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

Good morning, everyone. The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number Five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation will come to order. We are holding our committee hearing here in the Capitol, and I ask all members of the subcommittee to be present in Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

Today we will talk about mental health care in the prison system and reentry. We will hear from the Office of Inspector General, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Board of State and Community Corrections. We will take public comment on all items at the end of the hearing.

Before we begin, I want to acknowledge the recent violence within the prison system. Last Friday, it resulted in deaths of three incarcerated individuals and a serious assault on a staff member. These incidents underscore the importance of our work and the work of all of those permitting--presenting, excuse me--to the committee today.

We will keep those individuals in mind as we move forward to make better policy to protect and help everyone. Colleagues, before we begin, does anyone have anything to add? And I'd like to ask if you'd keep your comments to about two minutes or so so we can keep the committee going. Anyone have any questions or comments? No? Seeing none, before we begin, let's establish a quorum. Consultant, could you please call the roll?

[Roll Call].

The consultant notes a quorum has been established. Let's start with our first issue, an overview of the Office of Inspector General. We will start with Amarik Singh, the Inspector General. Please come forward to make your presentation. Good morning. And you can introduce your lifeline that you brought with you. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Amarik Singh, the Inspector General, and with me today is Shaun Spillane, my Chief Deputy Inspector General. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to give you some information about the Office of the Inspector General.

The Office of the Inspector General, 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 public report our observations and findings. We monitor CDCR's use of force review process, internal affairs investigations and discipline process, and the incarcerated person grievance process.

Additionally, we evaluate the Department of Corrections' 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 of concern. We also maintain a statewide intake complaint process where anyone can come to us and 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 and most commonly known as the Prison Rape Elimination Act or PREA. We have a staff member on call 24 hours a day to respond to critical incidents at the various prisons or similar incidents in the community involving correctional or parole staff.

We conduct background and qualification reviews of all wardens prior to their appointment by the governor, and with the exception of warden background reviews, we publicly report the findings of all of our work on our website. In 2024, we published 20 reports. This year to date, we have already published seven reports.

Also, each month, we publish case blocks, which include summaries of the investigations and critical incidents that we've monitored, and selected intake complaints where we feel we have made noteworthy impact. And that's just a general overview of the OIG, and would you like me to go into the issue, Issue One? Okay. Thank you.

All right, so one of our responsibilities is providing support to the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, C-ROB. As the Inspector General, I serve as the board's chairperson. C-ROB was established in 2007 to examine various mental health, substance abuse, educational, and employment programs for the incarcerated and supervised individuals.

The board was created in 2004 when the Department of Corrections had just recently added the 'r' for rehabilitation into their name. Early in the department's journey of shifting towards a rehabilitation focus, C-ROB was necessary to bring some level of transparency and accountability to the then new rehabilitation focus, but since that time, over the last 20 years, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has made significant positive strides in providing rehabilitative programs to the incarcerated population.

Also, compared to what existed 20 years ago, there is now much greater public access to data on the efficacy of CDCR's rehabilitation programs, including recidivism data and the department's external reporting through dashboards on their publicly available resources.

An additional responsibility for the OIG requires us to assess and report on reforms identified by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in their 2012 plan, which was revised in 2016, which is also--which was basically the Department of Corrections' blueprint for future of corrections.

The OIG was then tasked to report on the department's progress in implementing key goals as laid out in its plan, which included the goals of assessing the number of incarcerated persons served in these rehabilitative programs, standard staffing models, and implementing a new classification score system to just name a few of their plans.

Since the Department of Corrections 2012 and 2016 blueprint--that's a mouthful--plans are now outdated, the requirement to provide monitoring of CDCR's compliance with this blueprint has become unnecessary for a number of years. The elimination of our C-ROB and blueprint monitoring functions does not mean the OIG will be unable to review and report on CDCR's rehabilitation efforts. Since the 2019-2020 Budget Act and going forward, the OIG has received substantial increase in its authority and staffing.

The restoration of our authority to conduct audits and special reviews will allow us to audit or review rehabilitation programs and bring to light process deficiencies at the prisons and to make recommendations for improvement. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the Rehabilitation Oversight Board or blueprint.

Thank you very much. Do we have any comments from the Legislative Analyst's Office? No? And the Department of Finance? No. Okay. Any--colleagues, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

I just had a few questions.

Yes, Mr. Seyarto.

I was prepared not to ask a darn thing today, but I do have a question now. When--if they're not going to do this, the C-ROB is not going to be doing this if we said--if we defunded that. Is somebody else going to pick up that or who's going to do the duties of the oversight? Does that shift to somebody else and do they need more people to do that?

So the Rehabilitation Oversight Board, I'm the chair, and there's a various number of other agencies that have people who sit on this board, and what the board does is we look into the programs at CDCR. There wouldn't necessarily be a board that would be doing that if we were looking into programs. The OIG can do that.

The Department itself, the Department of Corrections, has their own department of rehabilitative programs that publishes the work that they're doing. They've made positive strides, so there isn't an external agency other than my agency that could look into programs.

So the Oversight Board wouldn't be with the warden and the directors? Is that--that's what--who'd oversee this?

I'm sorry, would the--

The Oversight--basically overseeing what's going on with rehab and making those reports out would go back to the warden and directors, correct?

Yes.

Okay. So I won't ask what they've been doing for the last--since 2016. At least, that's what you were saying. They really haven't been needed since then?

So 2016, 2012-2016, they had put--CDCR had put into place their strategic plan, in essence. So that came out in 2012, and in 2016, they revised it. Just recently, they've come out with their new strategic plan, which is the California model, with their new rehabilitation program model.

So that's separate and different than the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. That board came into play in 2007. So it--there's two separate things that my agency has to to look at, right, and they're kind of tied together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So, you know, kind of picking back on what Senator Seyarto said, the question is, you know, we would like more oversight in a number of different areas, right, more specifically on just making sure people are safe and, you know, from staff to inmates. But the other piece about it is, you know, are there--when we're talking about blueprints and metrics and so forth, what targets have we been hitting in this area and why do we see potentially an elimination of these two items?

So in regards to blueprint, the goals that were laid out by the Department of Corrections, they have been meeting. They, they assess the number of incarcerated people and supervised people that they've been providing programs to, and this is all on their own dashboards and their website. They've created a new classification score system. So the goals they had set out--the general goals, not all--they were meeting. And so they--

And who is they, just for clarification?

I'm sorry. The Department of Corrections.

Okay.

So they were going to come up with their standard staffing models. They were going to implement a new classification score system. So a number of those goals they met. They haven't met all of their goals, such as ending federal court oversight--and they, meaning Department of Corrections--but their strategic plan has now moved into their new direction of providing the California model of rehabilitation.

So they set their own goals and tell you if they've met them or not? What is your responsibility over that?

For the 2012-2016 goals, we monitored whether they met those goals, and if they didn't, we'd make recommendations for improvement. So we've published, Mr. Spillane, 13?

I believe it's about 13.

Thirteen reports since 2012 regarding how they were doing on meeting those goals.

How would you verify this? Like, what is the methodology of you guys verifying their success?

We would go--we gathered the data from them. We had staff go out and talk to individuals that were being served from the rehabilitation programs. We would talk to staff. So we actually went out and did an assessment and gathered the data from them when it came to our blueprint monitoring.

Each time?

Each time.

Okay.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazo, did you have any questions? Okay, I had a couple questions, and then let's reopen the call so we could capture Senator Durazo. I had a couple questions. Have you had an opportunity to provide any oversight in response to the recent incidents of violence that has actually been occurring over the last week or so?

We are notified--those are considered critical incidents by definition--and so we get notified when there are these critical incidents and I will have staff that will discuss the incident with whichever prison it's occurring at, we will get documentation so we can review it, and if necessary, we would go out to monitor in real time these incidents, but at this time, we have not done that.

It wasn't an ongoing investigation at the actual prison being conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs, but we are in communication with the different executive leaders at CDCR in regards to these incidents and their progress of what they are doing in regards to Looking into those.

Do you anticipate this being one of the reports you might write upcoming? You mentioned you've done seven so far this year. Do you think you'll be doing a report on the incidences that have occurred?

It is possible. We will report the actual--it may not be a report regarding all of the incidents, but we will report on each individual incident. As the department reviews the incident and closes the incident, we will actually publish a report on that.

Okay. So if you could provide the committee members a copy of that report when you complete it, that way we stay abreast of what's happening, especially regarding the seriousness of it. You've had a couple members here who've asked you a couple questions about C-ROB, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. I did hear you say that you've had an increased amount of staff, I understand, to probably assist in you now taking this over. Do you have any concerns about being able to do that?

No, I don't. I think with the authority that we have, we will be in a better place to make recommendations to the department regarding rehabilitative programs than the actual Oversight Board. The Oversight Board gathered data from CDCR and published it, and I think with the authority we have now at OIG, we can actually dig in deeper and do an audit or a special review, and I, I think it'll have more, more teeth to the recommendations we'll be able to make in that regards.

Okay. Any other questions regarding this first issue? Seeing none. Let's open up the call to add Ms. Durazo.

[Roll Call].

Great. All right. With that, we will go on to Issue Number Two. And again, we will start with Ms. Singh. You, you remain here, which is great. Please move forward on the second issue.

Thank you. In regards to Senate Bill 1069, to implement Senate Bill 1069, which provided the OIG with additional responsibility and discretion with regard to monitoring and investigating allegations of CDCR staff sexual misconduct, we are requesting 3.6 million General Fund and 22 positions in 25-26 and 5,715,029 positions in 26-27 and ongoing.

These positions will enable the OIG to increase its monitoring of investigations into allegations of staff sexual misconduct and investigate when necessary. As I stated earlier, the OIG is responsible for providing contemporaneous oversight of CDCR's centralized grievance screening process, internal affairs investigations, staff grievance inquiries, and the disciplinary process.

The OIG currently reviews a portion of the grievances that incarcerated people file which are reviewed by CDCR's Centralized Screening Team to decide whether to route these allegations to either the Office of Internal Affairs for investigation or back to the prison hiring authorities to perform routine reviews or to process them in a routine manner.

The OIG staff review these decisions that are made by Department of Corrections's Centralized Screening Team to ensure that they are in compliance with their own policies and procedures. When we review a screening decision that does not comply with the policies governing where grievances are to be routed, we make recommendations to the department to reroute the grievance for appropriate level of review.

The OIG also currently has a team of attorneys to monitor and assess the internal affairs investigations performed by the special agents of the Office of Internal Affairs for CDCR. The attorneys monitor cases from initiation to conclusion, attending investigative preparation hearings--meetings, I should say--witness interviews, and significant discussions regarding the investigation and disciplinary process, and reviewing investigative reports and the evidence to inform their evaluations of the investigation and disciplinary process.

As part of our implementation of Senate Bill 1069, we intend to monitor and/or investigate approximately 350 staff sexual misconduct cases per year, which equates to approximately 25% of the current volume of all staff sexual misconduct cases within the Department of Corrections that involve the incarcerated population.

This increased workload will be in addition to all of the other investigations into serious allegations of staff misconduct that the OIG already monitors, which includes things such as dishonesty, excessive force, among others. We will also publicly report every month in the form of summaries and assessments for each of the cases we monitor once each case closes and we complete our monitoring and assessment. We will also issue public reports no less than annually, summarizing our monitoring of staff sexual misconduct cases.

Finally, the OIG will exercise its discretion whether to conduct supplemental investigative work when it determines an investigation into an allegation of staff sexual misconduct was either not adequate or not performed at all. We have identified the Attorney IV classification for the new positions tasked with monitoring and, if necessary, performing administrative investigations into allegations of staff sexual misconduct.

The Attorney IV classification is an experienced attorney position that will provide the necessary skills and experience to monitor investigations, provide sound recommendations, and conduct supplemental investigations at the discretion of supervisors when appropriate.

The OIG will also expand its review of grievances and allegations submitted to the Department of Corrections's Centralized Screening Team to enable us to have greater visibility on the complaints that this centralized screening team decides to refer or not refer for investigations. With the increased staff, we anticipate being able to monitor approximately 9,600 more grievances per year. Once again, thank you for this opportunity, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have in regards to this.

Any comments from the LAO Office?

Yes, thank you. Caitlin O'Neil with the Legislative Analyst Office. The resources being requested to implement SB 1069 were identified, as far as we understand, based on the CDCR's regulations for handling staff misconduct allegations that existed in the fall. However, CDCR revised those regulations and that process effective January 1 of this year, so we just note that because that process that OIG is monitoring is changing, that could have implications for the level and type of resources that OIG needs to monitor it, as well as CDCR's underlying level of resources needed.

So we understand that the Administration is going to be looking at that, and so we would just recommend withholding action until the Administration has had a chance to assess whether it will need to realign or revise the level of or type of resources. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from Department of Finance?

Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time, but we're happy to answer questions from the subcommittee.

Great. Thank you. Senator Wahab?

Yeah. So it states--you know, I just want to understand how will these new regulations on sexual misconduct improve investigations, primarily because on page seven of the packet, under the new process it says, 'creates multidisciplinary grievance teams to meet with individuals who frequently file grievances and help resolve their issues.'

Now, I'm a little concerned because there are, you know, if there's multiple grievances filed, right, so just from a process and thought process standpoint, there are, you know, folks that may have, you know, multiple concerns will file because they are requiring a little bit more attention and things like that, but then there are people that will not file any type of grievance because of retribution and the circumstance of the power dynamics in a facility.

And so I just want to understand how that's going to improve not only the people that have multiple grievances, but then also my concern is if the attention is there and not for the people that have not filed something and are still living kind of in fear. Can we talk a little bit about that?

Oh, yes. So the multidisciplinary team that is looking at the grievances, those are geared more towards certain incarcerated people who have a number of grievances that they'll file that perhaps are--because of some a mental health concern--what 1069 is going to do is we're going to have more eyes on staff sexual misconduct type of allegations.

So our goal is to, when a grievance is identified as a sexual misconduct, our goal is to look at those to ensure that Department of Corrections handles those appropriately; either sends them for investigation through the Office of Internal Affairs, and if rises to the level, if they don't do that, we intend to elevate to make sure that those are handled. So that's the goal of 1069.

Our other monitoring responsibilities will continue to look at all grievances, not--even those outside of staff sexual misconduct. And so our, our plan is to keep eyes on these to make appropriate recommendations. For the individuals who are in fear of retribution and are not filing complaints, we are trying to get--we get our staff out to go meet with the incarcerated population.

I have--my intake team goes out to each prison and we do it on a rotating basis and we meet with the population. We ensure that they know how to contact us through our intake process, which is a confidential process. They can reach out to us via their tablets, they can send us a letter, they can call us on our hotline so that we can listen to their complaints and then we can try and get all of the information we can from them and move that forward to make sure that their issues are being addressed.

So just a quick question. Everything, every type of communication that happens, is it not overseen by CDCR currently? So when they call, phone calls are recorded and monitored, correct?

No, those are not--calls to us are not recorded. They are not--

100% no--

They are not monitored.

Even the emails or whatever tablet application you have? 100% there is no oversight by CDCR in any capacity?

None.

Okay. And so OIG determined that CDCR's handling of cases being poor were 119 of the 162 cases, 73% poor, and then 43 cases at satisfactory level, which is 27%. So the question is, what is happening with those particular cases? What is the improvement? What is the punishment? Can you shed any light there?

Punishment to whom? For their poor performance?

Yes.

We make recommendations and identify why we are indicating these cases are performed poorly. Many times it's either the investigation is inadequate and we make recommendations as to what can be improved: better interviews, interviewing additional witnesses. We make those recommendations to CDCR and they will implement them or not.

Okay, and you're recommending your analysis is the basis of their investigation of what?

I'm so sorry, can you repeat that?

So it's handling of cases in a poor manner, right? What types of cases are we talking about that you guys are reviewing of their handling?

Oh, we, we look at, we look at the more serious cases, dishonesty cases, use of force, sexual misconduct, code of silence. We look at those internal affair investigation cases. So we only look at a percentage of the cases that they've actually opened.

Okay. So I've always had a concern about this as to why we even allow internal affairs inside of the unit to be able to be internal affairs when it should be an outside agency that is independent without any relationship to the individuals being investigated. What are your thoughts on that? Because I do believe it's a conflict of interest across the board.

With the--excuse me--with the Department of Corrections, when they hire internal affairs agents, they--it's--and it's common in a lot of law enforcement agencies--it's the actual officers who work at the agency who then take the step back to go into internal affairs.

Department of Corrections, like all other law enforcement agencies, has set up additional background checks, an additional interview process. It's probably not a perfect system. However, they are putting safeguards in place to make sure that there is no conflict of interest, the special agents that do these investigations have to attest that they do not have a conflict of interest, and for the cases we monitor, we also are mindful of that.

So the reason why I have a concern, and both you referenced it, local law enforcement as well, and I served on City Council, and we saw this often, is that the officers rotate into different units, right, one being internal affairs, and they're stationed there for maybe two years, three years, four years, depending on how it's structured.

They, then they leave and they go back into whatever other unit, whether they're a detective, whether they're in negotiations, whether they're in community service and so forth, and if they understand how investigations are done, what is being asked, what is being looked for, what can--they can also utilize that in a negative way-- what can be hidden, what are the right words to say, what are the phrases--to escape any type of accountability. Having that in the same office, for me, is significantly a conflict of interest. Plus, they build relationships in every unit that they transit to, right?

So I say this because I just want to highlight for all of us that this is, you know, largely something that we should look at. I will say that the feeling in the building has largely been focused on sexual misconduct cases in particular, especially with the number of rapes and reports that have been coming out, and I do believe that there needs to be more done in this space besides, you know, making sure that a case is handled in the best way possible, right? There has to be more done. So I'm just going to leave my comments there, but just wanted to flag that for folks.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Senator Durazo.

Just with regards to your investigative authority, you're proposing that it be limited investigative authority?

No, we're not proposing be--it be limited. The, the, the way this bill is--has been written is we will monitor a case that's involves staff sexual misconduct, and if the investigation that we are monitoring, we believe is not being done appropriately or there's something missing, we will make recommendations to the Department of Corrections to do those things and if they are not doing them to our satisfaction, then we have the ability to invest, to investigate the issues on our own. So it's not necessarily limiting what we're doing. We will give them the opportunity to do what we're asking, but if we see something lacking, then we can step in.

Okay. Because it's my understanding it's limited authority, at least compared to what it had been prior to 2011, that there was full investigative authority. So we brought this up when I was chair of the committee. We brought this up over and over. I have a letter from 2021 in which a large number of legislators were asking for full, full authority. And so doesn't it make sense to restore full investigative authority?

It does. I think this is just the first step for us to start looking into the capacity that we can do. So right now it's limited to staff sexual misconduct cases and sexual misconduct cases in a whole, and then if additional authorities should be necessary, I think that is a conversation we can have in the future, but I think this is a good start for the OIG to get back into this space.

And then there's the lawsuit filed on the full-time gynecologist at the California Institution for Women. So the allegations are that abuse of the patients has been taking place for seven years. So according to the lawsuit, there were red flags that CDCR should have noticed, including a complaint to the California Medical Board.

So how will, how do we prevent these types of alleged abuses from occurring unchecked for so many years? Like this just went on and on for years and years. I know it's allegations, but the allegations, right, went on for seven years. So how do you prevent these types with the proposal of alleged abuses for so many years?

That is a great question, is how do we prevent this type of behavior from occurring? I think the department is making positive strides, CDCR is making positive strides in opening those lines of communication with the incarcerated population so that they can feel comfortable in coming forward and making these types of complaints when they are being abused.

OIG, we have also made ourselves available. We are also going into the institutions and making ourselves available, so they have another--the incarcerated population has another place that they can go to where they can feel comfortable in making these complaints so that we can assist and go to the department to try and make improvements in those areas.

Yeah, that kind of sounds like it's on the victim. It's a little bit too much on--it's their responsibility. They're the ones to blame for not having, you know--so I think there has to be a different attitude about how to get to the bottom on how to stop this from taking place at all, but especially for years and years, because that's part of what makes--it would make anybody feel uncomfortable on top of all the other ways in which there's retribution if you, if you do file a complaint.

So I'm, I'm really concerned about what's going to be our attitude, what's going to be our approach, including yours, to get to the bottom of why it just goes on for years.

And I apologize. I in no way want to say that I'm putting blame on any of the victims, any victim of sexual assault. That is absolutely a terrible situation to be in. And I think when you're incarcerated and you're being victimized, there's an added layer because you, you are feeling unsafe.

And if I had all of the answers other than trying to make ourselves available so that if something is happening or maybe, you know, just listening and trying to prevent the types of people that are abusing from going into these areas, CDCR, the Department of Corrections, does have background checks that they do as they hire these people, and I think just keeping an open line of communication so that if there is any type of inkling of that type of behavior occurring that the incarcerated person feels comfortable being able to that without feeling any source of retribution.

Thank you, members. I have a couple questions. On our report, it states that the AIU will perform an investigation within 120 days or a locally designated investigator, LDI, will perform a local inquiry within 60 days. Is that what you understand to be the case?

Yes, that is within their Department of Corrections policies that they've put forth.

Okay. And so I think what you're hearing here with members is, there's a concern of, you know, is the hen watching the henhouse kind of thing, and 120 days seems to be pretty long to allow--I mean, we're talking about, what, four months? And two months if the locally designated investigator--and that's before you get involved?

No, we get involved from the onset. So if we, if we pick up a case to monitor as soon as the grievance comes in and we designate that, that case as something that we are going to monitor, we will be there from the beginning. From the planning, investigative planning stages, we confer with the investigator, we monitor the interviews as it goes through the process. So we do contemporaneous monitoring from the onset of a case.

But are you doing it at the same time they are of 120 days?

We monitor their work. So whether they're doing it in a shorter amount of time or more than 120 days, we are there monitoring it.

And what does your office do to kind of keep an open eye to see that retaliation isn't occurring or that people are free to provide information? What role can you play to increase that?

Other than being available and making sure that the incarcerated population knows that they can come to us if they are being retaliated against, and that's what we do through our hotline, through our intake unit. We have the hotline, we have the email. We, we have a direct contact with their, within their tablets.

They can reach out to us and leave us a message. So we just have to make ourselves available because we're not at every prison every single day. So we just need to make sure that the population knows we are a resource to them, even though we're not physically there every single day.

And how many inquiries would you say that you, your office receives independently?

We have, we get about 1,000 a month right now. So in January, we were at just over 1,000 complaints, and that has substantially increased with our, with us going out and making ourselves known to the population. Last year, we would average maybe 400 to 500 complaints a month, and now we are well over 1,000 complaints a month that we get.

Okay. So how can you--if we're going to consider this additional funding increase, I think we would require on our end a little more oversight of understanding these numbers of complaints that are coming in. What's the resolution? 1,000 is a lot, as I'm sure you would imagine, especially if any of us were there.

So in your next time when you come, we'll make sure that we're asking for a report that's going to give us the data that's going to show, you know, x amount of complaints. Is it increase? Is it decrease? What are the categories that they're falling in and what suggestions you have, if any, to the department besides the individual resolution of the case? What are some other things that we could do to help eliminate these incidences from reoccurring over and over again?

Absolutely. We can provide that information.

Okay, and when the OIG is monitoring a case, do you provide real-time feedback to the department officials working on the case and do you find those staff members open to your feedback or is it kind of a joke or what's the, what's the interaction that you get?

Yes, we do provide that feedback in real time and mostly it's--they are receptive to our feedback, and many, many times they, they will take into consideration the feedback we've provided, and if appropriate, they'll implement or, you know, if, if we say, 'hey, go look for this additional evidence,' they, they are willing and accommodating to that.

Or it's never, they never take it as a joke. They listen to our feedback seriously. We don't always agree. As with anything, they don't always agree with the feedback we're providing, but they do listen to us.

Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll--yes. Mr. Seyarto.

I was curious because the, the whole object is to not let these things happen in the first place. And one of the difficulties is, is once there is a report, now you don't know whether something really happened or something didn't happen or who's doing the retaliation to who.

Do they have, have they explored any monitoring systems because I know we have cameras in there, but like a personal alert system where if somebody is being attacked, they just push the button and you're alerted or the warden is alerted along with every other person in the prison where they can go there immediately and stop whatever is happening or is there anything like that ever been explored?

There is nothing like that in place currently and I do not know if that has ever been explored.

Okay. I'm just curious because that's, you know, personal alert devices, they use them for older people that fall down their homes and with, with guards all over, it would seem that once one of those is done that perhaps something like that can be developed, because I just hate to see it happening in the first place, but I also hate when it's being used as a weapon too, because there's two sides on these things and it's really difficult sometimes to get a handle on that. I'm sure your investigations probably bear that out. So, thank you.

Thank you very much, members. We're going to move on to Issue Number Three, which is the Coleman versus Newsom and the Class Action Update. For that we have Dawn Lorey, Assistant Deputy Director of Program Operations, we have Duane Reeder, Deputy Director of California Correctional Healthcare Services, Fiscal Management Section, Dr. Amar Mehta, Deputy Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on Statewide Mental Health Program, and Andrea Carter, who's the Assistant Deputy Director of California Correctional Healthcare Services, Human Resources. With that, we will begin with the presentation. Am I correct to assume Ms. Lorey will begin? Okay.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members.

Good morning.

My name is Dawn Lorey. I currently serve as the Assistant Deputy Director for Program Operations within the Division of Adult Institutions for CDCR. I just wanted to provide a current update on our class actions. As of today, we have 12 class actions pending against CDCR.

Of those 12, four cases are currently in the remedial and monitoring phase. One case has been settled, and seven cases remain that have not been certified by the courts. I'm happy to answer any questions, and we'll turn it over to my colleagues.

We will have Duane Reeder.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I believe Dr. Mehta and Andrea Carter have some information for you.

Sure. Who would like to go first?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Andrea Carter, Assistant Deputy Director. So...

Could you turn your mic a little closer? There we go. Thank you.

Hello. Is it on? Okay. So I'm going to be going over a few of the things that were contained in the court orders. So the first one is going to be the staff and referral bonuses. So CCHCS worked with the Department of Human Resources to establish three new recruitment and retention differentials as directed by the Coleman Court.

The pay differentials were established on October 31, 2024. However, implementation is currently on hold due to the court ordered stay. The first pay differential that was established was pay differential 501, which is the Coleman Mental Health Clinician's Recruitment and Retention Stipend Differential for bargaining units 16, 19, 20, and the related excluded. This is a one time $10,000 payment for employees appointed to CDCR, CCHCS, and one of the eligible classifications covered by the 2009 Mental Health Staffing Plan and who meet the pay differential criteria.

The second pay differential is pay differential 502, Coleman Mental Health Clinicians Monthly Recruitment and Retention Differential for bargaining units 16, 19, 20, and the related excluded. Employees appointed to CDCR or CCHCS in one of the eligible classifications covered by the 2009 Mental Health Staffing Plan and who meet the pay differential criteria will receive either 5,000 or 20,000 depending on the classification divided over 12 months if they receive qualifying pay periods.

The third pay differential is pay differential 503, the Coleman Mental Health Clinicians Referral Bonus for all bargaining units and excluded employees. Any CDCR or CCHCS civil service employee that refers a mental health clinician, excluding any employees from the Department of State Hospitals, and who is successfully hired by the statewide mental health program. CCHCs after October 31, 2024 will be eligible to receive the $5,000 bonus should the referral remain employed for 90 days.

CCHCS also established a unit within its headquarters to process all of these pay differential payments and ensure timely payment and accuracy compliance if and when the state order is lifted. Another component in the court order was the third party recruitment firm and third party consulting firm.

The order requires CCHCS to hire a third party recruitment hiring contractor to expand and streamline CDCR's hiring capabilities and a third party human resources recruiting consulting firm to further identify the most effective measures to improve hiring and retention rates.

To hire the third party firm, CCHCS will have to go through the request for proposal, RFP, process, which the department solicits bid from vendors for good and services. An RFP outlines the project requirements, scope of work, evaluation criteria, submission of guidelines, allowing multiple vendors to compete based on technical qualifications, cost, and overall value. Generally, there are six steps in the RFP process.

Define the procurement need, draft a statement of work, release the RFP, evaluate proposals, award the contract, and contract execution and monitoring. CCH is currently in a stay order, and if and when it would be lifted, we would then proceed with the after mentioned steps. And I'm here to answer any questions.

No problem. Madam Chair and Senators, thank you. I'm mainly here to answer questions, but I will say that we've worked with the federal court on this for many years now. We've worked with professional economists. The court requested and received feedback from the US Attorney General's Office on how to help with filling our staffing because that's a problem in virtually every correctional health care system in the country. So we're leaving no stone unturned on this. But I'm happy to answer any further questions.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions? Ms. Durazo.

Thank you very much for the presentation. The judge has been pushing to get the vacancy down to 10%. Right? And it's currently, across the board, at 30%. Can you talk about that a little bit more in terms of what issues or factors you're facing to be able to meet that 10% vacancy?

Sorry about that. Yeah, so we, the problem has been a little bit of a moving target, I would say. Over Covid for the first time, we got our psychiatrists up over 90%. I think the first time in the history of the case, actually, even. And hiring physicians requires different recruitment procedures than psychologists or social workers.

Unfortunately, when we got over with the psychiatrists, we were in the midst of losing quite a bit of psychologists and social workers. I'm happy to say that our social workers have also raised up over 90% since then, from 68% in 2023 up to over 90%. Did I say 98? Over 90% today.

Then the remaining one is really those psychologists. We've been struggling to fill that classification. We're at about 57%. Thank you. Statewide, which is obviously a huge problem. One of the things we've been able to do is expand the classifications that are able to provide that care.

And Ms. Carter and HR has been instrumental in establishing new state classifications for marriage and family therapists, MFTs, and also professional clinical counselors, PCCs. There are more MFTs licensed in the state than there are social workers, and we weren't able to previously tap into that pool of applicants. So that has been complete. It's a long process as you can imagine, but is completely done. We are hiring, and those people are working in our system as of today, and we expect that to be a big boost.

But tell me what you're facing as far as why are we, why are you facing, or why are we facing such a difficulty? I mean, what is going on out there in the world that you know of that has made it so difficult?

So for us there's a nationwide shortage. So again, it's not for our lack of effort. As Dr. Mehta had said, we have made some definite strides and improvements. And also when you're coming to work for the State of California, it is a lengthy process. So something that we have done for CCHCS is we have started, in 2022, one day hiring events. In addition, in 2024, we also expanded to a regional hiring unit model that focuses on the mental health classifications. In 2024, HR hosted a total of 12 hiring events resulting in 442 new employees in various classifications and over 1,444 attendees.

In 2025, we also held our first event in January in Stockton with over 605 individuals attended, resulting in 348 interviews and 275 job offers. Due to the event turnout, we had to hold additional days for interview, which resulted in 250 more interviews. We're also holding events on April 8th and 9th in Hanford, May 20th is Lancaster, and July 22nd and 23rd in Vacaville.

Yeah, I mean, you're identifying on the one hand that there's a shortage, on the other hand you're getting response, you're getting positive response by doing these events out in the field, right, out in the communities. So I don't quite get where's the bottleneck, where's the problem? Even with the shortage, you're still getting people to apply, hundreds of people to apply for these various positions. So what's wrong here? What's wrong with the picture of not being able to fill the positions?

For why candidates may fall out, there could be various reasons. I think as mentioned earlier, when you come to work for Department of Corrections and CCHCS, you have to go through a background check, people are fingerprinted. So some fall out through that process. It could also be due to certification requirements, education requirements.

Although they're applying, once we go and look to see if they meet what we have as minimum qualifications, if they don't meet that threshold, then they can't proceed through the process. In addition, when you come and work for the State of California, every hire has to be based off of merit.

And so we have to follow that merit based process with the interview. And then you have to meet those criteria when you interview to be selected. So within all of those steps, again, we have made those improvements, and again, we have brought some of those classifications above the 90% that we're happy with. Psychiatry is above the 90%, clinical social worker, as well as our recreation therapist. But we still have work to do.

Okay, well I applaud you for that, bringing those classifications up to so high. But just overall, obviously there's still a really huge problem. And maybe what you ought to do, since you're out there, you know what the issues are, is be very specific to us. If we have to pass legislation, I don't want to slow it down with more legislation. But what, how do we speed it up? I mean, people do have this impression of working for government. Takes years to get to get through the process. That's in our control. We're getting sued and sued and sued.

We're paying tens of millions, probably by now hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet we're part of the problem of not being able to move, you know, these applications faster. Because I know I've heard people say, I would love to apply, it takes too long, forget it. That's in our control.

So I would really urge you to report back to us in whatever way the things that can be done to speed up. I know this is a problem in other departments, and you mentioned something about a new classification that has been helpful. Whatever. I mean we're the problem. We're paying the price. The taxpayers are paying the price for us not being able to fill these positions. But I thank you for all your work.

And the one day hiring events, that's where we're helping those folks. So we have computers set up when they walk in. If they don't have an application done, we sit with them and complete their application. If they haven't taken the exam, which is required to enter into state, we have people on site to actually have them take the examination. We have panel members there. So when you walk in, you can do your application, you can take that exam. If you've passed and you're qualified, you can take an interview that day and you walk away with a tentative job offer, all in one day.

Just one more thing. Since you mentioned the bargaining unit, I would hope that you're working with the labor organizations that represent those classifications to see how you have that partnership. Thank you.

Yes. We're always in coordination with our labor partners.

Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So my quick question is the positions that you guys are asking for, including the social workers. And I just want to be very clear about this. If they, are they licensed or not?

Yes, but go ahead.

Yes, we take both unlicensed and licensed. And if they are unlicensed social workers, we provide supervision that's consistent with the board request requirements for them to achieve their license so they can progress through that while they're working for it.

Okay. And to get licensed, they need 3,000 hours. Right? And so oftentimes, and I just want to be very clear about this, oftentimes these individuals will do internships or whatever the case may be, in a lot of different nonprofits, and they actually have difficulty securing jobs that will give them some type of either minimum wage or stipend or some type of benefit.

And you guys provide those services, correct? All right. So the concern that I have, though, is, you know, when we're talking about. And I just want to confirm we're on issue number three. Right? Because the other issues also kind of touch the Coleman. Okay.

While we're kind of getting out of the receivership for health care in prisons, we may also be entering into receivership on mental health care in prisons. Can you guys provide a little bit of that? And this is the struggle when we're talking about homelessness and housing and much more, many of these individuals that we talk about in everyday society end up falling into the system. Right. What do you see there in regards to the numbers and much more?

I can say, people ask why I work in the prisons, and I say that's because that's where all the mentally ill people are. And so you're absolutely right that it has become a kind of last stop on a station where there's so many things that went wrong before they got there. The Coleman case was started in the 1990s, and they assigned a special master who is a representative of the court who works basically as an advisor, saying, trying to communicate standards and making sure that we're meeting constitutional minimum.

The Plata court case, the medical side one had appointed a receiver, as you mentioned, who is, institution by institution, delegating things back to CDCR to manage. Coleman hasn't worked in the same way. We don't do things institution by institution. It's more like by program.

So suicide prevention statewide, we're taking over the writing of those reports and the investigations and follow up that happen. So it's more of a broad based approach to mental health. I think that there's a lot going on with the court right now that I'm probably not qualified to describe as well as a lawyer could. But there's, you know, public court documents and filings about this discussion right now about whether there should be a receiver. That's really all I can say or be familiar with about the process.

In your assessment of these individuals, do they belong in prison?

I'm not sure what you mean by belong. Sorry.

Currently, as they are in prison and considering that they have a mental health condition, do you believe that there needs to be a different agency or facility that actually holds them versus prison?

Oh, yes. Diversion programs. Yeah. Substance use...

So not diversion. Right. So we eliminated state hospitals that really take care of our mentally ill individuals. Right. What is your take on this? And potentially the investment as well as just the circumstance of if they are treated, medicated, and much more. What's your stance?

Yes, so we do work with the five hospitals of Department of State Hospitals, DSH. Two of the, well, three, I guess, of the facilities, we are able to transfer our low security people with significant mental illness to their facilities. So instead of being in a prison that functions like a hospital, they go to a hospital that has locked doors, but is just a straight hospital kind of thing.

And we work with the plaintiffs and other people to get as many of those patients as we can over to the Department of State Hospitals. We want them to get treatment in the safest, calmest, most therapeutic environments that they can have. And we acknowledge that we're not always that option. We're often not that option.

Is that option actually cheaper than housing them in prison?

It's a good question. I don't know the exact numbers. I think it was actually, there are some numbers in the LAO summary. The Department of State Hospitals is actually fairly expensive as well. They have very, you know, intensive work programs and everything. So I believe they're comparable, but I don't want to speak out of turn.

Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. The numbers we received from the Department of State Hospitals, 364 per bed, and slightly lower, or 393 million annually for State Hospitals and 364, 64,000 for the Department of Corrections. And some of those vary depending on the bed that they're assigned to. It could be higher or slightly lower.

So we're talking about an annual cost. Correct? Per bed. And can you repeat those numbers clearly? Which one is for CDCR and which one is for the State Hospital?

CDCR 364,000. State Hospital, this is average across all their beds, 393 million. So about a 30,000 difference.

Okay. And can, can anybody explain why there is a difference and also why it's so high?

Drew Soderborg, Legislative Analyst Office. So I think the difference really comes down to differing staffing packages that exist in DSH and CDCR is the primary reason.

Can we elaborate as to what that entails? Because, you know, these individuals are medicated most of the time, if not all the time. I have toured a lot of these different facilities throughout the state. In my opinion, they are heavily medicated to the point where, you know, they don't necessarily communicate.

Some of them have difficulty just naturally communicating and much more. You know, what is the oversight and what is the cost? And it just does not make sense to spend more than, you know, a quarter of a million dollars. Right. A third of a million to just house these particular individuals.

You mean within the state hospital system, within...

Both. Because it's only, you know, a very short difference between. So what are we doing here in regards to cost savings across the board? So spending nearly half a million dollars on these individuals per bed, and they, I'm assuming they're a little bit more low risk in violence if they are medicated and much more supervision.

They're in a closed facility, lockdown facility in so many different ways. Right. In the hospitals, we know, we've toured some of them where it's heavier equipment, they can't throw things. It's suicide prevention. There's so many different things already instated in the function of the building. Right. Let alone the additional security at gates and so forth. So why is there such a heavy, heavy cost in the hospitals that is naturally designed to house these individuals versus where it's very heavy guard facility as it is in a CDCR facility. Please explain to me why we're spending this much money.

Gotcha. So inpatient beds have 24 hour nursing care. They have all of these medications that you're talking about have side effects that need to be monitored and make sure that the patients are as healthy as possible. The lack of response that you're talking about, it's hard to tell sometimes whether that is because of the course of the disease or the medications. So it's not easy to be able to peel those two things apart. These are the sickest people in the State of California in any sense. Right.

They're in 24 hour inpatient beds at the highest level of care that we could possibly provide. For DSH, if the patient is too violent to be in a DSH facility, they come to us, they come to CDCR. So we have a concentration of the ones that are the most mentally ill as well as the most violent, the most difficult to manage. And we do our best to treat these patients as humanely as possible, but they require a lot of care and a lot of attention. I don't deny that at all.

Okay, and you believe that, and I just want to understand. So an average bed for CDCR is that much?

Yeah, that is correct. Those are the numbers we received from the department.

Okay. And do you see what I'm trying to ask? So you have an average bed for an average inmate costing the same amount for the highest amount of care for an individual that requires 24/7 attention.

No, I'm sorry, sorry. That... It's the average inpatient bed that we're talking about. That's not the average inmate. We only have a few hundred or a couple thousand inpatient beds.

So can you guys correct your statement?

Yeah, sorry. That's correct, that this is inpatient bed. So these are the highest need people that, that have been assessed.

In both facilities?

In both facilities, yes.

DSH and CDCR. We're only talking about inpatient, which is the highest possible level of care.

Okay, and then do you guys have any cost reduction measures in any of this to utilize, whether that's technology? As Senator Seyarto said, there's a lot of equipment that measure biometrics that, you know, you don't necessarily need to be physically present. You could also monitor them from a screen. Anything like that?

We do. We have court orders that say you cannot monitor a suicidal patient via video only. That's not allowed. And that is again, based on community standards that are outside...

Not a suicidal patient, but let's say any other average patient.

Yes. Gotcha. Okay. So I would say a significant number of the people in these inpatient beds are on what we call suicide watch, which means they need a one to one observer at all times, so that if they hurt themselves, someone can come very quickly and help with that.

And so these really are short term, high acuity beds, as much as we can. We have three levels of care. There's the mental health crisis, which is equivalent to an emergency department. About 10 days maximum stay. We have the acute psychiatric facility, which is usually about 30 days, give or take.

And then we have the intermediate, which is supposed to help people transition out of the inpatient system back to the lowest level of care. We need to keep people in the least restrictive setting, both from a legal as well as just an ethical medical standpoint. We need people at the lowest, least restrictive level that they can tolerate.

And so our efforts are really to get those patients down, get them the support they need to function in an outpatient setting. We don't, none, none of us, from the court to us to anyone, want these patients to remain in inpatient beds. We do our best to move them down as much as we can.

Okay, and then is there a transition where they have a housing unit that is not necessarily this expensive, but then also not necessarily, because if they have a mental health condition, they're not in a regular facility?

Yes, yes. So we have enhanced outpatient level of care. And then the bottom one, we use a lot of acronyms. It's called triple CMS, but it's equivalent to outpatient. The kind of care. Excuse me, the kind of care that we would get if we just see a physician periodically if we need it.

So the enhanced outpatient level of care only live with other people of the same level of care. So they only live with other enhanced outpatients. Which means there's not as much opportunity for people to take advantage of these patients. They're able to get offered at least 10 hours of group treatment a week on top of the time out of their cell on the yards and things like that. So we focus a lot of attention on that level, which is the first place they would go coming down from an inpatient.

Thank you.

Any other Senators? Okay, I have a couple questions for Ms. Lorey. You mentioned that there are 12 cases, four kind of in a pending or I guess working through status, one has been resolved. That means there's seven outstanding. So where are we with those? Are we getting closer to settling or resolving or...

It depends. We're working through each one. Very different types that those are involved. We have some that are involved to incidents happening during our Covid time, whether that was allegations of exposure. We have some of these cases have to do with violations of the incarcerated rights during an investigation. But yes, we've got teams dedicated to each of those and working through the process.

Okay, Mr... Not Mr., Dr. Mehta and also Ms. Carter, the types of services that we're talking about and Senator Wahab, I think was going there, is it safe to assume that some people have kind of a lower level of mental health issues and some are higher? Right? So it's a mix. It's not everyone who's very, very serious and requires 24 hour care, is that correct? Okay. So when we talk about the availability of people, and I had a personal experience with a family member where it was kind of...

We were basically told to the person the best way to get them care was to take them to emergency so they could then be referred to a doctor. Because most doctors are so busy, mental health professionals, that you can't even get someone in to be seen sometimes for a couple months. That's what I was told.

So that being said, have you explored with some of the low level services required, maybe like a telemedicine type of position where people maybe for every other week or three weeks to get telemedicine care and counseling. And then maybe weekly, I'm sorry, maybe once a month, then the physician or social worker, whoever would come in, in person to maybe increase that. That way people who are working in other positions potentially further away may want, you know, to do it as, you know, one day of their practice, but not necessarily willing to give up their entire practice to come and work within the prisons.

Those are excellent points. And so I will say I'm proud to say that we actually have more accessibility to mental health clinicians for our incarcerated population than we do in the community at this time. The ratios of patients to doctors is lower or better. Right. So that's one thing. And they need it. That's appropriate.

They're the ones who need it most, honestly. The telemental health is absolutely a big important part of what we do. I started in telepsychiatry about 10-11 years ago. When I entered the department, I was working in telepsychiatry. Some of our facilities, like High Desert, which is way north on the Nevada border kind of thing. That's where I worked for about six years through tele, and I live in the city in San Francisco, and I would work from San Quentin and call into High Desert. So that has absolutely been a huge boon to our system.

Telepsychiatry, which is historically where we had the lowest fill rates, has been around for over a decade. But within the last two years, we've created quite a lot of positions in telepsychology and telesocial work. And that has been amazing. We've had a great response to that.

And we're doing so well that we do not hire any contractors to work through the tele system. Every person who works through tele is a civil service. Only on site people can be contractors, and that's how much demand we've found is because of that. And so that has been hiring just like gangbusters lately. And I can pass to Ms. Carter for numbers.

Yes. And just to expand on that, something else that we worked with Department of Human Resources on was dual appointments. And a dual appointment is that you have your primary position where you work full time. And so we have it for a select few classifications. And that's kind of psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers where they can work an additional appointment to help with any of the backlog or institutions that we're still trying to fill vacancies with. And so we do do utilize that as well.

Okay. And on average, the pay range of these various positions, how would you say that they rate to the private sector or non-incarcerated?

So we're always monitoring and evaluating. We like to be a little bit higher. Of course, it takes time and we have to go through the collective bargaining process to raise salaries, work with CalHR and the labor organizations. And again, we always try to assess and make sure that we're trying to be above the market medium because it does take a while for salaries to increase within the state process. And so as of right now, again, you know, from the state perspective, we are paying our staff great. But again, it can always be better.

Okay, could you maybe provide to the Committee, and I think that was one of the points Senator Durazo was going at. Maybe, you mentioned that it's higher to increase their pay for some reason, you know, as they're there. Maybe if you gave us suggestions of what could be done in those areas, we might be able to assist in some way.

Definitely, we can bring information back.

Okay, thank you. All right, no further questions by anyone? All right, seeing none. Thank you very much for your time, and I know a couple of you are still staying here. We're going to move to issue number four, which is California Institution for Men, 50 bed mental health crisis facility staffing. We're going to start with Mr. Duane Reeder, and then I think... Are you staying, Dr. Mehta? Okay, there we go. All right, so let's start, Mr. Reeder.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Correctional Health Care Services is requesting a net of 13.4 positions and 3 million in General Fund in 25-26, Expanding to 20.4 positions and 4.4 million General Fund in 26-27.

This funding and positions is needed to staff a new 50 bed mental health crisis facility at the CIM, California Institution for Men. The staffing for medical is based on the med class model and Title 22 requirements. The mental health staffing being requested is based on the mental health staffing model.

And there are custody positions as well that are needed and it's based on the custody models for staffing. This facility is replacing unlicensed beds. So currently, there are 34 unlicensed beds at CIM, and this facility will be replacing those. So we'll be bringing down the 34 beds. So this staffing is a net of need from the 34 to the 50 bed facility.

Thank you. Any questions with Orlando?

Orlando Sanchez with the Legislative Analyst Office. I'll be providing brief comments on this proposal. So given that this new facility will be completed, the project will be completed in October, would allow the department to convert its unlicensed beds to licensed beds.

And it would also reduce the time it takes for people to transfer to such beds in the Southern California region. We recommend approving the proposed activation of the mental health crisis bed. But stepping back, we also recommend directing CDCR to seek approval the inpatient beds that we were discussing earlier.

Based on the projected bed need study that gets published every twice a year, it appears that CDCR is operating over 680 excess inpatient beds. So these are some of the ones we discussed, which include crisis beds. This is in addition to a 10% buffer for unanticipated increases that's already built into this bed needs study.

So to ensure that excess capacity doesn't continue to accumulate in future years, we further recommend the Legislature add budget bill language requiring CDCR to continue to seek adjustments to its bed capacity as future bed need studies are produced. Then finally, we recommend that the proposal account for potential savings of reduced transportation costs.

These changes could reduce overall costs by together, overall cost by over 100 million if all of the excess beds are deactivated. But we acknowledge that to the extent that the Coleman Court denies such a plan, it would benefit the Legislature to understand what criteria, threshold, or buffer would need to be met under the Coleman Court to deactivate some if not all of these excess inpatient beds I've highlighted. Thank you and happy to take questions on any other portions.

Thank you for your recommendations. Department of Finance?

We have no additional comments at this time, but we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Senators, any questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you for your presentation. Actually, I'm sorry, I have one question. Mr. Reeder, would you like to respond to the LAO's comments about the statewide capacity?

I think Dr. Mehta would probably be better to speak to the statewide capacity component of their recommendation.

Absolutely. So we are, I think, on the same page as the LAO and the Legislature here that we want to shut down as many of the unoccupied beds as possible. I do know that the court is very cautious, given the history of this case. Things like Prop 36 can happen suddenly and bring more patients into the system. The beds that we're shutting down at CIM are unlicensed. If we were to shut down any other beds, they would be licensed beds.

And once they're closed, you can't relicense them without meeting all of the current standards of a licensed inpatient bed, which are very high standards. And so we would not be able to reopen those beds if we ever closed them for any future surge in population. I know there's quite a bit of surge that we're talking about here. So we work as much as we can with the court as well to say that these beds are not projected to be used for many years. We should be considering ways to close them down.

I'm sorry, I have a question. If it's appropriate, or you were going to answer somebody? No. Okay, I'm sorry. Could you explain that little piece again? So there's 34 unlicensed beds. They will be shut down, and there is no other repurposing of those beds that we could use?

Correct. So the court has given us court ordered exceptions to used beds that are not licensed for inpatient care. And these are the last few beds that we have that are unlicensed. So we've closed down 20 beds at California State Prison Sacramento in 21-22 without replacing.

We closed 68 beds at California Medical Facility in 22 without replacing as well. So these are the last unlicensed ones. If we were to close down any additional beds, we would be closing licensed beds, but they were licensed at the time of their construction under those standards. So if we close them down and then five years from now we needed to get more licensed beds, those would not be relicensable. We'd have to build them from scratch like we're doing at CIM, which is extremely expensive. We acknowledge that.

These beds cannot be repurposed now. Do they remain, what happens?

Correct. So the, the CIM beds can't be repurposed for inpatient care, but they can be used for other use at the, at the prison. So we can, we can turn them into different kinds of cells, but the new facility will be taking over all the inpatient.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further questions, we'll move on to issue number five, which both of you are staying for. Thank you. Issue number five is the suicide watch augmentation. We're going to have Mr. Reeder and also Dr. Mehta, who will be presenting on issue number five. Who would like to go first?

I will go first. Thank you.

Alright, Mr. Reeder. There you go. Your first up to bat.

I know. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Correctional Health Care Services request 13.6 million General Fund in 25-26 and ongoing to fund additional costs associated with increased suicide watch workload. We have had challenges in our budget driven by suicide watch. It is a very necessary function within the department.

Mental health orders the suicide watches, and then nursing is tasked with providing those coverages. And so it is a challenge in our budget covering those suicide watches and redirecting staff over to commit that time. So we're asking for 13.6 million. We typically average around 31.2 million annually. We're going to look to see if we can reduce some costs as well as to continue to cover about 9 million in funding that was not provided in our original suicide watch BCP, which was done in 2017-18.

Thank you. Doctor, do you have anything else to add?

I'm available for questions, but nothing to add right now. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Our LA Office?

Orlando Sanchez again with LAO. Because suicide watch is critical to patient safety in the department and the department has struggled to fill certified nursing assistant positions, which provide the bulk of suicide watch, we recommend the Legislature approve this on a one time basis as opposed to ongoing.

Also, we recommend directing CDCR take steps to to control costs and reduce costs of suicide watch. We outlined three steps that could help the department do so. One is continuing efforts to fill their certified nursing assistant positions. These would allow the department. In analyzing the proposal, we found that about a third of those positions are vacant. Filling them would allow the department to, would allow the department to use those positions as opposed to like higher cost positions that they may use when those positions aren't available.

And the second is creating an alternative classification that's easier to recruit than certified nursing assistants, but also lower cost than some of these other positions that they often rely on. And then the third step is for the department to develop a population driven methodology. Our analysis indicates that the department receives funding irrespective of changes in the population.

So when there are increases or decreases, their budget remains the same. So we think changing that methodology to be more flexible would allow the department kind of fill that better. And then lastly, we also recommend the the department to report on its progress by next year once these funds are provided.

Given that these funds we recommend these funds are provided on a one year basis. This would allow the Legislature, as it considers next year's budget, to determine what the appropriate level of funding on an ongoing basis may be. Thank you and happy to take questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Finance.

So the department's medical program has had deficiencies for at least the last five years. A common theme of this is funding shortfalls for temporary help, largely driven by suicide watch. And this shortfall is a structural deficiency that needs to be addressed ongoing to create a sustainable medical program.

Last year's budget, the 2024 Budget Act, included $20 million to address an anticipated current year deficiency in the anticipation that the administration would bring forward 24-25 ongoing proposals to help align this budget better. This is one of those proposals. We don't believe the addition of reporting language is necessary at this time, as these efforts to reduce costs, as mentioned, have already become significantly underway.

The department has historically absorbed $9 million tied to suicide watch, and this proposal actually increases that absorption by an additional 5 million to account for these efficiencies, such as increasing certified nursing assistant fill rates and the potential to utilize lower cost classifications, which actually has to be approved by the Coleman court before the department can implement that.

Additionally, although the prison population is declining, we're actually seeing suicide watch hours go up. And so therefore, a population methodology would likely result in significant underfunding of this effort. With that, we're happy to answer any additional questions.

Thank you, both of you. Dr. Mehta, do you have any thoughts on the recommendations that were made?

Yeah, the certified nursing assistant classification is, it's a helpful one to the whole system because people who come into that classification can train and promote to licensed higher level positions like LVNs or RNs. But that means that there's a lot of movement through those positions as they come. And so they are the least expensive option, and we want to use them as much as we can. But there's, you know, good people are always being promoted through there. So we are looking at other classifications.

They would tend to be more expensive than the CNAs, which is the least expensive option, but they're less expensive than the, you know, other people on the list of people that we can use for suicide watch. So both getting more CNAs and allowing them to move through, but hiring more from the beginning and also finding other classifications that are a better last resort are efforts that we're working on.

And have you considered the ones that the LAO has recommended?

Specific classifications?

Yes, they mentioned a couple.

We just wanted to add. The department has indicated that they're exploring some, but we haven't identified specifically classifications. But there may be others that could be easier to recruit.

Agree.

Thank you. All right, any Members, Senators with questions? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move on to issue number six, which is workers compensation. For that, we're going to continue with Mr. Reeder, I think, who gives us the recap up front.

And then we have Ms. Cynthia Mendoza, deputy director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Office of Fiscal Services. And we also have Dr. Joseph Bick, who's director of Division of Correctional Health Care Services of the California Correctional Healthcare Services as well. And I think we had one other person.

We have Joanna Cagle, deputy director of the Office of Health Management.

Great. Welcome. All right, are we going to start off with Mr. Reeder or who?

Thank you.

All right.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Correctional Health Care Services requests 8.5 million General Fund in 25-26 and ongoing to address a shortfall in the workers compensation authority and to reassess expenditures annually as part of the Governor's Budget process. This request is consistent with how CDCR as a whole adjusts their workers compensation.

Healthcare was not part of that adjustment, and we're asking to be included in the CDCR adjustment for workers comp. This is part of the overall, you know, personal services shortfall that was mentioned by my DOF colleagues. And so this is an attempt to fill that baseline gap moving forward.

Thank you. Is anyone else going to present? Ms. Mendoza, Dr. Bick, or...

I can present the second proposal. CDCR and CCHCS request 33 million one time in 25-26 and 35 million in 26-27 and 16 two year limited term positions to extend previously approved workers compensation workload and costs related to COVID 19. Since the pandemic started, CDCR had 19,309 Covid workers compensation claims submitted to the State Compensation Insurance Fund.

As of December 2024, CDCR still had 1,085 open COVID 19 claims. The department is required by federal and state regulations to process medical reasonable accommodation requests. Returning employees to work after the disability has ended saves the state resources and supports the department's goals of ensuring the retention of well trained quality employees. Additionally, we're requesting to extend the work the staff this limited term period for two years for positions to account for the lingering workload related to these claims. And with that, Joanna is here to answer any further questions.

Thank you. Dr. Bick, did you have anything to add?

No, thank you. I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you. Our LAO representatives, any comments? No. Department of Finance? No. Okay. Mr. Seyarto, did you have a question or a comment?

Not a 12 minute question. I got, really, it is, it should be a short question. So this, the COVID compensation for workers comp. Are these claims related to active Covid cases? Are they related to long Covid cases issues, or what are they related to as far as Covid? Because it's kind of like everybody else.

We're putting Covid to bed. You know, we treat it like a cold and we're out for a few days and then we come back, including this Legislature. We do the same thing. So we give each other COVID all the time. So that's, that's, you know, the initial thing. Yes.

But now we're getting to a point where, you know, and there's, you know, if people are claiming vaccination damage, if they're doing that, I don't know. But I'm kind of curious where these claims are coming from because we really shouldn't be spending this much money on Covid anymore.

So that's a combination of claims that we currently have. We have a little over a thousand that are still open that are long term Covid claims. So those require a higher level of resources necessary to process them. More medical appointments, the return to work coordinators are very engaged in those.

And we're looking for long term solutions to return those employees to work, whether it's in their current position or in a different position in the department. So we might be considering medical demotion or transfer or things of that nature for those thousand. We're still getting about 95 additional claims every month for Covid.

And while most of those close out fairly quickly, we close about 95% of the claims very quickly. There are those lingering ones that will drag on. Unfortunately, we can't control the filing of the claim. And so every employee is entitled to file a claim if they believe that Covid was caught in one of our facilities. And so this is just the resources necessary to process those claims and get them closed out as quickly as possible.

Senator Durazo.

I mean, the main thing obviously is the health and safety of these employees and that's, it should always be driving us is their well being. So in light of that, you know, improving employee health and safety, what can we do to support that? I mean, things like, you know, training needs or how do you make work areas safer, wellness support.

So we have in the last few years really focused on that. We've improved working with CCHCS. I don't know if they have anybody today to speak to those efforts, but they do have an employee health program now that operates for that that reason. We also have our respiratory protection program and a number of other steps that we've taken in response to Covid. But CCHCS does have that program.

Thank you. Dr. Bick, it's my understanding you actually work within the facility, is that correct?

I do. I spent the first 27 years of my career working at California Medical Facility in Vacaville. I started there during the height of the AIDS epidemic as an infectious disease specialist and then in July of 2020 moved to headquarters where I currently serve as the director, statewide director of Healthcare Services.

In this capacity, I tour all of the institutions. I've been to all of them at least three times now in the last several years. And while there, I meet with staff, meet with the Inmate Advisory Committee, hear their questions and concerns. And I also hold clinics so that I can experience firsthand how well our healthcare system is working.

In light of that, can you describe what the medical staff culture is inside the institution and what are some of the issues driving recruitment and retention of the medical staff?

I think culture is a broad question. We have an incredibly dedicated group of individuals, many of whom have come to specifically work with this patient population. They care deeply about the underserved, they're committed to public health, and they recognize that when we have healthy prisoners, our communities on the outside are healthier.

And I feel that strongly whenever I go to the institutions. We do struggle though. Many of our institutions are remote. It's difficult to find clinicians even in populated areas, but in the remote areas it's particularly challenging. And even more so when we talk about delivery of say, specialty care.

And are there anything that, any things that you would recommend to reduce those barriers? Earlier I mentioned the telemedicine. Are there any other ideas maybe that you've thought of that would allow people, I don't know if they're part time positions. Are there any things you've thought about that could help to mitigate those barriers?

Yes, many of them have been mentioned this morning. We have a very robust telehealth program for both the medical patients and also for the mental health, as Dr. Mehta referred to earlier. We continue to expand that. I believe that telehealth is incredibly helpful within our system. It doesn't always replace the in person clinician.

That's the part of the job that I appreciate the most. I learned a lot actually sitting in with a patient, actually touching a patient, shaking their hand, and speaking to them in person. We're continuing to explore and expand upon tele-specialty health.

Our goal is to limit the number of patients who actually need to leave the institution to receive specialty services. Right now approximately 80% of our specialty services are provided inside the institution, either in person or by telehealth. But we need to continue to expand upon that. And you know, we've talked some about bringing in different classifications. We need to continue to explore that.

And one of the programs I'm most excited right now, which won't fill civil service positions but will allow us to do a better job, is the peer support program where we're training incarcerated people to use their lived experience in a variety of roles within the institution that I believe are going to be life changing for them and for the population.

Thank you. Ms. Mendoza, other than the COVID cases, and of course we understand the increase that was associated with that, can you describe the reasons behind some of the high rates of the workers comp filings?

I'll turn that over to Joanna.

Okay.

Are you speaking specifically to Covid and the...

No, I'm saying beyond Covid, the rates are still pretty high in terms of a workers comp. And my question is, do you have any reasons to explain why that would be?

We are always looking at the reasons and why these claims are being filed. The nature of the work done in the institutions does lead to a much higher percentage of claims compared to other agencies across the state. We do realize we have the the largest number of workers comp claims compared to other agencies in the state. But the nature of the work, the type of work that they're doing really does drive those types of injuries.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Or Department of Finance or LAO? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mendoza.

One more driver for those costs. We also pay service fees to the State Compensation Insurance Fund. So it's, it's a pretty significant portion.

You pay what now?

Service fees to the State Compensation Insurance Fund to handle these cases.

Really? That's interesting.

Our cases are, the insurance is through the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and they manage the cases for us. So they adjust the cases, and then we handle the return to work portion of those cases. So our return to work coordinators are in house, but the adjusters are through SCIF, and we pay them a service fee annually for every claim that we have. Right now that fee is a little over $5,000 per claim per year.

Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. If we could, our committee team take maybe a further look at that. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. That concludes issue number six. We'll now move on to issue number seven, which is the community re-entry programs for supervised persons. Ms. Mendoza, I believe you're staying for this one. Yes. Can't let you go too far. And Sydney Tanimoto, deputy director of program operations for the CDCR Department of Rehabilitative Programs. And I think that's it. Yes, Ms. Mendoza.

Thank you. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation requests 44.9 million General Fund in 25-26, 47.5 million in 26-27, 37.3 million in 27-28, and 40.1 million in 28-29, and 42.9 million ongoing to increase funding for community re-entry programs to assist with supporting continuity of services to supervised persons.

We are requesting resources to line our community re-entry program funding with rising operational costs. This request includes a one time catch up rate increase and a 2% cost of living adjustment in the out years for our program providers operating the Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming, Day Reporting Centers, Long Term Offender Reentry Recovery Programs.

This methodology is consistent with the resources included in the 2024 Budget Act. Additionally, DRP is also requesting a continuation of resources for our Returning Home Well Program, with additional resources to provide the wraparound services such as substance use disorder treatment services. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Sydney Tanimoto, deputy director, Division of Rehabilitative Services.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for having me here today. As Ms. Mendoza mentioned, my name is Sydney Tanimoto. I am the deputy director of operations with the Division of Rehabilitative Programs with CDCR. And yes, I'm aware that's a mouthful.

I'm happy to provide a high level overview of the programs we operate in relation to this resource request before you today. I'm also happy to provide key insights into the two legislative reports we submitted in February for our Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming, otherwise known as STOP.

In terms of our programs, we work in collaboration with the Division of Adult Parole Operations. Our team is overseeing these programs to really help support those who are incarcerated, leaving our prisons, and re-entering our community. We have a multi pronged approach to meet individuals based off the level of need they're at.

We know in reentry one size fits one, and that's the approach we are taking. For those with low acuity needs, we operate what we call our Day Reporting Centers. That's really a space where we can connect you to employment, to housing, to life skills such as financial literacy.

For those who serve life term or long term sentences, we operate what we call our Long Term Offender Reentry Recovery, otherwise known as LTORR. We know for this population there is a specialized need. For those that have served those longer sentences, the community looks vastly different than it did decades ago when they entered and got into incarceration.

For those who have a higher level of acuity needs, we do operate our STOP program, which focuses on that substance use disorder treatment as well as providing services such as anger management, family reunification, financial literacy, and those pieces. We also operate the Returning Home Well Program, which is a transitional housing program.

Moving to the legislative reports that were submitted, CDCR submitted two, one of which focused on data for the 2023 calendar year and one to develop a plan to look leverage Medi-Cal where possible for STOP services. The STOP data report noted in 2023, over 6100 participants received services for more than 30 days, while 2400 others engaged for a shorter period. Of those identified with a housing need, 96% were provided housing. Of those identified with a substance use disorder need, 80% were enrolled in substance use disorder treatment programming.

Although recidivism data for 2023 is not available due to standard reporting timelines, we do have previous data from fiscal year 2018-2019, which does demonstrate lower recidivism rates for STOP participants compared to the statewide release cohort. Additionally, CDCR submitted a report around integrating Medi-Cal funding into STOP services.

We recognize and fully support efforts to leverage Medi-Cal where possible. We do face challenges. Providers have raised concerns with becoming Medi-Cal billable, which could result in STOP contractors deciding to drop from the STOP network. Additionally, some individuals on parole supervision do not qualify for Medi-Cal funded treatment.

I would note we are working to increase Medi-Cal referrals, and we will also continue to have conversations with our stock providers and DHCS around guidance to help interested providers become Medi-Cal billable. Additionally, we will continue to work with providers to make workflows, data collection, service delivery more efficient and effective. These programs are integral to the department strategy and how we are helping support those who are exiting from California's prisons back into our community on parole supervision. Thank you and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Sounds like you did your homework and read the LAO's report. You gave us a comment on that. The LAO, would you like to share your comments and recommendations?

Great. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. LAO again. So in our review of the proposal we found that it has three components, and we structure our recommendations around those three. The first we want to highlight is the proposed increases to the STOP program or as we mentioned, the full acronym is Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming.

We recommend a series of steps to increase utilization of Medi-Cal for the STOP programs that provide substance use disorder treatment. Here we recap our recommendations from a 2021 report our office did where we found that leveraging the Medi-Cal's existing structure provides better quality of service to the people on parole and it also allows the state to draw down federal funds, making it less costly.

Those steps include referring all people on parole with a medical need for substance use disorder to treatment through licensed Medi-Cal providers in the community, also requiring all STOP network providers to become licensed Medi-Cal providers. And in the survey mentioned, over half of the respondents mentioned that they're already in the process or have started or would be interested in becoming Medi-Cal licensed providers.

In addition, requiring some of these STOP, requiring these STOP network providers to submit their expenditures to Medi-Cal, their existing billing structure, and then to ensure that some of these costs aren't shifted over to counties, the Legislature could direct the Department of Health Care Services to pass those costs on to CDCR, especially for the non-reimbursable portions that aren't covered.

Under this structure, most expenditures for parole substance use disorder treatment would then get shifted to Medi-Cal, and the department wouldn't need the full 98 million that's currently proposed under the governor's proposal, which includes the 28 million for the specific cost of living increases mentioned. And we acknowledge that implementing this would take time.

So as a result we recommend funding this proposal on a one time basis to allow the stakeholders to become Medi-Cal licensed providers and allow the department to make that transition. The second component I want to highlight is related to the Returning Home Well Program.

This is a program that was funded for three years that provides transitional housing for those exiting incarceration. The department is required to submit a report on March 1 next year that presents some of the metrics and outcomes on how the program is performing.

So because that report isn't available yet, it's difficult for the Legislature to know whether it merits continued funding or additional funding. But to the extent this remains a priority to the Legislature, we recommend funding modifying the governor's proposal and funding it on a one time basis.

This would allow the Legislature in the following year to have that report ready to consider whether this program merits additional funding. Also, I want to highlight for this committee that the state is expanding housing assistance services through CalAIM's Medi-Cal initiative. Notably, there have been several housing related programs that have been rolled out and some of those include housing navigation and supporting housing deposits or first month's rents that have already been implemented under CalAIM.

And even more recently, the state received approval from from the federal government to cover up to six months of rent for people on on Medi-Cal and that could cover between 50 and 90% of those costs with the state covering the rest. And then most people released from prison are eligible for Medi-Cal, and CDCR supports those being released from incarceration in submitting applications and most of those are submitted successfully.

So in light of the availability of this housing assistance under CalAIM, we recommend the Legislature modify the Returning Home Well Program's reporting requirements that for that report I mentioned that will be available to include whether CalAIM's new initiatives that are being rolled out could serve, could be relied upon for the parole population as opposed to the Returning Home Well Program, and also some of the pros and cons of what relying on that compared to this program.

And then the final components related to the remaining programs that are funded under this program proposal. This program would provide funding to parole programs that haven't yet been evaluated in terms of how successful they are in outcomes such as getting people employment or recidivating or other metrics.

So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to evaluate these programs for cost effectiveness. But to maintain these programs in operation while the evaluation's being carried out, we recommend limited term funding for the programs. This would allow the Legislature to review how successful these programs are once a study has been conducted and completed. Thank you. I'm happy to take questions on any of that.

Thank you for your work. Department of Finance.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Josh Wittmershaus, Department of Finance. In addition to the concerns raised by the department, we want to note that regarding the LAO's recommendations to require STOP, or I'm sorry, to provide STOP and other post-release program funding on a limited term basis.

That Finance would note that ongoing funding for these programs and the methodology presented in this proposal was established in the 2024-25 budget and limited turn funding would jeopardize the department's ability to secure future contracts and exercise the ability to utilize the additional year of a signed contract with these providers.

Additionally, the LAO's recommendation on providing funding for Returning Home Well on a one year rather than a two year basis with the submission of the Return Home Well report in March of 2026, only providing one year of funding would limit the amount of time for the administration and the Legislature to evaluate these findings and move forward with additional funding for the 26-27 budget is deemed appropriate. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Both of you. Had some pretty specific recommendations and work. We appreciate it. What I'd like to do is if we could submit all of those recommendations to our panelists and if you could respond in writing to the committee in an effort of saving time. Senator Durazo, did you have any questions?

Well, I see that you're taking that approach, which is fine with me, But I do want to emphasize what the LAO's office reported. I understand cost effectiveness, so we have to have that. But I also want to know how well these programs are functioning and what they are delivering, what kind of work that they're doing. So I just want to emphasize that recommendation. Thank you.

And thank you, Senator Durazo. I didn't intend to not have the conversation. It was just there were so many. I wanted to make sure all of them are covered. Thank you. I actually...

...Talking points.

There we go. Well, actually I had a follow up question too, and you alluded to it in your presentation. How would you actually go about better utilizing having people sign up for Medi-Cal? Because it seems like there are significant amounts of overlap there and we could have some savings. What's the barrier of people being signed up now, and what do we need to do to make that happen?

Absolutely. So there's two pieces here. One piece is actually connecting those who are on our parole supervision to Medi-Cal, which we do. That's across the board. The other piece to it is we have providers who are providing services that are similar to Medi-Cal funded services.

And so the question becomes having those providers who go through the Medi-Cal certification process to draw down the Medi-Cal funds separately. Because we absolutely push to have our folks connect to Medi-Cal. We know that's the safety net. We know how vital it is for people to have that service. So 1000% agree on that piece.

I will say for our program providers for STOP, it's much like our incarcerated people coming back into the community. We have a, it's really difficult to paint them with a broad strokes brush. We have some organizations that operate in multiple cities, multiple different modalities.

You have some providers who have pretty small teams that are only operating at one facility, and then you have providers in between. And so there really is this range and resources of capacity for our STOP providers.

And so where we are focusing and having the conversations and on those organizations that have the resources that are interested, that's who we're really going to focus on bolstering, working with them on the Medi-Cal reimbursement side.

Okay, and what is the status of the current contracts for these programs? Is the department confident that these increases will lead to better bid responses? And does the administration use the lowest bid contracting process?

We do. We do use the lowest bid. We have current IFBs. That's the lowest bid methodology and process as we speak. And we have seen success after the last year resources were approved.

And my last question I had the pleasure yesterday of meeting with CALPIA is maybe how I would pronounce it, CALPIA. And they shared with me that actually they don't receive any state funding, but they're a part of the reentry program. Are you familiar with them? How do you utilize them? And how is it maybe that we could have more programs like that participate in our system?

I'll take the first stab, and then Sydney can jump in. CALPIA provides work related programs and CDCR is integrally involved. So they work together to ensure the incarcerated population is employed. And they offer some CTE programs and then DRP also provides CTE programs that are complementary and also further rehabilitation.

So CALPIA is not providing the rehabilitative program part of it, but they are developing more employment skills and actually employing our incarcerated population. So the services and the materials that they create, they sell to state departments, and that revenue that they generate then pays for CALPIA. But they are also a part of the broader correctional CDCR system. Just their own organization. But they're still integrally involved.

Right. And you like working with them, I assume?

They're great. They've been great.

Okay. With that, seeing no other questions or comments, we're going to move on to issue number eight. And we have three left to go. And we're going to ask the last presenters if we can speed up as good as we can. A lot of our Members have flights, and so we want to make sure everyone can participate as much as possible. With that being said, issue number eight is Community Corrections Performance Incentive Grants. And for that, we're actually going to start off with the LAO report.

Mr. Orlando Zavala, I believe we're going to have you start with the report. And then Justin Adelman, the assistant program budget manager with Department of Finance, if you want to chime in at that point. And then we have members here present.

Ms. Francine Byrne, which I think we saw before, with the Judicial Council, director of Criminal Justice Services. Ms. Karen Pank, executive director of Chief Probation Officers of California. And then is Ms. Ellen McDonnell here? Okay, so who's Karen Pank? That's you. So the person we don't have is Francine Byrne? Oh, and there she is. All right, so let's start first with Orlando Zavala with LAO.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be going over this handout we prepared. This summarizes a report we did in 2023 on how this program could be modified to better achieve the goals that it was intended to achieve. Page one of the handout we highlight how county probation.

So once a person exits incarceration, a probation officer may supervise the person after a felony conviction. People in the community supervision can also be incarcerated in state prison, and while on supervision because either of a new crime or violating the terms of their supervision. Page two provides an overview of this SB 678 program.

So this program was established in 2009 to accomplish three goals. Those were to reduce the rate at which people on county felony supervision are sent to state prison, create state savings, and improve public safety.

It did this by rewarding counties with a portion of the state savings from people that no longer enter prison, sharing that with the counties. The number of people diverted was estimated by comparing a baseline or historical rate to the number that they actually performed at.

If county sent fewer people than that historical baseline, they received a portion of the state savings. Notably... And then on page two, there we have a diagram that walks through how the specifics of that formula work.

But notably, counties were required to use or are required to use this funding on programs and practices that research has shown are effective at reducing reoffending. Moving on to page four, we discussed how this formula works and it was modified in 2015-16 from its prior iterations. This modified formula is what's been used from that time to 2020-2021. And it was modified for due to various concerns and policy changes, such as the 2011 realignment.

But it has three components, and those components include funding for reducing county, for reducing the rate at which people sent compared to the baseline, funding for reducing failures to prison compared to the prior year, and a minimum guarantee. And then on, on page five, we summarize what's happened in the last several years.

So the modified formula was put on hold in 21-22. This was a result of changes that were happening to county's probation supervision and COVID 19 changes that were happening due to intake into the prison system. But also this would have artificially affected the grant amounts due to performance. So there was a hold placed in that time.

So the administration now proposes various changes to this formula that's been, that's been on hold. And we're still reviewing some of those details that they've recently put out. In the following pages, we summarize our assessment of the program.

Initially, it appears to achieve its goals, but in more recent time with the various policy changes, it's been difficult to determine whether this program is continuing to achieve those goals or whether some of these changes are due to other policy changes that happened simultaneously or concurrently when the program was being implemented.

So it's not clear how effective counties are being in not kind of not sending those folks or diverting those folks to state prison, for example. And then also in this modified formula, we found several concerns with it.

One of them is that it guarantees a minimum amount for counties and that undermines the goal of creating state savings because it's possible for a county to receive funds despite not diverting anyone to from state prison. Here in pages 9 through 11, we know that the administration is in the process of modifying this formula.

So pending our review of that, we highlight our recommendation from that 2023 report. And we recommend the Legislature establish an alternative formula with two components. Specifically, the two portions would have one based on direct measures of performance and then a portion designed to pay for specific evidence based practices.

The first portion would be similar to the original in that it would allow counties to receive funding based on their performance. This would require several key steps that we walked through. So one of those would be establishing a new baseline that reflects all the policy changes that have happened since the 15-16 cycle when this was created.

Also, some key decisions need to be made on what percentage the state savings the state wants to transfer to counties for diverting folks, and deciding on what level depends on what goals the Legislature has between those. Either increasing state savings or reducing prison commitments.

Also, the second portion we recommend would be funding evidence based practices to implement these. A few several key steps also need to be taken, and we walk through those in kind of these final pages. But identifying specific practices to be funded, we think a group of experts could be convened by the Board of State and Community Corrections or BSCC to identify what practices are likely to lead to those.

Also, we recommend establishing a level of savings at each practice would be passed on to counties, establishing the total amount and grant allocation for the counties. And lastly, we recommend requiring the BSCC to take on a responsibility that would allow it to audit and provide oversight of this program, specifically on how counties are selecting their practices. Thank you and happy to kind of walk through any specifics on that.

Any other background that may be helpful.

Thank you very much. Next we'll hear from Justin Adelman with the Department of Finance.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll try and be brief. As Mr. Sanchez Zavala noted, the last few years the formula has been frozen in statute based on historical levels just because of Covid and other kind of policy interactions that would have kind of significantly changed how the funding was distributed.

So what the Administration is proposing, and we mentioned in January 10, we work with our partners in probation, but we would revise the existing component in one payment and reduce it by approximately 20 million.

It's a 15% or so reduction, which would create an ongoing performance maintenance payment, and then we would build in a mechanism for growth in that payment. The second adjustment would be to component two, which, again, as Mr. Sanchez noted, there's some flaws with the existing statute. It kind of makes references to things like contract beds from a time when CDCR was so overcrowded that we were contracting out with providers in California or other states. We don't do that anymore.

So we would update that payment, the incentive piece, to kind of bring it in line with current cost to incarcerate or, you know, supervise somebody on parole. And then we would also establish a new baseline for that incentive payment. Currently, it compares against the prior fiscal year, the prior calendar year.

We would set it firmly between 21 and 23 calendar years. One of the major issues with, you know, tying that performance piece to the prior calendar year is that it's somewhat impossible for counties if, for example, they kind of didn't send anybody to prison, they would have a zero rate, and then so the subsequent year they would have to basically meet that impossible metric.

So it leads to a significant, like, flux between year to year. So we would kind of stabilize that by setting a new baseline based on a few recent calendar years that probation has actually done very well, so it's still a high standard that probation would be held to.

Lastly, we want to note that the existing statute is about 13 million or so higher than what we've proposed with these changes, but we believe that the changes to the formula that we've proposed strike a balance between kind of recognizing past performance and maintaining the incentive for the grant programs. Happy to answer any questions about specifics. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Francine Byrne from Judicial Council.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the role that the Judicial Council plays in the SB 678 Program. I want to actually start by thanking Legislature for passing SB 678 in the first place. Was a thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation and provides a good example of what good government can really do by providing incentive-based funding, only sharing the outcomes that are carefully tracked.

We recognize that there's been a number of changes in policy and legislation since this industry was first passed, legislation, and we have had to do quite a bit of pivoting and changing some of what we do whether to accommodate those changes, but I think that the meat of the program of attaching funding to the practices is still very much there and appreciated.

The Judicial Council receives one million dollars annually that was originally validated to program Budget Act of 23. We expanded the scope of that funding and now we use it also to support activities related to criminal justice realignment.

But my comments are just on what we do in support of the prevention, performance, and improvement. Our role focuses on two things: data collection to measure program effectiveness and assessing the implementation of validated evidence-based practices. We do that in a number of ways.

We gather, clean, and analyze outcome data, specifically the return to prison rates that we receive quarterly from the probation departments, and we pass that information on to the Department of Finance. In terms of ensuring that evidence-based practices are being employed, we do an annual assessment of all 58 county probationist departments that measure their use of evidence-based practices in several unknowns. I won't go into the weeds of what that involves, but I'm happy to answer any questions after I'm finished with my comments.

We do monitor emerging research in the field to ensure that we are indeed measuring the most relevant and timely evidence-based practices for probation supervision. We had--we passed out a very robust site visit program that was significantly reduced with the pandemic, but we are right now in the process of reviewing our protocols and reestablishing those that we hope to launch in the next few months.

And finally we produce an annual report to the Legislature. It typically comes out in September. You should have the 2024 one available to you, and that presents the final ones of return. As I said, I'm not going to get too into much detail other than that but I think the proposed changes seem very reasonable to us and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Byrne. There was a little bit there we might have missed. Your volume was okay, but some of the words, but we'll follow up with some questions if we have them. Next we're going to have Ms. Karen Pank, the Executive Director of the Chief Probation Officers of California. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Thank you for having me. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on the success of this landmark policy we refer to as SB 678 and review ways to support the outcomes and to continue that into the future.

To level-set, I want to be sure to recognize the history leading up to the need to do this policy. Senator Leno introduced SB 678 over 15 years ago, and at that time it enjoyed bipartisan support and continues to do so today. Prior to the state investment, probation departments were triaging supervision of high caseloads which we had very limited tools to deal with. The main option was revocation to state prison whenever there was failure.

The Legislature recognized this, that we had an opportunity to mitigate the costly state expense without jeopardizing public safety by investing in the use of evidence-based practices. The theory was not to describe the how to get there, but to demand what the outcome was expected to be.

The question at the time was could 678 funding actually lead probation departments to build out additional programming tools and supervision practices that would allow a focus on long-term behavior change and a move away from overutilization of short-term compliance? Well, I'm happy to report that the answer is yes.

Fifteen years later, the proof is in the pudding, immediately and ongoing. The state has seen reduced prison revocations, reduced prison population, and increased savings of over a billion and counting, all without jeopardizing public safety. So how do we achieve the performance success?

I'm happy to talk more about specifics, but in the interest of time, I would just agree that the statute does specify the use of the funding to support evidence-based practices and that tends to look like connecting with substance use mental health programs, building out cognitive-based therapy to actually change the thinking that leads to criminal activity, standing up day reporting centers which centralizes and connects a variety of services, and utilizing risk and needs assessment to identify and support those needs that can help focus our work on the individual.

It should not go unmentioned that while creating these policies that save the state money, the byproduct of that work created changes in probation's culture and our approach to work that still stands today. The incentive actually worked. Now we need to protect that change while updating the methodology. So what are we asking for today?

We simply need to capture the success we have earned together over a sustained period of time so that the stability can support the culture change we have embedded in our profession. Probation is the community corrections expert on how to connect the mix of service options available locally and provide supervision levels to holistically apply to each individual.

While the changes proposed today reduce the 2025-26 allocation by more than ten million compared to just leaving the current statutory framework in place, the proposed changes to the formula do strike a delicate balance between enhancing the stability and encouraging further reductions in prison admissions, specifically the performance maintenance payment, which provides that important stability to maximize the dollars the state is investing while fixing the current infirmities of the formula.

For example, as was previously mentioned, in the current formula, you could see a county improve and get a big bump in their allocation one year, do the exact same thing, get the exact same result, except that the funding would then dip. That that yo-yoing is a very, very difficult thing budgetarily.

I'm sure the Budget Committee understands some of those issues. Therefore, CPOC is asking you to support the governor's January Proposal to sustain and enhance this mutually beneficial funding policy for both the state and local probation departments. Thank you for your time.

Senator Durazo, did you have anything you wanted to add before you? And thank you for your participation.

I could say that or leave them for you, however you want to handle it.

We just have one more, but go ahead. I want to give you the--

I guess the bulk, the gist of my questions have to do with the Prop 36, factoring Prop 36 into all of this. How does it specifically impact Component Two? And also, how do you get an accurate baseline if there's these shifts? So I'll leave it with you. That's what I'm interested in. I'm sorry, I have to leave.

No, we're happy to follow up with you as well in your office.

Why don't you go ahead and answer the question, but we'll provide it to those--if you would also provide it in writing to the Senator.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

As with, has been true for the entirety of the program for the last 15 years, there has been changes, as noted by the LAO, in criminal justice throughout that time. Sometimes that will create some risk and, frankly, probably more risk to probation at this point in time.

And how the formula might work because of Prop 36, too early to know, and so as we have done in previous times, we will watch it carefully, work with Judicial Council, the LAO, Legislature, and the Department of Finance to kind of evaluate if those changes are such that they jeopardize the integrity of the program.

But generally speaking, I think what you--what we think may end up happening is it could be problematic for us to continue to succeed at the rate we currently are under Prop 36, but we don't know that for sure, and so at this point in time, it's really not unlike any other policy change that may also be passed by the Legislature this year.

Let's see, did LAO or Department of Finance--I'm sorry. Actually, I left out Ms. McDonnell. Excuse me. Ms. Ellen McDonnell, if you--with the Contra Costa County Public Defender's Association.

Good morning. Thank you so much. I'm Ellen McDonnell. I'm the Chief Contra Costa Public Defender. I'm here today representing the California Public Defender's Association, and we want to encourage the use of SB 678 funds to both support and expand community-based programming.

I think as we sat through a morning of listening to some of the atrocities that have occurred inside of our state prison systems, it's critical to intervene and provide community-based care and to provide it for folks going through our criminal legal system and of course to let local judges know if they sentenced folks to probation, that there are robust alternatives.

And one of the things that we've done well in Contra Costa County is an investment. Our probation department has really invested in contracts with community-based service providers, utilizing SB 678 funding, and I'm pleased to say in last year, this fiscal year's allocation is over $3 million.

Much of that goes towards housing, and we know that the vulnerable population going through our criminal legal system, specifically folks that are unhoused, that suffer from mental health issues, and need robust case management and community-based programming, the programming we use in Contra Costa, I'm happy to provide more information about at a future date, but it is a rapid rehousing model. It is flexible funding.

It's meeting folks were they are, and for example, if they're crashing on their aunt's couch and have nowhere to live and she is inclined to evict them if they can't contribute, we can pay a cable bill and we can pay some grocery bill. We can keep folks housed and intervene in the criminal legal system. So these are really critical funds.

There has been an investment through our Contra Costa Probation Department in the transitional age youth population, really focusing on the TAY age group and capitalizing on the research that shows that they need additional and different types of interventions, so TAY treatment, mental health treatment, utilizing reentry transition specialists inside of our local jails to work with folks in probation who are coming out of our jails.

And so our position through CPDA is that counties that are utilizing this funding for community-based interventions should be rewarded and that that should be lifted up and that there should be specific interventions around houselessness, around housing and folks at risk of housing, and that that should be locally directed, allowing lots of flexibility to work with community-based organizations and community-based programs in a way that we've done so successfully in Contra Costa County.

In discussing whether there will be a BSCC workgroup governing this, we would also ask that the voice of defense attorneys or public defenders be represented in that group as well as specific experts on those with lived experience of homelessness and lived experience of being in our criminal legal system because those voices are so critical to ensuring that we have robust interventions. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions for the Department of Finance. What does the County Probation Department have to do to receive the maintenance payment?

So under the proposal, they would need to submit information to the Judicial Council regarding their revocation rates and kind of the standard data that they currently submit to receive that payment.

And how long does that take?

They do it multiple times a year and we kind of update alongside CDCR's population process, so we get multiple updates quarterly from the prior calendar year and we update it Governor's Budget and then again at the May Revision.

Okay. And also, the LAO recommendation did include a more stable funding component, but also included recommendations such as identifying specific evidence-based practices to fund and conducting regular audits and site visits. Did the Administration consider including these aspects?

Again, as Ms. Byrne at the Judicial Council mentioned, they do conduct kind of audits of the program and report annually on what probation departments have been spending the funds on, so we didn't feel it was necessary to add additional reporting requirements given the existing statute and what's required.

But given the LAO's recommendation, would you be willing to kind of take a second look at that?

I think we would be open to discussions, again comparing what's already available and then what you or the Legislature might require.

Okay, perfect. And then let's see; want to use your proper last names here. Ms. Pink and Ms. McDonnell, can you talk a little bit about some of the evidence-based practices that you've seen departments implement with this funding? I think Ms. McDonald, you started--Ms. McDonnell--you started talking a little bit about your experiences in your county.

Yes. In Contra Costa, some of the evidence-based practices include funding for the Reentry Center through Rubicon, which is a co-located hub for folks in the criminal legal system. They can be transported and there's transportation directly from the county jail upon release.

They can find housing resources, mental health resources, employment resources, all in one co-located center, so SB 678 funding goes towards the Reentry Success Center. Actually, funding classes for individuals who are probation-mandated is really critical. I've seen so many clients who cannot afford their 52-week domestic violence classes, cannot afford other kinds of psychological treatment classes that are mandated by the court, fail probation, and end up in jail or in prison because of that.

So funding those court requirements for individuals who are indigent is happening in Contra Costa through some of the psychotherapy that is court mandated. Mindfulness therapy, housing navigation, a robust contract which is over $1.6 million this year--and I believe multiple millions have been expended--it's about eight million since 2018 in Contra Costa that's gone towards housing through 678, and that goes through our local housing department, and this year they're contracting with a community-based organization. They monitor the contracts, and again, it's this rapid rehousing and case management.

The case management piece is evidence-based and is so critical that the systems are very difficult for folks to navigate. I also see you have an--coming up on your agenda talking about the mobile units for probation, and we've seen this be very critical with unhoused populations to meet folks where they are.

I hate nothing more than to see someone who didn't receive prison on their underlying case, but because they couldn't make appointments with probation because they are unhoused, because they have mental health and transportation issues, end up in state prison for failing to report. So meeting folks where they are and rewarding counties that are doing that with 678 funding is really critical.

The other piece in Contra Costa that's been a focus specifically with reentry has been TAY and working with service providers, Lifelines for Youth and others that do mentoring and support services and counseling for youth exiting incarceration between 18 and 25 and really recognizing and focusing in on that population in a way that would allow for intervention and for a, really for a future reduction in recidivism.

Stabilizing folks at that young age before their brains are fully formed is really critical not just for our communities, but also can represent a significant cost savings in ensuring that they don't have future system contact.

Thank you. And Ms. Pank, did you have any observations as well that you wanted to refer to of evidence-based practices that you've seen departments implement with this funding?

I mean, I would love to say ditto to everything that was just shared. I think that is a really good example of what we're seeing statewide. It looks a little different in every county in large part because most of these funds do get blended to support the foundation of how do we reach out to individuals, as was pointed out, how do we establish relationships, and you know, in a lot of rural counties, that may very well be the types of services that you will see offered through a CBO in a larger county; might be coming after training with a probation officer.

And one, we just--well, I shouldn't say just--time flies. At the ten-year anniversary mark, we compiled a lot of those types of stories and be happy to share it with the committee, but one that stands out to me is something that we call Wall of Change. We have a county where it really involves the judge, all of the service providers, and they mark when someone has made significant change and has been successful. You know, they get their picture on the wall, they get their story published.

There's just an entire ceremony where they could be recognized in the Board of Supervisors's Chamber or in the court where people--that is what it's about. It's about supporting people so that they don't have to turn to some of the other choices that will lead to crime and jeopardize our public safety.

And that looks different in every community, but it's all very similar in nature to the description that was made previously and something that I would add here, but more than happy to provide a compilation of some of those programs if your office is interested.

Thank you. Please do. LAO and Department of Finance, any other additions or comments or questions? Nope? Okay. Again, because of the extensiveness of their report, if you could please submit any additional comments in writing. All right. With that, thank you very much.

We're going to go on to Issue Number Nine, which is the elimination of the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health. With that, we have Mr. Reeder who's returning to the bench, Deputy Director of California Correctional Healthcare Services, Fiscal Management Section, and also Ms. Mendoza, who's returning, Deputy Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Fiscal Services. With that, Mr. Reeder, do you want to start?

Yes, I will, Madam Chair. Thank you. Good afternoon. This proposal is to reduce 1.8 million ongoing associated with the elimination of the California--or the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health, CCJBH. CCJBH was established in 2001 to identify and promote strategies to reduce the incarceration of individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders.

Since that time, several state efforts have been implemented with a focus on improving outcomes for this specific population including Mental Health Services and Accountability Commission and the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal Initiative.

The state will rely on these state-led programs and resources to continue the work of reducing incarceration and recidivism rates for individuals with mental health and substance use disorder treatment needs. CalAIM will facilitate warm handoffs to the community, which will provide support to the patients as they transition to the community for greater success when released.

ICET has been a successful program that will help reduce SUD-driven issues as patients release as well. And a final note, CDCR is no longer responsible for juveniles. And that is, you know, a population that CCJBH covers.

Thank you. Ms. Mendoza, do you have some additional comments to add?

Just available for--available for questions.

Thank you. Our LAO Office? No? Hear Department of Finance? Nope? Okay. I have a few questions. With the implementation of CalAIM and the rollout of the initiatives such as the CARE Court and Prop 36, the coordination between corrections, law enforcement, and health officials is going to be crucial. Where else do public safety and health officials have public discussions about this important intersection that's facing us ahead?

I can take this. There is ongoing conversations all the time between organizations in the operational components of corrections. So as people are making their way to release, they're working on the warm handoffs, ensuring that those who are incarcerated have a place to go.

Additionally, some of the work done by this council was really more on the researching various adult and juvenile related issues to improve corrections, but we think there's significant overlap with the mental health--let me say this right--the Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission, they're also doing that.

They're looking at sort of more of a holistic picture of behavioral health and the interconnectedness with homelessness as well as incarceration. So there's an unfortunate interconnectedness with all three of those and I think that there's a good overlap between those. I mean, there could be other organizations where this could go.

But CDCR definitely does work with the partners to ensure that there's smooth transitions and getting connection with Medi-Cal, as you heard earlier, and services to set individuals up for success.

Thank you. And have you received any specific feedback from any of the stakeholders thus far in the proposal?

No, I haven't received any.

I'm not aware of any at this time.

Okay, perfect. Well, that was easy enough. That concludes our Issue Item Number Nine, and now we'll go to the final issue, Issue Number Ten. For Issue Ten, we have Mr. Aaron Maguire, Executive Director of BSCC, we have Ms. Colleen Curtin, Deputy Director of Corrections Planning and Grant Programs, also with the BSCC, and then we have our team here to support us as well. Let's see. Would you like to start, Mr. Maguire?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. I am Aaron Maguire. I am the Executive Director of the Board of State and Community Corrections or the BSCC. With me is Colleen Curtin. She's our Deputy Director of our Grants Division. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief overview. I'll do a very brief overview of the BSCC and answer any questions with respect to our budget proposal.

The BSCC provides services and oversight to county adult and juvenile systems through inspections of adult and juvenile local detention facilities, establishing minimum standards for the operation of those facilities, setting training standards for local correctional staff, and administrating financing of county facilities through the lease revenue bond process and the Administration of a wide range of public safety grants including the Adult Reentry Grant Program, the CalVIP Program, Violence Reduction Program, and other rehabilitation grants for state and local governments and community-based organizations.

Also beginning in July of 2024 through Senate Bill 519 by Senator Atkins, we also are standing up right now a new division which expanded the board's mission to include the review of investigations of any death occurring within local detention facilities and providing recommendations to local facilities to make changes to policies and procedures to address deaths in custody. With that, Madam Chair, if you have any questions about the BSCC, I'd be happy to answer or can move right to the budget item.

Thank you. Did you have anything to add, Ms. Curtin?

No, I'm here for--

Available for questions?

I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you. Well, as I think you know, I'm from the LA area, and unfortunately we've had some significant reports that have not fared well regarding our juvenile system in LA County. Can you provide an update on the suitability of the LA juvenile facilities? I know several have been required to close. I mean, it's been, not a good site. So since I have you here, can you share your perspective on it?

Sure, I'd be happy to, and, and yes. So the Board of State and Community Corrections has the inspection responsibility for the local juvenile facilities, the detention facilities. We've been involved with inspecting and having a lot of concerns with the LA facilities for several years now.

There were two juvenile halls that were operating in Los Angeles, which is the Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall and then the Central Juvenile Hall. After multiple inspections and multiple cycles, the board determined that both of those facilities were not suitable for the housing of youth, which required them to close.

The youth have now been moved over to the Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall where we are still engaged with Los Angeles right now. The legal status of that facility is that it is unsuitable for the confinement of youth.

That finding and notice was given in October of 2024. The county had elected not to move the youth out of that facility following that notice. They have engaged in various processes. They've filed an administrative appeal to the board which was recently denied. They have an opportunity to file an additional administrative--that initial appeal went to me as the Executive Director, which I denied. The county had the--has the opportunity to still appeal that administrative process to the board. We have not heard as to whether or not they're doing that.

As of now, the facility remains unsuitable as a matter of law within the meaning of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The juvenile court has engaged. So after the notice of unsuitability petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by the public defender's office in Los Angeles seeking the removal of the the youth from the facility, Judge Miguel Espinoza of the juvenile court has held multiple hearings involving the parties. The BSCC is not a party to that litigation and is still--that litigation is ongoing in terms of determining what to do with the youth in that facility.

I can tell you as of this week, our inspectors are back in back at Los Padrinos evaluating the conditions there. We are continuing to evaluate the most pressing issue down there, which is the staffing at the facility to make sure that they are able to maintain the minimal levels of staffing that they need to operate that facility safely.

I can tell you that since January, staffing has improved, but at this point we have not--and we are continuing in doing ongoing inspections of that facility. So we are going to be evaluating the items of noncompliance next week, including staffing, and then we will be evaluating--the staff will be making a recommendation to the board whether to consider that facility as back into compliance or if they remain unsuitable, and that will be at our next board meeting on April 10th.

And in your opinion, why has the board decided not to close the facilities? Is it that we don't have a sufficient space to send the young people? I thought I had read in an article that if they were moved that they would be moved to adult facilities and that might be part of the objection. Is that correct or not correct?

So the board--so the way the statute works and the way our authority works is when the board makes a determination of unsuitability, which is what has been done in this case, as a matter of law, the facility is not suitable for the confinement of youth. It's up for the--it's up for the county to decide to follow the law.

The county should follow the law and move the youth out of the facility. The board does not have the authority to make them move or to issue closure orders. So that's where it stands right now. The board has exercised all the authority it can in terms of declaring that the facility is not suitable.

So who does have that authority?

So right now, as I mentioned, there's ongoing litigation about moving the youth out of the facilities. That's before the juvenile court right now. But the board is not authorized to engage in further litigation under statute right now to further enforce the unsuitability findings.

And so, are you saying the only one who does is the judge?

Well, the judge can exercise his authority as the juvenile court judge to move youth out. The juvenile court has general oversight over facilities there, but it's also up to the Board of Supervisors to follow the law as well, and the Probation Department.

But I thought you said that the board doesn't have the authority to move, to move the youth or to close it.

The Board of State and Community Corrections can't order them to do anything. Our, our authority doesn't provide for enforceable orders. We've declared the facility not suitable. The Welfare and Institutions Code says when we declare the facility not suitable, that it should not be used for the confinement of youth.

So you're referring to your board, not the Board of Supervisors?

Sorry. I did mention it's the, the county is responsible for what they do with that facility and what they do with the youth.

So the county Board of Supervisors does have the ability to take an action?

Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Could you provide the committee the list of the notice of unsuitability that was provided?

Sure.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. And could you also keep us abreast as the legal matters continue so we're aware? And any recommendations you have that we can weigh in to be helpful, let us know.

Absolutely.

Okay. My last question is, does the BSCC have an idea of what probation departments intend to use the mobile service centers for?

Sure. The grant funds related to the mobile probation service centers, they're allowed to be used for purchasing vehicles, equipment, telecommunications, and any other technology needed to operate these mobile probation service centers, particularly focused on individuals who are unhoused or struggling to meet probation requirements. It allows that probation to provide services, you know, in the community.

And the program was sort of developed in part based on things other probation departments have been doing. For example, Placer County was providing services to people in rural parts of the county, allowing them to make court appearances through the Mobile Probation Services Program.

What we're looking at in terms of this budget change, the request that we've made is an extension of the expenditure authority, which is set to expire June 30th, and what we anticipate is we've, when we had to put the budget change proposal in to be included in the Governor's Budget, we were not seeing a lot of expenditures being made at the time. We actually are, are hopeful that all of the counties right now have entered into contracts to purchase these vehicles so that they can provide these services.

We're just, because of the timeline and the coming into the end of the fiscal year, we're just a little bit, we're concerned about being able to reconcile the books before the expiration of our expenditure authority, and that's why we're just asking for the extension out so that they can finish the procurement processes and deploy these vehicles and then we can continue to monitor how they're using the vehicles and what services are being provided to the, to the community.

Thank you. The LAO and Department of Finance, do either of you have any comments or questions on the BSCC's presentation or speaking of extension or whatever regarding that program? No? Okay. All right. Seeing none, I've asked all of the questions that I have. Thank you for your participation today and please do follow up with those items with the committee.

Absolutely.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay. Finishing Issue Number Ten, now is the time for public comment. Thank you for, really, your due diligence of listening and to everything today of the couple hours that we have. The public may comment on any of the issues on the agenda. To ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard, please limit your comments to one minute. Thank you, and let's begin.

Hi everyone, Madam Chair. Darby Kernan, representing Amity Foundation, Health Right 360, and WestCare. They are nonprofit organizations that work with CDCR and provide the men and women reentry programs as well as STOP. We're supportive of Item Seven today and appreciate our partnership with CDCR. I would like to briefly just touch on your Medi-Cal conversation today.

Wherever possible, increasing usage of Medi-Cal is really important, but it felt like the conversation missed a lot from what happened yesterday. Department of Healthcare Services has a $3 billion request and loan because they can't make their Medi-Cal payments for April. So the Medi-Cal Program is definitely having problems.

The Legislature is going to have to look at that, but trying to increase utilization in light of what the federal government is looking at as well, we know work requirements is going to be something very focused on. A lot of people coming out of prison do not have jobs.

So I think just in concept of where possible, increasing that, but making sure we're not having people lose coverage because we're trying to save money. All you'll do is create a deficit within CDCR or DHCS. Thank you.

I'm Ken Hartman, Executive Director of Transformative Programming Works. Just want to connect the conversation today with reentry success and the programs, how programming inside prison is really important to help people get prepared for when they get out to be successful on parole. We represent 106 community-based organizations that provide programs in all of California's prisons.

We're really hoping for support for the RIGHT Grant, which I know you've heard about, and we hope to talk to you about it soon. Hoping for support for the RIGHT Grant for this year to help fund those programs. Really desperately needed. Thank you.