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

All right, the Senate budget Subcommittee 5 on on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation will come to order. Good morning. We are holding our committee hearing here in the Capitol. I ask all members of the subcommittee be present in room 112 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. This will be the first of multiple hearings on the budget of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR.

Today we will hear how the state's prison population has declined by nearly 25%, roughly 30,000 individuals, over the past five years. While the department's overall budget has grown. The state is facing a significant budget problem this year in potential cuts that would harm some of the state's most vulnerable populations, such as foster youth.

As the new Chair of sub-five, I want CDCR to know that we will be looking closely at the department's budget, and we are expecting the department to make a more meaningful contribution to solving the budget problem to ensure we have time for everything on today's agenda, including public comments, which we will take on all items at the end of the hearing. We are asking presenters to keep their testimony under five minutes, and we will be timing you.

I would also ask my fellow Committee Members to keep their comments and questions concise. Would any members like to add anything before we begin?

Thank you very much. And I want to make my comments now because they're more broad and general in nature, and I'll have to be dipping out early. So this is the second year I've been on this committee. And while we are asking them to make their substantial cuts, one of the things that flies in the face of our cuts is that we have facilities and tools, essentially, that are entirely inadequate for attaining this California model that we've been looking at.

And that California model revolves around the humane treatment and also the re education and getting people prepared to get back out once they are and be good neighbors. But the problem is you can't educate people when you put 20 people into a broom closet.

And as we scale down the number of facilities, it also presents an opportunity for us to make the investments we need to make as a Legislature and a state, to create the type of the incarceration system that we want, because we are going to have people that are going to need to be incarcerated, because that is a justice system that is expected from people who have injustices, having injustices inflicted upon them.

And so it's incumbent on us to look at our facilities, see what needs to be redone, and come up with a plan and an expenditure plan over the years. To be able to accomplish that so that the other goal that we want can actually be done. Because you can't have humane facilities when it's raining as hard outside or inside as it is outside, which is what we have with some of our facilities.

We can't have humane facilities where you have to bring in bottled water because you don't have a water system that's working right. So there's a lot of issues that are infrastructure issues with our facilities, and those need to be addressed so that we can take care of the other parts. You can throw all the bodies you want into those as far as our corrections officers and such. But without the facilities, we are not going to make the progress we want to create a California model that the rest of the nation can be proud of and follow.

So those are the things I'm looking at. I understand we have a lot of cuts still on the horizon. I'm a little distressed about Chuckawala being one of the newer facilities that probably take the least to rehab. In the meanwhile, we're leaving facilities open that are almost in dire need of being torn down.

So I really like us to focus someday on actually making a plan going forward so that we can achieve our other plans. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments? All right, before we establish quorum, I do just want to highlight that several Members of this Committee have conflicts today, so they will be stepping out. We will continue this meeting hopefully as soon as possible or with just one individual presiding. So I just want to be very clear, including myself, I will be stepping out as well. So every single Member here so far will have to step out. So I would like to establish a quorum. Consultant, please call the role.

[Roll Call] A quorum is established.

Thank you. Let's start with our first issue, an overview of CDCR's budget with Secretary McCumber. And I apologize if I mispronounced your name. So I do want to highlight again that you will have five minutes to present. And we're going to set a timer. And I Chair Public Safety, and I do time everybody, so I just want to make sure that everyone gets used to that. And please begin.

Thank you. Clearly, I'm on. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. And thank you for giving me a few minutes to address the Committee, to talk about some of my priorities and challenges for the department, as well as share some of the budget change proposals that we have coming forth before this Committee. Our department is not the department we were 20 years ago.

We're a department that now is dedicated to fostering a safer and healthy environment for not only folks that work there, but folks that live in our facilities as well. And as the Senator mentioned earlier, we're heavily invested in developing the California model. It has two fundamental principles, prioritizing the well being of our staff and supporting individuals who are under our care. Some quick CDCR facts, we're responsible for incarcerating about 92,000 individuals across 32 prisons and 34 conservation camps.

We provide rehabilitative programming, vocational training, education and health care throughout our facilities. We also have about 35,000 individuals we currently have on parole, as well as running the Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp for County Youth. We're also one of the largest departments in state government. We encompass about 41 million square feet of state owned office space covering over 21,000 acres. We also employ about 61,000 individuals. The budget before you for CDCR total is about 14.5 million for 24-25.

Of that amount, 4.1 billion is tied to health care, which includes not only medical, but mental health and dental as well.

Say that one more time. How much for mental health?

Our total for mental health is $4.1 billion. For health care is 4.1 billion, which includes medical, mental health and dental. And about 10.5 billion of our total budget is tied to employee compensation, which includes both salary and benefits. Like to cover a few of my priorities and challenges we're faced with. As you've heard, our population is in decline as a result.

I think of, number one, our increased rehabilitative program opportunities, and I'd be remiss if I didn't say Covid also played a rather large impact in that reduction. Since 2021, through prison closures, DJJ closures and other savings efforts, we have saved over $500 million, and we're at a time in corrections. I think we have a once in a generation opportunity to change our system. I lived through the period of time where we had 173,000 incarcerated individuals. We had gyms full of triple bunks and almost no programming.

We're at a different place right now and have an opportunity to make meaningful and generational changes to the department. And one of those, for example, is the investment the Legislature helped make through substance use disorder treatment, where we not only provide medication assisted therapy, but cognitive behavioral interventions as well. We're at a point now where we have 10,500 individuals enrolled in college, which is a remarkable accomplishment.

I'd also like to thank the Legislature for helping us invest in laptops for the populations which we continue to roll out. And I witnessed earlier this week, folks carrying that around. And maybe most importantly, you'll hear the number that CDCR has 15,000 vacant beds. I want to be clear on my perspective and what that means. That does not mean we have empty cells or empty bunks with no individuals in there.

What that means is we have at least one inmate per cell and one inmate per bunk at 137.5%, which is what that number, when you hear 15 to 20,000 thrown out, you have more individuals double celled and double bunked than you do single celled or single bunked. Our vision as part of the California model in promoting normalization is to reduce our population, to provide a more normalized environment, to give folks a greater access to rehabilitative programs.

When we close a prison, those individuals housed there do not go away and go home. They are transferred to other prisons.

Right time.

Okay. So again, thank you. I apologize. I will not be around for further questions. I have the California Rehabilitative Oversight Board today, but I'd be happy to answer questions down the line if needed.

Do you have any staff that would be able to answer questions?

We have a large number of staff here today available to address the topics and answer questions as well. And if you need me to answer anything now, I'm more than willing.

All right, secretary, I do appreciate your time. I understand you have to leave. I do just want to highlight a couple of things ahead of time, and I want to make sure anybody who's watching this Subcommitee is aware of this. For a rough Department of $15 billion, the proposed cuts have only been suggested from your Department at $2 million of eliminating the reduction of transMETRO bus contract.

I will say that because we have such a deficit in the billions that I'm looking for, every single department that we are going to be reviewing in this sub five to take a look at a 15% cut across the board. And so 2 million doesn't cut it. And I'm not saying that you guys shoulder the burden yourselves. Right. But we expect a little bit more than this. Right? So 15% is the goal that we're looking at for everybody.

And, Madam Chair, I think my staff will share today it's more than 2 million in our proposals, and that will be shared today. And I'd also like to highlight we're closing the California City Correctional Facility this year and Chuckawala Valley State prison next year. Both of those savings are well in excess of $100 million, and both are on track for completion on time. If not ahead of schedule.

I appreciate that, but we're looking for brand new, a focus of, again, 15%. Our team will be working with you all. But I'm stating it now, and I'm stating it to everybody, that this is our goal and we would like to have more robust conversations on what that's going to look like for each department. Right. So the others were reductions or cost savings, which are delays, so it's not exactly necessarily cut. So I just want to be very frank with you and have that conversation.

And we're very much open to having further conversations as we meet throughout the year.

I appreciate that.

Thank you. All right, we are going to move on to item number two. Item number two will cover population projections and closure plans. First, we will hear from CDCR.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Justin Adelman, associate Director of Budget Management Branch. If it's okay with the Committee, I'd actually like to split item two into two kind of sections. It's a pretty dense topic. First, I want to go over the population projections and then move into the closure discussion.

Okay. Remember, we have five minutes.

Yes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jana Sanford-Miller, and I am the acting Deputy Director for the Office of Research. I'm here today to provide the Committee a brief overview of CDCR's fall 2023 projections. The handout provided to you includes our current population projections compared to the 2023 Budget act projections. For your reference, our fall projections utilize historical trend data, including data on core commitments to predict future populations.

For monitoring purposes, we track point of time populations at the end of the month in order to compare the projected population to the actual population. However, for budgetary purposes, we utilize the average daily population over the fiscal year. That is why your handout will note that the first two years of the projection cycle, current year and budget year, reflect average daily populations, and the remaining three years reflect June 30 populations. The fall population projections anticipate the institution population will decrease throughout the projection cycle.

The average daily population is expected to be approximately 94,222 in fiscal year 23-24 and 91,685 in 2425. The fall projections anticipate that admissions will remain relatively stable throughout the projection cycle at approximately 30,000 to 30,600 admissions per year. We have not observed, excuse me, an increasing trend in admissions post pandemic. As was previously expected.

In terms of parole, we expect the active parole population will decline through fiscal year 25-26 increase slightly the following year, and then stabilize, reaching approximately 35,182 by June 30,2028. As of January 31, our parole population sat at 35,194. Thank you.

Thank you.

No further questions or statements.

Okay, do we have the LAO for comment? Thank you.

Orlando Sanchez with the Legislative Analysts Office. Overall, we withhold recommendation on the populations adjustments as they'll be updated at the May revision. However, I will speak on one specific recommendation. The department is proposing to change the budgeting methodology for parole support staff. These are positions that are not directly involved in parole supervision, but they include positions such as human resource analysts and office technicians.

Under the proposed methodology, no adjustments would be made when the population is below 42,200 and if the population were to increase above that 42,200 support staff changes would be made according to this new proposed methodology. We recommend the Legislature reject the governor's proposal.

On that front, we agree with the Department that some of the existing methodology needs revision, given that some of the workload changes, some of the decline in the population change, or some of the decline in the population is affecting the decrease in workload. However, the proposed methodology we find, is flawed and creates a mismatch between what's budgeted and what the department needs, and this would result in the department likely being over budgeted for some of these positions.

As such, we recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to submit a revised proposal at the May revision that accounts for the population driven changes and those that are not population driven. Thank you, and happy to provide more information if requested.

Thank you. Any comments from the Department of Finance?

Cynthia Mendonza, Department of Finance this change in methodology for the support staff will establish a set minimum number of support staff that will remain regardless if the population continues to decrease. There is ongoing administrative workloads such as personnel contracts, procurement, slate services that the Department of Parole needs to maintain regardless of who they're serving in the various areas across the state.

So this premise would set a minimum number of support staff that they've identified is they're sort of at that minimum, and that's why we've used the population existing today. And also we think that the change in staff management ratios from five to one to four to one would also help them improve services because those are the individuals that would do more of the complex ongoing workload and provide that continuity for changing staff over time.

Thank you. Do we have any closing statements from the Department?

Not on population.

Okay, I'll open it up to the rest of the Committee for questions. Comments? Seeing none. Thank you.

Moving on to our closure related proposals, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation requests a reduction of 33 million General Fund in 24-25 increasing to 131.6 million General Fund. Ultimately, this will reduce 736.2 positions beginning in 25-26 associated with the closure of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in March 2025. Similarly, we also have an administrative reduction associated with kind of the overall broader prison closures that we've experienced in the last several years.

That'll be a reduction of 9.6 million and 57 positions in 24-25 increasing to 11.1 million and 65 positions in 25-26. And these are more kind of administrative positions that haven't come down in previous positions, such as the Office of Fiscal Services, where we have administrative analysts at the headquarters level who kind of work on individual prisons. So cumulatively, as we've closed institutions and facilities, we're reducing our headquarters footprint as well.

With me, I have Jared Lozano, the Deputy Director of Division Support or Facility Support, sorry for the Division of Adult Institutions, and David Lewis, Director of Facility Planning, Construction and Management, for any questions.

Thank you. You guys have four minutes left.

We're good.

All right. Can we have the LAO?

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neill with the LAO. We don't have concerns on these two proposals to reduce CDCR funding in line with previous and planned facility deactivations. My comments pertain to the broader picture of the state's need for prison capacity going forward, and as you're aware, significant reductions in the population have allowed the state to deactivate facilities in recent years. However, despite these reductions, CDCR's projections continue to show that the population will remain well below a court ordered limit on the population housed in state operated prisons.

However, in response to suggestions that further capacity reductions should be considered, the administration has cited three main concerns in the past, which are increased risk of violating the court ordered population limit, increased complexity in identifying appropriate housing placements for people based on their various security and individual health care and other needs, and a reduction in the number of available assignments to work, school, and treatment programs.

And that's because when capacity is reduced, it not only takes housing units out of offline, it also takes workshops or classrooms and whatnot in those facilities out of use as well. In response to these concerns, the 2023-24 budget package required CDCR to submit a report to the Legislature with an analysis of its capacity needs.

That report, submitted in November, was primarily an inventory of the number of assignments that CDCR has based on its existing infrastructure and funding levels, as well as a calculation of the percent of the population that could have a full time assignment at different levels of prison density. And overall, after reviewing that report, as well as other information relevant to the administration's stated concerns, we found that their concerns with further capacity reductions could be mitigated.

For example, reductions to the number of full time assignments could be mitigated by building additional classrooms or creating new assignments that don't require physical infrastructure. And while mitigating the concerns could create some new state costs, we think they would largely be temporary in nature and significantly less than the nearly $1 billion in annual cost to operate up to five prisons that could be closed based on what the projections are showing.

Finally, we find that state law, which requires CDCR to accommodate projected population declines by reducing capacity in a manner that maximizes long term savings, arguably requires the Department to reduce capacity at this point. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to begin planning to reduce capacity and to report on how to mitigate any resulting challenges. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get the Department of Finance?

Thank you. Lenny Shimoto, Department of Finance. The administration has not proposed any additional closures at this time, and I want to clarify that the administration disagrees with the need to bring CDCR into compliance with Penal Code 2067, as we believe they're already in compliance. Penal Code 2067 requires the department to consider certain factors when determining whether to close prisons, but it's a nonexclusive list.

The department considers those factors identified, but is not limited to only considering those factors, and the language doesn't preclude the department from maintaining a larger buffer than the federal court order. The department provided the Legislature with its capacity assessment in mid November, which included information about the impact on rehabilitation at varying levels of crowding.

And as CDCR continues to implement the California model statewide, the population decline has really given them an opportunity to alter their view on capacity, looking further than just the number of beds in the resulting buffer, but including some normalization by bringing the prison experience closer to life outside its walls. And that means less overcrowding and as a result, less double selling, which improves the living environment for the incarcerated as well as the working environment for staff.

As there are fewer people housed per prison, it also allows for a greater level of programming because fewer people will be competing for the same opportunities. Ultimately, the population still far exceeds the design capacity of one incarcerated person per cell. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you guys have closing remarks?

No closing.

I'd like to open it up to the Committee for any questions. Comments?

Chuckawalla, why that facility? Isn't that one of our newer facilities? We have a lot of dilapidated facilities are staying open, and we seem to be closing new facilities that are much more tenable for the people that are there?

Sir, understand the question. Chuckawalla is one of-in the new build construction program that took place in the Chuckawalla. The factors that were considered around the closure of Chuckawalla include the availability of programming, the availability of staff, the level and the need for the beds. Unfortunately for Chuckawalla, being a dormed facility, in the pandemic, we found that that type of facility was less conducive to the operations of the Department due to ventilation and other factors related to that.

And Chuckawalla is almost entirely a dorm facility and also low custody level. So other facilities provide more flexibility to provide the programming that's expected in an environment that supports that level of programming. So there's many different factors that led to the closure of the selection of Chuckawalla. I've just listed a few of them, but other things, availability of healthcare, staff to provide programming, the ability to place the incarcerated population.

As we've decreased the population, the number of people that have mental health needs has increased as a proportion of the population. And we're very restricted from placing those individuals in desert institutions due to the temperatures and the interactions with their medications that they take. And so all those things led to a decision that Chuckawalla was an appropriate institution to close. Similar factors related to California City as well. And that was also a lease facility, so we weren't needing to support that in the long term.

It also led to that decision as well. But I can turn to my partner to talk about any operational issues.

Yeah, so I think Dave hit most of them, but I think the biggest one is the security level, as well as any access, you know, like ADA compliance, what our needs are for our incarcerated population, but mental health as well in the desert is really a big one. And of course, when I say security, dorm living versus celled living, and what the needs are there.

Well, I haven't been able to get out there. But is Ironwood right next door to it? Correct?

Yes.

So Ironwood stays open?

Correct.

And that is to Department of Finance's point as far as Penal Code 2067 is the workforce impact. So to minimize that workforce impact by closing a colocated institution.

It's an isolated area. The City of Blythe, I think, depends on it in some respects. But the City of Blythe is begging not to close it, and the other cities that have a prison in it are begging to close it. And it just seems to me that some of the mitigation issues are with one of our newer facilities. I don't understand how those would not relate to some of our older facilities as well.

When you're talking about COVID and I understand the dorm issue, but guess what? That's what they're trying to do. That's what our more humane policy is, is to make it so it's not so prisony. And so we're going to close down the one that isn't. It kind of concerns me. That's the one that was chosen to be closed down because I think it has, as far as being able to put in more programming and stuff.

Well, programming is putting in buildings, and that's what I was talking about by updating some of his facilities so that we can better facilitate, would be better than going from your dorm room to a building that looks like an education facility to learn. And it is warm out there, but we're putting a lot of things out there that are warm, and that's why we're doing all their electrification of everything. So I'm still concerned about that prison.

And maybe I can get together with you guys and do a little bit of a tour and we'll look at it more in depth and you can explain to me a little bit more why that versus some of the other ones that people are begging to have closed in their cities.

Thank you. I just want to highlight that. Yes, Senator Durazo, go ahead.

I just wanted to say, I remember in the past one of the issues was maintenance and upgrades. The cost of those was always an issue either to close or not close. But I know we were always asking that question, did that have anything to do with this decision?

Generally, infrastructure and the condition of the infrastructure is a factor that's considered. But it's important to remember that even our new build construction, with the exception of CHCF and our infill projects at Mule Creek and RJD, most of those institutions are approaching 30 years old.

And so the infrastructure issues are very similar at our so called newer institutions compared to our older institutions, and in some ways more acute because of the design and the construction of those facilities, compared to some of the older facilities that were built maybe a little more hardy in the beginning and had simpler systems that are easier to maintain, whereas our newer institutions, the systems are fairly complex and we're reaching that end of life kind of cycle on a lot of our newer, so called newer institutions.

All right, thank you. I do just want to highlight to the public that any recommendations of closing five prisons would equate to $1.0 billion a year savings. So just highlighting that conversation has been taking place as well. We welcome you all to meet with any one of us, and we appreciate your time. Thank you. Moving on to item number three, the Reappropriation of California Reality Based Training Center Funding. First, we're going to hear from CDCR.

This request is to reappropriate from the 2021 Budget Act 8.5 million General Fund to complete renovations at the California Reality based training center in Stockton. And with me, I am joined by Christine Ortiz, correctional business manager, for any questions. Thank you.

All right, we will be timing you all five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. And good morning. Thank you for letting me come to discuss this. We are requesting that 8.5 million that was approved in our 21-22 BCP to establish the California Reality based training center, be moved to 24-25 and 25-26 split in 4 million in 24-25 and 4.5 million in 25-26.

This would help us to be able to make the California Realty based training center a standalone facility as we had envisioned in the original BCP.

All right, do we have comments from LAO? From Department of Finance? All right, seeing none. Do you have any closing comments?

No closing comments.

All right. Do we have anybody from the Committee? All right. How much time would a cadet in the academy spend training at this facility?

As of right now, it's 102 hours. We're hoping to have it more. We want to do it basically half and half. Right? Half lecture and half reality based, so that way they can hear what their instructions are and then go to the facility and actually practice them.

So roughly three weeks.

It's a 13 week academy. So right now it'll be roughly six weeks.

Okay. And since this project was proposed, several other CDCR facilities have been deactivated, including yards at operating prisons. Why is renovating this facility still the best option?

This facility is about 30 minutes away from the actual academy, so it's one of the closest ones. It's also one that mirrors most of the CDCR prisons. And the other areas that have been closed are just yards. And so that wouldn't be enough room for us to use the whole place.

So what about the closed division of Juvenile Justice Facilities, which are also in Stockton, where some staff from the closed healthcare facility already train?

The closed DJJ facility was not closed at the time when we had put in the 2122 BCP. It doesn't have the same layout as a CDCR facility does. It's a DJJ location, so it looks more like the juveniles.

What about using a closed yard at an operating facility?

We would need to use the whole facility in order to do the training that we envision for our cadets.

All right. Is there any ability to change that vision and adopt to different circumstances?

At this time, I can't answer that question. It's something that we can look into and I can definitely get back to you guys.

Definitely. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate your time and I think a little more brainstorming on what we can do given the circumstances that we have now. Thank you. And we'll move to item number four.

Thank you. On item number four, I do want to note a correction as I read the request. Right now, the BCP requests 21.9 million General Fund in 2425 and ongoing. There was a technical error that 21.9 million General Fund should just be for 24-25 and then increase to 43.8 million General Fund. It's a 50% reduction in the budget year, but the funding is requested to address increasing utilities costs that we've seen system-wide.

Okay, do we have any comments from LAO? Yes.

Yes, thank you. We find that the department's proposed new methodology to budget for utility costs appears reasonable and that the proposed augmentation appears reasonable. However, if utility costs end up being lower than budgeted, the Department could redirect the funding to other purposes given that it's budgeted in a large item. So we recommend approving the proposal but adopting provisional language to require any excess utilities funding to revert to the General Fund.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from Department of Finance?

Yes. Patrick Plant, Department of Finance. The intent of the proposal to use a methodology that allows budgeting to be as close as possible to the actual costs CDCR incurs for utilities. For this reason, adopting budget bill language to revert excess funding to the General Fund is not necessary at this time. Adjusting the estimated amount based on the actual costs of the previous 12 months will result in a better-aligned budget for utility costs.

And as the LAO pointed out in its analysis, utilities are closely linked to the maintaining the health and safety of people who live and work in CDCR facilities, which is of utmost concern for CDCR and the Administration. We believe this proposal addresses that responsibility.

All right. And given our colleagues' comments regarding solar and much more, what is CDCR doing to generate its own power, such as utilizing solar and so forth?

We do have a number of institutions, and I can work with your committee to get you that list of institutions that do have solar or wind power, and we are constantly exploring opportunities for greener, sustainable energy sources.

Okay, and how has the Department been absorbing the cost overrun so far, including the extra costs left unfunded by this.

BCP so last two years ago in the 2022 Budget act, we actually asked for an increase in utilities cost then as well. And at that time, we had built in a methodology to adjust annually for the consumer price index. Unfortunately, utilities and electricity costs have significantly exceeded those Consumer Price Index adjustments. So that's why we're coming forward with this request.

As far as how we've been able to absorb the existing costs that we have experienced those increases, largely it has to do with kind of the shutting down of facilities or institutions and realizing some savings as we've been able to operationalize those a little earlier. So to the extent that we've had additional savings in plan operations, staff or facility costs.

If this request were approved and the Department no longer had to absorb the costs, what money would be freed up and what is the money supposed to be for?

The money could be used for a number of things, largely in plan operations. So those would be salaries and wages for engineers or plan operations staff, again, at the institutions.

All right. Any other questions? Senator Seyarto?

So to sum it up, we have half as many prisoners. We've taken a bunch of buildings offline. Are we using more energy than we used to use, and that's why we've incurred these costs, or is it strictly the cost of living?

It's largely a cost increase.

So it's like everybody else in California is feeling that same.

And significantly last year in January 23.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Because there's nothing we can do about this. Nothing they can do about this. They're just absorbing our energy policy.

Thank you. Do you have any closing comments?

All right. We'll move to issue number five, healthcare.

No closing comments.

Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. My name is Duane Reeder, Deputy Director of Fiscal Services for California Correctional Health Care Services. Our first item is we're requesting a 40 million one time augmentation for 24-25 to shore up personnel services funding. We have had a deficiency in our budget for the last five years. So we have a program structural issue, largely driven by workers comp, lump sum payments, overtime, and registry utilization to provide appropriate care and cover staff vacancies.

In addition to the medical program shortfall, we are also requesting 36.5 million for contract medical costs and a reduction in reimbursement authority. We have had a methodology based on a per inmate cost for contract medical, and we have seen that drive of a huge gap in our contract medical budget, largely driven by our high risk patients staying into the system, which drive more contract medical.

So we're looking to establish a new methodology that is based on an acuity rate versus a per inmate rate to shore up that gap in our budget as well. The reduction in reimbursement is largely driven by our patients that go out for hospital stays for more than 24 hours. With the reductions in overall population, we've seen less folks, our patients, excuse me, going out to the hospitals, which has driven us not to be able to collect reimbursement at the levels that were previously approved. With me today is Dr. Kanan over clinical operations for the Department, and we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from the LAO?

Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. In regards to the first proposal, the medical program shortfall, we recommend the Legislature reject the proposal. We find that in recent years the Department has been able to address its overspending without needing an augmentation to its budget. However, the proposal does not make it clear why the Department can't continue to do so in the future.

In addition, even if the Department does have a shortfall, and it can't address it by redirecting savings as been done in the past, they can seek additional funding through item 9840 in the budget bill or request additional funding through a supplemental appropriation that would still have legislative oversight. Finally, the Department did not provide adequate justification on how it arrived at that 40 million projected estimate.

And in regards to the second proposal we heard today, we recommend the Legislature withhold action on this proposal until it is adjusted based on updated population projections through the standard biannual adjustment process. In addition, we find that some portions of the proposal do not account for the population, specifically the administrative claims and the federal reimbursements. Under the proposed funding, the Department would receive funding at a constant level in the out years. And we recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to account for the population, both the size and the makeup, in a revised adjustment in the spring. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. I'll be speaking to the medical program shortfall, and my colleague will be speaking to the other proposal. So this proposal is requested to cover a projected shortfall within the medical program, and it provides the Administration with additional time to identify ongoing solutions needed to sustain the medical program long term. Relying on the utilization of savings from other programs is not a sustainable solution, nor is it fiscally responsible.

It also does not solve the underlying issues that are contributing to this budgetary shortfall in the medical program. Additionally, item 9840 funding would not typically be available for these purposes, as these funds are specifically set aside for unanticipated costs. Considering the Administration is proposing this proposal within the Governor's Budget and there have been funding shortfalls in the past few years, it would be challenging to identify these costs as unanticipated.

Good morning. Joshua Wittmershaus, Department of Finance. Regarding the second proposal for contract medical costs, as noted by the LAO, CDCR population projections will be updated at the May Revision, and this request would be updated to the extent that there are substantive or material changes requiring revision. Regarding specific recommendations, we would note that the Administration's proposal relies on using historical averages as the basis for the adjustment proposed for administrative claims and Medi-Cal reimbursement levels.

We believe this is also a reasonable means for adjusting funding levels for these purposes, beyond purely tying the methodology to the population count. Particularly in the case of federal reimbursement, CDCR is only eligible for Medi-Cal reimbursement for very specific contract medical services, as they alluded to. Even in this case, the use of historical averages would account for changes in the population. The priority for the Administration is to make sure adequate funding levels are available to the Department to fund contract medical services. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other questions? I specifically want to say that you guys have cited registering overtime costs a significant factor driving overspending in the medical program budget. What has CDCR done to improve the recruitment and retention of civil service workers? Are there any certain institutions that are particularly hard to recruit at? And what about telehealth options?

With me today is Jasinda Muhammad from our Human Resources Department that can speak to some of our recruitment efforts. We've done our best to expand telemedicine into different areas to increase hiring. And so telemedicine has continued to expand over time, and we've done a few proposals surrounding that. As far as the vacancy and recruitment efforts...

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Jasinda Muhammad, Deputy Director of Human Resources for Health Care. The vacancy rate challenges change depending on geographic location, particular classifications. Some of our challenges are mental health providers, as we've experienced nationwide shortages in those classifications. What we've done to increase recruitment across the board is to build out our advertisement and marketing, creating a branding campaign where correctional healthcare is a career pathway of choice and that we are an employer of choice.

We have increased our outreach to colleges and universities, getting ahead of graduating students, that we can share the opportunities that exist in corrections where you're having access to a diverse population of patients and career pathways. One of the things we did in 2022 was we created an end to end hiring event. And what that did was break down the kind of silos and walls of civil service process, and candidates could come into a location.

We pick locations centrally geographic to our institutions, and candidates could come in and take a civil service exam. They could sit for an interview, get a pre-employment offer or contingent offer and move right into pre employment.

What's your vacancy rate?

Our vacancy rate? I'll have to get that information back to you. I think we're right around about 24% statewide, but I certainly can follow up with you on those numbers.

Okay. And then what is your turnover?

I don't have retention numbers available today. I also can provide some information on that at a later time.

Okay. And I just want to highlight to the public as well is that we have shortages in workers in a wide variety of classifications. We have a shortage of teachers, doctors, police officers, you name it. Right. Including medical health professionals and so forth. I will say that we understand that the Union of American Physicians and Dentists that represents doctors inside CDCR has been very adamant about the need for salary increases for the civil service staff at CDCR.

They were close to going on strike in the fall, but ultimately came to an agreement. I would like to understand a little bit more in regards to what percentage do you guys utilize for internal staff full time FTEs versus contracted outwork?

I think that is another one that we'll have to follow up on, between the number of FTEs and the contract registry coverage.

Okay. And the reason why I highlight this is because any type of overtime costs or potential contracting out may potentially result in higher costs overall if we don't fill up those spots. So health is incredibly important to all inmates. It's a human right, in my opinion. So I just want to make sure that we get the answers that we need in regards to this. And then I have one final question. If this request were approved and the Department no longer had to absorb the cost, what would the newly freed up money be used for?

The funding has been redirected from our mental health budget, primarily, and that money is for salarying wages to higher mental health. We have been diligently trying to fill all those mental health vacancies, and so that money would go back to mental health to cover their staffing needs as they hire up.

Okay. And then if we were to provide any additional resources in regards to telehealth and utilize that option more, which is being widely utilized, there also may be no need for any security pay, considering it's done online. So I do want to highlight that, and we all know that. So eliminating as much cost that's unnecessary as possible. So do I have any comments from. No. All right, we'll move on to the next item. I appreciate your time.

Okay, thank you.

Issue number 6 is Covid-19 proposals.

Yes. Good morning, again.

We'll be hearing from CDCR first, and we will time you, again, at five minutes.

Okay. So the Department is requesting 38.4 million for ongoing Covid mitigation. We have continued to see Covid within the institutions, and we have an ongoing need to address the issue. Much of the funding is tied around employee testing and testing for our incarcerated persons, as well as PPE equipment and vaccines. So the funding for this year, we started with an $83 million budget. We've currently taken that down to 53 million. And as more current projections come in, that will be adjusted as necessary, if necessary.

But we feel 38 million is our budget year need and ongoing to address the issue. The funding is in an isolated budget, so it's only for Covid expenditures. It's not for any other expenditures within the Department. So in the event it is not needed for Covid, it would return to the General Fund.

All right, can we get LAO's response?

Orlando, again, with the LAO. We recommend the Legislature withhold action on this proposal and direct the Department to update its request for 24-25 to reflect more recent data. In doing so, the Department should use a standard snapshot of months when calculating its need for each of the activities it's requesting resources for. And in those months, provide a justification why those specific selected months or provide justification on why those make the most sense to be budgeted for.

Additionally, the Department should account for the prison population updates likely to come in the spring. And then we also recommend the Legislature direct the Department to explore options to leverage the state's employer sponsored health insurance that would likely reduce the employee vaccine costs that are budgeted through this proposal. These adjustments would likely reduce the overall cost, freeing up General Fund resources. And finally, we recommend the Legislature reject the funding proposed for the future and continue to fund Covid-19 on a onetime basis, as has been done in previous years. Thank you, and happy to take questions.

Thank you. Department of Finance response.

Hi there. Ongoing Covid-19 funds will be used not only to address current Covid cases, but also to maintain a state of readiness to assist with making sure California's most vulnerable populations are protected. This request is based on current year actuals that were from the most recent data available when the proposal was put forth. The use of this data set was intentional to capture the most likely expenditure needs. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Would you guys have any closing comments?

No, we have nothing else to add.

All right. Do we have any comments from our Committee? I do just want to highlight that it just seems a little counterintuitive in the sense that the state pays for insurance for the staff already, most employees, I'm very much sure that they are insured currently, right?

Yes, correct.

Okay, so why are we also paying for things covered by that insurance? For example, staff vaccinations.

We do it as a convenience to the employees. Unfortunately, we're not a billing Department, so we can't further bill private health insurances on behalf of the employee. And I believe there are some Cal/OSHA requirements that we have those vaccine available to our employees who work in the healthcare areas. So as an employer, we are required to offer those vaccines, is my understanding.

And do we have a number of how many people got Covid over the course of since we've been dealing with Covid year per year?

With me today, one second... With me today is Debra Amos-Terrell, who is over our employee health program, and she may be able to articulate this a little better than myself.

I'm assuming it's going down.

Yes.

Yes, it's going down. We stopped monitoring our staff. I'm assuming you're wanting to know the staff rate.

Yes.

We stopped monitoring that about a year ago, but we certainly can give you the data up to that point. And also, in the prior years, because it was such a risk, staff were required to report if they were positive and do all these things, and we would follow them and we would know in terms of their vaccine status, particularly as CDC and CDPH change the requirements. So I would imagine, yes, it's gone down, but we can give you that data from a year ago.

Okay. I want to make it very clear that we don't want any duplicative services and spending. And we do obviously see that just from this. For the individuals held in these facilities, of course, we want to make sure that we prioritize health and mental health and so forth. So I appreciate that. If you do share any data with us, I also want to see how many vaccines are going to staff versus the incarcerated population. We'll move on to item number seven, which is employee health program reduction. We're going to hear from CDCR. Again, timing you at five minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are actually asking for a reduction of 7.1 million in this proposal and to reduce roughly 40 staff tied to our employee health program. With me today is Debra Amos-Terrell, as I mentioned, and she has a statement regarding this.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Debra Amos-Terrell, the Assistant Deputy Director for Nursing for CCHCS. The employee health program has demonstrated significant progress in mitigating the transmission of Covid-19 and other aerosol transmissible diseases among staff, reflecting a proactive approach toward enhancing workplace health and safety. The program's expansion to cover a broader spectrum of ATDs, such as tuberculosis, alongside the initial Covid-19 focus, occurred in 2023 and represented a comprehensive effort to manage correctional facilities, which are high risk environments for the transmission of ATDs.

The program achieved efficiencies through the integration of analytical tools for outbreak management, public health tracking, infectious disease investigations, and streamline the Covid-19 notifications. This technological approach allowed for a more efficient and effective response within the CDCR system. Furthermore, by narrowing the programmatic scope to align the program exclusively with Cal/OSHA's ATDs and the EHP has sharpened its focus on the most pressing health risk, ensuring compliance and mitigating the spread of ATDs in correctional settings.

The impact of the EHP is evident in the substantial improvements in compliance rates for influenza and tb compliance, reaching 63 to 96.7%, respectively, in 2023. The NIST notable increase in compliance, along with the Administration of over 1000 vaccines and processing more than 10,000 influenza declarations, highlights the program's effectiveness in engaging staff and institutional leaders in health promotion and health protection measures.

The reduction in Covid-19 cases and close contacts by approximately 50%, alongside the management of numerous case investigation and tracing events and institutional outbreaks, further demonstrates the EHP's role in controlling the spread of infectious disease within the CDCR. So a significant achievement of the EHP is the elimination of citations and fines related to ATD violations in 2023, a stark contrast to previous years.

The reduction in citations related to fit testing, timely notification of exposures to staff, medical evaluations, and the development of an ATD plan demonstrates the program's ability to meet regulatory requirements and enhancing employee health protections. So, in conclusion, the efficiencies found and the subsequent narrowing of the program's focus have resulted in a more targeted and effective approach to managing health risks within CDCR and thus reflects a request for us decreasing our staffing allocation.

The EHP success is a testament to the importance of utilizing analytical tools, enhancing staff knowledge and compliance statewide, and adhering to regulatory standards to protect the health and safety of correctional health of the staff.

Thank you. LAO.

We don't raise concerns with this reduction at this time.

Thank you. Department of Finance. No concerns. So I specifically just want to say this program has been downsized multiple times. So what efficiencies were found to enable the proposed reduction, and how do they affect the operation of the program?

Yeah, it has to. Trust me, I know it's been downsized many, many times. And so, as the manager of the program and because of our fiscal issues, we looked at the program, and we basically said, okay. In terms of when we got rid of our analytical staff, we took those functions up to the headquarters levels to do those functions. When we looked at the clinical pieces, we used to have a MA, we used to have an LVN.

So when we had to downsize before, we said, well, the RN is able to encumber all of those tasks and those functions. And so now we are decreasing from two RNs to one RN. Will it be a concern in terms of access to all of the staff? Because we won't have seven day coverage, we'll have five. Yes, but it is what it is in terms of being fiscally responsible.

Okay. And then why not just eliminate the program?

Well, I think that would be a bad decision because we are required to be in compliance with Cal/OSHA standards. EHP is what is keeping CDCR in compliance with those standards. We didn't have a defined program up until 2020, and before that, we almost had, in that probably prior three or four year span, almost $1.0 million in fines. And as I stated before, in 2023, we have no ATD fines.

All right. And then the majority of your workforce, what does their schedule look like?

So the majority of the workforce, they work well, they do... Sherry, 10 or 8? 10 hours a day.

Okay. So it's like four tens?

Yes, four tens.

All right. And have you guys taken a look at how a potential RN is able to kind of potentially reduce their hours and focus on the coverage?

Yeah, we looked at maybe doing five 8s. But again, right now we still have those staff, so we're doing the four 10s to cover the seven. So absolutely, if this is approved, the downsizing. Yes, we will do five day, eight hour coverage.

You guys have the option of three 12s?

No.

All right, thank you. No further comments? All right, we will move on to the next item, issue number 8. This is our final item. Community Reentry Program funding adjustments. Sorry, one more item. We're going to hear from CDCR. Again, five minutes.

Good morning, again. Justin Adelman, Associate Director of the Budget Management Branch. This request is for 2.3 million General Fund in 24-25, increasing to 3.4 million in 28-29 to increase funding for parole community reentry programs, specifically day reporting centers and the Long Term Offender Reentry and Recovery Program to support continuity of services to the parole population. With me is Niki Dhillon, the Division Director of Program Support of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs, to answer any questions. Thank you.

Definitely. LAO.

No concerns at this time with this proposal.

Thank you. Department of Finance? All right, do we have any questions from the panel? All right. I just wanted to ask which of the services provided are eligible for Medi-Cal reimbursement? How much of the reimbursement are we drawing down, and are there areas in which we could be drawing down more reimbursements?

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on our programs. So our reentry facilities, our male community reentry facilities and our female community reentry facilities, individuals in phase three of that program, it's a four phase program, they're eligible to leverage Medi-Cal services. So when an individual goes to that program in phase one, they should be applying for Medi-Cal so that when they reach phase three, they can leverage those services. I would have to get back to you on the amount of federal funding that we're leveraging.

Thank you. And how does CDCR vet and oversee the operators of these programs and evaluate which programs produce the best results?

So as far as contract compliance, staff have a lot of activities to oversee. Our community programs, there's a variety, there's a network. The agenda does a nice job of laying out our programs, but in addition to that, there are subcontractors. There are over 700 subcontractors that the contractors that we contract with directly must oversee. And those subcontractors are changing. So they need to look at the staffing, making sure that they're hiring the right staff.

They need to look at all of the licenses and requirements that now can be uploaded into our case management system. There's a variety of things that they need to do, and we can do better. We are trying to use technology to automate some things, to have providers put information into our case management.

You have 700 subcontractors?

Approximately. Well, not for these 12. I was thinking our whole parole programs, including our substance use disorder program. So, yeah, there's a large subcontractor.

Okay, so oversight of 700 potential subcontractors is a big task.

Correct. And so within our contract with our direct contractors, they are required to do a program accountability report for those subcontractors. And now they're required to upload those into our case management system. And staff are able to run reports to make sure that they're getting those done.

Do you audit?

So in 2023, the team is going out and doing in person audits of our direct contractors, and the goal is to do about 10% of our subcontractors.

And what's the average cost per contract?

Average cost per contract. I would have to get back to you on that one.

All right. We'd like to see this, again, especially for reentry programs. I do believe that there needs to be some uniformity and focus on true reentry efforts, if you will, from health care to substance abuse, to job placement, to X, Y, and Z. But again, I think that it's very difficult to have a clear standard across all contractors and subcontractors. So just prioritizing that in future conversations. And, Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Along those lines, of course, I totally support all the pre and post release programs. I think they're extraordinary. But somewhat along the lines of what the Chair said is, how do you determine and where is it centralized to be able to say, this is the kind of pre or post relief program we need here in this prison or in another one? How do you come up with a more organized presentation of what all those programs do?

I've been through a number of prisons. I've been to a number of post-release programs, and some are really great. I don't know all of them. I don't know, certainly don't know where anywhere near about the 700 programs. But it just seems like they're out there, they apply, and as long as they do what that particular contract requires of them, then that's cool, right?

They pass, but that doesn't tell me what we're really trying to accomplish with all the programs together. So if there's anything like that that's a little bit centralized more than... And I don't want to take away the ability of the prisons to decide, the wardens to decide this program fits better than that program. But it just seems like hundreds out there, but not really knowing what the results are and what we're going towards.

Yes. So for our community reentry programs, the agenda did mention the Stanford study that showed really good outcomes for those programs. In addition, we're working with our Office of Research to also look at recidivism for our community programs.

So I'm going to relate this to homelessness in the city that I was a City Council member in, and of course, the organizations that service the unhoused population. One of the things that I would love to see, and maybe you already have it, but I would love some data or some feedback, is that if these programs are taking place, there has to be a standard of like, okay, what do you attain to graduate, let's say, the program, complete the program or anything like that.

But then a year follow up, if there is any records that we can kind of see as like one, have they kept a job? Have they obviously been a productive member of society or are they in school? Some of these metrics that we need to see. It's not just getting out of the program, but it's like long term support for these individuals. That's what I'd like to see. Right.

And when we've initiated this in our local city regarding, obviously the unhoused population, we saw significant benefits and also more accountability for these programs. So my two cents. I do appreciate everybody's time. My final question is, how did the Administration land on the proposed funding methodology?

So what we did was we looked at from the contract inception, the consumer price index over the years and summed that to then give that a true up for this first budget year and then 2% ongoing. We feel like that's a good balance of providing the increased costs that have been discussed today, as well as being fiscally responsible in this budget climate.

All right, I appreciate it. We're going to move on to issue number nine, increased attorney fees for Board of Parole Hearings. We'll hear first from CDCR. We'll time you at five minutes.

Thank you. CDCR requests 2.1 million General Fund in 24-25 and ongoing to maintain updated funding for fees paid to attorneys who represent the incarcerated population at parole hearings. With me is Jennifer Shaffer, the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings if you have any questions.

Thank you. LAO.

Didn't have any comments or concerns on this proposal.

Thank you. Department Finance? Nothing. Do we have any comments from this Committee? All right. I specifically wanted to understand, how does the Board ensure that the appointed attorneys fulfill their obligations, including the required extra hour of counsel?

So we have an invoice process, so they have to actually designate the date and when they met with their client and for how long they met, and we routinely audit those with visitation records from the institutions. We also have a contract with a nonprofit, third party, independent entity who provides some monitoring and observation, and they also survey the incarcerated population. The Board is required to send out a transcript of the parole hearing once it's concluded to the incarcerated person.

With that transcript, we send a survey with a self addressed, stamped envelope to Parole Justice Works, the nonprofit third party, and it's a survey about their satisfaction or their experience with their client, with their attorney, and that goes to Parole Justice Works, not to the Board, and they provide oversight and provide that information to us.

Okay, you touched a couple of points. I wanted to understand how the Board ensures that the appointed attorneys are sufficiently independent from the Board itself in order to be able to fully represent their clients in Board proceedings.

So we appoint counsel and we pay counsel, and we, obviously, using those invoices is how we pay those counsel. But Parole Justice Works is the independent entity that actually provides training, mentorship, and oversight of their performance and feeds that information back to us.

Okay, but you also pay the nonprofit, correct?

We do.

Okay. Has the Board explored pay structures other than a flat fee?

We did long ago. We had a structured fee where, if they went, let's say they read the central file and they met with their client once, they would get a certain amount of money. And then as the case progressed, they would get more and more money. What we found is that actually created a reverse incentive for everyone to go to hearing, even if they were not suitable for parole.

And so we turned to a flat rate fee instead because what it allows is some cases are going to take more hours than other cases, and they get a week's worth of assignments. So they'll be assigned to every person who has a hearing at a particular institution during a one week period, and some of those are not going to go forward.

And so getting a flat rate, number one, it ensures their income, it makes it a little bit more stable, and it allows for them to spend more time on the more complex cases that are going to go to hearing versus the ones that are not.

Thank you. The LAO report from last year had a number of recommendations for improving equity in the parole process. Did the Administration consider any of those options?

We went through and looked at all of those recommendations. We are engaged in a research, a more in depth research project with the University of California, Berkeley, the California Public Policy Institute, and we're still waiting for the results of that. I'll say one of the things that I, personally, am much more concerned about is that it be a meaningful analysis, meaning we know for about 20 years forensic psychology has been pretty straightforward about what increases or mitigates somebody's risk. And we would like for a meaningful review based that controls for those risk based factors. And that's what the University of California, Berkeley is intending to do.

All right. And I will say this in regards to Independence of input. Specifically, other models have shown that, I'm going to give the Norway model, where the Department of Education handles education concerns for incarcerated individual, Department of Health handles health concerns, and obviously much more. We can go deeper, but that's an example. Has the Administration thought about potentially letting go of some of the responsibility and allowing other institutions to step in?

To do the appointed counsel you mean?

Appointed counsel or health or education or any of these other pieces.

I can't speak for CDCR on some of those other pieces. But for BPH...

I will say that we do work with other individual entities, specifically Health and Human Services, from we're exploring as part of CalAIM to have inreach into the prison for healthcare services.

Completely independent?

I'm not sure what you mean by independent, I guess.

Okay. Specifically, for example, every single thing that is geared towards, let's say, education is handled by the Department of Education. If we're talking about mental health, that the therapists are not necessarily paid or work for CDCR, but are completely independent and report directly to the Department of Health.

I guess it would kind of depend on the individual position. I know with education, for an example, some of the college and community college classes are run by the community colleges in those.

And the reason why I highlight this is because, specifically, doing these tours of the prisons and speaking to individuals that are incarcerated, they often feel that they cannot attend some of these programs because everyone in the institution will know, the guards will know, and there's no privacy. So ensuring that if somebody is working on themselves and really committed to that, they should have some autonomy, some privacy and some basic standards. And I wanted to understand if there's been any effort in some of these things.

Again, I think it would be case by case basis on those individual initiatives. I'm not sure about any large scale statewide initiative, though.

Okay. I would love to know more about that in particular. If we have no further comments, we are happy to close. Thank you for your time. We are moving on to public comments. To ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. Please limit your comments to 30 seconds, or let's say a minute, depending on the length of the line. And if someone else has already made similar comments, please just state me too. Thank you, and let's begin.

Hi, my name is Darby Kernan. I represent...

And we're going with 30 seconds. Sorry.

Got you. I get another 5 seconds?

All right, go ahead.

Okay. Darby Kernan, I represent the nonprofit reentry providers, WestCare, HealthRIGHT 360, and Amity Foundation. We support the Governor's Budget proposal. Thank you.

Good morning. Danica Rodarmel, commenting on issue number one, on behalf of Root and Rebound and Initiate Justice, who are members of the Gate Money Coalition. Requesting that if the TransMETRO Program is eliminated, that money be reallocated to benefit the incarcerated population, their loved ones, potentially by ending the practice of removing money from people's gate allowance of $200 for transportation and clothing.

Also commenting on issue number 2 and 3, on behalf of Initiate Justice, supporting the planned prison closures, encouraging more prison closures, and opposing the reallocation of funds for the California based reality training facility.

Thank you. Next.

Hi, good morning, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. Just wanted to make a comment on prison closures. I hope that as this discussion moves forward, that we move forward with caution. Some facilities are integral part of the local economy for some communities, and these facilities provide well paying jobs in a corner of the state where well paying jobs are hard to find. Members are, with merit, worried about these conversations on closers.

And so as we nail down what facilities are being closed, we hope that we can co-create, along with other labor unions in these facilities, a just transition. Also, just want to say thank you for your comments on retention and recruitment of the workforce. We need to make a serious and meaningful assessment of the contracts and the dollars that are being spent to out...

For work.

Thank you.

Thank you. Again, 30 seconds, folks.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Angie Manetti, representing Californians for Safety and Justice, speaking on issue two, wanted to offer comment. We strongly support the LAO analysis that states that the state can close an additional five prisons, saving in $1.0 billion. We released a report detailing how those savings can be redirected toward shared safety infrastructure, we're happy to share that with the Committee. Now, six years later, we've got only two prisons closed. So we would encourage the state to continue to prioritize that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Mica Doctoroff. I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. Here today on behalf of ACLU California Action and in coalition with CURB to urge the Committee to follow the LAO's recommendation and direct CDCR to close at least five more state prisons.

As you've heard, this would save the state nearly $1.0 billion to spend on other critical community safety needs like indigent defense, community based services for crime survivors, and those experiencing mental illness and substance use disorders. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We support the Chair's goal of a 15% cut in CDCR. As you said, budgets are not about silos. In order to protect investments in health, education, welfare, and others, we need to close five prisons.

That's a billion dollars a year in sustained savings. With fewer prisons and fewer prisoners, as the Secretary requested, we can refurbish classrooms, we can develop rehabilitative programming within the walls of fewer prisons, and still save money that we can invest in our communities, making our communities safer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Courtney Hanson with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. Strongly urge you to push for at least five additional prison closures. Been monitoring these conversations for over 15 years, and it is such a familiar feeling of frustration to listen to CDCR try to justify their current budget and even more money when we know that every additional dollar going in that direction in this fiscal climate is going away from classrooms, affordable housing, the environment. And we can continue to move toward treating incarcerated people like human beings, which I fully support, without the California model becoming an excuse for more and more and more funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alesha Monteiro with CURB. I don't understand the need for the reality based training facility being put in place just 35 miles away from the current reality based training facility that is currently being utilized in Galt, California, especially in the midst of one of the state's worst deficits ever. We need to close five prisons, not open one that has been closed for years. There's no justification takes away from an already dwindling resources in the state of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

​Kenneth Hartman, Transformative InPrison Workgroup. Regarding issue number two, we agree that 15,000 extra beds is way too many. And we also issue number three, we think opening up an old prison to do reality based training makes no sense when there's now a bunch of empty facilities that could do it. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Close prisons, fund victim services, fund public defense. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. John Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. I'm also a survivor for 25 years inside incarceration here in California. And I would say that the investments in infrastructure does not help. I opened up Salinas Valley in 96, SATF 98, both brand new facilities and did nothing whatsoever to help in my healing journey.

So when we talk about budget cuts, we definitely need to talk about not just, not investing in more infrastructure, but also dismantling a lot of the more prisons that LA recommended to close. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to be here. My name is Kari Arzate. I'm with Prison from the Inside Out. We work on the inside of prisons and also on the outside. I'm one of four of every women here in California, and I stand here today to let you know with the prison population decreasing and the budget increasing, the voting public is closely watching how we respond to this budget deficit. We can't afford to overlook and allow the budget increase...

Thank you.

To happen. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kellie Walters. I'm a Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I'm here today to express our concern about the proposed budget cuts to TransMETRO, a lifeline connecting vulnerable families with their incarcerated loved ones. Cutting this already underfunded program not only jeopardizes its vital mission, but also exacerbates the heartbreaking reality of families torn apart.

If the Committee fails to recognize the cruelty of further isolating incarcerated individuals from their loved one, I beg you to appeal to reason. Research unequivocally shows that family fragmentation correlates with soaring recidivism rates.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Bernice Rogers. I am a wife to an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison. In the last 10 years, the state budget documents show that rehabilitation expenses such as prisoner education and activities have accounted for only 3%. I think it's crucial to invest in rehabilitation programs for level 3 and 4 inmates. I also agree with correctional office. I mean, I don't agree with raises when I feel like COs need more training, being more empathetic and humane to help with the rehabilitation process. Thank you.

Thank you. I do just want to highlight something that I stated earlier, and I just want to make sure that the Governor's Budget includes a $15 million baseline administrative cut for CDCR, which represents 0.1% of their budget, a 1% cut would equate to $150 million and a 10% cut would equate to 1.5 billion. Their entire budget is roughly 15 billion.

So I just want to highlight again, we are looking for options to cut roughly 15%, and we are going to continue to have conversations with the Department and see how we can go about this. We have a huge deficit at 60 billion estimated, roughly, debatable, depending on who you ask. So I just wanted to highlight that. I also want to thank everybody.

We've heard from members of the public, members that are if there are additional questions or comments or anything like that, we would hope that you submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you for everyone for your participation. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate Budget Subcommitee Number 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation is adjourned.