Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

All right, we'd like to call the Assembly Budget Sub 6 Public Safety to order. We are going to make an announcement on taking issues out of order. Issue one will go after issue two and we will start the hearing with issue California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with issue two, COVID-19 mitigation proposal and those that will be giving testimony.

Duane Reeder, Deputy Director, California Correctional Healthcare Services Doctor Renee Kanan, Deputy Director, Medical Services CDCR Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance Orlando Sanchez Avila, Legislative Analysis Office and Drew Soderbergh, Legislative Analysis Office and we'll start with Deputy Director Reeder.

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Duane Reeder. I'm Deputy Director for California Correctional Healthcare Services. Before you, we have a proposal for 38.4 million of ongoing General Fund to support our response to COVID-19 prevention and mitigation activities. These resources will limit the future impacts of COVID-19 on our incarcerated individuals and CDCR staff as a whole. The funding includes money for employee testing, incarcerated individual testing, staffing and operational costs, as well as PPE and vaccines. So we don't have any ongoing funding for COVID-19 and that's what this request represents.

Thank you so much for that. And Doctor Renee Kanan.

Yes, hello. I don't have any statements per se. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. Legislative Analysis Office Lao Orlando Sanchez with.

The LAO we recommend the Legislature withhold action on this proposal and direct the Department to update its requests based on update more recent data. In doing so, the Department should use a standard snapshot of months when calculating its need for each of the activities it's requesting resources for and provide justification why those set of months is reflective of those costs. Additionally, the Department should adjust the proposal to reflect that the prison population is going down.

We also recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to explore options to leverage the state's employer sponsored health insurance to reduce the funding needed for employee vaccines. That this proposal includes funding for these adjustments would likely reduce the overall cost of the proposal, freeing up General Fund resources. Finally, we recommend that the Legislature reject the funding proposed in the future years and Fund the department's COVID-19 healthcare related workload on a one time basis. Thank you. Happy to take questions.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Good afternoon, Alyssa Cervantes with the Department of Finance so, ongoing COVID-19 funds will be used not only to adjust current COVID cases, but to also maintain a State of readiness and assist with ensuring one of California's most vulnerable populations are protected. The request is based on current year actuals for the most recent data available. At the time the proposal was put forth, the use of this data set was intentional in order to capture the most likely expenditure needs. Happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

Thank you so much. We do have question also and understanding why these vaccines and testing for prisoners, but employees that have state health insurance, shouldn't those costs be covered?

So there is some Department of Industrial Relations title VIII coding that has the Department make available vaccines to staff for atds. Aerosol transmissible diseases. Currently on that list is influenza, measles, mumps, rubella and tetanitis. We anticipate that COVID-19 as an ATD will most likely be added to that list in the near future. In addition, if we were to require staff to seek vaccines from their own healthcare provider, we may have to provide time off for that activity, which would possibly drive a cost as well.

The vaccines that we've seen, it's mostly for the patients themselves. So we haven't seen a big uptick of staff getting the vaccines. The majority of the vaccines we have utilized have been for the incarcerated population.

Thank you. And you believe that the General Fund should Fund that purpose?

It's, you know, it's possibly a future requirement, and it's in the best interest of our incarcerated population. Ideally, you know, if we could relieve General Fund, that would be, you know, ideal. But based on some of that DRI regulations and our population itself, we do want to offer it to staff to ensure that. That they're protected and they're protecting our patient population.

Chair, if I may. I just wanted to add quickly, understanding that there are kind of. This is now more of an option for employees to work through their employee or sponsored healthcare program. I just want to note that part of the reason, and totally reasonable that we want to account for that. But I think the thing is that we want to make sure that these services continue to be provided on site to some extent.

While COVID rates have generally fallen and we're at a state steady rate, that's not as bad. I just want to bring back to the point at the height of the pandemic where there was very much concern that CDCR wasn't doing enough. And so I think we want to be cautious about that and make sure that we continue to make sure that the population and staff and people coming into the prison are vaccinated and tested at rates that allow us to continue this.

Because I just want to point back that at the height of the pandemic, there was a call for more funding to be available. So I think we're trying, this is part of trying to have a steady state readiness is to make sure that we as a state are prepared to prevent. This is primarily focused on COVID, but just trying to make sure that that's operationally available for the Department. So just wanted to add that on to Mister Reeder's comments.

Thank you. And specifically this is for COVID-19 but what about other transmittable flu, different areas out? Do we also have adequate funding for that, or is that part of the thought process going into some.

No, we do have baseline funding for the other vaccinations we do provide that are directed to us by title eight.

And has that also increased or decreased?

I could look into that and provide some additional information, but I think it's been pretty steady over the last few years. I haven't seen or we haven't done any sort of budget adjustments to that funding.

Would just add to clarify a little bit on what we're suggesting is we're suggesting that, that the Department can just explore those options, whether those can be the employer sponsored health insurance can be leveraged, not that they shouldn't. There's also options that CDCR could work with to bring in some of those contractors and offset the cost from their employer sponsored we consulted with CalPERS, which provide the state, and they said every single health insurance plan offered by the state covers those costs.

So we're just simply saying to explore those options rather than covering them from the General Fund. And there could be other options that the Department could explore, such as having some contractors come on site as well.

Thank you. Thank you for that and thank you for your testimony. As now, we transition to issue three and we have the same except for Janice O, Mallory Malley Right. Dwayne Reader, issue three, Doctor Renee Kanan, Orlando Sanchez Zavala, Drew Soderbergh, Alyssa Cervantes, Alison Hewitt and Janice O'Malley, Director.

Good afternoon again. CDCR is requesting a 40,000,001 time General Fund augmentation in 24-25 to address a deficit in the medical program driven by increases in various personnel related and operational costs. This a one time funding will correct for the projected shortfall in the medical program while providing time to evaluate an ongoing solution to sustain increasing personal services program costs. The costs largely are being driven by workers comp lump sum overtime in registry, which is primarily used to cover vacancies within the Department. And so this funding is critical. We've ran deficiencies for the last few years, and this funding will help shore that gap.

Thank you so much for that. Any comments? No. Thank you for that.

Orlando Sanchez with the LAO we recommend the Legislature reject this proposal. We find that in recent budget years, the Department has been able to address its overspending without needing an additional augmentation by using savings elsewhere in its budget. However, the proposal also doesn't make it clear why the Department can't continue to do so. In addition, even if overspending cannot be addressed by redirecting funding as they've done so in the past, the Department can seek additional funding through item 9840 or a supplemental appropriation.

And finally, the Department did not provide adequate justification on how it projected the 40 million it's requesting resources for. Thank you, and happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Department of Finance so this proposal is requested to cover a projected shortfall within the medical program and provides the Administration with additional time to identify an ongoing solution needed to sustain the program long term. Relying on the utilization of savings from other programs is not a sustainable solution, nor is it fiscally responsible. It also does not solve the underlying issues that are contributing to this budgetary shortfall.

Additionally, item 9840, funding would typically not be available for these purposes as those funds are set aside for unanticipated costs. Considering the Administration is putting forth this proposal at the Governor's Budget and there have been funding shortfalls in the past, it would be challenging to identify these costs as unanticipated.

Thank you, Janice O'Malley Jessica Good Afternoon.

Chair Janice O'Malley, legislative advocate with the American Federation of State County Municipal employees here on behalf of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, UAPD and AFSCME local 2620 otherwise referred to as bargaining units 16 and 19. At CDCR, our Members are the physicians, the psychiatrists, psychologists and rehab specialists that provide medical and mental health care to some of the most vulnerable and challenging patients in the state and appreciate the opportunity to address these personnel issues and the issues of vacancies in the Department.

The shortage of healthcare and mental health professionals within the Department has been at crisis proportions for decades, with facilities statewide experiencing alarming vacancy rates across various positions, including physicians, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers. These vacancies not only strain the existing workforce, but also compromise the quality and timeliness of healthcare services provided to incarcerated individuals. The human toll of chronic understaffing is felt acutely daily by our Members.

Healthcare professionals at CDCR are forced to work long hours, forego breaks and vacations, and shoulder unsustainable workloads as they attempt to fill the gaps left by vacancies. The resulting stress, burnout and fatigue take a toll on the physical and mental well being of our Members, leading to decreased morale, increased absenteeism, and heightened turnover rates within CDCR workforce, making it difficult to retain experience.

Moreover, the shortage of mental health professionals exacerbates the challenges of addressing the mental health needs of incarcerated individuals, many of whom are at heightened risk of self harm, suicide, and psychiatric decompensation in the absence of timely and adequate care. Without sufficient staffing levels, our Members struggle to provide the therapeutic interventions, counseling, and crisis intervention services necessary to support the recovery and rehabilitation of individuals with mental health illnesses. Our Members are truly one of a kind.

They believe in the value of their work and are committed to the responsibility of helping those with complex Healthcare needs. These jobs already come with unique challenges and stressors. The added burden of understaffing only exacerbates these issues. Potential candidates are deterred by the prospect of working in environments where they may be overworked, unsupported, and underpaid compared to their privatized counterparts.

For long term solutions, Members of UAPD and Local 2620 have been more than willing to work with the Administration to find solutions to this crisis, and frankly, they need the agency to step up and do better by its employees. Again, we've seen a staffing crisis for decades, and despite the multiple court orders and ballooning inflated costs that continue to be requested by the agency, not enough has been done to make true, effective change within the governor's proposal.

There are no augmentations and a General lack thereof to increase civil service. When will the state truly prioritize and invest in its workforce? When CDCR continues to throw money at contractors to solve the staffing crisis, paying contractors two to three times that of their own employees, they are diminishing the work of its civil service staff.

Having said this, I do want to recognize that in last year's contract negotiations, we did see some headway with Cal HR to enhance compensation and benefits for some of our classifications, including salary adjustments, sign on and longevity bonuses and loan repayment programs to attract and retain qualified staff. Yet, many of our Members are still waiting to see full implementation of these salary special salary adjustments reflected in their paychecks.

And this is seven months after signing the contract, all while the state continues to pay these private contractors two to three times the amount of our civil servants. Addressing these challenges are essential to ensuring the delivery of quality health and mental health services to incarcerated individuals. Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Thank you so much for your testimony. CDCR, would you have any comments on that?

One moment with me today is Jasinda Muhammad, who's the Deputy Director of our human resources division, and so she can give an update on some of the hiring challenges the and what we're doing to circumvent those.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Jacinda Mohammed, Deputy Director of human resources for CCHCs. We, like our counterpouts in the community, are facing several challenges with having candidates come into our system. But what we've done to address that is increase our local, state and national level candidate engagement, expanded our recruitment platforms to be able to meet candidates where they are in their employment choices. We're doing a lot of outreach to educational partnerships. Those are your state and local colleges, universities, professional entities where we're engaging these candidates.

In 2022, we embarked on an effort to do end to end hiring events. And what that did was break down the silos of the state process from end to end so candidates could come in, we elbow elbow to support to get them into the exam, they could interview on the spot, be considered for a job offer, extended that job offer, and immediately move into our pre employment initiatives or pre employment process. And so we've hired over 1000 employees that way.

We continue to do those in 2023. We've got a number of those events in 2024, and that's in combination with our regular recruitment efforts. And then we've also done a modified event where we're doing the events central to the regional institutions.

So when we're talking about physicians, psychiatrists, clinical social workers, we're doing focused recruitment efforts and doing a cluster of institutions and making that easier for the candidates to come into our system, have an interview for multiple locations and reduce the amount of interviews that they are attending.

Thank you so much for that on this issue, and thank you for the information and the ongoing recruitment process up into 2024. We do hear the crisis that's going on and the ratios there for the different within CDCR. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the ratios and how that's being adjusted there?

I'd be happy to provide the Committee some additional information in writing. I know that as a Department in totality, we are currently filled at around 78% and of course that's going to fluctuate between, you know, as candidates move throughout the system or employees move within the system. So we are working diligently to get those vacancies cured. I think a combination of our outreach, our connection with our medical and mental health partners in recruitment.

We can speak HR about the benefits of state service and all that comes with compensation, health plans, retirement. But we also leverage our program partners to talk to them, clinician to clinician, about what it's like to work in the Department, what brought them to the Department and why they stay in the Department.

Thank you. And moving forward in your recruitment in 2024, are those now going to be contracted out also? Are we trying to bring those jobs within CDCR?

Those are regular civil service jobs. So I have a regional hiring unit that travels across the state and conducts those hiring events that I spoke of the one day end to end the modified events, and then we have HR folks across the state doing regular recruitment. So all of that is going on simultaneously.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. As now we move to issue four.

Good afternoon again, Director

. CDCR is requesting 36.5 million in ongoing General Fund and a reduction of 12.1 million in reimbursement authority to address a structural deficit in the budget for contract medical services, which supports the provision of specialty care services for patients in prisons and community settings. The 2023 Budget act included one time funding for this purpose, and the budget provides ongoing resources to, among other things, update the funding model based on acuity levels.

I would like to note as this funding is for specialty services and does not include any registry funding. So this is really to provide services to our patients. We had an archaic, an aged methodology that had a cost per inmate of 2763 for our incarcerated individuals to calculate or adjust contract medical. As we've seen large reductions in our populations, we've seen a disproportionate amount of our healthy patients leaving the system, which do not drive the medical costs equivalent to our higher risk population inmates.

So we've stratified our population to a high risk, one high risk, two medium risk and Low risk bifurcation so we can address their needs appropriately. So what we've done in this proposal is we've weighted the cost per inmate away from the 2763 to a cost for each of the risk levels, each of the four risk levels that I just mentioned. So this will be more reflective of our true costs and our true needs within the Department for Contract Medical.

It'll also be adjusted throughout the population processes in the fall pop and the may revise. So it'll provide fluctuation in that budget that is more reflective of our needs.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that. Any further comments?

Orlando Sanchez with the Lao the proposal we just heard has four components, two of those components do adjust for the population size and its composition or makeup, but two of those do not, and we recommend the Legislature withhold action on this proposal until it is adjusted based on updated population projections as part of the biannual adjustment process at the May revision.

In addition, as mentioned, two of those portions do not account for changes in the population, meaning funding for those would remain constant in future years, irrespective of how the population shifts either up or down. And under the proposal, funding for the methodology wouldn't take into account some of those risk factors we just heard about. So, as mentioned, we recommend the Legislature withhold action on this until those two other portions take on a similar methodology as the others. Thank you. Happy to take questions.

Thank you. Department of Finance .

Good afternoon, Josh Wittmershaus, Department of Finance we would note that the administration's proposal relies on the use of historical averages as the basis for the adjustments proposed for the two key components of this request, administrative claims and Medi Cal reimbursement levels. We would argue this is also a reasonable and logical approach.

For example, in the case of Medi Cal claims, CDCR is only eligible for Medi Cal reimbursement for a fairly narrow subset of claims involving hospitalizations and community facilities for over 24 hours, which may be more of a factor of patient acuity than overall population. That said, as noted by the LAO, CDCR population projections will be updated at the May revision, and this request would be updated to the extent there are substantive or material changes requiring that revision. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Janice O'Malley yes, thank you, chair and co chair. Just want to take a moment to discuss CDCR's over reliance on privatized medical contracts and highlight how this practice not only jeopardizes the quality of care provided to incarcerated individuals, but also burdens taxpayers with unnecessary financial costs. And let's talk about the bottom line. Outsourcing medical services to private vendors might seem seem like a quick fix, but it often ends up costing taxpayers more in the long run.

Privatized contracts come with inflated service fees, administrative overhead and a lack of transparency that can lead to waste, fraud and abuse. But the cost isn't just financial, it's also human. When healthcare services are outsourced, our Members face precarious employment conditions, lower wages, reduced benefits and limited job security. This not only undermines the morale and well being of our healthcare professionals, but also exacerbates turnover rates and staffing shortages, ultimately impacting the quality of care provided to incarcerated individuals.

Moreover, privatized contracts often prioritize profit over patient care, leading to substandard medical practices, treatment delays, and compromise outcomes for inmates. This not only violates ethical principles, but also undermines the CDCR's mission of rehabilitation and public safety. To address these issues, we would love to work with the Subcommitee and the Legislature to take the following actions. One is agreeing with the LAo in opposing the department's January proposal for contract medical services and prioritize real investments in the workforce. The state is essentially double dipping.

Not only does the Department have savings associated with not filling vacancy, but they are also asking for additional money to contract out the work of our Members. We also need to conduct a comprehensive review of existing contracts, excuse me, with private medical vendors to ensure cost effectiveness, quality of care, and compliance with contractual obligations. We also need to implement stricter oversight and accountability mechanisms in including regular audits and transparent reporting requirements.

And we need to explore opportunities to insource essential healthcare services, investing in recruitment, training, and retention of the workforce. In conclusion, the over reliance on privatized medical contracts within the CDCR is not only financially irresponsible, but also morally indefensible. There has not been sufficient effort to recruit and retain and insource the workforce. Our Members are being solicited daily from private contractors and are hard pressed to find any solicitations by the state to find civil service positions.

State service employees provide stability for patients in the system and I want to leave you with some reflection points in budgetland, we always hear the words that budgets are a statement of our values. But are we truly valuing our workforce if we are relying on temporary staffing to perform this work? Are we truly committed to rehabilitation and supporting integrated behavioral health services to prevent homelessness and recidivism if we fail at building a stable civil workforce?

And what is our holistic approach to attain our shared, unified goal in getting out of federal administratorship if we don't have this cadre of invested individuals willing to perform this work as civil servants? Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. As now, we transition to issue five.

Issue five Raquel Buckle, assistant Deputy Director, facility support CDCR Chelsea Davis, operations manager at California Medical Facility, Pride Industries Amar Chavez, Director, Pride Industries good afternoon.

I apologize Raquel was not able to to join us today. So with me today is Vinay Bell, Deputy Director over CDCR budgets.

Okay. Go ahead.

To give a brief history, CDCR entered into agreement with Pride Industries to clean its psychiatric inpatient facility at CMF California Medical facility in January of 2023. SEIU, the Service Employees International Union Local 1000, requested the State Personnel Board review and disapprove this Pride contract, arguing the contract was unauthorized under Government Code 19130, subdivision B three, which disallows state departments from having contracted staff perform work that can be done by a civil servant.

On May 3, 2023 SPB agreed with the SEIU and found the Pride contract unauthorized under Section 19130 B three. It ordered the contract terminated by November 3, 2023 which was extended to August 3, 2024 to allow CDCR time to hire civil service staff. Pride was notified on May 17 of this decision.

The decision CDCR made the further decision to have CalPIA, Prison Industry Authority perform the janitorial services at CMF, which is consistent with with other healthcare areas within CDCR, including cleaning the psychiatric inpatient program facilities at CIW, the California Institution for Women, as well as Salinas Valley State Prison. Funding for Calpia was included in the CMF budget and will not require additional funding.

There is a need to recruit 46 civil service staff as well as 62 incarcerated individuals to maintain the CalPIA presence in the PIP and provide that cleaning service. CalPIA recently held an in person hiring event that was attended by nearly 300 individuals. There was some concerns about filling the vacancies at the facility and with the amount of interest we've received, there is not a concern that we should be able to fill those positions.

Based on the success of the hiring events, CalPIA is anticipating to be able to fill the necessary positions by the August deadline. CalPIA would like to work with Pride Industries to schedule town hall meetings with current Pride staff to provide them with information about the new civil service positions, including salary and benefit information, application information, and other guidance.

While we cannot simply convert these individuals to civil service positions, as we must obey the civil services hiring rules and maintain a competitive process, we are committed to ensuring that they have every opportunity available to successfully pursue a civil service position. The Calpie program does benefit the incarcerated individuals. It certifies them in the program of providing healthcare, environmental standard cleaning, and it does give them milestone completion credits as well.

And there are many success stories of incarcerated individuals going into the community and receiving employment with healthcare providers, as well as one individual who started his own cleaning company in Los Angeles, a janitorial service. So that is kind of an overview of how we got here today. It was basically an SPB decision that we must adhere to.

Thank you so much. Any further testimony? Thank you. Thank you. Chelsea Davis.

Hi, my name is Chelsea, and I've worked for Pride for almost five years now. I'm a person with a disability, and if it wasn't for pride, I would still be struggling to find sustainable employment in 2019. I was hired for an entry level position as an EV's tech. I was living in a residential treatment program for drug addiction. I had seven months clean and was suffering from severe bipolar depression and anxiety.

For most of my life, I've battled addiction and mental illness, and I've never been able to hold down a job for more than a couple of months. When I started with pride, I had no work ethic, very little self respect, and no hope. I didn't think I'd make it. I was going to lose this job, too. I had gone through homelessness, domestic violence. I walked away from my entire family. How. How was I going to come back from that? You know, I was wrong.

Pride accommodated my schedule throughout my entire time in rehab and allowed me to take time off for doctors appointments and medication changes. But they didn't stop there. They trained me. They guided me. They gave me hope. Hope that someone like me would be a productive Member of society one day. I could finally experience the sense of belonging and feel like I had a purpose. Within three years, I was promoted twice.

And because of Pride's continuous support, I'm now in a position to give others the individual accommodations, guidance, and support that they need to become successful. Pride is not simply about employing people with disabilities. You guys, they're changing people's lives. They're changing people's lives, and I'm grateful to be a part of that. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Ameer Habeeb.

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Ameer Habeeb. I'm a veteran with a disability. I've been working with Pride Industries for about five and a half years. After my honorable discharge from the Air Force in 2000, I spent 18 years working jobs that did not pay me a living wage. After having worked on a multimillion dollar aircraft with my name on the side of it, I couldn't find an employer who trusted me with enough responsibility to move into a position that paid a living wage.

In 2018, I started working at Pride Industries, I was hired on as a frontline EV's technician. Pride gave me the accommodations and support that I needed, allowed me to work hard and benefit from my work and promote multiple times. I'm currently the Director of the CMF contract for Pride in Vacaville. I found myself in a rewarding position of being able to provide the same support and accommodations that I received to other employees with disabilities so they could provide for themselves, their families.

Looking past the external and seeing the potential in people without regard to the barriers that are placed in front of them, we do have a great team. We have a 98% completion rate. We've got a 98.3, a record 98.3% quality rating from the CCHCS auditors. Our success at the facility can be directly correlated to CMS leadership. CEO, warden and staff work with us constantly in collaboration. It's a great team.

So I've developed and supported my staff through over 25 internal promotions in the last two and a half years. It's possible due to their hard work and then Pride's ability to accommodate and support them, all of my staff make a living wage regardless of disability. The loss of this contract would be devastating for my staff with disabilities and barriers to employment. The support that we provide for our staff is ongoing and tailored specifically to each individual.

The types of support we provide on site HR personnel and visits from the HR Director, on site rehab counselors, job coaches and EV's lead coaches assistance with reading comprehension and completing required documentation directions and instructions in multiple formats verbal, visual, written, simple 1 and 2 step instructions repeated instructions reminders task checklists we break down tasks into smaller pieces to make them easier to complete for those who need a routine. In order to be successful, we limit changes to the jobs.

We give advance notice of required changes, for example, during COVID and we provide change management support. We have interpreters from multiple languages. We allow time off from medical appointments without impacting the requirements for attendance. Free counseling. We pay a prevailing wage based on geographical area of employment. We do have a robust management team for increased supervision. Onsite training manager that completes on the job training.

We have onsite in time real time retraining, monthly refreshers, work schedules, modified adapted work method and tools, reduced workdays and extra breaks as needed. This level of support removes barriers for our staff, our staff with disabilities, and affords them the same opportunities that we all seek to meet their goals and be successful. Without this level of support, these staff will struggle to maintain gainful employment as I did for many years before finding pride. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Any comments, questions from the Dais? Yes, Assemblymember Lackey,

I have a question for CDCR. If CDCR were to move these existing pride employees to civil service, how will CDC are hire, transition and support them?

We, of course, are bound by civil service rules, but if that means that there's things we can provide our civil servants as outlined in government code, so we must abide by government code. So. But in following in that, why would you say that?

What's the limitation there? Because that seems to be very key to me.

There are rules on what.

I get that, but what rules are you referring to specifically? That may be an reasonable accommodation, these pride employees.

So we would provide reasonable accommodation within the government code that's outlined.

Okay.

So we would work with them upon hiring and help them through the process. And we would work within government code, reasonable accommodation rules to help support them when they are hired.

Okay, let's just suppose that there's a determination made that these, some of these employees from pride, that there's an infeasibility. How are you going to fill those positions?

How are we going to fill the positions if not pulling over pride staff? Is that the question? We're doing hiring events and we've, as I mentioned earlier in my statement, we've received over 300 applications. And so we feel like there's a lot of interest in these positions that we feel we'll be able to fill them.

Okay, well, I just have a very, very strong visceral concern about this particular issue. It's very, very powerfully stated. Shame on any process that causes pride employees to lose their opportunity to be successful. It's a very unique part of our population, and pride employment is a proven pathway for successful symbiotic wins for both the employee and employer. And so when we create a barrier, shame on us. That's not an American value, it's not equal. Opportunity is an American value that's been hard fought for.

And shame on anybody and any institution that seeks to destroy that opportunity. And I will do everything I can to speak against it. If there's not an assurance that all these pride employees will continue to keep their job, I will fight for them because this is immoral. And that's all I got.

Yes.

Permission to speak.

Thank you, Mister Lackey. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mister chair, respected Members of the Assembly. We just, from the CDCR, I just want to present that, you know, we are doing everything possible to ensure that there are town halls organized so that we can support pride employees. We value the partnership, and we will do an outreach to ensure that the pride employees get all the information necessary for employment with CDCR.

Go ahead, Mister Lackey.

And I appreciate those comments, but what I'm telling you is that there's still an open spot there for some of these people to be not reengaged in employment. That is not acceptable. It's not acceptable because they are producing right now and they don't deserve to be lost because of some political energy. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. I, too, am troubled that the proposal like this is on the table that threatens the economic security of those that are out there that have affordability and jobs. We hear the testimony from first line employees that are there, but we also know that there's been some areas, like the prison in Stockton, that has been able to work some things out. So what happened there, and why are we at this junction right now in front of this Committee?

So this was a State Personnel Board decision. This wasn't a decision of the Department. So let me just make that clear that CDCR did not make this decision to move or adjust from pride. This is a State Personnel Board decision. Secondly, with CHCF, there was a unique legislative agreement in the 2018 Budget act that allowed for CDCR to keep a presence of pride at the facility.

So they were cleaning the whole facility, and there was an agreement that allowed them to take over half the facility, and then CDCR staff cleaned the other half of the facility. So. And then in 2019, we were given a budget augmentation. Pride does come at a increased costs to what CALPA would charge, so. But it was a legislative agreement that was above the Department level, so it wasn't something we were able to decide on our own. The Legislature allowed that, essentially.

So being able to have those options in Stockton didn't translate to the options that are now in front of us today.

It was no, there were no changes to the government code, and nothing was codified to allow us to continue or to follow, seek a similar path.

And reasonable accommodations was something that was achievable there, but not here.

Reasonable accommodations is what the state allows to help employees facilitate their job. So it's kind of a more General statement when I say reasonable accommodations. We were allowed to keep pride, and we did that, and we're not under that same opportunity at this juncture. We have to abide by the SPB ruling. We've been directed to do this, and so we're following the direction of SPB.

Thank you for that. What other barriers do you see that exist in trying to work to a solution.

That might be above my pay grade? I think that it's going to be up to the Legislator and probably SEIU and the State Personnel Board to reach some agreements that would allow us to continue current operations.

Thank you for that honesty. Above your pay grade. It is something that is troubling to me that we see, finally, a program that's drastically changing lives and affording employment to those with disabilities. Certainly we should be honoring these types of positions rather than trying to eliminate them. We should come together for solutions. We should come together around the table to find out how we could secure these jobs moving forward that are drastically changing people's lives. So thank you so much.

I would agree, and if you need additional information from us, please feel free, and we're happy to do anything we can to help.

Thank you. Any final comments on this issue?

No, just that I'm very concerned about the employment by many of these pride employees that now have gainful employment. They're producing and there's not a problem. And all of a sudden there's some political energy that shows up and jeopardizes their future. That's wrong, and I will do everything I can to bring remedy to that.

Thank you so much. Thank you. As we conclude, and now we move to issue one.

Thank you.

Issue one, overview of the Inspector General's office and special review.

Amarik.

Amarik Singh and Chris Chambers, Inspector General, office of the Inspector General. Miss Singh.

Good afternoon, Mister chair, Members of the Committee. I am Amarik Singh, the Inspector General. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to be heard. I'm here today to provide a brief General overview of the Office of the Inspector General, and then I'll provide a short summary of our findings from a report we published in January which reviewed CDCR's handling of a backlog of grievances incarcerated people filed that had contained allegations of misconduct. The OIG is an independent state agency that oversees the California prison system.

We provide transparency to the correctional system through monitoring various CDCR processes and publicly reporting our observations and findings. We monitor CDCRs use of force review process, internal affairs investigation and discipline process, and the incarcerated person grievance process. Additionally, we evaluate CDCRs provision of medical care by conducting medical inspections at each prison, and we review various prison practices, policies, and procedures by conducting performance audits and special reviews into issues or areas of concern.

We also maintain a statewide complaint intake process anyone can use to raise concerns of improper activity within the prison system. We review and respond to each complaint we receive. We also serve as the ombudsperson for complaints related to the Sexual Abuse and Detention and Elimination act, most commonly known as the Prison Rape Elimination act, or PrEA. We have a staff Member on call 24 hours per day to respond to critical incidents at the prisons or similar incidents in the community involving correctional or parole staff.

We chair the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board and we conduct background and qualification reviews of all wardens prior to their appointment by the Governor. With the exception of the warden background reviews we publicly report our findings of all of our work on our website. The OIG's monitoring responsibilities have fluctuated over the last several years, most recently in the 2019 to 2020 Budget act. The OIG received a substantial increase in its responsibilities, authority, and staffing.

The restoration of our authority to conduct audits and special reviews has resulted in our ability to bring to light process deficiencies at the prisons beyond what we see in our normal course of monitoring, and we are able to make recommendations for improvement. Over the last two fiscal years, we received additional positions to expand the breadth of our monitoring and other responsibilities.

With those resources, we have improved and expanded our intake complaint review process, our warden vetting team, our medical inspection unit, and our staffing misconduct monitoring unit. I'd like to point out some of our significant accomplishments over the past year. In 2023, we received 8227 complaints of improper activity within CDCR. That was a 157% increase from 2022, where we received about 3200 complaints in 2024. This high volume of incoming complaints has continued as we are seeing more than 500 complaints each month.

Our intake unit has established a new confidential speed dial number for the incarcerated population so that they can call our office directly. We distributed new posters that were placed throughout each prison last summer to educate the people on how to contact our office, to raise concerns and to raise the Prea Prison Rape Elimination act concerns and to report misconduct.

Staff in our intake unit has visited 18 institutions since October of 2023 to interact directly with the incarcerated population through their inmate advisory councils and to provide information about our office and to hear firsthand their main concerns.

Another improvement we made this past year was to increase staffing in our medical inspection unit so we can complete our medical inspections of all prisons within two years, as opposed to the three years it has taken in years past, our medical inspection unit was fully staffed, but just a month ago we lost an employee to a promotional opportunity. In 2023, we published 16 reports, including one special review. This year. To date, we have published four reports, including the special review, which I'll address more shortly.

Each month, we publish case blocks, which include summaries of the investigations and critical incidents we've monitored, selected intake complaints where we feel we've made a noteworthy impact and a significant use of force incidents we have reviewed although my staff has worked tirelessly to fill all of these new positions we've been allotted in the recent budget years, we still have 60 vacancies, a vacancy rate of about 25%.

We do have 15 conditional offers pending completion of the background investigation, which will bring our vacancy rate down to 18% soon, and we have a plan to fill all of our remaining vacancies by the end of June. Moving on to the second topic on today's agenda, in January, we published a report summarizing our review of a decision CDCR made to redirect a backlog of grievances alleging staff misconduct to be processed as routine grievances.

A routine grievance is a complaint that does not allege a staff Member violated law, regulation, policy or procedure. Routine grievances are handled by the prison staff instead of being examined by investigators from the Department. CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs CDCR's process for reviewing grievances alleging staff misconduct has been in flux for the past few years. In 2019, the OIG released a special review that examined the process for incarcerated people to file complaints of staff misconduct.

We found that because the process directed prison staff to review and investigate these complaints of allegations of misconduct. These incidents were not being investigated adequately. Shortly after our 2019 special review, CDCR began developing a process to address the concerns we raised in that report. In 2020, CDCR created a new unit within the Office of Internal Affairs, the allegation inquiry management section aims, which was dedicated to conducting investigations of allegations of staff misconduct.

However, under this process, complaints were still initially being reviewed by prison staff to determine if they contained an allegation of staff misconduct before the complaint was even sent to this newly created unit. Following implementation of that process, we reviewed the process and found that the new local screening of complaints was still too subjective. As a result, very few allegations of staff misconduct were actually being sent to this new unit for investigation.

In 2021, we issued a report about that process and concluded that it was overly complex and the complaint review process was still largely unchanged from our review. In 2019, local prison staff were still reviewing the vast majority of allegations of misconduct at that time. We recommended CDCR restructure its process and increase Independence and fairness and allow the incarcerated people to submit their complaints directly to the new unit. In January of 2022, CDCR adopted new regulations to restructure their process of reviewing and investigating staff misconduct allegations.

These new regulations established a centralized screening team at CDCR headquarters, which would receive and review all grievances incarcerated people filed and determine if the grievance contained an allegation of staff misconduct. The centralized screening team sends grievances to one of three areas. Grievances with serious staff misconduct involving complex issues go to another newly formed unit, the allegation investigation unit, for an investigation.

Grievances that contain less serious and complex allegations of staff misconduct are sent back to the prisons to be investigated by the locally designated investigators, and grievances that contain no allegations of staff misconduct are deemed routine grievances that are sent back to the prison to address the person's request, and these are things such as missing property or a request for some assistance. CDCR implemented its new process and phases beginning January of 2022, with full implementation of the process by June of 2023.

On July 28 of 2023, during the course of monitoring regular monitoring, we received a CDCR memorandum outlining a directive to convert backlog grievances containing allegations of staff misconduct to be redirected to routine grievances that would be addressed by local prison staff instead of being investigated by the Office of Internal Affairs. This directive appeared to us to violate CDCR's new regulations, so we immediately began looking into it.

We learned that beginning in February of 2022, CDCR began developing a backlog of over 900 grievances that the centralized screening team identified as containing allegations of staff misconduct. These grievances had been referred to the Office of Internal affairs for an allegation, inquiry, or investigation, but most had not even been processed. As a result of this directive, CDCR wound up closing 595 cases containing allegations of staff misconduct, reclassifying them as routine grievances, and redirecting them to the prison grievance offices to be opened as new routine grievances.

The cases started being redirected in August of 2023. I want to highlight some of the findings that we learned during the course of our special review. First, we determined that CDCR allowed the statute of limitations to take disciplinary action to expire in many of these grievances before they were redirected. State law generally requires that the Department initiates discipline against peace officers within one year of discovery of the alleged misconduct and within three years of the alleged misconduct for all other staff.

The statute of limitations had expired in 127 of the cases before CDCR began redirecting these cases back to the prisons for handling. As a result, CDCR would have been powerless to discipline staff if the allegations of staff misconduct were found to have occurred. CDCR also redirected 129 grievances of staff misconduct with statute of limitations that were set to expire within 60 days after they were redirected, and that is a very short amount of time to conduct a review, complete an investigation, and impose discipline if warranted.

Another finding was that CDCR did not adequately address or investigate allegations of staff misconduct that were redirected as routine grievances. We found that 71 of the 509 we reviewed, 71 of the 595 grievances that CDCR closed and reclassified. We found that each contained at least one allegation of staff misconduct that included complex issues requiring specialized investigative skills, such as allegations of retaliation, discrimination, and dishonesty. CDCR regulations required these allegations to be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs Allegation Investigation Unit.

16 of the 71 cases we reviewed were processed by staff who are not identified as locally designated investigators and likely did not receive the Office of Internal affairs training to conduct allegation inquiries or investigations of staff misconduct. We also found that CDCR did not timely investigate these redirected allegations of staff misconduct. Regulations generally require that staff complete their responses to grievances within 60 days.

Of the 71 cases we reviewed, we determined CDCR took an average of 346 days from the date it first received the claim to close the grievances. The department's total processing time in the 71 case files we reviewed ranged between 214 days to 548 days, and it took more than a year to close 21 of the 71 cases we reviewed.

Finally, one of the last findings I want to discuss is the redirection of these grievances to the prison staff, which caused several of the complaints to be mishandled. We saw some grievances where local prison staff did not address every allegation of misconduct contained in the complaint, as some grievances contain more than one allegation of misconduct.

We saw some of the redirected grievances get improperly rejected or closed, and we saw some grievances assigned to staff of a lower rank than the staff Member alleged to have engaged in misconduct, meaning staff were reviewing allegations made against higher ranking staff. It is our opinion that CDCR's redirection of the backlog grievances violated its regulations and was a wasteful duplication of efforts and a misallocation of resources.

The independent screening team had already determined that the grievances contained allegations of staff misconduct and had referred the grievances for allegation, inquiries or investigations by the Office of Internal Affairs. By redirecting the backlog, CDCR circumvented the control measures that were put into place to prevent prison authorities from making potentially biased decisions when responding to allegations of staff misconduct. It is important to note that our special review was not a review of CDCR's entire state right process for reviewing incarcerated people's grievances.

We provide monitoring of that statewide process and summarize our monitoring of the overall process in an annual staff misconduct monitoring report, which is scheduled to be released within the next few weeks. We issued this special review to shed light on a decision that CDCR made when determining how to address a backlog of complaints it amassed under its prior process for handling incarcerated persons allegations of staff misconduct. Once again, thank you for this opportunity, and I'll be happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Chris Chambers thank you. Good afternoon, chair Ramos and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Chambers and I'm the Director of CDCR's Division of Correctional Policy Research and internal oversight. My division is primarily responsible for internal oversight within the Department, including investigations of staff misconduct. As noted in the agenda, CDCR has received significant investments from recent budget acts to address allegations of staff misconduct.

We want to thank this Subcommitee and the Legislature for recognizing the graveness of the issue and working with both CDCR and the Office of Inspector General on establishing and improving processes, and we look forward to continuing these efforts. Although CDCR has some differences in opinion concerning the July 26 memorandum and the subsequent conversion of the remaining 595 AIMS inquiries, CDCR did make the difficult decision to redirect some inquiries that alleged staff misconduct submitted under CDCR's old process back to the office of grievances.

To better understand the circumstances that led to this decision, I'd like to provide some context when the allegation inquiry management section, or AIMS, was initiated in March 2020 and conducted inquiries sufficient to either definitively refute the allegation, at which point the case was submitted to the institution's office of grievances for a response or, if determined, if there was a reasonable belief, if staff misconduct occurred.

If reasonable belief was found, the inquiry stopped and the matter was returned to the hiring authority, generally the institution's warden, a parole administrator, or healthcare CEO, who then determined whether to submit the matter to the Office of Internal affairs for formal review and, if appropriate, investigation. In early 2022, CDCR implemented an improved staff misconduct process to ensure proper identification and handling of staff misconduct allegations. Much of this was to the points that Inspector General Singh had mentioned earlier in her testimony.

CDCR had a phased implementation of the new process, and in January of 2022, the centralized screening team was first to activate and began reviewing centrally reviewing and routing allegations of staff misconduct. Because the allegation investigation unit was yet to be stood up, the centralized screening team continued to route matters of begin continued to route matters to the allegation inquiry management section or AIMS, on top of the already existing workload which overwhelmed the system.

Starting on May 31 of 2022, cases identified by the centralized screening team as containing certain specified allegations of staff misconduct at six prisons covered by court orders in the Armstrong class action were referred to the allegation investigation unit for a thorough investigation. The result of these investigations are provided to hiring authority who determines whether, based on the on investigation, there is staff misconduct and if so, at what level of discipline to impose.

Allegations screened by the centralized screening team and for which staff misconduct was identified for all other institutions and parole regions continued to route to the allegation inquiry management section or aims for inquiry. What all this means is CDCR was run in a bifurcated system while incrementally standing up the allegation investigation unit and simultaneously winding down our AIMS inquiry process. On March 1 of 2023, all prisons in parole regions statewide were under the new process.

Leading up to the full activation of the allegation investigation unit, CDCR used a strike team comprised of approximately 80 staff, in addition to those AIMS staff, to complete all remaining AIMS inquiries. The work to complete the inquiries by the start of the allegation investigation unit, however, was not completed, and in July of 2023, the allegation inquiry management section still had approximately 1800 inquiries open, and we're already seeing a number of cases exceeding statute of limitations.

This is the one year statute of limitations that Inspector General Singh had mentioned. CDCR was also experiencing rapidly growing backlog of the new allegation investigation unit due to higher volume of allegations than anticipated in inadequate staffing resources to meet the demand. The allegation investigation Unit had over 3500 open investigations, and our projection showed that without action, the Department would have a backlog of over 7000 cases prior to June 2024, on top of any remaining inquiries from the old system.

Additionally, we projected the Department would begin exceeding statute of limitations on allegation investigation unit investigations by early fall of 2023, meaning that if staff misconduct occurred, the Department would be precluded from imposing discipline or holding staff accountable. With the growing backlog in the new process in insufficient staffing based upon projections below actual workload, the Department made a difficult decision to prioritize resources to investigate allegation and investigation unit cases.

To do this, the Department needed to convert many, but not all, of the remaining AIMS inquiries to institutions grievance offices, thereby freeing internal affairs staff to work on investigation cases. The thought being, it's better to have someone look at each matter than to have matters that would be lost to the statute of limitations without ever having been reviewed.

Despite regulatory changes in numerous business process adjustments, this process still results in volumes of complaints being investigated that do not warrant investigation and more properly handled as supervisorial matters. The intended goal of this process is to ensure fair, impartial, timely, and thorough investigations of staff misconduct, which is impeded by the volume of complaints being referred for inquiry and investigation. The system is breaking under its own weight and requires modification.

Other correctional systems throughout the country have experienced very similar issues, and their lessons learned have benefited CDCR as we develop potential solutions. As a result, CDCR has started conversations with stakeholders, namely court expert and Armstrong plaintiffs, to identify potential changes within the staff misconduct process that will appropriately address volume and properly allocate and align budgeted staffing resources.

In addition, CDCR and OIG are engaging with more frequent meetings and dialogue to identify potential issues and concerns with the staff misconduct system in order to make improvements for the process. We look forward to these discussions briefly, bringing on meaningful change, and as part of these ongoing conversations, we note that CDCR continues to regularly assess our needs to ensure that we have sufficient and efficiently allocated resources so that all complaints are handled appropriately. Thank you. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Comments from the dias? Mister Lackey?

How can you not make a comment? This is clearly a disappointment. And I don't know where to point the fingers, and I don't think it does any good to point any fingers, but wow. That's all I can say is, wow, this is really hurtful. The system is clearly overwhelmed and we've got to work together to figure this out because it is very, very ugly. When there's no sense of trust, it's kind of been lost that an allegation will be addressed appropriately.

And when that happens, very serious outcomes result. So we've really got to fix this. And I. My goodness. In response to the OIG investigation, they indicated that 595 grievances were misclassified and were, in fact, routine. However, the OIG stated that they confirmed the serious allegation of staff misconduct and all 71 grievances they reviewed. So how would CDCR's definition of staff misconduct be different? Or are they different?

They are not, sir. So I think that it's important to point out with our review, we did conduct a secondary review before rerouting these allegations. And what we looked for, based upon the old system, the aim system, was any indications of prea use of force, any allegations that would rise, potentially rise to the level of adverse action or that posed imminent risk. Office of Internal affairs kept all of those cases and converted the remaining 595. And I think that is important to mention.

This was mentioned in OIG's testimony that 127 of those cases had already passed statute. That was because of the backlog. Many were. I'd have to check the 129 number, but many were near that completion where there's nothing that we could do. We wanted to make sure that these got into someone's hands so that we could at least review them.

Okay, let me ask you this. I mean, you mentioned the current backlog, if I understood you correctly, is roughly 7000.

No, sir. Actually, that was what was projected. I'm happy to say that our office has been able to reduce that backlog by being able to concentrate on AIU or allegation investigation unit cases. We're sitting at approximately 2400 open cases today. And further, sir, we have not lost a single AIU case to statute of limitations. To this point, only the AIMS cases.

Okay. Having been a person that's very familiar with the complaint process. As a Member of the California Highway Patrol, as the supervisor conducted many, many of these investigations, I know that some of them take a considerable amount of time, but my goodness, I heard 200 to 500 days. Was that accurate to address a complaint?

That was accurate. With our older cases, we have substantially increased the time to completion. We are seeing, on average, about 32 to 35 hours per investigation. That's not total time to complete the case, of course, but we are seeing, through training, standardization of process, we are seeing that number come down. We agree that there is still a lot of gap to close. We intake 183,000 approximately allegations a year, and that number is growing.

This equates to approximately about 24,000 identified staff allegations of staff misconduct a year, many of which, again, we find would ultimately be better as a supervisorial issue. I'll give you an example. If a kitchen worker is. Is not wearing gloves, and that is reported right now under our current definition of staff misconduct policy violation, that would route to our investigators for an investigation and not back as a supervisor or issue. This is why it's important for us to work with stakeholders, and we've got to fix that.

That is not. I mean, that's definitely feeding part of the problem. But the confidence and these numbers make you feel like the CDCR does not take these complaints very serious at all. And then if you put them off long enough, the statute of limitation is met, and so adios.

I mean, that's the perception, and that's a very unacceptable path, because somewhere in there, I mean, I could tell you that, as I had done my share of citizen complaints, which are similar to inmate complaints, because it's the outside addressing the fact that there's misconduct by your Members. We took those very seriously. And sometimes you're surprised at the outcome. Outcome that there's actual confirmation, and there's also a significant amount of them that are based on anger, frustration, with the circumstance of the encounter.

And what I'm saying is, you just don't know when there's that many. There's some serious allegations that are being overlooked in there. I don't know how many, but if there's a half, one is too many. Right? I mean, so what is your suggestion for the people who are sitting in my position? Do you have suggestions on how to fix this? Because this is completely unacceptable.

We have a number of potential solutions that we are working with, court expertise.

If I could direct my questions to, to the woman from the Inspector General. Do you guys have any recommendations? From your observations, obviously, you've pointed out some very serious problems with this system. Do you have suggestions that would help us?

We have just started those discussions with CDCR. We do monitoring outside of just this special review. We do. We monitor all of, not all. We monitor a number, a percentage of cases. We monitor their centralized screening team, their local investigations, the ones that happen at the prison, and the ones that are done by their office of internal affairs.

So what we do is we take all of our information and we make reasonable recommendations to them, which will be, it's confidential at this point because it goes to the department first for review. But no, we've also talked to their executive team and we've have agreed to, like, talk to them and brainstorm other possibilities of ways of improvement. The system is, it's being pressed down by its own weight based on the number of complaints.

And so we want to just brainstorm and provide some of the ideas that we've come up with that might help ease the solution. But it would be an ongoing dialogue with CDCR and the stakeholders, as a lot of these come from regulations that came from the court and from various court orders.

Thank you. Because any reasonable person would admit that this is very, very problematic at the very least. And what's happening is every day that we put this off, confidence in the system is being eroded. If it's, I don't even know if it's salvageable at this stage. This has been so egregious. And again, finger pointing really doesn't fix it. What fixes it is a collaborative effort in, first, admitting that this is really bad, and secondly, having reasonable approaches to these very voluminous circumstances. And it's very, very critical that we fix this is my point, and I'm hoping that CDCR will be a cooperative partner in addressing this because I think that they also would like to be perceived as responsible.

Thank you so much for those questions and comments. Inspector General, you mentioned that there was 3200 complaints at one point and then went to over 8000 complaints. Can you elaborate a little bit more of reasoning why potentially they went that high?

Yes, there was a number of reasons. We became very proactive. We went to. We worked with CDCR to get the confidential speed dial number, which is *7732#, which the incarcerated population can do from their tablets, and they can directly contact us from the tablets that they have.

We also went to each of the institutions to ensure that all of the posters that we put up posters in common areas for the incarcerated population close to telephones, if they are unable to use a tablet, where they can see the number that they can use the 800 number to call us. We have a online presence where the incarcerated person or their family member or stakeholder can reach out to us via the web, and then they can also mail us confidential complaints.

And we were proactive in ensuring that the posters were updated. The speed dial number was updated. The posters are both in English and in Spanish. And we've had my staff going out to the prisons to meet with the population to explain what we do, how to reach us, and to hear their concerns and let them know that we are an avenue that they can reach out to us for any concerns that they have.

And currently, in the year 2024, you made the statement that there's over 500 complaints each month that are coming forward into your office.

That is correct. I checked the numbers last week, and we're averaging about 400 complaints a month so far. In order to address the complaints, because we do respond to every single one and we try not to have a backlog of complaints, we have added two additional staff members earlier last year. We added an analyst who is also bilingual, and we have just recently added two additional full-time positions to that unit. And hopefully, that will help us answer those complaints timely. We'll assess that as we go along and look for other resources if necessary if we feel that the resources where we shifted that way are not enough.

Thank you for that. The CDCR, from 3200 complaints to over 8000 complaints, and then ultimately to where we're at 2024 or 500 a month, and we're currently in April. Has there been any policy changes or anything that would start to look at some of the reasoning why these complaints continue to move forward?

I'm just learning of the number, Chair Ramos. So I'd like to have the opportunity to talk with Inspector General about the complaints that they're receiving directly and then come back with more information, sir.

So has policy adaptions taken place up until this point, or you want to get that information? Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. And also on those that referred back and talking again about the number 71, if I got that correct, that you looked into those investigations that went back to CDCR to conduct, and you basically came back and did a random sampling of those that came back and identified 71 cases that had merit moving forward. And you also talked about an average that the Inspector General uses for these cases. What was that average for a case that's open that you use?

I'm sorry. For the cases that we review? I'm sorry. I don't have that number of our average timeframe to close a complaint once we've received it. The 71 cases that we reviewed as part of the special review, it took an average of 346 days from the time the complaint was received to close the complaint.

346 days from the Office of Internal Inspector, or CDCR?

CDCR.

And then the average that a case would be open and close, do we know that number?

Regulations say that CDCR regulations say a grievance should be closed within 60 days.

And that's been the ongoing grievance. 60 days?

Yes.

Okay. And that's when there was 3200 grievances, and it skyrocketed to 8000. And now we're on 500 a month, and that's still there, the 60 days.

So I just want to clarify that the 3200 from 2022 and the 8000 plus from 2023, those are complaints that come directly to the OIG. They do not go to the Department of Corrections. And so that's an entirely separate process than the process we reviewed in our special review. The special review focused solely on the incarcerated person grievance, and it's their form 602 or other means that goes directly to the Department of Corrections. So they're two separate, entire separate processes.

So Assemblymember Lackey, on some of the questioning on some of these grievances and complaints is to the Inspector General. And we're going to ask CDCR right now if that number is larger with other complaints that we're not identifying here within this.

So CDCR intakes approximately 650 allegations of staff misconduct that are routed to OIA for investigation monthly. We're closing approximately that same number right now. So we are able to maintain, finally, a balance. We are working diligently to bring our average for case closures down to 100 below 120 days and continue to improve upon that because after we conduct investigation, it still must go back to the hiring authority for additional action and review.

And are those review cases open and close have regulation timeframes of 60 days also, or no?

I do not believe that it's spelled out within regulations, but I'd like to go back and just validate that answer for you, sir.

Thank you. And really, the question is we have a policy, and are those policies working, or do we need to augment those to ensure that we're complying with some of the testimony and what it is that this committee is hearing?

We certainly think that there needs to be some changes. As I addressed earlier, the system is breaking under its own weight. There are multiple ways to go about that. Current conversation with court expert and Armstrong related to that, but we'd like to be able to come back and share more as we have some agreements or items that are actionable.

Sir, can I ask one more question?

Go ahead, Assemblymember Lackey.

You used the example of the kitchen worker with the gloves. And the way you define that misconduct is within your own policy, is it not?

Yes.

Do you think that considers, seems like that would deserve some reconsideration?

Absolutely, sir.

So you guys could be part of the solution here. And I feel like some of this is, seems to be common sense. I mean, I don't mean to be insulting. I'm just telling you, sometimes we get in our own way.

Sir, you're not insulting. I think it's important for me to point out the fact that the definition of staff misconduct, which was changed in 2022, was done as part of an agreement with the court. So before we can address that particular piece, we must take that back to the plaintiffs in and the folks involved in that to potentially get change.

I think I heard what you said, but I'm hoping that we can mitigate some of these problems by a little more reasonable approach to some of these allegations because that's part of the problem.

We would certainly agree with that, sir.

Well, thank you so much for this testimony. And I know that LAO is out there hearing the different dialogue going back and forth. I'm not sure if you would like to make any comments on this or.

Drew Soderborg Legislative Analyst Office we don't have any comments at this time, but if you have specific questions you'd like us to look into, we're more than happy to work with your staff to do so.

Definitely, they'll be forthcoming some questions. We definitely need help. Well, thank you so much for your testimony. Any further questions? No. Thank you so much, sir.

Thank you.

Now we're going to transition to public comment. Subcommittee is looking at a number of proposals to address the state deficit, and we're making difficult decisions. You heard the different panels' public comment on the issues that were heard by this committee. Go ahead and state your name.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We would like to echo the comments made by our colleague Miss O'Malley from AFSCME. Our vacancy rate at some of our prisons is as high as 45%. It's absolutely outrageous. Part of the problem though is registry pts outsourcing. Private-sector psych techs are being paid as high as $59 an hour plus $900 a week travel per diem, while a state-employed psych tech is paid $38 an hour at top step. This has led to greater vacancies where the state staff have actually left state employment to work for a staffing agency at the very same prison they left. CDCR has done little to improve their ability to hire state staff. We have tried to resolve some of our issues at the bargaining table with no resolution.

CDCR's efforts are too little when they're providing a lucrative contract to private sector staffing agencies, encouraging state staff to leave or new graduating licensed staff not considering state employment at all due to the pay disparity. And as for the kind of oversight of the outsourced staff, here's just a little anecdotal issue from one of our members who was terminated at the Department of State Hospitals.

Two weeks later, that person was hired by CDCR or not CDCR, but an outsourced staffing agency that was within relatively close proximity to the Department of State Hospital facility she was fired from. What's interesting about this, this individual would never be allowed to work for the state again. So I just hope we have the opportunity to think about this.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair Ramos and Assemblymember Lackey, Marvin Pineda on behalf of Pride Industries. I want to make a quick a few comments related to what was said by CDCR. One is the decision on the contract by the personnel board was made by the executive director, not the entire board. The executive director has the authority to do an extension on the contract and also to be flexible and find other solutions for the contract which exist.

Another point being the job fairs that 300 applicants have applied for the Cal PA jobs. There have been job fairs for over a year to fill these positions and to our understanding, only a few positions have been filled. Most of the civil service positions are unfilled, so that's a problem. And then my other comment is pride is not more expensive than Cal PA. Cal PA will require bringing other inmates in, spending resources on these inmates to do the cleaning.

And another comment I have is Pride Industries is a nonprofit, so it's serving people with disabilities, and they have relationships with labor unions. A lot of the workers are members of labor unions. So we ask for your support, and we thank you for taking this as notice has to go to employees 60 days before August 3. So we want to find a solution. And I think what's sensible here is an extension, at least by the personal board. It's very reasonable. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for having us here. I really appreciate this opportunity. I was diagnosed with a very significant and debilitating disability in my early twenties, and I've had a hard time holding jobs. Pride Industries has given me a great opportunity, and I've also been able to work with people that have significant disabilities, and they would have a really hard time if they just were suddenly put out without any promise of where they're going to find employment from. And so I just hope that you'll be able to take that into consideration and do the right thing. Again, I really appreciate this opportunity to be here. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, my name is Tito Rosales. I've been working for Pride for about almost 12 years now. That's the longest I've been in a company. For over 30 years, I've been working in the janitorial industry. That's all I know. It's just janitorial. I could never understand why I couldn't be successful. I didn't know I had a disability till I started working with probably four years ago when I moved to CMF facility.

The fact that the trainings, the support is really, really what has got me going, and it's giving me hope. It would be very, very difficult to lose this job just at 57, knowing that I would have to work 10 to 12 hours. I've been doing that all my life. That would be very difficult to say at 57. So that's one of my concerns.

My other concern is I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get the support, I'm not going to get the training the pride is giving me because I didn't get it for 30 years. So that's. I'm very concerned about that. We need this job because it helps me pay my bills, it helps me pay my mortgage, which my son and I, we finally were able to get a house two years ago. A lot of my coworkers will finally be able to move into a new apartment, get a better car, and so we need this job. So therefore, thank you for this opportunity talking to you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, I am Willow Harbour Davidson. I am the quality control inspector at CMF. I am also autistic. I started with pride back in 2016 as an EV's tech in Stockton with accommodations for anxiety, social difficulties, and whatnot. I've been able to get to the position that I am now.

And if I had to find a new job at this point, I think I would have a very difficult time not just finding a job that provided those same accommodations within the workplace itself, but also within their hiring practices. The job market navigating that directly goes against all of my greatest weaknesses and I think that in the time it took me to navigate that, as I say, I would have a very difficult time keeping up with rent, student loans, car payments, and other financial necessities. Thank you

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Maria Laplana and I've been working for Pride for five years. Pride actually accommodates me to work on my schedule, to be on my doctor's appointment because of my health issue. They actually work for my schedule as well, to be with my kids to able to drop them off and pick up from the school. I need this job. This job is really important to me because it gives food, shelter, and other necessary that my family needs. I can't afford to lose this job. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Crystal. I have worked for Pride Industries for eight years now. Currently, I'm an assistant operations manager at CMF. I have a daughter with autism. Working for this company has given resources and allowed me availability to care for her. So losing this other opportunities, other jobs, it's not available. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Pacita Velasco. I've worked for Pride for almost four years now. I need this job because of my health situation. I am a cancer survivor and enjoying my battle. Pride was with me and they know my situation, my accommodation, and especially I'm a widow. So I really need this job. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Vasquez and I'm a new employee to Pride Industries. I was so grateful to find a company that would hire me at my age and with my disability. This job is so important to me because I no longer have to work three jobs to make ends meet and I now have time to spend with my grandson and he is 13 years old and he also has disabilities and I've been raising him for the last eight years.

My position is an EVS lead coach. It's not only important to me and my family, but also to the person that I work hand in hand with. In the past, she has not been very unsuccessful in the workforce due to her disabilities. But Pride Industries makes it possible for her to succeed with confidence and the support that she needs. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, and thank you for having me here today. My name is Amanda, and I've been working for Pride for two years. Working for Pride and at the Vacaville CMF contract has given me the opportunity to work one position and financially compensate for my family. As a mother, this job allows me to work the work-life balance and better support my children. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Go ahead, state your name.

Okay. Hi, my name is Zakia, and I work for. And then I work for Pride Industry. It's my first three weeks of working so far, and I really like it. And I have a disability with the syndrome, and it helps me get up early morning. It helps me achieve my goals, and I'm sorry, I'm nervous. And then it really helps me get more support with a job coach. And the reason why I can't lose this job is because I don't want to lose it. And it helps me to support for me and my family, and I want to be able to be that person to support and be a bigger person and just to keep moving forward for my future. And I really am thankful for you having me as a young adult of my age to work here. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Hello. Thank you for having me here. My name is Mariana Garcia. I work for Pride Industries at the CMF in Vacaville. Actually, a little bit about me. I started as an EVS tech and I moved up to a floor four person and then became a job coach. And now I'm currently in that job coach position. See, Pride Industries offers many opportunities and accommodates people with disabilities.

I have family and friends that have a disability, and it's nice to know that they will have the same opportunity in the workforce without being discriminated or rejected. Pride Industries has taken into consideration the struggles and hardships in which we all live in by providing a fair pay. Working for the state will not guarantee me the same support and opportunity Pride has actually given me.

Working for the state will not allow me to continue to grow within my career and assist people with accommodations while still being able to pay my bills and take care of my family with just this job alone. I stand here today with my Pride family to ask of you all to reconsider your decision and not take our jobs away. Thank you for your time and consideration. Appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, thank you for having me. My name is Carlos Menjivar. I worked for Pride for CMF for about three years but went with the company for 10 years. I started off as an EVS tech and then I worked my way up to material handler. Really loves this job and I'll be crushed if I lose this job cause I got a family support. I'm a diabetic and medicine right now being the cost is really high right now. So Pride Industries economies me and my health and takes care of my family. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Abiri. I've been working for Pride Industry for about four years, and Pride Industry gave me the accommodation that enabled me to keep the job this long. For the past number of years, I've not been able to keep a job up to a year before they will ask me to go, but Pride Industry gave me the needed accommodation, and able to keep my job. Getting another job is hard for me. Providing for my family will be more difficult. Thanks for having me here today.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Jae'Shawn White. I'm an EVS tech with pride. I've been here for about six months now, and Pride pretty much fell into my lap. I had trouble working with Amazon. I have a club foot, so it's kind of tough for me to walk around and stand up at times. When I got with pride, they gave me a real opportunity to join a workforce, a family. They supported me, gave me accommodations that worked around my physical abilities. I'm just thankful for them and thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is John Adams. I'm an operations manager for Pride Industries. I've been with them for about three months now. I'm a disabled veteran, so my first private sector job in my life. I had two government jobs prior to this. Working with Pride is such an amazing experience. The diversity and inclusion I experienced with this company is like nothing I've ever experienced with a government job. We have so many layers of help for people with disabilities and accommodate them.

I'm a single father at this point in my life. My wife's been busy with other things, so losing this job would mean having to go and try to get benefits and figure out another way to accommodate my son. My senior leadership is amazing. The level of cleanliness we provide at CMF and the attention to detail in cleaning patient cells is unmatched in any job I've ever had. So if you guys get our contract extended for the foreseeable future, it would mean a lot to myself and all of my staff. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. Hello. My name is Jeremiah LeDoux. I work for Pride Industries, CMF. I really need this job because they always support me. I have a disability and they always support me no matter what. And that's all.

Thank you for testifying testimony.

Thank you again for having us. My name's Brian Roberts. I'm a disabled veteran. I'm a safety rep out there at CMF. Definitely being able to have that job, it's something that I can physically still do, still provide for my family. One of the big things that CDCR did not mention with the whole bringing people over with the accommodations when you were asking that was that it's a $10 pay cut for hour for every single one of these people. Pretty much two even go over there. It's at least 10, if not more. So trying to do that, trying to do that with one job again, a lot of us will have to go back to having multiple jobs in order to just provide for our family. I don't want to end up as a homeless veteran. I want to be able to take care of my family.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, thank you for the time. My name is Keith York. I work with about 130 different rehabilitation programs throughout the State of California. And these are programs that employ people with special needs, much like Pride Industries. One of the statistics that I just wanted to mention was the unemployment rate for people with special needs is about 75%. Of those individuals, 71% want to work but aren't given the opportunity. So consider the fact that these individuals, ' jobs are very precious, especially living wage positions. Pride takes a tremendous amount of effort and time, accommodations, training to create these jobs, train these individuals, and sustain living employment.

So to take them away is devastating to not only the nonprofits but most importantly to the individuals. So of these 130 qualified rehabilitation programs throughout the state that support employment for people with disabilities, they are asking you to keep these jobs for people with special needs. And there's two other rehabilitation program directors here to state that.

Thank you for your comments.

Yeah, good afternoon, Senate Budget Subcommittee members. Yeah, I'm Luis Chiofalo. I'm the president and CEO of Solano Diversified Services. We've been in business since 1981. We've contracted with the state. We've also contracted with the Federal Government. You know, what Keith had just said is something we're so committed to. It's our mission. It's in our blood. Any of the nonprofits in California providing services, their main mission is that. What's important is we do have a state that's very forward thinking. California has a saying,, employment first.

I was so happy to hear the one member, Lackey, speaking and being so supportive because I think one of the obstacles is that the state use in California is significantly low compared to other states. Recently we had a brainstorming and it was phenomenal. The State of Texas has a $142 billion budget. California 268. Texas has a significantly beyond significantly amount, a higher number of jobs in state use than the State of California.

So I think that's one of the obstacles, providing services for the folks that we provide services to. We do have a very reliable, a very dependable workforce, as you could attest today from all the different testimony that you heard. So I'm here just basically to support Pride Industries. I've been aware of them since day one when Solano Diversified Services started, and I hope this is reconsidered and they're able to maintain the CMF contract. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, my name is Gary Griffen. I'm the executive vice president at Lincoln Training Center. We're located out of Los Angeles area, and I am here to provide or lend my support to pride industries and all these wonderful individuals that really appreciate the jobs that they're afforded through CDCR. Lincoln Training Center also provides many jobs, about 400 or so throughout the state, many with Caltrans.

And my concern is that if these jobs could be taken away moving forward, how many of our people, my people or whatever you will, were going to be displaced with some other administrative issue that comes up through anybody else. So thank you for the time. And these guys are great people. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Any other public comment? Any other public comment? Well, thank you so much. This hearing is adjourned.