Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation

Transportation will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment today, the participant number is 844-291-5491 and the access code is 7042477 we're holding our committee hearings in the Capitol. I ask all members of the Subcommittee be present in room 112 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have ten issues on today's agenda. Before we hear the presentation on the issues, let's establish a quorum. If the consultant. Please do the roll call.

[Roll Call]

The consultant notes a quorum has been established. And let's begin with our first item, which is a department overview with Secretary Macomber, who will also welcome. Where's Secretary Macomber? Okay. There you are. We were looking all over for you. Welcome, Secretary, to the committee. And go ahead, secretary, with your presentation.

Thank you. Hello again. I'm Jeff Macomber, secretary for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me and my CDCR team to be before you here today. While CDCR budget proposals will be discussed in this committee over the next few months, I'd like to use this time to provide an overview of a few of the projects we are implementing in the department, as well as my goals and visions moving forward.

It is well known that living and working in a correctional environment can be extremely physically and mentally taxing for both staff and the incarcerated population alike. CDCR is committed to challenging correctional norms, creating a healthier and safer environment, and preparing individuals for successful community reintegration through the California model. The foundation of the California model is based on two core pillars. The first is focused on the wellness of our staff, and the second is based on supporting the unique needs of each incarcerated person in our care.

To successfully prepare individuals for reentry to the communities, we are committed to maximizing reentry opportunities and giving the population the skills and tools to help them succeed. This leads to one of my next priorities, the expansion of reentry programs. Successful reintegration into the community requires a robust and supportive network of reentry programs and resources. CDCR is committed to expanding one of our most impactful programs, community reentry centers, which will allow more incarcerated individuals to serve the final years of their sentence in the community.

The program allows participants to benefit from community-based resources as they transition back to their communities. We thank you for your support of this critical program through the additional funding included in last year's budget. Finally, CDCR aims to leverage technology to improve the lives of the incarcerated population and staff operations while enhancing institutional safety. The department has prioritized the implementation of technological solutions where they can make the most impact to the challenges both staff and the incarcerated population face daily, while simultaneously improving family reunification efforts.

The implementation of free calling for all incarcerated persons, along with the deployment of tablets statewide, are just a few of the ways we have strengthened bonds with family and friends. Technology will be key and should be focused on achievable it solutions and a comprehensive digital strategy improving accountability, transparency, compliance to reduce litigation grievances, increasing staff morale, as well as reducing paperwork processes.

The governor's budget includes several pivotal proposals that allow the department to continue deployment of the statewide audio-video surveillance system, refine and enhance the staff misconduct process, and ensure the appropriate level of care and accommodations to the developmentally disabled incarcerated population, as well as supporting the department's information technology needs. We look forward to working collaboratively with you and your staff on the budget and our proposals in the coming months.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my priorities with you today, and I look forward to continuing the open communication with the Legislature and stakeholders to increase transparency. My team is here to respond to questions you have on specific CDCR proposals, and again, thank you for the time.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know you've been with the department for many, many years, decades, but you are new as the leader of the department. So welcome and glad to have that you have the combined experience of being new at the helm, but really experience within the department.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Sir, question to start out with, and it's comforting to know that we have somebody that comes from within the system that can identify the weaknesses and the strengths of the organization and be able to provide our citizens with an effective program. So my question to you is kind of a pretty broad question.

Do you think you have the tools and resources needed to provide the public with a humane and effective incarceration and rehabilitation program that supports the public safety needs of our law-abiding citizens as well as those that are incarcerated?

I believe that we do. Obviously, correctional environments are ever-evolving and we have areas we need to work on in the department. And part of that is I mentioned efforts to assist with our staff complaint process. We have a proposal in there and I think really what we want to build upon is what I referenced earlier, which is the California model, which is kind of the efforts the department is undergoing where we're looking at some of the policies and procedures used in other jurisdictions, such as Norway and other correctional environments that really lead to a more positive environment, not just for the population, but for the staff that work there as well.

We want to make sure not only do we have rehab opportunities for those that want and are willing to engage in that, but I think reentry is a real key. I mentioned that earlier. We do know from some early statistics that folks that do it go out to a reentry facility before parole have a substantially lower recidivism rate for those that don't. So I would say, could we use more programming? Yes. Are we appreciative of the investments that have been made? I am.

I think I'm very pleased that we're able to offer college programming in all of our facilities. We're also expanding BA programs into multiple yards within our institutions and are in the process of rolling out laptops, computers for those folks involved in college and other programming. So I do think we're in a much better spot than we were years ago, and I look forward to continuing to advance the department's mission in that regard.

Okay. And as a follow-up to that, a lot of the deprogramming or taking offline of some of the prison system elements has resulted in some cost savings. Are those cost savings being reinvested into those areas where we're having weaknesses? In other words, some of the programs you said, yes, we could use a little bit more help. Are those being transferred into there, or are they just disappearing and you're left without the additional resources that you could use to support the parts of the programs that are not functioning in a manner that they could, where they'd be most beneficial?

So we continue to work with the Department of Finance as we do take down facilities to help us repurpose some of those educational positions where we may have a need at other facilities and have space to operate. So we're looking to repurpose that because I think that's an excellent question because we also don't want to be in a position, as we close prisons, to lead that into significant reductions into the amount of rehabilitative program we can provide.

Because as the system contracts, obviously, we lose facilities, we lose the classrooms, the vocational space within those facilities. And that part is a little concerning because, again, when you keep the population busy, that's not only good for folks there because it reduces violence and idle time, but we also know that folks engaged in active rehabilitation efforts do better while in prison and do better upon release to parole.

Great. So thank you for your answers. I have other questions, but I'm going to save them for some of your other team members as they come up and present some of their testimony. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator. I have a few questions as well. Some of them are very specific, and some might be if you could answer as much as you can now and then probably get into more detailed in the next issues. One of them is, and you and I spoke about this is how research has shown that family and community ties are very important to reducing recidivism.

And what my office and what our committee hears repeatedly is the many difficulties that families face to be able to visit their loved ones in prison, securing a video, or in-person visit, the costs of traveling to these remote locations. So, Mr. Secretary, how does the CDCR plan to improve access to visitation and encourage that family connection, which we know is both healthy to the family but also to the incarcerated person?

Yeah, and I agree with your statement about how important that is. And coming off the COVID pandemic, we work quickly to stand-up video visiting to allow the population to continue that connection when we had to cancel in-person visiting for public health concerns. We have continued video visiting one day a week and will continue until we complete our rollout of our tablet program, which we expect to be done around this coming summer.

And I raised that because with the tablet program also enables our population to engage in video calling. So we'll be able to back off from the video visiting and then resume the three days of in-person visiting each and every week. So family reunification is key. I think part of that is the investment the Legislature made to allow free calling for the population.

That also with the part of the tablet program, also, as I said before, includes a number of minutes for free video calling as well. So I think those are two excellent tools for family reunification. I think to the extent we can continue to maximize our reentry efforts and return folks to reentry centers before the release in the community that are returning to, I think that is also a positive step for that family unification as well.

Thank you. The next thing is about the connection as to what costs the incarcerated persons face while they're in prison. But also we want to make sure that when they are released, that they're released in such a way that there's not more economic burden on them, debt, and also that they're in a position in the best position possible for a good job, to pay for their own needs, to pay for their family needs.

So I'm trying to see this connection between what debt they might be incurring, which puts them in a worse position, and then also what opportunities are there for them to go into good jobs. I know you mentioned that the new tablets that are rolling out, I understand that they get 15 minutes for free. So 15 minutes free on the tablet. But other than that, above that, it's $12 an hour.

When you look at what they might be earning, if they have a job within prison, they're earning eight cents an hour. That's, that's, you know, that just doesn't add up for them to be able to spend the $12 an hour when they're making eight cents an hour in their job. So if you could talk about that because it is about their ability when they are released to be able to be in the best situation possible.

Yeah. And just to share a little more information. The phone calling is unlimited and free. The video-based calling there is a limited number of minutes. I believe it's maybe two 15-minute calls per month. I will let Kristin Montgomery, who's testifying later, go into more detail on that. But we're currently now looking closely at the wage issue that you raised earlier. It is true that some of our wages start at they go up to a dollar plus as well.

But we are certainly open to looking at that issue. We're also looking at maximizing the funding we do have available now to look, to try to increase those rates internally. But I share your concern is we don't want folks leaving in debt. And our hope is that we've given them the tools once they get out that they've had the right programming, the right vocational programs, the right college programming to help folks be successful upon their release. And again, I thank the Legislature for the investments they have made to allow us to do things like provide laptops in college and things like that that were really unheard of even 10 years ago.

Thank you. I've been on this committee for, this is now my third year, and often we've made requests of information to the department that either is slow to get back to us or really not very complete answers. The LAO noted multiple proposals that were lacking key information. So I guess the fundamental question is, and a lot of these have to do with transparency, how do you plan to increase the transparency that's needed and then overall, as we get into the closures? Right? The strategic planning that's needed in the department?

Yeah. Transparency really is one of my goals, and I think one of the proposals I believe we're talking about today is audio-video surveillance, which is installing camera systems throughout our prisons. We will have completed approximately 22 in the coming months and would like to finish out that process as well. My folks are also committed to putting more information online to make it more publicly accessible. Folks are somewhat familiar, I'm sure, with our COMPSTAT process.

We're looking at trying to streamline much of that information and make it available online here in the coming months. And we're also committed to working with you folks and making sure you get the information you need. I've worked with a lot of the LAO and other staff from your office before, and I'm comfortable that we can land in a good spot.

Thank you. And the next. I know that we have an issue on the lawsuits, but the CDCR is involved in four federal class action lawsuits that are over 20 years old, and they've not been resolved, mostly because there's continued mistreatment of the incarcerated population. Nearly every item on the agenda today is driven by a court order. Population reductions, healthcare facility improvement program, reform of the staff's complaint process, expansion of video surveillance. So how do you see under your leadership that CDCR can change course on these lawsuits? The court orders, the judges' comments are really disturbing. And how will we reach constitutional compliance and make much, much more significant progress towards resolution?

Yeah, and I think that frames well with some of the earlier comments, and I think we need to increase our transparency. I think one of those is through our audio video surveillance request, that we will have cameras covering the bulk of our prisons. I also think to the extent we continue, our efforts to implement some of the principles for the Norway correctional system via the California model are really helpful in terms of decreasing the level of tension within our institutions for both the population and our staff. That model also, I'm very much hopeful it'll lead to folks dealing with each other on a more personal level and professional level as well. Then I think that's one of our major tickets to help with this litigation effort.

I will also say some of the efforts are for ADA staffing, for example, or for healthcare facility improvement program was really a result of the department not having sufficient facilities or resources for a long time to invest in those programs. I do think we are going to be developing a pathway to achieve full compliance and get out of this litigation. But I share your concern that it's challenging and that it's also frustrating that the length of time that has been going on.

Thank you. Senator Newman, if you have.

No, I'm good. Thank you.

Okay, for now, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate and know with us. We're here to support you. We really want to address all these fundamental issues. We're looking out for the safety of both the incarcerated people as well as the staff. That's important to all of us. And it's also important that we have the information to be able to make the best possible decisions, especially as we go through this budget. So, thank you again. Next we have the issue two is population projections, and we will. Madelynn McClain.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Yes, I am sitting in for Chris Chambers this morning, and I'll be providing a brief overview of the CDCR's fall 2022 population projections. I'm actually going to combine this item and start kind of the discussion for issue three at the same time as they are all somewhat blended together. So I hope you are okay with that. For the CDCR's fall population projections, our data is cut off as of June 30 in order to prepare the estimates.

And as noted in the agenda, the average daily population is expected to be approximately 96100 individuals in 22-23 and approximately 93,42324. So it's a slight decrease, about a 6% reduction over last year at Budget Act. What we expected to be our current inmate population as of February 28 is 95,460. And just for comparison, as part of our fall population projections, we assumed our population would be right around 95,260 around the same time.

So we're trending right where we expected to be, about a difference of 200 for our parole population. We are expecting the parole population to decrease over the near term, and our current parole population is about 37,900. And we did have a bit of a change with this one. Our fall population projections assumed we would be right around 44,000 on this date. So there is a little bit more volatility related to the parole population.

As a note, I think the LAO also noted this, that this is our fall population adjustment. We will be doing an update in the spring. So, therefore, we will have updated information at the May revision. And so with that, I was just going to go ahead and move into the next item, which is prison closure. And I just wanted to briefly cover the two BCPs that we have before you related to CCC and Cal City.

So again, as the population has reduced and the various measures that we've taken have stabilized the incarcerated population, CDCR has been able to close a couple of state prisons. As such, we did close dual vocational Institute in September of 2021. We will close California Correctional Facility. In June of 2023 and again in December, we announced the closure of California City Correctional Facility and Chuckwalla, along with the deactivation of six facilities at various institutions and so excluding Chuckwalla Valley.

These closures and deactivations are estimated to result in annual ongoing savings of approximately 595,000,000 and over 3000 positions. So additional savings related to Chuckwalla will be identified as part of the 24-25 governor's budget. Specific to Cal City and CCC BPs, they do generally incorporate all of the estimated savings and associated position reductions, and they also include some in the case of CCC funding to support warm shutdown activities.

To keep the facility in warm shutdown mode until a disposition is determined, we have requested the retention of specified staff for various operations such as rehabilitative programs, medical transportation, as well as the realignment of fire camp staff to the Sierra Conservation Center for Cal City's BCP. That one again is an estimate at this time. We will be updating it in the spring and reflects the termination of the annual lease payment and the corresponding position reduction associated with the closure. It will also have a requested redirection of some rehabilitative programming resources as well. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have regarding the closure of BCPs and thank you for letting me group the two items together.

Thank you very much. Ms. McClain, I know that you included in your presentation item issue three, which is the closure plans. As we go forward with the LAO's comments, I think we'll stick with the population projections and then we'll move over to item or issue three. Okay? From the LAO's office.

Good morning. Caitlin O’Neil with the Legislative Analyst Office. We withhold recommendation at this time on the population-related budget adjustments, given that they will be updated at the neighbor vision.

And I understood you wanted me to wait on my other comments until issue three related to capacity reduction. Was that correct, Madam Chair?

You don't have any comments on population projections?

No, just that we withhold recommendation given that they will be updated at the May revision. Okay, thank you.

So we're going to move on then, to the Department of Finance.

Hi, Lenny Shimoto, Department of Finance. Nothing to add at this time on the population projections, but happy to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. All right, now we'll move on to my colleagues.Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. So, basically, the state has reduced their prison population from 170,000 down to 95,000, about a 45% drop or so. And how much is this is due to the transfer of populations into county facilities, and how much is a result of a reduction of people actually getting sentenced? Anybody?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

Well, the prison population has gone way down, but the county facilities populations are, to the extent where people are being mandated to be released out into communities. And so while we're shutting down prisons on the state side, the county facilities are not adequate to hold the amount of people that are being incarcerated temporarily because we don't have the room for them. So my question was, we went from 170,000 population. We're down to about 95/96,000 now.

But how much of that was due to the transfer of prisoners from the state facilities into county facilities? In other words, it was pushed down into the counties.

So I think there's two components related to that. One is realignment, where some crimes were, instead of going to a state institution, you would serve your time in a local facility. And then there's also, when some folks are released from state institutions, they will go to parole or serve their, what we call post release, community supervision at the local level. So I would have to ask my research team to see if we could find the detail of when someone is sentenced in a Superior Court.

That would be a charging practice, and how it's handled at the local level. Whether or not the crime falls under would result in a state prison term versus a local prison term.

Right. Because when we're talking in terms of population, if the population is simply moved from one area where it looks like we're getting, making progress, and it's moved into another area that can't take it, and then those are, in turn, prisoners that are released out into the public, and then we see surging crime rates.

I think to the average citizen out there, they're a little concerned that we are just shutting down prisons in favor of having people run amongst the law abiding citizen and making them into victims. And that's my concern, is that as we shut down prisons at the state facilities, it's being forced down into the county facilities because of the realignment, Prop 57 and other realignments, and that is causing a big problem in crime rates and public safety. And so that's my concern.

I know you were just talking about the population itself and where we're at, but that's one of the things that I think people are really concerned with is this isn't necessarily progress. It's more of people just being released. The crime rate reflects that concern. Anyway.

If I may just make one quick comment to that. I just wanted to point out that when the state did realignment and we did Prop 47, 57 that funding was redirected to the counties to support the population that now no longer comes to the state. So they were provided funding to support that population and to have services to support that population.

And is the funding that is being saved as a result of the state not being able to shut, is that being shuttled over to the counties so that they can more adequately house the people and handle the influx and also to the judgeships that we're short because the system is kind of broken right now and we need to fix it. And if we don't need to spend money at the state CDCR level, then we need to probably use some of that money elsewhere.

I think I'll just note that this is outside CDCR's jurisdiction again.

Understood.

The crime that happens in the local jurisdictions and that run through the state superior or the county superior courts, that is outside of our area. We are mandated to take anyone who has been sentenced to a term in state prison. And so we'll just note that funding is provided through realignment dollars to the counties for their use.

We don't have control, we don't dictate how they use it, but it is provided for them to support the population that remains at the local level, both within their system and for services to support them.

All right, thank you.

I'm sorry. I think those are really good questions. Just to clarify, my question is the reduction in the population, the prison population is people who have been released because they've met all their requirements. It's not so much they've been then moved over to the county facilities.

That is correct. They have, through earning opportunities, rehabilitative programs, have met the needs, and they are able to release into the community and they again, will either go to on parole or be supervised by the county, which the county, they're provided funding. They or they don't come to us at all. But yes, it's the population that has served their time and then it's paroled.

Okay.

Goodon is the Department of Finance, and I just want to underscore the public safety realignment efforts that have happened over the last, since 2011 and even before that. And the state does do calculations to send funding to the local level to accommodate any savings as a result of Prop 47 and also Prop 57 as well. So just wanted to reiterate that there are efforts there and CDCR does not send their incarcerated individuals to the counties.

That wasn't what my inference was. My inference was that people never get from the county level to CDCR. In other words, the part where it fills up has been stopped at the county level. And so that's where it's backing up. So because of the realignment, the prisoners that used to go to CDCR now are held at the county level, and that's where we're having a backup in the system. So anyway, I didn't infer that you just mass transferred everybody.

And I'm sorry if you guys took it that way. Thank you.

Okay. Any more comments, Senator?

No.

Okay. All right. Now we'll move on to the issue three, which is prison closure plans. And we had already gotten from Ms. McClain your presentation. Right. Did you want to add anything to Ms. McClain to this issue?

Not at the time. I was just going to provide a brief overview of the BCP's that were before you related to the prison closures.

Okay. Do you want to do that now?

Yeah.

I can briefly just highlight back again that we have, again, two BCP's before you related to California City and CCC, and those will be our reflective savings. And there are reflective of the closures that are anticipated to happen as of June 30 of this year and March of 2020 work. So, again, in total, between these two institutions, dual vocational Institute and the facility deactivations at six other facilities, the state will result in ongoing estimated savings of approximately 595,000,000 and over 3300 positions.

Okay, we're going to go on then to the Lao's office.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the prisons that were recently announced for the accusation that Ms. Mcclain was just speaking about, CDCR indicates that it considered the factors that it was required by statute to consider in selecting prisons for the deactivation. However, it's not clear how the Department weighted those different factors, and that makes it difficult for the Legislature to evaluate whether it agrees with the department's selection because a different weighting or prioritization of the same criteria could yield different selections.

And so we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to report on how it weighted the criteria that are outlined in penal code for selecting prisons for closure. And to the extent the Legislature disagrees with this weighting, it could direct the Department to close different facilities, or it could direct the Department to modify its approach to weighting these criteria in the future. Regarding the specific dcps, before you related to reducing the department's budget associated with these closures that have been announced.

I'm sorry, Ms. O'Neil, there's not very good clarity as you're speaking. The sound seems to be. I don't know if there's a way of getting you to.

Maybe I could.

A little bit louder.

There you go.

That's much better.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah. Please let me know if the issue comes back. Okay. So regarding the specific bcps before you to reduce CDCR's baseline budget in accordance with these closures, we recommend that you withhold action, given that these proposals will be updated at May with more recent information. And the rest of my comments pertain not to these specific closures, but to the broader picture of prison capacity and need for prison beds going forward.

And specifically, after accounting for the planned closures that have been discussed today, the state will have about 15,000 empty beds in the budget year, growing to about 20,000 empty beds, or about 20% of total prison capacity, total state owned and operated prison capacity by 2027.

And just to give you a sense of the magnitude of that, the state could deactivate about five prisons by 2027, in addition to those that have already been announced foreclosures, while still retaining around 2500 empty beds, which is the number of empty beds that the state typically budgeted for prior to Covid. And in requesting that these empty beds remain in operation, the Administration has cited the need for operational flexibility, such as maintaining quarantine space, as well as concerns about uncertainty and population projections.

And we don't disagree that these are reasonable considerations and that the state does, for practical reasons, need to maintain some amount of empty beds. But the Department hasn't provided any data or analysis justifying why these particular, relatively quite high numbers of empty beds need to be maintained in operation. And the Department has not indicated any plans to make further capacity reductions at this time, and lack of planning exposes the state to unnecessary costs.

To give you an example, based on the five prison number that I cited earlier, that would translate to up to around $1.0 billion in annual savings per year or annual savings. In addition, to the extent that the state does end up closing prisons, it could inadvertently make infrastructure repairs at those prisons, which could be costly and unnecessary if the prisons are ultimately closed.

And finally, not having a plan for capacity reduction also exposes the state to potential unnecessary spending on staff training costs because to the extent the state does close a number of prisons over several years, that as staff at those prisons relocate to fill vacancies elsewhere in the system, that would temporarily, likely reduce or potentially even eliminate the need to operate the state's correctional officer academy and potentially to engage in other recruitment and hiring type activities.

So we recommend, based on this sort of broader picture of long term capacity need, we have a series of recommendations that are divided into a near term approach and a long term approach. And on the near term, we recommend directing CDCR this spring to report on the number of empty beds that it will need in the budget year. And we recommend requiring the Department to specifically provide data and analysis supporting the number of beds that it is asking to be funded.

And based on that information, we recommend that the Legislature determine a near term capacity reduction target, which could be as simple as reducing capacity down to that number of empty beds that the Department is able to justify. And then we recommend directing the Department in the budget year to deactivate additional yards to meet that target.

And we recommend focusing on yards in the near term, given that they can be achieved more quickly than full prison closures are somewhat less disruptive and likely more easy to be reversed in the future and in the long term. There are a couple of actions we recommend taking this spring to gather key information that will set the Legislature up to make more informed or to guide budget decisions in the future.

And those are to require the Department to report by January 102024 on the long term empty bed means. And again, we recommend requiring data and analysis supporting a specific number of beds. And in addition, we recommend directing the Department to consider options in its analysis for managing uncertainty in the population that go beyond simply maintaining empty beds as a management tool, but also, for example, the possibility of quickly reactivating closed facilities if needed to accommodate unexpected increases.

And then, based on that report, we recommend determining a long term capacity reduction target and that the Legislature achieve that target through prioritizing prison closures, even if that means reversing some yard closures that have been made. Because ultimately, all else equal, we think that the state could eliminate the most fixed costs or overhead costs by focusing on consolidating the system and prioritizing closure of whole prisons and to support the Legislature in making those prison closure decisions or in providing oversight of such decisions.

We recommend directing CDCR to report by January 10, 2024 essentially an inventory by prison of the major implications of deactivating each prison and the options and costs of addressing or mitigating those implications.

So if there's a key function, for example, that a prison provides system or to the state more broadly, that would be an example of a major implication that we would want to be described in the report, as well as a description and estimate of the cost to, for example, relocate that function or find another way to meet that need without the prison.

And that will help the Legislature better understand the trade offs of selecting particular prisons for closure, as well as take any advanced steps such as relocating key infrastructure that would be needed to allow for the operational, allow for a given closure to be operationalized. That concludes my comments on this issue, and I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. O'Neill, to my colleagues. Yes, Senator?

Thank you. Ms. O'Neill. I want to drill down a little bit on this question about empty beds, and my question is for

I'm sorry, Senator. Department of Finance.

Department of Finance. We're waiting to hear from you. I'll come back.

Sorry.

Hi. Thank you. Lenny Shimoto, Department of Finance. The Administration remains committed to reducing California's expenditures on prisons while promoting public safety. As the Committee is aware,

and as Ms. McClain highlighted, the Administration has achieved hundreds of millions in savings by eliminating its use of out of state and in state contract beds and more recently has closed the dual vocational institution and has committed to closing the California Correctional center in six yards at various prisons this year. The California City Correctional Facility next year, and the Chuckawalla Valley State prison the following year.

The requirements for determining prisons for closure are laid out in penal code 2067, and using the penal code as guidance, the Department evaluates those and other factors to identify the appropriate prisons foreclosure. These factors are dynamic and can change as the population changes. The Department will continue to review and reevaluate the needs of those housed in its institutions, including its ability to provide effective transformational rehabilitation.

As Secretary McCumber spoke a little bit about this morning, as well as fulfilling the population's health care and safety needs, we believe it's premature to identify additional closures as the Department really requires flexibility, and a prison that we would identify today might be different than what we would identify in future years. Using a combination of strategies to achieve savings and reduce positions, the Department remains dedicated to decreasing its capacity in a way that's durable and ensures public safety. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Senator Newman.

Forgot my question. Just kidding. On the broad topic of empty beds. Right. And the question what's the right number? Right. So if the right number historically has been 2500, and we're trending from 15,000 to 20,000, and there's obviously significant inferred costs associated with it, and the pandemic is effectively over. Right. I mean, the Governor has relaxed most of the emergency orders, in fact, virtually all of them. So I'd like to hear from Ms. McClain, how should we think about empty beds?

Or more importantly, I guess, how do you think about empty beds and how should we sort of manage against that if clearly 20,000 is far too many? You need some excess capacity for contingencies like a public health emergency, but it's certainly not that high. And so interested to hear your thoughts on that, particularly on the delta between the historical norm and where we are right now.

Certainly, I will just point out that when we had the 2500 bed, I think that you mentioned, that was really to stay within our court order population cap of the 137.5% of total capacity. I am going to defer some of these comments to my colleague, Mr. Dave Lewis. But I will say that as one thing that we have noted is allowing, we understand that there is a large number of empty beds. However, we need the flexibility to manage our population.

And I think that's something that we're still working through. And while the pandemic Covid-19 is over, it really highlighted our operations in the sense for the need to have the Department, to have a need to have many options to address these things.

And so we want to make sure that when we're thinking about long term capacity, we're thinking about our rehabilitative program needs, our educational needs, our trades, any kind of employment factors that we programs that we can prepare our folks when they do leave the institutions. So definitely the space is at a premium in our institutions, as Secretary McCumber noted earlier. And so we want to make sure that we're able to provide appropriate levels of service and care to be incarcerated.

And so reducing capacity to get to a certain threshold or number, it'll hamper our ability to provide this critical rehabilitative programming, educational opportunities, mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, all the things that we do provide to the population, as we've learned through the years, these are the types of programs and services they need with that, I'm going to defer to my colleague, Mr. Dave Lewis, to see if he had any additional comments. To add to this.

Hi, Dave Lewis, Director, facility planning, construction and management for CDCR. This is my fourth day on the job, but prior to that I was responsible for prison closures, especially related to CCC. There's a lot of factors that go into decision related to closing a prison. It's difficult to quantify them exactly due to the changing nature and the different nature of programming available at each institution. So for example, just using operating cost, you might choose the most expensive prison as you're most likely to close.

But in that case it would likely be the California healthcare facility, which is by far our most expensive prison to run. But that obviously provides essential programs and other comparisons fail to account for differences in the program that's available at that prison. So you have to be very careful about how you balance those factors. Due to the fact that the Department is really focused on rehabilitation, those programs can drive additional costs at different institutions. So you have to look at those.

And other factors are very important to consider. But it's also important to remember that as we look at the long term capacity issues, we also have to maintain our institutions as they exist. And it becomes difficult, once you start listing institutions that are potentially for closure, to keep those institutions running until that day comes, just due to the fact that as people see a closure on the horizon, they start to look for other jobs and try to remove themselves from the state process.

And as such, for example, with the closure of DJJ, we've had to pay significant bonuses to keep people all the way to the end of the closure so we can operate those institutions. So you have to take all those things into account. We certainly recognize that there's significant capacity and we need to examine that and how that's used and frankly, how it is defined over the long term. We've been focused on capacity compared to 137.5 cap.

But I certainly was also in the Department when we were well over 200% of capacity. And so those decisions that are related change based on the dynamic of the population and where they sit and the programming that's available to them. And as Mr. McCumber stated, secretary McCumber stated, we're really focused on, as we're discussing closure, balancing that against the need to provide programming to our population.

So I appreciate your explanation, all those things, but my question was actually more geared toward the planning process, the metrics. And so if the historical norm was 2500 empty beds across all facilities, and what I think I've heard in the testimony in some other conversations is that the CDCR wants to Reserve the right or wants to Reserve the capacity in the event of future disruptions, like a public health emergency. So my question is, what's the right number?

Right, because if it's not 2500, we're pretty sure it's not 20,000. And what's the right process to ascertain that number? And then from there we can do some cost benefit analysis as to kind of the pros and cons of that. But clearly it's not 20,000, right? Or if it is, I think we'd like to understand why, particularly in light of the subsidence of the pandemic and not obvious, we're going to have another public health emergency anytime soon. We will, and we should plan for that.

But what's the process?

Absolutely legitimate question. I think it's an open question that requires a lot of input from a lot of stakeholders. Even though the effects of the pandemic are largely over, we still have to answer to the courts regarding our continued response to Covid-19 and everything else. So that obviously plays a role in the amount of capacity that we have to retain for quarantine and isolation until we've satisfied the courts that we've fully addressed those issues in the short term.

The long term, it's a hard question to answer because we would have to define what is considered capacity, what's not considered capacity, and how those things play into each other. I think we all can agree that at some point we'll have to discuss further reductions in overall capacity through the Department and how those are determined and what the appropriate level of capacity is. I don't think at this time we're really ready to answer that completely.

We need to really look at that as an Administration and find ways to answer that question, what the appropriate capacity levels are. Like I said, that's something that will require a lot of input from a lot of stakeholders.

I appreciate that. So I would ask as sort of an interim step, you mentioned that there's probably a number that's quantifiable around the court ordered capacity, and if we could, that's not a bad reference point for us. If you could get back to us, I would assume that's a number that you can derive. Right? What is the court's current expectation by way of excess capacity to handle public health emergency related issues?

Yeah, and that's something that is changing as the pandemic ends. So the answer today probably changes in the fairly near future as the pandemic begins, continues to decline and its impact continues to decline. So the need to retain capacity for quarantine and isolation also will be reduced. At the peak, we really had to retain a lot of excess capacity so that we could quarantine and isolate people that had symptoms or exposure to Covid.

That's becoming less of an issue and really needs to be something that we take a look at in that regard with input from the courts and from the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits.

So Mr. Lewis, can we expect something by way of a number that we can use as a reference point as we move forward in these conversations about the court ordered capacity, not the broader question, but what's the minimum amount that you could not drop below which can still be in accordance with the court's expectations? You don't have to know that now, but I'd like to know it.

We can take a look at that and see where we're at with all of our court orders and try to answer that part of the question. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. If I could just jump in, Mr. Seyarto, then I'll just jump in. Sort of add from what you were saying, I understand part of the response from you is, and I mean from CDCR, is that the programs, the rehabilitative programs, educational programs are part of what takes up, I don't know, adds to the need for more beds. Could someone explain that to me again?

And I really appreciate that there is a focus or that there is an investment into our rehabilitative programs, our educational programs preparing for reentry into our communities. But I don't get what that has to do with the number of beds.

From a physical plant standpoint, we have a certain number of classrooms available statewide and classrooms and programming space. As we close prisons we reduce that total capacity because as you close the prison or even close a yard, you're eliminating that programming space as part of that elimination and potentially limit the number of ongoing programs. As secretary McCumber stated, our intention is as much as possible to redirect the people that provide those programs as spaces available.

But there still remains a total number of classroom and other programming space available statewide.

Okay, well that would be a really wonderful thing to see, to fill in this mystery of how we get from 2500 to 15,000. And I understand that's expected to grow even as high as 20,000 empty beds if instead we're not told the conclusion or the final number that you think we should be at. But this is the space that's going to be needed. We need to grow by 20 classrooms in this prison. But we're not given that.

We're given the final number, this mysterious number of 15,000 or 20,000 empty beds without the connection to a space issue. And so that's known to you. That shouldn't be something that, I mean, it should be something that we get as part of the analysis, not only increasing or decreasing the number of empty beds, but more importantly, how do you right size the prison system moving forward? You have these different balances. I understand that.

But as you right size the space system moving forward, that should be something that is shared with us. We need to make decisions here that we recommend to the full body. We need to make decisions on how to spend the money. Where should the money go to? Why should the money go there? Why should the money go here?

And so I think that's really important for us to have the analysis of how you reach your conclusions, so that we could have it and we could either back you up or we might disagree, but at least we have the information. And I think that's something that's really missing in the conversation.

I think that we agree that that's definitely part of what we would need to provide as we look at capacity, is the program capacity, and that's available. And it's something that the secretary, as he stated, really concerned about as we move forward with closures, is ensuring that we continue to provide a level of programming.

Okay. And I want to ask about the post closure plans in terms of the facilities themselves, either prison by prison, or in General, what's the approach to post closure? What to do with the space, with the land, and in particular, any ideas that have specific ideas that have come up about what to do there.

From a CDCR perspective, the original closure of DVI, that's a separate property and easier to deal with. From a disposition standpoint. The closure of the California Correctional center and also Chukwala Valley State prison. Those are contiguous to existing state prisons, high desert state prison, Ironwood State prison, and share a lot of infrastructure between those prisons. It becomes much more difficult to separate those off to deal with those as separate assets.

And as such, we'll probably have to continue to provide some level of service at those institutions in order to continue the infrastructure support related to those shared infrastructure and that shared services. On top of that. One of the things that we're looking at in order to minimize the impact to staff at those locations is being able to provide some other opportunities. For example, at CCC, we're going to open some satellite offices using redirected positions from headquarters to provide services where we have difficulty recruiting.

So some small portion of the campus may be used for those services. And in addition, CCC also provides the location will still have some services related to the northern camps that will be run through Sierra Conservation center, but will still be located at CCC. So that makes that difficult to split off. Chunkawala Valley. I think we continue to look at the plant and other shared services there and how that would impact our ability to reduce the support of that institution.

But likely we will continue to maintain a small team to keep the campus from deteriorating due to the fact that it shares a lot of services with its neighboring institution.

And just finally, but connected is, is that part of your consideration, is the fact that here you have two prisons right next to each other. If you close one down, you'll have to keep it open because of the sharing of the infrastructure there. Is that taken into account when you're considering the closure and what the options are for? I could picture, for example, community ideas as to what we could do with that land, what would be needed. Think about.

There's all sorts of things that could come up. Is that part of the consideration for plant closures? I mean, prison closures, the same thing?

I think a lot of things play into that. Certainly there's a lot of ideas. There's a great deal of land that's outside of the actual structure of the prison itself. Long term, we may have to look at options like that in both of these locations. By the way, that leads to part of the reason why California City, because we won't have to provide long term support to California City, because that is a lease facility. That does play into that.

But part of the decision making process is the impact on the local. Have two if you have to shut down one prison, that's a job Center for a small community, not trying to reduce the impact of the overall closure. If you close one institution, that could have a much bigger impact than if you close one of two shared institutions, and that reduces the impact to the community.

So, yes, the fact that they're contiguous to each other does play a factor into the decision making process due to the ability to reduce the impact to the community because there's two prisons there. But as far as long term costs, even for like a DVI, where we could potentially dispose of the property, that's a long process that takes several years to effect. And so we still have to provide some level of support to make sure that the buildings don't completely deteriorate in the interim.

Thank you. I think that we have from the LAO's office, Ms. O'Neill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to offer a quick comment or response on the sort of new argument that the Administration has presented or new information related to rehabilitation programs. It seems like what I'm hearing is that the Administration is concerned that consolidating prisons would reduce the overall amount of rehabilitation programs or maybe the diversity of offerings or something like that. I would note that while on raw numbers in terms of rehabilitation program slots, that may turn out to be true.

The overall prison population has already declined. So I think the key question would be, are these programs oversubscribed? And then second, would it make sense to simply relocate those programs to other prisons? And if there's a shortage of space at those prisons, the state could build and has been building classrooms at prison, existing prisons.

So that is, I think, as you noted, Senator Durazo, that there is a broader kind of analysis that needs to be done or planning that needs to be done here to understand whether it would make sense to continue operating whole prisons to keep certain rehab programs in existence, versus pay a one time cost to relocate that program to another prison. Thank you for allowing me to offer that comment.

I think it really relates to our final recommendation, which I discussed, which was just that the Legislature request a list of the major implications for all prison, not identifying any particular prisons, but just so it knows kind of what are those rehab programs that may be super unique or other kinds of functions that prisons offer.

So it could decide whether it wants to pay the upfront cost to relocate that function to another prison, rather than continuing to pay the full fixed cost of operating that prison, essentially just to keep that function in the system. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else on the.

I think the most important thing that is expected from us, from those who work in the prisons, those who are incarcerated, those communities outside of the prisons, is clarity and certainty moving forward. And that's what I continue to see over and over and over again. The vagueness, the lack of information, and we can't do our job, what's expected, what our Californians expect of us, which is a responsible decision on how our assets, how our resources are being used.

And there was one prison where the cameras would have been installed and one week later, right. So videos are being installed. So we need to know far more information, not keeping us in the dark about what the future is with the prisons and prison closures. Okay, move on next to issue four, facilities and infrastructure, and let's see who's doing this. Okay. Is that Mr. Lief?

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Chris Lief. I'm the Deputy Director for Facility Planning, Construction, and Management at CDCR. This item has various infrastructure proposals. I'll briefly go over them. We have the roof replacement program, which is a continuing program. This year. We are requesting one and a half million General Fund for the design and 62 million for the construction of roof replacements at the Richard J. Donovan facility in San Diego.

In addition, we are also requesting three senior architect physicians to continue support of the roof replacement program. On the capital outlay side, we have $10 million General Fund request for completion of the healthcare facility Improvement program, essentially for 10 institutions where we're still prosecuting the Hickfit program, which is that 10 million is largely driven by five prisons and the others where we don't currently anticipate funding needs. Their timelines extend into the budget year, so we have placeholder appropriations for them.

In addition, we have 71.7 million General Fund to continue four additional projects, which is construction for individual exercise yards at the Correctional Corcoran Correctional Treatment center. The working drawings phase for the Corcoran radio tower and equipment vault project. Construction phase and reappropriation of working drawings for the Pelican Bay State Prison fire suppression upgrade and construction phase for the Valley State Prison arsenic and manganese water treatment plant.

Thank you. Well, that. Department of Finance. Okay. Department of Finance. Is that Koreen Van Ravenhorst?

Yes. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, go ahead.

So, Koreen Von Ravenhorst, Department of Finance. As Chris said, we are proposing 81,749,000 General Fund and one reappropriation, which is an extension of the liquidation period for five continuing capital outlay projects, which includes HicFIPs. And my colleagues on the support side are also proposing the continuation of the roof replacement program. We are available for any questions you might have.

Thank you. And from the LAO's office, not sure who will.

Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Orlando Sanchez. We have no concerns at this time with the capital outlay proposals, but happy to answer any questions the Committee has. Thank you.

Senator. No?. Okay, this is related to our previous conversation. Previous issue. We made two investments in Chuckawalla last year just before it was announced for closure, a well project and a new surveillance system. Clearly, there was no coordination here, or somehow decisions were being made that weren't coordinated. How do we trust that the Department will not propose more investments at soon to be closed facilities or what could become closed facilities? I guess that goes to Mr. Lief.

Well, for the Chuckawalla well project, specifically, that infrastructure does support both Chuckawalla Valley Street prison and Ironwood State Prison. So we are taking a look at that project to determine whether the full scope of that project is still required to support the ongoing needs of Ironwood State prison. We plan our projects with the best information we have at the time that we're making the decisions, and we share the concern about making unnecessary investments.

And as soon as we get updated information, we evaluate the activities going on at each prison and react appropriately.

So where do you get the information or the decision to move forward or not move forward?

We have an internal process where project recommendations are routed internally and through the Department of Finance and up through the governor's office before they're proposed in the Governor's Budget.

I'm sorry, Mr. Lief, I just asked that because you said that you make decisions based on the best information you have at the time. And that's how we feel. We want to make decisions based on the best information that we have, and it seems to be lacking. I just want to ask you one more about the Healthcare Facilities Improvement Program. It has now grown. The cost of the project has grown to almost a billion and a half dollars, as I understand it.

So how will you continue to serve the population? It's been 10 years. It's now at this much higher cost that we're facing. How do we fit the needs of 10 years from now, five years from now?

I'm not sure I quite understand the question, but the Healthcare Facility Improvement Program was designed a decade ago or more to provide adequate health care facilities to support the health care needs of the population. We're more than 90% done with the construction of that program. It's an important part of our obligation to the population to serve their health care needs, and we're committed to finishing the program.

Yeah, I was just referring to the needs of the future. Seeing as how the investment is so big at a billion and a half, how do you make sure that you're really serving the needs of the future, especially with such a big investment?

Well, going back a long way, when there was the prison expansion program in the 80's and 90's. There was not adequate consideration given to the healthcare facility needs to meet the population, incarcerated population's needs. That got us into trouble with the federal courts and led to the Plata lawsuit. And we're currently under the receivership for the healthcare in our system. A large part of addressing the concerns of the court, and frankly, just the right thing to do to take care of our population was improving our healthcare facilities.

And that's what the healthcare facility improvement program aims to do, as well as programs to improve the infrastructure for medication distribution, which has been running, the construction of which has been running, parallel to the Healthcare Facility Improvement Program. So we work with the receivership and our California Correctional healthcare services, and they are involved in the continuation of this program, and we feel that this program provides adequate facilities to meet the healthcare needs of the system going forward.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lief. Appreciate you. Let's move on now to item issue five. Court Compliance and Legal Fees. From CDCR, we will have Mona Houston. Do I have that correct?

Actually, Madam Chair, I don't know if I'm able to speak. Oh, thank you. This is Madelynn McClain, Deputy Director for the school services. Because there are three items lumped together within this, I'm just going to provide a brief overview of each, and then I do have my subject matter experts online to answer any questions that you may have. Would you like me to go through all three of them at once, or would you prefer that we do them one at a time?

Let's just do issue five. Is that what you're talking? Ah, yes. All of them under issue five? Yeah.

Okay. All right. The first proposal included in issue five is we'll provide 3.7 million ongoing General Fund to support DOJ legal fees. By Statute, Department of Justice represents the state in civil and criminal matters before trial courts, appellate courts, Supreme Court, and within California and the United States. So this request utilizes actual expenditures for 21 and 22, and a combination of actual and estimated expenditures for 22-23 as the basis for our request.

This is consistent with previous small incremental adjustments that we received over the past couple of years related to, specifically related to DOJ legal service fees. The second proposal in this item will provide 500,000 ongoing General Fund for two ombudsmen to support court mandated remedial measures associated with the Armstrong class action lawsuit. The Office of the Ombudsman is a liaison between CDCR and internal and external stakeholders such as the incarcerated population, advocacy groups, and the public.

The office provides incarcerated individuals and their families a neutral and confidential platform to communicate concerns. And a new measure that was implemented as part of the Armstrong Remedial Plan requires the office to participate in quarterly interviews of class members at the six institutions identified between the Richard J. Donovan Armstrong Remedial Plan and the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, commonly known to as the six prisons.

So, this request will provide the office with additional staff to complete those quarterly reviews of Armstrong class members required by the remedial plan. The last proposal within this item will provide 2.8 million General Fund ongoing and 17 positions to support remedial measures associated with the Clark class action lawsuit, and it includes two components.

The first is IT resources to develop and implement an update to the strategic offender management system, commonly referred to as SOMS, to support information and communication technology compliance matters for persons with disabilities, what we also refer to as the section 508 compliance.

The second component is 15 positions that will be deployed at institutions with the highest number of Clark class members, and these positions will perform tasks to address the needs of the developmentally disabled population and include completion and auditing of adaptive support logs, victimization interviews, and assistance with reading and writing activities. So, that concludes the overview with the proposals of this item. And again, we have subject matter experts on the line to answer any specific questions the Members may have.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the LAO, who will be handling that from the LAO's office?

Caitlin O'Neill with the LAO. We don't have any comments on these items, but we're available for questions.

Okay, great. Senator, any questions or comments? I'm sorry. Department of Finance?

Good afternoon. Alyssa Cervantes with the Department of Finance. We have no specific comments at this time, but we're happy to answer any questions the Committee might have.

Okay, great. I do have one question. I think I mentioned it earlier about the number of cases that are just over two decades old. Well, the Clark case is at least two decades old, and we are continuing to spend tens of millions of dollars on this. So how can we stop spending so much money on compliance staff and legal fees and actually make the changes that are needed so that we could end this litigation?

Thank you for the question. So I will defer to my colleagues, Mr. Jared Lovano and Mona Houston. But I will say that again, as you mentioned, these court cases have been around for a long time, and we are in active remedial planning. And that's what these budget change proposals and resources will do, is to support the activities to get the Department out of these, move towards that eventual goal of getting out of these lawsuits and achieving sustainable, durable compliance with the remedial plans.

With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Jared Lozano for additional information.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and the rest of the Committee. Jared Lozano, I'm the Deputy Director of Facility Support for the Division of Adult Institutions. And as Secretary Macomber said earlier, we have a real focus on identifying a lot of ways to get out of these court cases, in particular being proactive and creating processes of identifying challenges earlier. Working through our remedial plans and all of the stakeholders in there doing increased tours, a lot more proactive stuff and a lot more oversight.

We're speaking with our incarcerated population more and more, having our resources in the field to handle more visits as well as handle more things from the headquarters level as well. A lot of training, focus training, symposiums from our leaders that are leading this effort in all of our court cases in the field, symposium conferences, things like that, and working together with them to identify what our needs are and what processes we can place so we could be self sufficient going forward. Thank you.

So in 2015, the Coleman court ordered CDCR to implement 29 safeguards related to suicide prevention. 15 of those are currently unmet. Just a few days ago, Judge Mueller announced the court will charge CDCR $1,000 per day per unmet safeguards starting April 1. In another, the judge on January 6 also said "further delay is particularly likely given that the state has adopted a distracting and costly scorched earth litigation strategy". I mean, this is what's still going on. What are we going to do different?

Yeah. In specific to the court case or the court orders from Judge Mueller, we are reviewing those and consulting with our litigation, our lawyers on that case.

Well, you know, it seems like year after year, tens of millions of dollars in this litigation, and we should be focused on solving the problems not fighting the cases. Anything else, Senator? No? Okay. Did I miss anything? Did I skip over anybody? Thank you. Thank you all very much. We're moving on now to issue six. Staff Misconduct Investigation Expansion, and we have with us Amy Miller.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Can you hear me?

Thank you. Yes.

Great. Good morning again. My name is Amy Miller, and I am the Director for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Division of Correctional Policy, Research and Internal oversight. In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation began implementing changes impacting how allegations of staff misconduct toward incarcerated persons and parolees were addressed. In January 2020, the Department activated the Allegation Inquiry Management Section, often referred to as AIMS.

This unit's role was to review allegations submitted by incarcerated persons and to conduct preliminary inquiry tasks to determine if there was evidence to support the allegation. If evidence was discovered to support the allegation, the case was closed by the AIMS unit and submitted to the Office of Internal Affairs for a full investigation. Although the AIMS process was an improvement, there remained concern that not all allegations of staff misconduct were being identified or addressed appropriately.

So as a result of these concerns, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented additional changes. In January 2022, the Department activated a unit dedicated to the screening of grievances and complaints, and since January 1 of 2022, the centralized screening team has reviewed all grievances submitted by incarcerated persons or parolees and has routed all claims included in these grievances to the appropriate areas for response.

When the centralized screening team identifies an allegation of staff misconduct included in a grievance, they are responsible for determining if that complaint will be routed to the Office of Internal Affairs or if it will be returned to the warden or to the regional parole administrator for an inquiry at the local level.

To improve consistency in the screening process and to ensure the most serious and complex allegations of staff misconduct were routed to the Office of Internal Affairs, the Allegation Decision Index was created and is used by the centralized screening team. The Allegation Decision Index specifies what types of allegations are required to be sent to the Office of Internal affairs, and it includes allegations such as unnecessary and excessive use of force, staff on inmate sexual misconduct, and staff involvement in a code of silence.

Also implemented in January of 2022, all allegations of unnecessary or excessive use of force by staff, and all allegations of staff sexual misconduct towards an incarcerated person or a parolee. Even those allegations submitted outside of the grievance process are required to be sent to the Office of Internal Affairs. In September 2022, the staff misconduct process was expanded further at six prisons to include allegations of staff misconduct received outside of the grievance process.

This includes allegations received in healthcare and allegations reported by persons other than the incarcerated person the alleged misconduct was directed toward. This expansion is the final piece of our revised process and is being implemented in phases for the remaining prisons and parole regions, with statewide implementation expected by November 30th of 2023. And then finally, in January of 2023, allegation inquiry reports submitted by institution and parole staff are also required to go through a review process by the Office of Internal Affairs.

This review process has been put into place to ensure the inquiries conducted by local staff are complete, thorough, and unbiased, and that the report includes all information a hiring authority needs to make a final determination regarding the allegations of staff misconduct. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is committed to a proactive approach to addressing allegations of staff misconduct.

We believe the changes made so far align with our Department values; to provide for a rehabilitative environment for the men and women in our custody, to serve and be responsible to the public, and to maintain a professional workforce. We do continue to refine our internal procedures to improve accountability, efficiency and transparency and to ensure appropriate corrective or disciplinary action is taken when warranted.

To that end, CDCR is requesting funding and a mix of limited term and ongoing positions that reflects adjustments to the staff misconduct process, including allegations, screening, referral and tracking, as well as the associated investigative and disciplinary processes. I am here today, along with Deputy Director Jared Lozano from the Division of Adult Institutions to answer any questions you may have regarding this process or our proposal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to hear now from the Inspector General, Amarik Singh.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I am Amarik Singh, the Inspector General. Thank you for giving us this opportunity today to be heard and to provide an update on the OIG's Staff Complaint Monitoring unit and the work that we've seen in monitoring the department's implementation of their new process. In 2019, following a report that was released by my office regarding the staff complaint process, CDCR began developing their process to address the incarcerated person's complaints of staff misconduct.

Soon thereafter in 2020, as you've just heard, they created a unit dedicated to conducting inquiries into those specific allegations. At that time, the OIG was given responsibility to provide contemporaneous oversight of the process, and in response, we created a team at that time of five staff members who were responsible for monitoring the inquiries that were being conducted by this new unit. Fast forward to January of 2022, CDCR then adopted their new regulations to restructure their process of reviewing and investigating staff's misconduct allegations.

On January 1, 2022 they began their centralized screening of all non healthcare related incarcerated persons grievances, and then by May 31st of 2022, CDCR began their new investigation process at six prisons and has continued to phase in the remaining prisons, with full implementation expected to occur this year, as was just reported.

In response to those new regulations, the Inspector General's office requested resources to monitor the implementation of CDCR's new process, which would include monitoring the initial screening of the grievances received, monitoring the grievances that were returned to the local prison for an inquiry, and monitoring the investigations conducted by the Allegations Investigation Unit of the Office of Internal Affairs, and monitoring the hiring authorities and Department attorneys in the disciplinary process.

To perform our oversight duties, I supplemented our team of five members with additional staff from other OIG units until the budget act was passed and we were able to recruit for the staff complaints monitoring unit.

In this past year, mostly in the past eight months, we have established four teams in the Staff Complaints Monitoring Unit the Centralized Screening Monitoring team, which specifically monitors the screening decisions by CDCR's screening team, the Local Inquiry Team, which monitors local inquiry cases that are conducted by the prison lieutenants and sergeants, the Investigation Monitoring Team, which monitors the performance of the Office of Internal Affairs, Investigators, Department attorneys, and hiring authorities.

We also have a headquarters team which oversees our report writing process, produces our case summaries and other administrative duties such as conducting data analysis for the unit. To date, we have developed procedure and desk manuals for each team. We've created assessment tools and guides and have begun producing case summaries that will be published monthly on our website, which actually began this month.

We have added 15 additional staff members and we have several in the background and hiring process, and we continue to actively recruit for the vacancies on this unit. Although we have not yet met our monitoring goals, in 2022, we are able to monitor screening decisions, inquiry cases from both the prior process and of the new local inquiry process, and investigations.

We will publish our annual staff complaints monitoring report in late spring, which will provide our assessments of the department's process and bring transparency into whether the Department is conducting thorough, complete, and unbiased screening decisions, inquiries, investigations, and hiring authority disciplinary assessments. In the instances we were able to provide contemporaneous oversight of the department's process in this past year, we did provide real time recommendations as we deemed appropriate.

For example, we have recommended that on the local inquiry cases, CDCR set up a process to check for conflicts of interest as there is no procedure in place for the Department to determine or confirm whether the locally designated investigator has a conflict of interest in conducting an inquiry case. All of the OIA investigators do fill out a conflict of interest form prior to an investigation, which is signed by his or her supervisor concerning conflict of interest issues, and that is a critical recommendation we've made.

Also, during our monitoring, we have recommended in certain instances that relevant witnesses be interviewed. We've asked that additional questions be asked during interviews to explore issues in greater detail. We have recommended that, in particular, evidence be secured as necessary for a complete investigation, and we have also recommended adding allegations that were discovered during the investigation as deemed necessary. We have observed some areas that CDCR could improve on, particularly in the local inquiry monitoring process.

CDCR is still often not notifying the OIG when Office of Internal Affairs reviews an inquiry report and provides feedback to the locally designated investigator. They are not looping us in when the inquiry report is complete and sent to the hiring authority for review. In some instances, we are not being notified when witness interviews are being scheduled, which does prevent us from real time monitoring.

And we have noted some instances of delays both in screening complaints and timely completing inquiries. Although we have noted in a few instances. Also, I should say, we have noted in a few instances that CDCR has not retained videos in cases that was relevant to an inquiry or investigation. And all of this we will be commenting on and providing details and numbers in our upcoming staff complaint report. As the Department makes adjustments to their process, we are making adjustments to our monitoring as well.

We do meet regularly with managers and executives from CDCR regarding the implementation of their new process to not only stay informed, but also to provide our recommendations. Going forward, we will continue to recruit to fill our vacancies to achieve our monitoring goals and fulfill our mission by bringing transparency to the staff complaint process through our public reporting. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to provide an update as to the OIG Staff Complaint Monitoring Unit.

I, as well as my subject matter expert, Chief Assistant Inspector General Elvin Nunez, are available to answer any questions this Committee has. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Singh. We move on to the LAO's office. Is that Ms. O'Neil?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have any comments on this item that are available for questions.

Okay, and the Department of Finance?

Good afternoon. Alison Hewitt, Department of Finance. No specific comments, but I'm available to address any questions from the Subcommittee.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. I just have one question for the Department, is how do we make sure that there's integrity at the local level when the local inquiries are done, including screening for conflict of interest, training the local investigators, and best practices for collecting the evidence? But it's at the local inquiry level?

Good morning. That's an excellent question, Madam Chair, and I think I will start, and then I'll defer to my partner for the Division of Adult Institutions. And so, one thing that I will tell you is that as we've developed this process, one of the things that we really focused on was making sure that any allegation that went back for a local inquiry, still was being reviewed to look for that complete, thorough, unbiased end result in a report.

And so we did establish that process going forward so that the inquiry, of course, everything gets screened in our centralized screening team, and then, no matter what, everything comes back for a final review before we put it back out there to the hiring authority. We've been using this process now for a while, and I can tell you that we are definitely seeing areas where we find things in the Office of Internal Affairs that we want clarified or we feel that more information is needed.

And this process of moving that case back and forth really is working. It helps to train the staff ongoing that are doing those allegation inquiries at the local level, and it also helps us to refine our training as we go forward for all new, locally designated investigators. And that's another important piece of the process, is that every person at a local level that completes an allegation inquiry is required to be trained by the Office of Internal Affairs.

As far as evidence retention is concerned, we did notice a concern at the beginning. It was brought to our attention, and together with our partners in the Division of Adult Institutions, we looked at how we could submit those requests for retention of evidence, especially video evidence, very quickly, knowing that there may be a delay as we prepare to conduct an investigation or an inquiry.

Together, both of our areas came up with solutions to make sure from the Office of Internal Affairs, we have 10 business days from the day that we receive the allegation from the centralized screening team to get that request for video retention submitted. And that's in an effort to prevent any loss of evidence that might occur. And so I know we've done that. As I mentioned, the Division of Adult Institutions also has put together some really great strategies. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to Deputy Director Lozano.

Good morning again. So I would just add to Director Miller's comments. I think one of our largest ways that we can do that is with consistency of our locally designated investigators to ensure that when you have a consistent person doing these evaluations and doing these reviews, that they get better at it. And so that is part of our ask this year is, are the 30 lieutenants that we will disperse throughout the institution statewide to be solely focused on this.

And I think that will help with our consistency and thoroughness of it, as well as training of our folks. And I know Director Miller already talked about what the training our Office of Internal Affairs, recruiting division does, and us working with them, which is great. We also provide training and mentorship to our hiring authorities and wardens when they're reviewing it. And then, of course, oversight is always there.

We have great collaboration with our stakeholders in this process and are very hopeful that we'll continue to move it forward. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. And just one more to the Department. If there's a short answer, how do we know that these investigations will result in the appropriate action or discipline? What are you counting on?

I guess I will start and I will say a lot of what we're counting on in the Division of Adult Institutions is really continue to work with our partners in OIA, our Office of Internal Affairs on training and continue to evolve that training as we see any trends or any challenges, that we're focused. Communicating with our hiring authorities and then mentoring and then oversight from the warden's supervisors at headquarters as well.

So from DAI, I think that's really high level, and I'll defer the rest to Director Miller.

Good morning.

Just to echo what the Deputy Director said, is that obviously the investigation does no good if at the end there's not good decisions able to be made. And so that's our focus, is to make sure that those reports are gathering all of the facts and the evidence needed so that wardens and regional parole administrators and other hiring authorities have all the evidence in front of them and they can make those good, sound decisions and hold staff accountable.

Also gives them the evidence they need to really evaluate whether the misconduct that was identified was intentional and done purposely and maliciously versus misconduct that instead was really an error. Maybe the policy was not very clear. Maybe additional training is needed for our staff. And so we look at and really expect to see robust corrective action as well as taking disciplinary action when appropriate and so.

But key to that, of course, is having really good, solid investigation reports and inquiry reports so that the hiring authorities do have everything they need to make that decision.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Director Miller and everyone for your presentation. We're going to move on now to issue seven, the statewide correctional video surveillance continuation. Let's see. Is that Ron Davis? No?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Ron Davis, acting Deputy Director, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. CDCR is requesting funding and positions to deploy fixed cameras at the remaining institutions and for licensing software and refresh costs. Fixed camera technology promotes the safety of incarcerated individuals and staff and assists with conducting and concluding investigations. Cameras provide the ability for real-time monitoring and recording in order to conduct investigations and after the fact, reviews by using audio or video recording technology or both.

This request continues on previously approved projects that have been completed installation of fixed cameras at institution. The Department has completed installation of fixed cameras at most institutions. There are 11, I'm sorry, there are 10 that were scheduled for this year. Nine of those are going to be completed. One has been scratched due to closure. And this ask is for the remaining 10 institutions. I'm available for any questions regarding this matter. Thank you.

No questions. Okay, we're going to have the LAO Office. Is that Ms. O'Neill? I see Ms. O'Neill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Ms. O'Neill is having some issues right now.

I can jump in here. Drew Soderborg with the Legislative Analyst's Office. I'd be happy to go over our recommendations today until Ms. O'Neill is able to get back on Zoom. We're having some technical difficulties on our end, so with regard to our recommendations, we acknowledge that audio-video surveillance can have benefits.

However, it is important to note that it can result in additional General Fund cost pressures and that currently, the state is facing a significant budget problem. We also note that it's not cost-effective to implement audio-video surveillance at prisons that could be deactivated shortly thereafter. As was referenced earlier in the hearing today, our understanding is that CDCR had purchased audio-video surveillance for Chuckawalla Valley State Prison and was on the verge of installing it when it was announced for it to be closed.

Obviously, it would not be a cost-effective approach for Chukawalla to have installed those and then subsequently to have been closed. Accordingly, we are recommending that the Legislature reject a portion of the funding tied to the expansion of audio-video surveillance at the 10 remaining prisons that are scheduled to receive it. So this would result in a reduction of 87.7 million and 19 General Fund positions in 2023-24.

Given that it's unclear whether or not these prisons will be operated on an ongoing basis, we think it's prudent for the Legislature to wait to determine its long-term approach to continuing to operate these prisons before installing any audio video surveillance at them. We would note, however, that we don't have concerns with the funding proposed to operate audio-video surveillance that has already been installed. So the funding associated with refreshing the audio-video surveillance on an ongoing basis, I'm happy to take questions now.

Okay, thank you. And we'll have from Department of Finance, is that Sarah Tomlinson?

Yes, Chair. Thank you, Chair and Members. Sarah Tomlinson with the Department of Finance. As the secretary shared at the start of the hearing, this proposal is consistent with the current CDCR closure plan and accounts for closures that have been announced through 2025. No additional institutions have been identified for closure at this time. Additionally, even recognizing the current budgetary circumstances, the Administration is proposing to complete the statewide installation of fixed cameras because of the significant benefits that the new cameras provide with regard to increasing accountability and promoting the safety of incarcerated individuals and staff.

Fixed cameras serve as an effective tool by enhancing CDCR's ability to monitor the activity within prisons and providing evidence to support investigative activities. As CDCR could explain in more detail, the presence of the new cameras can also serve as a deterrent for illicit activities at facilities.

If the state were to delay or halt the installation of fixed cameras at certain institutions based on the hypothetical potential for future closures, among other things, this could create parity issues by providing safer conditions for some incarcerated individuals and staff at institutions that have the benefit of the new technology versus those that do not. Accordingly, the Administration is proposing to continue the statewide rollout of fixed cameras to all adult institutions, and I'd like to thank the Committee Chair and Members for their time.

And I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay. There's nobody else here. All right. I just have a couple of questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes. Ms. O'Neill, did you want to add anything?

Thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to respond quickly to the concerns raised or the comments raised by the Department of Finance. There already are parity issues, as some prisons don't currently have, and haven't for their entire existence, had audio video surveillance systems. So we don't think that delaying these for a relatively short amount of time until more information is available about future prison closures or until the state budget condition improves would really make a very big impact or be significant at all.

I'd also note that the prisons that had the most for which there were the most significant concerns about allegations of staff misconduct were the first ones to receive video surveillance systems in prior budgets. So now we're talking about the last phase of prisons that have been deemed by the Department and by essentially the courts effectively to be sort of on the lower end of a priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have a question. Considering the investments that we're making, the state is making in this system, how can we better ensure that investigators are discovering and securing all the relevant footage before it's been deleted? I think that would be to. Let's see, Mr. Davis.

Yes. So I think that the timely identification of the allegation and referral to the appropriate investigator is really going to be key there, making sure that we're getting that thing, the allegation to that investigator, so that that investigator can identify what evidence needs to be retrieved and what evidence needs to be maintained. I think that's really the key. And I know that our processes, as we've worked through the staff allegation process, our processes have gotten better.

Our timelines, we're working on our timelines to make them better so that we can ensure that the evidence is there when we go to download and save that evidence.

Isn't the timeline for filing a complaint? Right. Hasn't that been extended?

Yeah. There's no deadline.

There's no deadline. Right. But yet the retention is only for 90 days. So how do we make that work? I'm sorry. Can't hear you.

This is Madelynn McClain, Deputy Director for Fiscal Services. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, go ahead.

Okay. I apologize. I was just trying to jump in real quick, and then I can turn it back over to Ron. But I just wanted to point out a couple of things. That body-worn camera footage and fixed camera footage is automatically captured and transferred to long-term storage in many events. Use of force, allegation of staff misconduct, a triggering event, which, again, in our DOM, there are many components to triggering events. Additionally, rules violation reports are completed within those 45 days.

So there are already built-in safeguards in the sense that if an incident occurs, that that video footage is already captured and stored and waiting for the investigation to be completed or started or the allegation to be filed. With the video, again, we do have a 90-day video retention policy, as we've noted, I think, in previous hearings, that on average, well over 90% of allegations are filed within that first 90 days, mainly because the video does exist.

And finally, I did just want to remind folks that while the video is an absolutely incredibly helpful tool for the Department in addressing these allegations, also trying to deter illicit activities and other actions that happen, it's not our only piece. Our investigations team will still complete thorough investigations whether or not video footage exists.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to move. We're going to move on to issue eight, which is an update on the Armstrong case. We'll be hearing from Gay Grunfeld, managing partner Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld and a plaintiff's attorney in the Armstrong case.

Thank you. And with me today is Penny Godbold, my colleague. We represent people with disabilities incarcerated by CDCR as well as those on state parole. Our law firm, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld is counsel for the class in Armstrong versus Newsom, along with the Prison Law Office and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. Thank you for including us in today's hearing. Can you hear me okay?

Hear you very well. Thank you.

There are many important aspects of the Armstrong case, but today I've been asked to talk about staff misconduct and accountability. We first asked the court to develop a better system to hold staff accountable for violations of the Americans with Disability Act in 2007. In 2012, we demonstrated that CDCR still was not taking action to hold its staff accountable.

For the last three years, we have been filing motions showing that ongoing discrimination, abuse, and retaliation against incarcerated people with disabilities persists within CDCR because it continues to fail to hold its staff accountable. It has taken increasingly specific orders over the last 15-plus years to arrive at the underwhelming place we are at today. The conduct we documented in our court filings is horrific.

Our correctional experts and more than 150 sworn statements from incarcerated people showed a pattern of prison staff targeting people with disabilities for abuse, retaliation, and harassment. In one incident, an officer refused a class member with a mobility disability's request to help carry a heavy package. When the class member threatened to file a complaint, the officer pepper sprayed the person, hit him in the face with the pepper spray canister, and then kicked him.

In another incident, an officer punched a deaf incarcerated person in the face when that person requested that the officer communicate with him in writing to accommodate his hearing disability. As California's own Internal Auditor acknowledged, quote, I have never heard accusations like these in all my years. This is a very serious situation and needs immediate attention. Close quote. As a result, the district court issued several orders aimed at ensuring that defendants in the Armstrong case, the Governor, and CDCR, changed their ways.

The orders were focused at six prisons, R.J. Donovan, LAC, Kern Valley, CIW, SATF, and Corcoran. The orders required, among other things, that CDCR utilized fixed surveillance and body-worn cameras, reform the process to investigate and discipline officers, create an early warning system, and increase criminal referrals, all to be monitored by the court expert and plaintiff's counsel. I am happy to report that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the vast majority of the common sense and necessary remedies we obtained.

The 9th Circuit decision solidifies California's obligation to hold prison staff accountable. As the 9th Circuit's unanimous opinion stated, CDCR's quote, failures of accountability corrupted the staff culture at the prisons. Close quote. And created a vicious cycle. Close quote. Pursuant to which incarcerated people with disabilities were afraid to file complaints, CDCR has not undertaken the reforms that we have been discussing today voluntarily. They were court-ordered.

I would like to briefly discuss some of the primary obstacles to reform today, including ongoing problems with the handling of staff complaints and the failure to fully implement reforms, including cameras. We and the court expert are charged with monitoring these orders at six prisons, and that means that we receive and review complaints against the staff involving incarcerated people and the ensuing investigations.

We review them to determine if the investigations are complete and unbiased, if appropriate and consistent discipline is being imposed, and if the staff are complying with body-worn camera policies. Thus far, we have reviewed hundreds of cases from all six prisons. Unfortunately, our reports have found that CDCR has made little progress in changing its behavior. The investigations conducted by CDCR, especially into serious allegations of misconduct, are seriously deficient. Investigators regularly fail to retain and review available video footage.

As you noted earlier, the footage is only retained for 90 days. With some exceptions, if investigators fail to pull the correct footage or do not pull enough of the footage to be able to confirm whether misconduct has occurred, the footage is lost by the time plaintiff's counsel or the court expert are able to review the case, which is after the case is closed.

For example, in one case we reviewed, the allegation by the incarcerated person did not specify the exact time of day that the misconduct allegedly occurred. The investigator pulled one random hour from that day instead of the entire day. Because that 1 hour did not show the misconduct, the investigator closed the case. We have also seen other evidence of poor decision-making in the investigations, such as failing to interview or even identify the subject of the allegation.

We are seeing these failings both from local prison investigators who are responsible for the less serious allegations, and from investigators at the Office of Internal Affairs, OIA. Even in the few cases where investigators sustain evidence of serious misconduct, we see egregious examples of wardens who fail to impose appropriate discipline. In a recent case we reviewed, for example, officers rushed into a cell because a person was nonresponsive.

Once inside the cell, the first reaction of the officers was to throw the person to the ground from the top bunk. Officers were not disciplined for that unnecessary and excessive use of force. More often than not, officers are issued some type of corrective action, such as training or a letter of instruction rather than discipline. We see this even in cases involving some of the most serious allegations of misconduct and violent and unnecessary uses of force.

It is discouraging to us that more than two and a half years after the court's initial order in this part of the litigation, the decision-making and outcome of investigations has not significantly changed. Only because we now have access to video footage, when it is preserved and provided to us, that is, can we confirm that CDCR is failing to hold staff accountable for misconduct that is captured on the video. Through our work monitoring CDCR, one thing has become abundantly clear.

CDCR should have fixed surveillance cameras and body-worn cameras at all of its prisons as soon as possible. Cameras are needed for two reasons, deterrence and accountability. With respect to deterrence, the mere presence of fixed and body-worn cameras has had a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of incarcerated people and staff. Both report seeing a tangible difference in the way everyone behaves, and our clients feel safer because of it.

After the installation of body-worn camera footage at R.J. Donovan, one incarcerated person reported that he had been addressed by his name by an officer for the first time. Meanwhile, accountability is all but impossible without video evidence. The rare instances in which we see CDCR holding staff accountable invariably involve video showing officers violating their duties.

Body worn camera footage, in particular, has been relegatory as it captures audio of the staff's interaction with incarcerated people, showing, for example, officers who unnecessarily escalate situations that then require dangerous uses of force. Without video footage, the vast majority of investigations turn into he said, he said, and that is nearly always resolved in staff's favor.

Despite the utility of cameras and their widespread use by other law enforcement agencies, CDCR still has modern digital fixed cameras fully deployed or funded for deployment at only 22 prisons and has body-worn camera footage at only 10 prisons. We are aware that the Governor has proposed funding in this year's budget to install fixed cameras at the 10 remaining prisons, and we fully support that initiative.

Rather than block funding because some prisons might be closed someday, CDCR and the Governor and the Legislature should move forward with installation immediately. Meanwhile, the Governor's Budget does not include any additional funding for body-worn cameras to be deployed at additional prisons. This is a mistake. We urge the Legislature to fund body-worn cameras at all CDCR prisons. There is a pronounced trend in corrections for the use of body-worn cameras. California should not fall behind.

I also want to highlight an important problem that has emerged with CDCR's new staff misconduct investigation process. The system is supposed to ensure that allegations of serious misconduct are routed outside the prison to the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation. We understood that CDCR would apply the same standards statewide to routing all allegations of serious staff misconduct. However, after plans were solidified and regulations were implemented, CDCR informed us that they changed their mind.

They were receiving too many allegations of serious staff misconduct to process them properly. Instead of ensuring that staff at OIA could handle the influx of complaints, CDCR chose to stop the influx from going to OIA. Another mistake. Now, at the six prisons covered by court order, serious allegations do go to OIA. At all other prisons, defendants are using a different standard, one that makes it harder for staff misconduct allegations to go to OIA.

This decision defies logic and will only result in additional litigation and expense for the state. Staff misconduct is a statewide problem. It makes no sense for a staff complaint to be handled differently depending on which prison you're housed in. In conclusion, over and over, CDCR repeats the tired refrain that it takes staff misconduct very seriously. Yet over and over, CDCR fails to hold its officers and wardens accountable. Violations of policy are ignored or at most met with slaps on the wrist.

The result is that staff complaint investigations show no marked difference in outcomes. Despite reforms and years of oversight, we recently learned that a single officer who was employed for over a decade at CCWF has been accused of sexual misconduct by over 20 women. It is hard to believe that no one knew this was happening, especially because it is alleged that the officer was caught on camera taking his victim to the one room without any camera coverage. Yet the code of silence reigned.

We have repeatedly asked for information about how many complaints were filed against this officer and why it took so long for action to be taken. Cameras are necessary, but not sufficient for reform to occur. CDCR will never come into compliance with multiple class actions and end federal court oversight until it radically reforms its culture and begins to hold its officers, wardens, and top administrators accountable for staff misconduct against incarcerated people. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Grunfeld. Really appreciate all of your advocacy, your representation of the people incarcerated. I, for one, am very appreciative. If we don't have that independent voice, we would never get to the bottom. We wouldn't even know what was going on at all, much less get to the bottom of it and solve it. I understand that because this is ongoing litigation, that the Department Administration will not be available to respond on this item.

But I do have a couple of more questions, if you can stay on. I know you mentioned that appropriate disciplinary or corrective action is not taking place, certainly not the way that it should. I'm wondering, in addition to that, are cases being handled, or how is the timing of the cases being handled being done? Are they being resolved in a timely manner? If you could talk about that a little bit.

Thank you. And I'd like my colleague Ms. Godbold to speak to that. My sense is the delays continue.

Yeah, I can address that question. So, as the presenters for the Department pointed out, the reforms and the implementation of the new system have rolled out throughout this year and mid-last year. So what we see from our perspective, because we don't see cases until they close, we have not seen a huge production of cases that are being processed under the new system yet. But what we see in terms of older cases is that they are very delayed.

And one of the new reforms does address that they're supposed to complete the investigations within a certain time period under the new system. And so our hope is that as we start to see production of the new cases, we will see drastic improvement in that area. But the short answer is, so far the cases that we are seeing processed are very delayed.

Do you have any kind of idea of when we could expect, if we go back to you and say, okay, is it in six months, is it going to take a year to know this? Or two years? What should we expect? When should we expect to know better?

I think within the next quarter of production of documents. So I'm hoping that over the next four or five months, we are going to be now receiving cases that have all come through the new system, and we should be able to determine compliance with the time frames that are part of the new system. So I think in a few months we'll have much better information about that.

Great. Are there ways in which we can enable better access to the footage that's needed? To relevant footage.

Yeah, I think, as was mentioned by my colleague, one of the problems is that if the investigator doesn't pull the correct footage, either the wrong day of footage or as she mentioned in her example, a random selection of the footage that doesn't cover the entire shift of an officer that's alleged to have committed misconduct, that footage is gone within 90 days.

And so by the time there's any oversight over that investigation to say, hey, this is the wrong day, or this is irrelevant footage that you've pulled, go back and do a better job, it's gone. And so I think one of the things that could be done would be to extend the retention period for the footage before it's written over. Also, there could be greater oversight during the course of the actual investigation.

And that's something that we have tried to accomplish and haven't been successful in having CDCR agree to us looking at active cases that are going on. So right now our hands are tied in that regard. We don't see them until they close. And that's also true for the court expert in this case.

When you say extend the retention, the time that the footage is saved, do you have a recommendation as to the length of time? Is it the length of time, or is it the type of cases?

I would think the length of time. So for any staff misconduct complaint that's filed, that triggers the preservation of the footage. But what footage is preserved is dictated by the person who is conducting the investigation and request. I need this footage on this date, this time, and so you can expand the windows around the footage that's requested. And so you can retain the video for a certain period of time.

And it would need to be, as the system is currently set up, a period of time that would retain the footage for the pendency of the investigation, certainly, and a review of the investigation and oversight afterwards. So if your average investigation lasts for six months under the contemplated time frames, it needs to be at least that long to capture the length of the investigation. And then you would want to allow some additional time for oversight.

What we don't know yet is whether or not under the new system, defendants can complete investigations sooner than the time period allotted. So if they have six months to complete it, it doesn't necessarily mean that they need a full six months to do that. Maybe it will close sooner and it could be produced to the court expert and to plaintiff's counsel sooner than the six-month time period. But so far it's impossible to say whether that's going to occur.

And the history of our review of the cases shows that they take the maximum amount of time to complete the investigation that they're allotted to do so.

Okay. Well, again, I appreciate both of you that you were both here to make the presentation and to answer our questions. I appreciate all the work that you do to help the state and to help CDCR. This isn't an us versus anybody. This is about making those prisons safer for everybody. And I think that's the thing that we're trying to keep in mind. So thank you both very much for being with us.

Thank you.

We're going to move on now to issue nine, which is the e-discovery ongoing needs, and let's see who's going to make that presentation. Is that Kristin Montgomery?

Yes, it is. Thank you. So good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Kristin Montgomery and I'm the Director of Enterprise Information Services at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Department manages electronic stored information, including emails, phone calls, and video footage. The Department is subject to numerous discovery and public records requests, requiring CDCR to ensure it can manage the data, and is requesting continued funding for e-discovery and digital evidence management software.

E-discovery software will establish a comprehensive process for the Office of Legal Affairs to process, review, tag, and produce electronic documents as part of a lawsuit or investigation. This system will enable attorneys to discover valuable information regarding legal matters while reducing cost, speeding up resolutions, and mitigating risks. The application offers case assessment, fact management, review, production, analytics, and legal hold functionalities. The digital evidence management platform enables our users to extract, store, and share data and video pertaining to various cases and trigger events within the Department.

Implementation of the centralized video and data storage and case management platform will reduce redundant copies of electronically stored information, increase accessibility to authorized users across all areas of the Department, and improve the integrity of the overall service. The platform will also allow for optimized and consistent workflows, leading to improved user training on standardized processes, compliance tracking, Executive reporting, and reliable mechanism for sharing electronically stored information with external stakeholders.

The new system will enable staff to work with a common set of data that will preserve integrity of the end-to-end process while allowing for more collaboration across various departmental areas. This request is a continuation of resources from last year that provided the Department the opportunity to explore solutions to implement e-discovery and digital evidence management. The request before you will be updated in the spring as we finalize total project costs and implementation plans. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me.

Okay, we will have from the LAO's Office. Is that Ms. McNeill?

This is Caitlin O'Neill with the LAO. Still having problems with my connection, so I'm testifying from my colleague's office. I would just note that given that this proposal is going to be updated at the May revise, we will review it at that time. At this point we don't have any comments or concerns, but to the extent we identify any in the revised proposal, we will certainly communicate them to the Committee at that time.

Thank you. And from the Department of Finance, is that Sarah Tomlinson?

Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance. No specific comments, but available for questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have any questions. Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Montgomery. And we will move on to issue 10, which is the BIS migration to the S/4HANA. Okay. Is that Ms. Montgomery presenting or Alice? No, not Allison.

Tammy Cason will present.

Okay, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Tammy Cason and I am the Administrative Solutions Chief at Enterprise Information Services for the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. This proposal provides $25.2 million over three years to migrate to CDCR's current SAP system to the new S/4 HANA application.

System support for our current version of SAP will end in 2027, and there are many benefits to beginning the activities now, such as allowing adequate time to plan appropriately to reduce issues during migration, utilization of more existing resources to assist with a transition instead of contract staff, and ensuring that all data is transferred over successfully.

The LAO notes that this request is premature as a thick gap analysis has not been completed and the Department could contract with SAP or other third party vendors to provide extended maintenance, thus delaying the transition to S/4 HANA. CDCR met with FISCal in 2020 to discuss our business requirements, and at that time FISCal noted 21 specific business functions that were not supported in FISCal, some of which are court-ordered and unique to CDCR, such as sign language interpreter scheduling system.

CDCR has added over 30 other specialized modules using customized software through SAP, including allegations against staff tracking. Based on our discussions with third party vendors, the Department may be able to get support for our current system; however, the third party vendor will not maintain critical security updates to software they do not own, putting CDCR data and operations at risk.

It is also noted that SAP could provide extended support for our current system beyond 2027, but CDCR would be required to commit to the upgrade in the future in order to receive this coverage. SAP will also only provide support for core functionality, not the custom modules or software. Approximately 40% of CDCR's functionality includes custom features and software. CDCR is committed to integrating functionality with FISCal where applicable.

However, due to CDCR's unique operations and needs, CDCR is proposing to continue with a time sensitive upgrade to S/4 HANA. This concludes my summary. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have for me.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Cason. We'll move on now to LAO's office. Ms. O'Neil.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Under the Governor's proposal, CDCR's financial applications would be migrated to S/4 HANA starting in the budget year and then subsequently likely transitioned to FISCal, the state's centralized financial system, at some point before a statutory deadline of 2032. Ideally, the state would not want to migrate these applications twice in relatively short succession, as it is likely not cost effective to do so.

Instead, it would be preferable to be able to migrate the financial applications directly to FISCal and all other applications over to S/4 HANA. However, the Administration is still in the process, as was noted, of developing a key analysis that's needed to inform CDCR's transition to FISCal and that's expected to be completed by the end of this calendar year. Accordingly, delaying the migration could be beneficial.

Yet the Administration hasn't provided key information necessary for the Legislature to assess the costs and potential trade-offs of delaying the migration. Some new information, it seems like, is starting to come out. We heard a little bit of an indication that there may be some possibilities for either extended SAP maintenance or third party maintenance, but full details and costs of those options have not been provided yet and we are happy to review additional information that the Department provides.

I would also note that if the Administration has not made these efforts to assess options to delay the migration to S/4 HANA in light of this parallel issue around CDCR's required transition to FISCal under state law, it raises concerns that the Administration is not putting in the necessary efforts to move CDCR onto FISCal. Both this 2032 FISCal onboarding does headline as well as the ending of SAP mainstream maintenance for CDCR's existing system have been factors that CDCR has known about for some time.

None of this is new and the Department had plenty of time to plan. So in other words, we see this proposal as both a very technical IT issue, but also part of the broader picture of providing legislative oversight of the state's transition to FISCal.

So to ensure that the Legislature has adequate information to review this proposal and to continue providing oversight of the centralization of the state's financial IT systems, we recommend directing CDCR to report on, one, the annual cost to contract with the current vendor, SAP to continue providing maintenance for the existing software, as well as any other implications of that decision, such as, as was noted, potentially a requirement or a commitment to continue using some form of SAP software going forward.

And two, the estimated annual cost to provide maintenance for the existing system through a third party vendor, as well as three, any potential challenges associated with these options and strategies to mitigate them. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. O'Neil, and we will move on to Department of Finance. Is that Ms. Hewitt?

Good afternoon. Alison Hewitt, Department of Finance. In response to my colleagues' comments, I want to first note that our proposal is not mutually exclusive and doesn't necessarily. CDCR may migrate some functionality into FISCal, but there are many functions that exist within the current SAP platform that will likely need to be continued on an SAP platform, which is why the Administration is proposing to begin migration activities now. I take issue with the comment that we haven't looked into options.

I think the Department considered a number of options but determined that this was the most viable option, which is why the Administration has brought it forward at this time. It is going to take years to migrate to the S/4 HANA platform, and this work needs to begin in 23-24 for any level of functionality to be able to migrate, and if funding is delayed, it could challenge CDCR's ability to transition to an operational platform.

Given the criticality that BIS, the current SAP platform, provides to CDCR system wide day-to-day functions, the Administration is proposing to initiate this work now. Would also note that some of what the LAO is proposing as a viable option may be technically infeasible and present security risks for CDCR and could potentially compromise these functions. I would defer to experts at CDCR to explain in more detail as needed, but available for any additional questions you might have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Yes, Ms. O'Neil, you wanted to respond?

Thank you. Yeah, just wanted to clarify two points. We're not proposing anything at this point. We're just asking for information that we think is really critical for the Legislature to have as it evaluates this budget request, and very reasonable for the Legislature to have.

Because the second point I wanted to make, just to clarify, is that as a part of all state it projects, the Department has to go through a planning process with the Department of Technology, and there's various phases of that process. And one aspect of that planning process, which I understand it will be embarking upon soon for this project, is to determine alternatives and to really gather information on things like what extended maintenance would cost as an alternative.

So this is something that we understand the Department will have to do anyway, and we think that as long as the Department of Technologies requiring this type of alternatives assessment, we think it's reasonable for the Legislature to also receive a very thorough alternatives assessment and information. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. We're going to move on. Thank you to everyone from the Department, LAO Department of Finance, all our other guest presenters. For all your information, this is very essential to moving forward on our budget.

We're now going to move on to public testimony. Anyone wanting to provide public comment, as a reminder, today's participant number is 844-291-5491 and the access code is 704-2477 and we're going to begin with our witnesses here in room 12.

Good morning, chair and Senators.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Yes, my name is Ed Little and I'm with Californians for Safety and Justice, and I'm speaking in regards to issue three. I would like to express my strong support for the LAO's analysis that shows the state can close an additional five prisons by 2027, saving the state around $1 billion. In 2017, we released a report that detailed how the state could close five prisons and save hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now here we are six years later, and we have effectively closed two prisons and are looking forward to closing seven more by 2027. It is imperative that the state commit to closing more prisons and immediately begin planning now for these closures. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Chair and Senators, Melissa Cosio, on behalf of Tyne Dunn, also speaking in regards to issue three, want to align my comments with Ed Little. We are in strong support of the LAO's analysis, which states that the state can save $1 billion if it closes those five prisons by 2027. It is important that the state be proactive and prepare for these closures, but most importantly, be prepared to reinvest in the much needed healing resources that allow communities to feel supported, thrive, and ultimately achieve safety. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, which represents 85 community-based programs providing rehabilitative programming in the prison system. Providing comment on issues one, three, and seven. Appreciate the comments by Secretary Macomber on the importance of rehabilitative programming.

Community-based rehabilitative programs currently receive less than half of 1% of CDCR's budget, and we urge the state to invest at least 1% of CDCR's budget into these programs. We also want to note that community-based organizations are the only source of restorative justice and healing programs within the prison system.

And we urge the Legislature to reject the proposals for nonessential infrastructure projects until CDCR provides a clear closure plan and specifically encourage the Legislature to reject the proposal to install audiovisual surveillance systems at all remaining prisons and instead shift those resources over to community-based programs providing rehabilitative programming. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're going to. Let's see. Here we go. Moderator, if you would please prompt individuals waiting to provide public comment, we will then begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And for those participants on the phone, if you would like to make a comment, please press one, then zero. You will hear an acknowledgement tone. At that point, an operator will pull your line privately to give you your line number, and that's how we'll announce you on the call. With that, we'll go to line number 43. Please go ahead.

My name is Liz Blum. I'm a campaign coordinator with Decarcerate Sacramento in Sacramento, California, providing public comment on item three. I urge this Committee to not allow CDCR to continue wasting taxpayer dollars on maintaining empty beds and pouring state funds into prisons that should be closed. The extensive and alarming lack of accountability around basic planning and compliance with existing laws and directives seems to be met with zero consequences for CDCR.

The estimated 595 million that the state will save in closing prisons should not be saved, but should instead be reinvested urgently in health and housing for Californians. These funds should absolutely not be poured back into the California prison system, but instead invested in services that are provided proven to reduce poverty and harm in order to further reduce incarceration in our state and start to heal California's racist history of carceral harm.

I'd like to briefly thank Senator Durazo for mentioning the repurposing possibilities of closed prisons, which should absolutely be a part of the prison closure process, and CURB, California's United for a Responsible Budget, will be releasing a roadmap for prison closure on March 13, which includes a thorough process of how the state can close prisons, repurpose them, and redirect cost savings into the communities most impacted by the harms of incarceration and by prison closures themselves. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 61. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Mohamed Shehk. I'm the Campaigns Director of Critical Resistance, one of the 80 statewide organizations that are part of Californians United for Responsible Budget. As I was listening to the discussion, I couldn't help but feel a sense of deja vu around this time last year and the year before that.

I was here at this very meeting where CDCR was being questioned about why they didn't have a plan around population reductions nor analysis to support their actions and budget. And here we are again in the same place. The LAO, which I very much agree with the latest report that they come out, is providing hard data that leads us to the common sense conclusion of needing to close more prisons. Yet, CDCR wants to keep them open just because.

I really, really appreciate the questions from Chair Durazo as well as Senator Newman. And there needs to be consequences when year after year, legislators request to CDCR for more information and plans are unanswered. What those consequences should look like is not approving CDCR's budget allocations when there's no accountability or transparency. I want to go back to a question around the population reductions that Senator Newman raised, which is that the states and prison population reductions has been partly a result of realignment.

But more importantly, it has also been a result of the will of California voters to pass legislation to reduce the prison population, to reduce harsh and draconian sentencing, and to support the redirecting of investments into community-based programming rather than the prison system. Regarding prison closures and staffing, I want to read something that's actually directly from CDCR's own leadership accountability report. And this is from December of 2021, which is the latest that I could find, and I quote.

Could you please wrap it up? Thank you. You can conclude, if you can conclude, go ahead. Hello? Are you still there? How do we lose him? Okay. Sorry.

In one moment, Madam Chair. We'll get his line back open. 61. New line is open. My apologies.

Got it. Thank you for bringing me back on. So this is the last point that I'll make. This is from CDCR's report. 75% of CDCR supervisory, managerial and exempt classifications will be at or reaching retirement age in the next 10 years. Approximately 70% of those staff will be at or reach retirement age in the next five years. So this is from CDCR. It's natural attrition rates. We can close prisons, let current staff retire according to CDCR's own projections, and simply not rehire for those positions.

We don't need to keep 15,000 bed capacity or turn facilities into satellite offices for recruitments, as was just suggested by CDCR. Today we can close prisons, get community input, and really strengthen community health and well being. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next we go to line 54. Your line is open.

I'm sorry. Before you.

Good afternoon. Glenn Backes.

I was just going to ask. Moderator, Could you tell me how many witnesses are left?

We have 10 in queue.

Okay. And I just ask everybody to keep it to a minute. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We support the recommendations of the community-based programs, including California's United for Responsible Budget and the LAO, to close more prisons. Stop paying for 20,000 empty beds. The 1 billion or more in general fund savings will help protect state investments in health, education and job training, among other vital needs. There will likely be painful cuts in other subcommittees, and those cuts will undermine public safety and will also mean increased suffering in the community and lost jobs.

So stop paying for empty beds and money pit prisons and deciding which prisons need to go to be closed. Confer with incarcerated people, the families of incarcerated people, and community stakeholders to identify which closed first. As we consolidate facilities, keep in mind proximity to experts to assist in in custody programming, reentry services, medical care, drug treatment, and mental health care. Thank you.

Thank you for calling. Next.

And we'll go to line 48. Please go ahead.

Hello, Chair and Senators of the Committee. My name is Catherine Lozano. I am with SHIELDS for Families. I'm calling in regards to issue number three. I would like to express my strong support for the legislative Analysis Office's analysis that shows the state can close an additional five prison by 2027, saving the state around $1 billion. It is important that the state begins planning for these closures and reinvest savings in crime prevention, reentry, and healing resources. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 46. Please go ahead.

Hello, Chair and Senators of the Committee. My name is Sean Huff, and I am with the Crossroads United Methodist Church. I'm calling in regard to issue three, and I would also like to express my strong support for LAO's analysis that shows that we can close, the state can close five additional prisons by 2017.

I agree with the Chair's comments that we have to start planning now for these closures and look at how we can reinvest our savings in things like crime prevention, reentry, and healing resources and not wait until we get further down the line. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 63. Please go ahead. Line 63, your line is open. Yeah, please go ahead.

Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can. Okay. How are you doing? My name is Henry Ortiz. I'm an organizer here in Sacramento, California. I'm calling in strong support of the recommendation by the Legislature's office that shows, basically, that we can close it in additional five prisons. Right now, we're in a housing crisis. We need housing for people to be free, to be healthy, to get treatment.

We don't need people to be in cages. Being in cages destroys irreparable damage. I know a lot of people on this call probably never done time, right, except for the people calling. Right? But those of you that are legislators, think about what it would be to have your son, your father, or yourself locked up for decades or for the rest of your life. There comes a time where we change and we redeem. No person should be thrown away. We're all redeemable. We all change.

We all evolve. And so we need to really start focusing on healing the brokenness that the system has done in our society, in our community. And so I'm a strong support of shutting down five more prisons and investing those billion dollars into the community for housing, because this is a crisis out here right now. Thank you.

Thank you for calling.

And next we go to line 55. Please go ahead.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak. I, too, am calling about issue number three and let you know that I strongly support the LAO's analysis on closing the five additional prisons by 2027. And that way, we'll be saving the state budget an extra $1 billion annually.

But I think that money needs to be repurposed, and the state needs to begin planning now for the closures and commit those dollars to reinvesting them in crime prevention, reentry, healing, and retraining. And that's all I have to say. And thank you.

Thank you for calling.

And next we go to line 59. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Kaneda. I'm the Deputy Director of CURB, Californians United for a Responsible Budget. Our coalition of more than 80 member organizations have created a report that clearly shows we could close up to 10 state prisons, which closely aligns with the LAO's data. The LAO in this body continues to flag that CDCR doesn't seem to have a concrete plan for additional prison closures, which could cost the state billions.

And CDCR's explanations and excuses for failing to produce one are literally nonsensical. Without one, California risks investing billions in prisons that soon could be shuttered, and we're urging the Committee to require a concrete prison closure plan from CDCR and withhold any additional infrastructure related allocations in the budget until that plan is presented, interrogated, and approved. Thank you very much.

And next, we go to line 50. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Karen McDaniel and I am the founder and Executive Director at The Place 4 Grace. I'm speaking to number three in strong support of the LAO's analysis and determination that we can close several additional prisons. We here at Place 4 Grace know that family reunification actually looks like liberation, and we must prepare for further closures and the return of our loved ones to their families and communities.

It is heartbreaking that the state and CDCR continue to sink billions into the operation of prisons that ought to be closed when they should be ensuring that mothers and fathers are returned to their children and have the resources both healing, reentry, housing so that they can be successful in their communities. Thank you for your time, and that is all.

Thank you for calling.

And next we'll go to line 60. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of Committee. My name is Jerrell McCoy. I'm with the Re-Entry Providers Association of California. I'm calling in regards to issue number three. I would like to express my strong support for the Legislative Analyst Office's analysis that shows the state can close additional five prisons by 2027 and save the state billions of dollars.

It's important that the state began now planning for these closures and reinvent savings in crime prevention and reentry and other resources and healing processes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 40. Please go ahead.

Chair and Senators of the Committee, thank you so much for raising these critical issues today. My name is Tannah Oppliger and I live in Tenant District 28. I'm a policy assistant with Californians United for a Responsible Budget, and I'm speaking to issue three on prison closure today. The CDCR says that it uses the penal code to determine which prisons to close next, but in truth, and as we've seen, the process is very elusive.

CDCR is not transparent about what factors get weighed into deciding what prisons are deactivated, and the Legislature makes it impossible to determine whether they agree with CDCR's decision. CURB, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, has a report that clearly lays out 10 prisons that could be prioritized foreclosure, grounded in factors generated from survey data from people incarcerated in prisons across California, as well as infrastructure and budgetary factors.

We also have a new roadmap for prison closure that will be released this month that shares a thorough process on how the state can close prisons, repurpose them, and redirect cost savings into marginalized communities and towns where prisons closed. We urge the Committee to direct CDCR to consider adopting CURB's roadmap since CDCR has yet to present a concrete plan, even though the LAO and Legislature has been asking for one for years. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 65. Please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Brian Zady, a resident of Los Angeles, member of the LA Chapter of Critical Resistance. I want to speak to issues three, four, and and seven. I want to begin by saying thank you to Senator Durazo and Caitlin O'Neil for calling for greater transparency. As the last commenter noted, this is a long-standing issue.

I remember struggles in the past in both branches of the sub five Committee regarding the failure of the CDCR to comply with the supplemental reporting language that requires it to offer a concrete plan. Shouldn't the CDCR face some consequences for this behavior? I urge the Committee to keep any infrastructure-related allocations off the table pending public assessment. A concrete plan that the CDCR would offer the no outlays should be considered until the CDCR is clear on which additional prisons will be closed.

Next, concerning the cameras, as some of the panelists have noted, either far from a guarantee for safety inside prisons, being clear about the prison closure plan is the best option we have for increasing safety. So for the same reasons that apply to infrastructure more generally, I urge the Committee not to waste 87.7 million in public funds on the installation of the AVSS in 10 prisons.

So that's a sum of funds that could be put into treating the root causes of incarceration and keeping communities safe. That's what the CURB prison closure roadmap can help with. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

And next, go to line 53. Please go ahead.

Hello Chair and Senators of the Committee. My name is Gilbert Johnson and I am the California TimeDone Manager with Californians for Safety and Justice. TimeDone is an organization with over 200,000 members working to end post-conviction poverty and I am calling regarding issue number three and we strongly support the Legislative Analyst Office's analysis that shows California can close an additional five prisons by 2027, saving the state around $1 billion.

And the state must begin planning for these closures and develop a plan including community to reinvest prison savings towards community-based crime prevention, violence prevention, reentry services, and trauma recovery healing resources, among many other resources. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for calling.

And next we go to line 67. Please go ahead.

How's it going? Hello to the Chair and to the Members of the sub five Committee. My name is Jeronimo Aguilar. I'm the Policy Manager at legal services for Prisoners with Children, also an organizer with All of Us or None, and calling in strong support of the Legislative Analyst Office's recommendation that we close five prisons. That's item number three. Definitely feel that we need to continue to decarcerate our way out of mass incarceration.

I think that we've created lots of problems, especially in communities that have been historically oppressed and marginalized because of various war on drugs, war on crime, et cetera, et cetera.

And so I think that we need to continue to try to make these things right by allowing folks and giving folks a pathway to not be incarcerated and redirecting those savings, as folks have mentioned on this call, to services and prevention and also mental health, trauma centers, and all the different things that will help our folks in our communities be healthy and not end up in the system of incarceration. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we're going to line 64. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Senator Durazo, Committee and sub five Committee and all staff members. My name is Romanda Navaretti and I am a carceral reform advocate here in California. I represent many organizations. I am calling today individually because I wanted to discuss item number three. We agree with the LAO's recommendations that the Legislature reject the Governor's proposal to provide CDCR resources to obtain and maintain TJC accreditation at the state owned and operated prison.

This is an unnecessary expenditure given the current court oversight and doesn't guarantee the mandated minimum provision of mental health support. Additionally, I think that investments in community-based care infrastructure outside of prisons is better use of state funding as it is exponential health benefits in both prevention and reduction of crime. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

And we will go to line 68. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Olivia Gleason. I'm calling in from Warren Beach, California, and I'm a member of CURB, Californians United for a Responsible Budget. I'm calling in support of issue number three, but my comments will be left majority on item four and seven. I agree that allocating funds for infrastructure projects while the prison population is trending downward is irresponsible and wasteful, and I reject this wasteful infrastructure spending.

The Committee should reject requests for roof replacements in continuing capital outlay projects until CDCR is clear on which seven additional prisons will be closed next. And on issue item number seven, we completely agree with the LAO to reject the portion of funding tied to expansion of AVSS at 10 prisons, given the budget problem facing the state and the risk of installing AVSS at prisons that are deactivated shortly thereafter.

The LAO finds that this is not prudent to expand AVSS to new prisons at this time, and we agree with this. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, no further public comments in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. Appreciate your service today, and I want to thank everyone who called in and participated in public testimony. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the budget and fiscal review committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are very important. We greatly appreciate that you took the time to hold on to the end of the agenda to give us your testimony.

We will include your testimony in the official hearing records. We've concluded end up for today's hearing. This budget sub five on public safety, judiciary, labor and transportation is adjourned. Thank you.