Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety

The panelists are listed in speaking order and we will have questions from the Subcommittee after the presentation of each item. We will not be taking any votes today and public comment will be available after all issues have been presented at the end of the hearing. Before we begin, we will start with a roll call.

[Roll Call].

Thank you. We will ask all panelists to introduce themselves prior to speaking. We will begin with Issue Number One: SB 1008 and family connection. One of our panelists, Ms. Laila Aziz, will be joining remotely.

This is for CDCR. SB 1008 authorizes CDCR to provide free voice calling to all incarcerated persons. This request will provide 30.7 million ongoing General Fund and two positions to support the provisions of SB 1008. The requested funding was calculated using a mix of actual and estimated call data through the potential variance of annual calling usage.

CDCR is also requesting provisional language to augment or reduce the annual funding as actual data becomes available, as well as authority to update funding levels through an annual technical adjustment. In addition to free calling, CDCR, through the communications contract, provides 15 minutes of free video calls every two weeks. The 2021 Budget Act included funding for an additional 60 free minutes of calling, voice calling every two weeks, and 60 electronic messages per month.

This funding was reappropriated and CDCR continues to provide 60 free electronic messages per month for each incarcerated person. Recognizing the importance of maintaining family and community connections, the 2021 Budget Act provided 20.3 million General Fund and 124.1 positions for an additional day of visiting and funding to support the Reunification Transportation Bus Program. The contract for the Reunification Transportation Bus Program was executed in July of 2022 with service starting in September of 2022.

CDCR was still under the Covid-19 health and safety protocols during the 2021-22 and 22-23 fiscal years and as such, provided the additional day of visiting via one hour video visits. Video visiting allowed for persons who were unable to travel to see their loved ones and for incarcerated persons to witness a variety of life events and experiences that would otherwise be unavailable to them in person, such as child's birthday parties, family pets, and school projects.

Video visiting occurs in the same location as in-person visiting and requires computers to be set up on visiting room tables. CDCR staff must verify the identity of the caller and monitor the video calls during the duration, which provides the same security complement as in-person visits. Due to space limitation and other factors, video visiting and in-person visiting typically occur on separate days.

As we noted, I think, when the Secretary was here, the Department will be switching to third day of in-person visiting once tablets are fully deployed, which we're estimating to be completed by June of 2023. Thank you for the opportunity to present on this, and we're here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. We'll hear from Ms. O'Neil next.

Caitlin O'Neil with the Legislative Analyst Office. We have recommendations on three different aspects of this proposal, all fairly technical in nature. The first is on the funding amounts proposed, and in our review of the Governor's proposal, we did find the funding amounts to be reasonable.

However, there's two caveats here that we did want to point out, and those are that the funding amounts before you are based on limited calling usage data that was collected prior to SB 1008 going into effect, given the timing of when the proposal was prepared and when the law went into effect.

And then two, we learned on Friday that CDCR recently renegotiated its contract with the vendor that provides communication services to go from a purely per-minute basis to a tiered pricing model, which will presumably change the amount of funding that is required. So we recommend withholding action on the funding amount at this time and requiring the Department to report updated usage data as well as estimates of the cost under the new pricing model at the May Revision.

The second aspect of the proposal that we have a recommendation on is the provisional language that is proposed in the budget with this item, which would allow the Department of Finance to augment or reduce the appropriation based on actual or estimated expenditure data, and we find that while there is some uncertainty about the amount of funding that will ultimately be needed because it will depend on how many calling minutes are ultimately used, we find that this language is unnecessary and limits legislative oversight.

And that's because the annual Budget Act already includes the ability for the Department of Finance to augment departments' budgets in response to unexpected cost increases, and that's through the Item 9840 which includes 40 million for unexpected costs across state departments and also includes notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee in the event that that money is allocated.

So, moreover, in the event that this 40 million is not sufficient to cover these costs and other state needs in the budget year, Item 9840 outlines a process through which the Department of Finance or the Administration more broadly, can seek supplemental appropriations for unexpected mid-year cost increases. So, given that those mechanisms already exist and provide greater opportunity for legislative oversight than the one that is proposed for this item, we recommend rejecting the proposed provisional language.

And our third recommendation is on the proposed technical adjustment process to update the annual funding amount from year to year, and we find that the proposed technical adjustment process lacks transparency because for such adjustments, the Administration typically doesn't submit materials providing justification for the funding amount to the Legislature, which makes it difficult to identify any discretionary decisions that may have gone into determining the funding amount or may have affected the funding amount, whether the funding amount is justified, as well as just generally for the Legislature to conduct oversight of CDCR's budget and voice communications for the incarcerated.

So we recommend that the Legislature direct the Department to adjust the level of funding from year to year using an existing process through which it adjusts various aspects of its budget for changes in its populations and various subpopulations. And through that existing process, the Administration submits, along with the funding request documentation, showing its methodology and supporting the request, which makes it easier to review. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Tomlinson.

Sarah Tomlinson, Department of Finance. We'd like to start by responding to the idea that the proposed funding appears reasonable but is based on limited data currently available. The Administration acknowledges the requested amounts were based on historical data and projections and that additional data on actual implementation will become available that could potentially be used for refinement purposes for SB 1008 and since it just went into effect on January 1st, 2023.

Additionally, the LAO's point on provisional language being unnecessary and limiting oversight along with the annual technical adjustment process lacking transparency, the Administration's intent was not to limit legislative oversight, and we are open to working with the Legislature to refine the provisional language as necessary. Our priority is to have a mechanism to adjust the amount available for SB 1008 implementation, giving the potential that the amount needed to implement the legislation could exceed or fall below projected levels.

From a technical perspective, the Administration does not find that Item 9840 or a supplemental appropriation would be a viable option for funding augmentation related to SB 1008. Specifically, Item 9840 is available for emergency expenses and contingencies, and there is only a finite amount of funding available to all state departments. This amount should be preserved for emergency purposes and for costs that are truly not known at a time when the budget is enacted.

It would be difficult to argue that increased costs associated with SB 1008 were not known, given the Administration is acknowledging that the costs associated with the implementation of the bill are likely to be variable and could exceed the amount appropriated. Additionally, the use of supplemental appropriation could present a timing issue. This bill typically runs towards the end of the fiscal year, and CDCR may incur costs before a supplemental appropriation would be available.

Accordingly, the Administration still finds the use of provisional language as the most appropriate mechanism, and this approach has been leveraged across the budget in instances where it is anticipated that costs could vary from projected estimates. Finally, we note again that the Administration is open to working with the Legislature regarding the best mechanism to adjust annual funding levels. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and I'll start with some questions and then turn it over to my colleagues, but first we'll have Ms. Aziz who is calling in remotely respond to anything that the CDCR has provided.

Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Laila Aziz, and I'm the Director of Operations for Pillars of the Community. I am also a member of the Coalition for Family Unity, known as CFU. I'm the mother of identical twin boys, 14, and my husband is currently housed at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. Our sons were seven years old when Terrence arrived at High Desert State Prison. I live in San Diego. The drive to the prison is 13 hours.

Communication is important to our family, as with other families with incarcerated loved ones. It prepares them for reentry back into the community, our children do better in school and at home having contact with their incarcerated parent, and it increases the safety of those incarcerated by allowing them an outlet to deal with fear, anxiety, and depression. First, I want to say we appreciate the work of the Legislature to ensure the families are able to keep in touch with their loved ones currently incarcerated in the state.

Free phone calls have been a big help for people across the state, but nothing is a replacement for in-person visits. I do want to raise some of the current barriers that some of the families are experiencing, myself included. When implementing the tablets at High Desert Prison, they removed the wall phones. There is now only one wall phone in each section of the prison. Also, the tablets malfunction often. It's a pilot program.

The Wi-Fi has been down for days at least twice a week, and my husband has a problem calling out numerous times. When I'm speaking with my husband, there's another person who suddenly appears on the line, another incarcerated person. The text messaging app has gone down for days, and there are problems with text messaging at least three times a week, if not more. When we talk about cost, in 2022, I spent 490 dollars on voice communications through GlobalTel.

With the release of the tablets in 2022, it was, I think, third quarter of 2022, I spent 150 dollars on text messaging communications. In 2023, voice communications became free. I have spent 90 dollars on communication for myself and 205 dollars for him with a tablet. If my husband wants to video call his children or me, it cost him $5.60 each video. Also, it's $2.80 for myself. We have spent 56 dollars on video calls with his children so they do not have to pay.

Thus far this year with free phone calls, we have spent 350 dollars on communication. We are projected to spend 140 on communication in 2023. So even with free phone calls, our communication budget has increased 33 percent. Calls are now free, but the cost has increased. A basic return on investment at four percent annually for 1,400 dollars per year, which we're paying, in ten years from a ten-year sentence is 18,881 dollars. This is for communication only. This does not include visits, canteen, or packages.

Thank you so much for everything that you guys are doing. There's still a lot of work that we need and the cost have actually risen instead of decreased with the implementation of the video visits and the text messaging. Also with the three-day in-person visits that are finally going to be implemented, we're told, at the end of this year, we're looking at the free video visits going away instead of having a hybrid of both for three days.

This means we will have to now pay for video visits anytime we do so, where before we were able to schedule free video visits that occurred in the visiting room. A lot of families, such as myself, are 13 hours away, 14 hours away. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Aziz. So I'll move forward with some questions. In my meeting with the Secretary a few weeks ago, he mentioned the importance of Family Connect. We heard from Ms. Aziz the critical nature of that, and the Department will finally be implementing three days in-person visitation this year, to which we are very thankful to the CDCR for following through on that. My question relates a little bit to this video visitation component. It sounds like these were replaced with video calls for the tablets.

There was a replacement of the video calls for the tablets or video calls from the tablets. Why are the video calls so expensive? I know the Department will provide two 15 minutes video calls for free, but that's not really a lot of time. So if someone wants to do an additional one hour call that, would cost an additional 12 dollars. Seems very expensive. Ms. Aziz is quoting 18,881 dollars spent annually on communication only--or totally. That seems very expensive for one family to bear. Who is charged that amount? The family or the incarcerated person? Can the Department explain how these video charges work?

Certainly. Madelynn McClain, Deputy Director of Fiscal CDCR. So the current phone contract provides 15 minutes of free video calls every two weeks. And so they're separate, and they are handled through the tablets in a kiosk in their housing unit. The video visit or in-person video visits and video visits are handled in the visiting room, and those are one hour in length.

So what the Department did was, because of Covid, we had funding to do three days of visiting. We did a hybrid approach in many institutions where we had two days of in-person and one day of video visiting. So it's a one hour free video visit. Families are not charged for that. And that was based on--we continued that because it was based on surveys that were done through Statewide Inmate Family Council, the local regional inmate advisory groups; everyone really appreciated the ability to have the in-person and the video visitation.

So for the video calls, those are usually in 15 minutes increments because they're in their housing units, not a separate video visitation. Am I answering your question? Okay. And so the charges for the 20 cent per minute for the video calls are then charged to the families because that's in addition to the 60 free email messages they get per month and all of the free calling plus the three days of visiting.

Thanks. Helpful. I'm just really curious about why it's so expensive.

As part of our RFP for the contract that went out for the new phone provider, that was the lowest rate that we got from all of the providers.

Is that ViaPath?

Yes.

Okay. So just a follow-up question on that then, how do you go about making sure that you're getting the lowest rate possible from the providers that you contract with? So I know that you had Emilio present to you another plan that essentially is 50 percent of the cost of ViaPath.

Certainly. So CDCR follows the state contracting law, which is set through Public Contract Code and overseen by Department of General Services and California Department of Technology. So this contract that went out--was actually had per Public Contract Code--was overseen by CDT. So Department of Technology actually oversaw this contract. We went out to bid, followed all the standard procedures.

We did a full RFP--request for proposal--and in this instance, we actually did a pre-RFP. A full year prior to executing this new contract, we did site walks with interested vendors, we held fairs, we did informational sessions so that we could get the message out so that we could get as many interested parties to bid on this contract. And so CDT is actually the one who oversaw the entire contracting process in conjunction with CDCR.

And so, per state contract law, we are required to go with the lowest bidder, and ViaPath was the lowest bidder for those components. And I do note that you said Emilio provides a certain--has indicated a certain rate increase. I do want to point out that our current contract, ViaPath, maintains all of the infrastructure and all of the equipment for the Department.

I'm unsure whether the rate that Emilio has indicated does that for us. So I'm not disputing their rate, I'm just saying our current contract has service agreements that requires the vendor to do all of the infrastructure and maintenance and troubleshooting for our system.

Let's talk a little bit about then some of the technical issues that some inmates are experiencing, and we heard from Ms. Aziz that there's kind of intermittent Wi-Fi pilot, like, technical aspects related to text messaging that goes out, the actual removal of the wall phones. That's an interesting piece to me. So how is the CDCR actually managing or mitigating the technical failures of the system that is in place through the contract with ViaPath?

Certainly. I do want to address the issue of the removal of the wall phone. So there is one wall phone. Upon implementation of the tablets at any housing unit, one wall phone is removed. However, it is replaced by a kiosk that has both a docking station for the tablet and an actual physical phone.

And from that kiosk they can then add on multiple docking stations for additional video chats or calls with the tablets. So yes, there is one wall phone is being removed, and they're using that infrastructure to support the tablets itself. So it's being added, and even more is being added onto that piece. So they are not losing any capability to make phone calls. Now, granted, it doesn't happen overnight.

Whenever time you do a construction project, there is probably a few days or at least a week where yes, they are without one phone, but that is all moving towards the deployment of the tablets to increase communication. I will say regarding the technical issues, we fully admit when we roll out tablets in an institution for the first 30 days, ViaPath is out there and they are troubleshooting.

So obviously when we deploy tablets, it's now a network and infrastructure bandwidth issue that we have to now navigate and maintain. And so ViaPath, upon release of all the tablets, will go through and monitor the network constantly for the first 30 days in our FAQs, on our website, and on ViaPath's website. We fully acknowledge that there will be disruptions and system issues for that first period while we get everything dialed in.

Once the system is dialed in, then there is a 24-hour phone line that is manned by a live person 24/7 with ViaPath. So if any incarcerated person or their family is having issues with a phone line or a tablet, they can call that hotline at any point in time. They can also send an email to the communications group that handles all the troubleshooting. This information is posted on posters and put in the housing units.

It's also in the visiting rooms and sent out to the Inmate Advisory Council and Statewide Inmate Family Council. So again, there are technical issues that pop up from time to time, but there are many avenues that are in place. I will acknowledge that when those do happen, we fully encourage families and the incarcerated people to provide us with detailed information because the provider can actually go to that exact minute and pull the records and the technical detail to see where the errors are and address them.

Does the Department consider Family Connection a component of rehabilitation and improving outcomes for people who are leaving prison and also a factor in improving recidivism and providing more stability for people who are incarcerated?

Yes, it is a component.

Given that it's a clear rehabilitative component, why aren't the costs associated with family communication absorbed by the Department?

The 30 million dollars that we have proposed in terms of the free calling or everything?

Everything.

Okay. So the Department isn't funded for that and so we can't absorb that within our existing resources.

But it is a part of rehabilitation, admittedly so.

Yes, and we have many rehabilitative programs which we were funded for through legislative requests and through budget change proposals included in the budget acts.

Thanks. Do any of my colleagues have any questions?

This may be quick. I'm kind of curious about the process that you go through to hire a vendor or a contractor. Are you involved in that or is it all GSD or General Services? You give them specs and then they handle it from there or are you in the room when they interview or picking like this vendor here?

Yes. CDCR--

Is it lowest best person or is it the lowest price period or is the lowest best closest to--I don't understand. I understand city system. I don't understand state procurement.

I am not a contract expert. However, I will say CDT is the one who oversees. So we do this, the contract, in conjunction with CDT. So they are the ones who do the bid on our behalf, but we are involved in the entire process because they won't know what to put in the scope of work without our input, and we are also involved in reviewing the bids before they're signed. But generally, state law requires you to go with the lowest bid.

Who's CDT?

I'm sorry. Department of Technology. It's California Department of Technology. They handle all IT procurements on behalf of the state.

And their success rate is?

I'm not at CDT, so I cannot comment on that, but I will turn to my colleague.

Just know in the past, there's been some issues with the technical department being able to not only pick the best vendor, but get someone in that can actually do the job, and the best job sometimes. Is there a way I can find out the process or are we allowed to view the bid package so we can get a sense of what--is it that transparent or is it closed where once it goes out, you can't see it anymore?

Because it's managed by Department of Technology, I cannot comment on that. I will defer to my Finance colleagues if you have any comment. No? Okay. So we would definitely need to reach out to Department of Technology to get what their process is, but CDCR is involved in the process. We don't just hand it over to them and walk away.

If I may, Chair, Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance. We're happy to consort with our colleagues at Department of General Services and Department of Technology so that they can come here before the Subcommittee or we can take written questions back, but they are essentially who we rely on to implement state contracting, to help us implement state contracting code. So it's not only just CDCR making these decisions, there's criteria set forth. The competitive bidding process or the RFP process is complex.

And so I just want to acknowledge that that's why Department of General Services and Department of Technology help in that process is because it can be complicated to navigate. In terms of whether those are public documents, I'm not able to say, but we'd be happy to follow up with you.

I'd be curious to see how it's done because I know--I worked in purchasing, obviously on a smaller level in the City of Los Angeles, but a lot of times the department that's actually getting the technology is not really involved in picking. And so they get software, they get data, they get whatever; the technology they get isn't quite what they need to be able to do their job effectively because it's handed off to this third party. They're trying to make it happen. So I'm just kind of curious, are you satisfied with what they gave you?

Yes. They've been a very beneficial partner for us, and they respond appropriately when we need them to.

ViaPath? ViaPath. Okay, thank you.

Just as a follow-up to the additional questions to kind of take back, I would love to understand how many years ViaPath or formerly GTL has actually been the primary contractor for communications and how many bids they've got, cycles they've gone through in one one. Thank you to the panelists. In particular, thank you to Ms. Aziz for joining us today and sharing her experience with this Subcommittee. We'll move on now to Issue Number Two: Increasing Inmate Welfare Fund Authority.

Thank you again. Madelynn McClain, CDCR. So this request will provide additional expenditure authority of 26.8 million to the Inmate Welfare Fund to ensure that CDCR has adequate resources to sufficiently stock and maintain institution canteens. Canteens operate in all correctional institutions and generate revenue through the sale of goods. Funds in the IWF are used to support canteen activities and for the benefit of the incarcerated individuals. These benefits include things such as recreational and rehabilitative programs and supporting family visiting.

Due to the variance in annual canteen purchases, CDCR also requests provisional language to allow the Department the ability to increase spending authority, an additional five percent during the year, and the ability to review and adjust the Inmate Welfare Fund Authority through the annual technical adjustment. The proposed increase to the Authority does not affect the price of canteen goods sold. It allows the Department to restock the canteen using its available funds. Thank you for the opportunity to present on this item. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. We'll move forward with Ms. O'Neil.

We didn't raise any concerns on this proposal.

Okay.

Lynne Ishimoto, Department of Finance. No additional comments, but happy to answer any questions.

Great. Just a general question and then turn it over to my colleague. Can you clarify again what the balance of the Inmate Welfare Fund is at this point?

Certainly. At the end of our last unaudited year, it was 48 million dollars. 21-22.

Is there an operational balance that needs to be maintained for this?

Generally, pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, we usually recommend keeping at least two months on hand, which would be approximately 16.8 million, leaving a balance of about 31.6 million.

Is there any way--or have you considered to, given that there's 48 million dollars and then I guess an additional 16.8 million within that--

Yeah. Off the 48 would be we'd keep 16.8 million in reserve to cover at least two months of expenditure. So that would leave a fund balance of approximately 31.6 million.

Okay. Let's actually just focus, quite frankly, on the 48 million. Given that that's a pretty significant balance, does that mean that the surcharge can actually be lower than 65 percent?

Yes. The Department is looking at options to reduce the markup. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that whatever we do, we want it to be sustainable over the long term. So what we don't want to have happen is the markup go away or be decreased so significantly that we can't maintain that for several years. So that's part of our analysis that we're doing right now.

There's a workgroup with both our canteen folks and folks in the institution to try and look at the best possible way to address the fund balance issue while maintaining sufficient funds in there in the event of needing additional expenditure authority.

When can we expect the work product from that analysis?

That should be done by the summer.

Just if you can, how much is a package of ramen at a canteen?

I have a price list. Sorry, I have to take my glasses off. Sorry. It's broken out in different areas, different types. Like macaroni and cheese is $1.20. Oatmeal is $2.65. Sorry, I'm trying to find the hot items.

So mac and cheese would kind of be like one package?

Yeah, a package of mac and cheese.

And how much does an inmate earn per hour?

Anywhere between eight cents and 37 cents per hour unless you're in a fire camp and that is additional, and then CALPIA is between 35 cents and a dollar an hour.

So let's just take the higher bound number of 37 cents an hour. So that means that it takes an inmate 3.2 hours of work in order to be able to earn one package of mac and cheese?

Correct, along with anything that's been deposited in their inmate trust account from their friends and family outside.

But assuming they don't have that. So three hours of work for one mac and cheese? Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Subcommittee?

No, I'll be strained. So is that Kraft mac and cheese? How much is it? If I was a regular person going out there, I'm a diabetic, so I can't have craft mac and cheese. So if I were to go out to a market or Costco, try to buy it, what's the comparable cost for a civilian or someone not an inmate?

Certainly. Actually, we just did an analysis of the cost of goods between what was in at the institution and both Safeway and 7-Eleven, and I can email that results to you as soon as--but the price in the canteen is generally cheaper than those.

Good to know. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any other questions at this time. We'll move on to the next issue: Number Three, which is: Community-Based Organizations Delivery of In-Person Programming. We have several panels. I think we're going to begin with Ginny Oshiro.

Thank you so much. Do I need to be closer? Good afternoon to the Members of the Sub Five Budget Committee. My name is Ginny Oshiro. I'm a Policy Researcher for the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup. You'll hear us refer to it as the TPW.

It's an honor to address this Committee on behalf of the TPW, our 85 organizational members, and their thousands of incarcerated participants. Before we get into the panel, we'd like to take a moment to express our gratitude for this Committee's support, curiosity, and openness to hearing from us today. We're especially grateful for the leadership of Chairperson Bonta and the support of Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer on the RIGHT Grant last year. CBOs provide rehabilitative, restorative, and transformative programming in California's prisons that increase public safety and build stronger communities.

Community-based approaches to in-prison programming are effective because, as you've heard many times and continues to be true, those that are closest to the problem are closest to the solution. CBOs are directed and run by people with meaningful ties to the criminal legal system, including people who've experienced incarceration, who have returned as credible messengers, facilitating the same programs that help to change their lives while they are incarcerated.

Our prison system is designed in a way that tells incarcerated people that they are worthless, that they will never be more than their worst moments. Existing within that system erodes self-esteem, hope, care, and compassion. CBOs fill a crucial gap in the prison system by providing life-affirming programs for incarcerated people. CBO programs vary in delivery, but they all have something in common. They see incarcerated people as past and future neighbors, and they invest wholeheartedly in their transformation.

They are built around curriculums that expect incarcerated participants to do the hard work of gaining insight into their behavior, practice accountability, and learn to work and rely on others. It is the combination of care, presence, and investment that facilitates that transformation. I speak to you today on behalf of our members and their incarcerated participants, but I also speak to you today as someone who really needed programming while I was inside and didn't get it.

Ten years ago, the chances of my name appearing on agenda associated with the California Assembly were zero. But the chances of my name appearing on the roster down the street at the Sac County Jail were very likely. My life would have looked really different if I had received community care and responsive programming during that time. CBOs, as you'll hear, have waitlists that are often years long.

If you get the opportunity to visit a prison and ask any incarcerated person not only what they want, but what they need, they will always tell you community-led programs. However, at this time, CBO programs currently receive less than one half of one percent of CDCR's budget. So thank you in advance for your willingness to engage in thoughtful dialogue with us today. I'll pass it to Leonard.

Thank you. Mr. Rubio.

Good afternoon. I'm Leonard Rubio, the Executive Director of the Insight Prison Project, A Division of Five Key Schools and Programs. We offer our Victim Offender Education Group, known as VOEG, at seven CDCR facilities. The VOEG Program is an 18 to 24-month restorative, justice-based, trauma-informed care program focused on developing accountability, integrity, and responsibility.

We do this by using cognitive behavioral tools and mindfulness to help our participants develop an in-depth understanding of the causative factors that brought us to the point of committing the harm we did, facing the guilt and shame of our actions, processing our past traumas, and developing greater empathy for those we have harmed by understanding the impact our actions have caused. You may have noticed that I said 'we' and 'our' in my description.

That is because I was fortunate to go through the second cohort of VOEG in 2005. I was asked to co-facilitate the third cohort and I've been attached to the organization ever since. I'm a former lifer that served over 23 years, starting at the age of 18, not knowing if or when I would be paroled, let alone leading an organization that helped me or speaking in front of the Assembly. I was paroled in 2010 and began advocating for the Insight Prison Project.

In 2011, I was asked to join their board of directors, and in 2017, was asked to lead the organization. We are currently serving about 150 people, primarily due to the pandemic restrictions and transfers. We typically serve 300 people. We are hoping that by the end of this year we are back up to that number. Our programs were previously evaluated in 2012 by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, demonstrating improved emotional control and interpersonal skills.

We've received letters from CDCR custody commenting on the improvements they have witnessed on the yards when our programs have been initiated. We are looking for additional funding to cover the cost of further research to look at quality of life, community impact, and of course, recidivism. Some of the challenges we face in offering and expanding our programs tend to be the remote locations of many of the institutions, which makes it hard to find volunteers.

Insight Prison Project has been operating since 1997, primarily on a volunteer facilitator model, which limits our ability to reach even more people and more facilities. My long-term goal is to find additional funding to start paying our facilitators, covering their transportation costs, and to bring back other graduates to continue to spread that hope inside to serve more people and show we can succeed by contributing to our communities and preparing others to safely come home. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Benjamin.

Greetings. My name is Ayla Benjamin, and I'm the Executive Director for Boundless Freedom Project. Boundless Freedom Project provides meditation and mindfulness programs in seven CDCR facilities with our community members and facilities throughout the state. We also provide reintegration support and programming in county jails as well as in the community. Additionally, Boundless Freedom Project is committed to developing the workforce in California by providing employment opportunities, job training, and skill development for formerly incarcerated individuals.

At our organization, we have centered those with direct experiences and have hired former program participants to ensure that the efficacy of our program matches the environment in which we're serving. Due to the involvement of individuals with direct experience, we also have begun to provide individualized support to our program participants as an effort to aid in successful reintegration. Now, meditation and mindfulness may sound like feel-good programs. However, mindfulness and mindfulness-based interventions are actually scientifically backed and heavily researched.

They are shown to have an impact on stress reduction, emotional regulation, impulse and anxiety control, enhanced self-awareness, decreased blood pressure, and so much more. Mindfulness interventions are commonly used with behavioral mental health issues, substance abuse disorders, and in high stress occupations like with first responders, medical professionals, or in the high stress environments of carceral systems. Now, while we are really successful in what we do, we still face many barriers to our ability to program, including prolonged lockdowns and transfers of program participants.

With this, we see an opportunity to expand credit earning, alternative programming, as well as access to technology for community-based organizations. Boundless Freedom Project and other organizations are part of a RAC pilot program, which is a rehabilitative achievement credit for correspondence, and we have also successfully tested video programming capabilities and maximum security facilities, but our actual access to this technology and reach for alternative programming is limited, not by our choice. Another big issue we faced are staff relations and lack of programming culture.

On the ground, staff of the prison are not always supportive of program providers or program participants attending programs. Within the Department, community-based organizations are often referred to as volunteers, even though, like many of the organizations here, we employ highly skilled and trained professionals to be involved with our programs. We've also had CDCR sergeants, medical staff, lieutenants, say that their staff need mindfulness programs and these skills that our program participants are being exposed to. So we see an opportunity there to expand mindfulness-based interventions to include CDCR staff.

I think it's also worth mentioning that we've had more than one former CDCR staff member seek out our organization and programming as beneficiaries as well as facilitators. In addition to those barriers, we also have the incredible challenge of the demand for programming being way too high. And that's in part due to the fact that California prisons are still over 100 percent capacity, and like all the organizations here today, we've been working to build our capacities and scalability of our programs, yet the demand for programming inside the prisons continues to be hard to reach.

We must simultaneously continue to reduce the prison population while investing in community-based organizations. We believe that in-prison programs are better for everyone. They're better for our community, they're better for the facilities, for people working there and living there, and we can't do it without the investment from the state.

Thank you, Ms. Benjamin. Mr. Thomas.

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Mannie Thomas, and I'm the Co-Executive Director of Success Stories. Success Stories. We help produce safer communities by delivering feminist program to people who have caused harm.

Over a course of 13 weeks, our participants will discover what's important to them, honor or recognize whether or not their behavior is supporting what they say is important to them, how to keep their word, to investigate whether or not toxic, masculine patriarchy is keeping them from being the best version of themselves, develop complex language to express complex emotions, and then become future-based in their thinking.

We are currently delivering in eight prisons, and we can serve up to about 1,000 participants a year if everything goes according to plan. In 2005, I was also sentenced to 32 years to life. At some time during my 16-year incarceration, I accepted the fact that I may never leave prison. I was keenly aware that I had two choices at that point.

I was either going to live a life of despair or I was going to give all of myself to encourage positive change in myself or in those around me. Of course, I chose the latter. I discovered many things about myself and how I ended up in prison. I addressed insecurities, traumas, and developed new tools that made me not only more effective in my personal life, but to the community that I was currently in.

None of this would have been possible without community-based organizations like ours or the ones that are created by incarcerated individuals themselves. I got to say that this work is deeply important to me because, to be honest, without it, I would not be where I am today. I was not supposed to see the board until 2032. In 2018--

Because of the work that I was doing inside. Governor Jerry Brown saw faith to commute my sins. But it was what his office said to me that day that stuck with me the most. And that was they said that they chose me because they know that I continue to help others. I'm just as dedicated to the work that I do now as I was at that point. There have been some challenges, but thankfully none that we can't solve together and collectively.

It's no secret that our safest communities in society are the ones with the most resources and prisons are no different. I remember being devastated when I couldn't get to specific facilities that had specific programming. And unfortunately, I see that same devastation with our participants today. And it's not that community-based organizations like ours don't want to be everywhere. But the fact is that we just lack the dedicated funding. That's a clear investment not only in us, but our participants who need us.

We're dedicated to producing change the behavior and culture as it is. I would say that the second thing is that we also have an opportunity to improve on access. Right now there's unnecessary barriers to program delivery, whether it be clearances or space or actually getting in the way of program providers from becoming brown card holders so that we don't need additional staff in order to run our programming.

We understand that none of us can do this alone and that folks need opportunity to various programming to have the access to things that are personal. Right? Like every one thing is not good. Education is great, but some folks need more than education. Anger management is great, but some people need more than the anger management. Substance abuse is great, but some people need more than substance abuse.

And we all understand that collectively, if we give people what they need, they're more likely to be healed and not only come home and know more radically involved community members, but also to improve the places they are now, which is prison. Prison is safer when we give folks what they need. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Hartman.

Thank you. I'm Ken Hartman. I'm the Advocacy Director for the TPW. I served 38 years in the CDCR, and I've been out for a little more than five years now. When I was inside, I benefited from some of the programs I now represent, and I was a facilitator for some of those programs, too. I, too, doubt that I'd even be out of prison without what I learned from those programs, let alone living a successful life, let alone sitting here talking to you. It was unimaginable.

As you've just heard, I have the privilege of representing some truly amazing organizations who are doing extraordinary work inside the prisons. And they do the toughest, most important work that can occur inside prison. It's the work of healing hearts and spirits. It's the work of helping broken people be put back together. It's the work of deep transformation, restoration, and accountability. I served time on yards that had no quality programs, and I served on yards that had quality programs.

There's no doubt in my mind about how powerfully community-based organizations provided programs impact the culture of a prison. The difference is stark. Since I paroled, I visited Norway and Finland multiple times and I've toured their prisons. People ask me all the time, what's the biggest difference between what they do there and what we do here? And unfortunately, it's not hard to answer. In Norway and Finland, the people held in the prisons are treated like human beings. Unfortunately, that's not always true here.

The objection that I often hear from people is that we can't do here what they do there, because somehow we're so different than they are. And my answer to that is always the same. Well, all the time that I was there, I only saw human beings in their prisons. And that's what we have in our prisons, too, human beings. So there's no reason we can't do just what they're other. Also, in Norway and Finland, all of their rehabilitative programming is done by community-based organizations.

They openly admit we don't do it because we don't do a good job at it. Because we know that good programs, what they can do, and from a personal perspective, because I care deeply about the people I left behind, we are committed to doing all that we can to see that every person in California prison has access to high-quality rehabilitative programs like the programs you just heard, and many other equally powerful and effective programs within our collective.

So on behalf of our 85 community-based organization Members who are providing the only real rehabilitative programming inside the CDCR and the 100,000 people or so who are still in prison, that I do care deeply about, I want to thank this Committee, Chair Bonta in particular, and your staff for this opportunity to talk with you all today.

The TPW looks forward to continuing this conversation, and I've lastly, and I would hope this would be in the record so all the rest of the Members of the community can hear it. I'd like to make an open invitation to all of you to please come and see our programs like Mr. Lackey did. And Mr. Lackey was powerfully impacted and left the folks inside powerfully impacted.

He gave a tremendous speech inside that left people in tears, and he said he couldn't imagine he would be this impacted by seeing what was going on inside. And that's it. And thank you so much. I really appreciate this opportunity.

Thank you so much. And thank you for actually recognizing Mr. Lackey in the work that he's done to just have greater understanding. And I certainly invite all of my colleagues on this Committee and on many others to be able to participate in that journey. I just want to first thank the panelists for being here, not only because you traveled many miles to be here, but also because you are willing to actually share your stories.

Every single time you share your story, I know that it's a cost to you to have to tap into that experience, to be able to build understanding for everybody else, and it's a priceless experience. And I want to thank you for affording this Committee that opportunity. I did want to just get a sense of some additional barriers that you all face in terms of programming in prisons. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Benjamin mentioned some of those. But if some of the other panelists could mention some of the barriers to programming that you face.

Thank you so much. I think I can start by just affirming so much of what Ayla mentioned just in number one, the waitlist. We really want to be able to meet the needs of people. It really is a painful experience to know that there are thousands of people who truly want to participate in rehabilitative programming and do not have the opportunity to do so.

And just really reaffirm that we hope that the Department can continue to invest in CBOs to provide programming in other forms, which we talked about doing correspondence. We also talked about using technology, and CBOs are really willing to provide. Of course, there's nothing like programming face-to-face, but in instances where there's lockdowns or prisons are extremely remote, we will take what we can get and so will incarcerated participants. I would also add that Mannie talked about it a bit.

The clearance process can be overly burdensome for programs. You see here, so many programs who are stretched incredibly thin, and they're doing the hard work of showing up and going inside and running programs. And so the added labor of having to go through the clearance process, which varies by institution, is extremely burdensome for organizations. Do you want to add?

Yeah, and I would. I would add, I think fundamentally it, it really is a question of culture. You know, I think that the Department of Corrections, and again, I am not impugning every person who works in the Department of Corrections. And in my 38 years, I met many people who genuinely wanted to make things better. They really did. I think that, unfortunately, there's a General culture that is not conducive and welcoming to people coming in and providing programs to folks, and particularly formerly incarcerated people.

I mean, this panel, 80% of the people on this panel are formally incarcerated. Three of them are executive directors of extremely powerful programs. And we have many other folks just like them. And I think when Mannie or Ayla or Leonard walk inside to run programs, the fact that they're there and they're telling people, I care about you, and I see you as a fellow human being, I cannot begin to tell you how powerful that is to someone.

And I think there's a culture change needs to happen that recognizes that and welcomes that and wants people to have that experience, because the fact of the matter is, everyone in prison is a human being. And I think that part gets lost a lot of times. So there's a deep culture shift needs to happen. Anybody else like to add anything to that?

Yeah, I would just say... there's two clear examples that I can use. We were already cleared to be in a specific institution, and then as soon as we finished a cohort, which is a three-month period, a program for three months, they sent an email like, oh, well, now we need you to come do the in-person training that you would typically do over the computer in order to get all the modules done.

But we want to make sure that we can get all the CBOs to agree on a certain. That's a lot to ask for, and the likelihood of that happening in a timely fashion is not going to happen. Just to turn around and then be like, okay, never mind. You don't have to do it. Or, they have really strict guidelines on what you need to do in order to qualify to have a brown card.

You need to be at the institution for a certain duration of time coming in. Once that's being done, you could then ask for your brown card. All of our staff is formally incarcerated. When we did this at Ironwood in particular, we spent 35 minutes on a Zoom call being asked, why does this person need a brown card? I said, I'm confused. Why am I being asked why my staff needs a brown card? Doesn't he just have to be here six months?

Does he have to have to continue programming? Have we met all those needs yet? Well, then why does he need it? And I'm like, it doesn't say that. You can ask me questions about why staff needs it once he's completed this. It says once he completed this that he's able to get those things when they know it makes programming easier for you. Because if I have a brown card, then I could then have my participants by myself.

You don't have to go find another staff that has to have a particular space. So it opens up even for the facility, right? That's less people that they have to walk hand in hand. So it's just like, that is the culture that he's talking about. Because I'm almost willing to bet that somebody else who doesn't have a background that we have, they're not spending 35 minutes in a Zoom call explaining why their staff needs a brown card.

I'd also like to add that space is a very large issue. Many of the prisons were created well before the R was added and are not set up for programming. So that is a very big issue that we face, as well as the physical spaces that we have access to.

One more issue that does frequently also come up is the SOM system that CDCR uses in order to track and make sure that people are not double dipping as far as credits go. But the way that... with how rudimentary the system is, even when there's not actual barriers between two different groups, because they may take place on the same day of the week, but not necessarily the same day and time, the SOM system blocks them from having changes made.

One example of that, and one of my cohorts, I have two people that want to participate in a new program. They are being told, even though they're only a couple of months away from graduating in my program, that they now have to make a choice whether to remain in my program and be able to complete it, or because of COVID now over four years into it, drop the program in order to take this next 16-month program.

There should be some way to make adjustments for this.

Absolutely. I appreciate that. I do want to also just give some space to have you all talk about how you measure success for your programs. I think that's probably one of the biggest challenges that we face in terms of our oversight of anything, quite frankly, just implementation success and the opportunity there.

So we want to just get a sense of how you know that your programs make a difference, whether you are able to support that with both qualitative and quantitative data, that will offer us an opportunity to be able to provide more insight into that and would just love to hear from one or two panelists on that.

I'll start, and I really appreciate this question. It's really interesting because so much of CBO programming is really like heart-centered delivering the program. But something happens for program providers and incarcerated participants that they see firsthand, right? And if you visit a prison program inside, you can feel something happening for folks. And because of that, program, providers have spent an incredible amount of time dedicated to trying to prove the efficacy of their programs.

We understand that maybe in the '70s, before the R was added, there was a stigma around what works and corrections, especially in rehabilitative programming. But that is why we are very intentional about seeking out opportunities to prove that efficacy. And we have a wealth of information that we would love to share with the Committee around evidence that programs work. These are empirical studies.

Side note, I'm also getting my PhD in criminology and I study in-prison programs, so I have a little bit of an inside scoop there and be happy to share those resources. But would also say that we collect kind of qualitative responses from folks, both about their specific programs and kind of in focus groups so we can pick up the broader themes. And in addition to that, we have sought out a partnership with Notre Dame Lab for Economic Opportunity.

And before I pass to Ayla, who boundless Freedom project is actually part of that cohort, will be running a randomized control trial, which is the gold standard in research, because programs know that their programs work, and so we're not afraid of engaging with opportunities to prove that. So I'll pass to Ayla so she can share more about it.

Yes. Thank you. So, in addition to the tons of testimonials we get from individuals who have been through our programs, we're also seeking to participate in legitimate research of our programs.

We feel really strongly of our program's efficacy, and we're working with Notre Dame University to prove that. As part of that process, we had to go through a very rigorous vetting process with the University of Notre Dame, and we'll be working with a team of researchers from the University, as well as traveling to the University itself to create the research design. And this project has been supported by the CDCR.

And so while not all organizations have participated in this type of research or been able to show the impact of their programs, that's the direction we're heading in. And we're hoping that more and more organizations like Boundless Freedom Project will be able to show just exactly the impact we're having.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I know you probably don't have it in front of you, but our Committee analysis, and this is just... I'll share. On page 10. We actually have a breakdown of the type of expenditure that's needed for different aspects of supporting folks who are incarcerated. Security is 42.3% of the budget. Administration is 9% of the budget. Facilities, operations, and records is another 9%. Rehabilitation programs that are run by CDCR are 3.4%.

And the category of programming where you all are in programming provided by community-based organizations is 0.7%. So, just as a point of comment for you all, I would like to give you the opportunity for each panelist to provide a short response to what else needs to change. Should we be made to have to improve the impact of programming that you provide?

I have no problem going first. Changes. So, also, I appreciate the questions around research. Those are some of the barriers we're running into, too. It was funny, I was on one meeting the week prior that said CDCR was going to make it easier for programs to be up in there and get research done, and then got denied the following week. So that's one aspect. Again, I think access is important.

For my organization, it's not that we have a shortage of coaches, it's that again, we don't have the dedicated funding in order to get those coaches and then have the ability to get them where they need to be in a timely fashion. There's been at least two prisons that I can think of right now where we cleared the delivery program, where it took over a year to get into. So it's like we already had the agreement, already secured the funding in order to be there.

Literally just talking to the prison took a year to get into. And if we're talking about sustainability, that can't be it. When we talk about the value of life, look how many people lost an opportunity to go through meaningful programming in a year. I would also say, again, Kenneth talked about culture change. Right? I'm often confused on the acknowledgement of how successful folks know community-based organizations are. When we're doing our work with inside prisons and then we're met with hesitancy, or quite frankly, like pushback.

I don't understand how someone in control can tell me, oh, no, we understand your value, but I'm going to make it as hard as possible for you to do your job. That doesn't make sense to me. And lastly, I would hope that... I can just use this as an example. San Quentin is like the beacon of what prison should look like. So much so that prisoners inside don't even consider San Quentin prison because they have access to everything.

And my question always has been, if rehabilitation is the actual goal, why doesn't every facility have that? If we're saying that's the goal, why doesn't every... we should have too much programs, not enough programs, right? Because we're talking about the cost of human lives, both inside, while they're there, and when folks return home. So I don't get why we have these one-offs, right? Like why are there, if we have 30-plus institutions, why are there five of them that are highlighted as having a bunch of programs?

And again, that's not because there's a shortage of us. As Ken said, he's representing 85 of them. 85. Why don't we have those in all institutions? Folks should be overwhelmed with what's possible for them to get into if they choose to, not hungering for something that's not even, we don't have the ability to put on their plate, and it's simply because somebody else is going, no, we don't need it. No, we don't need it.

So I think that when we're talking about change, it's really that simple. Let's get people what people need in order to be healthy people.

I would add that another thing that could possibly change for community-based organizations. Right now, the terms of our contracts are at maximum three years. Most of them are two. And so that means every two to three years, community-based organizations are having to go through a completely new RFP cycle and compete for these grants, while most other contracts through the Department are often longer term.

And that would be greatly beneficial for community-based organizations to actually spend a significant amount of time in an institution working to shift that culture of programming.

Leonard.

In addition to that, with the RFP process, one of the grants that went out for RFP about a year ago, they had over 200 organizations apply for it. I forget how much money, but it was somewhere.

$55 million in applications for $5 million of grants.

Yeah.

So finding that funding to be able to keep the programs going, programs like mine, wanting to move away from the volunteer facilitator model, bringing back some of our graduates to run these programs, being able to pay them a living wage to do that would allow us the opportunity to expand even further.

Yeah. And I think I come back to just a question of culture. I truly believe that. And I think whatever ways that we can do to bring people inside, I think many times the fences are there. Ostensibly the fence is there to keep me in, but I think the fences also keep everybody else out. And I know you didn't get to hear me say this earlier, Mr. Lackey, but you had a profound impact on the folks who listened to you.

There were people with tears in their, because they were listening to a man in a position of authority, someone who people look up to saying, I care about you guys. I'm really proud of you, what you're doing. I mean, that has so much power and impact.

And I think if we can, any way we can get the borders to be a little more porous so we can get folks inside, people like you, all people, other folks in positions of authority and respect in society, to walk inside and say, we care about you guys. We care about you. You're our fellow human beings. And I think that is just ultimately, at the end of the day, I think that's the most important thing that can happen.

And it's just like, how do we stop dehumanizing people and promote humanity? I mean, I feel like that's the biggest thing. Do you want to say something, Ginny?

I can just close it really quick, and I'll just say to Assembly Member Lackey, this is the Ken Hartman that all the folks inside were talking about. And so it's amazing to have you both in the same room, especially in this space right now. But other than the specifics and of course, the culture change that everyone here talked about, I think one of the barriers we can also address is the visibility.

And for that reason, I really thank this Committee for hearing us today and really invite all of you inside to witness the power of CBO programs. So thank you.

Thank you. Do my colleagues have questions, Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I don't really have a question. I just have kind of a comment to make that I find it that this population is very complicated, just like our entire population, but especially this population. And it's often mischaracterized because of the difficult circumstances that are present within the prison system and the lives that many of these people who are serving prison sentences have endured. But one thing that I do believe very significantly, that programs themselves are not the real answer.

What is the real answer is the genuine quality of that program and who carries it out? It does matter. And I think one of the underutilized tools that I think our system does not recognize are those who have been formally incarcerated or soon to be released. They have such an impact because they have automatic credibility with that population, and I find that it's an underutilized tool. I think that when I made the visit that we were talking about, I've made many of those visits, and I felt uniquely accepted there.

And I couldn't explain it, but I think that there's a stereotype that's unfair of the prison population. And I think that as long as we have genuine outreach, I think it will be received, maybe not by everyone or even the majority, but the number of people we can reach profoundly impacts people's world, and I think they deserve that.

And I hope that we will more utilize those who have been in that system to be role models to encourage these people that there is life after prison, successful life after prison. Thank you.

Just want to say we couldn't agree with you more. Thank you so much. And we appreciate you're from law enforcement, and frankly, that's one of the reasons why you're so accepted. And I think that's a really complicated thing, but at some level, that's why it is.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

As someone who's been to Norway with CCPOA and the correction officers and saw how they handle their prison system, which is based on individuals that were in concentration camps during World War II, that they knew how difficult it was to be there, that they made a conscious effort to change the way prison life would be in Norway. And so the leaders of that time who actually had been incarcerated then changed Norway.

Some people say maybe all politicians will go to jail so they can understand what it's like to be in jail. Afterwards, less than a year after that, the same people I went to Norway with then criticized me for going on that trip after they promised they would be for rehabilitation. They then put a target on my face and went after me. And so I feel your pain when you say it's not really accepted within there.

But one of the things I do want to say, what moved the needle from when I got here 10 years ago was ROI, return on investment. It really was about the quantitative value of your programs, not the qualitative programs. You can talk until you're blue in the face. You can show all the different videos of people and how their lives have changed.

From what I can see in the last 10 years, what really moved us to Prop 47 57 what really moved it was us being able to quantify. Back then, it was like $85,000. So we're talking a while ago because it's up to $106,000, what it costs to incarcerate someone. And then we compared it would have cost to send someone to college. I'm in a doctoral program at USC, so that's a whole lot more money. It's about 65,000 a year.

And I would say, and I'm working on public safety thesis and theory, so you don't have to go all the way to Notre Dame to get that done. But what bothered me was on the return on investment, when I would ask nonprofits to give me, how do you determine return on investments? Something as simple as when people go through your programs, then they get paroled and are out there. How many are successful? And I would get, we don't know.

Don't know how we can come up with those numbers. Even before I got in a doctoral program, I said, if they're working, you can go and see what their franchise tax is. Because if they're working, unless they're really into being criminals, working 8 hours a day and then trying to do criminality later would be highly impossible. And so you can't actually track them. Then I found out we have silos and nobody would talk to one another. But then they started thinking, oh, we can track this.

And so I'm going to tell you, if you can convince the public that you can save $100,000, we have 1, 2, 3 people that were formerly incarcerated. Four? That's $400,000 a year we're saving taxpayers. $400,000 a year with, what are we, .07% of our budgets involved in this. Another 42% is in security. What if we flip that? How much money we could save taxpayers and the burden? And we don't even think about the societal burden.

And so what I would ask is, it's really easy to quantify when people leave, because that's the other thing that's going on right now. I'm chair of public safety, and Ms. Bonta and I are bombarded almost on a daily basis about people who are repeat offenders, and we need to come down hard on them. But then you guys come in and say, we're saving lives. People aren't repeating. So we're getting mixed information. We need data. The qualitative stuff is good. I know.

Like I said, I'm in the doctoral program. But the quantitative analysis, if you can get that done, will take us much further along, especially if we can show significant savings by saving lives for people who are inside. And so I know you're going to report back, but for me, the return on investment is the most important thing you can do for this Committee.

And I would tell you for the state, if you're not able to quantify it, we're going to have a very hard time to convince the public to continue investing in what we're doing right now. And you look up in that .07% for a program by a community-based organization may go down instead of go up, and we need to increase that number. Again. I know I'm repeating over and over, the only way we can prove that if you help us help you. Thank you.

Want to thank the panelists and the Committee for contributing to this very important conversation. And before we move on to the rest of the agenda, I just wanted to share one thought, which is that some of us believe prison should be a place where people are locked away and not provided with any opportunity or anything they have be considered something other than a privilege. In fact, in our recent Committee, we literally heard somebody say, a colleague, the way that you prevent recidivism is by just keeping people locked up longer.

And that's the reality that we are faced with here. And that prison should be a place where nothing else happens besides punishment. I appreciate you raising the fact that the R is a new part of the department's work in culture. The reality is that 95% of people who go to prison eventually come home. And the important question is, what do we want that condition to look like?

How do we want our people who are reentering our communities to be when they come home? The first three issues that we discuss today in this hearing have to do with family connection, rehabilitative programming, and food and hygiene supplies. Imagine if you could only see your child for 30 minutes a month. I don't have to have you imagine it.

This is for our broader. Imagine having a prison job where you are making eight cents an hour and it takes you 48 hours of labor to buy a box of crackers. Imagine that your family is spending $18,881 over the course of the time that you are incarcerated just for the simple, basic need of being able to communicate.

And finally, imagine sitting in a cell for years on end without any programming or connection to the community to help you understand the impact of the decisions that you made, why you made them, and why you can make better ones. Culture shift, as Mr. Hartman stated and Ms. Oshiro talked about, is something we are not able to legislate easily. But the kinds of programs and policies we've discussed today can influence that culture.

Less than 1% of our budget has been dedicated to high-quality programs delivered by credible people. Our budget is an expression of our values. And by my counts, the State of California has a long way to go before we are actually representing the value of recognizing that people can be rehabilitated, that they deserve to be connected to their families, that they deserve the right and the ability to feel, as Mr. Hartman said, human.

So I want to thank you to the panelists for coming this long way and to our prior panelists, who just give us a good snapshot of both the work and opportunity that we have in our review of our budget this year. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Interesting stuff.

We will now be moving on to our next item, issue four, which is the Joint Commission Accreditation Proposal.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. My name is Duane Reeder. I'm the Deputy Director for California Correctional Healthcare Services Fiscal Office. Today we're here to talk about joint commission, which is a request for $6.1 million and 38 positions over five years to roll out joint accreditation into the institutions. We have been able to roll out joint accreditation at four institutions so far, and we'd like to continue with that effort and get some permanent authority to continue with joint accreditation.

Today with me is Kenneth Martin, associate Director of Licensing and Compliance, to provide some additional overview.

Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me be here to present. As Mr. Reeder stated, we currently have four institutions that have received joint Commission accreditation. Oh, I'm sorry. So, our successes, we have been able to accredit four institutions. Our goal is to move forward with all of our institutions to receive joint commission. Joint commission is a gold standard in the community. 80% of hospitals in the community have joint Commission accreditation. It sets a framework that is continuously changing regarding healthcare standards across the nation.

They're reviewed and reevaluated twice per year and updated based upon input from persons who receive care, healthcare professionals, government stakeholders such as the Center for Medicaid Services. They're nationally recognized with a framework that helps organizations to aim to improve healthcare and assisting the organizations provide safe and effective care. The standards assist in developing strategies to address complex issues and identify key vulnerabilities. The joint commission looks at process and focuses on systems. It's about a sustainability process, continuous risk assessments and process evaluation.

Accreditation is typically about three years and the institutions required to perform self evaluations on all the requirements every year in between their cycle and develop robust plans for correction. It includes both mental health, dental, medical, as well as working with our institutional custody partners in leadership. The joint commission also focuses is a holistic approach to healthcare delivery within our correctional settings.

They look at leadership and they look at culture and they assess those findings and develop immediate reports upon a survey with requirements for corrective actions within 60 days. I look forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. We recommend rejecting the governor's proposal to provide resources to obtain the joint commission accreditation at the state prisons. Three main reasons led to this recommendation. First is that we find that the courts have not ordered accreditation. Also, the courts have not selected a specific type of accreditation as the most appropriate. Our second finding is that accreditations could duplicate some of the oversight already provided by existing entities such as the courts and the Inspector General.

It is likely that accreditation would find the same deficiencies already captured by existing oversight entities, thereby not providing much additional value. Third, we find it more appropriate for the state to prioritize its resources and efforts to ending court oversight. This is because the state has not been able to fully demonstrate to the courts that adequate care is being provided at all state prisons.

We also note that this proposal could be considered in the future if accreditation is ordered by the courts or to maintain care after court oversight ends. Thank you, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Are we going to hear from Ms. Cervantes?

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Members. Alyssa Cervantes with the Department of Finance. So, although the office of the Inspector General does provide some oversight to the Department, their oversight is limited to how well the Department is meeting their own policies and procedures. The Joint Commission accreditation is rather based on a community standard of care and goes beyond the metrics outlined by the Office of the Inspector General.

This accreditation could help to show that the level of care CDCR provides to its patients is consistent with care that they might receive outside of incarceration. This accreditation will not only help the Department by ensuring proactive and preventative measures are taken, but it also has the potential to improve their overall delivery of the health care system.

Thank you. I have one question, and then I'll turn it over to see if my colleagues have any. So you talked about the reality that this would provide an opportunity to go above and beyond the policies and procedures that the Office of Inspector General already reviews. We had a meeting last week where we heard how egregious the current state of care is for certain sectors of the Department, and the Office of Inspector General had provided a report around that already.

So I'm really curious about why, in this point in time, given the state of our budget, why the Department is making this a priority right now.

Good afternoon. Again, the Department feels that this is going to sustain our health care moving forward, and this is going to be a footprint for the future of healthcare beyond the court cases. This looks at all three healthcare areas, medical, dental, mental health. It also involves our custody partners, which have limited review by OIG. So we feel that this is going to provide a sustainable footprint for our healthcare system that brings us up to that community standard, which is something we continue to strive to achieve.

Shouldn't the requirement be just meeting the requirements of the lawsuits that we are already under?

We're working towards that. I think that we have 20 institutions that are delegated back to CDCR that are based on OIG inspections. So I think we continue to make progress towards that goal and towards sustainability with OIG. But moving on from OIG, and after we've delegated, we're going to need a standard to meet in order to sustain health care and not fall back under lawsuits.

The one thing about joint commission, like Kenneth mentioned, 80% of hospitals in the community strive to achieve joint commission, and it's a revolving standard that isn't complacent. They update the standards twice annually, and you're up for accreditation every three years. They also do spot reviews in between those three year reviews. And so it's really a high standard to achieve joint accreditation, and it will maintain our healthcare to that community standard that evolves over time and isn't just set in time.

So I think it's important for the Department to and part of the State as a whole to try and continue this effort to get joint accreditation.

Right now, at this point in time, we are not meeting the basic standard of care under the lawsuits that we have is that,

Well, like I mentioned, we delegated 20 institutions by meeting the OIG standard. And so there are gaps in the system that we need to work on and we need to continue to look at. But we have the majority of institutions delegated and we continue with that. You know, the correctional environment is in a challenging environment. That's why we're very proud that we could get joint accreditation at a few institutions.

And we think that OIG, this will complement OIG in the efforts we've had there.

Mr. Lackey, do you have any questions at this time?

Again, once more? Just not really questions, more of just a comment. I think we have a diminished budget situation right now. And so I think our priority should be to reach these court required provisions. And the other stuff would be nice, but I think our focus should be on these minimal standards that we're having trouble reaching. And so it just makes good logical sense for me, especially when we have limited funds available, that we should focus those funds on court requirements.

And so that's where I'm focused on. Thank you.

Thank you. I think I'm focused on that as well, Mr. Lackey. So thank you for raising that. I don't have any additional questions at this time. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We'll be moving on now to issue five, which is comprehensive employee health program.

Good afternoon, Duane Reeder again, the request for employee health is 148 positions and 22.7 million to continue our employee health program. That was stood up during COVID .So, we've been able to use COVID funding to fund the program. And moving forward, we would like to have permanent resources for the employee health program, which has been lacking within this Department for many years. With me today is Debra Amos-Terrell, Director of Nursing, and she can provide some additional overview.

Thank you so much for having me here today. On behalf of Barbara BarneyKnox, who's our Statewide Chief Nurse Executive. My name is Debra Amos-Terrell, and I am the Assistant Statewide Chief Nurse Executive. So when COVID came, it just imploded. Right. And so it opened our eyes in terms of what gaps we currently have. Right. So we stood up the employee health program statewide, but yet we also understood that the gaps were just not for COVID. Right.

So currently we worked with our stakeholders with the CalOSHA ATD model plan that is required. And again, the gaps were highlighted where we were not meeting those CalOSHA standards. So the staff, residents and patients, our systems are an ecosystem and they're in close proximity. So that makes outbreaks easy to happen, especially with aerosol transmission. I am proud of the staff, the EHP staff, who every day mitigate those risks by surveilling and understanding where the epidemiological links are occurring.

And they're working with the institutional leaders to mitigate those outbreaks. In the future, EHP plans to address other communicable outbreaks or diseases that are challenging us today. Currently, we have TB in our institutions. We have legionella in our institutions. We have serratia, giardia, shingles, norovirus. And so we have an obligation to notify our staff and keep them safe that these things are happening. And again, it's not just COVID.

So EHP will also collect employee data and tracking of things such as vaccinations, as well as exposures, infections, et cetera, in the work environment. I also want to give a shout out to the employee health staff that have been dedicated over the years and have facilitated the programming. We talked about how important programming is, and so we instituted a test to stay strategy.

So individuals that were exposed to COVID prior before we implemented this test to stay, they would have to be off work for several days. But when we implemented the test to stay strategy, that allowed the asymptomatic staff that were exposed to come back to work. So I just really wanted to highlight some of the work that EHP has done and will continue to do. And the last thing I'd like to submit is that the EHP is in alignment with the governor's smarter plan. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go with the LAO.

Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Orlando Sanchez. We recommend the Legislature approve the 22.7 million for the employee health program on a one time basis. Given the ongoing presence of COVID-19 in the state's prisons, we find it reasonable to maintain the program in the budget year. We note that these resources should be enough for the Department to begin its efforts towards mitigating other diseases, as noted among CDCR employees as well.

But because data is not yet available on how effective this program is, and it is unclear whether these resources are needed in the future, we also recommend the Legislature direct the Department to provide a report by January 10 of 2024. This report should include three items, the first being the amount of workload associated with COVID-19. The second is the amount of workload associated with other diseases other than COVID-19.

And then the third item is any estimates of the benefits of the program that could include avoided infections or reduced overtime. This information would allow the Legislature to be better positioned to weigh the merits of the program in the future. Thank you. Happy to take questions.

Hi, good afternoon. Alyssa Cervantes again with the Department of Finance. So, first, even with the end of the COVID-19 emergency, the Department continues to take precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID and limit quarantine in order to protect the health of incarcerated individuals and staff and to maintain regular prison operations.

More importantly, we want to note that while the primary function has been COVID-19, the pandemic, as the Department mentioned, has highlighted a gap in the healthcare system, which is the role that staff's health and wellness plays into the broader prison infrastructure. So while EHP has been focused on COVID out of necessity for the last few years, there are many other staff health related issues that this program will be focused on, such as tuberculosis, legionella, shingles, monkeypox, and the flu, to name a few.

We also wanted to note that the Administration is proposing ongoing funding in alignment with the governor's smarter plan. And given the severe impacts that COVID has had on the state and also the state prison system, the goal is to have these ongoing resources in the event that if and when the next pandemic hits, they have resources available to maintain a level of readiness and enhance their capacity to respond to these health related issues.

These resources will help to support a more resilient prison system while also providing an opportunity to promote the health and well being of those that live and work in the prison environment.

Thank you. I just have one general question. The federal funding received allowed there to be an opportunity to respond to COVID-19 Pandemic. We know that's still very dynamic in terms of the movement from a pandemic to an endemic. It sounds like from the LAO that there's desire to really consider one time basis funding as opposed to ongoing funding, with the trade off being that we're actually getting information from you all about the impact of other diseases in order to be able to provide that report.

So question for you all is are you willing and will you consider actually producing a report that allows there to be some additional information shared about the other diseases and the mitigating or kind of the lowering impact of need to be able to address COVID-19 the Department.

The Department is willing to provide additional information and to work with the LAO and to work with the ledge committees. We feel this is a gap in the organization, and it's really important to try know codify this program, but we are willing to work with the Committee and the LAO moving forward to provide whatever information is needed.

So there would be an opportunity to do that within the context of one time basis funding and then to be able to revisit with a request for ongoing funding at a later date.

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Lackey, do you have any questions?

I'm good.

Okay. That's my only question. Thank you. We'll move on to issue six, which is the integrated substance use disorder treatment program.

Good afternoon again. This proposal is to develop, we developed a methodology to adjust ICDT resources for positions and funding in order to realign it with the populations in the program. And so we have introduced that methodology, and it's a new methodology, so there may be some refinements needed and we will continue to look at that moving forward. We have another opportunity here in the May revise to do some additional adjustments that we feel will help to respond to some of the concerns provided by LAO.

With me today is Lisa Heintz, who is our Director of Legislation and Special Projects to provide some additional overview of the program.

Thank you, Ms. Heintz.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Lisa Heintz, Director of Legislation and Special Projects and the Project Executive for the California Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment program. I want to thank this legislative body for its support of the department's ISDT program and our efforts to significantly change the way we treat those diagnosed with substance use disorders in our prisons. The opioid crisis facing this nation is unprecedented, resulting in addiction, loss of life, homelessness, and health disparities throughout our communities and disproportionately impacting incarcerated individuals.

The ISUDT program continues to make meaningful progress in treating and rehabilitating CDCR's most vulnerable populations, suffering from addiction. Currently, 99% of our population has been screened for SUD using the NIDA quick screen. Over 36,000 individuals have been assessed for SUD using the NIDA or an ASAM suite of tools. Nearly 16,000 individuals are receiving medicated assisted treatment for their addiction. Approximately 10,000 participants receive rehabilitative cognitive behavioral intervention programming on an ongoing basis.

Cognitive behavioral therapy program component began last month at CIW and will be phased in at all 33 institutions to serve over 2700 participants needing additional therapy to address trauma and stigma always attached to addiction. Over 2,300 beds are designated as supportive housing units, with over 10,000 active or former ISUDT participants occupying those beds. Over 15,000 participants are receiving enhanced prerelease services, with at least 87% of our patients connected to community providers by our transition services team upon release from prison.

Upon release, 80% of our general releasing populations have accepted naloxone, with 89% of those released on mat accepting naloxone. We continue to see a reduction in overdose deaths of at least 50% from our peak in 2019 in the first three years of this program. Not only is this program saving lives together, we are also offering the population we serve opportunities to change their lives forever.

The Department has expanded the OMCP program from three prisons to seven prisons, and we are currently working on incorporating the ISGDT peer mentor program to assist the population we serve in becoming certified peer mentors, obtaining pay while incarcerated, and eventually obtaining employment upon release. While California's ISGT program is extremely successful, we are aware of our challenges and work daily to overcome them to ensure we continue to save and change lives.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the program, and my Co-Chair, Dr. Renee Kanan, is also in the audience available for questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As mentioned, as part of last year's ISUDTP expansion, the integrated substance use disorder treatment program, the Department indicated that they would annually adjust the program's resources based on changes in the population. Last year, they projected that they would reach about 25,000 people on medication assisted treatment, also known as MAT. Current projections now put the population on MAT, about 15,000 in the current year and 16,000 for the budget year, roughly.

The proposal before the Legislature represents that the first time the Department is making these adjustments, and we recommend the Legislature withhold action given that the projections will be updated in May. We also recommend the Legislature direct the Department to revise various parts. We have concerns with some of the calculations that determine how much resources and staff positions the Department would receive, and I'll go through each of those at a high level.

But based on our assessment, we find that the Department is including nursing positions that have workload outside of the program and its calculations. This is problematic given that the other workload is already funded elsewhere in the budget. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature direct the Department to develop a new methodology specifically for these licensed vocational nurses that does not include other workload.

Second, the calculations used to determine the number of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians needed were not clear enough for us to determine whether these adjustments were appropriate. We recommend the Legislature direct the Department to provide clear justification on how it arrived at the request for these specific positions. Then, third, the Department is also requesting some resources for the program based on an assumption that there will be roughly 3000 admissions and releases from CDCR.

While that rate has historically been true, updated data show that admissions and releases are lower than assumed in the administration's proposal. Accordingly, we're recommending the Legislature direct the Department to update the request based on recent data. And lastly, as part of the program, toxicology testing is used to monitor adherence to people undergoing treatment through medication assisted.

We also want to highlight that the Administration is proposing to increase the number of tests budgeted from a rate of about 10 tests per person per year to increase it on an ongoing basis to 14 tests. We find that it makes sense to do so in the near term, but not so much in the long term, given that this rate could change.

Therefore, we recommend the Legislature direct the Department to better tie its resources with the actual testing rates in the future, instead of 14 per person on an ongoing basis. Thank you, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Thank you. Ms. Cervantes.

Hi, Good afternoon. So the ISUDT methodology is a brand new one this year, and the Department is continuing to refine some of these methodologies similar to our other population adjustments. We do plan to provide updates at May revision, and those updates may address some of the LAO's concerns.

Thank you. Just have a few questions. Last week we spoke to the issue of contraband interdiction in the prisons. Actually, my colleagues and I spoke about it, but we didn't actually get much of a response from the Department is the reality. Ms. Heintz, do you see drug interdiction as a component of making the ISUDT program more effective?

Yes, ma'am. I'm happy to acknowledge that we have been working on some of the diversion related items surrounding the ISUD program, and so we've also implemented a strategy.

So our strategy for the isud program is to ensure that our nursing team, who are just awesome, utilize the six rights of medication delivery. That's the right patient, the right medication, the right dose, the right time, the right route, and to make sure that we're recording all of that appropriately. Our pharmacy team ensures that the distribution of controlled substances, all federal regulatory requirements are followed, which is quite an extensive undertaking with the number of patients we are serving.

We've incorporated randomized toxicology screens for our map patients. We are testing a lean six model to help streamline the medication lines for better observation with our custody partners. We are working on our clinical custody partners to ensure that inappropriate conduct of any kind is reported and acted upon appropriately. That may not mean in a disparaging way towards the patient, but rather additional consultations with their addiction provider. And we are,

most importantly, from my point of view, we are educating our population on the inappropriate or damage that IV drug use will continue to cause them. And our most recent addition to the population of the ISUDT insider, which is a periodical specifically for reaching the inmate population on this program, focused on the deadly effects of fentanyl, the cover that's pretty dynamic and shows how little fentanyl can actually cause an overdose. So we're going to continue working with our custody partners.

We also have one action item on the OIG's report that we're happy to accommodate, which is assisting custody should there be an overdose death or overdose situation, in the event that it's legally appropriate to do so, is provide them with that information for an investigation.

Just seems to me that if we're in a world of needing to extend our capacity because we're actually not addressing the amount of drugs that are coming into our prisons, we're creating more work where we shouldn't have any.

So I really hope that we actually have a real conversation about the work that you all need to do to be able to prevent that from happening. It's also just a relief to see the numbers of deaths resulting from overdoses having gone down. Can you give us a total number of overdoses in 2019 and 2021 overall, including doses that did not result in deaths?

So with regard to increased overdoses overall, I think currently our reduction is about 10% lower than those numbers.

I'm happy to provide those specific numbers to you in written form, but we are reduced from our 2019. We have reduced from our 2019 numbers.

And the goal, obviously, is to reduce the overall number of overdoses.

Overdoses, correct? Yes.

Is that a metric that you're actually actively collecting?

It is.

Okay. And you'll just provide that to us in written form?

Yes.

At some point, do you collect any other data points that allow you to evaluate the efficacy of the program?

We do.

What are they?

With regard to the efficacy of the program?

Name a few.

So we are tracking utilization, if the patient is actually showing up to the medication line in appropriate times so that their substance use disorder is under control, we are tracking their cognitive behavioral interventions, how often they're receiving the CBI programming. We will also be tracking. We have an external dashboard that's available to the public to see.

Yes.

We will also be tracking the cognitive behavioral therapy components of the program for those that need additional support for trauma.

Okay, thank you. Do you track any data related to the progress that people make once they leave prison?

Thank you. We will be tracking that as well. We are working with our transition partners and community partners. There's really a release of information concern there, but yes, we will. So what we can do is public data.

Yes.

So working with the Department of Public Health to obtain death information and also during the transition phase, hoping under the CalAIM initiative and some other initiatives that we will be able to continue to work with the participants on their substance use and letting us know the data on whether or not they've been arrested or re-convicted or overdosed. So it's hospital data, it'll be DOJ data, and it'll be public health data

You said will be. So this is the data that you plan to start collecting?

The program recidivism data will not be available. The program started in 2020, so our three year recidivism will be available. We're just going to start tracking it for year one. But recidivism, those who have graduated from the program and are released, will be a lead time for up to the next three years.

Okay. Do my colleagues have any comments or questions?

Just a quick comment that I share the same perspective that was articulated by the LAO's office about getting more specific information before we give more funding, especially with considering our budget situation being very difficult.

Thank you. I don't have any additional comments on that, so we will move now to public comment, and I want to thank my colleagues and the panelists for the discussions today. Prior to doing that, we will start now with any public comment in the hearing room. Each person will have up to 1 minute for public comment. Next, we will turn to the phones. The phone number to connect is on the Committee website and should also be seen on the screen.

I understand, sir. Will do.

If you are streaming this hearing, the number is for the public toll free number 877-692-8957 the public access code is 131-5437 public comment to the room, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair, Madame and Committee Members. My name is Ivana Gonzalez with the Coalition for Family Unity by legal Services for prisoners with children. I am here in support of item number one, SB1008 and family connections. The Coalition for Family Unity has been working for over three years on removing the barriers created by CDCR to keep families connected. CFU believes that video calls are not video visits as through a screen, children cannot hug, touch or kiss their incarcerated parents.

We ask that CDCR works with the IFC Family Council and Inmate Advisory Council to allocate space in each prison to provide three days of in person visits without affecting video calls. There are currently two prisons providing in person visits on all three days without affecting video calls. They are the correctional training center at Soledad and Pelican Bay State prison.

Providing three days of in person visit without affecting video calls will alleviate a lot of the financial burden impacted families are facing to stay connected with their incarcerated loved ones. It cost a family Member $180 a month for $6 for 30 minutes.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the GRIP Training Institute providing comment on issue three, want to thank the Legislature for their commitment to supporting rehabilitative programs in the prisons and urge you to continue doing so. Just want to say the GRIP program has graduated 552 folks over the last 10 years of operating and has less than a 1% recidivism rate, providing programming at a cost about $3,500 per student versus the $8,500 for CDCR programs.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon to the Members of the Subcommitee. My name is Nick Galvin. I'm the public policy and advocacy manager at Ameelio, a nonprofit organization leveraging technology to connect incarcerated individuals with their families, friends and critical social services. We thank the Subcommitee staff for including us in today's background materials. Sustained communication with family and friends is crucial to reducing recidivism. However, communication costs are driving one in three families into debt.

This is why we developed our free to use technology to bring high quality communication and education services to the incarcerated. We applaud California for making phone calls free for the incarcerated with the passage of SB 1008, however, the cost for such calls will now be shifted to the state. At a time when California is looking to cut costs, services like Ameelio can offer significant savings. Under the state's current contract, they pay $1.50 for a 1 hour phone call. That same phone call would cost $0.06.

Using Emilio services, we hope to implement a pilot program to offer our services to 10% of California's incarcerated population to demonstrate our value and potential cost savings. Thank you.

Thank you to the chair and Committee Members. Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. I just really want to thank the Committee for the Third Panel and the work that TPW is doing. I was here back when we put the R back in rehabilitation.

Schwarzenegger was the Governor back then, ironically, and I'm so glad one of the panelists mentioned it. San Quentin was always on their shortlist of prisons that they wanted to close. And it was always our understanding that one in four community volunteers in the entire system goes to San Quentin. And I know there are real estate interests and so forth that we're pushing that, but it is very hard to legislate cultural change.

But we worked with the Alternatives to Violence program, which was started by prisoners in New York state. And one of the great things that Governor Schwarzenegger did do was to appoint Jean E. Woodford as secretary of the Department. And she really went to bat for that program. She went down to the quarterly wardens meeting and did demonstrations. So thank you.

Jean E. Got it.

Hello, my name is Geronimo Aguilar. I'm the policy analyst with legal services for prisoners with children. Also here representing All of Us or None, it's an honor to speak here and thank you, chair and community Members. Items sold at CDCR canteens must be made affordable to incarcerated people and their loved ones who are already burdened with poverty and saddled with various fines and fees associated with incarceration. Incarcerated people rely on items so that canteen to meet their basic needs for food and hygiene.

We just believe that the unbelievable markup that continues to happen needs to stop. We also support the three days of in person visitation, but not at the expense of video visits. We think that any ways that we can expand the access to connecting families, it's only going to help public safety. It's only going to help continue to rehabilitate incarcerated people. So we stand in firm support of the three days of in person visiting, not tampering with the video visits.

If anything, increasing access to video visits as well as putting an end to the markup in the canteen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Barbara Chavez. I am with All of Us or None, and I am legal services for prisoners with children. I am formerly incarcerated. I had a life without the possibility of the parole sentence. I was commuted by Governor Jerry Brown. I want to speak on the inmate welfare Fund. The canteen, it's impossible to afford canteen while you're incarcerated and you don't have support. I had life without the possibility of parole, so support ends up dying off as time goes by.

Having that much time, they don't allow you to receive to get into the PIA programs to the programs that are popular to other people. So we have to really stand out to get into these programs. So a lot of us have restitution, so we have to send money to our roommates that don't have restitution so we can be able to get food and afford it. So we're in support of that. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Alyssa Moore. I'm with legal services for prisoners with children, also a Member of All of Us or None. I'm going to talk to you today about the culture that everybody mentioned inside of CDCR surrounding rehabilitation. Their job literally depends on us being incarcerated, right? So how can we expect them to be partners in our rehabilitation? I was incarcerated for 23 years, and for the majority of that time, I had no access to programming.

When I first came to CDCR at 17 years old in 1997, there were three programs. Okay? So that's what the culture was. And the staff within CDCR, for the majority, have fought us tooth and nail to expand in the women's prisons to over 100, as I'm sure you guys know. But those programs are so crucial, and it's crucial that they be led by community based organizations. It's crucial that they're led by formerly incarcerated people, because I was somebody that was supposed to die in prison.

Barbara was somebody that was supposed to die in prison. But now we're out here and we're your neighbors. Wouldn't you guys prefer us to come home, whole? Wouldn't it be safer for everyone? I support the majority of the programs that were spoke on, but it's the culture that needs to change. And you guys asked us what we need. We need staff training on rehabilitation. The staff within CDCR needs training, and they need it from us. How profound is that? They need it from formerly incarcerated people.

Thank you. We'll move to the phone lines now.

If you would like to provide public comment today, you may do so by pressing one, then zero that command again. One, then zero. First, we'll go to line 16.

Hi, my name is Issa Borgeson, and I'm the campaign manager at the Ella Baker center, here to comment on issue number two regarding the inmate welfare Fund, I want to thank chair Bonta and Assembly Member Joan Sawyer for their inquiry about the prices of food and essential items in the canteen for incarcerated folks. My criminal justice team from the Solis Policy Institute have been analyzing some of this data as well and would be happy to share any of our findings.

I wanted to name a few highlights. Chair Bonta asked about the price of ramen inside, which from my findings is soup is $0.45 per soup and to the point of incarcerated people working at $0.08 an hour, this is equivalent to over 5 hours of work. One 4.6 ounce of Colgate toothpaste is $4.60. That same toothpaste can be bought at Target for $2.99, which is equivalent to 57 hours of work for an incarcerated person.

When comparing canteen prices to prices in the free world, for example, at 7-11, as the CDCR representative named today, it's important for us to remember a few things. One, of course, incarcerated folks are earning far less money compared to the average consumer. Two, prison canteens are not traditional for profit retailers. They don't have to pay for things like rent or advertising or need to compete for their customers.

And lastly, the average consumer pays less than a 15% markup at a grocery store as compared to the 65% markup that incarcerated people and their loved ones are paying inside. We know that incarcerated.

Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 21.

Good afternoon. My name is Sue Kim, and I'm a policy manager at uncommon law here to speak on issue number two. The primary source of revenue for the inmate welfare Fund is the profit margin from canteen sales. The canteen markup has averaged 65% for at least the last decade to ensure that the profit margin can support the inmate welfare Fund. This percentage is extremely high compared to markups in other state prison commissaries. Washington and Kentucky's correction departments, for example, charge 10% markup on their commissary sales.

A working group convened by the Virginia Department of Corrections recommended that their Legislature allocate money in the General Fund to replace the 9% Commission, recognizing the unfair financial burden even a 9% markup places on incarcerated people and their families. This biggest expense in the inmate welfare Fund is the cost of operating canteens. And second up is the Innovative Program grant, which supports vital rehabilitative programming across CDCR.

Much like the programs you've heard about today, it is unacceptable for incarcerated people and their loved ones to Fund critical CDCR services and programs by paying excessive markups on basic goods sold at canteen. CDCR must be responsible for these costs. I urge the Committee to consider funding the inmate Welfare Fund's cost through the General Fund and not through canteen sales. Thank you for your time.

Line 20.

Hello, my name is Aidam Coronado. I'm the program coordinator at Milpa Collective. I'm here to talk about issue number two. I come from Salinas, a community that's underfunded, underresourced, and is surrounded by two state prisons. The majority of this population work in agriculture, get paid minimum wage, which makes it difficult for anyone to support their loved ones that are incarcerated, especially with high canteen prices and inflation.

I am a former foster youth and keep in contact with some of my family Members that I was in foster care with who are not able to afford canteen islands because of lack of family support. This is the case for so many other people. In a report from 2020 from Impact justice, three fifths of the formerly incarcerated People's Service said they could not afford canteen purchases and 75% reported that the access to food was limited by their own and their family finances.

Many people report having to choose between buying food or going hungry to purchase necessities such as toothpaste and ibuprofen. These barriers have only gotten worse since 2020 due to the pandemic and rising of inflation rates. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 23. Line 23, please. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Philippe Kelly. Good afternoon. I am the outside fellow for the Ella Baker center based in Oakland. I am calling in today the issue number two to support eliminating the markups on items sold at the state prisons in Canteen. I'm a return citizen who spent the past 23 years in prison, the last 14 years without my parents who have passed on. I bring this up because it was hard to survive living day by day with my parents. But once they became.

Excuse me. But once they died, I had no real idea on how to manage or support myself regularly. This put a strain on other family Members, which eventually became broken relationships because I became another bill and a burden. So I got a job in the kitchen and that job was paying me $8 an hour, and I made 11 and I made $11 a month. So at the time, a body wash was costing $8 and it still is, and a toothpaste cost $3.

The thing is that that's my check. And so what about soap and deodorant and lotion and a toothbrush and hair care products? By making canteen prices more expensive than any incarcerated person can afford, CDCR has actually compromising public safety inside. This makes it increasingly dangerous to survive on the inside. Please consider this issue of canteen markups to save lives on a multitude of levels from an emotional, mental, spiritual and physical standpoint. Thank you for your consideration.

Line 26.

Thank you, Members and panelists for this hearing. My name is Patricia Moreno, policy Fellow with CBHA, which is the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, which represents mental health and substance use community based organizations across state serving over 1 million Californians, including justice involved populations. We appreciate the agenda of this hearing. Namely, the focus is on improving access to critical behavioral health services that have been shown to support wellbeing and prevent recidivism.

Mental health and substance use services help people heal and successfully reintegrate when they return to their families and communities. We and our members stand ready to support and partner with the Legislature in its work to help justice involved Californians recover and reintegrate to their communities. Thank you.

And now, line 27.

Hi, my name is Sandra Johnson. I'm a fair chance community organizer at Legal Aid at work. I'm here today to speak about issue number two, the increase of inmate welfare Fund. Being formally incarcerated myself, I'm here to support, and having also supported my brother after being released after 44 years of incarceration, I know firsthand how critical it is to be able to afford canteen items and to survive in prison.

For those who may not know, California State prison does not sufficiently supply incarcerated people food and personal hygiene like soap, toothpaste, or even deodorant. Because of this, incarcerated people need to buy these items at canteen but cannot do so with money, but cannot do so without money from family members because the prison wages are so low. Cantina is necessary so that incarcerated people does not go hungry from meal to meal because the portions that is served in prison does not sustain people in prison.

Thank you, Ms. Sandra.

In my own experience, I would have gone hungry many nights if my mother had not been able to squeeze money from her already low income. Markups on canteen items should be eliminated to help families like mine that are just barely working to make ends meet to care for themselves and their loved ones inside of California prisons. Thank you very much.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. With that, we will adjourn the Assembly budget Subcommitee number five on public safety.