an expert on the 
entirety of the criminal justice system, or the impact 
on something like sentencing reform on the district 

41 



1 and our voices — and our voices. But I just think you 

2 have to get to a point in terms of your — you know, 

3 your confidence, once you gain even more experience in 

4 this job, to speak out forcefully on these issues, and 

5 we'll agree or disagree, whatever. But without your 

6 voice, what are we left with? 

7 Okay. Mental health. You told us in your 

8 responses that you have 300 mentally ill parolees 

9 participating in programs. Again, I want to stay away 

10 from parole, but in terms of mental health, you have a 

11 court order 14 years in the making that we're not 

12 providing mental health beds for folks. But to me it's 

13 just beyond — it's well beyond beds. 

14 What is the department doing to incorporate 

15 some of the systems-of-care approach that's being used 

16 so successfully in Proposition 63 and community mental 

17 health to help end the cycle of homelessness for people 

18 living with mental illness? What are you doing to try 

19 to incorporate those principles of systems of care into 

20 the institutions and into the parole programs 

21 themselves? 

22 MR. CATE: Well, where we were a year ago is 

23 that our parole agents would provide some monetary 

24 assistance, maybe a referral to a mental health 

25 clinician. 

43 



'31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 40 to 43 of 81 



12 of 22 sheets 



Where we are today is that we have issued an 
RFP and are about to make awards for what I have come to 
learn is the absolute best treatment for our mentally 
ill parolees, which is wraparound services, integrated 
services. So we are going forward at a big level, in a 
big way, with those -- We didn't get a large community 
response the first time. I'm not sure we got the RFP 
just right, but we've done it now, and I think we are 
going to get a good response, and we are going to treat 
our mentally ill parolees with those wraparound 
services. It's their best hope. 

We are not as advanced in the institutions. We 
do need additional beds. The waiting list to go from an 
outpatient care to intermediate or acute care is too 
long. And, you know, there's got to be a source of 
funds to build the capacity that we have recognized, and 
that is an area that I think, again, perhaps with the 
additional flexibility this body gave us in AB 900, we 
might be able to expand our capacity to treat our 
mentally ill. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Judge Karlton today said 
it's mind-boggling that the state still doesn't have a 
mental-health treatment plan 14 years after the 
class-action lawsuit was first filed. What's your 
response to that? 

44 



1 the issue of what is the constraint when it comes to 

2 programs, because I think you really spoke honestly to 

3 the core of the problem. 

4 Having said that, I would ask you to come back, 

5 whether it's the next time we meet — you know, I want 

6 to make sure you have a reasonable period of time — but 

7 to come back in a month or so and essentially try to 

8 expedite at least part of the strategic plan that you're 

9 talking about, because what the Committee would be very, 

10 very interested in are benchmarks, with as much 

11 specificity as you can, to measure the successful 

12 programs and the progress that you expect to make over 

13 time; where you are today when it comes to literacy, 

14 mental health, and substance abuse, education and 

15 vocational programs, where you are today and where you 

16 plan to be over time in terms of program participation, 

17 a timeline for implementation of those advances. 

18 The Committee would like to have that in its 

19 possession so that we can, in a month or so, sort of 

20 come out of this process saying that we agreed together 

21 on some realistic but aggressive advancements in the 

22 area of program and education. 

23 MR. CATE: Okay. I'll do that as soon as 

24 possible. If we wait too long, you'll have to ask the 

25 next secretary for those guidelines. 

46 



MR. CATE: Judge Karlton has high standards on 
this issue. There's no question. And he doesn't have 
to worry about whether we've got the money for it. He 
doesn't have to worry about any of the other issues. 
And that's fine. That's his job, is to focus on the 
case in front of him. 

We have put together mental health bed plans 
before, for example, that weren't funded, and obviously 
we can't build them without the funding, so what we have 
come forward with is plans on a number of smaller 
projects to expand capacity. 

But, Senator, ultimately we've got to come up 
with the plan and the funding to address the mental 
health bed shortage. I think in speaking to experts in 
this area and speaking to the court's special master, it 
is that issue of mental health bed space that stands 
between this state and getting out of the Coleman case, 
in my view. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I want to take a break in 
just a moment, because I know our court reporter 
probably needs a break, but I want to end this chapter, 
and then we'll come back in ten minutes and turn it over 
to our Republican colleagues for some questioning here 
as well. 

Again, I appreciate very much your candor on 

45 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We're not waiting too 

2 long. We know exactly what the deadline is. We know. 

3 Let's take a break. 

4 MR. CATE: Thank you. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Ten minutes. Thank you. 

6 (Recess taken.) 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The Committee will come 

8 back to order. 

9 Let me ask Senator Dutton to ask a few 

10 questions, please. 

11 SENATOR DUTTON: Yeah. I just have a couple 

12 questions regarding population numbers, because it's 

13 obviously been an ongoing problem for the Senate, and 

14 we've had some changes and so forth. But when I was 

15 looking at the CDCR prison census facts and figures from 

16 2008, when you take a look at our prison population for 

17 June 30th, 1998, it indicates a total population of 

18 151,200, and then in June 30, 2008, it indicates prison 

19 population of 171,000, roughly about — it's about an 

20 8 percent increase. The population increase in 

21 California was about 16 percent. 

22 So it would seem like our rate of incarceration 

23 has actually declined somehow, either that or people are 

24 committing less crimes, because normally wouldn't you 

25 find -- if we were excessive, wouldn't we be, actually, 

47 



3 of 22 sheets 



Page 44 to 47 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 



greater than or at least equal to growth of population, 
or is there no correlation of population growth and 
inmate population? 

MR. CATE: I think that you have identified 
that over the last ten years, our population has grown 
by about 1 percent on average, and I do understand the 
population of the state has grown about 3 percent. I 
don't have -- 

Again, this is not an issue that I'm prepared 
to weigh in on what that means society-wide. I'll say a 
couple things, though. It is also true, speaking, 
again, from my role as the secretary on a correctional 
policy issue, we are in the middle third, as far as the 
number of our citizens that we incarcerate, and we are 
not too different than most other border states. What 
makes us significantly different is parole. So, again, 
we'll save that discussion. 

And because it also impacts -- You know, in 
most other states you'll see two-thirds of people that 
go to prison go there for being sentenced by a court 
after conviction for a new crime. In California, 
two-thirds go back for parole violation. So that -- It 
also has to be figured in in this discussion of 
population. 

But your facts, I think, are correct. Those 



48 



1 in the last ten years so we get the best possible sense 

2 of where we're going. 

3 The interesting thing is that when I started as 

4 the secretary, our population was 172,000, and it's now 

5 169. And the difficult thing is that I can't tell you 

6 exactly why that is, because we're seeing some trends 

7 from the local counties that we didn't expect, and the 

8 parole trends are a little different. It's a pretty 

9 complex calculus there. 

10 SENATOR DUTTON: You mentioned comparisons and 

11 so forth. I've been looking at the Pew report from 

12 various years and so forth. It would seem to put 

13 California at about the midpoint for incarceration, is 

14 what I'm reading from the report. Does that sound about 

15 right to you? 

16 MR. CATE: As I said, I think we're in the 

17 middle third there in a number of different studies. 

18 SENATOR DUTTON: Are we going to - I was going 

19 to talk about some of the costs associated with the 

20 juvenile program. Is that -- 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You're welcome, but what I 

22 was thinking is — let me just set the calendar here; I 

23 think it will be reasonable -- that next Wednesday we 

24 come back and we cover IT, healthcare, which I know are 

25 two issues that Senator Aanestad wants to question 

50 



are the same I've seen. 

SENATOR DUTTON: I'm just trying to look at the 
trends. When we're talking about preparing for the 
future, whether it be rehabilitation-type programs or 
other, I'm trying to get a feel for what may be the 
norm. 

We had law changes with regards to drug crimes, 
and we've seen a significant decrease in people 
incarcerated for drug crimes. I think almost a third, 
it looks like, or 25 percent. But we've seen an 
increase in the people committing crimes against 
persons, which people told me that that's kind of an 
indication that we actually have a more violent prison 
population than what we may have had before too. So am 
I looking at that wrong, or would that be the right 
assumption to draw from there? 

MR. CATE: Our population forecasters have 
noted that -- as they see our population rising, it is 
increasing -- we will see an increase in people serving 
long terms for serious offenses, and that does drive 
population. 

I think as we discussed, whether it's building 
capacity or any other issue, we should look at the 
I long-term trends, and that's what we've suggested from 
li the department, that let's think about where we've been 

49 



1 about, DJJ. 

2 I want to, before we end today, get into staff 

3 retention, best practice in staff retention, and then 

4 what I want to do is I want to plan to come back the 

5 22nd, is that right, Nettie, of April, for follow-up 

6 conversation on some of the requests that we made, and 

7 we may make today, and vote on the 22nd of April. 

8 SENATOR DUTTON: On AB 900, at what point - 

9 for AB 900 and what we're doing in regards to 

10 implementing that. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next week. 

12 SENATOR DUTTON: Then I am done with my 

13 questions. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Senator Aanestad, 

15 anything right now? Cell phones you want to talk about. 

16 SENATOR AANESTAD: Actually, contraband, but 

17 that's for another discussion. But really my interests 

18 are healthcare and the Department of Juvenile Justice, 

19 which I've talked to you about in my office, and 

20 information technology and management, and those are to 

21 be talked about, I guess, next session. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next session. So - I 

23 guess it's back to me for a moment. I know Senator 

24 Oropeza has a few other questions as well. 

25 But let's talk about this issue that you raised 

51 



3131/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 48 to 51 of 81 



14 of 22 sheets 



in your statement about the difficulty of managing the 
department when managers are cycling in and out of the 
department so quickly. 

The staff went back and looked at Jim Tilton's 
comments when he was confirmed as CDCR secretary a few 
years ago, in which he said, quote, "The department does 
not yet have a formal succession planning program." 

Do you have one now, and, if not, when can we 
expect such a program? 

MR. CATE: I'm a little hesitant to say, but 
it's part of strategic planning. And I — It's true 
that I think that in my conversations with Secretary 
Tilton, I think he would say that it's one of those 
things that is important, but it never seems to be 
urgent; and Department of Corrections is constantly 
caught up in the tyranny of the urgent. It's something 
I've seen in these last ten months. We go from fire to 
fire to fire to crisis to crisis, and things like 
succession planning, that are really important, seem to 
get put off to another day. That's the reason that we 
invest time in strategic planning even when there's a 
crisis. 

So what I've been doing -- I believe strongly 
in what I call a good-to-great model, which is really a 
model that says: We are going to first and foremost 

52 



1 we're asking Mr. Cate to come back with his plan, and he 

2 will try. But why can't we be of help here? 

3 Well, no answer. Okay. 

4 MR. CATE: From my perspective, I'm happy to 

5 take part. Of course we're happy to take part. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, then, I'm just going 

7 to put it out this way: What I would like for the 22nd 

8 of April is a plan, a blueprint, a blueprint as to how 

9 the department, under your leadership, intends to 

10 recruit, retain, and train staff as it applies to 

11 management, custody, healthcare, and program staff, but 

12 specifically management. And, again, we would look for 

13 some benchmarks, to the best that you can, and some 

14 timelines. 

15 And I would offer the resources of our State 

16 Senate here to assist the department in any way over the 

17 next four weeks to help get that done. 

18 MR. CATE: And we can come with our — We have 

19 HR planning, like all agencies do, and we can take that 

20 as a baseline. What I'm hearing from you, though, is, 

21 really, we're looking for something at this executive 

22 level and how do we get the managers in place at the top 

23 level. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's right. You just 

25 said, you know, too many fires to put out. I get that. 

54 



recruit as much talent as we can possibly find. Beg, 
borrow, or steal talent from anyone at any time and get 
them on board and then find out where they fit. If you 
want to know my strategy, that's it in a nutshell. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: But you can't do it alone. 
You'll attract good people because of who you are. I 
just wonder — I know you sort of grimaced a little bit 
when I asked the question, because it went back to that 
strategic-plan issue. But what would happen if, over 
the course of the next month, we pooled some resources 
here. We've got these great people from the Senate 
Office of Research -- Nettie is -- now she's grimacing 
at me -- and your folks, and we decide in the next four 
weeks we're going to take this off the back burner, and 
we're actually going to devote some people together to 
actually develop this part of the strategic plan. It's 
really important. 

I mean, without the sense that you're going to 
have a system in place that will allow you to attract 
and retain the best managers here, how can you implement 
any other part of your strategic plan? I mean, you 
know, the first element of success is leadership. You 
can't do it alone. So why couldn't we? 

I'll just put that out, and, Nettie, you can 
take the mic if you would like. It's all right. But 

53 



1 I'm just saying: Okay. April 22nd. Pool the 

2 resources. Let's figure out a way to get it done. 

3 Super. All right. It's all fixed. Okay. 

4 There you go. Yes. Mr. Gomez will help us too. 

5 Senator Oropeza, a few questions. 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: On the point of staffing, 

7 Mr. Cate, what is the status of the hiring of an 

8 associate director in charge of women's prisons? 

9 MR. CATE: Well, as I mentioned earlier, we 

10 thought we had one hired in Tina Hornbeak, and she came 

11 to Sacramento and didn't care much for, I think, the 

12 headquarters part of it and wanted to return to the 

13 institution, and for family reasons as well. So that 

14 only happened last week. 

15 SENATOR OROPEZA: Oh, it did. I see. 

16 MR. CATE: Yes. So we've got to -- I'll talk 

17 to our director, Susan Hubbard, about what her plans 

18 are. I can tell you we've talked kind of quietly about 

19 a couple of candidates already, and so I would prefer 

20 not to name them, because -- 

21 SENATOR OROPEZA: No, I'm not asking you to 

22 name them. I can appreciate that. 

23 So under what kind of time frame do you think, 

24 because if you've got some candidates that you're 

25 thinking about, when would be a reasonable time frame in 

55 



> of 22 sheets 



Page 52 to 55 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 



which to expect an appointment, assuming that the person 
accepts the position and doesn't want to go back 
somewhere else. 

MR. CATE: Right. I've seen this happen a 
couple of different ways. One is there's an obvious 
candidate, we select that person, and we move forward 
right away. Another is we feel like we need to 
interview, and that means letting the leadership in the 
institutions know that this is available, and then 
bringing them to Sacramento, conducting interviews, 
making offers. That takes at least four to six weeks to 
do that kind of process. 

So it can be a week if you have one person that 
you know should have the job, but it doesn't -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: But if there's a number two 
in the process, that Tina -- 

MR. CATE: The best we can do, though, is to 
put an active in place during that month or six-week 
time, because then it has to go through the governor's 
approval process and so forth, as Ms. Hornbeak was an 
active. We can do that with much more alacrity than we 
can give a formal appointment. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So she was never appointed. 
She was an acting director? 

MR. CATE: As you know, there's an appointments 

56 



1 That would be very disturbing, to see the position of 

2 the director, the assistant director specifically 

3 assigned to women's prisons, be held up -- be one of the 

4 choices to hold back on because of budgetary issues. 

5 That would be not such a hot idea. 

6 MR. CATE: I didn't mean to imply that that was 

7 going to be the case. 

8 SENATOR OROPEZA: All right. I'll take your 

9 word on that. 

10 Just a couple more things. At our meeting 

11 yesterday, you mentioned how CDCR developed a risk- 

12 assessment tool. We talked about this risk-assessment 

13 tool, which helps to sort of identify the levels. 

14 What I wanted to know is if that 

15 risk-assessment tool -- does it apply to females only, 

16 or is there a separate -- 

17 We talked a little bit about this. Are you 

18 doing a total separate risk assessment kind of process 

19 for female inmates? 

20 MR. CATE: This is another area where the 

21 female inmates are actually ahead of the rest of the 

22 program in that we've been -- 

23 SENATOR OROPEZA: Oh, they already have one? 

24 MR. CATE: Yes. The female risk assessment, as 

25 I understand it, has 25 or 30 additional questions that 

58 



process that takes place and takes some time, and we 
hadn't been through that entire process with her. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: When she decided she wanted 
to - 

MR. CATE: Correct. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So when do you think it would 
be reasonable to expect that there would be a -- an 
actual associate director for women's prisons, not an 
acting person, but a real person, a person who is going 
to be there permanently, whatever permanent is. 

MR. CATE: Sure. It's been taking -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Do you have a time frame? 

MR. CATE: For other executives, it's been 
taking four to six months to go through the interview 
process, recruitment, interviewing, then submit the 
name, and then have it go through all the vetting that 
has to happen, and then have an appointment made by the 
governor on the back end. It depends. If we're in 
times of budget crisis, we don't get appointments 
through sometimes in that -- you know, you kind of 
decide: We're going to slow down. 

But the commitment from the governor's office 
on this issue has been they're going to push forward 
what we need in leadership to get that done. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: I would not want to see - 

57 



1 the standard risk assessment does not have, and so 

2 that's in place and being utilized now. We've just now 

3 gotten the risk assessment for all the male offenders in 

4 place at the reception centers so our correctional 

5 counselors can assess them as well. 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. And then also the 

7 concept of — which you talked about -- the community 

8 facilities, community-based facilities, and how there's 

9 a general desire, particularly from just a housing 

10 standpoint, as well as a quality standpoint in terms of 

11 what the inmates get, to transfer more women out of 

12 prison and into the community correctional facilities. 

13 What are the changes in the availability of 

14 alternative treatments programs that you think will 

15 happen in the next couple of years? We know sort of 

16 what we have now, but are you — do you have plans? 

17 What do you think it will look like in four years in 

18 terms of the community base? 

19 MR. CATE: Well, as you and I discussed 

20 earlier, it's an area that I think will be greatly 

21 impacted by whether the state reforms parole or not -- 

22 SENATOR OROPEZA: Right, and we'll talk about 

23 that. 

24 MR. CATE: And so that's probably the right 

25 thing to do. 

59 



31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 56 to 59 of 81 



16 of 22 sheets 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. 

MR. CATE: I think I can say as a whole, I'm 
committed to the principle that our female offenders are 
different, that we recognize there are not as many 
serious and violent, that more can be treated in the 
community. I can tell you I'm in favor of the program, 
the mothers and babies program, where courts sentence 
females directly to communities. I think that's a good 
thing. We need to encourage that more. So those are 
all things that I believe in. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: On that last note about the 
judges actually being able to sentence the individuals 
directly to the community correctional facility, for the 
record, why do you think that doesn't happen? I mean, I 
understand there are empty beds in a couple of these 
facilities now. There are actual empty beds, San Diego 
and somewhere else. Why do you think that happens, and 
what do you think Corrections can do about it, you can 
do about it? 

MR. CATE: I think part of it is it's kind of a 
low-profile program, and so there's not very many of 
those beds available, and so the judges don't have that 
information available to them. 

As I mentioned, I reached out to Bill Vickery 
at the administrative office of the courts, and we 

60 



1 prison population breakdown is. It's 40 percent Latino, 

2 24 percent African American, 31 percent Anglo, and 

3 8 percent other. I believe that having people who look 

4 like you dealing with you can be a positive thing in 

5 this setting, and in education, and lots of things. So 

6 I personally think it's important. What I would like to 

7 know is how you feel about it and what, if anything, you 

8 guys are doing to attract and retain employees of color. 

9 MR. CATE: You know, I think our workforce is 

10 stronger to the extent that it's diversified. I think 

11 we need to try to compete with other law enforcement 

12 agencies for the most talented people, period. But that 

13 includes those — all races and creeds here in 

14 California. 

15 I agree with you with the kind of core, 

16 underlying concept here that prisons are probably 

17 particularly important to make sure that we have a 

18 diverse workforce. 

19 Our Association of State Correctional 

20 Administrators has recently formed a committee on the 

21 issue of proportionality of how we're treating inmates 

22 in prisons based on race, so I've joined that committee. 

23 And the issues we're looking at are do we — Do 

24 40 percent of our programs go to 40 percent of our 

25 inmates who are Latino, for example. Are our 

62 



have — need to speak to him about that issue. 

I think we have already, as I understand it, 
provided information to the courts, meaning let them 
know that these programs are available. But I think 
that's got to be the core problem. I have to believe 
there are women out there who could be sentenced safely 
to these programs if the judges were aware. That has to 
be the core problem here. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: That seems like something 
that could be solvable, right, through education, 
through information. 

MR. CATE: I agree. I agree. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: And you see that as a role 
for yourself, for your shop, in providing that 
education. And are you planning -- Do you have things 
sort of arranged to have those meetings and discussions, 
or is it -- Will it be in the next month or so, or the 
next year? I mean, where does it fall on the food 
chain? 

MR. CATE: I would be happy to come back next 
week and let you know where we're at on that. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: That would be super. That 
would be super. I think I have one more question. 

Oh, yeah. Actually, two more questions. One 
is about diversity in your work ranks. We know what the 

61 



1 disciplinary 115s, are those issued at the same rate for 

2 all races, or do we have some disproportionality on 

3 those issues within the prisons themselves. 

4 I don't know what the racial breakdown of our 

5 staff is as I sit here -- 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: But you shared with me some 

7 of what you guys are doing about it in terms of 

8 responding to the prison population. That's really what 

9 it's about. It's not for its own sake. So, you know, 

10 that's good. I'm glad to hear it, and I hope that it 

11 continues, particularly in terms of whatever kind of 

12 outreach you all do in terms of when you go out pitching 

13 for employees -- I don't know whether you do that -- 

14 include places that aren't just one specific ethnicity, 

15 would be another useful tool. 

16 MR. CATE: Of course. 

17 SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. Thank you. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

19 Senator Oropeza. 

20 You know, looking at next week's items we're 

21 going to discuss with Mr. Cate here, we've got, 

22 obviously, parole, parole reform, you've got IT, 

23 healthcare, DJJ, AB 900. 

24 So I think before we take public testimony 

25 today, we should cover one more topic, and that is the 

63 



' of 22 sheets 



Page 60 to 63 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:3-4 AM 1 



issue of contraband in prisons, which Senator Aanestad 
will take the lead and ask some questions. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Thank you. 

In our discussion this morning and also in 
previous testimony a few weeks ago with another 
candidate for a different position, the topic of 
contraband came up, and I just want to kind of get your 
sense. 

We know that cell phones is kind of the latest 
area of concern, and that Senator Benoit has a bill, I 
believe sponsored by the department, to increase the 
penalty for contraband cell phones or wireless 
instruments. 

However, my concern is all contraband, whether 
it's tobacco for bartering, cash itself, other items 
that can be used for bartering, or contraband that can 
be a safety issue. For example, at Avenal Prison just 
last week, they found employees bringing in pliers, 
scissors, et cetera. 

Do you think -- First of all, I guess, how big 
is the problem? Not just related to cell phones, but do 
you think that the penalties -- 

Right now I understand there are no penalties 
other than firing the employee, unless it's illegal 
drugs or some substance that's illegal. 

64 



1 searched when they go in? 

2 SENATOR AANESTAD: It's harder to get on an 

3 airplane today than it is to get in a prison. 

4 SENATOR OROPEZA: May I just follow up? 

5 SENATOR AANESTAD: Yeah. 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: After our conversation, I was 

7 troubled by this. I kept thinking about it. And I know 

8 in our conversation you said resources were a challenge 

9 with the search of every employee, and also there was an 

10 issue related to if you only had one metal detector, 

11 that people would back up because you have 600 employees 

12 at prison, and so then they would want to be paid for 

13 the time they're waiting in line, so there are these 

14 sort of dynamics to be worked through. 

15 But the more I think about it in terms of the 

16 safety and security of the prisons, it just seems like 

17 an investment that's worth it in everybody's best 

18 interest. I mean, maybe you need several metal 

19 detectors like we have here in the Capitol, you know. 

20 But I really -- it troubles me a lot to 

21 think -- And I have heard of employees coming in with 

22 suitcases filled with cell phones. There's no way not 

23 to check against that right now? I mean, to me, it 

24 seems like a huge gap in the security system at the 

25 prisons. 

66 



Do you think that the legislature should be 
looking to increase penalties or the consequences of 
staff people who are bringing in -- and family visitors 
who are bringing in contraband? 

MR. CATE: The issue of over-familiarity 
between staff and inmates, the issue of contraband 
coming into the prisons, whether from staff or visiting, 
or whatever source, has been a long-standing problem in 
every state's correctional department. 

I think we are focused on cell phones primary 
right now because that is so dangerous. There is the 
ability to communicate between yards to say that — 
We've, for example, had situations where officers are 
searching cells in facility A, and they get to the third 
housing unit in facility A, and the inmates in that 
housing unit already know they're coming — much less I 
don't even want to talk about issues of violence or 
escape, or others associated with this problem. 

So I do think we need to increase the 
penalties. We're focused on cell phones, because 
they're the most serious. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: How do they get in? 

SENATOR AANESTAD: No money for metal 
detectors? 

SENATOR OROPEZA: And the employees are not 

65 



1 MR. CATE: We do — Today if you walk in a 

2 prison and you have your suitcase, our officers will ask 

3 to look inside -- 

4 SENATOR OROPEZA: I'm talking about an officer. 

5 MR. CATE: We'll ask the officers to see inside 

6 their lunch pail, or anything else. It doesn't mean we 

7 can't improve. 

8 SENATOR OROPEZA: You don't search them? 

9 MR. CATE: We will conduct searches, but only 

10 targeted, where we'll go to, like, Avenal with a team of 

11 people to conduct searches. Again, searching, I don't 

12 think is the right answer, to pat-down search our 

13 employees before they go in. I just don't think that's 

14 the right answer. I think there are better ways. 

15 SENATOR OROPEZA: What are they? 

16 MR. CATE: Well, I think we're working on 

17 several fronts at once on this issue. So we're working 

18 with the federal government, the FCC and the Obama 

19 administration, on the issue of being able to just 

20 disrupt the cell phone coverage in the prisons. The FCC 

21 is very touchy on this topic of disrupting 

22 communication, as you might imagine, but our national 

23 association is lobbying for a change in law that will 

24 allow us to flip a switch and shut down cell phones 

25 within the fenced area of an institution. So that's one 

67 



31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 64 to 67 of 81 



18 of 22 sheets 



strategy on one issue. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: That wouldn't impact the 
guards and their ability to communicate? 

MR. CATE: Our correctional officers don't 
communicate with cells within the prisons. They use 
radios and other technology. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: And that technology would not 
be affected by this? 

MR. CATE: Right. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. 

MR. CATE: So that's one option. 

The bigger picture is that many institutions 
are going to a metal detector/airport screening kind of 
process. That is a longer-term solution, in my view, 
because the sally ports and the areas within the prisons 
within which one has egress and ingress are small. In 
our recent tour, as you can see, there's one door that 
goes through there. So it would require additional 
construction so we would have space. 

And our employees should be paid if we expect 
them to stand in line, and it takes them eight and a 
half hours to get from one place to another. That 
shouldn't be their time to the extent that we are saying 
to them, "You must stand in this line." At least there 
are some legitimate issues to be discussed around 

68 



1 not illegal to bring a cell phone in, and so it does 

2 make it difficult to enforce. And I'd like to start 

3 there and see where we go. 

4 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. Thank you very 

5 much. 

6 Let us hear from the witnesses who are here in 

7 support of the nominee. Come on up one at a time. 

8 SENATOR OROPEZA: You can get in line. You can 

9 get in line. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: As usual, the custom here 

11 is we ask you to be brief, if you can. Thorough. 

12 Thorough and brief. 

13 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members 

14 of the Senate Rules Committee, thank you. My name is 

15 Chris Brown, and I am the legislative liaison for the 

16 Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

17 I would like to say that we have had many 

18 discussions with Mr. Cate regarding the issue of 

19 succession leadership, management training, and 

20 diversity in the management positions for the 

21 department. Mr. Cate has been sincerely sensitive to 

22 our issues, has been very supportive of our effort, and 

23 we are absolutely in support of his employment and 

24 confirmation as secretary to the California Department 

25 of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

70 



compensation. I don't know exactly where that should 
go. It depends on how long it takes. If we have mini 
portals, it might take less time, maybe not. Maybe 
that's the answer. 

So, you know, we're doing everything. Right 
now, we have a pilot program on a cell-phone sniffing 
dog that we're training to try to address this issue. 
And then we have search teams. We're kind of just doing 
everything we can with what we've been given. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Do you think penalties 
should be enhanced or we should increase the fines or -- 

12 yeah, enhancing penalties for people who are caught with 

13 contraband, bringing contraband in rather than -- We 
talked this morning, right now an employee brings in a 
couple pockets full of cash to distribute, which is a 
dangerous contraband item, really only suffers the -- 
you know, they're going to get fired, but there's no 
criminal penalty associated with giving cash to a 
prisoner. 

Do you think that the legislature should be 
looking to enhance penalties? 

MR. CATE: I guess there's so many ways in 
which an employee can have an inappropriate conduct with 
an inmate that it's hard to legislate them all. I would 
really love to start with cell phones. Right now, it's 

69 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

2 Appreciate it. 

3 MR. BROWN: Thank you. 

4 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Warner. 

5 MR. WARNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

6 and Members of the Committee. It's quite an honor to 

7 have a chance to testify before you today in strong 

8 support of Secretary Matt Cate for his confirmation. 

9 The sheriffs in the State of California asked 

10 me to specifically come here and state on the record how 

11 much they appreciate, frankly, the way he handles his 

12 business by local government -- by local law 

13 enforcement. He has the ability to provide much needed 

14 continuity of leadership within CDCR in the coming 

15 years, and we think that's very important. 

16 Since his employment to office, he's worked 

17 very diligently, and daily, frankly, to build state and 

18 local partnerships with the public safety community, and 

19 we appreciate very much his outreach and his ongoing 

20 accessibility. 

21 Just a few of the areas or a number of the 

22 areas that we work with Corrections on a daily basis. 

23 SB 81, which is youthful offender block grant, DJJ 

24 realignment, AB 900, day reporting centers, joint task 

25 forces, parolees return to custody and jails, wraparound 

71 



9 of 22 sheets 



Page 68 to 71 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 A) 



services for transitional housing for mentally ill 
parolees, movement of prisoners, substance abuse 
treatment, recovery centers, on and on. 

There's daily interactions with Corrections and 
local law enforcement, and under Secretary Cate's 
administration, the communication, while not always 
easy, is frequent, it's very open, and I can tell you, 
all joking aside, he has endured questions like this on 
a regular basis in forums like this from the sheriffs of 
the State of California. He shows up at the board 
meetings. He answers the questions he can answer; he 
takes the criticism; he thinks about it, says, "I don't 
know. I'll get back to you," and he does. 

I'll just close by thanking not only Secretary 
Cate, but his able staff, and we strongly urge your 
positive consideration of his appointment. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Warner, can you just 
ID yourself for the record. 

MR. WARNER: Yeah. Nick Warner, legislative 
director, California State Sheriffs Association. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much for 
your testimony. 

Mr. Warren, hope you're feeling well. 

MR. WARREN: Feeling much better. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good. 

72 



1 MR. SKAGGS: I am the president of ACCSS, the 

2 Associated Chaplains of California State Service, and 

3 Mr. Cate has been very supportive in a number of things 

4 that we appreciate. And the main reason I would 

5 encourage confirmation of Mr. Cate is because I do think 

6 that Mr. Cate has shown a real sincere desire for 

7 rehabilitation to take place and change to see come 

8 within our institutions. We support that very, very 

9 much, and we have seen that directed towards us with 

10 some things he's worked with us on, even in these past 

11 ten months. So we would strongly urge in that way. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, sir. 

13 Next. 

14 MS. CORBY: I don't think I'll need a 

15 microphone, but.... 

16 My name is Charlene Corby. I'm an 

17 administrator for the Correctional Peace Officers 

18 Foundation, national in scope and based and founded in 

19 Sacramento. It's a charity to help correctional 

20 officers in a time of need, cancer, leukemia, fire, 

21 outside the line of duty and inside the line of duty. 

22 Mr. Cate, one word for him: availability and 

23 being available. I'm kind of glad his wife stepped out, 

24 because cell phones are good, sometimes they're not, and 

25 we often call Mr. Cate late at night, catastrophic 

74 



MR. WARREN: My name is David Warren. I'm 
appearing on behalf of Taxpayers for Improving Public 
Safety. I feel like this is a deja vu all over 
again. I've been here for Cal Terhune, Ed Alameida, 
Rod Hickman, Jeanne Woodford, James Tilton, and now 
Mr. Cate. 

Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety endorses 
the nominee, and we hope that you will support him. 
You've raised many issues today, and we've provided a 
letter, including nine issues that we hope you will 
address. 

We have personal experiences with many of the 
issues because — as family members, because we fear 
contraband just as much, because contraband is a threat 
and danger to the inmates who have to deal with it as 
much as it is for the staff. 

We hope that Mr. Cate will have a successful 
career, although we believe his optimism in getting this 
under control in the next decade is extraordinary. 
Thank you very much. 

In closing, I'd like to introduce David Skaggs. 
He's a Protestant chaplain and president of the 
California Chaplains Association. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

Chaplain. 

73 



1 event, and he is always available. So I do like that, 

2 an administrator working with your staff and getting the 

3 phone calls and taking care of his staff in a timely 

4 need. 

5 And I could be available for that associate 

6 director of women. I like Sacramento. 

7 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. There's your 

8 strategic planning right there. 

9 MS. PANK: Good afternoon. Karen Pank with the 

10 Chief Probation Officers, California, executive 

11 director, and our association strongly supports 

12 Secretary Cate's confirmation. 

13 Appreciate you guys giving me some time here 

14 today to give you a glowing report of our interaction 

15 with the secretary since, really, day one of his 

16 appointment. And he was immediately on the phone with 

17 us. He has had to answer some tough questions. 

18 We, too, are very concerned about all the 

19 issues you brought up today and will likely talk about 

20 in the future. The secretary has answered them with the 

21 caliber and just the candor that he has already here 

22 today. So those are the types of things that really 

23 demonstrate, you know, we think he is the right man for 

24 the job, has the integrity to do so. 

25 You asked, Senator Steinberg, about public 

75 



I1/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 72 to 75 of 81 



20 of 22 sheets 



service and about those types of things. He really 
embodies those things. I represent 59 appointed chiefs 
who take that also very seriously and feel they act as 
public servants and have recognized those types of 
things in Secretary Cate. So for those reasons and many 
others, we support his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 
Appreciate it. 

Next. 

MS. SILVA: Melinda Silva. I'm a parole agent 
in Sacramento, and I'm also president of the Parole 
Agents Association of California. 

Since we didn't get to hear his presentation on 
parole reform, it's difficult to know, but even knowing 
that legislatively and from CDCR that we are going to 
look at significant changes in parole reform, I would 
just like to say Mr. Cate has been extremely accessible. 
He has come to our meetings. He has been available to 
our members on Saturday to answer questions. When he 
doesn't know, he lets us know he doesn't know the 
answers; but I think like everybody else has said, he 
has gotten back to us. He has an open-door policy, and 
his entire staff has been available to us. I appreciate 
that and look forward to parole reform discussions. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. Next week. 

76 



1 we'll begin with parole. Again, I just felt this 

2 afternoon that out of respect, we should hold off that 

3 conversation, but we will take it up next Tuesday -- 

4 next Wednesday. Thank you very much. 

5 MR. CATE: Thank you, sir. 

6 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Appreciate it. Thank you 

7 to members of the public. 

8 Okay. If we can — I've got file item three, 

9 governor's appointee subject to confirmation but not 

10 required to appear, Collene T. Campbell as a member of 

11 the Corrections Standards Authority. 

12 Is there anybody here to testify on that 

13 nominee? If not, take a motion. 

14 SENATOR DUTTON : So moved. 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Moved by Senator Dutton. 

16 Please call the roll. 

17 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

18 Dutton. 

19 SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 

20 MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 

21 Oropeza. 

22 SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 

23 MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 

24 Aanestad. 

25 SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

78 



MS. SILVA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. Appreciate it. 

Anybody else? Anybody here in opposition this 
afternoon? All right. If not, we will recess the 
hearing until next week. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Cate, for an excellent 
discussion and, again, to reiterate a couple of items 
that we want to begin working on. One are genuine 
benchmarks and timelines for improving or increasing the 
numbers of inmates that participate in educational and 
other positive programming as part of -- to give meaning 
to the other "R" in CDCR. One "R," excuse me. The "R" 
in CDCR. 

And secondly is to begin working diligently 
over the next month, not alone, but working together to 
actually develop this plan for recruitment and retention 
of your personnel. And, of course, that includes 
leadership training and development, not just how to 
fill vacancies, but how are we going to encourage those 
who are new to the department to work their way up 
through the ranks and to stay. And I know there's some 
constraints. You've mentioned them already. But we 
need to be figuring out together how we address those 
challenges. 

So we will see you next Wednesday, and I think 

77 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That measure passes four 
nothing. 

(Thereupon, the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
adjourned at 3:42 p.m.) 



-oOo- 



79 



1 of 22 sheets 



Page 76 to 79 of 81 



03/31/2009 09:22:34 Af 



--oOo- 
I, INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand 
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify 
that I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 
hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, 
INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 
typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

-21 w IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
M *L day of /k^-T^y 



this 



., 2009. 



JbuCtk/Xl 



INA C. LeBLANC 
CSR No. 6713 



-oOo- 



80 



APPENDIX 



31/2009 09:22:34 AM 



Page 80 to 81 of 81 



22 of 22 sheets 



Senate Confirmation 

Matthew L. Cate, Secretary 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

Responses to Senate Rules Committee Questions 

March 17,2009 



Background Statement of Goals 

The secretary provides policy direction and operational control for both the juvenile and 
adult prison systems, as well as parole. The secretary also advises the Governor and his 
staff and represents the administration before the Legislature, other governments, and 
various constituent groups. 

With more than 60,000 employees, CDCR is the largest single department of state 
government. It is responsible for incarcerating 172,000 adults in 33 institutions and 40 fire 
camps and other facilities, and 1,800 juveniles in 6 facilities and 2 camps, including several 
adult facilities outside of California. It manages another 117,000 adult parolees and about 
2,100 juvenile parolees. The mission, as stated on the department's Web site, is to improve 
public safety through evidence-based crime prevention and recidivism strategies. 

Much of the department's management is affected by court decisions or settlement 
agreements - from a federal receiver who manages CDCR's health care, to a state special 
master who has oversight of the juvenile system. In addition, three federal judges are 
overseeing a case in which inmates' lawyers say that overcrowding is the primary cause of 
unconstitutional health care and mental health care in state prisons. 

You worked with the department for four years as the Inspector General. When you came 
before this committee in August 2004 to be confirmed as the Inspector General, you agreed 
that California's prisons were badly in need of repair. You especially singled out the state's 
recidivism rate as the worst in the nation and a failure to properly take care of juvenile 
offenders. 

1. Please provide us with a brief statement of goals. What do you hope to accomplish 
during your tenure as secretary of the department? How will you measure your 
success? 

At its core, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is a public 
safety agency. To that end, the Department has historically been very adept at preventing the 
escape of inmates and wards and operating its facilities and parole functions as safely as 
possible. These are not easily accomplished missions and the state can be proud of the work 
accomplished by the Department in this area. Nonetheless, I have come to understand that 
public safety requires more of the Department than safe and secure prisons and youth facilities. 
Every month the Department releases approximately 10,000 to 12,000 inmates to the streets of 
California. Indeed, over time, almost 95 percent of all offenders will one day be released. 
Historically, nearly 70 percent have been rearrested within three years and almost that many 
return to prison. In light of these facts, I believe that the Department must do all it can to reduce 
the number of inmates and wards committing crimes upon release. As a prosecutor, my sole 
focus was preparing my cases and ensuring that those who committed crimes were found guilty 

Senate Rules Committee 

MAR i ? 2009 82 

Appointments 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 2 



and received an appropriate sentence. I did not look beyond my segment of the criminal justice 
continuum to see what was happening to the convicted once they had served their time. 
However, as California's Inspector General, I was responsible for evaluating all aspects of our 
prison system and came to understand that public safety is about both safe prisons and safe 
streets. While we cannot force an offender to change and many will choose not to do so, 
correctional research tells us that an academic program will, on average, reduce recidivism rates 
by 5 percent and vocational programs show a 12 percent reduction. While those percentages 
may seem small to some, when considered against the fact that we release upwards of 130,000 
offenders a year, a small change in re-offense rates can mean thousands less offenders on our 
streets and tens of thousands fewer crimes committed every year. So my main goal is to make 
California safer - not only through safe and secure prisons, but also through effective, evidence- 
based programs, both in prison and parole, that will reduce recidivism and make our 
communities safer. 

To accomplish this main goal, the Department must improve on several fronts at once. Before 
anything else, the Department must have a unified strategic plan - a shared vision for what it 
seeks to accomplish in the next three to five years, along with a specific set of plans to get there. 
In working on this plan with my cabinet, it has become apparent that several vital issues must be 
addressed as soon as possible. The first is overcrowding. At nearly 195 percent of design 
capacity, overcrowding makes everything the Department does more difficult. To address this 
problem, we must expand our capacity to hold serious and violent offenders. Accordingly, we 
have put forward a plan to utilize Assembly Bill 900 to build thousands of new cells to hold 
California's most dangerous offenders. 

However, expansion is not the sole answer. We must also reform our parole system. As noted 
above, every year thousands of parole violators cycle through our prisons for only months at a 
time. California is unique in that we place almost every offender on parole. We are also unlike 
other states in that the vast majority of inmates who come to prison are sent for a parole violation 
rather than a new conviction. This has resulted in a constant "churning' of offenders through our 
reception centers. It is a costly practice, with little or no benefit to public safety. We must be 
smarter about who is on parole, who returns to prison and which offenders can be treated in our 
communities. Accordingly, I am presently meeting with stakeholders to hear their views on this 
important issue. Once armed with that information, the administration will again propose a 
parole reform model. 

We also must continue to expand the availability of evidence-based programs for our offenders. 
And perhaps more importantly, we must assess our offenders to determine their criminogenic 
needs, whether it be drug addiction, anger management or illiteracy. These assessments can then 
be used to ensure that the right inmate or ward is placed into the right program for the right 
duration. We also must constantly evaluate these programs to be sure they are achieving results. 
While it takes years to see the results of these programs, if we used evidence-based programs in 
the appropriate manner to treat the right offender, correctional science gives us the assurance that 
our investment will pay off. 



83 



Senate Rules Committee 
Matthew L. Cate 
Page 3 



March 17,2009 



Similarly, we must continue to improve our health-care delivery system. A significant part of 
that system is currently in the hands of a federal receiver. It should be our goal to demonstrate to 
the court that the state is ready, willing and able to once again meet its obligations to provide a 
constitutional level of care to our inmates. At present, we are working cooperatively with the 
Receiver to address the State's systemic failing in medical care. In addition, we must continue to 
improve our mental health and dental programs to meet our professional obligations in these 
arenas. While we have been successful in recruiting more qualified practitioners in these fields, 
we still need to expand our clinical space in many institutions. Once a court has placed an 
inmate or ward in the state's custody, we carry the responsibility to ensure that they are treated 
ethically and responsibly. The state should also create an effective system of oversight to 
provide transparency and accountability in this arena. 

In regards to our youthful offender population, the Department must quickly adjust to a post- 
Senate Bill 8 1 world of declining ward population and create a new business model that allows 
the State to meet the needs of our high-risk youth, in a cost-effective manner. This will require 
us to further consolidate our facilities and new staffing packages, while continuing to improve 
the delivery of treatment and training for our wards. We must demonstrate to the courts, the 
Legislature and to the public that we are providing excellent care to the wards placed in our care. 
If we fail, these youthful offenders will become the inmates of tomorrow. I believe we can 
increase the level of care, while decreasing the cost to provide that care. 

Finally, we must improve our administrative infrastructure. It is apparent that the Department's 
personnel, accounting, budget and technology infrastructure has been neglected or under- 
resourced for too long. We have already begun major reforms in these areas and look forward to 
developing a reputation for excellence in these vital administrative functions. 

2. You are the fourth CDCR Secretary in less than four years. What lessons do you 
take from their relatively brief tenure that will help you guide your department? 
What lessons do you take from your four years as Inspector General? 

During my 1 months as Secretary, I have learned that the Department is staffed by a group of 
very hard-working, dedicated employees who overcome a great deal of adversity every day to 
accomplish a very difficult mission. I have come to rely on their wisdom and experience to 
inform my decisions as we set a course to make California safer through correctional excellence. 
I have been pleased to learn that many, if not most, employees understand that to meet our public 
safety goals, we must provide effective rehabilitative programming to our offenders. While 
opinions differ on the best way to accomplish this task, most understand that we have to break 
the cycle of recidivism to be truly successful. In addition, I have learned that the Department's 
efforts are hampered by a constant barrage of urgent matters - the constant need to put out fires. 
In order to address the "tyranny of the urgent" I have emphasized strategic planning and have 
added a few key people to the organization to assist both in handling emergencies and in making 
sure our actions today fit into our plans for tomorrow. Because of this reactive culture and due 
to the constant change in leadership, I have come to understand that CDCR is no longer assumed 
to be the State's leader in the field of corrections. This role has, in part, been taken over by the 



84 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 4 



courts and other stakeholders anxious to lead the Department down a path that serves their 
interests, to the exclusion of others. It is my goal to meet the needs of all our stakeholders, at 
least to the extent possible, by retaking the Department's rightful place as the leader of 
correctional policy and practice in California. Of course, this requires the Department to first 
demonstrate its ability to competently lead - a long term project that will require a team effort 
from the Department, the Administration and the Legislature. 

When I was first appointed Inspector General, I inherited a governmental office that was slated 
for shut-down. While it was difficult to start from scratch, it did provide me with some great 
opportunities and a wonderful learning experience. The most important lesson I learned is that to 
be successful you have to attract and retain the most talented group of managers, supervisors and 
staff you can find. At the Inspector General's Office, I was able to build a great team that is 
largely still in place today and continues to be extremely successful. I have begun to build that 
same kind of team at CDCR and I am very excited about what we will be able to accomplish in 
the coming months. I also learned that it is vital to think long term, even in the face of short- 
term challenges. By planning for the next five years, we were able to build a nationally 
recognized oversight organization with several innovative programs. At CDCR, we are just 
starting to set out a five-year plan of action. While this may sound foolish to some, especially in 
light of the constant turnover in leadership in the past, I strongly believe that the Department will 
only be successful when it can set its sights on the future and use its talent and experience to lead 
the way for California. We are establishing that plan now, and I hope to be part of the team that 
will accomplish that plan for years to come. 



Reorganization and Coordination of Responsibilities 

On July 1, 2005, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency was reorganized pursuant to 
Senate Bill 737 (Romero), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005, into the Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation. The intention of the reorganization was to improve the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the departments and boards that made up the former agency. 

3. How would you evaluate the performance of CDCR nearly four years since the July 
2005 reorganization of the department? If the reorganization's intention was to 
improve effectiveness and efficiency, where has significant progress been achieved 
and where does the most work still need to be done? Please discuss both the adult 
and juvenile organization levels. 

There is no doubt that the 2005 reorganization created a number of opportunities and challenges 
for the Department. As a result of this reorganization, CDCR went from a traditional agency- 
department model in which the departments were relatively independent of each other and relied 
on the agency primarily for policy direction to a consolidated organization in which the various 
parts are expected to work across functional lines. Any reorganization of this magnitude should 
be expected to impact an organization's productivity. It is difficult for me to assess whether this 
went better or worse than should have been expected for CDCR. Regardless, what I saw from 



85 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 5 



the outside was that throughout 2005 and much of 2006 the Department essentially had to stop 
much of what they were doing and completely recreate themselves. When I arrived in May of 
last year, the work was still not fully completed. 

As the Inspector General, I saw it as a major accomplishment when the Department launched a 
real rehabilitative reform effort. The commitment was not just about putting the word 
"rehabilitation" in the name, but they created a high-level portion of the organization dedicated 
to providing inmates and paroles with an opportunity to change their lives. This did not exist 
before. This was accompanied by a similar change in parole operations, which shifted from an 
approach based primarily on supervision to one with a dual mission of both enforcement and 
rehabilitation. 

The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is probably the best example of both the harms and 
benefits caused by the reorganization. DJJ's reform efforts were definitely slowed by the 
reorganization, which shifted many of their resources into a larger structure with multiple 
missions. However, more recently, I think DJJ has benefited from the Department's ability to 
shift resources into the division from the larger Department — resources (in terms of time and 
expertise) they would not have otherwise had access to. 

Most significantly, from my perspective, however, the reorganization has helped to unify the 
policies and practices of the Department toward a central mission and away from a decentralized 
set of practices that tended to be more reflective of the individual warden or superintendent than 
the Department's mission or strategic plan. One of the areas where I saw this improvement most 
clearly as the Inspector General was in the area of employee discipline. Today, instead of a 
system dependent upon the strengths or weaknesses of the warden or superintendent, the 
Department has a formal, professional, objective employee discipline process. I do not mean to 
suggest by this example that there are not still improvements needed, but the improvements have 
been significant. Similarly, the institutions' policies and procedures are much more uniform now 
than before the reorganization. This has allowed the Department's management team to address 
systemic problems much more effectively. 

With respect to organizational structure, in general, I think far too often the critics of any 
organization see its failures as related to deficiencies in organizational structure when really the 
failures are the result of a lack of leadership and/or poor performance. As we move forward, I 
would like to deemphasize the importance of the reorganization. Our ability to reform the 
Department is more dependent upon the quality of leadership we demonstrate and the 
partnerships we develop. 

4. The reorganization of 2005 placed the word "rehabilitation" in the name of CDCR 
as a way to emphasize inmate and ward rehabilitation. If we were to visit an 
"average" Level II-III prison today, what evidence would there be of a 
rehabilitation emphasis that would not have existed prior to the reorganization? 



86 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Pase 6 



What evidence would exist at a juvenile facility? What evidence would we find in 
the parole division? 

Adding an "R" to the name of the Department only matters if it is followed by consistent 
application of principle that public safety is enhanced by providing offenders with opportunities 
to change their lives and reduce their risks to reoffend. The fundamental nature of this change 
cannot be over estimated. As such, searching for evidence of "rehabilitation emphasis" only at 
the field level can be misleading because it fails to recognize what is involved in a reform of this 
magnitude. Four years ago, the Department did not have a plan to incorporate rehabilitation into 
the mission of the Department. There was not a logic model that dictated how to handle an 
offender from the gate to reentry — ensuring that the time in between was best spent preparing 
him to reenter his community. There was no infrastructure to implement such a massive reform. 
It is difficult to understand from the outside all of the work that goes into planning and designing 
a new system, especially in an environment unused to change of this type. 

That said, despite the amount of time needed to plan and develop an entirely new system, there 
have been important and visible changes in the prisons. For example, enrollment and attendance 
in both educational and vocational programs has increased since 2005. Specifically, the average 
monthly number of inmates enrolled in traditional academic programs has increased from 
approximately 10,500 in FY 2005-06 to over 14,400 in the first six months of FY 2008-09. 
While this represents an increase of 37 percent, I am not going to suggest that this comes 
anywhere close to addressing our academic needs. However, the Department, under Chief 
Deputy Secretary Hood, recognized that there was little value in working to increase enrollment 
rates until we could demonstrate some significant improvements in getting enrolled inmates to 
class. Historically, for a variety of reasons, including frequent lockdowns and teacher scheduling 
issues, our participation rates have been unacceptable. We have begun to make progress. The 
annual participation rate (based on hours of class attended versus hours available) has increased 
from 42 percent in FY 2005-06 to 68 percent during the first six months of this fiscal year. We 
are on track to meet our goal of 75 percent by June 2009. We have seen similar increases in 
vocational programming. For example, enrollment has increased from approximately 7,800 in 
FY 2005-06 to over 9,300 this year (an increase of 19 percent). Our participation rate has 
increased from 42 percent to 62 percent during this time period. Additionally, approximately 85 
percent of offenders have received an adult basic education test to help us determine their 
appropriate placement into adult basic education programs. Furthermore, I am pleased to report 
that we have been recognized by the federal Department of Education for consistently attaining 
increases in learning gains. 

With respect to substance abuse treatment, as I discuss in more detail in later questions, we have 
increased the number of in-prison beds by about 1,200 (with another 2,000 coming online soon) 
and the number of community beds by 2,300 (with another 1 ,000 coming on soon). 

DJJ has been undergoing a similarly massive reform effort. We have developed a customized 
risk and needs assessment, which is being completed on all wards in DJJ facilities and will soon 
be implemented for youth on parole. Case managers have been hired at all facilities to enhance 



87 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 7 



the treatment team (these staff are responsible for conducting the assessments, facilitating 
treatment team meetings, and developing case plans). All staff at the Ventura Youth 
Correctional Facility, where our female offenders are housed, have been trained in Girls Moving 
On, a gender responsive curriculum. All direct care staff in DJJ's facilities are being trained in 
safe crisis management, conflict resolution, and mediation. All youth have a high school 
graduation plan. Assisted behavior learning environments are available at every facility to 
provide educational opportunities for youth who are having difficulties in their regularly 
assigned classrooms. And an interim classification system has been implemented which houses 
youth who are at high risk for institutional violence separately from those who are at low risk, 
allowing the lower risk youth the ability to safely focus on their programming. 

Certainly, in these economic times, there are many who will suggest that we cannot afford these 
reform efforts, especially because we have not yet rolled them out to all 33 prisons, six juvenile 
facilities, and multiple parole regions. These critics might suggest that instead of "wasting" our 
limited resources on this new model, we should instead limit ourselves to the basics of "bullets, 
beans, and band aids." 

I believe that kind of thinking will only doom us to repeating the same mistakes we have seen in 
the past. I am committed to a fundamental reform of the system that will not happen overnight; 
it will require a long-term sustained effort. If the state is interested only in the status quo, I am 
the wrong person for the job. 

5. One of the earliest concerns of the legislature about the reorganization was that 
juvenile justice issues would be lost among adult operational issues. How do you 
ensure that juvenile issues receive appropriate attention with so many more adults 
in custody and on parole? 

I am convinced that the reorganization has been most challenging for the DJJ. The difficulties 
inherent in a structural reformation as significant as the 2005 reorganization were exacerbated at 
DJJ by a change in leadership at that time. This was made more complicated by a significant 
decline in population, which has dramatically changed the make-up of DJJ's population. It is 
also fair to say that because of the expectations around juvenile corrections, DJJ in some ways 
had the furthest to go in terms of reform. 

The first time I walked the Chaderjian facility as Inspector General, wards were climbing over 
the barbed-wire fences to attack each other. I later had the horrific task of investigating the 
suicide of a ward who had been detained in his cell 23 hours a day. I walked that same facility a 
few months ago and I saw wards of different races walking together unescorted to class. Once in 
the classroom, I found a qualified teacher and an adopted grandparent — both of whom were 
engaged in discussions with the students. The day I was there, there were 60 wards who had 
already obtained a high school diploma or passed their G.E.D., who were working outside of the 
fence. Four years earlier they would have been locked in their cells instead of learning a trade 
because there would have been nothing else for them to do. 



88 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 8 



DJJ reform is one of my top priorities. As such, it is one of eight areas for which I receive a 
monthly briefing with most of the Cabinet present. DJJ's struggles have led some to recommend 
closing the system down all together. I think that would be a grave mistake. We should continue 
to emphasize keeping as many wards locally as possible. But the wards who have remained with 
us have so many complicated needs, I do not believe all counties are prepared to address these 
needs. We must continue to strive to make DJJ a model juvenile corrections agency. 

6. Just after you were named secretary, the department created and filled several new 
high ranking positions to assist you. How do you balance the need for those position 
against, for example, the need for an administrator of correctional education in 
juvenile division, now vacant for four years, where we are told the salary is too low 
to attract qualified applicants? 

It is important to recognize that CDCR, in terms of budget and employees, is the size of a 
Fortune 500 company, but its management structure has never reflected this. In my opinion, the 
reorganization in 2005 only further complicated this problem by concentrating all of the 
functions within one Department and therefore directing all of the decision-making 
responsibilities toward one person. One of my goals when I was appointed Secretary was to 
create the Office of the Secretary to help drive departmental policy and strategic planning. The 
Secretary's Office, which includes the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Undersecretaries, 
Chief Counsel, and Senior Policy Advisor works directly with me to overcome the tyranny of the 
urgent in favor of spending time on what is most important. This forces us to focus on issues 
that are both important and urgent. From my perspective, it was worth adding three positions to 
appropriately staff this effort. 

With respect to their individual roles, the Chief of Staff is responsible for helping to resolve day- 
to-day operational issues and conflicts that cross departmental functions, i.e., issues that cannot 
be resolved independently within the Administration, Operations, and Program functions of our 
Department. The Deputy Chief of Staff is responsible for all of the oversight functions (i.e., 
internal affairs, audits and compliance, ombudsman, and civil rights) within the Department. It 
was important to me to elevate these functions within the organization. And, finally we 
connected high-policy analysis with research under a Senior Policy Advisor to ensure for the first 
time that Cabinet-level policy decisions were based on research and evidence-based decision 
making. 

I am proud of the progress we have made in filling cabinet and executive level vacancies. We 
are building a very strong team. 

With respect to the specific position you reference, I am disappointed that we have not been able 
to fill it yet. However, the ongoing external discussions about closing DJJ have not helped our 
ability to recruit qualified people. The fact that we have been able to fill and retain any of these 
positions in light of the ongoing pressure to close DJJ is a major accomplishment. I hope that in 
the near future our stakeholders will come to recognize the value of DJJ and the progress it has 



89 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 9 



made and we can finally put to rest the notion of closing it all together. I can also assure the 
Legislature that we will not rest until this position is filled with a qualified candidate. 

7. The reorganization began in July 2005 with one undersecretary and now there are 
three. Critics assert that separating custody and program functions widens the gap 
between them and, years later, there is still confusion about who is responsible for 
in-prison self-help programs and decisions regarding who is placed in programs. 
Please comment on your organizational chart and when you believe it might be 
stable. 

As your question suggests, the separation of adult custody functions from adult program has 
been a double-edged sword. By separating out adult programs and elevating it within the 
organizational structure, the Department has been able to emphasize the importance of 
rehabilitative programs to our mission. By filling these high-level positions with people who 
have the necessary skill-set and experience to create a rehabilitative program model, we have 
been able to leverage the necessary capacity and focus that come with making the program area 
independent of custody operations. 

On the other hand, this separation has contributed to the feeling, among some, that custody and 
program are distinct functions. Ultimately, I believe it is the job of every CDCR employee, 
regardless of classification, to ensure that our prisons and parole operations are conducted in a 
safe manner. It is also the job of every employee, regardless of classification, to make sure that 
the inmates who leave our prisons are prepared to successfully reenter their communities. It is 
only by understanding our mission in this way that we will ultimately be able to make the streets 
safer. 

That said, there are certain areas where the responsibilities overlap. That overlap has led to 
confusion in some quarters. The best way to clarify roles in this case is to get the leaders from 
the respective areas together, preferably on-site at the prison, to problem-solve these issues and 
clarify objectives and responsibilities. We began this effort several months ago. Because of 
travel restrictions, we have only made it to about one-third of the prisons, but even this initial 
effort has helped tremendously. 

With respect to the stability of the organizational chart, I believe that an organizational chart 
should only remain unchanged as long as it is helpful. As situations change, organizational 
charts should change too. At some point, if it becomes apparent that the organization would 
benefit from combining the program and custody functions under the same undersecretary, I 
would certainly consider that. However, I would not recommend doing that until I was confident 
that everyone from the Secretary to the managers to the line staff realizes that we all have two 
jobs — that the public ultimately expects us to run our prisons in a safe and secure manner and to 
return these offenders to their communities less likely to reoffend. Until we reach a tipping point 
in that understanding, I do not think we are ready to move them back together. 



90 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 10 



8. Rules Committee has been told in previous hearings that the Associate Directors for 
various security levels would help foster best practices across institutions. Avenal 
State Prison has been using an appointment system for visitors for at least 18 
months that has greatly reduced long lines and wait times for visitor processing. 
Why has such a seemingly successful program not been replicated at other CDCR 
institutions? What evidence exists of other best practices moving from institution to 
another? 

One of the issues that concerned me as the Inspector General was the inconsistency across adult 
prisons. As a result, I supported the move to manage prisons by mission. What I believe is most 
important is that the Associate Directors (ADs) provide consistent leadership to the prisons 
within their mission. This requires spending substantial time at each institution in an effort to 
train and mentor wardens, as well as hold them accountable to the best practices within their 
mission. As Inspector General, I saw too well that the wardens most likely to fail were those 
who did not have the benefit of a strong administrator for guidance. 

Probably the best example of sharing best practices within a mission has occurred in the female 
offender mission, which is discussed in more detail later. The AD invites wardens to review and 
provide input to proposed changes and regulations, ensuring consistency across the institutions 
and making sure that the changes are in alignment with the Gender Responsive Strategies. We 
also took advantage of this structure in rolling out the COMPAS assessment tool to all of the 
Reception Centers. In this instance, the ADs of Female Offenders Programs Services and 
Reception Centers worked with Adult Programs and Enterprise Information Services to 
standardize the counselors' processes when completing the classification documentation needed 
to move an inmate from a reception center to a general population institution. Now all 
correctional counselors in reception centers provide a computer generated transfer document, 
which allows for standardization, automation and will assist in evaluating efficiencies and 
inefficiencies across the system, allowing the Associate Directors to more accurately measure 
production between reception centers. 

Another example of a healthy practice of sharing "what works" is COMPSTAT, which provides 
all of the ADs a regular opportunity to review critical information about their institutions. This 
is an important way for them to identify statewide trends, vulnerabilities, and/or highlight best 
practices. 

With respect to the example you cite regarding visiting practices at Avenal State Prison, all adult 
institutions were recently surveyed to determine whether they should implement a process 
similar to the one used at Avenal. Several institutions, including Salinas Valley State Prison, 
Correctional Training Facility, California Rehabilitation Center, California State Prison Solano, 
and Ironwood State Prison are, in fact, already in the process of implementing this or are in 
discussions with their Inmate Family Councils about doing so. A number of other institutions, 
either because of low visiting termination rates or a lack of interest by the Inmate Family 
Council, determined the change to be unnecessary. 



91 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 1 1 



Operational Issues 

In June 2007 Kingston Prunty, then undersecretary, said at his confirmation hearing that 
the department would soon re-implement regularly scheduled audits to help determine how 
well institutions are complying with policy. 

9. What is the status of the audits Mr. Prunty cited? What benchmarks do you review 
on a regular basis to determine whether individual adult and juvenile facilities and 
parole offices are complying with policy by operating safely and promoting the 
department's mission? What red flags do you look for on a regular basis? 

As the former Inspector General, I obviously have great respect for the role of auditing and 
investigation to improve organizational performance. As I mentioned earlier, one of the first 
steps I took as Secretary was to elevate the internal auditing and investigation functions from a 
lower level where they were scattered throughout the Department to directly reporting to the 
Deputy Chief of Staff. I also asked for a one page executive summary to be prepared on each 
audit, which I review. All of the external audits are also reviewed by the Deputy Chief of Staffs 
office. I am briefed on these audits and our responses, as well. 

When my auditors discover significant issues requiring immediate attention, we have a system 
for me to be notified and for corrective action to be immediately implemented. For example, 
our auditors found last summer that there were instances of parolees being discharged from 
parole without proper review by parole agents. Even though the audit was still underway, my 
auditors notified me immediately so that I could have our Parole Division take immediate 
action. The Parole Division did in fact take immediate action to rectify the problem and today, 
thanks to the audit and the Parole Division's ongoing monitoring of the issue through the 
COMPSTAT process, I am happy to report that the problem has been largely addressed. 

From my perspective, one of the problems the Department has consistently faced is that it is in a 
perpetual mode of crisis management. As I suggested earlier, while we must effectively "put out 
fires," I am far more interested in managing to the long-term needs of the Department. As such, 
we have developed a monthly reporting cycle for what I see as the top eight risks and 
opportunities facing the Department. Specifically, these issues include: fiscal controls (including 
coming in within our budget, reducing overtime, position control, and headquarter reductions), 
overcrowding and population management, parole reform, implementation of the adult program 
model, Receiver governance process, DJJ reform, AB 900 construction, and strategic planning. 

In addition, we have implemented a fairly rigorous peer review schedule and our COMPSTAT 
effort was recently given a "standard of excellence" by the Little Hoover Commission. 

From my experience at the Office of the Inspector General, where we began the facility 
inspection program, I have become a firm believer in the adage "what gets measured, gets done." 
As a result, I have my staff working hard to continuously improve our ability to measure our 
goals. 



92 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 12 



10. Overtime has long been a major issue for the department. Your three recent 
predecessors all pledged to find ways to reduce this cost. Now that you've filled 
most of your custody staff vacancies, your overtime cost for custody staff 
nonetheless are still expected to run around $450 million in the current budget year. 
What is the biggest driver of overtime, and what are you doing to try further control 
these costs? 

As I noted above, I have identified reducing overtime, as well as other fiscal controls, as one of 
my top priorities. Currently, the Department is budgeted for approximately $100 million in 
overtime expenses. However, we historically spend over $400 million, leaving the Department 
with a $300 million gap that either results in a deficiency letter to the Legislature or significant 
cuts elsewhere in the budget. With a commitment to avoid coming in over budget this year, we 
have worked diligently over the last six to seven months identifying strategies to close our 
estimated gap of $300 million for the current fiscal year. 

I am pleased to report that in the first seven months of this fiscal year we reduced overtime by 
approximately $88 million (or 41%) in adult institutions (excluding the Receiver's medical 
guarding and transportation, which is rising). Specifically, we have reduced overtime caused by 
vacant positions to a negligible amount. We are expecting an overall reduction in overtime costs 
of over $80 million. However, the largest driver of our overtime is related to guarding inmates at 
medical appointments and in hospitals. This portion of overtime, which is driven by the 
Receiver, is increasing. Without this increase, we would estimate our overtime reduction for this 
year closer to $1 1 million. 

Other significant drivers of overtime costs include sick leave relief, which is likely to be 
impacted by recent legislative changes to the way sick leave is calculated. In the meantime, the 
Department has implemented a moderate approach to addressing sick leave. We have instructed 
our wardens to ensure that staff is aware of appropriate uses of sick leave. We have advised 
them to counsel staff who appear to be using sick leave for the purpose of getting specific days 
off. We are sure to offer staff support, such as the Emergency Assistance Program to assist 
them, and direct them to the FMLA regulations if they mention that the leave is protected. Only 
after those steps are taken, should staff be disciplined. We want to be sure to never discipline 
staff for appropriately using their sick leave. Based on this moderated approach, data collected 
through December indicates that overtime behind sick leave is estimated to be reduced by 
approximately $60 million this fiscal year, which would equate to a 50% reduction. 

11. The Rules Committee heard testimony in 2007 of 600 cell phones found at Solano 
Prison alone. Drugs, cigarettes, and other contraband continue to find their way 
into prisons. How are you addressing the problem of inmate and ward access to 



93 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 13 



contraband, including cell phones and illegal substances? How widespread is the 
problem, and are additional strategies being considered to minimize access? 

With respect to the problem of cell phones within our prisons, we are working with the National 
Association of Correctional Administrators to encourage the Obama administration to allow 
blocking of cell phone signals within prison walls. Absent the ability to use this type technology 
to block cell phone usage, we will continue to work with a number of internal and external 
stakeholders to step up our enforcement efforts to detect and confiscate cell phones and other 
contraband within our prison walls. Efforts such as "Operation Disconnect," which is an intra- 
agency operation among our Office of Internal Affairs, Office of Correctional Safety, and the 
Division of Adult Institutions, have been successful at interdiction and confiscation. 

We also received a letter from Senator Padilla encouraging us to look into a successful strategy 
that has been employed elsewhere and has been the subject of nationwide press attention: the use 
of cell phone-sniffing dogs. Incredibly, states such as Maryland use such dogs to detect cell 
phones in inmate cells. My staff followed through with this suggestion and contacted officials in 
Maryland to find out how to get a project like that started. 

However, one of the challenges we face, particularly with respect to cell phones, is that it is not a 
crime for an inmate to possess a cell phone or for a staff member or member of the public to 
bring a cell phone into prison for an inmate. The Administration continues to support efforts to 
make possession of, or attempts to provide a wireless communication device to an inmate or 
ward a crime felony. Unfortunately, current sanctions and penalties provide little deterrence for 
this activity. 

Some other states have begun using metal detectors similar to those used by the Transportation 
Security Agency in airports at all entrances to the prison, including those used by staff. This is a 
good long-term goal; however, in addition to being costly and perhaps requiring changes to 
physical infrastructure, this technology would slow down the process of moving staff into and 
out of the institutions. 

We will continue to explore all enforcement and legislative options to address what is certainly 
becoming an increased threat inside our prison walls. 

12. Prison gangs affect every aspect of prison life. How do you rate your gang strategies 
in both your adult and juvenile facilities? Are you employing any new strategies? 

As your question suggests, gang issues continue to permeate much of what we attempt to do 
inside our adult and juvenile facilities. Based on discussions with my colleagues in other states, 
I believe California has a particularly entrenched gang culture. That said, our staff works 
diligently on a daily basis to identify and impede gang activity within the facilities. The 
Department has been successful in its efforts to validate gang members in our adult institutions 
and remove them from the general population to minimize their negative influence. This year we 
are restructuring our gang validation process. This new streamlined process is expected to reduce 



94 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 14 



the time it takes to validate a gang member by approximately 30 percent. This will reduce the 
length of stay for these individuals in our Administrative Segregation Units and allow for a more 
prompt transfer to a Security Housing Unit, addressing a recent concern of the OIG. The 
Department does not limit its gang strategies to within the walls of our facilities. We partner 
with local law enforcement in combating gang activities across the State. Recently the 
Department, in collaboration with the Department of Justice and local law enforcement, 
identified gang member parolees who posed the most serious threat to public safety and placed 
them on GPS monitoring. There are currently 160 gang members in Sacramento, Fresno, Los 
Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties who are being monitored by the Department by 
GPS. The use of the GPS monitoring of these gang members has already aided local law 
enforcement in at least one homicide case. 

In addition, our Office of Correctional Safety does an incredible job of partnering with local law 
enforcement, state and federal agencies to interdict gang information. Through their monthly 
confidential meetings gang investigators across the state discuss active cases, suspects and gang 
activities. This sharing of intelligence has proven to be instrumental in solving crimes as well as 
preventing them. 

By taking an entirely different approach to gang strategies within our juvenile facilities, we have 
seen a significant reduction in violence in DJJ. One of our commitments in the Farrell lawsuit 
was to establish Conflict Resolution Teams at every facility. These teams have been 
instrumental not only is resolving conflicts, but in helping to divert violence as well. According 
to our COMPSTAT data, the temporary detention count has decreased 41 percent over the past 
year; the Special Management Program at N.A. Chaderjian decreased 96 percent from the third 
to fourth quarter of 2008 and 53 percent at Herman G. Stark. According to DJTs most recent 
Performance-Based Standards (PbS) report, a nationally-recognized performance measurement 
system DJJ committed to as part of the Farrell lawsuit, the rate of injury to youth by other youth 
was 63 percent less than the national average and the rate of assaults on staff was 79 percent 
below the national average. (These decreases in violence are occurring at the same time that 
DJJ's population is shifting to an almost exclusively serious and violent population.) 



Administrative Segregation Costs 

Inmates can be temporarily segregated when they threaten safety and security' or for their 
own security. In these cases, prisoners are placed administrative segregation units. The 
department has space for 8,878 inmates in administrative segregation at an annual cost of 
nearly S130 million. In January 2009 the current Inspector General, David Shaw, issued a 
report in which he said some prisons "routinely violate policies and procedures intended to 
provide inmates with due process and timely release." He went on to report that the 
violations each year cost the department more than S10.9 million. 



95 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 15 



13. Do you agree with Mr. Shaw's assessment and, if so, what steps are you taking to 
reduce these costs? 

Not surprisingly, there are many aspects of the Inspector General's report with which I agree. As 
their report acknowledges, the constant movement of inmates into and out of administrative 
segregation to ensure the safety of all persons and our institutions requires vigilance, as does the 
need to adhere to the timeframes associated with our classification processes. It was clear in the 
Inspector General's audit that compliance with timeframes did not occur in all of the cases they 
reviewed. As a result of this finding, I have asked staff to conduct additional training, implement 
stricter monitoring at the Associate Director level, and conduct enhanced on-site audits of 
administrative segregation. At its core, this problem will be addressed through more vigilant 
leadership and consistent measurement and assessment. 

However, I do not believe the report adequately reflected the challenges the Department faces in 
terms of moving inmates out of administrative segregation due to the pressures created by 
overcrowding and other court mandates which drive a complicated housing system. Because of 
these complications, the inmate might not have been moved out of administrative segregation 
even if the timeframes had been adhered to. It is possible that many of those cases, if reviewed 
during the appropriate timeframes, might have resulted in retention in ASU due to the inmate's 
conduct, safety concerns or because there were no beds available to which we could transfer that 
inmate. 



Visiting 

Many institutions have little or no space to process visitors who, in some cases, stand 
outside without shelter from sun or rain for several hours, waiting to visit inmates. Visits 
are terminated by staff when small visiting areas become too crowed. Some institutions 
allow appointments to minimize wait times, but others do not. 

14. Who do you hold responsible for informing you of problems with visiting at both 
adult and juvenile facilities? Is someone responsible for monitoring visiting 
practices for consistency among prisons? Who tracks visitor processing times and 
the number of terminated visits? 

Whenever I tour a facility, I make a point of asking about visiting and stopping by if it is in 
progress. In fact, one of the reasons I try to make occasional weekend trips to the facilities is so 
that I can observe operations such as visiting. 

In terms of day-to-day responsibility for visiting, it falls under the Director of the Division of 
Adult Institutions in the adult facilities and the Director of Juvenile Facilities for DJJ. For the 
adult facilities, there is a statewide visiting manager who is assigned to monitor visiting 
processes, identify concerns, ensure compliance with departmental policies and regulations, and 
train all visiting supervisors and Family Service Coordinators. There are clinical social workers 



96 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 1 6 



in the visiting room at 22 of our prisons. In addition to tracking visiting statistics, such as the 
number of inmates who receive visits, and the number of terminations, the statewide visiting 
manager is supposed to analyze reasons for terminations to identify inconsistencies or 
discrepancies. 

In the juvenile facilities, Watch Commanders are responsible for visiting. When there is a 
significant problem or issue at visiting, the Watch Commander notifies the Superintendent who 
then notifies the Director of Facilities. The Director notifies the Chief Deputy Secretary who in 
turn notifies the CDCR Executive Team. 

Superintendents are responsible for all activities within the facility. As for the overall operations 
of visiting, Superintendents delegate this responsibility to the Chief of Security (COS). The COS 
ensures all policies are being applied and tracks all essential components of visiting including the 
processing of visitors. Other areas monitored and tracked by the COS are the number of visitors 
who had their visits terminated or who were arrested as a result of a search for contraband. 

15. Family members can play important roles and be instrumental for a smooth 
transition to parolee status. Are you contemplating changes to family visiting or 
inmate phone call policies as part of recidivism reduction efforts? 

I agree that family members are critical to an offender's success in reentry. In fact, poor family 
relations are one of the criminogenic factors that put offenders at risk to reoffend. I strongly 
support improving CDCR's efforts in this area. 

One of the key benefits of the secure reentry facilities that we are building with AB 900 authority 
will be their proximity to families and the possibilities this creates for family involvement. 
Your question specifically references changes to family visiting or inmate phone calls. At this 
time, we are not planning for any changes to the family visiting policies. We are reviewing a 
proposed change to the inmate phone privileges, which would allow inmates to call cellular 
phones, in recognition of the growing number of family members who do not have traditional 
land line service and only have cellular phone service. 

As part of its Farrell reforms, DJJ is working closely with the nationally recognized Family 
Justice Institute to develop a "Family Access Policy" that captures all of the points in which 
families are or should be involved during their child's stay at DJJ. This initiative was piloted at 
O.H. Close and, after engaging families for input, policies were changed to facilitate more family 
involvement in the treatment and care of youth. It is now being introduced at additional DJJ 
facilities statewide. 

Additionally, Family Councils exist at all DJJ Facilities to get input into their operations. DJJ 
has also fully implemented the Youth Bill of Rights that allows for additional contact between 
youth and families. 



97 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 17 



Infrastructure 

CDCR faces a range of infrastructure issues, from a perennially leaking gymnasium roof at 
Pleasant Valley State Prison to a variety of water and sewage problems. Two years ago, 
Mule Creek State Prison in lone was fined $50,000 by the state for sewage discharges. 
More recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that drinking water from two wells at Kern 
Valley State Prison contained arsenic, a known cause of cancer, in levels higher than a 
federal safety standard about to take effect. But nearly three years missing a deadline to 
reduce the arsenic levels, the Times reported, the state had no firm plans or funding to meet 
the level. In fact, for some period the state failed to inform staff and inmates they were 
drinking contaminated water. Upon order of the state Department of Public Health, the 
prison posted notices in April 2008. The Times reported Warden Kelly Harrington said, 
"It's not that major of an issue." 

16. Please describe your view of the seriousness of the arsenic problem. What is the 
status of efforts to improve water safety? What are inmates being told about the 
water they drink? What will you do to avoid similar problems in the future? 

A significant portion of the San Joaquin Valley has arsenic levels that were well within national 
standards ten years ago, but when the standards were cut in half, the arsenic levels did not 
decrease and therefore they now exceed those standards. It is important to keep in mind that the 
drinking water in the Kern Valley State Prison comes from the same source as the tap water that 
goes into the single family dwellings in the City of Delano. It is also important to note that the 
compliance order CDCR received from the Department of Public Health specifically stated "This 
is not an emergency. If it had been you would have been notified immediately." However, even 
though health officials have informed the Department that there are no imminent risks, we are 
committed to providing safe drinking water in compliance with the changes in drinking water 
quality standards related to arsenic levels. Toward this end, we have been meeting with the 
Department of Public Health to ensure that our compliance plan meets their expectations. 
Specifically, we requested and received funding in the 2005 and 2006 Budget Acts for the design 
and construction of an arsenic removal water treatment system at KVSP. Given the subsequent 
proposals to build infill at these prisons, the scale of the initial project had to be reevaluated. 
Since then, the Department has been working with the Department of Finance to use $300 
million from the AB 900 General Fund allocation, which was designated for these types of 
infrastructure improvements. Simultaneously, we have been exploring the feasibility with the 
City of Delano in their efforts to address their arsenic problem which could ultimately provide 
water to KVSP from the municipal water system after its improvements. If this alternative turns 
out to be feasible and timely, we will revise our funding request accordingly. 

With respect to how inmates have been notified about the arsenic levels, as required by the 
compliance order, we have posted the approved California Department of Public Health notice, 
which informs inmates, staff, and visitors at KVSP that the levels of arsenic in the drinking water 
are above Drinking Water Standards. The notice also states "You do not need to use an 
alternative (e.g., bottled) water supply." 



98 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 1 8 



17. Staff at various prisons in your system choose to bring their own drinking water 
rather than drink the water provided. Who is responsible for monitoring the quality 
of drinking water at your institutions? How are you noticed of problems? 

Employees at every office building — whether it is in the private sector or at the county or state 
level — tend to bring bottled water to drink. It is a matter of personal choice for employees to 
decide whether or not to drink water from their office fountains or sinks. 

As indicated above, all inmates, staff, and visitors have been informed about the arsenic levels at 
KVSP. They have also been informed that they do no need to use an alternative water supply. 

In order to avoid similar problems in the future, we have developed a centralized Maintenance 
Services program that is responsible for providing regional support, guidance, and standards for 
all aspects of plant operations, particularly with environmental standards and regulatory 
requirements. We are in the process of collecting plant operations conditions on important 
systems such as potable water to avoid future problems to the greatest extent possible. 



Population Management 

The state's prison population grew from 56,000 in 1986 to 172,000 currently. Now, about 
13,700 inmates have their beds in area — such as gymnasiums — not originally designed as 
living space. A CDCR spokesman says this is almost 6,000 beds below the all-time high of 
19,600 nontraditional beds in August 2007. Partly in response to this overcrowding, the 
Legislature approved AB 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act 
of 2007, designed to build new space for 40,000 inmates in two major phases. One 
significant component was to establish space in community reentry facilities for up to 
16,000 inmates as they approach parole. Another was to transfer up to 8,000 inmates out 
of state. 

18. Have you produced a strategic plan that shows where all the new prison space will 
be located and a timetable for moving inmates out of nontraditional living spaces? 

Our current population is approximately 169,000. As of March 2009, there are 12,300 
nontraditional beds activated, which is approximately 7,300 less than the all time high of 19,618. 
One of the first tasks we completed within my first 100 days as Secretary was to develop an 
Integrated Strategy to Address Overcrowding. For a variety of reasons — most of which are 
beyond the Department's control- — many aspects of that strategy have been delayed. For 
example, the strategy was dependent upon AB 900 construction, which was delayed until last 
month due to the need for a legislative fix, and is now delayed due to the lack of funding 
available through the Pooled Money Investment Board. Additionally, the strategy assumed that 
the Receiver would build 10,000 beds. However, the Receiver did not receive legislative 
approval for the funding to build those beds. Finally, the strategy assumed a relatively 



99 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 19 



significant version of parole reform. While there has yet to be an agreement between the 
Administration and the Legislature about the most appropriate way to approach this, I remain 
committed to ongoing discussions with our stakeholders, including the Legislature to develop a 
safe and effective approach to parole reform. 

As the situation has changed, we have to modify our integrated strategy accordingly. Some of 
these changes have occurred within the last 30-60 days, i.e., legislative approval of the AB 900 
"fix" and ongoing developments in our relationship with the Receiver. 

The Legislature has received informational copies of several of our 30 day letters. Now that the 
AB 900 trailer bill has been enacted, we are working with DOF to forward official funding 
requests for several of these projects for your review in the near future, a step required by AB 
900. 

There are still a number of moving pieces, but the pressure to alleviate overcrowding remains, 
and I look forward to working with the Legislature to develop the most effective and efficient 
means to addressing overcrowding without compromising public safety. 

19. What is the status of reentry facilities? When do you expect the first one to open? 

Even while we were waiting for the legislative fix to AB 900, my staff were working diligently 
with our local partners to continue making as much progress as possible on developing the 
secure reentry facilities. By the end of last year, we had siting agreements for 2,500 reentry 
beds. In January 2009, the State Public Works Board authorized site selection for three of the 
sites — Kern County, Madera County, and San Bernardino County. The Northern California 
Reentry Facility in Stockton is still likely to be the first reentry facility to open and it should be 
ready for occupancy within 30 months after we receive funding. Unfortunately, due to the bond 
crisis in California, it is extremely difficult to predict when new construction projects, such as 
these, will be able to proceed. 



Sex Offenders 

After voters approved "Jessica's Law' many municipalities began passing their own 
residency restrictions. One reason frequently cited is the desire to avoid the "clustering" of 
registered sex offenders. Since the passage of the initiative, more and more offenders, 
including parolees, are registering as transient. Furthermore, the department has 
cancelled the contracts for treatment of "high risk sex offenders" and is significantly 
scaling back its housing assistance. The department is now using GPS to monitor 
registered sex offenders. 

20. What factors were considered when making the decision to cut treatment for high 
risk sex offenders? 



100 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 20 



As this question suggests, both Jessica's Law and related municipal restrictions are contributing 
causes of sex offender "clustering." As available housing decreases, larger groups of sex 
offenders are relegated to smaller areas of permissible housing. This issue is likely to only get 
worse as more and more municipalities impose further restrictions on sex offender housing. 

The Department has not decided to cut treatment for high risk sex offenders. However, we have 
delayed implementing the $43 million in new contracts for treatment services that was included 
in the current year budget. Originally these delays were the result of contract protests, which 
prevented us from finalizing agreements with the selected providers. Then, several months ago, 
as part of our internal efficiency efforts, we decided to delay the full implementation of these 
new services until the budget year. While this decision was not ideal, it was necessary to help 
address the current year deficit. In making this decision, we decided not to cut any of the 
existing contracts and instead to allow them to continue until they expired, which for most was 
December 2008. Between that time and July 2009, sex offenders in need of treatment services 
will have access to the services of the clinicians in the parolee outpatient clinics. In the 
meantime, we will be preparing the contracts for new services so they will be ready for 
implementation in July 2009. 

21. Please explain how the challenges parole agents face in placing registered sex 
offenders in permanent housing has changed with the passage of Jessica's Law and 
additional local ordinances. Do you anticipate any impact on public safety with 
scaling back of housing assistance? 

I have been out on "ride-alongs" with parole agents who supervise sex offenders and I have seen 
the impact of Jessica's Law and related local ordinances on the ability of our agents to find stable 
housing for sex offenders. It is certainly more difficult now. According to a recent report by the 
Sex Offender Management Board, there has been a nearly 800% increase in homelessness among 
sex offenders since the enforcement of Jessica's Law. 

Our parole agents have no choice but to enforce this law, even when it means removing parolees 
from stable, but noncompliant, housing. And I am pleased that we have been singled out as the 
only law enforcement agency in all of the state that is successfully enforcing Jessica's Law. But 
I do worry about the impact of this increasing lack of stable housing among sex offenders. 

One thing we have done to mitigate this concern is to better monitor these homeless sex 
offenders. I am pleased to report that we have successfully placed all sex offender parolees on 
GPS, months ahead of schedule. GPS allows us to know, for the first time, where these 
homeless sex offenders are going throughout the day. So, while homelessness is not ideal for 
these sex offenders, at least they are being monitored. 

As a separate matter, in recent years, the Department spent over $20 million annually to pay for 
sex offender housing. These payments were not funded, so the Department has now reined in 
this practice and returned to its existing policy of providing assistance to parolees for the first 60 
days of parole - a practice that the science and research tells us is the critical period for parole 



101 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 21 

success. By limiting the use of our housing assistance funds, as it was originally intended, we 
will be able to provide more parolees with the assistance they need to succeed on parole. I 
believe that by better using these funds we will positively impact public safety. 

22. Are you recommending any changes in policy that might assist you in enhancing 
public safety especially in terms of the challenges in dealing with this population? 

One of the greatest challenges we face is the ability to safely provide sex offender treatment 
inside our prisons. This has become such a challenge because these offenders are far too often 
victimized once they become known to other inmates. However, we know from the Expert Panel 
recommendations that sex offender treatment is an important aspect of addressing these 
offenders' risk to reoffend. We are in the process of looking at other jurisdictions for lessons 
about how to provide this treatment without imperiling their safety within the prisons. 



Program 

The Little Hoover Commission said in 2007 that program choices for inmates are limited, 
and that many offenders are released back to California communities with no more ability 
to succeed than when they arrived. Under the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation 
Services Act of 2007, the department was required to assess inmate needs for education, 
mental health, and substance-abuse treatment services. 

In 2006, instead of criticizing CDCR's programs, the Legislature provided funding for an 
"Expert Panel" of corrections administrators and academics to advise CDCR on the best 
program strategies. Their recommendations were released in 2007. 

23. Which Expert Panel recommendations have been implemented, which ones rejected 
and which ones are on track for future implementation? 

The Expert Panel had a total of 46 recommendations, including 1 1 recommendations and 35 sub- 
recommendations. 

According to the most recent March 15, 2009 California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, of the 
46 recommendations, 33 (or 72 percent) have been completed, implemented, are partially 
completed, are in process, or implementation has begun (including in some cases, as part of the 
"proof project"). There are an additional four recommendations which require legislative action. 
(For three of these, the Administration has made proposals, but they have yet to be approved.) 
Work plans have been developed for five of the remaining recommendations; resources have 
been approved with implementation pending in an additional one; and one (an earned discharge 
pilot) was suspended for further review. There are two remaining recommendations in which 
action is still pending. 



102 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 22 



24. How do you evaluate your performance in improving educational, vocational and 
self-help programs for inmates and parolees? 

I believe our performance in this area has been mixed. We have made excellent progress in 
terms of establishing policies, developing a plan, and beginning the process to roll out an entirely 
new model on a massive scale. Furthermore, we have continued to move forward with this effort 
despite our challenges with overcrowding, the State's fiscal crisis, and the fact that we had to 
essentially start from ground-zero in developing this model. 

However, in being critical of our progress, I think we should have started to emphasize self-help 
programs and the implementation of what we refer to as track one (improving utilization of our 
existing programs) at least 1 2 to 18 months earlier. 

While moving forward to implement the Expert Panel's to focus rehabilitative treatment on 
inmates who are soon to be released, we were slow to recognize the value of using our lifer 
population for mentoring, tutoring, and as substance abuse counselors. 

Even still, I am proud of the steady progress we have made in terms of improving utilization of 
existing programs. Specifically, in terms of inmate participation rates we have seen increases 
from 42 percent to 68 percent in traditional academic programs and from 42 percent to 62 
percent in vocational programs. 

25. With literacy rates in prisons at 7 th grade or below, what literacy strategy' does 
CDCR employ beyond basic classroom education that reaches relatively few 
inmates? What is the role of literacy tutoring and distance learning? 

To develop a literacy program for every inmate would be prohibitively costly. However, I agree 
with the inference that tutors and distance learning should play an enhanced role and that neither 
of these have been emphasized enough. 

Our Office of Correctional Education has developed a Statewide Literacy Plan, which outlines 
our approach to increasing literacy. We have developed a database that tracks reading scores for 
inmates by institution (including approximately 85 percent of our current inmates). Increases in 
literacy are one of many areas that we are tracking through our on-site interdisciplinary facility 
performance reviews. 

In addition, we currently have approximately 628 lifer/long-term offenders who have been 
trained to help other inmates learn to read. We have been working with the inmate Family 
Council to focus on the programming needs of long-term offenders. One of our goals as part of 
the Logic Model is to develop a "career track" for long-term offenders, which will be a way to 
expand programs such as this. 

We have also made some important improvements in non-traditional academic programs, such as 
independent study and distance learning. In FY 2005-06, average monthly enrollment was 560 



103 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 23 

in distance learning and 678 in independent study. As of the end of 2008, enrollment in distance 
learning had increased to 4,505 and in independent study it was almost 5,000. (Distance learning 
uses media such as television, DVDs, etc to provide instruction. Independent study programs are 
typically provided through correspondence exchange of curriculum under the guidance of a 
teacher.) 

In addition, enrollment in post-secondary college courses has also increased — from an average 
monthly enrollment of 991 in FY 2005-06 to almost 5,300 by the end of December 2008. We 
currently have about 80 different institutions of learning providing courses across the state. 

26. Many self-help programs have been cut back due to the budget crisis. Who makes 
these decisions? 

For the most part, any decisions to cut certain programs over this past year have been made by 
the Cabinet as a whole. This goes to back to the concept I discussed earlier about the need to 
build an integrated team that can help to make these types of decisions, taking into consideration 
limited resources and competing interests. I have been emphasizing that all aspects of the 
Department must work together to make these decisions. 

That said, there were self-help programs that had to be suspended last summer when there was 
not a signed budget. These decisions would have been made at the institution level by the 
warden and his or her management team and would likely have been the result of not having the 
available coverage to support the sponsor role. We may have also had to cancel volunteer or self 
help programs due to program modifications due to violence or quarantine purposes. 



Substance Abuse 

The Legislative Analyst has reported that the department has only enough drug treatment 
slots for about 6 percent of all inmates. To improve delivery of services, the department 
formed the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services. 

27. Please comment on the substance abuse treatment programs delivered to inmates 
and parolees. Are there new ways you want to approach this problem? 

One of the ways in which we are changing program delivery is through the development of a 
facilitator-training program for lifer inmates. There are approximately 50 inmates at Solano who 
are currently being trained as part of our "proof project" to facilitate substance abuse treatment 
programs. There are also two (soon to be 12) lifer/long-term offenders at the California Men's 
Colony who are receiving training for Forensic Addiction Corrections Treatment (FACT) 
certification. There are similar plans for providing FACT certification at R. J. Donovan 
beginning in spring 2009. At the same time, there are approximately 150 lifer/long-term inmates 
who serve as mentors in our in-prison substance abuse programs. I believe that by expanding this 



104 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 24 



type of program we can use inmates as a force-multiplier to help increase the availability of 
programs. 

Now that we are starting to have COMPAS assessments available for a significant portion of our 
population, we are discovering that we do not always have the right inmates in the right 
programs. This is especially frustrating with substance abuse programs. One of the difficulties 
the Department had in the past was that it was not able, on a large scale, to assess inmate's 
substance abuse needs, or provide the right duration of treatment or provide it at the right time 
during incarceration. Once we are able to move the right inmate into the needed program for the 
prescribed duration, we will be much closer to meeting the criminogomic needs of all inmates. 
All of these issues were part of the Inspector General's report and the Expert Panel 
recommendations. We are incorporating this into the model we are developing. 

28. Last summer all substance abuse program (SAP) treatment in prison was cancelled 
because the contracts with private contractors who provide it were cancelled in the 
wake of budget problems. What is the status of these programs currently? How 
many SAP slots are currently available and how many are filled? 

As a result of the delayed budget last summer, we had to temporarily suspend approximately 29 
in-prison SAP programs, but we were able to keep 1 1 programs serving civil addicts and in- 
prison parolees open. I worked closely with my Cabinet to try to mitigate the impact of these 
suspensions, but it was an unfortunate reality at the time. All of these programs were restored 
after about three to five weeks. However, I should point out that because of the ongoing fiscal 
crisis in addition to accounting conversions at CDCR, many of our contract providers have not 
received timely reimbursements. As a result, many are in a critical state and at risk of having to 
go out of business. We have been working with these providers in an effort to prevent this, but it 
is a very dire situation facing many. 

As of July 2008, there were over 10,000 in-prison substance abuse program beds, which was an 
increase of 1,200 over the same period three years earlier. Since then, we have been in the 
process of bringing on an additional 2,000 beds, which will bring our capacity to 12,000 (an 
increase of 35 percent since July 2005). In terms of substance abuse program beds in the 
community, our capacity as of July 2008 was 5,600 (an increase of 2,300 or 70 percent) from 
three years earlier. We are in the process of obtaining an additional 1,000 beds in the community 
which will drive our capacity up even further. 

In general, the enrollment rates for our substance abuse beds exceed 90%. (We are. however, 
still in the process of refining our data collection efforts so that we can track actual utilization of 
these beds.) 



105 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 25 



Risk and Needs Assessment 

Since the departmental reorganization, many CDCR administrators have referred to the 
goal of providing every inmate with a risk and needs assessment that would be conducted 
immediately upon intake and used continuously through parole. The assessment is being 
utilized in a new treatment model using what it calls "proof projects," starting with one 
located at Solano State Prison. The notion is that inmates with 36 months or less left on 
their sentences will be placed in programs they need as identified by the assessments. 

29. Are you satisfied that risk and needs are being assessed appropriately? If so, what is 
the timetable for implementation statewide? 

I think it is only fair to point out that the expert community is not unified on a single assessment 
tool. The approach we are taking, by building upon the COMPAS assessment which was 
initiated by the Department in the parole division in 2005, was endorsed by the Expert Panel. 
That said we are not satisfied with relying on a single assessment. As was recommended by the 
Expert Panel, we are employing secondary assessments in several of the program areas. In 
addition, with respect to the risk portion of the assessment, the Department worked with the 
leading national experts in this area and developed a validated static risk assessment that we are 
using to make decisions that require a risk assessment. 

With respect to implementation, the risk portion, known as the California Static Risk Assessment 
(CSRA) has been implemented statewide. Thanks to our partnership with the Department of 
Justice, we are able to get an automatic download of an offender's criminal history which auto- 
populates the CSRA, making it available for almost all inmates and parolees. I do not want to 
underscore the significance of this accomplishment. The hard work of the staff at both CDCR 
and DOJ who made this possible have placed the Department in a much better position with 
respect to being able to use an offender's risk level to make critical decisions — something that 
was not possible a year ago. 

The COMPAS assessment has been implemented at all Reception Centers. The new secondary 
assessments are being rolled out as part of the proof project (we already use secondary 
assessments in some areas, e.g., TABE). We are in the process of implementing ARNAT, which 
will make it possible to convey the assessment information in an automated format to the prisons 
where the inmates will be housed for the long-term. We are working with our labor 
organizations to implement these changes. 

Health and Mental Health 

In 1995 the Coleman case set out five elements needed in minimally adequate prison mental 
health care: proper screening, competent staff, timely access, adequate medical records and 
suicide prevention system. In October 2005, the judge issued Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law in the Plata case, ordering that California's prison medical care system 
be placed under the control of a court-appointed receiver. The court found that the system 



106 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 26 



is "broken beyond repair," causing an "unconscionable degree of suffering and death." 
You have state recently in an interview that you believe "on the whole" CDCR is providing 
constitutional care. 

30. What benchmarks do you use to determine that health and mental health care are 
now at constitutional levels? 

Our goal is not to merely meet the minimum level required by the Constitution, but to meet what 
we believe is the appropriate level of healthcare, which may be beyond the constitutional 
minimum, depending upon the circumstances. 

I toured our medical facilities in 2005 as the Inspector General. The clinics were small. Too 
often they were dirty. I found insufficient and poorly trained clinicians who had great difficulty 
in getting updated medical files. While I was the Inspector General, we began developing the 
concept of Medical Inspection Teams, which have since been rolled out on a broader scale. As 
these inspections have progressed, we are seeing the numbers rise. I believe we should be using 
this type of objective measure to determine if we have met the appropriate standards for medical 
care. 

I have visited about 10 prisons in the last few months. The clinic space has been expanded; it is 
clean and well-equipped. The physicians are impressive in their knowledge and commitment to 
inmate care. Access to Care teams have been added at every prison. In fact, the Receiver has 
said that there is likely an overutilization of specialty care. 

With respect to mental health care, the service provided to inmates has improved, but we still 
need additional beds and treatment space. Given the changes in the Receiver's plans, we are 
working on a mental health bed plan that we will submit to the court and the Legislature. 

31. Who is responsible for reviewing medical appeals of inmates, CDCR or the 
Receiver? 

The Receiver has primary responsibility for reviewing the medical appeals of inmates. They 
have established a unit to track this process and review all medical appeals. Mental health and 
dental staff serve as subject matter experts for appeals in those areas. 

Ultimately, however, this is one of many areas that require that the Department work hand-in- 
hand with the Receiver's Office. Despite the evolution in our litigation strategy, we are as 
committed as ever to working cooperatively with the Receiver on these types of issues. 

32. What can be done to further reduce recidivism rate for mentally ill parolees? Are 
parole outpatient clinics providing drug treatment for parolees who have both a 
mental illness and a substance-abuse addiction? 



107 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 27 

I am very pleased to report that we issued an RFP earlier this year for wrap-around services for 
mentally ill parolees. We expect to award these contracts by June 2009 and expect to be serving 
at least 300 parolees by this coming fall. 

In terms of whether our clinics serve parolees with both a mental illness and substance abuse 
addiction, while we provide parolees with both types of services, our divided model mirrors the 
delivery of care in the larger community. We are in regular communication with both substance 
abuse and mental health providers and look for recommendations in ways to better serve dual 
diagnosis parolees. 

While the parole outpatient clinics provide an important resource for parolees, we recognize that 
wrap-around services, such as those noted above and/or those used in mental health court, are 
much more likely to assist an offender in addressing his or her co-occurring disorders. 

In terms of meeting the needs of all of our offenders, we currently have approximately 25,000 
CCCMS inmates with some level of mental health issues. We are never likely to have enough 
wraparound services to meet that level of need. So we have to be dependent upon cities, 
counties, and families to help us provide services to the broader population, while we concentrate 
our limited resources on those with the most severe needs. 

33. The department recently petitioned the court to end the federal receivership. If the 
court were to rule in the department's favor, what steps would you need to take to 
once again take over the delivery of healthcare to inmates? What would you do to 
ensure that the department is able to provide a constitutional level of care? 

It is important to remember that at the field level, medical care is being provided by CDCR 
employees. These employees are supervised by regional administrators who are also CDCR 
employees. If the Receivership were to suddenly end, health care would continue to operate at a 
local and regional level as it does today. The transition would only be complicated at 
headquarters, where there are a number of redundancies and functions that would need to be 
integrated back into CDCR. For example, budget, human resources, and executive management 
would need to be integrated appropriately. Our staff has already begun working with the 
Receiver's staff to coordinate and integrate some of the oversight functions, such as Quality 
Management, Continuous Quality Improvement and the Professional Practice Evaluation 
Committee. 

In order to ensure that the Department did not lose any ground in terms of the gains made by the 
Receiver in medical care, we would need to establish proper independent oversight and reporting 
and ensure that sufficient infrastructure and resources were in place. 



108 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 28 



Personnel and Training 

The California Highway Patrol Commissioner told this committee recently that he 
established a new position titled "Assistant Commissioner for Leadership Development" in 
response to high vacancy rates and other problems. 

34. Who is responsible for leadership development in your organization? 

Ultimately, I am responsible for leadership development within the organization. In fact, we 
have been working on leadership development within our Cabinet. My Chief of Staff and I are 
in complete agreement in our management philosophies and are constantly working to 
underscore these principles in every meeting — either expressly or by example. I expect every 
member of my management team to model exemplary leadership practices and challenge each 
other to seek ways to change, grow and innovate. In addition, each of my managers is required 
to mentor and develop leadership talents in their staff. 

Leadership development is part of the strategic planning process that we are undergoing. This is 
not an area of historic strength for the Department, as it has tended to focus far more on 
responding to fires instead of long-term planning. 

We also have a contract with California State University, Sacramento for a formal leadership 
development course that began in fiscal year 2007/08. The 56 hour class is offered over three 
months and reflects the latest best practices in developing great leaders. Finally, our 
Ombudsman has been a great asset in this area. 

35. What is the status of ethics training in your department? 

The Agency provides formal ethics training in a number of different ways: 1) at the basic 
academy, adult cadets receive 18 hours of ethics training and juvenile cadets receive 8 hours: 
2) there are 2 hours of ethics training provided as art of the basic supervision training 
and 3.5 hours of ethics training provided in the advanced supervision training; and 3) there is a 
state requirement that designated staff take ethics training every 2 years and we offer the on-line 
DOJ Ethics course to meet this requirement. 

I recognize the need to ensure an exemplary code of conduct within the CDCR culture. Because 
of this I work hard to model the ethical behavior I expect to see from all of my employees. I 
believe if leaders display principled behavior, this provides the foundation and clarity for all 
employees in the organization to be ethical. This has been reinforced in our recent strategic 
planning and leadership development activities. 

36. Who is responsible for following up on training and determining whether it is 
adequate? 



109 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 29 



This is an area that I am very passionate about. However, I also believe that it is one of the 
reasons that it is so important to have consistency in leadership. As long as the Department 
continues to turn over a new Secretary every year, issues such this will never get addressed 
appropriately. As important as it is, leadership development and training rarely rises to the 
"urgent" category. It is always important. As I suggested at the beginning, one of my goals as 
Secretary has been to create an Office of the Secretary to focus on long-term planning and policy 
issues, such as strategic planning, which includes leadership development. In order to make any 
progress on this, you really need at least three years. Otherwise you continue with "fits and 
starts" as each new leader takes office. This is another area that I expect all of my management 
team to focus on as a high priority. All staff must receive training to perform their duties and be 
measured periodically to ensure their performance is satisfactory. 
Juvenile Justice Reform 

In 2004 the administration reached a landmark settlement in the Farrell lawsuit on the 
conditions of confinement in juvenile facilities. The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is 
supposed to implement a broad array of reforms, including creating smaller living units, 
improving education and mental health services, and bolstering safety. 

In February 2008, however, lawyers representing juveniles urged a judge to name a 
receiver to run the system they said remained broken. And last October an Alameda 
County judge stated the state was "in gross violation" of court orders by taking too long to 
reform its juvenile prison system. But he delayed appointment of a receiver to allow you 
time to speed up improvements. In addition, the little Hoover Commission recently 
recommended that the state eliminate its juvenile justice operations by 2011. The cost per 
ward at DJJ is now estimated to exceed $250,000 annually. The Little Hoover Commission 
also recommended consolidating programs and services into a single office in the 
administration and to develop a strategy for a comprehensive, statewide juvenile justice 
system. 

37. Are you satisfied with the amount of attention you are able to devote to the juvenile 
side of CDCR? Why or why not? 

My decision as the Inspector General to devote a large percentage of time to the audits and 
investigations related to CYA/DJJ should help to demonstrate how significant of a priority this 
issue is for me. As I mentioned earlier, I get a regular briefing from the Chief Deputy Secretary 
of Juvenile Justice, Bernard Warner on DJJ and Farrell related issues. In addition, I have been 
to all but one of the DJJ facilities since I became Secretary (in addition to any time I spent at 
these facilities as Inspector General). While I never feel that I have enough time to devote to any 
issue, I feel confident that DJJ has my utmost attention. 

38. Please describe your assessment of progress in juvenile institutions and what you 
intend to accomplish in the next 12-18 months, as well as the long term, to address 
the court's concerns. What is your role in monitoring the implementation of the 



110 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 30 



juvenile justice reform efforts required by the court in the Farrell lawsuit? 
Specifically, how do you track progress? 

As I mentioned earlier, DJJ reform is one of eight priority areas that I personally track on a 
monthly basis. As part of this effort, I regularly review the dashboards and compliance reports 
we prepare for the court. There are six remedial plans in the Farrell lawsuit with almost 6,000 
requirements. Of these, we have been found by the court experts to be in substantial compliance 
in over two-thirds of the items. 

Partly because of my frustration with our difficulty in conveying our successes to the court and 
other external stakeholders, shortly after I became Secretary, we decided to take a much more 
active approach to monitoring the Farrell lawsuit. As a part of this effort, we have identified a 
number of ways in which the remedial plans conflict and we are working with the court experts 
to resolve these conflicts. 

I have asked Chief Deputy Secretary Warner and his management team to develop a new 
business model for DJJ aimed at reducing the cost per youth at DJJ without compromising our 
mission. Over the next 12-18 months, DJJ will be refining and implementing this new business 
model. We will be working with the court to bless this effort, which in some cases may require 
adjustments to some of the remedial plans. 

While it is less objective, I also want to note, as I mentioned earlier, that I have already noticed a 
tremendous cultural change at DJJ. I described a recent visit to N.A. Chaderjian as an example 
of this, but it is evident at other facilities and parole offices as well. 

39. What specific changes are you directing to reduce costs at DJJ, and what is your 
time frame achieving these changes? What are your specific plans and goals with 
respect to continuing the operation of DJJ facilities? 

As noted in my previous answer, we are in the process of developing a new business model for 
DJJ. This effort will require the closure of an additional one or two of DJJ's facilities. In 
addition, we are conducting a comprehensive staffing analysis, including a review of the staffing 
packages approved as part of the Farrell reforms to determine the most appropriate, effective, 
and efficient staffing levels for DJJ. 

As part of this effort, we will also be exploring the possibility of establishing prototypical living 
units within existing facilities to provide an opportunity to implement some much-needed 
changes to DJJ's physical infrastructure. 

40. Are you satisfied with the way juvenile justice is currently organized in state 
government, especially with respect to the reorganization done in 2005? What could 
be done to improve oversight of juvenile justice programming- including both 
custodial and noncustodial sanctions- at both the state and local levels? 



111 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 3 1 



As I referenced in an earlier question, ultimately I believe that DJJ has had the most difficulty in 
thriving after the reorganization. That said, ultimately the most important issue is leadership. By 
saying this, I am not casting blame on my predecessors. I intend instead to suggest that if we 
can, once for all, align the administration, courts, and Legislature with a plan to move forward, it 
can be done as part of almost any organization. 

In recent days, many core stakeholders have questioned whether DJJ should be removed from 
CDCR. I can assure you that I have thought a great deal about this. In fact, I asked my staff to 
conduct a full analysis of the possibilities recommended most recently by the Little Hoover 
Commission. We went as far as preparing alternative scenarios. While I see the advantage to 
serving youth locally, ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the wards who remain under our 
jurisdiction (particularly since the enactment of Senate Bill 81) have tremendous needs, which I 
do not believe can always be met locally. That said, I will be the first to affirm that we need to 
continue striving to implement these reforms more efficiently and effectively. 

41. As the juvenile population has dropped below 2,000, you have closed several 
institutions, Are more closures planned? If so, where and what is the timeline? 

As I indicated above, I anticipate having to close another one to two facilities over the next 
couple of years. We are in the process of analyzing the population needs. I am committed to 
carrying out this process in a responsible manner, ensuring continued services to youth, 
providing options for displaced staff, and involving local communities to the extent possible. 



Female Inmates 

CDCR has developed a set of guidelines known as gender specific policies for female 
inmates. The female master plan for 2008 said, "The organizational capacity for 
implementing changes envisioned for women's programs and services is severely limited, 
particularly with regard to staff professionalism and skill sets relevant to the CDCR 
rehabilitation mission." 

42. What are you doing to maintain and refine gender specific policies for female 
inmates and to train staff? Gender responsive meetings have been cancelled due to 
the budget crisis. How do you ensure gender responsive policies are being 
implemented? 

One of the benefits of the reorganization and the creation of the Associate Directors was that it 
allowed the Department to consolidate the adult female institutions under one mission. This has 
enabled us to progress with our gender-responsive strategies in a much more effective and 
efficient manner than would have been possible under the former regional structure. 

As you are aware, the Department has established and intends to maintain a Gender-Responsive 
Strategies Commission (GRSC) which is managed by the Female Offender Program and 



112 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 32 



Services (FOPS) Associate Director. The GRSC, comprised of external stakeholders, subject 
matter experts, and CDCR staff, played a critical role in developing the master plan you 
reference in your question. Due to budget constraints and travel restrictions we have had to 
cancel some of the GRSC meetings this past year, but one is scheduled for April 2009, and we 
plan to continue with the subsequent meetings. 

FOPS is in the process of developing an action plan to ensure the implementation of the 
objectives outlined in the Master Plan. Implementation of the Master Plan, in its entirety is 
contingent upon the availability of appropriate funding. A workgroup compromised of Wardens 
at the female institutions have developed and revised several policies to make them gender 
responsive. We continue to monitor all policies related to female offenders to ensure they are 
gender responsive. 

With respect to training staff, a 32-hour curriculum was developed in January 2008. All three 
female institutions began training that month. In August 2008, the 32 hour training was provided 
to CDCR and contract staff at the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility for female 
offenders. We are planning to hire a retired annuitant to develop the remaining 8 hour 
communication training curriculum in 2009, which will complete the mandated 40 hour gender 
responsive training. 

While we had to delay the training this year due to budget constraints, the training has recently 
resumed in all three institutions. 

43. At various times in recent years, the administration has suggested transferring 
nonviolent, minimum security female inmates into community facilities. What is the 
status of these proposals? 

As your question suggests, over the years the Department has proposed transferring lower-level 
female offenders into community facilities. We currently administer a number of community- 
based treatment programs for female offenders, six of which allow nonserious, nonviolent 
offenders to reside with their children while completing the program. The first 25 bed Female 
Residential Multi-Service Center, which opened in Sacramento in 2008, provides community 
transitional services for female parolees. And, the Leo Chesney Community Correctional 
Facility houses 305 nonserious, nonviolent female offenders in a residential program that 
provides trauma informed substance abuse services. 

This past year, we received funding to establish 1,275 Female Rehabilitative Community 
Correctional Centers. In August 2008, we released an RFP to proceed with this effort. In the 
meantime, however, the State's fiscal crisis led the Administration to propose a significant parole 
reform that, if enacted, would have eliminated parole for all non-serious, non-violent, non-sex 
offender registrants. Given the potential impact that this proposal would have had on reducing 
the eligible population of female offenders, we did not believe it prudent (or fair to the 
prospective bidders) to proceed with the RFP process until there was greater clarity about the 
likelihood of such a significant parole reform. While the Governor's proposal was not approved 



113 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 33 

by the Legislature, we are still in the process of determining how the Department will implement 
the $400 million veto that we received, and must proceed with the assumption that some form of 
parole reform will still be implemented. 

Despite this uncertainty, the Department is proceeding with a 75 bed facility for female offenders 
in Bakersfield, which is scheduled to activate next month. In the meantime, we will continue to 
evaluate the long-term viability of additional beds. 



Parole 

Inmates released to parole receive $200 and are expected to report to a parole agent within 
a few days, sometimes at a distant location. You stated that CDCR releases approximately 
10,000 inmates each month. Since the reorganization, CDCR has spent millions in 
providing earlier and more accurate information about parolee risks and needs, including 
the employment of one or more Parole Agent lis inside institutions. 

44. How do you evaluate this effort to gather more data about inmates about to be 
released? Is it the right approach? If so, is it achieving recidivism reduction? 

As part of our overall plan to improve rehabilitative programming and reduce recidivism, we are 
gathering risk and needs data about inmates in a number of different ways. 

I believe that your question is specifically in reference to the COMPAS assessments, which the 
Department has been conducting at some level since 2005. Since then, we have assessed over 
150,000 inmates and parolees. As I described earlier, we are now conducting COMPAS 
assessments on every specified inmate at the Reception Centers. When this assessment process 
is fully implemented, we will be able to automate this data and use it to develop a case plan. 
Currently, at our proof project, the counselors are able to use the data from COMPAS to assist in 
making program assignments. In the aggregate, we can use this data to help us determine the 
general criminogenic needs of various portions of our population. 

For a more detailed understanding of an offenders' need in a particular area (i.e., education, 
substance abuse, etc.), we will be utilizing secondary assessments, as recommended by the 
Expert Panel. We have selected these assessments and are about to begin using them at the proof 
project. 

Finally, our static risk assessment, the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), which was 
developed by national experts and validated on California's population was fully implemented 
late last fall. The CSRA allows us to identify the risk to reoffend (low, moderate, or high) of all 
current inmates and parolees. This assessment is a critical component of the Parole Violation 
Decision Making Instrument (PVDMI) which we began piloting last fall to assist parole agents in 
making appropriate decisions in applying sanctions to parole violators (based on risk level and 
severity of the violation). 



114 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 34 



To the extent that your question seeks to know whether or not these assessments are reducing 
recidivism, our efforts today to provide effective rehabilitative treatment will not become 
apparent for at least three years, i.e., after these offenders complete the programs, leave prison, 
and fail to return. However, we know from the research provided by the experts that tools such 
as this are critical to realizing any reductions in recidivism. 

45. How do you account for the extremely low level of female parolee beds? 

The answer to this question is similar to the one earlier about transferring lower-level female 
offenders into community beds. Last April, the Department activated its first Female Multi- 
Service Center for female parolees. Increasing the number of these beds is part of the 
Department's Master Plan for Female Offenders. In fact, toward that end, we released an RFP in 
May 2008 for an additional 250 beds. These beds were tentatively scheduled to be activated in 
January 2009. However, because of the ongoing uncertainty about parole reform and its 
potential impact on significantly reducing the need for these beds, the Department has delayed 
making any long-term commitments in this area. At this time, we intend to resume the RFP 
process in the budget year, but we will obviously have to reevaluate this if a significant version 
of parole reform is implemented. 

46. What parole reform do you recommend, if any? What is your timetable? Please be 
specific 

I am committed to implementing parole reform. California is one of only a few states that places 
almost every offender on parole. At the same time, we return offenders to prison at almost twice 
the national average. This churning of low-level offenders through our prisons has led to 
significant overcrowding in our reception centers. Essentially, this revolving door provides us 
only enough time to identify their criminogenic needs, but not enough time to address them. I 
have supported a number of parole reform efforts. We have begun implementing certain aspects 
administratively. For example, our Parole Violation Decision Making Instrument (PVDMI), as I 
described earlier, uses a risk assessment to ensure that parole agents are returning the right (i.e., 
higher risk) parole violators to prison and placing the lower-risk violators in alternative 
sanctions. 

In terms of other specific reforms, we are continuing to explore versions of direct and earned 
discharge among certain non-serious, non-violent populations. I remain committed to working 
with the Legislature and other stakeholders to identify a solution that makes our system more 
effective without compromising public safety. These reforms will be presented as part of our 
package of proposals to achieve $400 million in savings this spring. 



115 



Senate Rules Committee March 1 7, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 35 



Board of Parole Hearings 

The department reorganization established the Board of Parole Hearing that exercises 
jurisdiction over inmates serving life terms under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, state 
prisoners serving specified terms of less than life, and those sentenced to life with the 
possibility of parole. At hearings when inmates are reviewed for the suitability of parole, 
they are often advised to enroll in a specific prison self-help program, such as anger 
management or a prison education program. The board hearing process has recently 
undergone a major change because of the November 2008 passage of Proposition 9. 

47. How is the new law impacting the prison population, and what do you project to be 
its long-term impact on the number of inmates in the system? 

It is still too soon to project the impact of Marsy's Law on our inmate population. Not only are 
significant aspects still facing a legal challenge, but it could take several years before any 
changes would be seen in the population numbers. 

48. How do indeterminate life inmates fit into your rehabilitation model? What 
programs are available for them if priority is to be given to the large number of 
inmates being released in three years or less? 

Lifer and long term inmates definitely fit into our rehabilitation model. First, the evidence shows 
that prisons are safer when offenders are meaningfully engaged in programs or activities. This is 
particularly relevant for long-term offenders because they can play such a critical role in 
influencing the behavior of other inmates. 

The challenge for integrating these offenders into the rehabilitative model comes from the fact 
that, as the Expert Panel noted, when there are limited resources for rehabilitative services, they 
should be directed toward offenders who are most likely to return their communities in the near 
term. However, we do not want to implement a model that excludes longer-term inmates. 
Therefore, in our proof project, we have adopted a "do no harm" approach, which means that we 
will not remove longer-term offenders from their assigned programs (unless this program is 
contraindicated, i.e., a non-substance abuser in a substance abuse program). 

In addition, we are designing "career tracks" for lifers and offenders with longer lengths of stay. 
We are modeling this idea at the proof project site with a Certification Program at Solano, where 
lifer inmates will be able to earn counseling certification after going through an intensive 
certification program. They will then be trained and certified to provide substance abuse 
counseling and mentorship to SAP participants at Solano. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we have 
over 600 long-term offenders trained as tutors. We will continue to work on expanding both of 
these options and others like them for the long-term offender population. 



116 



Senate Rules Committee March 17, 2009 

Matthew L. Cate 
Page 36 



49. Please describe the process of communication between prison staff and the board on 
the type and availability of programs for life-term inmates sentenced with the 
possibility of parole. What role do you play? 

The Board of Parole Hearings and the Division of Adult Programs have been making concerted 
efforts to improve communication across organizational lines. As a result, Commissioners are 
supposed to be provided with a master list of all available programs, including updated 
information, when they arrive at an institution so they are aware of which programs are available 
before making their recommendations. 

Commissioners are also encouraged to visit academic, vocational, and substance abuse programs 
to learn more about these programs. 



117 



To: The California Senate Rules Committee; 

% Nettie Sabelhaus, Appointments Director 
From: Collene (Thompson) Campbell 

Dear Chairman and Committee Members: 

I thank the Senate Rules Committee for your consideration of my 
appointment as a Corrections Standards Authority Board Member. 

On the following pages is the list of questions submitted to me. 
Each question is followed by my brief response to your request for 
information regarding my goals, my perception, my knowledge and 
ability: 

CoSttu Qtmp6eC[ 



1 . Please provide a brief statement of your goals. What do you hope to accomplish 
during your term on CSA? How wlU you measure your success? 

I hope to achieve deeper concerns with greater consideration and a 
constant effort for improved public safety. I will measure my success by 
accomplishing a lower recidivism rate by released inmates. 

To respond directly to the questions, I believe, it is important for 
the Senate Rules Committee to be aware that I am not a government 
employee, nor am I on anyone's payroll. The time I serve on 
commissions and boards is totally my donated personal time. I am 
extremely dedicated to improving public safety. As one of the hardest 
hit crime victims in the nation, having three immediate family members 
murdered in two separate and unrelated crimes and with the 
investigation and trials covering a combined quarter of a century, I 
have been saturated in the field of crime. These personal losses and 
experiences have given me an in-depth education of crime and the sad 
knowledge that many offenses are caused because of recidivism. 
Admittedly, I come from a very different education and one that no one 
would choose to endure. I have experienced and learned a great deal 
working with tens of thousands of victim and their families, plus law 
enforcement Hopefully, with my 'hands on" education and deep 
commitment, I can help prevent others from suffering from crime and 
evil. I believe many crimes could be avoided with proper and timely 
educational programs during incarceration, plus extensive evaluation 
prior to release. Senate Ruies Committee 

mak 3 c ?m 

.. 118 

^ppomtmenfe 



119 



-2- 

2. What lessons do you bring from your experience as a member of the 
Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training, as welt as being a 
longtime advocate for victims' rights? 

I have worked with the POST staff and commissioners to help 
develop unique training. As one example: I worked with POST to 
produce a comprehensive DVD to help victims to better understand all 
segments of the justice system and how to more effectively work with 
law enforcement to bring true and swift justice, which saves time of law 
enforcement In the DVD, I brought forth all perspectives, including 
defense attorneys, public defenders, judges, prosecutors, victims etc to 
expose the rights of the accused and their victim. My many years of 
experience serving as mayor, a city councilman and planning 
commissioner may have played a role in helping the CSA board and 
staff to realize the many problems instituting and bringing to reality 
correctional facilities that was signed Into law in 2007., plus the new 
jails, reentry facilities and juvenile detention centers. Sadly, it takes an 
extraordinary length of time to obtain rights t build on the land and the 
many permits in crowded cities and counties. Because of time 
restraints, pulling the money from these facilities is not the way to get 
our jails, reentry and juvenile facilities built. Hopefully, I can bring 
better understanding and knowledge regarding the length of time it 
takes to get approval on these facilities, instead of penalizing the 
counties that are fighting the bureaucracy to bring forth new facilities. 
My many years in city planning and city councils will hopefully give a 
better understanding of the problems, instead of removing the 
opportunities for these facilities in highly needed areas. In addition, as 
the daughter of a captain on the Alhambra, CA Police Department, I 
grew up respecting justice and understanding the huge job and need for 
dedication of law enforcement officers. I also sit on the Board of the 
National Institute of Corrections (NIC). 

3. What training did you receive to help you understand the various 
responsibilities of CSA? How long did it last? 

Working with victims, I have long observed the Youth and Adult 
Correctional Agency and the Board of Corrections. However, the only 
formal training I received after being appointed to the board was 
indoctrination for about two and half hours by members of the CSA 
staff that worked diligently to ''bring me up to speed". The most recent 
executive director came to my home where we had an in-depth two hour 
conversation. I have asked numerous questions of staff members. 



3- 



4. The CSA board meets every other month. Is this often enough for the board 
to carry out Its Increasing number of missions ? How do you stay informed of 
CSA's activities? 



In most cases it seems that the CSA Board meets often enough to 
receive reports and information from the CSA Staff. It appears to me 
that the Board must trust the Executive Director and staff to report 
problems, successes and the necessity to make changes for 
improvement I do believe we receive adequate information to help the 
board make the necessary decisions and staff has been available for 
questions. 



5. What, in your view, should be CSA 's top priorities? If CSA does lack 
resources, how will you prioritize projects and activities? 

My top priority would be concern for public safety by providing 
appropriate early programs. We must be ascertain as possible that 
when an inmate is released he is carefully evaluated, assuring he is both 
capable and desirous to be a productive citizen. That inmate must also 
know there are bad consequences if he does not follow that "honest" 
road. 

NOTE: I feel it is appropriate for the Rules Committee to be aware that 
our only Son was murdered by an early released inmate from the 
California prison system and the second killer was on a work furlough 
program. Therefore, along with many others, I truly understand both 
the importance and the consequences of suitable inmate training and 
evaluation prior to release. A question that should always be asked, 
"Would I want this inmate released near my family?** I also believe It 
valuable that we set the standard that all inmates should be productive 
and not have things handed to them unearned. It is important that we 
recognize and "act on the fact" that on July 1, 2005 CSA was also given 
the additional responsibilities of setting minimum standards for state 
correctional facilities. 



120 



-4- 



6. What is the status of this part ofAB 900 implementation? What process was 
used to identity counties forAB 900 jail funds? Specifically, please describe the 
mental health and substance abuse facilities that have been established in those 
counties that are scheduled to receive these funds. What role have you played? 

To date, I have played no role. However, as a person that has 
served as mayor and on many boards for cities, state and for the federal 
government I understand the extremely long process of obtaining 
permits and I feel strongly that a county's eligibility should not be 
eliminated because their county or city was unable to meet the time 
standards. Obviously, the most crowded counties and cities are the 
ones having problems obtaining land use permits and approval. 
As a side note, I believe it is important for members of any state board, 
commissions, city councils, planning commissions to meet and know 
their fellow members and to be able to recognize knowledge and 
expertise in different areas of our responsibility, thereby developing a 
better working team. We have not made time to acquire this type of 
knowledge because of time restraints. 



7. CSA staff says there is another $160 million to be awarded. Please explain 
how this process will work. Will counties still need to agree to build reentry 
facilities in order to receive any of the $160 million? 

Actually the amount is 164 million to be awarded. It will be distributed 
by the Executive Steering Committee. Building reentry facilities is part 
of the agenda. 



Standards 

The reorganization of 2005 established a January 1, 2007, deadline for CSA to 
set minimum standards for state correctional facilities. However, several board 
members previously have indicated that the board does not have the resources 
to meet this goal. 



121 



-5- 

8. Please describe the current status of this effort and what steps have been 
taken to obtain funding and staff to fuifHI this part of the CSA mission. 

As a new board member it appears that CSA staff is faced with a 
tremendous challenge to fulfill, what seems to be, an under-funded 
mission. The 2005 reorganization did not provide sufficient funds or 
personnel to accomplish or allow for the expanded service. CSA's 
administration is meeting with CDCR and attempting to address the 
short fall as related to CSA's responsibilities. 



9. How is the board addressing other responsibilities, such as spelling out 
the duties of correctional officers and other correctional jobs or validating 
the test given to correctional officer applicants? What Is the time frame for 
completing these duties? 

Staff has routinely supplied information and updates. However, I 
have not been on the CSA Board long enough to obtain and absorb 
information and ask detailed questions. It is my understanding that 
this type of information will be on line by Dec. 2009 or early 2010. 



10. How often does your staff inspect a county jail or juvenile hall? Do they 
make surprise visits? Do you believe the number of visits is sufficient? 

Penal Code Section 6031.1 requires an inspection every other year 
which the staff adheres to. They do not give surprise inspections. If 
resources permitted, I would be in favor of more frequent 
inspections. 



1 1. Are you able to personally visit facilities and familiarize yourself with 
conditions? If so, what have been your findings? If not, how do you leam 
about these issues? 

I am a new CSA board member and on a fast learning curve. Since 
CSA schedules meetings in prison facilities, I expect to learn much 
more in the months to come about facilities and conditions. I have 
been Inside of prisons during two of the CSA Board meetings. 
During my years on the National Institution of Corrections (NIC) 
Board, I have been in and observed numerous federal prisons. 



122 



-6- 

12. Do you believe the authority has sufficient power to ensure that needed 
changes are made after inspections? Do you need additional enforcement 
tools? 

As a new board member I am unable to adequately and honestly 
answer this question. However, I certainly believe the authority needs 
ample power to ensure that the facilities are operated properly in order 
to obtain the critical results that are desperately needed for 
rehabilitation and public safety. They must have the power and 
authority to successfully complete their very tough and critical mission. 

Education Requirements 

Among many other requirements, CSA is responsible for ensuring the education 
of minors in county juvenile lockups and the compliance of local officials with 
state regulations. As part of their inspections, authority officials are supposed to 
determine if minors are enrolled in classes within three days of admission, check 
for minors who are kept out of class for disciplinary reasons, and ensure there 
are enough teachers. 

13. What oversight do you provide to ensure the inspections are complete 
and accurate? 

The CSA Board does not provide direct over-site. The Board relies 
on staff that is very diligent about submitting information and/or 
answering questions. 



14. What role should CSA play in ensuring better educational opportunities for 
the incarcerated? How do you ensure compliance with applicable codes of 
Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations governing the Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation? What is the appropriate action for the 
authority to take when it finds that a county is not meeting its obligation to 
provide adequate space for classes? 

Better education is essential. CSA inspection is critical in auditing 
determining the compliance and making certain the facilities are 
providing the educational programs that are mandated by the State 
Education Code and County Board of Education policies. To ensure 
compliance, after a report is supplied and it goes through the process, 
the county has 60 days to submit to the CSA a corrective action 
response. If the county fails to correct the compliance issue within the 
time frames, the county will be required to come before the CSA Board. 



123 



7- 



SB 81— The Juvenile Justice Realignment Act 

15. Have any counties applied for these funds? What is the status of those 
applications? 

I understand that this information will be on line by March 19, at 
which time it will be evaluated and conditional awards will be made. 



16. What steps has CSA taken to conduct its increased oversight 

responsibilities due to the passage of SB 81? How are you Involved? 
What is your understanding of the purposes for which these funds may be 
used? 

SB 81 was amended. Many issues need to be worked, clarified and 
straightened out. 



17. Previous appointees have voiced concerns about whether adequate 
resources are available to fully implement these changes. Do you share 
those concerns? If so, please explain. 

Yes, I do share these concerns and in the short time I have been on 
the CSA Board, I have not seen action to correct the problem. I have 
seen nothing being done. 

Grant Administration 

The authority awards a variety of law enforcement grants. 



18. What oversight does the board perform to ensure that funds are being 
spent on the stated purpose of grants? How does the board determine 
whether programs are achieving desired results? 

The CSA Board has charged and assigned staff with consistent 
monitoring of the fiscal and programming programs. 



19. Given that some board members represent local agencies or other entities 
that may be eligible to compete for certain grant funds, how does the CSA 
board protect against potential conflicts of interest? 

As per any conflict of interest situation, it seems to be closely scrutinized 
and monitored by the entire CSA Board. The procedure seems O.K. 



124 



611-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications & Flags 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)651-1538 

Make checks or money orders payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Credit cards not accepted. 

Please include stock number 611-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 

1:39 P.M. 



GOVERNMENT 
DOCUMENTS DEPT 

AUG * 7 2009 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



612-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
- -0O0- - 



HEARING 

STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

- -0O0- - 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 
1:39 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 



Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6713 





1 


INDEX 




SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 


2 






STATE OF CALIFORNIA 


3 


p aqe 




- - 0O0 - - 


Proceedings 1 






4 


Governor's Appointees: 






5 


MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary, Department of 
Corrections and Rehabilitation 2 




HEARING 


6 








7 


DISCUSSION RE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 


3 


STATE CAPITOL 


8 
9 


Questions by SENATOR AANESTAD re: 

Computerized Inmate records 3 




ROOM 113 


10 


Current technology 5 




SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 


11 


Parole boards 6 




12 


DISCUSSION RE DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE .. 


7 


--O0O-- 


13 


Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 






14 


Keeping DJJ 8 






15 


DJJ business plan 17 




WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 




1.39 P.M. 


16 


Correctional education 




- -oOo- - 


17 












Follow-up and compliance 28 






18 


Questions by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 






19 


Plan for juvenile offenders 9 






20 






Reported By INA C. LeBLANC 




Impact of layoffs on programs .... 19 




Certified Shorthand Reporter 


21 






CSR No, 6713 




Farrell lawsuit/release of wards 






22 


from their rooms 24 






23 


Questions by SENATOR DUTTON re: 






24 
25 






Services provided by DJJ 15 

iii 


APPEARANCES 


1 


Questions by SENATOR DUTTON (cont.) 




MEMBERS PRESENT 


2 


Timeline on reduced cost per 
juvenile offender 18 




SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG, Chair 


3 
4 


Relocation of staff 20 










DISCUSSION RE AB 900 AND INFRASTRUCTURE 


30 


SENATOR GIL CEDILLO 


5 


Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 




SENATOR SAMUEL AANESTAD 


6 


Location of 2500 beds and housing 




SENATOR ROBERT DUTTON 


7 
8 


inmates closer to home 31 




SENATOR JENNY OROPEZA 


Providing mental health services 




9 


to inmates 36 






Recovery model of mental health 


STAFF PRESENT 


10 

11 


treatm ent/system s-of-care 
approach 38 

DISCUSSION RE HEALTHCARE 40 




GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 


12 


Questions by SENATOR AANESTAD re: 




JANE LEONARD BROWN, Committee Assistant 


13 


Overcrowding and the healthcare 




NETTIE SABELHAUS, Appointments Consultant 
DAN SAVAGE, Assistant to SENATOR CEDILLO 


14 
15 


crisis 40 




Cost of healthcare to inmates 






in Texas versus California 44 




BILL BAILEY, Assistant to SENATOR AANESTAD 


16 


Release of older inmates to 




CHRIS BURNS, Assistant to SENATOR DUTTON 


17 


receive healthcare outside of 

the prison system 45 




BRENDAN HUGHES, Assistant to SENATOR OROPEZA 


18 


Need for seven new prison 






19 


hospitals 50 




ALSO PRESENT 


20 


Questions by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 






21 


Compliance with healthcare 
standards 47 




MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary, Department of 


22 






Corrections and Rehabilitation 


23 


Outcome from scorecards 48 












Receiver's relationship to CDCR 






24 


relative to mental health 49 






25 






ii 




iv 





!3 sheets 



Page 1 to 4 of 6 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



1 




Q 


uestions by SENATOR DUTTON re: 






2 






Responsibility for releasing 

inmate medical information 53 


1 


PROCEEDINGS 


3 






Standardized designation form .... 54 


2 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good afternoon, everyone. 


4 








3 


The Senate Rules Committee will come to order. 


5 




Q 


uestion by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 


4 


Plea se ca II th e ro II. 


6 

7 






Management structure in place 
to successfully run healthcare 
svstem in state prisons 55 


5 
6 


MS. BROWN: S e n a to r C ed illo . 

utton . 


8 


DISCUSSION RE PAROLE 56 


7 


O ro p eza . 


9 




Q 


uestions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 


8 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Here. 


10 






Policy and budget 57 


9 


MS. BROWN: Oropeza here. 


11 
12 






Public safety impact of 
administration's proposal 58 


10 
11 


Aa n estad . 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Here. 








Risk assessment 59 


12 


MS. BROWN: Aanestad here. 


13 




14 
15 
16 




Q 


Parole agents determining risk ... 65 

Ratio of parolees recommended 
for probation and parolees 
discharged 66 

Proposal 75 


13 
14 
15 
16 
17 


Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Here. 
MS. BROWN: Steinberg here. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. We have a 
quorum. I believe Senator Cedillo is absent today. 


17 
18 
19 


uestions by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 






Risk assessment process and 
staffing 62 


18 
19 


He'll be here. Never mind. I retract that statement. 
We're wa ting for Senator Dutton as well. 


20 






Female programs 68 


20 


Let me welcome back Secretary of CDCR, 






21 






Caseloads 72 


21 


Matt Cate. Please come on up. We appreciate very much 






22 






Parole reforms 73 


22 


you coming back. I know you are a busy man. We're 






23 
24 
25 


Witnesses in Support of MATTHEW L. CATE: 

SCOTT THORPE, California District Attorneys 
Association 77 

V 


23 
24 
25 


sensitive about your time, but, as we said last week, 
this is a very, very important process, and, you know, 
hopefully, in the end -- Let me just state one of my 

1 


1 


W 


itnesses in Support of MATTHEW L. CATE (cont.l: 














1 


motives and goals here. 


2 


GAIL 


STEWART, San Diego County District 


2 


Hopefully, in the end, we can help you by 


3 


Attorney 79 


3 


pushing in some areas that, you know, may be difficult 




ASSEMBLYMAN LARRY BOWLER, The Presley 


4 


to push when you're, you know, a member of an 


4 


G 


ro u 


p 80 


5 


administration. So I'm not prejudging the outcome here, 


5 








6 


but that's certainly one of my motives. 






--o Oo -- 


7 


MR. CATE: Thank you, Senator. My pleasure to 


6 








8 
9 


be here. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good, good, good. 


7 


P 


roceedings Adjourned 84 


10 


last week, just to review, we did request more 


8 


C 


e rti 


ficate of Reporter 85 


11 
12 


detail, not for today, but for the 22nd of April, on 
in-prison orograms, particularly, literacy, and 






9 
10 
11 








13 
14 


leadership development, and succession planning. And we 
asked by the 22nd of April that there be some 


12 








15 


specificity around timelines, benchmarks, expansions, 


13 
14 
15 








16 
17 


resources needed, so that together we have a road map to 
be able to improve in these areas and also to be able 


16 








18 


to. as we talked about last time, replicate best 


17 








19 


practices. 


18 
19 
20 








20 
21 


Today we want to cover a number of areas: the 
Division of Juvenile Justice, AB 900 and infrastructure, 


21 








22 


courts and litigation, parole, and information 


22 
23 
24 








23 

24 


technology. 

V^ h y don't we begin, without objection, with 


25 






vi 


25 


Senator Aanestad, who will take the lead on the 

2 



34/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 5 to 2 of 6 



2 of 23 sheet 



information technology area. 

Senator Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 
welcome again, Mr. Secretary. 

MR. CATE: Thank you. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: One of the things that I've 
noticed in all of the different parole hearings that 
we've had with various members is that they're still 
working with banker's boxes full of inmate files and 
copious amounts of paperwork. 

I know that in my hospital system, now when I 
go in to see a patient, all there is is a computer -- 
there's not even a patient chart anymore -- which 
allows, then, the dissemination of that information 
between various parts of the hospital. That patient's 
chart can be accessed from my office. It can be 
accessed, actually, from my office on the Senate floor 
here, if I so desire. 

What kind of procedures or policies are -- do 
you see in place to try to modernize the tracking of 
inmates, putting their records on the computer so that 
you won't have as many errors and will have a more 
seamless ability to follow them through wherever they 
go? 

MR. CATE: Yes. Well, well before I was 

3 



1 our intent to let that contract. We're now in 

2 negotiations with Hewlett Packard, EDF, and that 

3 contract should be signed by the end of this month 

4 sometime. Actually, maybe within the next week. 

5 What we hear from the vendor is they will have 

6 completed the process of scanning and moving from a 

7 paper system to an electronic file system in the prisons 

8 within approximately one year, and then we'll move to 

9 parole, and then finally to the Division of Juvenile 

10 Justice. So that's where we're at on the paperless 

11 system. 

12 SENATOR AANESTAD: Are you pretty certain that 

13 the technology that you've contracted with is current 

14 and will be current three to five years from now? 

15 MR. CATE: As confident as a layman in these 

16 things can be. We have ensured that we are going to be 

17 able to work with the court system, for example, that 

18 the court's new electronic data system will communicate 

19 with our electronic file system, and that they're 

20 compatible. 

21 The same thing is true with the receiver. The 

22 receiver and I, in fact, are going to sign this contract 

23 together when the final negotiations are complete. 

24 And also we've had Teri Takai, the chief 

25 information officer for the state, working with us very 



appointed, the administration identified the problem 
! that you've stated today. One of the main concerns we 
I have with our current paper system is that ideally, each 
\ inmate or offender -- well, put it this way: The ideal 
> system is for each part of the process to be able to 
J access the inmate's file, and right now, as you pointed 
r out, if an inmate's being ready to parole, the parole 
} agent can't see the file, if the file is at the prison, 
) without going to the prison. And, similarly, the mental 
) health professional can't view it, et cetera. The list 

1 goes on of people who really need to see that file that 

2 are part of that management treatment team. 
And so long before I was appointed, the 

administration began to invest in what's stalled the 
strategic offender management system, or SOMS for short, 
which would take our current paper files, what's called 
a central file, some of which are as long as this table, 
and convert those -- scan them and then convert them to 
a paperless system. Obviously, with 170,000 inmates and 
125,000 parolees, it's an enormous process. So much 
work has already been done. 

Last week the department announced that we 
were -- we were -- we had the intent to provide or to 
let this contract. It was IBM versus another -- EDF, I 
believe, was the other party. And so we have noticed 

4 



1 closely on this project to ensure that it will indeed 

2 meet our needs for years to come. 

3 SENATOR AANESTAD: You mentioned they will have 

4 the transfer of data in a year, but I'm sure there's 

5 going to be some time before it's really available for 

6 the parole board to be able to access that material and 

7 start using it on a regular basis. Do you have an 

8 estimate as to when that can be? 

9 MR. CATE: Well, I know that over the course of 

10 the next three months, we're going to be moving, 

11 basically, desktop computers to 13,000 locations 

12 statewide to be able to have access to this information 

13 throughout the state. Whether specifically those will 

14 be available to the board of parole hearings within that 

15 year, I'm not sure. 

16 But my understanding is once those are in 

17 place, it's really pretty easy to add new portals for 

18 people to view that information. But I can specifically 

19 check on the board of parole hearings issue for you. 

20 SENATOR AANESTAD: And do you know with what 

21 the federal receiver is doing regarding healthcare in 

22 the prison system, whether information technology is 

23 part of the cost of what he submitted for also? 

24 MR. CATE: It is. I know that he is going to 

25 be using the SOMS project and is financing some of the 

6 



f 23 sheets 



Page 3 to 6 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



1 SOMS project so that he can -- his medical-appointments 

2 process will be compatible with our system so that we 

3 will be able -- throughout the prisons, to be able to 

4 check on inmate appointments and inmate care. 

5 SENATOR AANESTAD: I guess the question 

6 is: When they're downloading data, are we talking about 

7 just current inmates, or are we going to go back several 

8 years? 

9 MR. CATE: Only inmates who are currently in 

10 the prison system, and then those who are currently in 

11 the parole system when we get to that step. 

12 SENATOR AANESTAD: Okay. Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. Any Members 

14 have questions on IT before we move on to the next 

15 category? 

16 All right. I'd like to move on to the Division 

17 of Juvenile Justice, which often gets sort of ignored in 

18 the larger conversation about corrections. And, of 

19 course, the goal is to make sure that we do everything 

20 we can to make sure those offenders do not end up in our 

21 state prisons. 

22 So if I might begin, another federal court in 

23 the Farrell lawsuit held that the State is in gross 

24 violation of various orders relating to the improvement 

25 of DJJ. The Little Hoover Commission has recommended 

7 



1 wards and youth that we're talking about. 

2 I think, though, that two things need to 

3 happen: One, we need to improve our treatment of these 

4 wards. I think the Farrell case is strong evidence of 

5 that. And, secondly, we need to bring down the cost. 

6 Budgeted at $250,000 per year per ward is unacceptable. 

7 We spent about 199,000. Texas spends about 100,000 per 

8 year per ward. We can still bring it down, and we have 

9 a plan to do that. 

10 SENATOR OROPEZA: Can I -- 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead, Senator Oropez. 

12 Follow up. 

13 SENATOR OROPEZA: I was just wondering -- I'm 

14 wondering what -- 

15 I was sort of looking for the next step, which 

16 is what the plan is, because you've articulated what the 

17 problem is, that you think you can save money, and maybe 

18 what you can buy these folks in terms of program. The 

19 plan that you're talking about, is this a different plan 

20 from the strategic plan? It's a plan specifically for 

21 the juvenile offenders? 

22 MR. CATE: It is. Part of that authority -- 

23 SENATOR OROPEZA: A separate plan? 

24 MR. CATE: Yes. And it will be integrated 

25 eventually, but the Farrell remedial plans are long 



1 that DJJ be shut down. In your responses, Mr. Cate, you 

2 disagreed with that recommendation. Why should we be 

3 spending the taxpayer money on this system? 

4 MR. CATE: I don't think we should be spending 

5 as much as we're currently spending, but I do think it's 

6 important that we continue to have a state juvenile 

7 system. The reason -- I think to place it in a context 

8 helps with this discussion. 

9 California has the fewest juveniles in the 

10 state system per capita of any state in the nation. So, 

11 in essence, the 1700, approximately, wards we have in 

12 the state Division of Juvenile Justice, the former CYA, 

13 represents, really, the smallest percentage of wards of 

14 any state in the nation. 

15 So 90 percent have either violent or sex 

16 offenses in their past, for example. Many also are 

17 mentally ill, have co-occurring drug and alcohol issues. 

18 They are the most at-risk, most needy youth in 

19 California, period. 

20 And while some counties, especially larger 

21 counties, have some capacity to deal with those wards, 

22 not every county is prepared to deal with those wards, 

23 especially when the average length of stay is three to 

24 four years. As you know, the counties only have 

25 jurisdiction to 18, so it is a very unique subset of 



1 completed. So those are done, and we are about 

2 66 percent in compliance with all the Farrell remedial 

3 orders for, you know, treatment, for health and safety, 

4 for medical, et cetera. 

5 So the treatment aspect has been planned out, 

6 really, with the court's experts. The additional piece, 

7 though, is to right-size DJJ, which will mean the 

8 closure -- I can say publicly will mean the closure of 

9 at least one more facility, and it will mean additional 

10 staff reductions. 

11 We've reduced our staff by 1500 already over 

12 the last two or three years, and it needs to come down 

13 even more. So our staffs right-sizing plan has been 

14 completed with the help of, again, the court's expert, 

15 and we're going to put that together with the facility 

16 closure to bring those costs down. 

17 SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. On the non-cost side, 

18 on the program side, what does the plan include and what 

19 has been implemented? 

20 MR. CATE: Well, it has 6,000 individual 

21 points, tasks that need to be completed. It literally, 

22 in Farrell, covers every aspect of our treatment of 

23 wards, every aspect without exception. And so, as I 

24 mentioned, about 66 percent of those 6,000 have been 

25 accomplished -- 

10 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 7 to 10 of 85 



4 of 23 she* 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Can you give me a vague -- 
I just a sort of general, not vague, but a general idea of 
what areas you have focused on, the department has 
focused on, in terms of that 66 percent? 

MR. CATE: Sure. The -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Versus what's left. 

MR. CATE: Right. So, for example, in the 
compliance area, education is an area that we've done 
fairly well on. We were at 41 percent compliance in 
2006, and we're at 74 percent compliance today with 
those remedial plans. Healthcare, we're at 71 percent 
compliance. That's the very first time the experts have 
gone through, the first round of inspections. Wards 
with disabilities were at 68 percent. 

We are lower in health and safety, and others, 
and I don't have those numbers with me today. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Is health and safety 
facilities? 

MR. CATE: It is. So some of that is the 
culture of the facilities. I can say that I toured, for 
example, the Chaderjian facility four years ago as the 
inspector general, and, literally, at that time, wards 
were climbing over barbed wire fences to get at each 
other, to fight and attack one another. I went through 
that facility again three months ago and found that 

11 



1 And, if so, have you factored in the element of size in 

2 terms of the quality of the rehabilitation opportunity? 

3 MR. CATE: Yes. That's an excellent question, 

4 and we will be consolidating underused facilities so 

5 that we fully utilize each facility to the extent 

6 possible. 

7 The challenge is the more wards you have, 

8 obviously, the more difficult to manage. The check on 

9 that is that the Farrell court has mandated that each 

10 living unit be no more than 36 wards in the living unit. 

11 So the individual ward's experience shouldn't be harmed 

12 by the consolidation. That's the goal. 

13 Obviously, the more missions that facility has, 

14 meaning, you know, whether it's sex-offender treatment, 

15 or drug and alcohol treatment, or treatment for our 

16 mentally ill wards, then it becomes more complex for 

17 staff, and you have to be more careful about what you 

18 do. 

19 But on the whole, the idea is to consolidate 

20 while keeping the wards' living units down, while 

21 keeping the educational experience rich. 

22 SENATOR AANESTAD: More? 

23 SENATOR OROPEZA: Well, sure. I have other 

24 questions, not on this particular aspect of what he was 

25 saying. 

13 



wards were walking to class unescorted; they were 
actually outside of the secured perimeter learning 
groundskeeping; they were.... 

I was at O.H. Close, which is our facility for 
young men, just about a week ago, two weeks ago, and 
that runs just like any other school. A high school. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So when you're talking about 
health and safety issues, these are not issues of 
physical plants and that type of vulnerability. 

MR. CATE: Right. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: It's -- I guess your word was 
"culture." 

MR. CATE: Violence reduction would be an 
example. So we brought violence down both in terms of 
violence against staff and violence against -- 
ward-on-ward violence is down. And those are some of 
the goals of that health and safety remedial plan. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: And you mentioned that you're 
going to have to -- or you see as part of this cost 
savings aspect, and I assume also you see it as a 
positive programmatic decision, closure of certain 
facilities. Does that mean that those facilities are 
currently -- they're used, but they're underutilized, 
and you're going to be consolidating to make larger 
facilities? Is that sort of the way you're going on it? 

12 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



SENATOR AANESTAD: Let's stay with DJJ right 



now. 



Senator Dutton, have you any questions? 

SENATOR DUTTON: Just a little along that line 
now. We started -- When we started reforming or 
adjusting and changing the juvenile system, part of it 
was to go into a contract with the county for some of 
the — some juvenile offenders. As I recall, that cost 
is, like, 135,000 per inmate, or something of that 
nature. 

MR. CATE: Yes. One hundred twenty-five to 
135. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Yes. Does the state still 
have involvement through your department as to knowing 
what progress is being made and who is kind of 
monitoring the program there? 

MR. CATE: The -- In part. The Correctional 
Standards Authority monitors the facilities themselves 
to make sure that they're up to standards. But we don't 
monitor, for example, their recidivism rates or those 
type of issues like we do within our own system. 

It's my understanding -- I know that as the 
chair of the Correctional Standards Authority, we bring 
counties before us all the time to check on compliance 
with the state standards for the facilities themselves. 

14 



of 23 sheets 



Page 11 to 14 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



SENATOR DUTTON: And so what's the -- You said 
the juvenile offenders that we currently retain in the 
system at the higher cost, which you agreed is not 
acceptable, we're going to have to work on that, but 
what other kind of services are the counties providing, 
or what services are we providing that the counties are 
not providing? 

MR. CATE: It's county by county. Some 
counties do a good job of meeting all of the needs. 

One of the historic problems with DJJ is we 
would have a waiting list for certain specialized 
treatment groups, like sex-offender treatment. We no 
longer have a waiting list, so we can offer wards a full 
menu of services. There may be a short wait; but on the 
whole, we can offer a full menu. 

And counties — It's 58 different scenarios, 
depending on the county that we're talking about. 
Again, some in urban areas tend to have a pretty 
complete system and others don't because they just don't 
have the numbers. If you just have a couple of wards 
with a particular concern, then it's difficult to bring 
in a specialist just for those wards. Obviously, it 
becomes cost prohibitive. 

I think the reduction of our wards from 10,000 
down to 1700 has resulted in our costs going up, because 

15 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much 

2 Senator Dutton. Let me see if I can pick up just a 

3 little on there. 

4 You know, one of the sort of themes, Mr. Cate, 

5 we keep returning to, and recognizing you are relatively 

6 new here, but it does seem that with this department, 

7 that there is planning to do planning, and then planning 

8 to do more planning to do more planning, and, you know, 

9 when we talk about benchmarks and timetables, that's in 

10 response to that concern. 

11 So this is the question on DJJ: The state 

12 commission on juvenile justice apparently just came 

13 up with a business plan that costs the taxpayers 

14 hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff and consulting 

15 fees. And you've asked the chief deputy secretary to 

16 come up with a new business plan. 

17 I guess the question is why. And why is, you 

18 know, once the Jewish holiday has passed over, why is 

19 this plan different from all other plans? Sorry. 

20 MR. CATE: The -- in particular, it's not 

21 any — As I mentioned earlier, the planning for 

22 providing ward services is done. We are implementing on 

23 that aspect. 

24 This is really about right-sizing DJJ, which 

25 was not the focus of the plan you're referring to. 

17 



now we have to provide the full menu of services to an 
ever-shrinking population of wards. 

SENATOR DUTTON: It would just seem to me it 
would make a certain amount of sense to continue to 
explore, unless there's something wrong with the system 
that we've worked out with the county as to some of the 
juvenile offenders, why we wouldn't want to pursue that 
with the balance. 

I understand they have additional special 
needs, but I would think the counties like 
Los Angeles and San Bernardino and San Francisco, and so 
forth, these counties — it seems to me they probably 
have the ability to deal with a lot of those same issues 
now, and it certainly looks to me like an immediate cost 
savings to start bringing it down way below the 250 when 
we're currently contracting out with them at 125 or 130. 

MR. CATE: Some counties send very few wards, 
because they're able to handle them locally. And we are 
open to continuing to work with the counties to try to 
increase county participation. 

The fact is, and I think all the science 
agrees, that the more wards we can keep local, the 
better, you know, the family connections, et cetera. So 
we will continue to pursue that. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Okay. Thank you. 

16 



1 There are good things that we're taking from that, but 

2 what I really need to do, I think, in these times is 

3 bring the costs down as fast as we can. And so we are 

4 identifying a closure, for example, of which facility do 

5 we close. Obviously, that's a role just for the state 

6 to take. And how do we carefully right-size our number 

7 of employees without, again, impacting community too 

8 much, or impacting our employees. And so there's -- 

9 Some of those aspects, I think, only the department can 

10 do. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So let me then ask the 

12 follow up: You're essentially telling us here that the 

13 goal is to reduce the cost below $250,000 per juvenile 

14 offender. When can we expect that that reduced cost 

15 will be reality? 

16 MR. CATE: Well, we're — I've asked -- I'm 

17 going to take just an off-the-top cut from DJJ, as we 

18 are from headquarters and other aspects, what the 

19 administration would usually call an unallocated cut. 

20 So we will take a cut immediately from DJJ, but when 

21 you're looking at upwards of 300 to 400 employees who 

22 would have to be relocated or have to be offered jobs at 

23 the adult prisons or somewhere else, it will take over 

24 the course of a year to give those employees notice, 

25 find them other work opportunities, and either, God 

18 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 15 to 18 of 85 



6 of 23 sheet 



forbid, lay them off or transfer them. 

So it will be over the course of this year that 
we'll realize those savings, and I expect to get that 
down from 250,000 down to 175,000 in a year. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: In a year. Well, that is 
specific -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Can I ask one more question 
on that? 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Of course. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Why kind of criteria -- I 
don't want to get too nitty-natty on this, but what do 
you use to evaluate and make decisions about what kinds 
of functions will experience these layoffs? Or is it a 
matter of just wherever they are, they're going based on 
seniority or something? 

I'm concerned about how this impacts programs 
for the wards, and so that's really sort of my question. 

MR. CATE: What we did is we went to the 
court's expert in this area, and we worked with him to 
develop this right-sizing model, meaning how many 
treatment providers, how many youth correctional 
counselors do we need in any particular living unit. 
And what we found is we were richer than what the 
appropriate treatment model called for, so there is some 
fat there that you can cut away -- 

19 



1 you look at our total numbers, we are fully staffed. 

2 We -- Obviously, with 37,000 sworn, we attrit a large 

3 number every month, and so it's always up and down. And 

4 some institutions have a better time recruiting than 

5 others due to location, et cetera. But on the whole, 

6 we've found ourselves fully staffed. Now, that won't be 

7 true over the course of the year. We'll attrit 

8 retirements and so forth. And so we should be able to 

9 merge folks into those positions. 

10 SENATOR DUTTON: So if we had a plan where we 

11 were going to phase out the balance of the juvenile 

12 program -- I mean, during that -- it wouldn't take years 

13 to find other opportunities. They may not like to move 

14 over to the adult system, but it is the other 

15 opportunity. 

16 MR. CATE: Yes. I didn't mean to imply it 

17 would take a year for everybody. Some will take just a 

18 few months, and others will take longer as they'll bump 

19 others who will then bump others, and then we'll find 

20 out who needs to transfer and so forth. 

21 But the entirety of that process — My admin 

22 folks have told me it takes nine months to 12 months to 

23 get everybody through that process. 

24 SENATOR DUTTON: And it will probably take that 

25 long to make arrangements with the counties and things 

21 



SENATOR OROPEZA: You're using that model as to 
where to cut. 

MR. CATE: And so facility by facility, 
treatment area by treatment area, housing unit by 
housing unit, the court's expert has said, "You need 
five. You have seven." 

Then, of course, as you know, once we've 
identified those two extra positions, then the state's 
process goes, and you have to then ask who has 
seniority, who has rights to what, and everybody bumps 
everybody. And that's why it takes a year. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

Senator Dutton, you have a follow-up as well. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Yes. You indicated about the 
number of employees and having to look for relocation 
and so forth. They're correctional officers, correct? 

MR. CATE: Well, typically about half are - a 
youth correctional officer is a slightly different 
classification, but they can go from a youth 
correctional officer to an adult correctional officer. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Are we fully staffed at the 
adult? 

MR. CATE: We are. Not at every prison. If 

20 



1 to transfer the responsibility of the remaining juvenile 

2 inmates into their system, and they can probably all be 

3 coordinated at the same time, couldn't it? 

4 MR. CATE: It depends on whether the counties 

5 are interested in those wards, and it would also depend 

6 on whether it's the best interest of the wards. And 

7 right now, I don't believe it's in the best interest of 

8 the wards to have all of those wards go to the county. 

9 But as many as possible, yes. 

10 SENATOR DUTTON: I would be interested if you 

11 can follow up later on with information as to what you 

12 said about the counties, that it wouldn't be in the best 

13 interest for them to go to certain counties, because I'm 

14 having a hard time believing that we've got any of them 

15 that would be as bad, as good, or maybe better in some 

16 cases, if they were in the county closer to families, 

17 things like that. 

18 I'm having a hard time -- Which particular 

19 cases are those? Are there counties that we have 

20 problems with? Is that what the problem is? 

21 MR. CATE: We just - 

22 MR. DUTTON: You can't make the system - You 

23 can't just eventually leave the system having two or 

24 three hundred at a cost of a million dollars each. 

25 That's not practical at that point. It doesn't make 

22 



f 23 sheets 



Page 19 to 22 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



sense. 

MR. CATE: We've seen the bottom, I think. Our 
population projections show that the population of DJJ 
is going to go up. So we're at 1600 and change, and we 
expect to go up from there. 

Part of the problem is that the old CYA and DJJ 
developed a bad reputation in the counties, and judges 
were hesitant to send wards to DJJ. I think now that we 
have the appropriate programs available for those 
high-needs wards, I think that will impact, and we'll 
see those numbers start to go up. 

The Penal Code provides that the judges are 
supposed to keep wards local until they find their needs 
cannot be met at the local level. So as those jurists 
come to understand what's available at the state and 
what's available at the counties, they'll make those 
decisions differently. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: One more question, if I 
might, in this area, and that is the position of a 
correctional education administrator, which is a 
position, as I understand, that has been unfilled for 
about four years. And you said in your response that 
"We will not rest until this position is filled with a 
qualified candidate." How much longer? 

23 



1 aspects of this, and that that audit said that the 

2 CDCR still fails to implement the recommendations in the 

3 2005 settlement related to youths being released from 

4 their rooms for three hours, which I find amazing that 

5 three hours would be sufficient, but apparently that was 

6 the finding, the agreement. 

7 Can you explain that and talk about what's 

8 being done about that, if anything? 

9 MR. CATE: Yes. The original 2005 inspector 

10 general's report uncovered that there were wards at 

11 nearly every facility who were in their rooms not — 

12 23 hours a day as opposed to just 21 hours a day, so 

13 that report recommended that that practice stop. 

14 The department has pledged that it would do 

15 that. It has instructed its superintendents that all 

16 wards must receive at least three hours outside of their 

17 rooms. 

18 In this follow-up audit, they went to the Stark 

19 Youth Facility in the Chino area and found that while we 

20 were in compliance with the wards who were in the 

21 special-management program, which had been a problem in 

22 the past, wards who had committed an act of violence 

23 would be put in this special program, and those were the 

24 wards who were kept in 23 and 21. So they found those 

25 were in compliance. But then there was another group of 

25 



MR. CATE: Well, we've identified the 
candidate, so hallelujah. We've identified candidates 
before, and it hasn't worked out, obviously. But my 
chief deputy secretary of juvenile justice has sent me a 
resume, and I've looked at that resume. The person 
seems imminently qualified, so I told him, Mr. Warner, 
to go ahead and push the process forward. I'm probably 
talking out of school a little bit in that I'm not sure 
exactly where we are in making a formal offer, 
et cetera. But it seems expedient, at this point, 
exactly where we are in that process. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You're on the verge if 
this person accepts the position. 

MR. CATE: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Senator Oropeza. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: May I ask just one more on 
the juvenile justice area. 

It's my understanding that one of the aspects 
of the Farrell lawsuit that was -- a finding of that 
lawsuit was that the wards were kept in locked 
facilities for 23 hours a day. They only had one hour 
of release. 

My understanding is that last week, the 
inspector general released a follow-up audit, apparently 
he does audits, he or she does audits, on various 

24 



1 40 wards who were in what's called a high-risk unit who 

2 were only getting, on average, 2.2 or 2.3 hours out 

3 instead of the full three. 

4 So, obviously, when that report came out, I 

5 went to Mr. Warner and inquired. I obviously should be 

6 held accountable for that in that I was the inspector 

7 general who wrote the first report, for crying out loud. 

8 And so what I found is that whereas in the 

9 special-management program where we -- Literally, it 

10 goes all the way to the top if a ward is not going to 

11 get three hours out. Those same protections weren't in 

12 place for these high-risk or core programs. 

13 So I went to my staff and found that they are 

14 now going to require documentation any time a ward does 

15 not get the full three hours. But the underlying 

16 problem is not just getting three hours, as you've 

17 identified That's not really enough. They need to be 

18 in school. 

19 So we tried to put these at-risk -- these what 

20 they call high-risk wards in school, and fights broke 

21 out, and there was violence. That's why these wards are 

22 high risk. But our education staff say that it's not 

23 okay to educate in your room. We've got to work it out 

24 where we can provide a safe educational setting even 

25 with these high-risk wards. 

26 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 23 to 26 of 85 



8 of 23 shee* 



So that's where we're going. We're going to 
try again to find a way to safely do that while not 
impacting the safety of the other wards who are in those 
classrooms. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: I appreciate that, and I 
think that's a great goal and an important one. I was 
just floored by just the one hour a day seeing sunlight 
or being out of an enclosed cell, and so on that piece 
alone, which is much less complex than creating an 
educational program that high-risk offenders can get 
along with each other in, what do you think is -- 

What is your expectation of the facilities and 
what -- you know, this happened -- this finding came out 
last week. How long before we're not going to see it 
anymore, where everybody is going to get their three 
hours, and then we work on the program. 

MR. CATE: Obviously, the first day I saw this 
I contacted Mr. Warner, and he contacted the assistant 
superintendent, who is the acting superintendent, to 
make sure that the administrators at that facility 
understood our expectation is three hours for every ward 
every day. 

Now what they -- There are some circumstances, 
obviously, where a ward's been involved in an act of 
violence that very day on staff or another ward. It may 

27 



1 director. But what really astounds me is that you 

2 didn't even know about this until this report comes out 

3 a week and a half ago. 

4 MR. CATE: Well, it -- 

5 SENATOR OROPEZA: And in addition to that, 

6 beyond that, that's on one facility. What about the 

7 rest of the places where we are incarcerating these 

8 young people? Is the same thing going on there? And is 

9 there any linkage with accountability? 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: What is the management 

11 system? And if it's not there — You obviously did the 

12 right thing here. You find out about this, and you hold 

13 yourself accountable, and then you go out and try to fix 

14 it. But why did it break down in the first place? 

15 MR. CATE: Well, I think there's two issues. 

16 One is that I think that DJJ has been recreating itself 

17 under these -- under this Farrell case now for a couple 

18 of years, and we have -- I'll give you just one example 

19 to illustrate. 

20 Preston Youth Facility in lone, we have piloted 

21 what's called the program service day where every ward 

22 is out of their room going to school, to vocation, to 

23 medical/mental health treatment during the course of 

24 their entire day. And that's the expectation. So 

25 that's working there. 

29 



be- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: It may be appropriate, yes. 

MR. CATE: Right. There may be some limited 
time, but they need to -- In fact, before I was ever the 
secretary, they sent the expectation that every ward 
would get three hours, regardless of what program you're 
in. So it's a matter of follow-up and management. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: And accountability, wouldn't 
you agree? Accountability, and that's the bottom line. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: May I? 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Please. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I don't mean to harp on 
this, but it just raises a larger issue, which is -- I'm 
wondering how it is that the information did not get to 
the top administrator until after this follow-up audit 
takes place. 

Does the department lack management systems to 
ensure that when, for example, you as inspector general 
made the recommendation that you made back in 2005, that 
there is, in fact, somebody checking to see whether or 
not there's follow-up and it's been complied with? 

It begs a larger issue to me, Matt, you know, 
getting back to the business plan with benchmarks, 
timetables, checks. Who's minding this store? 
Obviously, the buck has to stop with you. You're the 

28 



1 And now, as you pointed out, we need to have 

2 best practices replicate themselves, so the rest of our 

3 institutions are going to go to this program service day 

4 as part of our compliance in Farrell. 

5 Part of the problem, I think at Stark in 

6 particular, is that we've seen -- and this is something 

7 you pointed to -- turnover in leadership. So we 

8 currently have an assistant superintendent who is 

9 acting as the superintendent when the superintendent 

10 retired. And, ultimately, as administrators, we need to 

11 know that and hold our people accountable. 

12 The other thing I think that Senator Aanestad 

13 brought up is it's much easier to do this if you have 

14 IT systems available for you at your fingertips where 

15 you can check those kind of data. We do have that with 

16 the special-management program because of the inspector 

17 general's audit. So now the director learns right away 

18 if those special-management wards are not getting three 

19 hours. 

20 I don't know why the department didn't expand 

21 that to these high-risk youth, but we are now. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Thank you. Let us 

23 move to another category here, which is AB 900 and 

24 infrastructure. And let's -- Let me cut right to the 

25 chase, and then my colleagues can pick it up from there. 

30 



Df 23 sheets 



Page 27 to 30 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



In the budget agreement of February the 20th, 
the legislature passed and the governor signed language 
to get a clean bond opinion from the attorney general to 
allow those dollars to begin flowing, and that you've 
already preliminarily -- I believe preliminarily -- 
sited 2500 beds. 

The question is: Where are they, and do they 
meet the stated goal of housing inmates closer to home 
prior to their release so that the inmate, soon-to-be 
parolee or ex-offender, has more ability to have a 
successful reentry back to their community? 

MR. CATE: There are three parts of AB 900. 
One is what we've -- what was originally known and what 
we still call in-fill, which is now a misnomer, but the 
original idea was to put up facilities within the walls 
of existing prisons. We have -- That was deemed before 
I ever arrived here to be not the best approach, and so 
we are -- we have provided the -- 

We have provided informational 30-day letters 
to the joint legislative budget committee on three 
projects, but it's no secret about where we're going. 
We want to build in the central valley where communities 
want us for these in-fill projects. The other aspect, 
though, is reentry. So we have worked out agreements to 
site reentry facilities with 11 counties. So that 

31 



1 what we've been fighting about in the courts, is the 

2 construction aspect. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All within the bond 

4 authorization of AB 900, because there was, of course, a 

5 second bill dealing with just medical facilities. What 

6 you're saying is you and the receiver are trying to 

7 package it all into one less expensive package to 

8 address the overcrowding and the medical/mental health 

9 beds? 

10 MR. CATE: I'm not saying that. 

11 SENATOR AANESTAD: Multipurpose. 

12 MR. CATE: To the extent possible. There's a 

13 couple different options here, and we're kind of going 

14 into medical. It's probably a good transition, at 

15 least. One is that we could try to build multipurpose 

16 facilities with AB 900 money. I think the receiver 

17 probably will say we that can't build enough mental 

18 health beds/medical beds with just the allocation that 

19 we were given with AB 900. 

20 Another option is that the administration would 

21 enter into — use the I Bank or some other form of 

22 independent financing to add, and the other is that the 

23 legislature would provide funding specifically for 

24 medical facilities. The legislature provided $1 billion 

25 for medical facilities originally. We have a number of 

33 



1 includes San Bernardino, and Kern, and Madera, and eight 

2 others, to site 500-bed reentry facilities so that 

3 offenders who are paroling to that community can receive 

4 treatment from providers from that community, and so we 

5 can have an appropriate hand-off to law enforcement in 

6 that community. 

7 So, unfortunately, as the legislature has acted 

8 to give us the discretion we need to build the right 

9 kind of facilities, it so happens that the bond market 

10 fell apart at the same time. So we are now going to 

11 have to wait for, at least, availability of funding to 

12 be able to build and construct. But our goal is to have 

13 everything we can do completed so that once the pooled 

14 money investment accounts are again available, we can 

15 start our building on these projects. 

16 The other thing I would like to say about 

17 AB 900 is that the receiver and I are having 

18 conversations about whether we can't use -- we can't 

19 build facilities -- If we're going to build facilities, 

20 can we build them in such a way that it would meet some 

21 medical and mental health needs that we know we have as 

22 well. Let's maybe kill two birds with one stone. So 

23 Mr. Kelso and I have been meeting and discussing whether 

24 that's a possibility. 

25 Of course, the benefit is that that's exactly 

32 



1 mental health projects going with that. Obviously, the 

2 receiver's projects would take much more than that 

3 billion to complete. So there's a number of different 

4 options that we're exploring. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Back to my original 

6 question. You gave a good answer, but I just want to 

7 get back to it here a little bit. 

8 As I look at this list of reentry locations, if 

9 we were to put a chart up here and tried to match up 

10 the soon-to-be-released inmate's place of family 

11 residence and these facilities, would there be a 

12 correlation or not? 

13 MR. CATE: What you would find is there would 

14 be a glaring hole in Los Angeles County -- 

15 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aha. 

16 MR. CATE: - to start with. Thirty-five 

17 hundred parolees go to Los Angeles County every month, 

18 and so far we have no reentry facility sited in 

19 Los Angeles County. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Speak to that a little 

21 bit, please. Maybe I should have my Los Angeles 

22 colleagues take the question. 

23 SENATOR OROPEZA: I can imagine why, and 1 can 

24 imagine might not disagree. 

25 MR. CATE: It's a real concern. Obviously, a 

34 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 31 to 34 of 85 



10 of 23 she 



500-bed reentry facility would be, in some people's 
view, a drop in the bucket when you have so many 
thousands returning to LA., but it would signify 
progress. L.A. County really has a struggle in some 
ways with that large pool, and it's a priority to try to 
do something there. 

In meeting with Sheriff Baca, in putting our 
heads together, our decision has been we will do reentry 
without brick and mortar if we have to. If the County 
doesn't provide the site, for whatever reason, there's 
no reason we can't partner with L.A. City and L.A. 
County to provide services to parolees, to provide 
effective law enforcement hand-off from our parolee — 
prisons to parole to local law enforcement. There is a 
wonderful pool of treatment providers that are in 
Los Angeles who we need to work with. 

I can finish with this: One thing that we've 
already decided to do, which I think is a good first 
step, is that in the past, we've had a certain amount of 
dollars for job training, and we have contracted with 
individual job placement providers. And we didn't 
contract with anyone from Los Angeles, and so we had 
nothing for parolees in Los Angeles. 

What we decided to do instead is we've canceled 
those contracts, and we're going to spend the money that 

35 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



There are some facilities where we don't have enough 
providers, and where those facilities, are our care 
breaks down. 

I think that the Coleman court has been very 
clear also that there are waiting lists that are too 
long for inmates who need to go from one level to 
another. So if you're an outpatient mental health 
inmate and you for one reason or another are struggling 
and in need of crisis care, or even intermediate care, 
there's too often a waiting list for those beds, so 
inmates continue to stay at the outpatient status for 
too long. And so for that reason, we really do need 
additional beds just to make sure those inmates are in 
the right treatment environment. 

The other thing is we need to continue our 
efforts at recruiting and retaining mental health 
professionals, particularly in the central valley where 
it is most difficult to recruit. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Beyond psychiatrists? 

MR. CATE: Psychiatrists and psychologists, 
both. We do better in some facilities than in others. 
I think ultimately the right answer is to move our 
mental health population from the central valley to the 
coast in Southern California where the providers are 
versus trying to recruit the providers to the central 



37 



you've allocated to provide additional resources for the 
workforce investment board so that where the most 
parolees are, that's where the most workforce investment 
will be driven. 

So we've worked with Los Angeles, and they're 
going to see a significant increase of funds in 
Los Angeles for those workforce investment boards to try 
to provide job placement for those parolees in 
Los Angeles. It's a small step, but it's a start. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I'd like to finish this 
particular subject matter by going back to something we 
spoke about, and, of course, Members have their own 
questions. 

Going back to a subject we touched on last 
time, which is mental health, it always strikes me when 
anybody uses the term "beds." It presumes that 
establishing those beds is somehow going to effectively 
address the mental health needs of the particular 
population. 

Do you believe that the department knows how to 
provide mental health services to its inmates in 
custody? 

MR. CATE: Yes, I do. I wouldn't say that 
we've historically done a good job of it, but I think 
that we do now provide good care at some facilities. 

36 



1 valley. 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Are you familiar with the 

3 recovery model of mental health treatment? 

4 MR. CATE: Not by that name. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. The systems-of-care 

6 approach that has been effectively implemented by the 

7 providers on the outside to try to address the plight of 

8 the homeless mentally ill. 

9 MR. CATE: Yes. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Are there strategies and 

11 lessons to implement inside the facilities from what is 

12 successfully done outside the facilities? 

13 MR. CATE: I think so. One of the, I think, 

14 unfortunate aspects of being in court cases in 

15 everything we do, including mental health, is we've now 

16 categorized our inmates. So if you're in triple CMS, 

17 well, by golly, then we treat you like triple CMS. 

18 I've learned from our experts that people who 

19 suffer from mental illness, they will rise and fall as 

20 to their needs at any one particular time; but we 

21 continue to typically treat them like they're 

22 categorized. And I think that's one thing we can do 

23 better. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: You strike at the heart of 

25 it, and I've just got to say, you know, this is where 

38 



of 23 sheets 



Page 35 to 38 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



your dual responsibilities of public safety and custody 
and rehabilitation and treatment really, you know, come 
into conflict. And I don't know exactly how you resolve 
it, but I do know they are working contrary to one 
another, because when you categorize people in the way 
you just described, you're not trying to deal really 
with their rehabilitation. 

What I know of the corrections mental health 
system is that it's a lot of psychiatry and a lot of 
heavy drugs to keep people kind of placid and calm them 
down. Medication, of course, can be part of treatment, 
but that's not recovering. That's why when I asked 
about recruitment, you talked about psychiatrists and 
psychologists. What about social workers? What about 
mental health professionals who work in these community 
programs and under a system-of-care approach that 
includes mental health treatment, substance abuse 
treatment, employment skills, behavioral modification, 
all sorts of things that you don't get at when you just 
kind of force feed people a lot of medication? 

MR. CATE: A good example of one of those 
problems is that I've learned are — moderately mentally 
ill are not able to take part in our drug and alcohol 
programs when we know that they do have co-occurring 
issues. So that's one area where those classifications 

39 



1 one. The original stipulation is that overcrowding is 

2 at the root of our healthcare crisis in prisons today. 

3 Would you agree with that? 

4 MR. CATE: Yes. I think it's a root cause of 

5 all of our problems in the prisons. Overcrowding makes 

6 everything we do more difficult. I think in particular, 

7 though, despite the fact that we haven't addressed 

8 overcrowding, other than we've reduced the number of 

9 what they call ugly beds, gyms and dayrooms, we've 

10 reduced those by about 8,000 over the last year. But 

11 other than that, which has helped some, we've seen, I 

12 believe, the biggest improvements in medical based upon 

13 the fact that we now pay market rates or higher — 

14 SENATOR AANESTAD: Higher. 

15 MR. CATE: — for clinicians. So our 

16 vacancies, which were horrendous before, are -- now 

17 we're at less than 10 percent vacancy. So that's been a 

18 big improvement. The quality of physicians, now we can 

19 attract board-certified physicians, including those in 

20 family practice; whereas before we would have 

21 specialists doing generalises work, and we had some, 

22 frankly, unqualified clinicians practicing in our 

23 prisons causing, I think many, of the problems. 

24 Part of it is the facilities. When I visited 

25 San Quentin five years ago, the facilities were dirty, 

41 



have gotten in the way. I think you're absolutely 
right. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let's take a break. We'll 
come back — we have two categories to go, unless 
Members have other questions as well, and that is we 
want to talk about the broader litigation issue and the 
receiver, and of course we want to talk about parole. 
And I may ask a question or two about San Quentin. 
Okay? 

MR. CATE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

(Recess taken.) 

SENATOR AANESTAD: We'll bring the Committee 
back to order, and the Chair has indicated that we'd 
still like to pursue two more topics, healthcare, 
basically, and parole. I think we'll leave parole for 
last, so let's just get into healthcare. 

I guess you and I had a fairly lengthy 
discussion knowing that that's probably my main 
interest, and you brought me up to date on what the 
three-judge panel has determined lately, which also 
affects parole, wanting to release 50,000 to 60,000 
prisoners over the next couple of years in order to 
reduce population. 

I guess my first question is kind of a basic 

40 



1 sinks weren't operable, so there wasn't in all cases a 

2 place to wash up. I mean, it was just terrible in many 

3 respects. So at least everything is clean now. 

4 And then the last point is that we weren't -- 

5 we were having difficulty getting inmates to outside 

6 providers, specialists, and now we are — I think the 

7 receiver has said we are now overutilizing specialty 

8 care at a high cost, so he's hiring a utilization expert 

9 to try to bring that down. 

10 So we've done all of that, all that 

11 improvement, despite overcrowding still being a major 

12 issue in California. It's just that all those hurdles 

13 become higher and cost more to get over when you're 

14 dealing with this high population. 

15 SENATOR AANESTAD: I'll just make the comment 

16 that as far as the prisons hiring healthcare people, I 

17 now have three counties in my 12-county district that 

18 have no psychiatrists, because at $300,000 a year, plus, 

19 they've gone to work for the prison system, which has 

20 left some of my rural communities in real dire straits 

21 because there's no way we can compete with that. 

22 This weekend I had, at my home, two phone calls 

23 from dentists looking for information about how to get 

24 in to become a prison dentist, because you're starting 

25 them at 175,000 a year. I'm strongly considering 

42 



4/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 39 to 42 of 85 



12 of 23 sheet! 



leaving the Senate and applying, at those rates. And 
yet I understand -- 

And yet, the three-judge panel persists in the 
notion — it seems like their current quest is now based 
on information that seems to be outdated. That is, it's 
my understanding that the department, in the last three 
years, has significantly, as you just testified, cleaned 
up its act and hired a specialist to the point where 
maybe you've got more than enough, and yet the 
three-judge panel continues to use this crisis in 
healthcare as their motivating factor to get the billion 
dollars that they feel needs to be spent. 

Can you comment on that? 

MR. CATE: Well, there — problems remain. I 
think that the clinic space is still inadequate. We 
need to expand our clinical space, and we need to make 
sure, especially on the mental health side, that we have 
enough appropriate beds for inmates at the higher levels 
of care. So there's work yet to be done, and obviously 
the lawyers are arguing about whether that work that 
remains is sufficient to require the release of inmates 
or not. That's for sure. 

That's, I think -- That's one of the reasons 
Mr. Kelso and I decided to reach out to one another and 
see if there's some middle ground here between us that 

43 



1 HR department. So there's that redundancy, I think, 

2 that drives cost as well. Again, one of the things that 

3 has driven, I think the receiver and I, just in the last 

4 month or so to start talking about is there some way to 

5 consolidate those services so we can get some 

6 efficiencies back into the system. 

7 SENATOR AANESTAD: You have a large population 

8 of inmates over the age of 60, many who have served most 

9 of their adult time in prison, now coming up with 

10 significant medical-care costs. And it's been suggested 

11 that some of these folks, as they get older and sicker, 

12 probably would be best for the prison system to release 

13 them from prison and let them get their healthcare 

14 outside of the prison system. How do you react to that? 

15 MR. CATE: Well, that is a very sensitive 

16 question, because those folks who have been in prison a 

17 long time are there because they committed, typically, 

18 very serious offenses. So there are victims and 

19 survivors of those crimes who are very much opposed to 

20 any kind of release of the aged and infirmed before they 

21 serve their time. 

22 The courts are now involved very heavily in the 

23 issue of what's an appropriate measure for an inmate for 

24 the board of parole hearings to make a decision about 

25 whether an inmate should be paroled. 

45 



we might agree to as far as doing these things on a more 
cost-effective manner and take an approach that 
recognizes our economic crisis as well as our 
responsibilities to our inmates. So those talks have 
been progressing, and I'm hopeful that there might be 
some middle ground between us. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: We're told that the average 
cost to the state of Texas for healthcare for one of 
their inmates is $5,000 a year. In California it's 
$15,000, three times as much. Why? 

MR. CATE: Well, there's several reasons. One 
is that Texas utilizes the University of Texas for their 
medical care, so all the clinicians don't work for the 
department. They work for the University of Texas. And 
it's a teaching hospital system, so that, I think, has 
resulted in less costs. 

Also, the pay rates in the Southwest are 
much -- particularly in that part of the country — are 
far less than ours. 

And also, one of the, I think, problems with a 
receivership of any kind is that you have dual 
government in that we have Corrections with a contracts 
department, an accounting department, and an HR 
department; and a receivership with a contracts 
department, an accounting department, and an 

44 



1 We have a compassionate release program. I 

2 will tell you it's very complex and ineffective in that 

3 not only do the wardens have to identify these inmates 

4 who are incapacitated and, as such, no longer a threat, 

5 but that has to go — We identify those folks all the 

6 time. It has to go to the board of parole hearings. 

7 They have to make a determination and pass on the 

8 individual to say yes they can be a subject of 

9 compassionate release. And then, finally, it goes to 

10 the sentencing court, and that judge makes a final 

11 decision about whether that inmate is eligible for 

12 compassionate release, and not very many are. 

13 We just recently had a case in San Joaquin 

14 county where the court said this person may not be a 

15 danger, but why should the County pick up the cost 

16 associated with caring for this invalid inmate rather 

17 than the State, and ultimately the judge denied the 

18 petition. 

19 So I think some work can be done to try to 

20 streamline that process, if that was the will of the 

21 legislature and the governor. 

22 SENATOR AANESTAD: Do any of the other Senators 

23 have any questions regarding healthcare? 

24 SENATOR OROPEZA: I'll get caught up. I'm 

25 sure, I mean, you all have asked the basic questions 

46 



of 23 sheets 



Page 43 to 46 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



about what's happening and how you plan to improve up to 
the standards of the lawsuit, and all of that good stuff 
is in the record already. Or no? 

MS. SABELHAUS: No. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: No? Okay. How about that? 
So I would ask about that. 

MR. CATE: Okay. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Generally speaking — It's 
sort of a general question. We know that a major 
element of the lawsuit has to do with medical care. 

MR. CATE: Right. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So tell us about what has 
transpired since that time and what the plans are to 
continue to seek full compliance. 

MR. CATE: Well, obviously, the current state 
is that the receiver controls medical care, and so he 
has published plans, and he is working those out. And I 
think I've stated publicly before, and I'll say so 
again, I think he has greatly improved medical care by 
raising salaries to decrease vacancies, and recruiting 
highly qualified clinicians, and getting inmates to 
specialty care, and hired a thousand or more 
correctional officers to ensure we could escort inmates 
to their appointments and so forth. So it's come at a 
high cost, but we have seen great improvement. 

47 



1 MR. CATE: Well, that's yet to be determined by 

2 the courts. My — 

3 SENATOR OROPEZA: So that's all under the 

4 courts, and you all aren't really — you're sort of 

5 doing what they say to do? 

6 MR. CATE: We have obligations in that we need 

7 to make sure that the custody side of the house works 

8 well with the receiver so that our officers are 

9 cooperating with the clinicians to make sure that 

10 inmates make it to their appointments and those kinds of 

11 things. So we need to work hand in hand with them. 

12 That's our responsibility. 

13 On mental health care, we still have a full 

14 panoply of responsibilities, and so we are working to 

15 improve our mental health care at the same time. 

16 SENATOR OROPEZA: Has there been any movemenl 

17 in terms of having -- he's a receiver, not a special 

18 master — the receiver -- 

19 What's the receiver's relationship to your 

20 offices relative to the mental health piece? You've 

21 talked before, during the course of your testimony, 

22 about having a good relationship and being able to work 

23 some things through and that kind of thing. How has 

24 that happened in the health area, the mental health 

25 area? 

49 



I think the next step for the State, one way or 
the other, is that the Department of Corrections should 
demonstrate its competence to run medical care itself, 
that the federal court shouldn't indefinitely run 
medical care. And I think Judge Henderson and Kelso 
would agree with me that we need to work towards the 
State again being in control, obviously, of this state 
function. I think we made terrific progress. 

One of the things I'm most excited about is the 
medical inspection teams that are -- that have -- that 
are working now in the inspector general's office. The 
inspector general has put together, over the last couple 
years, these medical inspection teams that go out and 
objectively rate the prisons and how they're providing 
medical care. And then they publicly report a score 
card on each of the major categories so everyone can see 
which prisons are doing well and which aren't. 

That's only been going now for -- I think it's 
six months or so, in earnest. But as that progresses, 
it will provide, I think, a good score card for everyone 
to see how we're doing. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Then will there be carrots 
and sticks -- I mean, what will be the -- 

What is the planned outcome from those score 
cards? Next step. How would that be handled? 

48 



1 MR. CATE: Well, I think that when I was 

2 appointed 10 or 11 months ago, the relationship wasn't 

3 very good, but, thankfully, it has much improved now. 

4 And so we are talking about this very issue of when do 

5 we transition from the -- 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: Oh, you are? 

7 MR. CATE: Yes, we are. And that will take -- 

8 The lawyers have to get involved, because there's 

9 plaintiffs in the case. The prison law office 

10 represents that class. And it's one thing to say that 

11 the receivership will -- or that medical care will go 

12 back to Corrections. It's another thing to say that the 

13 Plata lawsuit will be completed. 

14 So there are many hurdles to go, but I'm just 

15 tremendously excited about the fact that at least at 

16 this point, on day-to-day issues in the prison, when it 

17 comes to providing inmate patients with care, we're 

18 working hand in hand, and that's a significant 

19 improvement over where things were a year ago. 

20 SENATOR OROPEZA: Thank you. 

21 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead, Senator. 

23 SENATOR AANESTAD: The receiver has proposed 

24 that we build seven new prison hospitals. Hospitals are 

25 one of the most expensive buildings that man has ever 

50 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 47 to 50 of 85 



14 of 23 sheet 



devised on what to build, and my question is: Do you 
think that we need seven new prison hospitals? Can we 
deliver adequate standard of care with less? 

MR. CATE: I don't believe we need seven new 
facilities. To be fair, these are -- They're extremely 
expensive, and they're not hospitals. They will be more 
akin to a skilled nursing facility. Still extremely 
expensive. 

I think the receiver, to his credit, has 
recently said that he thinks that they may be able to do 
with less than seven as well, so that's part of our 
discussion. 

The governor's clear instructions to me have 
been, "We will build only what the state needs," meaning 
unless the court -- unless we get directly ordered to 
and we lose all our appeals, we want to build only what 
the state actually needs; we want to build something 
that's cost efficient; and we want to build something 
that's safe for our staff and for inmates. 

And so I have communicated that to Mr. Kelso, 
and, to his credit, he has, I think, started to — we've 
started to have conversations about just what is, you 
know, the number of inmates that should be in these 
facilities. 

One thing we've discovered is there's about 



51 



1 thinking we build homes that have Alzheimer's 

2 facilities, as well as assisted living and so forth. 

3 Various veteran home models have been set up. When you 

4 said it's more like an extended-care-type of facility, I 

5 think one of the more expensive ones was about 

6 $400 million, and that was a 400-bed facility built on 

7 the side of a hill. So you're talking about spending, 

8 on the average, a billion dollars. I thought they were 

9 talking about operational surgical rooms and everything 

10 else, but I guess I'm mistaken. 

11 My actual question has to do with: Who is 

12 responsible for releasing inmate medical information at 

13 this point? Is it the department, or is it the 

14 receiver? 

15 MR. CATE: In what context? 

16 SENATOR DUTTON: Inmate medical information. 

17 MR. CATE: The receiver has control of inmate 

18 medical records. 

19 SENATOR DUTTON: And they're totally 

20 responsible for it? The Department of Corrections has 

21 no say about it one way or the other? 

22 MR. CATE: You know, I believe that that's 

23 correct. Obviously, the records are housed in our 

24 facilities and so -- and we have clerks and so forth 

25 that are there, so I'm sure -- 

53 



1500 inmates we think systemwide who need help every day 
with daily activities. They need assistance every day 
with meeting their daily needs. So maybe those infirmed 
inmates, those particularly aged who are struggling in 
those ways might be a group that would be appropriate. 
And there may be others. 

The other twist to this, though, is that the 
Coleman court, in the mental health side, has demanded 
we build beds for our mentally ill inmates. So, again, 
the opportunity presents itself to say: Should we build 
some consolidated facilities of some kind to try to meet 
both those needs? 

We also have a need for high, level-four cells. 
So those inmates who are most dangerous, those inmates 
who have refused to comply with prison rules, those 
inmates who are serious and violent, are terribly 
overcrowded as well. 

And so with just AB 900, it's hard to imagine 
meeting all of those needs, but those are the kinds of 
conversations we're having right now to figure out just 
what is the minimum we can live with in these tough 
times. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Senator Dutton. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Just a couple. When you 
started talking about the facilities, I was just 

52 



1 Everything that happens, it seems we have some 

2 shared responsibility. But on the whole, I know medical 

3 appeals are the receiver's responsibility, but sometimes 

4 we act in concert on those issues. I believe that 

5 medical records is also the receiver's. 

6 SENATOR DUTTON: Well, what I'm curious about 

7 is that some families like to have — receive 

8 information, and once in a while we do get inquiries, so 

9 I'm not sure who really to talk to. Do we talk to you? 

10 Do we talk to the receiver? Who do we talk to if 

11 somebody feels they're having trouble getting accurate 

12 information regarding a family member's medical 

13 condition? 

14 MR. CATE: Senator, the receiver would be the 

15 first place, but you could always submit information to 

16 my office, and we'll make sure we coordinate with the 

17 receiver. 

18 SENATOR DUTTON: The buck stops with you, then, 

19 as far as that? 

20 MR. CATE: Right. I think the receiver would 

21 handle those requests; but if there's some breakdown, I 

22 always want to make sure that we're there to help. 

23 SENATOR DUTTON: Does the department have some 

24 kind of standardized form for inmates to designate who 

25 can be notified as a result of an inmate's medical 

54 



of 23 sheets 



Page 51 to 54 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



condition? Is there some kind of standardized type form 
and system? 

MR. CATE: I believe so. At the inspector 
general, one of the things we looked at was issues of 
"Do not resuscitate" orders and last wishes, and one of 
our concerns was that there was some -- different 
institutions were handling those DNRs differently. And 
my understanding is that that issue has been worked out 
and that there is a common form for that and for all 
medical wishes of the inmate to be communicated. But I 
would need to get you more details on that. 

SENATOR DUTTON: If you would, please. Thank 
you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Vice Chairman? Okay. 

The only comment I want to make on the 
healthcare piece, before we move on to the last piece 
today, is I know and I believe that you have developed a 
constructive relationship with the receiver. And I know 
the administration, of course, is taking the position 
that the receivership should end. And it does, though, 
beg the larger question whether if the receivership did 
end, or when it does end, will you have the management 
structure in place, the support team that you need, the 
leadership training, attraction/retention, technology, 
check-and-balance systems that we've talked about 

55 



1 Matt, on this issue. 

2 The parole issue has been discussed in recent 

3 times in the context of the budget. And of course we 

4 always talk about the policy and how much money a 

5 particular formulation of the policy would save the 

6 state. It's a very relevant issue. 

7 But in your view, should policy lead to the 

8 budget number, or should we start with the necessary 

9 budget number and back ourselves into the policy? 

10 MR. CATE: I think that when you're dealing 

11 with issues of public safety, the policy comes first. 

12 To the extent that we're out of money, it becomes a 

13 difficult question in a public-safety agency, because 

14 we're 70 percent staff-driven as far as our costs, and 

15 we're already 49th in the country in inmate-to-officer 

16 staff ratios. 

17 I don't believe we should cut anything from the 

18 prisons themselves. Those men and women are expected to 

19 do a very difficult job in difficult, overcrowded 

20 circumstances, so that leaves cutting headquarters, 

21 which we should do, that leaves program -- cutting 

22 education, vocational training. Mental health is an 

23 option. I'm opposed to that. I think that that just 

24 leads us to a revolving cycle of recidivism. 

25 So then you're left with — Obviously, we can't 

57 



throughout this hearing, to actually successfully run 
the healthcare system in the state prisons. 

I'm not looking for an answer from you. It's 
more of a statement. But that really is the acid test 
here, is it not? 

MR. CATE: It's one that the receiver has 
identified as a concern of the court that we not 
backtrack from the progress we've made. I think it's a 
fair criticism or comment, and I think that the state 
does need to demonstrate that it can manage that kind of 
issue. And the starting place is: Let's demonstrate 
that we can handle dental care, and let's demonstrate 
that we can handle mental health care, and let's build a 
record of confidence that a court can then say, along 
with some oversight, that, "Yeah, we think this can go 
back to the state at this point." It has to at some 
point. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So let's turn to parole, 
and then we will — 

(To the reporter): Ina, are you okay? 

(Discussion off the record between 
Chairman Steinberg and the court reporter.) 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. I want to sort of 
put out a big-picture question, and then you can answer 
it and sort of give a statement, if you would, please, 

56 



1 cut medical care, and we shouldn't, and so that leaves 

2 just a few areas to really effectively cut. So you look 

3 at areas where we're out of step with some other parts 

4 of the country and see whether there isn't some things 

5 that we can do that are good public policy that might 

6 also save money. Sorry. That's a long-winded way of 

7 saying the policy comes first. 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So the administration 

9 recommendation direct discharge, I believe it's called, 

10 correct? Direct discharge of nonviolent offenders. 

11 MR. CATE: (Nods head.) 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you have any concerns 

13 about the public safety impact of the administration's 

14 proposal? 

15 MR. CATE: I think the administration's going 

16 to come out with a new proposal, which I think is -- 

17 really looks at both the issues of public safety and the 

18 budget dollars. 

19 And so, you know, I guess my concern is you 

20 look at the issue of parole, for example. There's 

21 really two ways to cut it. One way is you just draw a 

22 line down the middle and you say your non-violent, 

23 non-sex offenders, non-serious offenders are off and 

24 everybody else is on. That certainly is an approach 

25 that has been suggested. It's a broad-brush approach. 

58 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 55 to 58 of 85 



16 of 23 sheel 



Nationwide, about 65 percent of offenders go on parole. 
In California, 100 percent go on parole. So there's 
some room there. The more, I think, elegant model is to 
utilize risk assessment to decide who's on parole and 
who's not. 

I think, if I can sum up, my view on parole in 
California is that we spend too much money on low-risk, 
low-level offenders, and we spend not enough on the 
serious and violent and high-risk offenders. And so 
that would -- In my view, there's some room there for us 
to have a discussion about whether we can adjust how we 
spend our money. And there may be savings as a result 
of that — I think there would be — but we need to be 
careful to put the policy first. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: When will we expect the 
administration's proposal? 

MR. CATE: This month. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Can you speak a 
little bit — I'm not asking you to get out ahead of the 
administration here in terms of an announcement, but can 
you speak a little bit more about risk assessment. I 
know the department has a new tool. Speak to that, its 
applicability, whether it's limited or broad. 

MR. CATE: Sure. It's currently - Well, let 
me, before I get to applicability -- 

59 



1 decisions about who goes back to prison and who stays on 

2 parole. So we're going to expand our use of that, which 

3 will help some. 

4 The other possible application goes to the 

5 question of who should be on parole in the first place, 

6 and should we utilize a risk-assessment tool to make 

7 decisions about who we place on parole to begin with, 

8 because once you have someone on parole, there is a 

9 number of costs associated with that. 

10 For example, the what are known as the Robin 

11 Reagan Rules, 2616, dictate that certain offenses 

12 require referral to the board of parole hearings for a 

13 decision about revocation. Moreover, Valdivia requires 

14 that we give everybody a lawyer before we revoke, and 

15 we've got to provide them with due process and notice, 

16 and all those things are tremendously expensive with 

17 each additional person. 

18 So then that begs the question of: If we had 

19 fewer low-risk people on parole, could we spend some of 

20 that money on fugitive-apprehension teams? Could we 

21 spend some of that money to lower our agents' caseloads? 

22 Could we spend some of that money on electronic 

23 monitoring of our high-risk folks, our gang offenders? 

24 Is there something that we can do that would be a strong 

25 public-safety message utilizing this tool? 

61 



Within the last year to 18 months, we have, 
through our research folks, produced a validated risk- 
assessment tool so that we now have more information, 
valid information, than we've ever had about the future 
risk of an offender committing a new crime. 

The first application of that tool has been in 
what we call the parole violation decision making 
instrument, which is -- of course it's Corrections, so 
we have to have a five-letter acronym, but it really 
isn't that complicated. It just lays out here on one 
axis the seriousness of a violation and on the other 
axis the risk of an offender to commit a new offense. 

It's the same thing the judges use now in that 
they basically -- A judge will say, "Okay. You've 
committed a certain crime. Your punishment should be in 
this range." This tool says: You're this risk level; 
you've committed this level of violation. You're 
either -- we should continue to treat you in the 
community, or you need to be revoked and go back to 
prison. 

We've only piloted it in four sites. We're 
just rolling it out now to the rest. I think it's a 
successful tool. The agents really like it on the 
whole, because it gives them, again, some scientific 
> backing behind their decisions, which are life-and-death 

60 



1 So those are really the discussions I'm 

2 beginning to have with law enforcement, discussions I'd 

3 like to have with the legislature in more detail, and 

4 discussions I'd like to have with our victims' groups, 

5 our inmate advocates and all of those folks, to really 

6 have a more nuanced discussion about what's possible and 

7 what's not, and what's safe and what's not, and what are 

8 the budget implications of all that. 

9 It's pretty complex, but I think it's worth 

10 sitting down and spending a lot of time working through. 

11 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Sure. We look forward to 

12 doing that, hopefully earlier this month than later, at 

13 least preliminarily discussing what the outline is. 

14 Let me ask a question about parole agents. I 

15 understand parole agents -- 

16 SENATOR OROPEZA: I'm sorry. It's - 

17 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go, go, go. You take it. 

18 You take it. 

19 SENATOR OROPEZA: I'm sorry. I just wanted to 

20 ask this one question about this new risk-assessment 

21 process. Is it your thought or is it a possibility that 

22 with this new tool, there will not be a need for certain 

23 levels of human staffing, because these evaluations are 

24 sort of quantifiable, that there's not necessarily the 

25 same level of staffing required to do these qualitative 

62 



3f 23 sheets 



Page 59 to 62 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



judgments when you have quantitative data? 

MR. CATE: Well, right now, it's actually - If 
our agents have one complaint about PVDMI, it would be 
that they're doing their work twice a little bit right 
now. We're working to make sure the computer auto 
populates the forms for the agents, but until all the 
bugs are worked out, that in some cases the agents -- 
you know, the instrument tells them here's what this 
parolee needs, and they're doing a lot of work by hand 
as well to fill out forms and things like that. And 
so -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Down the road ~ I mean, just 
from a budget-savings standpoint, an efficiency 
standpoint -- I don't know the answer, but is that 
something that you all would think about, that there 
might be certain kinds of things that could be done 
through this more quantifiable method as opposed to a 
more subjective kind of basis that human beings use, or 
just -- I mean, what's your thought about that? 

MR. CATE: One of the things that's interesting 
about defining someone as low risk, that doesn't mean 
that they'll never commit an offense. And having 
someone on parole doesn't mean they never will commit an 
offense. We know that 70 percent of people who -- 

Everyone is on parole in California, but we 

63 



1 SENATOR OROPEZA: I was just sort of thinking 

2 outside the box. Thank you. 

3 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 

4 Senator Oropeza. 

5 Let me ask another question about risk 

6 assessment. Are the parole agents in the best position 

7 to determine risk? 

8 MR. CATE: In some respects, yes, and in some 

9 respects no. We know that the reason that we use risk 

10 assessment is that it gets — the reason it's, quote, 

11 validated is we know that the risk assessment gets it 

12 right more often than agents will get it right based on 

13 just their gut feeling. 

14 We also know it depends on the agent. For 

15 example, we know that agents in rural counties, in rural 

16 areas, make different decisions than agents in urban 

17 areas. Young agents make different decisions than old 

18 agents. But what we've done right now is we've said -- 

19 in these pilot programs — "Let's use the risk 

20 assessment and the instrument first. And, Agent, if you 

21 have a reason to override, then you need to be able to 

22 explain why. It's not enough to say I feel..." 

23 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Either way? 

24 MR. CATE: Either way. 

25 A classic example: Someone has missed a 

65 



still have a 70 percent re-arrest rate. So there's no 
foolproof method for anything in all of this. But the 
interesting thing about what "low risk" means is that 
folks are likely to make it without significant 
treatment or intervention. That doesn't mean you're 
going to get 100 percent. You certainly won't. But to 
the extent -- 

If I'm missing your question, forgive me, but 
to the extent that you can use those resources that 
we're currently spending on low-risk people that we know 
don't need the services, to provide additional program 
for high risk — You know, the women offenders is a 
great example of that, whereas most of our community 
treatment providers want our low-level offenders, 
because it's easier to get a conditional use permit to 
deal with low-level offenders. Well, our high-level 
offenders, by definition, have a greater need. So with 
that information, we can then go twist some arms to get 
our high-need offenders into those programs. 

So it can impact quite a bit of what we do. 
We're just scratching the surface now with the 
technology, because, frankly, again, this is a public- 
safety question, and so we want to err on the side of 
caution in rolling these kind of things out a little 
more slowly. But it's been 18 months now, and so -- 

64 



1 program meeting. Should they go back to prison? Well, 

2 it doesn't sound like it at first blush. But what if 

3 their commitment offense was domestic violence and the 

4 program meeting they missed was their anger management 

5 or domestic violence meeting? The agent may pick that 

6 up and say, "You know what? I'm seeing an increasing 

7 problem here with this person, and so we're going to 

8 override for the seriousness of it." And it works the 

9 other way too. So I think the best program is a 

10 blended, where we use our agents but rely on the 

11 science. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Is it true that - 

13 recently that parole agents recommended somewhere in the 

14 neighborhood of 11,000 parolees for probation, but only 

15 500 were actually discharged? Are you familiar with 

16 that general ratio? Or do you agree with that general 

17 ratio? 

18 MR. CATE: I have heard that before. I do not 

19 know that to be true. I do -- 

20 I will say that in general, one of the problems 

21 we have is that agents don't have unfettered discretion 

22 in who is released from parole under the current system. 

23 Again, our regulations require that for many 

24 offenders and for many violations, that the agent may 

25 make a recommendation, but it goes to the board of 

66 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 63 to 66 of 85 



18 of 23 she 



parole hearings to make that decision. It's taken out 
of the agent's hands, and the board has historically 
taken a firmer view than agents. 

Now, the board, to its credit, has now agreed 
to start reviewing risk assessments themselves so that 
they can make better informed decisions. 

So my hope is, while I don't know that those 
numbers are right, there has been a discrepancy, and I'm 
hoping to bring that down so everyone is working off the 
same page of music. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: It just does turn 
stereotypes on their heads a little bit. I mean, my 
assumption would be that the parole agents might be 
harsher. They're in the streets. They're dealing with 
it every day, yet if they're saying we can save money by 
discharging 11,000 and only 500 are actually discharged, 
you just wonder about that. 

MR. CATE: I think there is -- I think we 
should be relying on our agents more. 

I have to tell you, I'm just being, obviously, 
really frank here, but — 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: No one's listening. 

MR. CATE: Can I turn this off? 

Just between us.... 

Those -- The Robin Reagan Rules are a hot 

67 



1 multiservice center. It sort of brings everything to 

2 one place, one location, and it seems to be working very 

3 successfully. The legislature authorized the funding of 

4 500 of these types of beds, and, to my knowledge, this 

5 is — these 25 are the only ones that exist. 

6 Do you know what the status is of the remainder 

7 of those authorized beds? I have the — I actually have 

8 a copy of the RFP request. 

9 MR. CATE: There are -- let's see.... 

10 With both the female rehabilitative 

11 multiservice centers and the female rehabilitative 

12 community correctional centers, the reentry centers, we 

13 have delayed implementation due to budget concerns. 

14 We have not quote, unquote, as some have 

15 suggested, taken those offline completely. It's been a 

16 delay. And then the other thing that we've been looking 

17 at is, as I've shared with you, these are -- the women 

18 in the female rehabilitative multiservice centers are 

19 the very women who would be most impacted by parole 

20 reform if it were to come to pass. It may or may not, 

21 but- 

22 SENATOR OROPEZA: Here's the question, though: 

23 The legislature authorized these dollars, okay, for the 

24 500 beds. I can't believe — I would be shocked and 

25 disturbed if the budget constraints meant that basically 

69 



button for our victim stakeholders and many law 
enforcement groups, and they really believe that the 
board of parole hearings is the right place to make 
those determinations for our serious violent offenders 
and -- regarding many offenses. 

(Discussion off the record between 
Senator Aanestad and Chairman Steinberg.) 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you want to say that on 
the record? 

SENATOR AANESTAD: No. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. Other 
questions from Members about parole. 

And in some ways, it may be a little premature 
in the sense that since you candidly revealed that there 
will be another proposal forthcoming, I don't know that 
we want to dwell too much on what's definitely on the 
table at this point. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: I have a couple questions 
about female programs. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go. Sure. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: I mentioned last time to you, 
Mr. Cate, that I, along with a few others, had the 
opportunity to visit a female residential multiservice 
center here in Sacramento that houses 25 women, and this 
center actually is a — really is a multi — 

68 



1 you weren't going to use, but for 25 beds, all of that 

2 money that was authorized for the 500 beds to meet your 

3 budget constraints. Surely, that can't be the case, is 

4 it? 

5 MR. CATE: No. We are going to continue to 

6 roll out more. But I have to tell you that to the 

7 extent that we overspend our budget, as an agency 

8 secretary, I'm personally financially liable for 

9 those -- 

10 SENATOR OROPEZA: I understand that. 

11 MR. CATE: — and just, again, every year of 

12 the last several years, we've been budgeted at $100 

13 million for overtime, and we've spent $400 million for 

14 overtime. There's a $300 million hole there. I'm not 

15 suggesting we should fill that hole on the backs of our 

16 female multiservice center programs. I'm not. We need 

17 to move forward with that, but I just had to get at 

18 least a sense that we weren't going to go in the 

19 red this year. 

20 SENATOR OROPEZA: So you did take it out of 

21 this program? I mean, this program for this year, the 

22 money that we authorized, is going to be spent to 

23 balance the budget, basically. I mean, that's the truth 

24 of the matter for this year. Yeah or no? 

25 MR. CATE: At least in part. I don't know 

70 



of 23 sheets 



Page 67 to 70 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



about in whole. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: We've only got 25 beds. We 
authorized 500. 

MR. CATE: I don't know how many -- 

SENATOR OROPEZA: It troubles -- 

MR. CATE: — are in the pipeline. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: It troubles me the priority 
that this program and these women might be getting in 
the system because maybe it's a program that doesn't 
have as high visibility or as big an advocacy for it, or 
whatever the case may be. 

This was something that was an important 
priority for the legislature, and it sounds like it's 
not really being given a very high priority. I mean, it 
sounds like it's a budget balancing amount of money. If 
that's the case, I think it's good that we know that as 
a legislature, because I think I thought we bought some 
good program there. 

MR. CATE: Again, I don't know as I sit here 
how many of those beds are in the pipeline. I'll have 
to get you that information. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. I'd love to know that. 

And the second question I have has to do with 
where I live, my county. I live in Los Angeles county, 
in Long Beach, and so we did some checking on the status 

71 



1 left with a decision about do we run a parole academy, 

2 and if we do, what do we tell those cadets about their 

3 future? 

4 Do we say -- Obviously, I think we have to be 

5 candid and say that the administration has put forward 

6 serious parole-reform measures in the past, that the 

7 legislature has put forward parole-reform measures in 

8 the past, and that if any of those were accepted, or 

9 some combination, that there could be layoffs in parole, 

10 and those new agents would be the first to be laid off. 

11 SENATOR OROPEZA: So you think that the reform; 

12 that may come could actually have the needs -- the 

13 caseloads for people? I mean, that's what we're talking 

14 about here. It seems like a class -- 

15 You know, hiring more parole agents is not 

16 going to fix the totality of the problem any time soon. 

17 It's a question of, you know, sort of picking away at a 

18 problem, you know, chipping away at it, or just saying, 

19 "Well, we're going to do something later on, maybe, so 

20 we're not going to do anything now"? Or was this 

21 another budget issue where the vacancies -- so be it, 

22 L.A. county, Long Beach. You ended up with less people 

23 in your area, and the budget constraints don't — that's 

24 life? 

25 MR. CATE: It's been difficult to recruit 

73 



of parole-agent work, caseloads and workloads in my 
area. And as you mentioned, a lot of parolees are 
released every month to L.A. county. We understand 
that. 

It's my understanding that the parole agents 
have a caseload cap of 154 points, and these points are 
based on, you know, what level of assistance the parolee 
needs. So given that, there's this sort of stacking 
system of points. 

My understanding is that it is more than double 
that in terms of actual caseload for agents in the Long 
Beach area and beyond, which is in my district. Two 
hundred ninety-seven points, 281 points, and 291 points, 
as some examples of the staffing ratios, double the cap. 

My concern or my question is: How can we 
reasonably expect, therefore, for any real meaningful 
work to be going on there when they are saddled with 
that level of caseload? Can you speak to that, please. 

MR. CATE: You're absolutely correct. It's not 
a situation that we can endure for long. It's difficult 
for the agents under those kind of caseloads to do all 
of their work, and it drives overtime, and burnout, and 
all of those kinds of things. 

It's obviously a result of the number of 
vacancies in Los Angeles, in that region, and so we're 

72 



1 agents to some regions — more difficult in some regions 

2 than in others. That region has particularly been hard 

3 hit. But I'm not going to keep that information from 

4 prospective employees. It would not be fair. I've got 

5 to let them know that, so that's why we have to 

6 settle - 

7 SENATOR OROPEZA: Let them know - 

8 MR. CATE: About the potential for changes to 

9 parole. So that's why we have to get this figured out, 

10 in my view, quickly. So if we're not going to do 

11 anything with parole, fine. Then we can recruit and 

12 hire more agents and fill those vacancies, and we will 

13 with due diligence. 

14 SENATOR OROPEZA: Let me just say that there is 

15 an element to this that is, to my mind, as important, if 

16 not more important, than what you have articulated as 

17 far as employee burnout is concerned, and that is the 

18 safety of our communities. And when parolees have a 

19 parole agent that has twice their calculated required 

20 workload, or the workload that makes sense, how are they 

21 monitoring these people who are in our communities? 

22 And I would suggest that there might even be a 

23 vicious cycle around that. You provide less support in 

24 a community, you're going to get less safety. Then 

25 you're going to have more parolees into the area. And 

74 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 71 to 74 of 85 



20 of 23 shee 



it's almost like, you know, a vicious cycle. 

It just seems to me that unless the 
administration and you believe that the parole reforms 
are going to totally fix this problem, that you ought to 
be chipping away at it now. I mean, if you really 
believe it's going to -- totally it's going to fix the 
double-the-caseload, then fine. If you don't, I don't 
see any reason why we shouldn't be pursuing this. This 
is a matter of safety in communities. 

I live in Long Beach, and it scares me to think 
that the parolees are getting this half a level of 
supervision. I have a right to feel -- I think my 
husband, when I tell him, is not going to be so excited. 
I mean, I think my neighbors are not so excited about 
the fact that they don't get what the system believes is 
the appropriate level of supervision. Do you see my 
point? 

MR. CATE: I do see your point. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Is your proposal this 
month going to address some of these concerns? 

MR. CATE: Well, we are taking some steps 
already. Part of the problem in that region is that 
agents will work for two years and then transfer to 
another region where it's more affordable or where 
families are, et cetera. So the availability of the 



75 



1 the budget subcommittee, and we look at how -- they're 

2 the same, I mean, similar issues when it comes to 

3 teachers. It's sort of endemic — 

4 SENATOR OROPEZA: Where we need them most. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Where we need them most, 

6 they often aren't there. 

7 Okay. Are there — Let's hear from witnesses 

8 in support. If you testified last time in general on 

9 behalf of Mr. Cate, that's on the record, so I don't 

10 need folks to repeat their testimony. But if there's 

11 anybody new here in support, please come on up. 

12 MR. THORPE: Thank you, Senators. My name is 

13 Scott Thorpe. I'm the CEO of the California District 

14 Attorneys Association testifying in support of 

15 Secretary Cate. CDA represents the 57 elected district 

16 attorneys and approximately 3,000 prosecutors throughout 

17 the state. 

18 I've known Secretary Cate for many years, and, 

19 in fact, we worked together at the attorney general's 

20 office on criminal investigations and prosecutions. 

21 Subsequently, I have worked with Secretary Cate when we 

22 visited the inspector general's office where, of course, 

23 he was able to obtain unique knowledge of the CDCR, and, 

24 most recently, in the last 11 months, on behalf of the 

25 district attorneys in his capacity as the secretary of 

77 



agent transfers is one of the issues that we're doing to 
try to curb the flight from this region. 

It's not fair that agents in one region have to 
be working all the overtime to maintain public safety 
where agents in another region don't. I think that's 
true. And it's not something that we can -- Those 
caseloads are not something we can maintain long term. 
I think your point is well taken. 

Ultimately, the parole proposal addresses the 
problem. It's going to depend on my and the 
administration's conversations with this body, with the 
legislature, and with our stakeholders, to know one way 
or the other. We just need to know really quickly for 
the reasons you pointed out. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Yeah, really quickly a 
response on this would be -- It's very troubling. 

MR. CATE: And I can give you some information 
about the intermediate steps we're taking right now in 
region three. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Okay. That would be helpful, 
maybe. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you for putting that 
squarely on the table here. And I suggest that we 
continue the discussion not only at the next hearing for 
Mr. Cate, but that we refer some of these questions to 

76 



1 CDCR. 

2 Throughout this association, Secretary Cate has 

3 always conducted himself with the highest level of 

4 integrity. He is a dedicated public servant who is hard 

5 working, and, important to the questions this committee 

6 has been asking, a visionary in terms of how to solve 

7 problems. He knows the department, and he knows those 

8 things that need to be done. He also has a very broad 

9 perspective of the criminal justice system because of 

10 his prior experience and where all this fits in. 

11 He has demonstrated that he can surround 

12 himself with talented people. Many of the questions 

13 that this committee has asked about management style, 

14 and I think it was the chairman who said, "You can't do 

15 it all by yourself." 

16 Secretary Cate, from my experience when I was 

17 at the attorney general's office, and he went to the 

18 inspector general's office, stole the best people. He 

19 knows how to surround himself with talented, dedicated 

20 people. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Is that a misdemeanor, or 

22 is that a wobbler? 

23 MR. THORPE: Well, at the attorney general's 

24 office, we considered it a special-circumstance felony, 

25 but we were not able to prosecute. 

78 



23 sheets 



Page 75 to 78 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



1 


My point being that he recognizes he cannot do 


1 


II 

I heard the word "disgusting" — 


2 


this himself, and he does surround himself with talented 


2 


MR. BOWLER: The disgusting is -- 


3 


people who have that same passion and dedication. 


3 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Set off an alarm. 


4 


And finally, just to mention, in the last, I 


4 


MR. BOWLER: The disgusting part is the 


5 


believe, 11 months that he has been appointed, he has 


5 


attitude of the bureaucracy, the administration. 


6 


had an open door, an open phone line, an open e-mail, 


6 


Our focus is on recidivism of parolees. We are 


7 


with all the stakeholders, including the district 


7 


persuaded with our — just the three of us have over a 


8 


attorneys. He listens to and considers the opinions and 


8 


hundred years of working with deviant people, and we 


9 


views of others, even when we disagree with each other. 


9 


are -- 


10 


So on behalf of the California District 


10 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Does that include the 


11 


Attorneys Association, we strongly urge an affirmative 


11 


legislature? 


12 


vote on Secretary Cate's appointment. 


12 


MR. BOWLER: Just talking about the guys with 


13 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, sir. 


13 


the ties. 


14 


We appreciate you coming to testify. 


14 


We are persuaded that if we can get a handle on 


15 


MR. THORPE: Thank you. 


15 


recidivism of parolees, we can get a handle on the 


16 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next. 


16 


overcrowding that's affecting our prison institutions. 


17 


MS. STEWART: Hello. I'm Gail Stewart, and I'm 


17 


I know Secretary Matt Cate to be a man of 


18 


here on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney 


18 


transparency, honesty, and integrity. He has been 


19 


Bonnie Dumanis. We echo many of the sentiments 


19 


appointed by the governor to a nearly impossible task, 


20 


expressed by Scott Thorpe. We are here to — 


20 


and that is governing CDCR, an ungovernable, in my mind, 


21 


We respect and commend Secretary Cate's 


21 


massive intransigent -- struggled on that word -- 


22 


leadership and his willingness, as Scott mentioned, to 


22 


bureaucracy. 


23 


bring the stakeholders to the table. It's critical for 


23 


Now, if you were to ask the CDCR 


24 


the San Diego County District Attorney, and we also urge 


24 


administrators, they would claim a myriad of 


25 


his confirmation. Thank you. 

79 


25 


rehabilitational programs, and they do exist on paper. 

81 


1 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. We 


1 


Their answer, however, will be misleading at best. Only 


2 


appreciate it. 


2 


two questions need to be asked, and that is, number one, 


3 


Assembly member. 


3 


"How many real, active, student inmate parolees are 


4 


MR. BOWLER: Yes, Senator. 


4 


enrolled in these programs?" And, number two, "Why 


5 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Nice to see. 


5 


does the -ecidivism rate among parolees persist at 


6 


MR. BOWLER: At this age, it's nice to be seen. 


6 


70 percent?" 


7 


Mr. Chair and Members and Secretary Cate, I am 


7 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Mr. Bowler, not to 


8 


a former Assemblyman, Larry Bowler, and I served in this 


8 


interrupt you, but I just want to -- because you weren't 


9 


building — that's L-a-r-r-y, B-o-w-l-e-r -- having 


9 


able to be present at the first day of hearing, we asked 


10 


served in this building between 1992 and 1998. 


10 


Mr. Cate and he agreed that on the 22nd of April, he's 


11 


Senator Bob Presley, formerly of this body, and 


11 


going to report back to this committee with some goals, 


12 


CHP Commissioner Spike Helmick and I have assembled a 


12 


timelines, benchmarks, specifically around programming, 


13 


group that we call The Presley Group. It includes a 


13 


and how over what time we are going to increase the 


14 


growing list of CDCR retirees and some active personnel, 


14 


number of inmates in vocational programs and in other 


15 


program administrators, wardens, and so forth, people 


15 


rehabilitation programs. So that information is 


16 


with knowledge and experience who basically are 


16 


forthcoming. 


17 


disgusted with the attitude and the actions and 


17 


And I expect we'll also hear more about it when 


18 


inactions of California Department of Corrections and 


18 


the administration unveils its revised parole policy as 


19 


Rehabilitation. 


19 


well. Just so you know. 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Excuse me, Mr. Bowler, but 


20 


MR. BOWLER: I understand, I understand, and I 


21 


are you here in support of the nominee? 


21 


look forward to that. 


22 


MR. BOWLER: Yes, I'm in support of Mr. Cate. 


22 


I've distributed a fact sheet of talking points 


23 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Oh, good. 


23 


about an award-winning parole training program, the 


24 


MR. BOWLER: Yes, I am. 


24 


bottom line of which sees 7 percent recidivism rate. 


25 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I just wanted to clarify. 


25 


That program could easily be taken on by CDCR and 




80 




82 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



Page 79 to 82 of 85 



22 of 23 she 



expanded throughout the state of California. So it can 
be done with the right concepts. 

And I basically give my sorrow to Secretary 
Cate in that he has to deal with those who will not 
accept any program that comes from outside their own 
bureaucracy. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Mr. Bowler, and 
thank you for your continued public service. 

MR. BOWLER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

Any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in 
opposition? 

All right. As we — Senator Aanestad, I'm 
sorry, had one more question. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. As we spoke about 
in the last hearing, we're going to recess this hearing 
and reconvene on the 22nd of April, where we would 
anticipate a vote, and we will want to review the 
information we requested in the first hearing, and the 
parole issue, and, specifically, you know, the very 
dramatic concerns that Senator Oropeza raised in her 
questioning. And so we will look forward to resuming. 

Thank you again for your time, and your candor, 
and your interaction with this committee. We appreciate 

83 



9 

10 



13 
14 
15 
16 



- -oOo- - 

I, INA C. LeBLANC. a Certified Shorthand 
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify 
that I am a disinterested person herein, that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 
hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, 
INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 
typewri t ing . 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
an;/ way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
2009 . 



. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 



JL^Al&M^- 



INA C. LeBLANC 
CSR NO. 6713 



21 
22 
23 



it. 

MR. CATE: Thank you. Thank you all very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. Very good. 

(Thereupon, the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
adjourned at 3:50 p.m.) 



-oOo- 



84 



3f 23 sheets 



Page 83 to 85 of 85 



04/06/2009 12:47:23 PM 



612-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications & Flags 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)651-1538 

Make checks or money orders payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 

Credit cards not accepted. 

Please include stock number 612-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




GOVERNMENT 
DOCUMENTS DEPT 

AUG 2 7 2009 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2009 

3:09 P.M. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



613-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
- -0O0- - 



HEARING 

STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

- -0O0- - 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2009 
3:09 P.M. 
- -oOo- - 



Reported By: INA C. LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 
CSR No. 6713 









1 


INDEX 




SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 




2 


P a a e 




STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




3 


Proceedings 1 








4 


Governor's Appointees: 




- -oOo- - 




5 


DONALD B. KOCH, Director, Department of Fish 
and Game 2 








6 
7 


Questions by SENATOR DUTTON re: 




HEARING 




8 


Financing plan for Marine Life 
Protection Act 3 




STATE CAPITOL 




9 


Cost of north central coast 




ROOM 11! 




10 


phase 6 








SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 
- -oOo- - 




11 
12 


Financing plan for MLPA 8 




Programs 9 




WEDNESDAY. APRIL 15. 2009 




13 


Financing plan for MLPA 10 








3.05 P . M 




14 


Balance of cost of the plan 13 




- -OOo- - 




15 
16 
17 


Central coast expenditures 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 
Use of $250,000 11 








18 


San Diego lobster poacher 15 








19 


Protecting salmon resource 16 




Reported Byr INA C LeBLANC 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 




20 


Conversations with Secretary 




CSR No. 6T13 






Chrisman 18 








21 


Final regulations 19 








22 


Secretary Chrisman's support of 








23 


initial rule package 19 








24 


Timing of board package 20 








25 


Adoption of rules 21 

in 


1 


APPEARANCES 




1 


Dredging 21 


2 


MEMBERS PRESENT 




2 
3 


Waterallocation. 22 


3 


- -o o - - 


4 


SENATOR DARRELL STEINBERG, Chair 




4 


Witnesses in Support of DONALD B. KOCH: 


5 
6 


SENATOR GIL CEDILLO 
SENATOR SAMUEL AANESTAD 




5 


RUDOLPH ROSEN, Ducks Unlimited . 25 




6 


ZEKE GRADER, Pacific Coast Federation of 










Fishermen's Association 26 


7 


SENATOR ROBERT DUTTON 




7 




8 


SENATOR JENNY OROPEZA 




8 


JIMMY SMITH, Humboldt County Board of 
Supervisors 28 


9 






9 


RICHARD ROOS-COLLINS, National Heritage 


10 


STAFF PRESENT 




10 


Institute 29 




11 








KIM DELFINO, Defenders o f W ild life 30 






11 




12 


GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 






REED ADDIS Ocean Conservancy 32 






12 




13 


JANE LEONARD BROWN, Committee Assistant 






BILL GAINES, California Outdoor Heritage 




NETTIE SABELHAUS, Appointments Consultant 




13 


Alliance 33 


14 




15 


BILL BAILEY, Assistant to SENATOR AANESTAD 
CHRIS BURNS, Assistant to SENATOR DUTTON 




14 
15 


DOUG OBEGI, Natural Resources Defense 
Council 34 


16 


KRISTOPHER TERRELL, Conservation Strategy 


17 


BRENDAN HUGHES, Assistant to SENATOR OROPEZA 




16 


Group 34 


18 






17 


TOM WESELOH, California Trout 35 


19 


ALSO PRESENT 




18 


Witness in Opposition to DONALD B. KOCH: 


20 






19 


BRIAN NOWICKI, Center for Biological 


21 


DONALD B. KOCH, Director, Department of Fish and Game 


20 


Diversity 36 


22 


DAVID R. SHAW, Inspector General of the Departmen 


t of 


21 


- - o o - - 


23 


Corrections and Rehabilitation 








22 


DAVID R. Shaw, Inspector General of the 


24 






23 


Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . 41 


25 






24 


Questions by SENATOR OROPEZA re: 




ii 




25 


Scope o f jo b /a ceo u n ta b ihty 44 

IV 


of 21 sheets 


Page 1 t 


3 4 Of 


6 04/20/2009 09:11:15 AM' 



Investigations 47 

Cost of housing juveniles 48 

Number of self-generated audits 
on annual basis 49 

Reform in specific prisons 50 

Time juveniles spend in cells — 51 

Accountability for solutions 51 

Anonymity of employees sharing 
information 54 

Appropriateness of opining on 
a u d its 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN STEINBERG re: 

Who does Inspector General report 
to 56 

Role/job of Inspector General .... 57 

Constraints of Inspector General . 59 

Percentage of wards in formal drug 
treatment programs at Preston .... 60 

Relationship between CDCR and 
the receiver/opinion about transfer 
of authority and power 63 

CDCR's development and training of 
its leaders/healthcare 64 

RoleofCROB 7 1 

Questions by SENATOR AANESTAD re: 

F e d era I sta n d a rd ofcare 65 

Medical person's involvement in 
the sta n da rd -settin g portion of 
evaluation 68 



1 PROCEEDINGS 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good afternoon. The 

3 Senate Rules Committee will come to order. 

4 Pleasecalltheroll. 

5 MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

6 Du tton . 

7 SENATOR DUTTON: Here. 

8 MS. BROWN: Dutton here. 

9 ro peza . 

10 SENATOR OROPEZA: Here. 

11 MS. BROWN: Oropeza here. 

12 A a nesta d . 

13 SENATOR AANESTAD: Here. 

14 MS. BROWN: Aanestad here. 

15 Steinberg. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Here. 

17 MS. BROWN: Steinberg here. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. We 

19 do have a quorum established. 

20 Good afternoon everybody, Members, staff, 

21 members of the public. Today we have two gubernatorial 

22 appointments who are required to appear before the 

23 Committee: Donald B. Koch as director of the Department 

24 of Fish and Game, and David Shaw as the inspector 

25 general of the Department of Corrections and 

1 



1 Witness in Support of DAVID R. SHAW : 

2 DAVID WARREN, Taxpayers for Improving 
Public Safety 69 

3 

4 

5 --o0o -- 

6 Vote-Only Item re Confirmation of 

7 HEDY L. CHANG, Member, Medical Board of 
California 41 

SHELTON J. DURUISSEAU, Ph.D, Member, Medical 
Board of California 41 

MARY L. MORAN, M.D., Member, Medical Board 
ofCalifornia 41 

LINDY DEKOVEN, Member, State Park and 
Recreation Commission 41 

13 ALICE A. HUFFMAN, Member, State Park and 
Recreation Commission 41 

WILLIAM G. KOGERMAN, Member, State Park and 
Recreation Commission 41 

--0O0-- 

Proceedings Adjourned 76 

Certificate of Reporter 77 

APPENDIX (Written Responses from Appointees) 



1 Rehab ilita tio n . 

2 Let us begin with Mr. Koch, who has appeared 

3 before the Committee before. Mr. Koch, welcome back 

4 MR. KOCH: Thankyou. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: How have you been' 

6 MR. KOCH: I've been having an entertaining and 

7 f u n tim e . 

8 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I'm sure you have. 

9 Let me -- Mr. Koch was before the Committee 

10 several weeks ago, and I think it's fair to conclude 

11 that we all -- or at least I felt positive about his 

12 presentation and about his performance, and yet 

13 unsatisfied, frankly, with the performance of the 

14 department itself, and specifically, around two major 

15 issues. One is the su ctio n -m in e-d redg ing issue. The 

16 second issue is an even more important issue around the 

17 state, our salmon fishery resource in this state. 

18 And we want to take some time today to talk 

19 more about that, in addition to a couple of other 

20 issues, and to explore, you know, just what the 

21 department and the administration intends to do with 

22 regard to these two crucial issues. And so let's get 

23 started. 

24 MR. KOCH: Sure. 

25 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 



i/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 5 to 2 of 6 



2 of 21 sheets 



Senator Dutton, I understand that you have a 
couple of questions that you wanted to ask Mr. Koch. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Yeah, I do. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Go ahead. 

SENATOR DUTTON: If I could, please. 

Mr. Koch, how are you doing this afternoon? 

MR. KOCH: Hi, Senator. Thank you. 

SENATOR DUTTON: My questions pretty much 
specifically have to do with the Marine Life Protection 
Act. 

MR. KOCH: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Back when that was first 
considered by the legislature, it was estimated to have 
a cost of roughly around $250,000, as I've been told, 
but it would appear as though today's cost is now 
projected to be in excess of $35 million. 

I'm just kind of curious where the department 
plans -- What's your financing plan for this, or are you 
planning to bring it back to the legislature? 

MR. KOCH: Very good and topical question, 
because we had a commission meeting -- Fish and Game had 
a commission meeting last week where we talked about 
this, and the $250,000 original proposal was what the 
department felt it would cost to staff up this initial 
planning effort. And as folks are aware, that was — it 

3 



1 when you look at the estimates that were developed in 

2 that planning process, there was a wide variety of 

3 estimates that were put out there, and that was based on 

4 experiences across the globe and what was reported in 

5 the literature. 

6 SENATOR DUTTON: Let me try to cut to the 

7 chase. I appreciate that, and I know things change, and 

8 sometimes it can be a moving target in this building. 

9 MR. KOCH: Right, right. 

10 SENATOR DUTTON: But is it $35 million that 

11 we're looking at? 

12 MR. KOCH: I would have to get the figures. 

13 It's not necessarily 35. We can talk about what we've 

14 expended to date. 

15 SENATOR DUTTON: I don't care about your 

16 expenditures to date. What I'm concerned about is your 

17 embarking on a plan, okay, without any idea at all, or 

18 without any vision, or not caring about how we're going 

19 to pay for it. 

20 I'm having a hard enough time now grappling 

21 with the $8 to $10 billion problem we still have today, 

22 even with having all the tax increases, and now you've 

23 got something else that somebody is having us go forward 

24 with. The legislature needs to have accurate 

25 information before you start going forward and start 

5 



was not a successful effort at the start, and it wasn't 
until we engaged a series of partners, collaborative 
partners, that we really got a good planning process up 
and an implementation process up. 

And one of the things we pointed out during the 
commission meeting is the importance, obviously, of the 
Act in managing the systems on an ecosystems basis; but 
also I was, quite frankly, stunned when I learned all 
the figures of what that public-private partnership was. 
And as we looked at the Channel Islands, the central 
coast, the north central coast, and now as we move to 
the south coast, there's a contribution to -- both to 
planning and implement that. It's been over 50 percent 
contributed by private sources, a variety of 
foundations, other agencies, and that's sort of a 
minimum estimate. Sometimes we don't know what amount 
of funding the Coast Guard or others may have put in 
because of all the other trust responsibilities we have. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Is your mic on? Could you 
move it a little closer. I didn't mean to interrupt 
your flow. 

MR. KOCH: That's fine. I appreciate it. 
Sorry. I should know better. 

And so right now, we recognize we're never 
going to be able to do it without these partners; but 

4 



1 committing. So that's what I'm trying to get to, 

2 because it isn't just the Marine Life Protection Act by 

3 itself. It's also some of the components. Because now 

4 you're talking about -- 

5 Well, let's go on to, maybe, the north central 

6 coast phase of it. What is the department's estimated 

7 cost just for that phase? Forget about the whole thing. 

8 How about just that phase? 

9 MR. KOCH: I think we can -- the reason -- 

10 I'm certainly not trying to be evasive, because 

11 it's an expensive endeavor, it's a necessary endeavor; 

12 and, again, I want to repeat there's no way we can do it 

13 without partners. But part of trying to estimate the 

14 price tag down to a precise number, which a lot of 

15 people would like to see, is -- some of the requirements 

16 of the Act develop -- require monitoring plans be 

17 developed, for example. That's in a process right now, 

18 a very open and public process. So until folks say, 

19 "Here's the range of what it's going to cost for 

20 monitoring; here's what we can really afford," it's 

21 difficult. 

22 So that's why I keep going back to our learning 

23 experience in the areas that we spend. If I remember 

24 off the top of my head, and I appreciate the opportunity 

25 to get you the numbers back, we spent around 2-1/2 -- in 

6 



of 21 sheets 



Page 3 to 6 of 78 



04/20/2009 09.11:15 AM' 



the north central — million dollars last year, the 
department, and that's not including things that we 
already do as part of our trust responsibility surveys 
for species. 

Next year in the department's budget, '09-'10 
budget, we have — I believe it's $4.8 million 
specifically allocated to MLPA issues. That's our total 
specific line-item allocation. 

Again, we take information from the 
department's abalone program and from others and feed 
that in, so that's a very minimum estimate. But right 
now, I can tell you that's what I'm planning as director 
to.... 

SENATOR DUTTON: What I would appreciate as a 
legislator is, and I won't speak for everybody, but I'm 
trying to grab ahold of the whole thing, and I'm having 
a hard time doing that. 

When we put together a program, one of the 
concerns I've always had is we start embarking on these 
plans, and sometimes we put tremendous burden on Fish 
and Game without any concept of what it's going to cost. 
But when it's coming through the legislature, it says 
250,000, let's say, but then when you actually start 
looking at it, it turns out it's a lot more. 

Well, it would have been nice if somebody would 

7 



1 that when you look at what's out there, I think there's 

2 a general understanding where those problems are, so 

3 what we're going to be doing is trying to figure out as 

4 we develop and learn the modern expertise that we've 

5 done and with the partners have found, we can do 

6 programs at various levels of funding, and right now 

7 I've got 4.8 identified specifically, so more than 

8 250,000. 

9 But I don't — It is not possible for me to 

10 give you an accurate number, because the accurate hasn't 

11 been defined or adequate. 

12 SENATOR DUTTON: I assume, then, that you're 

13 not going to actually try to implement the program until 

14 such time that you have a funding source determined. 

15 MR. KOCH: The commission makes a decision 

16 about implementing the program, and they're going 

17 through that public review process right now in the 

18 north central coast. 

19 We are actively engaged in the Southern 

20 California planning program, as well as engaged with the 

21 Department of Resources in the central coast and already 

22 in the north central coast here. 

23 SENATOR DUTTON: Well, assuming for a minute 

24 that there is no funding provided for implementation, 

25 you know, by the legislature, or from any other sources, 

9 



have said something to the legislature before they 
passed on the responsibility, thinking it was 250 and 
then it turns out you need a lot more. Just like the 
north central coast phase, in an earlier report from the 
Fish and Game staff, it was estimated it could cost 
$13 million. 

I'll go back to the same question: Where are 
you going to get this money? Are you going to come back 
and say, "Okay. Now that you've started going down this 
path -- We're sorry we didn't tell you beforehand, or 
somebody didn't at least prepare you, but we need you to 
give us another $13 million here, and we'll just shut 
everything down until we figure out — until you give us 
the money so we can figure out for sure what problem we 
have." 

My understanding is, part of this is that we're 
trying to also determine what's causing our problems and 
what's our plan of action to make it better and become 
better stewards, but we don't even know what the problem 
is that we're trying to solve, exactly, right now. Tell 
me if I'm wrong. I mean, that's my impression. 

MR. KOCH: I think with anything, especially in 
the scientific arena, you can spend a tremendous amount 
of money collecting information and have very — you 
know, robust data sets and precise information. I think 

8 



1 what Fish and Game programs would you suggest that we 

2 eliminate, or laws would you suggest we might stop 

3 enforcing in order to be able to implement the MLPA? 

4 MR. KOCH: I would make tough choices. We have 

5 4.8 this coming fiscal year, and I'll do the best that I 

6 can with that. I think to imply we would quit enforcing 

7 regulations or quit collecting data for the marine 

8 environment is not — not something we can do within our 

9 trust environment. 

10 SENATOR DUTTON: I would agree with you. 

11 MR. KOCH: So I will continue to.... 

12 SENATOR DUTTON: So what I'm trying to get 

13 around to: You have new programs that sound like 

14 they're going to cost multimillion dollars. I'm just 

15 trying to get a handle on it. Can I get assurances from 

16 you that you're not going to come to the legislature for 

17 any money for this; you'll figure out a way to do it 

18 within your existing resources? 

19 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: If you can. 

20 SENATOR DUTTON: Go ahead. 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: No. 

22 SENATOR DUTTON: I'm actually towards the end. 

23 MR. KOCH: Sir, as you know, the governor comes 

24 to you with what resources, and I'll continue to work 

25 with the Natural Resource Agency and move our process 

10 



/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 7 to 10 of 78 



4 of 21 sheets 



through that and certainly respect that process and the 
wisdom that comes out of it. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Well, my big concern is I 
actually have the greatest respect for the Fish and Game 
environment and the men and women in uniform that 
actually help and support it. I am concerned about it 
fulfilling our basic mission without embarking on 
additional things, without providing you the resources. 

So it's not so much a criticism of you as it 
is -- I'm a little concerned about where the 
administration is going and what we do as a body when we 
put these tasks before you without providing you the 
financial resources. 

I do think it's important to get that feedback, 
and I would appreciate if you would give me that 
information so at least I can share it with my 
colleagues that while some people may have thought it's 
going to be 250, this thing is going to get into the 
millions of dollars, and we do need to have a finance 
plan. We want to do it right. 

MR. KOCH: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Senator Dutton. 
I want to follow up, because it's interesting. 

Is the 250 or beyond 250 for implementation of 
the MLPA for enforcement itself, or for testing, or some 

11 



1 resources to fully enforce. 

2 SENATOR DUTTON: I guess where I was coming 

3 from, and you just reminded me of something — 

4 Right now, we do have the central coast plan 

5 that's in effect. So we actually have experience with 

6 that, knowing what the cost is. You're currently doing 

7 that. So why, using that as a model, couldn't we 

8 determine what the balance of the cost is going to be 

9 for the rest of the plan? 

10 MR. KOCH: I can tell you what we are spending 

11 as a department in the central coast. The concern is 

12 that -- and that will give you some sideboards of what 

13 to expect in the north coast. But as you move — 

14 SENATOR DUTTON: I understand. 

15 MR. KOCH: So there are extreme differences in 

16 cost based on the actual physical location sometimes. 

17 SENATOR DUTTON: Well, it certainly won't be 

18 any less than what the central coast plan is, right? 

19 MR. KOCH: When you look at the amount of money 

20 the partners are spending, it is more than Fish and Game 

21 is contributing. 

22 SENATOR DUTTON: Well, how much is the central 

23 coast spending? 

24 MR. KOCH: I will make sure you get it tomorrow 

25 morning. 

13 



other aspect of the Act? 

MR. KOCH: The current budget we have, which, 
again, has gone through all the legislative processes 
and budget processes, is 4.8, and that is for our trust 
responsibility. So it includes enforcement, it includes 
our monitoring, it includes public outreach, and our 
work in the planning process. 

I want to emphasize, for example, in the budget 
that was just approved by the legislature and the 
governor, 19 new wardens were approved in that budget, 
and although not directly MLPA, we made the decision to 
make those MLPA marine-focused wardens. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I think Senator Dutton 
makes a fair point, but I would say that, right or 
wrong, we often pass laws, for example, in the criminal 
penalty area where we enhance penalties, but we don't 
necessarily increase prison capacity. We don't 
necessarily increase the number of law-enforcement 
officers to be able to implement the enforcement piece 
of the law. We hope that the law itself might act as a 
deterrent towards a particular behavior that we want to 
prohibit. 

So it's not always -- Enforcement, of course, 
is important, but it's not like it's a unique situation 
that the department would not have the full amount of 

12 



1 SENATOR DUTTON: I agree with what Senator 

2 Steinberg has said, and that's the reason why even 

3 rehabilitation programs, frankly, cost more. They sound 

4 like they're great goals and objectives, but sometimes 

5 we don't have the resources to actually make those work 

6 either. So that's also part of the problem. 

7 And I think we need to be more realistic, and 

8 that's my concern, namely, with Fish and Game. 

9 Recently, we just read there was a bear that poachers 

10 had killed the mother, and the bear is now down at Wild 

11 Haven down in my area. I want to thank Fish and Game 

12 for making that connection, that we do have a preserve 

13 down there to kind of help. This poor little cub was 

14 too little to ever be put back into the wild, because 

15 its mother was killed prematurely. 

16 You know, it's not necessarily that having more 

17 officers would have helped prevent that, but poaching is 

18 a real problem in our state, and it is one of our basic 

19 functions that we don't do very well, because we have 

20 purposefully understaffed Fish and Game, and we don't 

21 have sufficient wardens out there. 

22 I'll make clear to you, I'll keep bugging 

23 everybody about that. It certainly is going to be 

24 forefront on my mind, because I do like to make sure 

25 we're fulfilling our basic mission. But I do have 

14 



of 21 sheets 



Page 11 to 14 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 AM' 



concern about an expensive program like this, 
implementing something and not knowing for sure, you 
know, exactly where we're going or how we're going to 
pay for it, and how we're going to get there. 

So I'd appreciate maybe some insight to some 
type of financing plan on how we're going to go -- and 
what we need to expect the legislature to have to 
provide in order to go forward. 

Thank you. 

MR. KOCH: Certainly. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We want to move on to 
salmon. It's a serious topic, but when you find small 
moments of levity, you just can't let them pass. And 
that is: The staff report here, What happened to the 
man in San Diego who was arrested for the fourth time in 
the La Jolla conservation area for poaching lobsters, 
and what happened during one of his arrests when he was 
found with six undersized lobsters hidden in his pants? 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Ouch. 

SENATOR DUTTON: That must have been real 
painful. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We'd like to have a 
medical expert brought in the hearing, please, to -- 
Okay. 

(Laughter.) 

15 



1 There are two things that bothered me. Number 

2 one, you've had temporary rules for nine years. What's 

3 taken so long to get to the finish line? Number one. 

4 And number two is: Instead of the original package that 

5 you recommended going out for public comment, I'm told 

6 that the package that's out for public comment has 

7 32 different options. 

8 Can you assure the Committee and the public 

9 here that the department will adopt expeditiously the 

10 option or options that most strongly protect the salmon 

11 resource in this state? 

12 MR. KOCH: Certainly. And I agree it's been a 

13 long time -- nine years, I think you mentioned -- and 

14 Mr. Stauffer, who I brought in to shepherd this, 

15 referred to that. 

16 I think two things: One is the reason there's 

17 30 options in front of you -- excuse me -- in front of 

18 the Board of Forestry is that that represents the 

19 viewpoints of all the parties that have been talking for 

20 a long time, including Fish and Game and the forest 

21 review committees. 

22 I think two things that are really important to 

23 remember and one of the reasons I asked Mr. Stauffer to 

24 deliver that very strong message was that in March of 

25 this year, I believe it was, the Fish and Game 

17 



CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Good question, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. A little 
levity. 

That was a very serious subject, and the 
following subject is also very serious, and that's this 
issue of salmon. Even in the interim period between 
your first hearing and today, it's gotten worse. I 
mean, the reports have gotten worse. And you heard our 
expressed frustration last time, not so much directed at 
you personally, but directed at the department, directed 
at the administration. 

We had follow-up meetings with Secretary 
Chrisman, as you know, and, frankly, I must say I know 
no more. Senator Oropeza was present with me. We know 
no more than what we knew when you were first here in 
terms of what the department's intentions are, so I want 
to press hard here. 

MR. KOCH: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Last week at the Board of 
Forestry proceedings, your representative, Mark 
Stauffer, made a strong statement on your behalf 
supporting the initial rules package recommended by Fish 
and Game, which I believe there's some consensus around 
it being an aggressive approach to protecting salmon. 

16 



1 Commission and the board adopted their joint policy 

2 which for the first time really articulated the goal of 

3 both Fish and Game and the California Board of Forestry 

4 to try and strive for recovery, just not maintenance. 

5 That was an important part of the department's 

6 recommendation to push that through to the full board, 

7 because if it stayed in committee longer, quite frankly, 

8 it may have not been out of committee because of the 

9 contentious viewpoints, or the viewpoints. 

10 So I want to laud the full board members who 

11 agreed to advance this forward. And it does have 30 

12 options, and Mr. Stauffer told me -- I think it's 

13 180 pages right now. We're going to support the 

14 positions that we have supported through that process, 

15 and I think when you look at mixing and matching those 

16 30 options, there's significant improvements, especially 

17 in class two watersheds. 

18 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Who is "we"? 

19 MR. KOCH: Department of Fish and Game. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Department of Fish and 

21 Game. What about the secretary? 

22 MR. KOCH: Sir, I do have -- 

23 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: No. Have you had 

24 conversations with the secretary of the administration 

25 whether or not they back Mr. Stauffer's very strong 

18 



1/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 15 to 18 of 78 



6 of 21 sheets 



recommendations on your behalf? 

MR. KOCH: When we made -- Mr. Chrisman 
certainly supported my moving Mr. Stauffer here and the 
stance we've taken during the board hearings or to date. 
And in terms of -- of the policy statement we made in 
that, I think that speaks for itself. But I really 
can't.... 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So would it be a surprise 
to you if it came out any differently in the final 
regulations? 

MR. KOCH: I wouldn't want to suspect what that 
is, but I think if you look at the 30 options, there's 
parts and pieces of each of them that we would be 
pleased to see a significant progress made to restore -- 
I don't think there's a — at least to my knowledge, I 
haven't read all 30, that there's a single option that 
we're going to push to meet our objectives that are 
established in the policy, the Board of Forestry policy, 
Fish and Game, and that is recovery. So we're going to 
push for those. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Just to clarify for the 
record, Secretary Chrisman did support and does support, 
in fact, your -- the initial rule package as articulated 
by Mark Stauffer at the Board of Forestry here in the 
last week. 

19 



1 posted on the Office of Administrative Law, and it goes 

2 through the public review process, I believe, in the 

3 next hearing to adopt those rulings, discuss them, is 

4 early June, mid-June. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And do you expect that th< 

6 rules will be adopted in early June? 

7 MR. KOCH: Sir, I think that's a Board of 

8 Forestry decision based on their public discussion. We 

9 will certainly be active in that process. 

10 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. What about 

11 dredging? Anything new you want to tell us? 

12 MR. KOCH: Certainly. As I mentioned when we 

13 got together in late February, that we were -- the 

14 complexities of that issue. We were — I was complying 

15 with the department director with the statutes. 

16 We have since that time selected a contractor, 

17 the CEQA process is beginning, and we're on target to 

18 finish that and do a rule-making file by the end of 

19 2010. So we are on track and doing everything we can as 

20 fast as we can within the.... 

21 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: In the meantime, the 

22 practice continues and the permits are issued. 

23 MR. KOCH: That's correct, sir. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Again, I'm going to 

25 express my displeasure with that perspective and take it 

21 



MR. KOCH: Again, I don't want to put words 
into Mr. Chrisman, but I can tell you I haven't had any 
negative feedback from anybody in the administration 
about the statement that I asked Mark to make. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I thought you had said 
earlier, and this is important to understand, because 
this is sort of the theme of the hearing a little bit, 
how much authority you actually do have to carry out 
your statutory responsibilities. 

Did Mr. Chrisman say to you before Mr. Stauffer 
went to the board that he supported the initial rule? 

MR. KOCH: Sir, I didn't ask him that question, 
and I think the fact that I didn't feel necessary to do 
that -- The administration has expressed support of me. 
That's why they nominated me. I certainly serve at the 
pleasure of the administration, but I haven't — 

I'm a long-time career employee, and I'm 
passionate about the resource. I was retired when I 
took — you know, took this job, so I'm in a unique 
position to reach the brass rail of my career, so to 
speak. And I think.... 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. What about timing? 

MR. KOCH: With the board package, sir? 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes. 

MR. KOCH: I believe it is scheduled to be 

20 



1 up directly with the governor's office, and I'm going to 

2 keep pushing on that issue. 

3 All right. There's one more issue that has 

4 arisen since the last time we met, and that is the 

5 Committee has been contacted by several members and 

6 interest groups about a board of reclamation request 

7 that the department surrender 25 percent of its water 

8 allocation used for fish and wildlife for agriculture. 

9 Any response? 

10 MR. KOCH: Well, we haven't received that kind 

11 of request. I think what -- my understanding of the 

12 genesis of this concern, which is legitimate, is that 

13 there was a meeting, which I nor any Fish and Game 

14 employee was at, with several Congressional members 

15 discussing water issues and the effect of the drought, 

16 in a general topic. 

17 During that meeting somebody asked could the 

18 refuges who get 100 percent -- and I want to address 

19 that issue -- could they go back to 75 percent of their 

20 allocation. So to my knowledge, there was a question 

21 asked at a meeting, and we haven't received any request 

22 to do that. 

23 But I want to clarify, because when you read in 

24 the paper wildlife refuges got 100 percent allocation, 

25 and some people got zero, and some others got 100 as 

22 



of 21 sheets 



Page 19 to 22 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 AM' 



well, wildlife refuges in state, federal, and private 
refuges didn't get 100 percent what CVPIA says they 
need -- CVPIA says they need to function. 

What we have are two different levels of water 
there. One is bound for Fish and Game with a contract 
with the Bureau of Reclamation that is very complex and 
describes specific criteria when we can take the 
25 percent reduction. And that's a critically dry 
year -- that we're not in a critically dry year based on 
issues, so.... 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So you would oppose any 
kind of diversion at this time from -- 

MR. KOCH: We're looking at all the information 
so I can be as informed -- 

What I wanted to do is emphasize it was a 
question asked in a meeting that we weren't there, and 
the complexities and the importance of those 19 refuges. 
I don't want people to perceive that's a duck issue. 

The wildlife refuges support all sorts of 
water-associated birds, and some of them are listed, 
some of them are hunted. It also supports important 
fish and wildlife habitat for amphibs, for the reptiles. 
So it's a very serious issue to us. But I wouldn't say 
that I was -- when a member of Congress or the 
legislature asks me a question based on what a region is 

23 



1 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: All right. Let us hear 

2 from witnesses, then, and I'm going to, as I always do, 

3 ask witnesses to be brief. You know, actually, you're 

4 much more effective when you're brief and you give us 

5 the punchy -- so to speak -- line about why you feel 

6 strongly one way or the other about Mr. Koch's 

7 nomination. So let's ask the witnesses in support to 

8 please come forward. 

9 Again, those who testified the last time don't 

10 need to come up -- don't need to come up and repeat the 

11 testimony from last time, because we've all watched the 

12 video at least 15 times. 

13 Sir. 

14 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name 

15 is Rudy Rosen, and I'm director of western operations 

16 for Ducks Unlimited. In fact, I did come up here last 

17 time, and I did endorse the nomination last time; but a 

18 subject just came up, and I feel it necessary to address 

19 it, and that has to do with refuge water supply. 

20 Not long after Mr. Koch received that question, 

21 I received a call from him. He wanted to explain the 

22 situation, and I'll tell you why. That says a lot about 

23 the determination of this gentleman to coordinate with 

24 the partners and the management of this resource, 

25 because the only way you can manage the water fowl 

25 



doing, it's not an unreasonable question to ask; but I 
haven't been asked the question to respond to, so.... 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, I suppose we're 
asking it here today. 

MR. KOCH: Right. No. I appreciate that, sir. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We just want to know. I 
mean, we just talked about the salmon crisis. 

MR. KOCH: Right. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And we want to know and 
have some comfort that there's not some decision in the 
works, or that you wouldn't support a decision to divert 
25 percent of the water to make the problem that we just 
discussed even worse. 

MR. KOCH: Right. As I mentioned earlier about 
why I do the job I'm doing, and the mission, I hope it's 
clear, based on what I said, so.... 

But without the facts and without a question to 
me, I don't want to say -- I think the contract -- 
They're 25-year contracts. They're not a two-page 
document to go through. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do we have other Members 
who would like to ask any questions? 

SENATOR OROPEZA: You've covered all my issues, 
Mr. Chair. That's fine. I appreciate — You did it in 
a fine way. I'm fine. 

24 



1 resource in the central valley is cooperatively, state, 

2 federal, and private interests. And he explained the 

3 situation, as he just did. 

4 And I'll just say one more thing before I 

5 leave, and that is that no refuge in the CVPIA system 

6 will receive 100 percent of its water this year. 

7 They're all going to be shorted to some degree or 

8 another, some as much as 60 percent, others less, and 

9 even if they receive that so-called 100 percent, because 

10 100 percent is not 100 percent. Like he said, there are 

11 two different levels of CVPIA water. In one case they 

12 may also receive 100 percent for one level, but they 

13 also may receive zero percent of the other level. 

14 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Very good. 

15 MR. ROSEN: Thank you. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, that's further 

17 support for Mr. Koch. 

18 Appreciate it very much, Mr. Rosen. 

19 MR. ROSEN: Thank you. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next witness. 

21 MR. GRADER: Thank you, Senator Steinberg and 

22 Members of the Committee. My name is Zeke Grader, and 

23 I'm the executive director for the Pacific Coast 

24 Federation of Fishermen's Association. We, among 

25 others, represent all of California's organized 

26 



1/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 23 to 26 of 78 



8 of 21 sheets 



commercial salmon fisheries, the very same people that 
are out of business now for the second year in a row as 
a result of what's happened to our salmon fishery. 

The last hearing I came before you, we had no 
position. We had not met with Mr. Koch, and we had 
some -- voiced to you some serious concerns that we had 
with operation of the department. We continue to have 
many of the very same concerns; however, in the 
intervening time, my board did sit down and had a very 
frank and long discussion with Mr. Koch. And I think 
the feeling there is that the problems we're looking at 
primarily are not of his making so much as we continue 
to see continued interference by administrations going 
back a long ways in the operations of the Department of 
Fish and Game that have given us real problems in the 
operations of our fisheries and, we think, are at least 
partially responsible for the situation our salmon are 
in today. 

I think the board felt that Mr. Koch is 
probably the best qualified person we have had for the 
department probably since Seth Gordon. He was appointed 
by Governor Warren in 1954, so that gives you an idea, I 
think, of the feeling that Mr. Koch is qualified. 

We continue to have concerns, but we were 
elated -- and you mentioned, Senator Steinberg — by the 

27 



1 the most significant watershed improvement/restoration 

2 project in Northern California, the estuary restoration 

3 of the Eel River, which I believe will improve fish 

4 passage for coho, for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, 

5 and cutthroat trout. It's a magnificent program. It 

6 only would have happened if Fish and Game would have 

7 stood up to the plate and said, "We will help you. We 

8 will manage this property. We will help you manage in 

9 addition for Aleutian geese," to help the economy, to 

10 help people in partnerships for the long-term, not just 

11 for six months. 

12 For me, this is an honor. He has no idea that 

13 my wife and I traveled here today. We came on our own, 

14 on our own dollar, to make sure that we were here to 

15 support him. He's a gentleman. He's walked the walk. 

16 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I think that says a whole 

17 lot. And thank you, Supervisor, for your service and 

18 for coming to the Capitol today. We appreciate it. 

19 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Next. 

21 MR. ROOS-COLLINS: Mr. Chair, Senators. I'm 

22 Richard Roos-Collins. I direct the legal services for a 

23 nonprofit law firm in San Francisco called the Natural 

24 Heritage Institute, and we represent conservation groups 

25 and public agencies in water matters, including efforts 

29 



department's appearance before the Board of Forestry 
last week and the very strong presentation they made for 
the coho rules. Our concern now is not that Mr. Koch 
did not do his job, but whether the Board of Forestry 
will carry out and finally put in place the coho rules 
that we've needed for nearly a decade now to protect the 
salmon, because certainly those could have helped, in 
part, with our salmon situation today, but not all of 
it. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

MR. GRADER: With that said, we are in support. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

Next. Again, brief, please. 

MR. SMITH: I can do this quickly. My name is 
Jimmy Smith. I'm the current chair of the Board of 
Supervisors of Humboldt County, but I'm here today as 
the supervisor with a number of north coast streams in 
my district. The Eel River, we talked about salmon. 
The Elk River, the Headwaters Forest, Pacific Lumber 
Company, Salmon Creek, the Mattole Valley, the Lost 
Coast, all in my district. 

I am here today to support Mr. Koch, because he 
walked the walk. He walked beside me to make 
partnerships happen when we didn't have enough money. 
He is my partner in doing one of the biggest, in fact, 

28 



1 to recover salmon. I did testify here last time, and 

2 this time I will testify not about Mr. Koch's character, 

3 but instead about strategy. 

4 In my view, salmon recovery is not just about 

5 what the law says or the policy of the department, but 

6 instead how the law and policy are administered, and 

7 that's because the challenge of salmon recovery is 

8 tremendous. Many limiting factors. Many stressors 

9 affect salmon recovery. 

10 What Mr. Koch has done in the Klamath and also 

11 is doing in the bay delta is moving strategy in the 

12 direction of multiple species in higher habitat 

13 communities and also collaboration with all of the 

14 effective stakeholders so that we actually achieve the 

15 result, not just on paper but in fact. He is about 

16 strategy, effective strategy, for salmon recovery. For 

17 that reason, again, I come before you to plea that you 

18 support his nomination. Thank you. 

19 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

20 Next. 

21 MS. DELFINO: Good afternoon. My name is 

22 Kim Delfino, and I'm the California program director for 

23 Defenders of Wildlife, and we did not testify 

24 previously, but we are supportive of Mr. Koch's 

25 confirmation as Fish and Game director. 

30 



of 21 sheets 



Page 27 to 30 of 78 



04/20/2009 09 11 15 



I do want to say that I thank the Committee for 
the airing of various issues that folks have had with 
certain problems that have been identified within the 
Department of Fish and Game, the salmon issue, and then, 
most recently, the issue that came up over the refuge 
water supply. 

We certainly hope that if a formal question is 
posed to the Department of Fish and Game, that Fish and 
Game would adhere to its CVPIA contracts and continue to 
have a full level-two water supply to the refuges. 

I just want to say that in the years that I 
have worked with the Department of Fish and Game, I have 
to really appreciate Mr. Koch's openness and willingness 
to meet with the nonprofits even when we don't always 
share a common viewpoint. 

I have to say that he has probably been one of 
the most open and receptive directors that I've worked 
with in a long time, and I really also appreciate the 
fact that while I think he really does have the best 
interest of fish and wildlife and public trust at heart, 
I really appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee 
has raised the issue about while a director may have the 
best interest at heart, where the larger administration 
is going. And I would hope that the Committee and that 
the Chairman would continue with some of this oversight 

31 



1 Other witnesses in support. 

2 MR. GAINES: Mr. Chair and Members of the 

3 Committee, my name is Bill Gaines. I'm president of the 

4 California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, an organization 

5 that represents over 30 wildlife organizations. 

6 We did testify previously in support of 

7 Mr. Koch. I'm very pleased to be here today in support 

8 of Mr. Koch. I had the pleasure of working with him 

9 one-on-one back in 2001 during the Klamath water crisis 

10 in dealing with the water shortage up there and trying 

11 to find water for wetlands — 

12 THE REPORTER: Can you slow down, please. 

13 MR. GAINES: I've had the pleasure of working 

14 with him over the course of the last year or so in his 

15 stint as director as well. 

16 We are very concerned about the possibility of 

17 losing 25 percent of the level-two refuge water supply. 

18 That's not just duck water. That is water that provides 

19 spring and summer needs for a — 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Slow down. 

21 MR. GAINES: - variety of our state's wildlife 

22 species, many of which are threatened and endangered, so 

23 we hope to work closely with the department to see that 

24 the water goes where it needs to go to support the 

25 wildlife on the state wildlife areas. Thank you very 

33 



on some of these issues to make sure that we actually — 
the issues that were raised and addressed, actually 
follow through to the right end. And I appreciate you 
listening to our views. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
Ms. Delfino. 

Hello, sir. 

MR. ADDIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and 
Members. My name is Reed Addis. I'm here on behalf of 
the Ocean Conservancy in support. 

Our support should not diminish the concerns 
raised by the Chair and our colleagues. We understand 
those are important issue, and we do hope the Senate 
will pursue looking into those issues; but we sincerely 
believe the confirmation of Mr. Koch is important to the 
state, and it's the best thing the state can do. 

In particular, the Ocean Conservancy is very 
interested and has been very happy with Mr. Koch as he 
has been working to implement the Marine Life Protection 
Act, which was mentioned earlier today. We believe it's 
a landmark piece of legislation, and we think he's done 
a yeoman's effort in trying to implement that and 
believe his efforts will be successful for the future. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, Mr. Addis. 

32 



1 much. 

2 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you, sir. 

3 Any other witnesses? Are there others lining 

4 up back there? One more. Okay. 

5 MR. OBEGI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and 

6 Members of the Committee. I'm Doug Obegi, an attorney 

7 with the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

8 I'm here today to support Mr. Koch's 

9 confirmation. We have worked with him over the last 

10 year or so. He has had an open-door policy with us. 

11 He's been very forthcoming. We're not going to always 

12 agree, but we think that he has the capacity and the 

13 leadership to help rebuild the department for the 

14 future. 

15 With a number of key issues facing the 

16 department over the coming years, particularly important 

17 for us is what happens in the delta and making sure that 

18 we restore our salmon for future generations to enjoy. 

19 I think that he has his heart in the right place, and I 

20 look forward to working with him for the next couple 

21 years. Thank you. 

22 MR. TERRELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and 

23 Members of the Committee. Kristopher Terrell on behalf 

24 of Audubon California and the Nature Conservancy. I'll 

25 keep this short. 

34 



I/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 31 to 34 of 78 



10 of 21 sheets 



We endorse the nomination of Mr. Koch. Thank 
you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. Very 
effective testimony. 

(Laughter.) 

MR. WESELOH: Boy, that's a tough act to 
follow. 

Good afternoon. I'm Tom Weseloh with 
California Trout. We did present concerns when we were 
in front of the Committee before. We appreciate the 
fact that the Committee took those concerns seriously 
and brought them to the administration and pursued them. 
We still believe those concerns need to be followed up 
on. 

We do appreciate the department's 
recommendation at the Board of Forestry, and we do look 
forward to working with the legislature, with the folks 
on this Committee, and with the department and director 
of Fish and Game to make sure that we do recover fish 
and we do recover salmon, because, as you clearly 
articulated, things have gotten worse since we were here 
last, and we find the burden always put on the backs of 
fishermen, and we would like to see habitat protection 
as the primary issue that we deal with so there's enough 
fish for all of us. So we look forward to solving those 

35 



1 the eye and admit it was a political decision, apologize 

2 for much wasted time and demoralization of us 

3 scientists. Mr. Koch did his own independent analysis 

4 but did not check with his own field people who try and 

5 apply the rules," end quote. And "It strongly appears 

6 this decision was based on politics ahead of the 

7 consideration of the biological data even overruling 

8 recommendations expressed within the department." 

9 Without a doubt, the department has a long 

10 history and culture of problems of politics being put 

11 ahead of special interests, and special interests ahead 

12 of policy and biology, and Mr. Koch can't entirely be 

13 held responsible for all of that. 

14 I have met with Mr. Koch, and I found him to be 

15 quite thoughtful and very approachable. However, the 

16 department desperately needs a director who can set the 

17 department back on track and restore its commitment to 

18 science and protection of California's treasured 

19 wildlife. So, regrettably, given the actions and 

20 decisions during his tenure as director, including some 

21 of those that have been covered and the other issues 

22 before me, the Center for Biological Diversity must 

23 oppose his nomination right now. 

24 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much for 

25 your testimony, sir. 

37 



problems with the director. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

All right. Are there any witnesses in 
opposition to the nomination? Sir. 

MR. NOWICKI: My name is Brian Nowicki. I'm 
here with the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm 
sorry to say the Center for Biological Diversity feels 
we have no choice but to oppose Mr. Koch's confirmation 
as director. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Can you speak closer. 

MR. NOWICKI: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Lower it. 

MR. NOWICKI: I know most of the issues -- a 
lot of issues have already been covered in pretty good 
detail. I want to bring up one more related issue. 

Mr. Koch as director actively opposed, against 
the recommendations of department biologists, the 
California Endangered Species Act petition to lift the 
Pacific fisher which supports carnivore threatened by 
logging practices. 

In a memo from one department biologist -- In a 
memo, one department biologists said, quote, "Most of 
staff working on the evaluation concluded petition 
action may be warranted," end quote. 

Another one is Mr. Koch did, quote, "Look us in 

36 



1 Anybody else in opposition? 

2 All right. It is time to make a decision here, 

3 and I want to indicate, first of all, my thanks for your 

4 patience and your testimony before the Committee here, 

5 and I want to indicate my strong support for your 

6 nomination. 

7 I think, you know, we all agreed after the last 

8 hearing that you're a good, capable public servant, but 

9 I was impressed today by the breadth of the 

10 environmental testimony on your behalf today. 

11 We spent a lot of time, and I think rightfully, 

12 on some of our unhappiness with the lack of progress on 

13 so many issues, and it's our expectation that you are 

14 going to surpass the performance of this guy who was 

15 appointed in 1954, and that you're, in fact, going to -- 

16 you're going to solve some of these problems. 

17 I know and you know that the governor does not 

18 want the salmon to disappear on his watch, and it has 

19 been nine years -- nine years of temporary regulations 

20 on this issue. And you've done your part in many 

21 respects by putting forward and recommending a very 

22 strong position on behalf of salmon restoration, and now 

23 we ask you to do everything you can to take it up the 

24 line, so to speak, and to make sure that you do 

25 everything you can to make that policy go into effect, 

38 



l of 21 sheets 



Page 35 to 38 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 AM< 



1 


and sooner rather than later. 


1 


please. Any objections to items one and three? 


2 


And then on the suction-dredging issue, you 


2 


If not -- Moved by Senator Oropeza. 


3 


continue to, I think, at your -- we're going to push it 


3 


Please call the roll. 


4 


at different levels to try to stop it pending the EIR. 


4 


MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 


5 


At your level, the best I think we can ask from you is 


5 


SENATOR CEDILLO: Aye. 


6 


to do everything you can to expedite that environmental 


6 


MS. BROWN: Cedillo aye. 


7 


review process so that one way or another, this comes to 


7 


Dutton. 


8 


a head and this practice is limited, if not halted. 


8 


Oropeza. 


9 


So there's a lot of work to do, and big 


9 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 





challenges, but you're obviously a good person, a good 


10 


MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 


1 


public servant, and I'm happy to support your 


11 


Aanestad. 


2 


nomination. 


12 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 


3 


Moved by Senator Dutton. No other comments. 


13 


MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 


4 


Please call the roll. 


14 


Steinberg. 


5 


MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 


15 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 


6 


SENATOR CEDILLO: Aye. 


16 


MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 


7 


MS. BROWN: Cedillo aye. 


17 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Good. Those measures are 


8 


Dutton. 


18 


out. Now some people can get on with their day. That's 


9 


SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 


19 


the way it is. 





MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 


20 


Okay. I would like to take up file item 2B, 


1 


Oropeza. 


21 


which is the nomination of David R. Shaw as the 


2 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 


22 


inspector general of the Department of Corrections and 


3 


MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 


23 


Rehabilitation. 


4 


Aanestad. 


24 


Mr. Shaw, welcome to you. 


5 


SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 


25 


MR. SHAW: Thank you. 




39 




41 


1 


MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 


1 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: We have a tradition here 


2 


Steinberg. 


2 


in the Committee where we want to give you the 


3 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 


3 


opportunity to introduce any members of your family or 


4 


MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 


4 


special guests who are here with you today. 


5 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 


5 


MR. SHAW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 


6 


Mr. Koch. This will go to the floor either tomorrow or 


6 


I would like to introduce my wife Sonya, who's 


7 


Monday -- 


7 


an elementary teacher in San Juan Unified -- 


8 


MS. BROWN: Tomorrow. 


8 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Ah, a real public servant. 


9 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Tomorrow, because your 


9 


MR. SHAW: -- my daughter Natalie, who is a 





deadline is the 21st of April. 


10 


student in San Juan Unified, third grade; my daughter 


1 


MR. KOCH: Thank you again, sir. 


11 


Jenny, who is a freshman at Sonoma State in Criminal 


2 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 


12 


Justice; and my sister-in-law, Shanette Swanson, from 


3 


(To the reporter): Ina, do you need a break? 


13 


Stockton. 


4 


THE REPORTER: Yes. Can we take five? 


14 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Welcome to all of you. 


5 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Yes. Take a five-minute 


15 


Good to have you here. 


6 


break. 


16 


Mr. Shaw, why don't you begin with an opening 


7 


(Recess taken.) 


17 


comment, and then we'll have a few questions for you. 


8 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The Committee will come 


18 


MR. SHAW: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. 


9 


back to order. 


19 


Thank you for this opportunity to meet and discuss my 


!0 


Before we take up Mr. Shaw, I want to take up 


20 


qualifications to be the inspector general. It's an 


!1 


the consent calendar. 


21 


honor and privilege to be here this afternoon and to be 


!2 


MS. BROWN: The reference of bills. 


22 


Governor Schwarzenegger's nominee for inspector general. 


!3 


(Discussion off the record.) 


23 


I'm deeply grateful for the trust and keenly aware of 


!4 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Let's see. I'm sorry. 


24 


the responsibility placed in me to serve our state at a 


!5 


And the governor's appointments. One and three here, 


25 


time of such great challenges and great opportunities. 




40 




42 



/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 39 to 42 of 78 



12 of 21 sheets 



If I am confirmed, I will continue to pursue the duties 
of this office with gratitude, humility, and firm 
determination to represent the people of California as 
energetically and faithfully as I can. 

I'm committed to helping CDCR become a model 
correctional agency and to ensure that its policies, 
procedures, and activities enhance our public safety, 
safeguard our staff, our inmates and our wards, protect 
our fiscal integrity, advance our state interests, and 
reflect the values of our citizens. 

Our mission at the OIG is to act as the eyes 
and ears of the public in overseeing the state's prisons 
and correctional policies. I assure you that if I'm 
confirmed, I will continue to carry out this mission 
rigorously by investigating, monitoring, auditing the 
CDCR to uncover wrongdoing, poor management practices, 
fraud, waste, and abuse. 

No matter how daunting our challenge may be, 
I'm steadfast in my belief in our state and our people, 
and I'm proud to be part of California's government at 
this time in history. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the 
Committee, for granting me your time and attention 
today. I will now be happy to answer any questions that 
you have. 

43 



1 SENATOR OROPEZA: All right. And yet when 

2 pressed on what has happened with that, I learned that 

3 there are only 25 beds currently. 

4 MR. SHAW: In Sacramento, I believe. 

5 SENATOR OROPEZA: Pardon me? 

6 MR. SHAW: The ones in Sacramento? 

7 SENATOR OROPEZA: Yes, the ones in Sacramento 

8 And also that this chunk of money — a whole bunch of it 

9 went to the general fund, or is planned to go to the 

10 general fund. 

11 I guess that — That offends my sensibilities 

12 as a legislator who, through budget and policy, has said 

13 in clear direction to one of our departments, but it 

14 also offends my sensibilities that these facilities are 

15 very useful and productive for these women and that they 

16 are not getting the benefit of this opportunity to be 

17 put in these settings because of budget constraints. 

18 That's my understanding from our response from Mr. Cate. 

19 So my question for you has to do with how you 

20 view your role in terms of assuring some relationship 

21 between what has been funded and what actually becomes 

22 real in the department. 

23 So I'd like to know how you see your piece of 

24 that in terms of, you know, accountability. 

25 MR. SHAW: We engage in a number of activities 

45 



CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. Would any 
members like to take it up? 

Senator Romero -- I mean, Senator Oropeza. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Good afternoon. 

MR. SHAW: Good afternoon, Senator. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: I have several pretty 
specific questions that I would like to ask you. They 
all get to how you view your role, what the scope of 
your job is, as you see it. 

And so let me begin by asking you about — 
well, let me ask you about -- One of the issues that 
came up when we were having discussions with the 
secretary -- 

When we recently interviewed the secretary, a 
couple of the items that came up had to do with money 
and also — gosh, what's it called — I'll start with 
money. 

Secretary Cate acknowledged in his remarks 
before the Committee that there — that there had been 
an allocation by the legislature to -- and an 
authorization for 250, I believe — 

MR. HUGHES: Five twenty-five. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Five hundred and twenty-five 
beds for residential facilities for women. 

MR. SHAW: Yes. 

44 



1 that look at issues like that. If money is allocated 

2 for one purpose and ends up somewhere else, our 

3 auditors, our investigators, and attorney monitors would 

4 be very interested in that. 

5 As we go out, we typically do programmatic 

6 audits which may have a fiscal impact, but we don't 

7 strictly do fiscal audits. At least we haven't 

8 traditionally done that. But if you look back in our 

9 history and in all of the reports that we've published, 

10 there have been times where money is supposed to have 

11 gone somewhere and it's gone somewhere else, or programs 

12 were started and other ones have been canceled and so 

13 on. 

14 We do currently look at the receiver's budget, 

15 for example, in a fiscal sense, to look at their 

16 spending practice. In fact, our current audit is going 

17 on in that as well. 

18 As far as looking at this particular issue, I 

19 first heard about it in here, that that program was, 

20 essentially, underutilized in both the residential and 

21 the outpatient, if you will, programs weren't going to 

22 go forward. That was news to us. 

23 Part of what we do is -- By having our 

24 inspectors on the ground at every institution several 

25 times a year, our attorney monitors out, and the audits 

46 



.3 of 21 sheets 



Page 43 to 46 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 AK 



that we do try to pick up this kind of information, as 
well as the media and anyone that will talk to us. 
People will call us and tell us if there's a problem 
going on. We will do an initial inquiry, and if it 
merits something more, an investigation or an audit, 
we'll try to resource that and prioritize, of course, 
and take a look. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So if something is not - If 
a program has not been funded and the money has been 
diverted to some other purpose, you would — it's 
something that could very well be investigated by your 
offices, and then some kind of recommendations come 
forward to the secretary, or how does that work? 

MR. SHAW: Yes. We would publish a public 
report. Everything that we do now, since our statute 
changed in 2005, is public. It's on our Web site. All 
of our reports, all of -- There are certain elements 
that can't be public, peace officer information and that 
sort of thing. There are statutes prohibitus, but, 
literally, everything else is public. So you would be 
able to look at it as a legislator, and, of course, any 
reports that we do, we also send over here as well. But 
we would make recommendations, yes. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So you have self-generated 
ideas for investigations as well as those that are 

47 



1 I'm not sure what we're getting for it. 

2 Just having done a little bit of digging on the 

3 programs that exist or don't, I'm not sure we're getting 

4 a lot for that 250. Is that the kind of thing that you 

5 would take a look at? 

6 MR. SHAW: Yes. We're staffing for our next 

7 year's audits now, and we're going to look at something 

8 along those lines. 

9 SENATOR OROPEZA: You are? 

10 MR. SHAW: Yes, we are. 

11 SENATOR OROPEZA: About how many of these kinds 

12 of investigations that are self-generated do you do on 

13 an annual basis? 

14 MR. SHAW: For investigations themselves, we 

15 budget -- I think we're in the tune of about 20, but the 

16 pipeline investigation -- preliminary investigations, we 

17 can do, quite frankly, as many of those as I have people 

18 to do them. 

19 Real programmatic audits, we're funded for 

20 about eight. So I have a couple discretionary ones in 

21 there that aren't related to the mandated ones, and we 

22 pick those very carefully. 

23 But clearly, 250,000 per ward is an awful lot, 

24 considering what the recidivism rate is. 

25 SENATOR OROPEZA: Right. On another topic, we 

49 



mandated -- 

MR. SHAW: Yes. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: -- through statute or some 
kind of -- 

MR. SHAW: I have the discretion, per the 
statute, to investigate or audit anything. My intake 
staff, which has changed fairly dramatically in the last 
year, we're taking leads and doing the preliminary 
investigation on them, and if it turns out once we've 
staffed them, if we think it has a systematic impact or 
a large impact, it would receive a priority, and we 
would go conduct an investigation. 

That's how we determined there was a problem 
with administrative segregation within the department. 
And we, just a couple months ago, published a report 
that showed the department was spending to the tune of 
at least $10 million more than needed to be spent to 
house people in administrative segregation that didn't 
belong there for a variety of reasons that were 
unrelated to whatever they had done to get themselves in 
there. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: So would it be within your 
realm of responsibility to look at, for instance, the 
juvenile justice -- how it costs us so much to house a 
juvenile? I think it's $250,000 for each juvenile, and 

48 



_L 



1 heard also about contraband and cell phones being a real 

2 problem, and we did some follow-up and learned that 

3 really there are -- well, actually, it was listening to 

4 Senator Benoit. Senator Benoit has a bill which is 

5 sponsored by the department that would make taking a 

6 cell phone into a prison a misdemeanor. 

7 But during that hearing I heard that -- or I 

8 learned that over 2,600 of those cell phones were found 

9 last year alone, and that they were predominantly in 

10 three sites, three prisons. Fifteen hundred of them 

11 were in only three sites. So there's a way to target. 

12 Do you ever do that, where you target — 

13 Instead of looking at this system-wide, do you look at 

14 specific prisons and whether there may be need for 

15 reform in one or more prisons? 

16 MR. SHAW: Because of our size compared to the 

17 department, we almost always do that. We will pick out 

18 representative prisons and go take a look at eight or 

19 ten and then extrapolate out. And that's what auditors 

20 do, and that's what we do for our size. 

21 In particular to cell phones, we'll be 

22 releasing a report fairly soon. We've been working on 

23 it for a couple of months. We dug into it, and we're -- 

24 a couple staffing issues that we had to replace somebody 

25 on it. But we're getting that out fairly quickly. 

50 



/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 47 to 50 of 78 



14 of 21 sheets 



SENATOR OROPEZA: Because, you know, there 
seems like there's a solution. It just needs somebody 
at some level to direct that or to say these are the 
solutions. 

We had a long conversation about security, and 
we know a lot of these come in through not just 
visitors, but staff, and how do we handle that. So, 
hopefully, your report will make recommendations — 

MR. SHAW: It will. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: - on how to fix that 
problem. Great. 

And then finally I want to ask about juvenile 
time in their cells versus out in some other setting 
rather than their cell. Your office says that some 
recommendations have not been implemented from this 
audit, that out -- that basically brought that issue to 
light. And so what I'm wondering is: Who is 
accountable for the solutions? In other words, do you 
follow up when you make recommendations? Do you then 
follow up on whether they are actually implemented? Is 
that part of your mission also? 

MR. SHAW: Yes, Senator, we do that. When we 
make a recommendation following an audit or an 
investigation, which we've done -- originally called 23 
and 1, getting the wards out of their cells, we will go 

51 



1 have an initial audit and then a follow-up look the 

2 following year, and then you would, as part of that 

3 follow-up, go and check? Is that how it works? 

4 MR. SHAW: Normally, it wouldn't be me 

5 personally. 

6 SENATOR OROPEZA: No, I don't mean you. 

7 MR. SHAW: Sure. In the DJJ area, for example, 

8 we take it very seriously, just looking at such an 

9 at-risk population. So we have sent people out at odd 

10 hours, unannounced, to go check in between. I can't 

11 wait a year at a time to see if they fixed things that 

12 are that critically important. 

13 So in this particular situation, yes, we would 

14 go out. We came unannounced, and we walked, and I was 

15 pleased that most of the issues that we identified a 

16 year ago seemed to be resolving. The accountability 

17 item had been fixed. Several things hadn't, and some 

18 new things came to light. They had cold showers, and I 

19 said, "Prove it to me that they're not." And they 

20 turned them on, and we waited and waited and waited, and 

21 they were still cold ten minutes later. And that was 

22 the biggest concern that the wards had on that unit, and 

23 so they fixed it. I've been told they fixed it. We'll 

24 see. 

25 SENATOR OROPEZA: So that is your standard - 

53 



back on an accountability audit the following year and 
see how they've done that. 

We recently released our accountability audit 
of Stark, for example, and found that the wards that 
were in the special program or special management units 
were getting out for three hours a day. There was a 
step-down unit, the high-risk inmates or wards that 
potentially weren't, so I followed up on that just 
recently. 

As a matter of fact, just last week I took an 
auditor with me with former CYA experience, went down, 
and I went to every single ward on those units and asked 
them how long they got out. And the auditor that was 
with me looked at the records, looked at the logs, the 
electronic logs, but more importantly just asked the 
wards, and to a ward in the special management unit, 
they said, "Yes, we're getting out at least three hours 
a day." Unfortunately, the unit that covers the 
high-risk, the step-down, were only getting out two. 

I came back, and I immediately provided that 
information to the department, and the next day, they 
were at Stark addressing those concerns. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Was that the normal process, 
or did that come to light after our discussion here? I 
mean, is that how that would usually go down? You would 

52 



1 I'm completely in my comments. So that is your standard 

2 procedure, would be that as part of the follow-up a year 

3 after the audit is conducted, would be some on-site 

4 checking to see if the remedies have actually been done? 

5 MR. SHAW: The people who do that are 

6 inspectors who go out twice a year and just walk and 

7 talk for a couple days, take in as much information as 

8 they can. And part of their checklist, if you will, is 

9 to address any findings that we had that were negative 

10 that we want to check on in between the next 

11 accountability audit and the next called audit. 

12 SENATOR OROPEZA: If there's an employee of the 

13 department that wants to share information with you 

14 about a potential problem and does not want their name 

15 on it, how does that work? 

16 MR. SHAW: It depends on the type of 

17 information they want to share. There are certain -- 

18 Retaliation, for example, I can't necessarily protect 

19 that name, because it has a legal consequence that if it 

20 goes forward, we'll probably have to disclose. But if 

21 someone wants to tell us about a problem, it comes to us 

22 one of several ways. They can send us an anonymous 

23 letter; they can call the 800 number and talk to someone 

24 or leave a message. And if they present a serious 

25 enough case, as we triage that there's a real problem 

54 



5 of 21 sheets 



Page 51 to 54 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:1115 AM" 



1 


going on, we'll go take a look. 


1 


broader question that I wanted to explore with you, 


2 


And we listen to everyone, the families, the 


2 


which is: Beyond the statutory definition, which I know 


3 


attorneys of the family, and wards or inmates that send 


3 


is where you start, of inspector general, how do you 


4 


us letters, and depending on what they tell us, we wHI 


4 


view your job? What is your job? You mentioned 


5 


get back to them. 


5 


auditing. You mentioned investigation. What is your 


6 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Or employees. Frankly, what 


6 


job? 


7 


I'm thinking about is: If there are employees that find 


7 


MR. SHAW: My job, I believe, is to be your 


8 


that there are some things going on that are not -- if 


8 


eyes and ears and the eyes and ears of the public and 


9 


they want to whistle-blow, in essence, what kind of 


9 


every other stakeholder that doesn't have a view daily 





coverage can you give them, or protections can you give 


10 


inside CDCR in their parole regions, in their prisons. 


1 


them? 


11 


That's primarily what we do. We're going to expose 


2 


MR. SHAW: We can protect them up to a certain 


12 


issues that the public and the legislature and the 


3 


point. If they tell us, for example, that there's 


13 


governor's office and everyone else might not otherwise 


4 


program abuse or something, then their name is never 


14 


know about. That is back to our statute. That's what 


5 


going to come forward. If it's an allegation that 


15 


we do. 


6 


involves -- 


16 


I also see our mission -- or my duty, if you 


7 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Cell phones coming into a 


17 


will, is to try to get positive change from the things 


8 


prison illegally. 


18 


that we develop as a problem. Otherwise, if our 


9 


MR. SHAW: Their name is not going to be 


19 


recommendations or the issues that we develop are never 





disclosed if they tell us about cell phones. That's 


20 


followed up on, then we really have very little value 


1 


easy. If they tell us about some other things that have 


21 


other than what, perhaps, you can do to the department 


2 


to be investigated by law, it gets a little more 


22 


in budget hearings and so on. 


3 


complicated. 


23 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Do you view your job as -- 


4 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Can you give me an example of 


24 


more akin to an auditor or reviewer of specific 


5 


that? Where is the line drawn? 


25 


department programs, or more as a criminal justice 




55 




57 


11 


MR. SHAW: They tell us that they're being 


1 


leader? 


2 


sexually harassed. As we move that forward, there's -- 


2 


MR. SHAW: As a criminal justice leader who 


3 


and they've been retaliated for complaining or 


3 


also audits, investigates, and monitors. 


4 


something, it's going to be really difficult to protect 


4 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So, for example, it's no 


5 


their identity. 


5 


great secret that the federal courts are partly in 


6 


SENATOR OROPEZA: All right. Thank you. 


6 


charge of our correctional system in large part because 


7 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 


7 


of our overcrowding situation. And so do you view it as 


8 


Senator Oropeza, for opening it up. 


8 


part of your role to opine on issues like sentencing 


9 


I want to step back a little bit from the 


9 


reform? 





specifics and ask a couple basic questions, and this is 


10 


MR. SHAW: I tread carefully in areas like 


1 


for the public as well as for the Committee. 


11 


that. I've worked closely with the federal courts in 


2 


Who does the inspector general report to? 


12 


several of the large civil rights cases, the 


3 


MR. SHAW: The public. 


13 


class-action suits, Plata, Madrid, and so on, but I want 


4 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: The public. So once you 


14 


to make recommendations as a traditional IG does after 


5 


are confirmed, you essentially have unfettered 


15 


we have investigated or audited something where -- 


6 


discretion to look wherever you deem appropriate to 


16 


rather than just having my own personal opinions. And 


7 


improve the performance of the department. 


17 


having worked in the criminal justice system my entire 


8 


MR. SHAW: Within the constraints of my budget. 


18 


career, I have a lot of them. But I like to come in on 


9 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aha. There is a 


19 


the heels of an audit or investigation, make 


!0 


check-and-balance. Always. Right. 


20 


recommendations, and in those recommendations I think my 


!1 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Purse strings. 


21 


opinions are pretty evident where we think the 


!2 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: But other than that, you 


22 


department or the state should move. 


!3 


report to the public? 


23 


For me to step forward and say we should have a 


.4 


MR. SHAW: Correct. 


24 


sentencing commission without doing any field work puts 


!5 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: So it begs, Mr. Shaw, the 


25 


everything else that we do at a little bit of risk, 




56 




58 



/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 55 to 58 of 78 



16 of 21 sheets 



1 


because we are covered by the GAGA standards, or the IG 


1 


Do you have an opinion on that percentage? 


2 


standards -- the generally accepted government auditing 


2 


MR. SHAW: That's a disaster. That's a 


3 


standards -- and things like that, that we normally do 


3 


complete underutilization of the 250,000 we're spending 


4 


as an Inspector General's Office. 


4 


per ward, and there's no reason I'm aware of that that 


5 


In the context of something we've looked at, I 


5 


situation exists. 


6 


see no issue with that. 


6 


I've been to Preston many times on dual 


7 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: But you do view yourself 


7 


suicides and other reasons that I've had to go in there, 


8 


as having constraints? 


8 


and we deserve -- the state deserves better for our 


9 


MR. SHAW: Yes. Fiscal constraints. 


9 


dollars than to have nine wards out of that entire 


10 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Fiscal constraints, 


10 


institution in a substance-abuse program. 


11 


understandably. What about political constraints? 


11 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: What has to change for 


12 


MR. SHAW: No, I don't. I don't see -- 


12 


that number to increase? 


13 


Certainly not from the administration. 


13 


MR. SHAW: Well, the department needs to look 


14 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And what about -- I want 


14 


at their resources and decide what they're scoped for at 


15 


to explore this issue, and I use it as an example more 


15 


that institution to decide why there aren't more wards 


16 


than anything else, a sentencing commission. It may or 


16 


in it. And this is something I just found out about 


17 


may not be the right answer that in the end is for the 


17 


today, so I -- we haven't looked at it, but it's 


18 


legislature, the governor, and/or the people to decide, 


18 


something that the next time that we're there, we're 


19 


but why isn't that sort of issue directly linked to your 


19 


going to. 


20 


responsibility to help improve the conditions of this 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: I think it's 


21 


system? 


21 


appropriate -- we're members of the public -- to ask the 


22 


MR. SHAW: I would agree that it's related, and 


22 


inspector general to look at specific issues. 


23 


having a sentencing commission is an interesting idea. 


23 


We asked Secretary Cate to -- not to develop 


24 


I've taught sentencing for years as a law 


24 


another plan, but to actually bring forward to us 


25 


professor and just recently did it, as a matter of fact. 


25 


timetables and benchmarks regarding improvement in 




59 




61 


1 


And I don't know that I personally or my office has 


1 


department programming at both the adult level and at 


2 


looked at it enough for me to step forward and say it's 


2 


the juvenile level. In other words, how many inmates 


3 


the opinion of the Inspector General's Office that we 


3 


and/or wards do you believe need drug treatment, mental 


4 


should have one or not have one. 


4 


health treatment, various forms of other rehabilitation? 


5 


If we looked at a particular element of it, 


5 


How many currently are receiving it and over what time 


6 


then I think I would be in a better posture to do that. 


6 


can you tell us -- time frame can you tell us those 


7 


But otherwise, again, it's just me stepping forward as a 


7 


numbers will increase? 


8 


public servant saying I have an opinion. 


8 


Would it be appropriate to ask you to make, as 


9 


SENATOR OROPEZA: Can I follow up on that for 


9 


part of your office's mission, guiding the department 


10 


one question? 


10 


and working with the department to develop those 


11 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Sure. 


11 


benchmarks and timetables? 


12 


SENATOR OROPEZA: If, in the course of your 


12 


SENATOR DUTTON: I'll give you one better than 


13 


adopting your 20 or so audits for the year, one of those 


13 


that. 


14 


audits had a relationship to sentencing in some way, I'm 


14 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 


15 


not exactly sure how, but if it did, then upon findings 


15 


SENATOR DUTTON: If you want to do a joint 


16 


upon closure of the audit, would it then be appropriate, 


16 


letter between the two of us making an official request 


17 


potentially, for you to opine on that? 


17 


of the inspector general to go in and take a look at 


18 


MR. SHAW: Yes, it would. 


18 


this and make specific recommendations back to us, 


19 


SENATOR OROPEZA: That's the difference. 


19 


because we can do that too. 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. 


20 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's fine. Whatever the 


21 


SENATOR OROPEZA: That's the difference. 


21 


proper format. Bipartisanship. 


22 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And that's very, very 


22 


SENATOR DUTTON: Well, it was a critical issue 


23 


helpful. 


23 


I had for myself regarding the 250,000 -- 


24 


Well, I mean, Preston. Three hundred and forty 


24 


CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: That's right. 


25 


wards, and nine are in formal drug treatment programs. 


25 


As you say, you're audit-responsive. I think 




60 




62 



17 of 21 sheets 



Page 59 to 62 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 A 



we're interested in you really taking a look at some of 
the larger policy issues so that we can get a handle on 
how we're going to help overhaul this system, because if 
you take it in bits and pieces, one audit here and one 
audit there, one problem at a time, what do you have? 

MR. SHAW: Well, one is we fulfilled our 
statutory mandate, which we're budget-driven by the 
things that we've agreed to do, and so we're always 
doing that. 

But I would just like to point out any member 
of the legislature can request an audit or investigation 
of anything in the department, and we do them. I've 
done some of those already as the inspector general. So 
if that's something you would like to take a look at, a 
request is all we need, and we can do that. 

I am in the process of filling vacancies that 
we received in the -- we received in the last budget, 
and then we'll get more in the next. So I don't want to 
give the impression I have unlimited resources, but I 
will have a lot more by, I would say, the end of summer. 
We're actively recruiting for auditors and 
investigators. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. One area of 
questioning here, if I might, and that's the 
relationship between the department and the receiver and 

63 



1 are rating each one of the facilities that the receiver 

2 currently controls. So our team goes out, pulls a lot 

3 of files and gives a rating to each institution. We 

4 published five reports so far. We've got several more 

5 in the mix. Once I'm fully staffed up, we'll hit every 

6 institution every year. Right now it's taking a little 

7 bit longer, because I've taken it on without the 

8 positions to get it done. 

9 All that being said, there are a lot of moving 

10 parts with the receiver's operation at each of the 

11 institutions. Every time I'm out at one, I go meet with 

12 the CMO, I talk to the doctors, talk to the dentist. 

13 Everyone, I think, has -- Literally everyone has a 

14 positive outlook that things are getting much better. 

15 When I talk to the inmates, they think so as well. 

16 Whether or not tomorrow the department can take 

17 it back and effectively run it, I'm not so sure. I 

18 haven't seen a plan. I've spoken with the receiver 

19 numerous times and Mr. Cate about it needing to come 

20 back to the state at some point in time. I don't know 

21 that we're at that point right now. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you. 

23 Senator Aanestad had a question, please. 

24 SENATOR AANESTAD: Which is great timing, 

25 because my questions do concern the receiver and your 

65 



your opinion about the transfer of authority and power. 

The department has been pretty clear and 
Matt Cate has been pretty clear that the issue of 
management, recruitment and retention, of training, is a 
huge challenge, and he's trying to address it. And yet 
at the same time, the department indicates, in the court 
filings and otherwise, that they are ready to take back 
healthcare. 

So what is your view of how well CDCR develops 
and trains its leaders, and would you be confident at 
this point if the healthcare responsibility was 
transferred back entirely to the department? 

MR. SHAW: I think CDCR has had difficulties, 
as Mr. Cate has mentioned, in training, retaining, and 
placing qualified people into their warden positions, 
for example. 

There were a lot of CMO positions that were 
vacant prior to the receiver coming on board. We had 
contract doctors who were filling in as chief medical 
officers, or program managers, and so on. A lot of that 
is better now than it was before. Filling those 
vacancies up and down the state has done a lot to 
improve healthcare. 

And, as you know, we are, through our medical 
investigations unit — or inspections unit, excuse me — 

64 



1 relationship. 

2 You're charged with making evaluations of these 

3 facilities, but not necessarily making — acting on 

4 those findings. And yet one of the reasons the receiver 

5 is in the position he is today, controlling healthcare, 

6 is because it's been determined by the courts that the 

7 federal standard of care has not been met. 

8 However, when I see, for example, Centinela, 

9 you give them a 74.5 percent rating, in my mind that 

10 says that they're 75 point -- percent of the way towards 

11 achieving the federal standard of care. 

12 So somehow you have determined — My question 

13 is: Have you determined what that federal standard of 

14 care is? 

15 MR. SHAW: We have not, and how we got to 

16 making those assessments was a collective practice or 

17 process with everyone, the receiver's office, the 

18 federal court, the plaintiffs' attorneys, the attorney 

19 general who is defending the state, and so on. We -- It 

20 goes from 18 to 20, depending on the type of facility — 

21 women's facility, reception center, and so on, areas, 

22 program areas, and we rate each one of those areas. And 

23 it may be that there's something that pulls a particular 

24 facility down to a certain level that the federal court 

25 may determine is not that important. 

66 



'20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 63 to 66 of 78 



18 of 21 sheets 



Program literature, for example, that goes out 
on preventative care, the federal court may eventually 
decide that's not as important as we've weighted it at; 
but we're not in a position nor were we ever asked to 
make the evaluation have we reached that standard of 
care. 

I can tell you, having gone out and toured 
San Quentin with Judge Henderson, the standard of care 
there and other places has gone up dramatically with 
Judge Henderson and with the team that originally went 
out when he made his findings. We saw some things that 
would shock, certainly, the medical industry, I think. 
And since then, filling those positions with qualified 
doctors and nurses, the standard of care has come up 
tremendously. To date, it's been best at the women's 
facilities, where it's fairly good. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: I come from the medical 
industry. When I see that the receiver who is in charge 
is an attorney, and the inspector general who is in 
charge of making the evaluation is an attorney, and now 
you just quoted the state attorney general, who is an 
attorney, and -- you know, we have kind of an aversion 
to attorneys in our world. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Hey, wait a minute. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Present company excepted. 

67 



1 take advice? 

2 MR. SHAW: The auditors are from my staff. 

3 We'll get authority to actually hire the new team on 

4 July 1st. That's 17 positions. We have one retired 

5 annuitant contract doctor who has been with the IG's 

6 Office for a while who does quality control and has also 

7 filled in as one of the team members. Early on, we did 

8 our pilot, and he assists now when he can. 

9 I borrowed a doctor from the receiver's office 

10 who goes with us. We've had a couple of different 

11 doctors who really haven't been too deep into the 

12 receiver's world, and, of course, our doctor then checks 

13 that doctor's work, and so on. The nurses belong to us. 

14 And we have the authority in next year's budget to hire 

15 our own doctors and, again, additional nurses. 

16 SENATOR AANESTAD: Nothing personally against 

17 the attorneys. I allowed my son to become one and even 

18 marry one. 

19 MR. SHAW: Thank you. 

20 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Other questions from 

21 Members? If not, let's ask for witnesses in support of 

22 Mr. Shaw as inspector general. 

23 Sir. 

24 MR. WARREN: Since it appears I'm the only 

25 witness and you suggested that brevity is the best 

69 



I guess when you're setting these standards — 
because I believe strongly the medical community needs 
to set the standard of care along with the patient -- 
Who is your evaluating team? Who from the medical world 
is involved in the standard-setting portion of your 
evaluation? 

MR. SHAW: Originally, when we set up the 
process, we had input from doctors and from nurses, 
nurse practitioners, and so on, that helped us establish 
the standards. We looked at the ACA standards for 
medical care; we looked at the federal system for their 
medical care and got input from their practitioners. 

Our team that goes out — We have two doctors, 
two nurses, and then an audit team that goes out, and we 
request records typically back about six months, and we 
cull through those records, and all of our findings from 
the audit side are checked by the doctors. And we have 
quality control over the doctors' doctors, if you will. 

So we have several levels of professionals that 
are looking at our findings to make sure that what we've 
decided as a team are the -- the particular ratings are 
valid. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Are these people out of the 
128 members of your staff, or are they independent 
contractors who have more independence of being able to 

68 



1 testimony, on behalf of Taxpayers for Improving Public 

2 Safety, we support the nominee. We have three requests. 

3 One, we did in our letter indicate that we had 

4 concern over the reports of the CROB that appeared to be 

5 looking through rose-colored glasses when they reported 

6 their progress concerning the Department of Corrections, 

7 and we would hope that would be addressed. That issue 

8 came to the fore yesterday in the Senate Public Safety 

9 Committee where a bill was introduced to provide 

10 educational oversight, which is the very thing that CROB 

11 is now addressing through the program office of the 

12 Department of Corrections. It appears we have two 

13 activities trying to do the same thing, which are 

14 therefore going to end up pulling away from each other 

15 instead of working cooperatively. 

16 Second, we would hope that the CROB — pardon 

17 me -- the Office of Inspector General would get into 

18 some of the areas that you have raised, although I've 

19 read the report concerning medical facility 

20 improvements. Being a person that does go inside and 

21 deals with the inmates who have to use the medical 

22 services, I would suggest that the ratings are not as 

23 correct as they might be, because I see inmates who do 

24 not have opportunities to get medication for 

25 hypertension, do not have opportunities to get 

70 



19 of 21 sheets 



Page 67 to 70 of 78 



04/20/2009 09:11:15 M 



medication for any number of diseases, such as diabetes, 
only because of the lack of access because of the 
tremendous demand due to overcrowding. 

Last, but assuredly not least, we would suggest 
that the Office of Inspector General should be expanded, 
because with the number of staff they have, they cannot 
meet the demands or requests made by the public, by 
inmates, and members of -- their family members. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much. 

Are there any witnesses in opposition? 

I just want to follow up on the CROB issue for 
a moment, because it piqued my interest, and it's very, 
very important. 

This is the California Rehabilitation Oversight 
Board, which you are the chair as the inspector general, 
correct? 

MR. SHAW: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Is the role of this board 
to collect data around education programs in the various 
institutions? 

MR. SHAW: That is part of it. Rehabilitative 
programs, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: And then what do you do 
with the information? 

71 



1 this up, which is that — and I speak for all of us 

2 here. We're big on data, and we want, you know, the 

3 real evidence to guide the public investments that we 

4 make here. And so I'm going to ask our budget sub four, 

5 all right, to get on this issue, because if you're the 

6 outside evaluator, essentially, that is going to help 

7 determine the amount and quality of educational 

8 services, then we need to make sure you have the 

9 resources to be able to give us a quality product. And 

10 you're telling us that you don't have that, and I 

11 believe you. 

12 The other piece of that, and I've asked you to 

13 think about this, Mr. Shaw, is for you to have the 

14 capacity to also determine what is needed. In other 

15 words, this gets back to the old benchmark and goal 

16 question. It's one thing to collect the data; it's one 

17 thing to evaluate the quality. But, you know, a number 

18 without a context doesn't tell us much. 

19 How far along are we? Where do we need to go 

20 to in order to ensure that inmates who are going to be 

21 back out in the public, the vast majority of them, have 

22 the education and skills necessary to succeed in 

23 society? 

24 So we really want to work with you on making 

25 sure that this California Rehab Oversight Board is 

73 



MR. SHAW: We are publishing reports on the 
progress that's been made by CDCR to meet the 
benchmarks. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Are you doing evaluative 
quality -- quality reviews to determine whether the 
particular education programs meet state education 
standards, for example? 

MR. SHAW: We have not done that yet, but we 
have the expertise on the board to do that. It's just 
to date, the department has been engaged in a great deal 
of planning and one pilot program. And once the 
implementation phase starts, that will be the time for 
the board and the different disciplines on the board to 
weigh in. Education and community colleges, to medical, 
to weigh in on how good those programs are. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Are you confident CROB 
will be able to fulfill that function once the 
department begins its implementation? 

MR. SHAW: I'm concerned that we don't have the 
staff to do quite as much as needs to be done. Once 
these programs are rolled out, I see all the work being 
done by the Office of the Inspector General, and we're 
not staffed for it. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Okay. This is good -- I 
mean, this isn't good, but this is good that you brought 

72 



1 robust so that you can do more than what you're able to 

2 do now. 

3 MR. SHAW: Thank you. I appreciate your 

4 support. 

5 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Work with us on that. 

6 Okay? 

7 SENATOR OROPEZA: And hopefully -- I'll add on 

8 to that my little frustration. Hopefully, because of 

9 the role the IG has and the independence, maybe the 

10 money won't be taken away, if we decide that they should 

11 have it, to balance a budget or do some other something. 

12 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Well, we need to talk 

13 to -- yeah. Yes. Absolutely. 

14 So Nettie, you'll speak with Mr. DeSaulnier and 

15 the staff, and we really want to take this on, because, 

16 you know, if we can't fix this whole darn system, at 

17 least we can focus on the issue of programming, of 

18 education, of treatment, you know, as one way to focus 

19 on reducing recidivism. 

20 All right. 

21 SENATOR AANESTAD: So moved. 

22 CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Your nomination has been 

23 moved by both Senator Oropeza and Senator Aanestad, and 

24 I'm proud to support it. You're obviously well-suited, 

25 well-qualified for this very, very important job. And 

74 



I/20/2009 09:11:15 AM 



Page 71 to 74 of 78 



20 of 21 sheets 



the only thing we ask of you, once you're beyond 
confirmation, is to communicate with us, and don't be 
shy about telling us what it is you need. All right? 

MR. SHAW: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Please call the roll. 

MS. BROWN: Senator Cedillo. 

SENATOR CEDILLO: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Cedillo aye. 

Dutton. 

SENATOR DUTTON: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Dutton aye. 

Oropeza. 

SENATOR OROPEZA: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Oropeza aye. 

Aanestad. 

SENATOR AANESTAD: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Aanestad aye. 

Steinberg. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Aye. 

MS. BROWN: Steinberg aye. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Congratulations. Your 
nomination will move to the floor of the Senate and be 
taken up when? 

MS. SABELHAUS: Two weeks. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Two weeks. Two weeks, but 

75 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 



-o0o~ 

I, INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand 
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify 
that I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 
hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, 
INA C. LeBLANC, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 
typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in 
any way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 



this 



t , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han 
•<- u davof/^t ' ' .2009. 



day of / 



>y^ 



L3L. 



A 



INA C. LeBLANC 
CSR No. 6713 



-0O0-- 



77 



don't lose any sleep. Okay? 

MR. SHAW: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN STEINBERG: Thank you very much, 
Mr. Shaw. Appreciate it. 

(Thereupon, the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
adjourned at 4:55 p.m.) 



-0O0-- 



APPENDIX 



9 
10 



IS 
19 
20 
21 

22 

23 



76 



21 sheets 



Page 75 to 78 of 78 



04/20/2009 09 11 15 AM 




DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

http: / /www.dfq.ca.qov 
1416 9 th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
916-653-7667 



February 10, 2009 




Honorable Darrell Steinberg, Chairman 
Senate Rules Committee 
State Capitol, Room 420 
Sacramento, California 95814 

Attn: Nettie Sabelhaus, Appointments Director 

Dear Senator Steinberg: 

The honor of Governor Schwarzenegger's appointment to serve as director of the 
Department of Fish and Game brought me out of retirement and back to an organization 
where I was fortunate to have had a career that spanned more than 30 years. During 
that time I served as a wildlife biologist and held positions at various management levels 
working with dedicated people to conserve the state's fish and wildlife resources. I 
accepted the appointment to become director because I have an unwavering passion 
for the department's mission and a deep personal concern for the natural resource 
legacy that we will leave for future generations. I bring to this job a keen understanding 
and firsthand perspective of the department's functions, challenges, and potential. I am 
humbled by the trust and responsibility the position will afford me should the Senate 
choose to confirm me. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my goals as director as well as other 
information in response to the Committee's written questions. Also attached is my 
updated Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest. 

1 . What do you hope to accomplish during your tenure as Director of the 

Department of Fish and Game? What goals do you have for the department, 
and how will you accomplish them? How will you measure your success? 

My goal is to strengthen the department's ability to carry out its public trust obligation. 
This requires significant attention to climate change, habitat and natural community 
conservation planning and water management. It also requires finding stable funding, 
developing future leaders within the Department, and cultivating constructive 
relationships. During the past 10 months, I have taken several steps in this direction. 

For example, I have established the Ecosystem Conservation Division within the 
department to focus our commitment to large-scale, multi species habitat and natural 
community conservation planning. The division also provides leadership in addressing 
climate change impacts and promoting renewable energy in a manner that conserves 

Scat* Sates Committee 
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 H _ r - 1 ,. -p» Q 

A; 



fish and wildlife resources. It includes the department's Water Branch, which plays a 
key role in addressing water-related issues that affect fish and wildlife. The department 
is also involved in important conservation efforts throughout the state, such as those 
currently under way for the Delta and renewable energy projects. Additionally, I 
established a drought task force to identify ways to minimize the impacts of drought on 
fish and wildlife resources. 

I am cultivating constructive relationships with a variety of constituencies. In order to 
excel in its mission now and into the future, the department must have partners in 
stakeholders and nongovernmental organizations, federal, state, and local 
governments, and within the Legislature. We can accomplish more for our diverse 
natural resources if we collaborate in finding solutions to the complex challenges we 
face. The Klamath Agreement in Principle for the largest dam removal project in the 
nation's history, the decommissioning offish barriers and improved flow in Battle Creek, 
and the Lake Davis pike eradication project are recent examples of this. 

I have also elevated the issue of workforce succession planning. The department needs 
to expand its workforce leadership capabilities and I have initiated actions to begin 
doing just that. 

2. What do you believe are the most serious issues facing your department? 

The department's responsibilities have significantly increased since it was created more 
than 100 years ago. Although our mission remains the same, we are continuously 
working to effectively adapt to our ever expanding role, the state's growing population, 
and the diversity of our constituencies. 

One of the most serious issues facing California's fish and wildlife is climate change. 
Scientists suggest changes in precipitation patterns and more frequent droughts, like 
the one we currently face, will change the landscape and place new pressures on the 
state's fish and wildlife populations. In addition, impacts of climate change will likely 
create conflicts among fish, wildlife, agricultural and urban water users. Effectively 
adapting to these impacts will require close coordination and cooperation between a 
diverse group of agencies and stakeholders. 

Another serious issue is the department's lack of stable funding. The department is 
blessed to have public-private partnerships that assist us in our efforts. However, we 
need stable funding to support our mission and critical core functions. 

Those functions, including monitoring and assessment offish, wildlife and their habitats, 
cannot continue to be subject to fluctuating financial cycles and fiscal uncertainty. In 
light of increasing human pressures and climate change, we must have reliable 
information about those resources. While this subject matter might seem mundane, it is 
fundamental to the department's success as a scientific organization charged with 
public trust responsibilities. 



80 



Stable funding is also essential for the department's Law Enforcement Division. With 
this in mind, we are educating district attorneys and judges on pertinent laws in an effort 
to increase fines and enhance penalties for poaching and other violations. With ever 
increasing mandates and an expanding human population, this core department 
function must be adequately equipped to keep pace. 

Succession planning must be a priority for the department to help ensure continuity and 
stability in carrying out its public trust responsibilities in the years to come. The value 
and dedication of the department's employees cannot be overstated. However, 
approximately 19 percent of the department's workforce is 55 years of age and older. 
Considering the statewide average retirement age of 60, these employees will likely 
retire in the next three to five years. With these retirements go vast amounts of 
institutional memory, experience, and connection to communities and stakeholders. 
This seriously impacts the department's ability to carry out its public trust 
responsibilities. Therefore, recruitment and retention of quality individuals, as well as 
training, mentoring and development of the department's current workforce, is essential. 

3. How do you stay informed of the fiscal resources available to your 

department? How do you prioritize activities if not all can be undertaken? 
What are your priorities? 

I take responsibility for the department and its fiscal resources. The Chief Deputy 
Director and Deputy Director for Administration assist me in that effort by keeping me 
informed on a daily basis along with the Department of Finance and others in the 
Administration. 

Under the current budget and economic circumstances, prioritizing the department's 
activities is a particularly sobering task. The department has a variety of responsibilities 
and mandates (both funded and unfunded) and is supported by a variety of fiscal 
resources, including dedicated and non-dedicated funds, fees, grants, and the state's 
General Fund. 

When prioritizing activities, my goal is to preserve the department's critical core 
functions. We must get the "biggest bang for our buck" in terms of long-term benefits for 
fish and wildlife. In prioritizing, I consider statutory constraints (e.g., dedicated funding, 
fees), core functions, public health and safety, maintaining investments (e.g., wildlife 
areas, ecological reserves) and revenue generation. 



81 



4. How do you grade your own department on how it has carried out its public 
trust responsibilities? What areas do you believe need improvement so the 
department can carry out its mission to "maintain native fish, wildlife, plant 
species and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value 
and their benefits to people? This includes habitat protection and 
maintenance in a sufficient amount and quality to ensure the survival of all 
species and natural communities." 

Given its available resources and the many demands placed upon it, I think that the 
department does a very good job in carrying out its mission. We operate on many fronts 
to achieve our mission with lands, water, fisheries, wildlife, conservation planning, 
enforcement, and spill prevention and response programs. These operations have 
contributed significantly to the conservation, protection, and management of the state's 
native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

However, there is always room for us to improve and more must be done. With greater 
emphasis on large-scale habitat and natural community conservation planning, climate 
change adaptation, and water management, and by engaging with our various 
constituencies in constructive problem solving, the Department can achieve more for 
the state's natural resources with the limited resources it has. This is essential given the 
demands of a growing population combined with the challenges of climate change 
impacts and unpredictable budget cycles. 

5. What percentage of your budget is supported by General Fund monies and 
what percentage comes from fees and permit applications? Given the 
reductions in General Fund support for the department, how do you 
prioritize the many duties you have? Do you have any proposals for 
increasing revenue to the department? 

The General Fund portion of budget is decreasing while the Fish and Game 
Preservation Fund (FGPF) portion is increasing. From this fiscal year to next, General 
Fund support will be reduced from 17.9 percent to 16.5 percent of the budget, while 
license fees and permits have increased from 22.5 percent to 25.8 percent. Thus far, 
when the department's budget has been cut, we have been able to redirect critical 
functions, such as enforcement, from the General Fund to FGPF. 

Ensuring more stable funding for the department is essential to the department's ability 
to carry out its public trust responsibilities. In the face of the state's fiscal crisis I am 
welcoming discussion with all those who have a stake in the solution. 



82 



6. Please describe the department's activity in trying to better understand the 
open water fish decline. 

The department is actively engaged in numerous activities to address the decline of 
open water (pelagic) fishes. Our long-term monitoring surveys since the late 1950s were 
instrumental in detecting the marked declines of four pelagic fishes in the upper San 
Francisco Estuary. The department continues to conduct annual monitoring surveys. 
Since 1972, the department has been a leader and major participant of the Interagency 
Ecological Program (IEP), a collaboration of three state and six federal agency partners 
working together in the San Francisco Estuary and Delta to coordinate monitoring and 
research. The IEP formed a Pelagic Organism Decline work team to examine the 
potential causes for the pelagic fish decline. The department is working tirelessly to 
examine the interaction of multiple stressors in the Bay Delta and the decline of pelagic 
fish populations. 

7. When do you expect the department will have enough information to begin 
adopting management strategies that will first stabilize and then recover 
fishery populations? Is recovery of these species an identified objective of 
the department, and if so, in which documents is this objective identified? 

The department is already using several management strategies based on existing 
information to recover fishery populations through its implementation of the CALFED 
Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP). The ERP has developed a conservation 
strategy for the Bay Delta and Suisun Marsh, which includes recovery targets from 
existing recovery plans that are being updated for Delta native fishes and developed for 
Central Valley salmonids. The conservation strategy includes habitat restoration to 
restore ecological processes and enhance productivity within the Delta. It also 
addresses other stressors and recognizes the need to change where and how water is 
exported from the Delta. The department supports the fish recovery goals of the ERP. 

The department is also actively participating in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan 
(BDCP). This effort is a multi-agency and stakeholder planning and environmental 
permitting process, under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the 
state's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, to restore habitat for fisheries in 
the Delta and improve water delivery reliability in California. The Delta Regional 
Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan, consisting of conceptual models for many 
aquatic species, habitats, and stressors in the Delta, is presently being used to test 
potential BDCP conservation actions. These models incorporate the current state of 
knowledge and understanding offish species and ecological processes. 

8. Has your department been working with the state and regional water 
boards to address the issue of increased ammonium in the Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta? What are the possible solutions to address this issue? 

The department, through its participation in the Interagency Ecological Program, has 
been working with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Central Valley 



83 



Regional Water Quality Control Board to investigate if there is a link between the 
Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) and ammonia. The department is participating in 
discussions next month with the CALFED Science Program and the Central Valley 
Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine future studies needed to better 
assess the role of ammonia in the Delta. Finally, the department is joining other 
agencies, including the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, in the 
"Ammonia Summit" scheduled for June 2009. 

The State Water Resources Control Board, along with the department, the Natural 
Resources Agency, California Bay-Delta Authority, and the California Department of 
Water Resources, is an active state participant on the BDCP Steering Committee. 
Ammonia is one of a number of possible stressors that is being looked at within the 
context of the BDCP process. 

9. To what degree are headquarters and regional offices experiencing 
retirements from top-management and manager-level employees? If such 
retirements are occurring, do you have succession plans? 

There are 98 employees in the department at supervisory and top management levels 
who are over the age of 55. That is more than 30 percent of all supervisors and 
managers. Since 2006, the department has experienced 32 retirements from first line to 
senior management levels. This is approximately 16, or five percent of supervisors and 
managers retiring per year. 

As I've mentioned, the department's succession planning is one of my top priorities. 
This includes leadership development and supervisory training, mentoring of up and 
coming leaders, and filling positions as early as possible to allow for adequate 
transition. 

Under my direction, the department's succession planning activities are already 
underway. The department's Human Resources Branch is actively working with 
managers to develop the most effective methods to ensure the department's future 
management team and workforce. I have also begun to expand this effort to include 
internal and interagency cross-training opportunities where employees take temporary 
assignments to gain different perspectives and learn about other functions within and 
outside the department. During my tenure as director, employees will take advantage of 
leadership training, temporary assignments and exchange opportunities that will afford 
them a firsthand understanding of different points of view, roles, responsibilities, and 
challenges. 

10. Are headquarters and regional offices experiencing any problems with 
employee retention or pay equity? Please describe how the department 
plans to reconcile these issues. 



84 



Generally, the department has not lost a significant number of employees to other state 
agencies or to other public or private sector jobs. However, pay equity continues to be a 
concern with the Fish and Game Warden classification as compared to other state 
peace officers including those in Bargaining Unit 7, Protective Services and Public 
Safety. Fish and Game Warden salaries significantly lag behind other law enforcement 
classifications that have the same responsibilities. Warden cadet recruitment would 
improve and may bring in a more diverse group of individuals if the salaries were 
comparable to other peace officers in the state. 

Additionally, pay disparities for employees in the Biologist classification relative to 
employees in Environmental Scientist classification is also a concern. Currently, pay for 
Biologists lags behind pay for Environmental Scientists, although the responsibilities for 
these classifications are very similar. In addition, much like the Warden classification, 
pay for professional scientists lags well behind pay for state jobs and duties for 
analogous scientific and technical classifications. 

1 1 . What effect has the four-year pay increase had on retention and hiring of 
new wardens? How many wardens are currently available in the field, and 
what is the approximate size of the area each is expected to cover? Are you 
satisfied with the current warden staffing levels? What should the warden 
staffing level be to adequately protect the state's natural resources? 

The four-year pay increase has had a positive impact on retention of wardens, most 
notably in the ranks of those eligible to retire. Though the number of wardens eligible to 
retire remains very high, (more than 60 wardens in the current year and an additional 36 
wardens in the next three year period), the rate of retirement has slowed with the pay 
incentive. However, the retention benefit with the salary increase will diminish at the end 
of this calendar year for those 50 years of age and older. 

Hiring of new wardens is at a slight increase due to a combination of factors. The 
department has implemented an aggressive recruiting program. In addition, there was 
the four-year pay increase. Although there remains a significant salary disparity 
between wardens and other peace officers throughout the state, the salary increase 
was helpful in attracting new recruits. Finally, the department's new Peace Office 
Standards and Training Fish and Game Academy at Butte College offers an associate's 
degree in Wildlife Law Enforcement to self-sponsored cadets, which is an added 
incentive. 

Wardens make, in many cases, in excess of 50 percent less in salary and benefits than 
other state peace officers. With the 10 percent reduction in pay due to the recent 
furlough, the Law Enforcement Division expects retention difficulties to increase. It will 
force some wardens to migrate to more traditional and higher paying law enforcement 
agencies. 

Warden coverage varies greatly throughout the state. Some warden districts cover an 
entire county, while others have several wardens assigned to a small geographic area 



85 



where there is a significant population requiring a tremendous workload and additional 
staffing. The 370 allocated warden positions cover 159,000 square miles, including 
30,000 miles of rivers and streams, 4,800 lakes, an 1 ,100 mile coastline with jurisdiction 
that extends 200 miles from shore, 66,000 fish businesses, one million registered 
vessels, habitat protection responsibilities to support all wildlife species, and all off- 
highway pollution events impacting wildlife and waterways. 

California ranks lowest in the nation for the number of wardens per capita and among 
the lowest for the number of wardens per square mile of land. As examples, the State of 
Florida has a similar marine component as California with Marine Protected Areas and 
approximately the same number of registered boaters, but much less diversity of 
ecosystems and land mass. Florida has only 15 million residents as opposed to 
California's 38 million, but they have 753 game wardens. Texas, which has 
approximately 80-90% of its land held privately, as opposed to California's similar 
percentage in public land holdings, employs 540 wardens. If the department were to 
have coverage equal to states of similar size and resources, we estimate that well over 
1,000 wardens would be needed to protect the state's wildlife resources. 

12. What is the extent of harmful algal blooms In Inland and marine waters? 
How serious are the negative effects that fisheries and marine mammals 
experience? 

Harmful and nuisance blue-green algal blooms have been known to occur in many 
California inland waters during at least the past 50 years. Blue-green algal blooms 
generally have the potential to cause indirect negative effects such as warmer 
temperatures, higher turbidity, increased nutrient loads and organic matter, and lower 
oxygen levels within reservoirs and the rivers they feed. These indirect effects can 
adversely affect fish by impeding growth and decreasing survival. 

Harmful algal blooms negatively affect California's marine environment by producing 
certain algae of domoic acid or other toxins. These toxins subsequently build up in 
shellfish and smaller fish that utilize the algae as a food source. These toxins then 
bioaccumulate and can have lethal toxic effects on marine birds, mammals, and 
humans. Other negative effects include oxygen depletion that can cause fish die-offs. 

1 3. How does the department plan to address this issue of negative impacts to 
inland and marine species? 

With respect to addressing the inland waters issue, the department consults regularly 
with state and federal agencies responsible for implementation of water quality 
regulations. We actively engage the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards to 
address sources of nutrients or contaminants in impaired waters such as the Klamath 
River. 

In the marine environment, the department often responds to fish kill events to 
determine whether the fish kill was the result of a spill or a harmful algal bloom. 



8 



86 



Additionally, the department assists the California Department of Public Health in 
collecting water samples to help track biotoxin impacts. 

14. Do you believe that the regulations adopted by the Board of Forestry and 
Fire Protection are adequate to restore the Coho populations? If not, what 
additional measures should be taken? 

The department and the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) recognize that 
restoring coho salmon populations will require additional measures. Currently the Board 
is considering improvements to the Threatened and Impaired Watershed Rules. The 
department is actively engaged in providing support to that process. We have reason to 
be optimistic that these results will lead to better protection for coho salmon, as well as 
an improved rate of recovery for coho salmon habitat. Improvements may include 
measures to improve water temperature, large woody debris recruitment and reduction 
of sediment delivery to streams from roads. 

Additionally, earlier this month, the Board unanimously approved a revised Joint Policy 
Statement on Pacific Salmon and Anadromous Trout, which establishes comprehensive 
goals to recover anadromous fishes. The department was active in developing the 
policy and supports it. I am requesting that the Fish and Game Commission consider it 
for adoption at its March meeting. 

15. What are the current explanations for the decline in the state's salmon and 
trout populations? What can the department and other state agencies do to 
restore the health of the state's native fishes? 

Salmonid populations have declined within California due to a combination of factors 
that have adversely impacted the quality and quantity of their habitat. These factors 
include alteration of natural stream flow patterns, floodplains and channels, physical 
impediments to fish passage, sedimentation, urban and rural waste discharges, loss of 
genetic diversity, introduction of non-native species and poor ocean conditions. 

While ocean conditions will always play a significant role in influencing salmon 
population conditions, fresh water habitat protection and restoration is a key to restoring 
salmonid populations statewide. The department shares this goal with landowners, 
conservation, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, and federal, state, and local 
agencies. The department is working with these interested stakeholders now to fund 
and implement effective habitat restoration projects, conduct monitoring, and address 
impacts of habitat conversion, water management, and other stressors. The department 
is also implementing other recovery actions and developing conservation plans. 

In conclusion, I am humbled by opportunity to serve as Director of the Department of 
Fish and Game. I look forward to further addressing these issues and any other 
concerns you may have during my confirmation hearing later this month. 



9 

87 




Donald B. Koch 



Attachment 



cc: Hon. Sam Aanestad 
Hon. Gilbert Cedillo 
Hon. Robert Dutton 
Hon. Jenny Oropeza 



10 



88 



David R. Shaw, Inspector General 




Office of the Inspector General 



March 24, 2009 



The Honorable Darrell Steinberg 
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee 
State Capitol, Room 420 
Sacramento, CA 95814 



Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In preparation for the Senate Rules Committee's confirmation hearing on my appointment as the 
California Inspector General, the Committee has requested that I answer 25 questions related to the goals 
I have set for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as well as my progress in attaining those goals. 

The goals we have set for the OIG are designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our 
correctional departments and to enhance the public's confidence in the correction system. I appreciate 
this opportunity to address the Senate Rules Committee to delineate our progress in meeting these 
objectives and look forward to discussing these matters further during the upcoming confirmation hearing 
on Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Here are the Committee's questions, along with my responses: 

Background and Statement of Goals 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provides oversight for the state 's correctional system through 
audits, investigations, and special reviews of correctional agencies, institutions, and programs. OIG is 
an independent agency that reports directly to the Governor. The modern concept of inspector general 
has its roots in 1959 with the appointment of a federal inspector general by the Secretary of State. Since 
then it has spread throughout the federal government and to agencies in some states. 

To help ensure independence, the California Inspector General is appointed for a six-year term and can 
be removed from office only for good cause. OIG has a current general fund budget of $23. 1 million, 
with 128 positions. 



Ql. 



Al. 



Please provide us with a brief statement of goals. What do you hope to accomplish during 
your tenure as Inspector General? How will you prioritize your goals? How will you 
measure your success? 

As Inspector General, my four goals for the office, as reflected in our strategic plan, are to assist 
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in becoming a model 
correctional agency; achieve excellence in communication; implement effective and efficient work 
processes; and maximize the use of the OIG's resources to meet organizational goals. 



Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 



Senate Rules Committer 

MAR 2. 4 200 c 



P.O. Box 348780, Sacramento, CA 95834-8780 Phone (916) 830-3600 Fax (916) 928-5996 

Ap|*oiiitmei>* 



89 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 2 

March 24, 2009 



As the oversight agency for California's correctional system, the OIG has worked hard to earn a 
reputation for integrity and professionalism while bringing transparency and accountability to the 
state's correctional system. Over the past four years, those efforts have taken place in an 
atmosphere of constant change. California's inmate population reached crisis levels, the federal 
court appointed a receiver to manage the medical system, and the Legislature passed sweeping 
reforms designed to reduce recidivism. 

In this same period, CDCR reinvented its organizational structure and changed leaders no less than 
four times. During these years, the OIG also restructured and expanded its mission to assist 
CDCR in becoming a more effective state agency by providing independent and transparent 
oversight to the correctional system. We have accomplished this primarily through aggressive 
monitoring, audits, and investigations. Going forward, we have developed a strategic plan that 
reflects these external and internal changes by laying out priorities for the organization's goals and 
objectives with an uncompromising focus on assisting CDCR in fulfilling its operational mandates 
and advancing our organizational effectiveness. Our strategic planning process aligns objectives 
into actionable and measurable activities to ensure the plan's success. We evaluate our progress 
regularly making midcourse adjustments to reflect the current environment and changing 
priorities. 

With regard to assisting CDCR in becoming a model correctional agency, we pursue this goal 
through rigorously monitoring and auditing CDCR's performance as an organization, as well as 
investigating the conduct of CDCR management and staff. Specifically, through our monitoring 
of the department's performance with regard to misconduct investigations, disciplinary decisions, 
and use-of-force reviews, it has significantly improved its compliance with policies and 
procedures and the requirements of the Madrid lawsuit. 

Our audits have identified issues such as the mistreatment of wards and the violation of inmate 
rights. As a result, we have pushed CDCR to allow juveniles programming opportunities and time 
out of their cells. We have also encouraged the department to take measures to afford inmates in 
administrative segregations their due process rights. In addition, through audits and investigations 
we have identified issues such as timesheet fraud by doctors, overpayments to contractors, and 
failure to bill for monies owed to the department. Our efforts in these areas will result in millions 
of dollars of recoveries or the prevention of future waste of state funds. Our audits have also 
identified weaknesses in the department's training that jeopardizes staff, inmate, and public safety. 
By following our recommendations, the department will also reduce its potential civil liability. 

Through our revised intake process and our semi-annual prison inspection process, we are 
working proactively to identify key and emerging issues affecting CDCR's mission. These efforts 
have identified issues such as the major threat posed by cell phones being smuggled into 
institutions, and violations of policy regarding the recording, tracking, and processing of 
misconduct allegations received by institutions. 

As an office, we have worked to strengthen partnerships with other oversight groups and 
stakeholders to identify issues and trends that will enhance our ability to foster change within 
CDCR. In the last year, we have worked collaboratively with the parties to the Plata and the 
Coleman litigation and other stakeholders to develop an inspection program that provides insight 






90 



Page 3 

March 24, 2009 



and transparency for the provision of medical care within the state's prisons. We also recently met 
with representatives from Just Detention regarding the Prison Rape Elimination Act to coordinate 
our efforts in this area. 

I believe that for the OIG to be an effective agent of change, effective communication is a core 
goal as we provide transparency into the correctional system. As an organization we must seek an 
open and on-going dialogue with the department, the Legislature, stakeholders, and the public to 
ensure that we identify timely the most critical issues confronting the department. Doing so will 
allow us to most effectively target our limited resources to achieve the greatest impact in fostering 
improvement in CDCR. 

In pursuit of this goal, I am seeking new and creative ways to obtain information, communicate 
issues, and affect change. Our semi-annual inspection process is designed to get OIG staff on the 
ground in every institution on a regular basis to provide staff and inmates with an opportunity to 
communicate with us in a non-threatening and informal way. I have also encouraged my staff to 
participate in forums with stakeholders, interested parties, and industry groups. Examples include 
our dialogue with stakeholders on medical and mental health issues, Just Detention on prison rape, 
the California District Attorney's Association on legal issues, and the National Association of 
Inspectors General regarding best audit and investigative practices. 

I believe that providing information and bringing transparency to corrections in California is 
critical to our success. As a result, except for information that we are legally precluded from 
disclosing, we post all our work on the OIG website. Information available online includes, 
audits, medical inspections, an expanded quarterly report that provides summary information 
about complaints, facility inspections, audits, medical inspections, and investigations, an annual 
report; and semi-annual reports regarding our monitoring of the department's employee 
investigative and disciplinary process. In addition, an extensive network of public officials and 
stakeholders are electronically notified when our reports are released. 

Another vital goal is to implement effective and efficient work processes. Given limited state 
resources, it is important for all departments to be able to achieve their mission in the most 
economical way possible. For the OIG, one of the factors that contributes to this goal is ensuring 
that collectively we possess the distinctive competencies that enable innovation, efficiency, and 
responsiveness to stakeholder issues and that can be leveraged to generate change within CDCR. 
Our rigorous recruiting and hiring process is one factor that we use to help meet this goal. We 
have a multidisciplinary staff that provides a broad array of core competencies which can be called 
upon to meet the requirements of unique assignments. 

A key factor in the OIG being an effective organization and fostering change in CDCR is having 
highly skilled staff and an organizational reputation for integrity, professionalism and quality 
work. Our core values of fairness, integrity, respect, service, and transparency speak directly to 
this. By instilling and exhibiting these core values, our work is valued more highly and is more 
likely to bring about positive change in CDCR. 

With over 60,000 employees, approximately 170,000 inmates, over 120,000 parolees, and a 
budget of approximately $10 billion, CDCR is one of the largest state agencies. By contrast the 



91 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 4 

March 24, 2009 



OIG currently has approximately 128 authorized positions. Therefore, the task of providing 
comprehensive oversight for the department is a herculean task. Accordingly, it is important that 
the OIG maximize the use of its resources to meet its primary organizational goal of assisting 
CDCR to become a model correctional agency. To do this, we have attempted to operate a lean 
organization that focuses its efforts on its oversight role and prioritizes work based on legal 
requirements, high priority items, and broad statewide issues. 

From an operational perspective, being a small organization means that staff need multiple 
competencies, so we are focused on employee development and cross-training. From a workload 
perspective, we attempt to focus on broad, critical, and/or emerging issues. For example, given 
the $1 .4 billion annual operating cost for prison medical care and the specter of billions of dollars 
in prison construction costs, we took on the task of providing independent evaluation of prison 
medical care delivery at the request of the federal court and receiver's office. This undertaking 
has presented short-term operational challenges with regard to managing workload assignments. 
However, the information our inspections provide is intended to focus the efforts of the federal 
receiver and CDCR on specific items and areas that will result in appropriate corrective action and 
ultimately an end to the receivership. Therefore, the broad potential benefits of these inspections 
compels us to take on this challenge to affect positive change in prison medical care to protect 
inmate rights and minimize cost to the state. 

With regard to measuring success, my ultimate goal is driving institutional change and 
improvement at CDCR. Therefore, factors such as the department achieving a higher level of 
compliance in monitored disciplinary cases, implementing a greater percentage of audit 
recommendations, achieving higher scores on medical inspections, and taking appropriate action 
against staff and managers involved in misconduct would be indicative of success in affecting 
change. With regard to internal measures of success, indicators might include the amount of 
fraud, waste, and abuse identified; the number of audit recommendations made to CDCR; and the 
number of medical inspections, facility inspections, or investigations performed. However, one of 
the most powerful benefits of oversight is deterrence, and the deterrent effect of an oversight 
function is not easily subject to quantification. Therefore, the true value of our oversight is the 
missteps that do not occur and the positive changes that are made because of our existence and 
presence in performing monitoring, audits, investigations, and inspections. 

Q2. When Matthew Cate, the previous Inspector General, came before Rules Committee in 

August 2004, he agreed that California's prisons were badly in need of repair. He especially 
focused on the state's recidivism rate as the worst in the nation and a failure to properly take 
care of juvenile offenders. Do you believe the OIG has made any impact on the concerns 
raised by Mr. Cate in 2004? 

A2. In my opinion, the OIG has been instrumental in affecting lasting and substantial changes to 
CDCR in a variety of areas. Regardless of the particular area of examination, providing 
transparency and accountability has been the key to encouraging positive chance. Effective 
January 1, 2005, an amendment to the OIG statute provided increased transparency of CDCR by 
requiring public disclosure of the OIG's completed audits and a summary of the office's 
completed investigations. For the first time, the OIG could now inform the public. Legislature, 
courts and other stakeholders of what was actually occurring behind prison walls and in the parole 



92 



senate tones committee 

Page 5 

March 24, 2009 



regions. Shining this light into CDCR's insular culture had the effect of promoting change in a 
change resistant system that had traditionally operated with few restraints and little fear of public 
disclosure of misconduct or malfeasance. 

With regard to the operation of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and the care of juvenile 
offenders, we have provided significant oversight. As identified in our 2008 Accountability 
Audit, the OIG has performed audits at many facilities and reviewed major programs such as the 
Intensive Treatment Program and 23 and 1 Special Management Program in the last nine years. In 
the course of those audits and reviews, the OIG has made 3 1 9 recommendations for improvement 
in the treatment of wards and in the operation of the department. Out of these recommendations, 
274, or 86% of the OIG recommendations have been implemented to date. Nevertheless, the OIG 
continues to provide oversight for DJJ and is particularly focused on issues such as safe housing, 
programming, and ensuring wards receive an appropriate minimum time out of their cell. For 
example, in the 2009 Accountability Audit, we pursued an additional 20 recommendations for 
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility related to the following: 

• maintaining adequate living conditions; 

• providing mandated services such as education and counseling; 

• operating of a highly restrictive program that does not afford wards the same minimum 
protections and guarantees for services and exercise, as those provided to wards in the 
department's special management program; 

• addressing sexual misconduct by wards; 

• performing mental health screening tests; and 

• replacing inadequate video surveillance equipment that compromised ward and staff safety. 

The OIG also continues to press the department with regard to ensuring that system-wide, wards 
in restricted programs are provided a minimum of three hours of out-of-room services each day, 
consistent with standards established by former department Secretary James Tilton. 

With the significant decline in the juvenile offender population, the closing of youth correctional 
facilities, and the consolidation of the California Youth Authority (CYA) into CDCR, DJJ has 
become a smaller part of our workload. The number of complaints from DJJ wards and their 
families has dropped significantly, as have suicides/attempts as well as disciplinary issues with 
DJJ staff. Nevertheless, the OIG remains committed to providing strong oversight of DJJ and its 
treatment of youthful offenders. Clearly, work still needs to be done by DJJ in many areas, and 
we will continue to press the department to correct its deficiencies through audits, investigations, 
and reviews, as well as through our ongoing, semi-annual inspection process. 

The OIG's semi-annual inspection process, coupled with our quadrennial audit program, will 
continue to identify the more serious repair issues facing California prisons. However, given the 
budgetary limitations of CDCR, whether or not some or all of the reported deficiencies are 
corrected timely is based largely on the priorities of CDCR. The OIG will continue to ensure that 
we identify those areas that have a direct impact on the security of the facility and the safety of 
staff and inmates. Furthermore, it is paramount that we incorporate these noted deficiencies in our 
inspection and audit programs to determine what steps CDCR has taken to correct the problem 
areas and to ensure the OIG is providing the proper oversight. 



93 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 6 

March 24, 2009 



Recent examples of OIG impact on CDCR operations: 

Unsafe Inmate Housing Unit at the California Institution for Men 

During a facility inspection in October 2007, the OIG identified unsafe living conditions at the 
California Institution for Men (CIM). CIM South Dorm's upper level was condemned for its 
visibly unsafe and sagging floor. However, inmates were still living on the first floor despite the 
dangerous level just above. An OIG investigation revealed that the crumbling infrastructure of the 
dorm was an immediate risk to staff and inmate safety, and that the building should no longer be 
used to house inmates. We recommended to CDCR that the South Dorm be closed to inmate 
housing. Subsequent to this recommendation, the entire South Dorm was condemned and inmates 
are no longer housed there. 

In the area of facilities repair, although the OIG is increasingly concerned about the crumbling 
infrastructure at many CDCR facilities, and has identified them in various reports, CDCR points to 
a lack of funding for maintenance and repair as the cause. Due both to the advancing age of many 
facilities as well as the overuse of infrastructure due to overpopulation that well exceeds design 
capacity, many facilities are at their physical limits. On a positive note, CDCR has begun an 
initiative to identify and forecast its true facility maintenance costs and plans to publically report 
on its actual needs for the first time. 

Suicide Attempts at Ventura Youth Correctional Facility 

In May 2008 the OIG identified a pattern of suicide attempts occurring at the Ventura Youth 
Correctional Facility (VYCF). An OIG investigation revealed several deficiencies that could 
diminish the superintendent's ability to hold employees accountable for failing to perform 
required duties. The deficiencies identified by us related to: ward accountability procedures, 
position statement consistency and completeness, and the position statement review and 
acknowledgement process. 

We recommended that the superintendent implement six corrective actions to strengthen living 
unit operations and improve his ability to hold employees accountable for failing to perform 
required duties. 

In the area of recidivism, the department still lags far behind several more successful state 
correctional programs for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being significant inmate 
overpopulation. Under the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board's (C-ROB) guidance, 
CDCR is making strides in planning to increase programming opportunities and options, 
identifying more effective assessments of individual inmates and parolee needs, and working more 
closely with local agencies to provide continued programming when on parole. 

Q3. Please describe your relationship with Mr. Cate, now Corrections Secretary, whose 

department you are charged with scrutinizing and for whom you previously worked? What 
lessons did you learn as the Deputy Inspector General for CDCR that you now are applying 
to your duties as Inspector General? 



94 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 7 

March 24, 2009 



A3. My relationship with Secretary Matt Cate can best be described as professional, cooperative, and 
positive. Mr. Cate hired me as the OIG Chief Assistant Inspector General in 2004 to build the 
Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) from scratch. Prior to that time, although we had been 
prosecutors in the same office for a few years in the 1990s, we did not really know each other. In 
the ensuing years at the OIG, Mr. Cate and I enjoyed a close working relationship based on mutual 
trust and respect, developed over four years of working closely on OIG projects and initiatives. 
After Mr. Cate became the CDCR Secretary, our relationship has necessarily become more distant 
as our roles and duties have changed significantly. As the Inspector General (IG), I meet with Mr. 
Cate on a regular basis each month to discuss issues of mutual interest face-to-face and on an as 
needed basis to address issues that concern our respective departments. In my estimation, Mr. 
Cate and I have a closer working relationship than he did as IG with his predecessor, former 
Secretary James Tilton, but we meet and discuss issues on a similar frequency. The major benefit 
to the State that I see in Mr. Cate and I having worked together closely in the recent past is that we 
trust each other and both believe that the OIG has a vital and valuable role to play in the success of 
the CDCR. 

One of the most valuable lessons that I learned during the four years that I was the Chief Assistant 
Inspector General is the value of a fully involved and committed executive staff. As the OIG 
began to rebuild in 2004, the OIG executive staff developed a culture and process whereby we met 
frequently, discussed openly and honestly virtually all operational and administrative initiatives, 
and participated in the decision making process. While the IG ultimately makes the executive- 
level decisions, having input from all executive staff members greatly assists me in making more 
informed and better reasoned decisions. Establishing a culture wherein every executive staff 
member felt empowered to comment on pending OIG decisions, even outside of their particular 
area of responsibility, was not easy to achieve but has been key to our success over the last five 
years. I have continued to promote this open culture of participation amongst my executive staff 
when I became the IG. 

The other principle lesson I have learned is that while change typically comes slowly to CDCR 
policies and culture, positive and meaningful reform is possible when coupled with rigorous 
oversight, verification, and transparency. For example, the numerous positive changes to the 
CDCR investigative and disciplinary system over the last five years have been miraculous. 
Despite there being many naysayers within and outside of the department as we began the Madrid 
reforms, the department has achieved vast improvements in the timeliness, fairness, consistency 
and thoroughness of the process. While there were certainly obstacles and difficulties along the 
way, the BIR under my leadership was undeterred and continued to push for the changes that 
would allow the state to finally close out this civil rights case, ongoing since 1995. At the time of 
this writing, the state is awaiting the final federal court order that will terminate this case, the state 
finally having met all the reforms mandated by the court. It is this type of tenacity that is needed 
to achieve the reform that is critical to all OIG operations where lasting change is needed at 
CDCR. 

Q4. Please describe how you select your executive staff and how you ensure the independence of 
the office. Please explain the type of training your staff receives. 



95 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 8 

March 24, 2009 



A4. When I am seeking executive staff, beyond the basic tenants of competence, intelligence, and 
honesty, I look first for someone who I believe will be a good fit within the OIG organizational 
culture and second at their particular qualifications to determine which seat to put them in. While 
public sector hiring is often based largely upon the job an applicant currently has or has previously 
had, I have sought out candidates who share our passion and commitment to assist CDCR in 
becoming a model correctional agency and who are willing to willing to work cooperatively with 
the other members of the executive staff. The OIG is fortunate to have an organization of 
competent and intelligent professionals who work well independently. I therefore also seek 
executive staff members who are willing to listen to their subordinate staff and supervise them in a 
manner that does not interfere with their creativity and yet holds them accountable. 

Over the past year, we have developed a comprehensive focus with respect to the development and 
training of the OIG staff. The mission of our training program is to provide internal and external 
opportunities to improve employee job performance, enhance staff development, ensure program 
effectiveness and maintain compliance with state law. This year the program centered on 
developing staff core competencies that seek to improve our organizational success. Essential to 
this approach is developing personal, interpersonal, organizational and technical competencies, 
improving critical thinking and continuous customer focus. 

More specifically, in addition to the required supervisory training that state managers and 
supervisors receive, we have been sending our executive staff to the National Association of 
Inspector's Generals (AIG) Certified Inspector General Course. I attended this training course last 
summer in Washington, DC along with the OIG Bureau Chief of Audits and Investigations (BAI). 
The AIG has just begun presenting training courses for Certified IG Auditors and Certified IG 
Investigators, and we plan to send some of our managers and supervisors to that training as well in 
the future. Other training has been provided on a topical or as needed basis and will be continued 
in the future to ensure OIG staff has the skill set necessary for success. 

Q5. Do you have all the tools you need to monitor the state's 33 prisons? Are there changes you 
would make in the law that you believe would benefit the way your office performs its job? 

A5. With regard to needed tools, the OIG has recently begun performing inspections to evaluate the 
delivery and quality of medical care provided to inmates consistent with the requirements of the 
Plata v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit. These inspections will provide information to the federal court, 
the California Prison Health Care Receivership, CDCR, the Attorney General, the Legislature, the 
plaintiffs counsel, and the public. This information will assist the receiver and CDCR to ensure 
that health care meets a constitutional level, and ultimately help to lead the federal court to return 
the prison medical program to state control. As a result, the OIG has 1 7 new positions in the 
2009-10 Budget to permanently establish two inspection teams to perform inspections at each of 
the state's 33 prisons on an annual basis. 

In addition, as a result of legislative action in the past few years, workload has increased to include 
warden and superintendent vettings, cycle audits of prisons, and one-year reviews of wardens and 
superintendents. Further, the need to review or investigate serious incidents, such as the improper 
release of inmate Scott Thomas, the identification of cross-cutting issues such as the problems in 
the management of adrninistrative segregations, and myriad of systemic problems in headquarters 



96 



Senate Rules Committee 

Page 9 

March 24, 2009 



programs and functions, such as the untimely billing of union-paid leave, have increased the our 
need to perform special reviews. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the OIG can provide the 
necessary oversight of CDCR, we performed a workload analysis and identified 13 additional 
positions needed, just to address existing workload. These positions, however, were not included 
in the approved budget enacted on February 20, 2009. 

C-ROB 

Among the Inspector General 's duties is the chairmanship of the California Rehabilitation Oversight 
Board (C-ROB). C-ROB was established by Assembly Bill 900 (the public Safety and Offender 
Rehabilitation Services Act 2007) within the Office of the Inspector General. C-ROB 's mandate is to 
regularly examine the various mental health, substance abuse, educational and employment programs for 
inmates and parolees operated by CDCR. 

Q6. As Chair, what is your view of the effectiveness of C-ROB in overseeing CDCR's 

rehabilitation effort? Are you, and your board, able to analyze and critique CDCR's effort 
or act primarily to compile information? 

A6. C-ROB has been reasonably effective to date in overseeing CDCR's rehabilitative programming 
efforts. Board members and board staff have expertise in areas specific to rehabilitative 
programming and are able to analyze and draw conclusions about the department's efforts. The 
board has released four reports, which document CDCR's progress and include findings that 
critique the work accomplished, identify issues that threaten sustainable change, and define 
expectations to hold CDCR accountable. For example, in the last two reports, the board 
acknowledged the significant planning and program development achieved but criticized the board 
for its lack of implementation progress in specific areas. The March 2009 report included a 
finding on last minute data submissions, which left little time for C-ROB data validation and 
analysis, and the unavailability of aggregate offender assessment data to substantiate 
implementation progress. Further, the board clearly stated expectations for future data 
submissions, and its intent to publish an interim report in June 2009 - three months before the next 
report is due - to assess implementation progress. 

Q7. Are you satisfied with the tools available to C-ROB to undertake its mission? 

A7. I am currently satisfied with the tools available to C-ROB to undertake this mission. I have two 
staff members at the OIG who take on a great deal of the C-ROB information gathering and 
analysis, as well as report production. The board also has a report writing subcommittee who 
meets to design and write the actual report and discuss future needs from the department. For 
future reports, I will temporarily place one of my staff at CDCR to help streamline the information 
acquisition process and assure greater accountability on the part of CDCR. As CDCR moves from 
the planning phase to rehabilitative program implementation, we also may need to dedicate more 
resources than currently allocated in order to verify and analyze the progress and data provided by 
CDCR. 



97 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 10 
March 24, 2009 



Last July, C-ROB said it was encouraged by the department's "significant progress " in assessing inmates 
for their risk to return to prison and their rehabilitative needs. But the board said it remained concerned 
about the large number of inmates for which assessments had not yet been conducted. 

Q8. Have you followed up to determine whether more assessments have been conducted? 

A8. Yes, C-ROB has followed up on the COMPAS assessments administered by CDCR and discussed 
the department's progress in the March 2009 report. For the July to December 2009 reporting 
period, the department conducted approximately 25,000 core COMPAS assessments and 9,000 
reentry assessments bringing the total COMPAS assessments up to approximately 150,000. 
However, the department experienced problems in merging databases for offender assessments 
onto a single server causing delays in data entry, retrieval, and analysis of aggregate data. The 
offender assessment data is available on an individual basis, and the department is relying on 
aggregated offender assessment data from before the databases merger to guide decision-making 
about offender programming needs. Because the aggregate offender assessment data is currently 
unavailable, the board plans to publish an interim report in June 2009. An additional three months 
should allow the department time to retrieve and submit aggregate data, which in turn will allow 
C-ROB to report on the rehabilitation needs of offenders, gaps in rehabilitation services, and 
levels of offender participation and success. 

Q9. Have your reports prompted the department to broaden inmate opportunities for academic 
and vocational training or improve them in any other significant way? If so, please explain. 
If not, why not? 

A9. Yes, C-ROB 's reports have pushed CDCR to move forward in critical areas, which ultimately will 
result in more and better prograrnming opportunities for inmates. C-ROB is required by statute to 
use the work of the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programs to 
evaluate the department's progress in developing effective rehabilitative programming, which 
includes education, vocational programs, substance abuse treatment programs, employment 
programs and pre-release planning. Our reports ensure the department's planning and 
development efforts are consistent with the Expert Panel's recommendations. Tracking the 
department's progress in this manner holds the department accountable for providing 
programming opportunities to inmates as required by law and for improving the efficacy of 
prograrnming by ensuring that the department is using evidence based programs. To date, the 
department has spent much of its time laying the groundwork for rehabilitative programming. 
While C-ROB has commended the department for its planning and program development work, 
board members have been equally vocal about needing to see implementation progress. 

Holding the department accountable through public meetings and reports has helped to keep the 
department focused on its end goal. At board meetings, the department reports its progress 
through presentations and members are able to ask questions and critique where necessary. We 
gather data and receive progress updates through these open forums as well as at bi-weekly 
meetings between board and department staff In addition, the board has experts in rehabilitation 
make presentations at its meetings to provide various and sometimes contrasting views on 
rehabilitative programming. The public attends and communicates to the board its ideas on 
rehabilitation programs, priorities, and criticisms of CDCR. 



98 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 1 1 
March 24, 2009 



The C-ROB meetings and reports also push the department to improve rehabilitative programming 
systematically. For example, in the January 2008 C-ROB report, the board found that it had "not 
seen evidence of a comprehensive and integrated plan dedicated specifically to improving 
rehabilitative programming." Six months later in the July 2008 report, C-ROB reported that the 
department had developed a Master Work Plan for Rehabilitative Programming that details the 
hundreds of tasks needed to implement fundamental rehabilitative reform throughout the 
correctional system. In its March 2009 C-ROB report, the Board found that there was a lack of 
data to substantiate implementation progress and stated its intent to publish an interim report in 
June 2009 in order to assess the department's progress. The board understands that a strong 
foundation is essential to ensuring sustainable reform; however, we expect to see implementation 
progress and have provided timelines to receive data that will enable us to evaluate whether the 
department is improving inmate opportunities for educational and vocational training as well as 
other rehabilitative programming. 

Q10. Are you satisfied with CDCR's use of this assessment in meeting inmates' rehabilitative 
needs? 

A 10. The Expert Panel recommended that the department adopt a risk assessment instrument for the 
prison population; utilize the COMPAS or similar assessment tool for the parole population; 
develop a risk assessment tool normed for the female inmate/parolee populations and the young 
adult inmate/parolee populations; norm and validate all the selected risk assessment instruments 
for CDCR's adult offender population and validate these tools at least every five years; and use 
additional evidence-based tools (secondary assessments) to supplement criminogenic needs 
assessments. 

In its July 2008 report, C-ROB reported that the department had begun to use COMPAS 
assessments at reception centers to assign inmates with an identified need for substance abuse 
treatment to an institution with a substance abuse program. 

In its March 2009 report, C-ROB reported that CDCR had began to rollout an integrated approach 
to completing inmate assessments and classification by having the Correctional Counselor I's 
instead of teachers conduct both tasks at reception center intake. The department also developed 
and implemented assessments normed for female offenders and for offenders returning to the 
community. The department has not yet developed an assessment normed for the young adult 
inmate/parolee populations. And finally, a COMPAS validation study is currently underway 
relative to the dynamic criminogenic needs of offenders and is in its second year of research. In 
the same report, C-ROB noted that the department conducted COMPAS assessments on 
approximately 1,000 offenders at the California State Prison, Solano demonstration project site 
and began implementation of the secondary assessments. 

I am cautiously satisfied with the work the department has completed to develop and implement 
the Expert Panel's recommendations on risk assessments. I, and the other board members, have 
expressed our dissatisfaction in board meetings and in the last C-ROB report with the 
department's inability to provide aggregate assessment data that C-ROB can use to make findings 
on the rehabilitation needs of offenders, gaps in rehabilitation services, and levels of offender 



99 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 12 
March 24, 2009 



participation and success. During the Fall of 2008, the department experienced problems in 
merging databases for offender assessments onto a single server causing delays in data entry, 
retrieval, and analysis of aggregate data. C-ROB will not be satisfied with COMPAS until we can 
analyze aggregate assessment data and see the results of the rehabilitative programming provided 
to inmates at the Solano demonstration project. 



Priorities 

Your office reported that for the first three quarters of 2008 it received 2, 788 complaints, or an average 
of 310 per month. 

Qll. How do you decide which complaints to pursue? Do complaints from officers, inmates, or 
juvenile offenders receive priority over citizen complaints? Please explain. 

All. The OIG receives complaints from various sources, including inmates and/or, their families and 
attorneys, CDCR staff, the CDCR Secretary, the Legislature, and the Governor's Office. A 
complaint's priority for action is based on the type and seriousness of the incident - not the 
complainant. Although the complaint process is an important component of our investigative 
process, it is important to note it is only one venue we use to initiate investigations, inspections 
and audits. 

Changing the way that the OIG reviews and prioritizes complaints was one of my first initiatives 
when I became the IG. In the past, the OIG directed its audit and investigative resources using a 
reactive, complaint-driven process. Over the past several months, we have implemented a 
thorough internal process to determine the priority of complaints and the actions to be undertaken. 
We have developed and adopted an allegation matrix that directs our attention to investigations 
having the most impact in assisting CDCR to carry out its mandates as well as maintaining our 
oversight responsibility. The matrix focuses on the following areas in non-priority order: 

Large scale fraud and waste of funds; 

Serious inmate injuries and deaths (other than natural causes); 

Ward deaths; 

Inmate incidents resulting in serious staff injury or death; 

Ward incidents resulting in serious staffward injury; 

Death of civilians caused by inmates or parolees; 

Civil rights violations; 

Sex offenses by staff on-duty; 

Serious complaints from wards and inmates; 

Major security breaches; 

Large scale disturbances/riots; 

Retaliation; and 

High profile incidents with potential for criminal or civil action. 

My staff continually examines new ways to identify serious issues requiring our attention such as 
using trend analysis and the review of specific accounting processes to identify fraud, waste and 



100 



I senate Kuies L-omminee 
Page 13 



March 24, 2009 



abuse. Through this proactive process, as of January 1, 2009, we have initiated approximately 70 
investigative reviews of issues (called Pipeline investigations) meeting our matrix criteria. 

With respect to allegations of wrongdoing, the OIG receives complaints through its central intake 
unit. As stated above, complaints can originate from a variety of sources. The OIG intake staff 
reviews the information provided and contacts the complainant or OIG investigators are assigned 
to obtain additional information needed to assess the veracity of the allegations irrespective of the 
source or who filed the complaints. Based on this initial investigation and intake staffs 
recommendation that the allegation merits an investigation, the intake unit forwards the complaint 
to the Central Intake Committee, headed by me, for review and determination for the proper 
course of action. 

Additionally, allegations may come to the OIG through the CDCR's Central Intake Panel (CIP). 
When CDCR receives preliminary information concerning an allegation of employee misconduct, 
the CIP evaluates the allegations/complaints for a determination of action. At the same time, the 
OIG's Bureau of Independent Review (BIR) participates in the CDCR CIP process and evaluates 
whether the allegation/complaint meets the OIG threshold for investigation. If it does, the 
allegation is referred to the OIG central intake committee for a determination of action. The 
allegation/complaint is either accepted for investigation or rejected and referred back to CDCR's 
Office of Internal Affairs. 

The OIG's Bureau of Audits and Investigations (BAI) also conducts management review audits of 
state prison wardens and correctional facility superintendents, special review and audits of 
correctional agencies and programs, and investigations into alleged misconduct by employees of 
correctional agencies. 

Q12a. How do you decide what to audit? 

A 12a. Our audits are based on consideration of several factors including statutory requirements and an 
evaluation of the risks associated with specific institutions, programs, or activities. However, the 
majority of audit work is driven by statutorily mandated cycle audits of institutions and one-year 
reviews of wardens. We do perform discretionary audits and inspections and the factors 
considered when selecting and prioritizing those audits are described below along with recent 
examples: 

• The potential risk to the public, staff, inmates, and institutional safety and security. Special 
Review into the release of inmate Scott Thomas; Special Review into the Death of Correctional 
Officer Manual A. Gonzales; 

• The severity of the violation/potential violation of laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. 
Special Review: Management of CDCR 's Administrative Segregation Unit Population; 
Special Review of High Risk Issues at Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility; 

• The potential financial impact to the institution, the department, and state. Special Review of 
Substance Abuse Contractors; Special Review of Union-Paid Leave Reimbursements Owed to 
CDCR; 



101 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 14 
March 24, 2009 



• Whether there are potentially significant violations of inmate or employee rights. Special 
Review: Management ofCDCR 's Administrative Segregation Unit Population; 

• Whether significant public policy issues are involved and overall importance to the state. 
Medical Inspection Results at California State Prison, Centinela; RJ Donovan Correctional 
Facility; California Medical Facility; and California State Prison, Sacramento. 

Q12b. What is the goal of the audits? 

Q12b. The overarching goal for our audits is to help safeguard the integrity of the state's correctional 
system: in effect, to act as the eyes and ears of the public in overseeing the state's prisons and 
correctional programs. Our audit reports are published and distributed to the department, the 
Legislature, the Administration, and other stakeholders and are available for the public on our 
website. The public release of the reports provides a powerful incentive to address the problems 
afflicting the state's correctional departments and institutions. This public posting is critical 
because prisons are, by their very nature, places where most events occur outside the public view. 

The specific goals of our audits are to: 

• identify fraud, waste, and abuse; 

• evaluate the performance of wardens and superintendents in discharging their duties; 

• evaluate the operation of institutions and programs for compliance with applicable laws, 
regulations, policies, and procedures; and 

• identify inefficiencies and opportunities for operational improvement. 

Our audits provide recommendations to the department to correct problems; improve performance; 
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; and achieve compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and 
procedures. Further, to encourage the department to implement our recommendations or 
otherwise take corrective action, we follow up through our annual Accountability Audit where we 
evaluate the status of prior audit recommendations that have not been implemented. 

Q12c. Is one of the goals to get CDCR to do a better job of policing itself? 

A12c. The OIG's audits provide information to the department, Legislature, stakeholders, and public 

regarding the problems and shortcomings in the operations of the state's correctional system. That 
information is intended to both compel the department to correct the immediate, existing problem, 
as well as drive fundamental change in how it does business to prevent future problems. 
Therefore it is absolutely one of our goals that the department utilize our recommendations and 
other information to better monitor its performance and the performance of its staff. 

To reinforce our belief that it is imperative that the department police itself, it is common for us to 
recommend measures such as: publicly reporting on its performance in areas where we have 
identified problems; implementing systems to monitor employee or contractor performance; and 
conducting compliance reviews of specific programs or functional areas. 



102 



Page 15 
March 24, 2009 



In addition, our annual Accountability Audit is intended to compel the department to review and 
evaluate areas with previously identified problems at least annually. 

Further, given the size of the department in comparison to the OIG, it is not realistic to believe that 
we can effectively monitor all aspects of CDCR's operation. Therefore, it is critical that the 
department aggressively implement measures and systems to police itself. The OIG's vigorous 
oversight is a powerful agent for change. However, our work must be supported and 
complemented by active and effective self-monitoring by the department. 

Q13. Are there other issues you choose to investigate that do not fall into the categories listed in 
questions 11 & 12? 

A13. Yes. The Office of the Inspector General also conducts the following proactive activities to 
identify areas for potential investigation or review. 

• Special Reports - Inspectors conduct examinations of issues regarding systemic problems 
affecting the safety of the public and the security of CDCR facilities and personnel and report 
their findings to the public in the Special Report format; 

• Pipeline Investigations - Pipeline investigations, described in Al 1 above, involve rapid fact- 
gathering and research in response to incidents, trends, and news events involving parolees, 
inmates, and correctional programs of significant impact to the community. The preliminary 
data compiled by inspectors is then used to determine whether an investigation is warranted 
regarding the problem; 

• On- View Investigations - Inspectors may identify a violation of policy or law while involved 
in an unrelated task with the department. The evidence/data is then used to establish whether 
the information should be forwarded through our intake process or referred to CDCR's Office 
of Internal Affairs (OLA) for investigation; 

• Gang Liaison - Because gangs are a significant detriment to our communities and overall 
safety, the OIG created the position of gang liaison officer to address and review issues 
involving gang activity adversely affecting CDCR's ability to effectively rehabilitate the 
inmate and parolee population. Additionally, we will also examine CDCR gang enforcement 
programs and gauge their effectiveness; and 

• Vetting process - During the vetting process, inspectors conduct between 60 and 70 
interviews regarding a warden candidate's qualifications. In addition to addressing questions 
posed by inspectors, many interviewees share information with inspectors regarding potential 
misconduct, employee disputes, and other information they otherwise would not report to the 
OIG or CDCR. The information/data is analyzed to establish whether the information learned 
should be forwarded through our intake process or referred to OLA for investigation. 

We also perform semi-annual inspections at all in-state youth and adult prisons in the state. These 
inspections are used to identify potential issues for audit or investigation, provide our office with 
additional information from staff and inmates who have the opportunity to make complaints or 



103 



senate Rules Committee 
Page 16 
March 24, 2009 



identify issues of concern, and make recommendations for operational improvement to 
management. 

Your office also reported seeking a $3.3 million general fund budget augmentation for 17 positions to 
perform medical inspections at all prisons, as well as follow-up inspections at some facilities? 

Q14a. Please explain the goal of the medical inspections? 

A 14a. The goal of the medical inspections is to provide objective, comprehensive, and timely 

information regarding the level and quality of medical care delivered at each institution. This 
information is important to the federal court, the receiver, CDCR, the Attorney General, and the 
plaintiffs' counsel in evaluating whether the state is providing a constitutionally adequate level of 
medical care, pursuant to the provisions of the Plata litigation. 

Q14b. Were you asked to conduct these by the federal medical receiver? 

A 14b. Yes, the initial request to develop the medical inspection program came from the federal receiver. 
In its order appointing the receiver, the federal court ordered the receiver to develop methods for 
measuring the success of the receivership and the receiver's efforts to bring prison medical care up 
to constitutional standards. To comply with the court's order, the receiver in its May 2007 Plan of 
Action identified his intent to use the OIG to develop and implement the medical inspection 
program to provide monitoring of efforts to achieve constitutional care. This plan was developed 
with the assistance and input of all the parties and filed and approved by the court. In addition, 
there is a stipulation pending with the federal court that would formally recognize the inspection 
process and order my office to perform the medical inspections consistent with the provisions of 
the stipulation. Further, the plaintiffs' counsel have stipulated to the OIG's medical inspections to 
evaluate the access to and quality of care in the state's prisons. 

Q14c. Will the reports go to the receiver, and will his office be obliged to follow your 
recommendations ? 

A14c. The receiver and prison medical staff receive both a draft and final report for each inspection. The 
receiver is provided the opportunity to respond to the draft report as well as provide additional 
information related to identified instances of non-compliance. The receiver's response is included 
as a part of the final published public report. 

The OIG does not have the authority to order or compel the receiver to take specific action. 
However, we expect that each institution under the direction of the receiver will review each item 
of non-compliance to identify underlying causes and take all appropriate corrective action, which 
might include policy and procedural changes, training, and/or disciplinary action. The institutions 
do not submit specific corrective action plans, which would take significantly more resources for 
us to separately track, evaluate, and validate. However, the receiver's responses for inspections 
performed to date have often included information regarding corrective actions taken or planned. 
The effectiveness of any corrective actions taken by the receiver and institutions are evaluated 
through the performance of the next inspection, one-year later. 



104 



aenaie tuiies Lomnunee 
Page 17 
March 24, 2009 



In addition to providing copies of the report to the receiver and institution medical staff, the 
reports are also provided to the Administration, CDCR executive management, the Attorney 
General, the federal court, and plaintiffs' counsel. Further, to bring transparency to the issue of 
prison medical care the final reports are posted on the OIG website for public viewing. 

Warden Vetting 

The Senate no longer confirms wardens at individual prisons. Instead, your office is tasked with vetting 
them for suitability. 

Q15a. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of your process of vetting wardens? 

I believe that the OIG has developed a thorough and fair process to evaluate warden and 
superintendent candidates. One way to gauge the accuracy and ability of the OIG to recommend 
appropriate warden candidates is by examining the wardens' performance after confirmation. 
California Penal Code section 6126(a)(2) requires that the OIG perform one-year management 
reviews for appointed CDCR wardens. Without exception, these reviews reveal that the appointed 
wardens are effective leaders and recommend that each continue serving in their capacity as warden. 
To date, no wardens vetted by the OIG and recommended as qualified or above have been removed 
for cause. Since September 2005, the OIG has completed 39 warden and two superintendant 
vettings. 

Q15b. Are you able to make a judgment about who is capable of providing the leadership and level 
of supervision so important at our large state prisons? 

A15b. Candidates for warden go through two independent and comprehensive investigations comprised of 
the following three components: personal background, vetting at the facility, and a one-on-one 
interview with me. 

Our evaluation includes a thorough background investigation of the candidate to ensure their 
personal history displays the conduct and character the public expects of high ranking law 
enforcement officials. The vetting process includes several visits to the respective correctional 
institution to review physical facilities and interview scores of stakeholders including current and 
former co-workers, subordinates, union representatives, public interest organizations, and inmates. 
Another important source of information is the BIR attorneys who monitor the warden's handling of 
critical incidents and disciplinary actions on a real-time basis. 

After the warden evaluation and investigations are complete, I specifically address issues of concern 
with the candidate during a one-on-one interview. I evaluate the candidate's responses to these 
criticisms and concerns in determining the candidate's ability to appropriately address the problems 
faced by a warden. 

Based on the results of the above, the candidate receives one of four ratings — exceptionally well 
qualified, well qualified, qualified, or not qualified — and we prepare a report with my 
recommendation for the Governor's Office. 



105 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 18 
March 24, 2009 



Several individuals who retired from CDCR as wardens are now interested in returning to be wardens, 
not as retired annuitants but as full time wardens. 

Q16a. Do you have any insight from your vetting process about why this is occurring? 

Al 6a. The new leadership at CDCR coupled with the current economic downturn appears to have had a 

motivating effect on some retired wardens expressing interest in returning full-time. In addition, the 
opportunity to take advantage of the enhanced PERS retirement formula now available to state 
peace officers cannot be overlooked. In addition, the department has a limited number of staff with 
sufficient experience and interest to become a warden and has reached out to former wardens. 
Compounding this situation is the receiver's recent hiring of wardens, executive staff, and managers 
leaving a vacuum of experienced staff for candidates. Clearly, a warden candidate with previous 
warden experience may have the technical expertise to be effective in certain areas but will also lack 
the benefit of having lived through the many significant reforms in CDCR over the last 5 years. 
Although certainly not dispositive on the issue of competence, we look very hard at a previously 
retired warden to assess their capability to be an effective warden in the CDCR of today. 

Q16b. As part of your vetting process do you look into how competently they managed the prison 
under their jurisdiction in the past? 

A 16b. Yes, a comprehensive review is conducted of their previous vetting (if vetted by the OIG) and the 
following areas during their tenure as warden: 

• strengths and weaknesses from previous vetting; 

• issues with their management of the previous facility; 

• investigations, audits, and inspections conducted; 

• EEO/ERO/OIA/SPB and internet checks of complaints filed; 

• issues in COMSTAT reports; and 

• results of CDCR Peer Reviews. 

Key considerations are how long it has been since they were a warden and if they were ever vetted 
by the OIG. I also solicit informal feedback on past performance from the legislative staff, local 
law enforcement leaders and civil attorneys to determine if issues arose with past performance as a 
warden occurring prior to the advent of the OIG vetting process. Another key indicator is whether 
or not a warden candidate has fully cooperated in the reforms mandated in the Madrid case. 

Q17. Based on your experience with the warden vetting process, do you have any 

recommendations for the type of management and leadership training CDCR should be 
providing to make its managers "readier" to become wardens? 

A17. Based on our experience with the warden vetting process, I have three recommendations: create a 
mentoring program; create structured leadership training: and create a job shadowing program. A 
mentoring program could include prospective candidates working with the current warden to 
observe day-to-day activities and handling of critical situations; the chief deputy warden or other 
candidates performing as acting warden under the supervision of the assigned warden; and 
assigning the new warden to a mentor who is currently working as a warden. Leadership training 
could include examining the differences between the duties of the chief deputy warden and the 



106 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 19 
March 24, 2009 



warden; potential issues and pitfalls to avoid as a warden; crisis scenario training and learning the 
political aspects of the warden's position. If the warden candidate has little or no custody 
experience, job shadowing would allow the candidate to work with a warden from another facility 
for a period of time to ensure he/she is trained and knowledgeable on security issues. 

Board of Parole Hearings 

The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determines the suitability for parole of life-term inmates, such as 
someone serving a 15-years-to-\ife sentence. 

Q18. Do you have responsibility for providing oversight for BPH? If so, how do you exercise it? 
Do you have enough staff to regularly look into the activities of the board? If not, have you 
asked for staff to provide oversight of the board? 

Al 8. Yes, the OIG has oversight authority for BPH as it is a subdivision of CDCR. We exercise our 
authority through audits and reviews of the operation and management of BPH and investigation 
of its employees. In the past the OIG has done two broad reviews of BPH that covered topics such 
as: 

Indeterminate sentence hearings and appeals; 

BPH decisions; 

Hearings for mentally disordered offenders; 

Supervision of deputy commissioners; and 

Interpretation services procedures. 

The BIR oversees internal investigations and disciplinary actions against BPH staff, and BAI has 
monitored significant issues and recommendations to BPH through its annual Accountability 
Audit. 

The OIG is in the process of preparing its 2009-10 and 2010-1 1 work plans and will be reviewing 
BPH and its specific programs and functions (such as those identified above) for audit in the next 
year. 

As mentioned above in A5, we submitted a BCP for an additional 13 positions in the FY 09/10 
Budget process following a workload analysis. Although these positions were not specifically 
dedicated to BPH or any particular OIG project, I realize that we lack sufficient resources to fully 
examine all areas within the CDCR umbrella. As I fill vacant positions that came to the OIG in 
the 08/09 Budget, my ability to examine new areas within CDCR will significantly increase. We 
will continue to advocate for the resources necessary to provide comprehensive oversight to the 
department as we move forward. 



Juveniles 

The court in Farrell v. Schwarzenegger has been very critical of the administration efforts to reform the 
Division of Juvenile Justice. At the same time, the Little Hoover Commission recently recommended that 
the state eliminate its juvenile justice operations by 2011. 



107 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 20 
March 24, 2009 



Q19. Please explain how you see your role in ensuring that California has a well-run juvenile 
justice system that uses high standards to educate and treat offenders. 

Al 9. The operation of the Division of Juvenile Justice DJJ and the wards under its control clearly fall 
under the OIG's oversight authority. Therefore, the OIG is firmly committed to providing 
oversight of DJJ in the discharge of its responsibilities. Specifically, the OIG has performed 16 
reviews of DJJ and its facilities since 2000. Those audits have included facilities such as: 

• Preston Youth Correctional Facility; 

• Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility; 

• Southern Youth Reception Center; 

• N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility; and 

• Ventura Youth Correctional Facility. 

The OIG has also reviewed special management programs (restricted programs, frequently 
referred to as 23 and 1 programs) and intensive treatment programs. In addition, since 2005 the 
OIG has reviewed DJJ's actions to address open findings and recommendations through 
comprehensive accountability audits. 

Q20. Please describe your specific DJJ projects and those planned for the next year. 

A20. The OIG performs ongoing inspections of each DJJ facility at least twice a year and routinely 

sends staff out to review/investigate specific issues that come to our attention. For example, when 
a rash of suicide attempts occurred at the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility last year, we sent 
staff there several times to review and evaluate the situation and provided a management letter to 
the superintendent. In addition, the OIG through its ongoing monitoring of prior audits in its 
Accountability Audit continues to push the DJJ to: 

• Define in its policies and procedures the minimum required time (three hours) that restricted 
program wards must be allowed out of their rooms, consistent with the requirements of the 
Farrell v. Tilton Consent Decree; 

• Define globally and uniformly the policies and procedures related to the minimum standards 
for wards' living quarters, in order to enable DJJ facilities to provide safe living conditions for 
wards in restricted programs; 

• Ensure that wards receive mandated services and implement procedures to ensure that the 
provision of such services is documented and monitored; and 

• Acknowledge that Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility operates a step-down program, 
as an extension of its special management (restricted) program, and provide those wards with 
protections regarding minimum time out of their rooms and access to programming. 

Currently, we are in the process of preparing our 2009-10 and 2010-1 1 work plans and will be 
reviewing specific DJJ facilities and programs such as the special management program, 
education, sex behavior treatment, healthcare services, mental health treatment, and safety and 
welfare for audit in the next year. In addition, the BIR's medical monitoring program is intended 



108 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 21 
March 24, 2009 



to respond to all juvenile deaths and provide an independent review of the circumstances 
surrounding the death within 30 days. The OIG is also considering expanding the program's scope 
for DJJ to included failed suicide attempts. 

Prison Costs 

Last November six doctors at Salinas Valley State Prison were charged with fraud for allegedly filing 
falsified time sheets. The state allegedly was overbilled $160,000. At the time, you told the Monterey 
County Herald that you were committed to uncovering fraud in a "time of mounting prison costs and 
taxpayer scrutiny. " 

Q21. Please cite other examples when you've investigated rising prison costs and if your efforts 
lead to cost savings. 

A2 1 . California is facing the worst fiscal crisis in a generation. Seeking out fraud, waste, and abuse 

within CDCR is a core function for the OIG. In the last six months, we have redirected staff to a 
newly formed Fraud Investigations Unit (FIU). The FIU was responsible for the investigation 
leading to the indictments against six doctors at Salinas Valley State Prison in November 2008. 
The FIU has recently opened an investigation into $7.8 million in overpayments being made to 
medical providers who have treated CDCR inmates; has just completed a Special Report which 
identified $1.3 million that was inappropriately paid to CDCR employees who where adversely 
separated from CDCR; and is currently finalizing a Special Report that identifies CDCR inmates 
bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars annually by filing fraudulent tax returns. 

In addition to investigating potential instances of fraud, we performs audits that attempt to identify 
wasteful practices and/or ineffective management and make recommendations to reduce or 
recover costs. For example, in our audit of CDCR' s management of administrative segregation 
units, we determined that the department's untimely release of prisoners could be costing the state 
over $10 million annually. 

In our recent audit of union paid leave, we identified that the department was not timely billing 
SEIU for employees' leave with potentially over $2 million dollars still to be collected. And, in 
our audit of Salinas Valley State Prison, we determined that the inappropriate placement of 
inmates not eligible for day-for-day credit in job assignments and educational classes was 
prolonging the stay of other inmates who were eligible for day-for-day credit. Needlessly 
prolonging the inmates' time in prison exacerbates overcrowding and results in unnecessary costs 
to the state. Although we were not able to project the statewide effect for these mis-assignments, 
clearly the department could save a significant amount of money annually, just by more 
effectively assigning inmates to jobs and classes. 

In a recent report, your office cited repeated failures by some prisons to comply with CDCR policies and 
due process requirements for inmates. You found that some inmates were being held in administrative 
segregation units for an inappropriate length of time. You reported that this resulted in the denial of 
inmates ' due process rights "while potentially exposing the department to costly litigation. " You 
estimated that these confinements resulted in millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. 



109 



Senate Rules Committee 
Page 22 
March 24, 2009 



Q22. Please describe any follow-up your office has done on this report and what the department is 
doing to correct the situation. 

A22. The review of the administrative segregation management was released on January 1 5, 2009. 

Therefore, additional follow-up has not been performed to date. However, we view the violation 
of inmate due process rights and the significant waste of state funds as grave matters and are in the 
process of including procedures to review the management of administrative segregation units in 
all our institutional audits. In addition, this matter and any subsequent findings related to the 
management of administrative segregation will also be followed up in our annual Accountability 
Audit, which reviews the status of CDCR's actions to address open findings and recommendations 
from our various audits. 

Relationship to CDCR 

CDCR has a force of internal investigators who look into inappropriate activities by prison employees. 
OIG tends to focus on larger management issues, such as the overall operation of a prison. The Bureau of 
Independent Review, which is under OIG, is responsible for oversight of internal affairs investigations 
conducted by CDCR. 

Q23. Please explain how you interact with CDCR internal investigators and the level of 
cooperation between the two agencies in investigations. 

A23. The BIR interacts with CDCR internal investigators and the department attorneys that handle 
disciplinary investigations and adverse actions on a daily basis. In particular, we monitor these 
investigators from the time a case is assigned until a case report is submitted to the district 
attorney responsible for criminal charges or the hiring authority responsible for deciding on 
discipline, if any. We similarly monitor CDCR attorneys from the time a case is assigned through