Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

Good afternoon and welcome to today's Assembly Budget Subcommitee Number six, which covers public safety. We'll be hearing issues related to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Office of Inspector General. Specifically, we will be looking at some critical issues involving the state's women's prisons and a revised staff complaint process.

For today's hearing, we have invited a number of stakeholders to speak on our panels. I want to thank them for participating in today's discussion as the topics are sensitive. I also want to ensure that their participation in today's hearings does not negatively impact their access to working with incarcerated women in CDCR.

We are also joined today by colleagues from the Assembly. Assembly Members Bonta and Sharp Collins, a majority leader from the Assembly, want to welcome you to our sub 6 hearing as well as other Members. We continue to move forward in focusing on issues that are important in the State of California.

With that now, I would like to turn it over to the dais if there's any comments or discussions. Madam Majority Leader, good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members Chair Ramos, I want to thank you for your generosity in opening up this hearing to the Legislative Women's Caucus Members. And I appreciate your partnership. No matter what someone did to go to prison, they shouldn't be forced to put up with the crime of rape or sexual assault by prison staff.

That's why over the past two years, the Women's Caucus has been working hard to bring attention to the problem of sexual misconduct by prison staff in California's women's prisons. In August 2023, the California Legislative Women's Caucus hosted a legislative briefing about sexual assault and harassment in California women's prisons.

The briefing included top officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We discussed in the briefing was prison guard Gregory Rodriguez, who worked with the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla. Gregory Rodriguez raped or sexually assaulted at least 22 women over many years and was convicted of 64 sexual abuse charges.

You know, this is just 11 of many stories. Many of our caucus Members were horrified. So we started looking into how to improve the conditions in women's prisons. Over the last couple years, we visited women's prisons in California, Norway, Ireland and Scotland. What we learned is California needs to do better.

During our California visits, we met with a lot of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people who shared their stories of their experiences of sexual misconduct by staff in our state prisons. It was horrific. It broke my heart. California needs to protect the safety and civil rights of incarcerated persons.

And let's not forget that every instance of such Criminal behavior also reflects badly on the men and women who serve our state honorably. Thank you to all the presenters we'll see here today. And I'm looking forward to working together to end sexual assaults in our prisons. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Majority Leader. Any others with comments? Assemblymember Bonta?

Thank you, Chair Ramos. I just want to first thank you for inviting certainly me to be able to participate in this along with the Legislative Women's Caucus, and quite frankly, for being somebody as a Legislator who is willing to shed light on what our institutions are doing and always putting at the center of that, really with your work for indigenous women and for women more broadly in the State of California.

Our opportunity to be able to do that through this hearing. Having been past Committee chair for this Subcommitee, I know that it's challenging sometimes to be able to both focus on transparency and shedding light and also having a conversation around how California needs to be able to support our values.

And I really want to thank you for making sure that we have an opportunity to do that right now in this conversation. I also just want to bring into this space the many women who have had to do the incredibly awful thing of filing a complaint against CDCR.

I want to recognize your bravery, your courageousness, and your willingness to not only stand up for your ability to be supported with dignity while you are being incarcerated, but also doing so for the many women that you know that are in our prisons right now who are suffering still, even till this day, the kind of conditions and practices that you have that caused you to be able to file a complaint.

And I want to just make a quick comment to CDCR. We'll hear from many of them right now. This is our opportunity to do better and to do right. And sometimes you need to be able to be humble enough to acknowledge the change that we need to seek.

And I hope that that goes into how we are ensuring that we have the ability to not only hear these tough things and recognize the harms that have been committed, but also stand up for our women right now and make sure that in CDCR we are implementing practices that stop the harm and convert that to care for those who are incarcerated.

I also want to recognize Assemblymember Quirk Silva, who is chair and invited me to co chair the Incarcerated Women's Work Group. This has been an opportunity for us to be able to take the lessons learned that we've learned from other parts of this world and figure out how California can really be able to focus on lifting up the conditions of women in our prisons.

And then also developing out rehabilitation reentry programming that truly meets the disproportionate need that our women have. Our women not only take care of our families, they are the reason why our communities stay whole.

And when you take an incarcerated woman and put her in conditions that she does not deserve because she is a human, and then you ask her to not have a voice in rectifying the situation, you are perpetuating harm.

And I think a lot of the work that the Incarcerated Women's Work Group has done has ensured that we not only have a pathway towards justice, but a pathway towards community. And I want to thank Assemblymember Quirk Silva for leading us in that effort.

And finally, I led a budget ask in the past few years and legislation that really emphasized putting the R of rehabilitation back into the CDCR. And it cannot go without saying once again, that still we only spend less than 5% of our budget annually on rehabilitation and reentry programming.

And when you break that down even more to what we spend that is particularly targeted to being able to support our women in our correctional facilities or through reentry programming or rehabilitation programming, it's even less than that. It is a fraction of what we should be spending.

So I am very thankful that we have an opportunity to look at practices that will be supportive and then also confront the realities that we are trying to combat in this moment. And again, want to thank you, Chair, for lifting up this issue and for your leadership.

Thank you so much. Any other comments? Well, thank you so much. Now we're going to move on to our first panel issue. 1.

Anissa De La Cruz, Warden, Central California Women's Facility CDCR Lavelle Parker, Acting Warden, California Institution for Women CDCR Amica Mota Executive Director, Sisters Warriors Freedom Coalition Saul Mercado, Reentry Coordinator, Planning Justice Ameek Singh, Inspector General's Office of the Inspector General and Sean Spillane, Chief Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General. We'll start with Warden De La Cruz.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos and Committee. My name is Cynthia Mendonza from CDCR Department Deputy Director, Office of Fiscal Services. CDCR has two women's institutions and we are joined today by Warden De La Cruz, who can speak to Central California Women's Facility, and Warden Parker, who can speak to the California Institution for Women.

I also want to take a moment to share some of the staff training initiatives underway that we believe will improve our culture inside our institutions. Overall, CDCR continues to work to improve training for new cadets and current supervisors.

The National Institution of Corrections provided its Safety Matters training to our staff last year intended to increase physical sexual safety in our women's institutions institutions.

We will also be including in our New Cadet Academy training more time on gender responsive issues so all new recruits understand the best ways to communicate with incarcerated men and women and how these methods differ depending on gender.

The National Institutes of Corrections will also be providing specialized gender responsive training to 30 of our supervisors within our two women's facilities. This is all in addition to the standard training now delivered to new correctional officers at our women's facilities. CDCR is also working to provide more leadership and ethics trainings to our staff.

In fact, four of our sergeants are participating in an eight month training program, three days per month, operated by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission for police officers and deputy sheriffs. It's a well regarded program focused on leadership skills for new sergeants and one we are considering adopting for our sergeants.

If we can give our newest supervisors the best training early, their success and ours will be maximized. Our lieutenant and Executive leadership trainings are also being revised.

We are committed to providing the safest possible environment for the incarcerated population, recognizing the differences between men and women and how staff can best communicate no matter who they come in contact with. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Warden De La Cruz.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Anissa De La Cruz and I am the warden for the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla. I am responsible for the care and custody of 2,006 incarcerated individuals and oversight of 1,296 staff Members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today and speak to these serious issues.

First, I want to acknowledge the gravity of these incidents that have occurred and commit to you that we are taking comprehensive and proactive steps to prevent their recurrence. With over 20 years of experience in corrections, I have served in various leadership capacities throughout the Department.

During my tenure as warden, I've had the privilege of overseeing the implementation and expansion of rehabilitation programs and also providing avenues for the female population to be heard. This mission has been challenging, but it has also been the most rewarding.

My greatest professional satisfaction comes from witnessing the personal growth of both our incarcerated population as they develop skills to successfully reintegrate and our staff as they advance into their careers. We have a zero tolerance for sexual abuse and harassment of those under our care.

We recognize that women incarcerated in California prisons are often victims of past trauma, including sexual assault. It is critical our approach on this issue and the services we offer reflect that understanding.

By implementing stringent measures, reinforcing accountability, prioritizing victim support, and fostering a culture of respect and professionalism, we strive to ensure the safety, protection and dignity of all individuals within our custody.

I want to thank the Legislature for their support on these issues, including funding for working for a working group and Ambassador program with community based organizations and currently informally incarcerated individuals.

Our current leadership team is fully committed to protecting victims of sexual assault and ensuring avenues are available both for the incarcerated population and staff to safely report misconduct. I want to speak about some of the specific steps the Department has taken to respond to these incidents.

We are partnering with Just Detention International and Valor to conduct regular meetings for both incarcerated individuals and staff. We are also working with them to establish a certified peer mentorship program. We have launched the Sister Warriors Ambassador Program and look forward to our continued work with them.

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition has had regular visits to the institution with town hall presentations provided to any incarcerated individual available to attend. The group provided support and informational handouts and resources to our population in a private setting within the institution.

We are also holding regular meetings with the Victim Services of Madera County in collaboration with local rape crisis centers. I know Warden Parker will want to speak on some of the other efforts we are doing, so I'm going to pass it along to him.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Subcommitee My name is Lavelle Lee Parker and I serve as the Warden of the California Institution for Women and Chino, California.

As the Warden, I oversee the care and custody of 1,234 incarcerated individuals alongside a dedicated staff of approximately 1500 professionals with over 31 years of experience within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I have held various roles including Officer, Counselor, Supervisor, Associate Warden, Chief Deputy Warden.

I have been honored to lead the California Institution for women since March 1st of 2024. The primary mission of the California Institution for Women is to provide a safe and secure environment for primary level 12 and 3 offenders. However, the California Institute for Women also accommodates all custody levels one through four.

This mission is further defined by our responsibility to provide quality health care and institution programs specifically geared to meet special needs of our offenders. Specialized programs include academic, vocational programming, substance abuse programming, pre forestry and camp training, as well as arts and corrections, and a wide variety of incarcerated person self help groups and community betterment.

In addition to its General population, CIW houses incarcerated persons with special needs such as pregnancy, acute and intermediate psychiatric care, chronic and acute medical problems for the aging population. CIW is A medically licensed facility, is joint Commission certified and provides the highest standard of care.

CIW's focus efforts through education, self help groups and become in trauma informed prepare the population for the community re entry and family reunification.

Additionally, by implementing organizational and administrative changes, we have had a positive effect on the day to day operation of the institution which brings the working relationship between the staff and the population to a better place. Promoting a safe work environment I want to echo the comments of my colleague Warden De La Cruz.

Any incidents of sexual assault in my institution, whether perpetrated by incarcerated individuals or staff is unacceptable. I am grateful for the partnership I have with external entities that provide safe avenues for individuals to report misconduct and support the victims.

I want to thank the Legislature and Administration for supporting investments in body worn and stationary cameras, staff misconduct investigation process and the funding of partnership with outside groups, all of which helps to prevent and respond to allegations of misconduct.

I also want to thank the staff at my institution for the vast majority who are dedicated individuals committed to safety and rehabilitation. In addition to the efforts of Warden De La Cruz has mentioned, I also want to highest highlight some of the other steps we have taken.

We are collaborating with local rape crisis centers to provide victim advocates to incarcerated individuals who reported misconduct. We are currently working with the National Institution of Corrections NIC in evaluating the Academy gender responsive training and we are currently working on updating the curriculum.

In addition to the safety matters training NIC delivers, we have acts for them to gender responsive for our supervisors as well. CDCR met with the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition at both institutions to identify space programming needs and collaborate with our local teams on the Ambassador programs.

We have enhanced staff training focus on the detection prevention of sexual misconduct. While I know there is still progress to be made, I am confident we are on the right path. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.

Thank you. Now we'll move forward to Amika Mota, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition.

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee and the Legislative Women's Caucus. I'm Amika Mota, the Executive Director of Sister Warriors and on behalf of our Members we thank you for your ongoing commitment to incarcerated women and Trans people.

In just the last year, dozens of lawsuits have been filed addressing the brutal assaults by officers and the serial abuse of a staff gynecologist.

In January, the trial of a CCWF officer resulted in 64 convictions for rape and sexual battery against nine women and revealed how easily sexual assaults occur without witnesses or video evidence and how officers smuggle in contraband to coerce sexual acts. Numerous brave survivors testified about the violence that they endured.

But most will keep their abuse to themselves, knowing that they are vulnerable to retaliation from the same officers and prison system that failed to protect them. This is unacceptable.

Last August at CCWF, after an increase in reports of staff abuse, cos that are part of an officer prison gang known as the Delta Dogs brutally assaulted over 100 women. Guards physically beat them in the cafeteria, bombarding them with chemical spray and rubber bullets.

Even after they were zip tied and on the ground, three women were sent to the hospital. This too is unacceptable. Addressing this crisis is critical. I am encouraged by the work that Sister warriors is doing with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners Survived and Punished, Just Detention, International Justice First, Valor and Prevail.

We are collaborating with incarcerated people to reduce staff sexual violence through our Ambassador program. We are increasing our presence at both of the women's prisons, which adds a layer of accountability and support because incarcerated people trust us more than system actors.

We hope to sustain this work with ongoing funding in this year's budget and improve our access to incarcerated survivors. As the violence and tension escalate inside, access to outside support becomes harder and harder and we know how much our presence is needed.

The Legislature has entrusted the Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Working Group to communicate directly with incarcerated individuals. Last month the resounding feedback was that the conditions within the facilities are deteriorating, with many officers refusing to respond to the most basic needs or security concerns within the housing units.

Since the working group's report was published over a year ago, the Legislative Women's Caucus has supported us in implementing the recommendations. Despite this progress, sexual violence continues. We fear that the number one recommendation that we hear from survivors has not been prioritized.

Release from prison is the only true path to safety after experiencing sexual violence by CDCR staff. California is one of the few places in the US where the number of incarcerated women is significantly decreasing, a 70.8% reduction between 2010 and 2022. These reductions have happened safely and more must be done after today's hearing.

We hope that the Legislature will prioritize implementing pathways to release outlined in the report, such as directing the courts and the parole board to consider victimization of CDCR sexual violence as a mitigating factor in support of release.

In addition, we hope that you will increase the access of community organizations, provide more services to survivors, prevent retaliation, and improve the investigations, reporting and accountability processes. Our ultimate goal is to bring home all of our siblings, and we don't believe that this violence can end until the incarceration of women and Trans people ends.

But until then, we urge the Legislature to continue to pass vital legislative and budget efforts to advance their rights, dignity and humanity. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to Sol Mercado, reentry coordinator, Planting Justice.

Good afternoon. I am Sol Mercado, and I spent 16 years in a California women's prison. I'd like to thank the Committee for holding this very important panel. I was released in 2020 from the Central California Women's Facility. After my release, I began work working for Planting Justice.

I'm the reentry coordinator, which has allowed me to return to prisons as a credible messenger to provide support and services to people who are awaiting release. I'm also here as Jane Doe 33. I'm supposed to be an anonymous plaintiff in one of the lawsuits filed against CDCR for sexual assault.

It is not easy for me to be here to share my story. The incarcerated woman that I live with has spoken up over and over again about the sexual abuse, lack of medical care and staff assaults. Yet these issues continue. I'm telling you my story, hoping you will take immediate action.

I was preparing for my initial parole hearing, which will determine my ability to be released. For all lifers, these hearings are traumatic as you have to recount your trauma and be accountable for all the harm you caused. Officer Rodriguez will take me to my attorney phone calls and in the parole building. He raped me there.

The boardroom and the attorney visiting space do not have surveillance cameras. Numerous women have been assaulted there. I felt trapped and he had full control. I was afraid to speak up. I didn't want to jeopardize my possible release date. I did not file a grievance.

I feared they will put me in administrative segregation, which I've seen done to other people.

This was not my first assault by city CR prison guard. I can vividly remember everything that Officer Youngblood, Officer Solorio and Officer Trevino did to me. But the assault by Officer Rodriguez scarred me the most. He will listen to my calls, stare me down and touch me.

While I was having my actual parole hearing, which was virtual, I was in a small room. Through the window I could see his desk and he was masturbating. I was in the middle of my hearing talking about the sexual abuse that I went through as a kid.

I was sharing about my causative factors, my trauma, and he was right there staring me down. I cannot get this experience out of my head. After my release, I joined the class action in hopes that the court system will stop the violence in CDCR and hold the officers and the system accountable.

I experienced firsthand how those meant to protect us often silence us instead and seek to punish us further than when we try to protect ourselves. Through my role as a reentry coordinator, I travel to prisons across California to attend events and support people going aboard.

It has been a part of my healing journey to be able to return to ccwf. I attended numerous events as a guest speaker demonstrating my accountability to support others do the same. Since my filing my anonymous lawsuit, my yearly clearance from CCWF was revoked three months early.

The public information officer, Lieutenant Monique Williams, told me I needed to drop the investigation if I wanted to go back in. A year later, after being invited by staff to attend a reentry resource fair, I drove out to the prison and I was denied entry again by Monique Williams due to a pending confidential matter.

Even though I have been out of custody for four years, I felt victimized all over again. I've been to numerous other prisons as far as my job, but have only been denied at CCWF. I hope the Committee can look into this on my behalf.

I fear that by sharing my story here today, I might get denied access to all California prisons. Being free, returning to my family and continuing to make amends have been the most important aspects of my healing journey. It allowed me to heal from the violence I experienced as a child and during my incarceration.

How are we supposed to use the tools we learn, like speaking up or asking for help when we're being silenced by the people who were sworn in to keep us safe? Being sent to prison does not mean we get convicted to a sentence of abuse.

We cannot keep allowing people in power to continue getting away with assaults, retaliation, and covering for each other. I hope you will do everything in your power to make this end. Thank you for listening to my story and I am open to any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll now move to Amarik Singh, Inspector General's Office of the Inspector General.

Good afternoon Chair Ramos Members Committee Members, I am Amarik Singh. I am the Inspector General. With me today is Shaun Spillane, my Chief Deputy Inspector General. Just really briefly, the Office of the Inspector General is an independent state agency that oversees the California prison system.

We provide transparency to the correctional system through monitoring various CDCR processes and publicly reporting our observations and findings. We monitor CDCR's use of force review process, internal affairs investigation and discipline process and the incarcerated person grievance process. Additionally, we do evaluate CDCR's provision of medical care by conducting medical inspections at each prison.

We review various prison practices policies and procedures by conducting performance audits and special reviews into issues or areas of concern. We also maintain a statewide complaint intake process where anyone can use can raise to us their concerns of improper activity within the prison system.

We also serve as the ombudsperson for complaints related to the Sexual Abuse and Detention and Elimination act, most commonly known as the Prison Rape Elimination Act or PREA. We have a staff Member on call 24 hours per day to respond to critical incidents at the prisons or similar incidents in the community involving correctional or parole staff.

We also conduct background and qualification reviews of all wardens prior to their appointment by the Governor with the exception of warden background reviews. We publicly report the findings of all of our work on our website. That's just a brief history of what the OIG does and would you like me to go into the. All right.

We are tasked with implementing 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 $5,715,000 in 29 positions in 2026 and 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.

The OIG currently reviews a portion of the grievances that the incarcerated people file to determine Whether or not CDCR's Centralized Screening Team correctly routes the allegations in each grievance to either the Office of Internal affairs for investigation or back to the hiring authority to perform a routine review or to process the issue as a routine matter.

When we review a screening decision that does not comply with policies governing where grievances are to be routed, we recommend the Department reroute the grievance for the appropriate level of review.

Eight of the positions requested in our BCP are for the purposes of expanding the volume of screening decisions that OIG reviews to provide greater visibility on the complaints that CDCR Centralized Screening Team decides to refer or not refer for an investigation.

With these additional positions, we anticipate being able to monitor approximately 9,600 more grievances and decisions per year. The OIG also currently has a team of attorneys who monitor and assess internal affair Investigations performed by CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs.

These attorneys monitor cases from initiation to conclusion, attending investigative preparation meetings, witness interviews, and significant discussions regarding the investigation and disciplinary process, and reviewing investigative reports and evidence to inform their evaluations of the investigative and disciplinary process.

16 of the positions requested in this BCP are for the purpose of increasing the volume of staff sexual misconduct investigations the OIG is able to monitor as a direct result of Senate Bill 1069's passage.

With these positions, 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 CDCR that involve incarcerated people.

This increased workload will be in addition to all of our other investigations into serious allegations of staff misconduct the OIG already monitors, which includes dishonesty and excessive force, among others. We will also publicly report every month in the form of summaries and assessments 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 that an investigation into an allegation of staff sexual misconduct was either not adequate or not performed at all. That investigative work will be performed by the additional attorneys requested in our BCP.

Although we do not yet have funding or staffing to fully implement our new statutory duties, we have begun some preliminary work to develop our process. We recently began tracking the number of cases that allege staff sexual misconduct thus far. In the month of March alone, CDCR opened 203 investigations into allegations of staff sexual misconduct.

With our current staffing, we are only able to monitor 31 cases, leaving 172 unmonitored. Although it is too early to identify trends related to these complaints, from our review of the March data, it appears the number of complaints is increasing. Our BCP was Projected based on 2024 data that showed approximately 1400 complaints a year.

However, just using March numbers alone, it appears it may be closer to 2,400 complaints a year. But we do acknowledge that this is just based off a one month snapshot. This BCP will ensure that fewer investigations of staff sexual misconduct will go unmonitored.

Once again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide this information and I'll be happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much for all your testimony. As now we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Sure, I'll ask Madam Majority Leader.

Sure. I'd like to ask a few questions. First of all, I want to appreciate that all of you are here today. It's really important conversation, but obviously we need to continue them. So first of all, I'd like to thank Warden De La Cruz and Warden Parker for being here today.

It's my understanding that CDCR's report says CDCR has implemented the use of body worn cameras and audio video surveillance systems. It is also my understanding there was a violent event at one of your facilities in August of 2024. There was concern about the mismanagement of that event.

I'd like to know how is the footage that's taken, how is it utilized and is it available outside of CDCR? What accountability measures have been taken to hold anyone who acted inappropriately accountable? And I was told that there were personnel involved in inappropriate activity and that they were. They have transferred to serve in another prison. Is that true?

Yes.

Thank you.

Well, any allegations that occur from an incident we take very seriously. This case is under investigation with the OIA and it's at the OIA headquarters level. So I don't even have information on how this investigation is going. It's currently in process in regards to AVSs and body worn camera.

As soon as this incident occurred, we took all the evidence and preserved all the evidence for the investigation. As of right now, it is still under investigation. I don't have any information on it currently.

Is there a process in which we could find out where it stands and how far you've gone forward?

I would have to refer to OIA on that because they have the entire investigation.

Okay, so the footage isn't being really utilized as in going in the investigation. CDCR's Sexual Assault Response Prevention Report includes March 2024 updates on what they're doing to address assault and harassment and to protect whistleblowers.

If all of these protections are in place, are you confident that there's no longer any assault or harassment occurring in Your institutions and how have you measured progress since the rules and guidelines have been updated?

Well, as I said, all allegations are taken seriously and they are reported. We are tracking every single PREA case that is happening and following up with them monthly and ensuring that when there is an allegation that we're reacting swiftly and expeditiously.

So when we get a PREA case, we're automatically pulling body worn camera for evidence preservation, we're doing interviews and if there is, if it's an evolving staff, we're immediately redirecting that officer, moving them out of the area and reporting that and referring it to the Office of Internal Affairs.

It seems as though some return. They just get moved out for a short period of time. So I'm concerned about we have that movement and that they go to another area and they're back retaliating one way or another, whether it's face to face. But there are ways it seems that this is happening.

So you guys have a lot on your hands, but we need to, we need to get this taken care of. This has gone on far too long. When we had the meeting in 2023 with the Legislative Women's Caucus, we saw at least movement.

And when I say movement, not big movement, but the discussions were happening and we're more open to having those conversations and to be able to protect the women that should be protected as well as I know there's some good people that work in the system as well, but the few that are bad are really, really, really bad.

And I need to make sure that people are safe. When people ask me, ever since I was a City Council Member, what's my number one job? Safety and I don't feel that my friends are safe. Would you like to comment?

Yeah, I was just going to say we do a lot of touring ourselves, we walk about, talk to the staff, talk to the population. We also provide a lot of training. There's been training going on. So we're trying to better the atmosphere, the morale, making it safe for everyone by getting out there, walking and talking.

That's the first step. We've been collaborating with other entities outside of the institution. You know, we got ambassador programs started up as well. JDI is there as well, actually at our institution, meeting with the population, talking to them.

When stuff is brought to our attention, we act swiftly, we move quickly, we try to ensure that we do the right thing and take care of the appropriate way.

So we do get out there, we are talking, we are communicating, we are interacting with everyone and that's how we're getting a better understanding of what's going on in the institution.

Thank you so much. Any other questions? Comments Assemblymember Sharp Collins

so I wanted to thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your story. My heart was full. I try to keep my tears in here, even right now. My colleague has already said that we have a lot of work to do and I hear the conversations about the training, but you have to remember that when you're doing training, you see in gender training and etc. It just can't be a one time training. It has to be an ongoing training.

But then I would like to know what does that curriculum actually look like? Because when it comes down to people who are committing these sexual assaults, I'm trying to understand what training you're giving them ahead of time or even what type of background checks people are doing ahead of time.

Because to me there has to be some signs leading into that. How are we missing that? How are we dropping the ball? So I'm stating that out to you just to kind of ponder and respond.

But, but going off of the question about body cameras, even with the use of body cameras, how can we address the potential blind spots? Because she just shared her story. So how can we address these blind spots in preventing and detecting abuse, particularly in areas or interaction where surveillance may be limited? What else can we do besides body cameras?

We currently also have another assessment coming through to look at the various different blind spots. But there still are those privacy areas, such as within the cell, the housing unit itself, as well as in regards to the shower areas and during medical appointments.

But all the other areas that we are looking at in regards to potential blind spots, we are making another assessment and eventually going to address those.

Eventually going to address them. Okay, but then the further conversation was talking about reviews. I think you were talking about the different reviews. It wasn't either warning. It was going over to the young woman right here. Singh. Yes, Emery.

So when we're talking about the OIG and the reviews that are being done, you said that there was a portion of the reviews that were being done. And so I'm wondering, okay, what is the actual portion of the reviews? How much, how much of it? Can you can you tell me the portion of the reviews that are being done?

Reviews of the grievances for the complaint process. Okay, so for the complaint process, we, up until now we have been reviewing approximately our goal is 10% to look at 10% of the grievances. That's all of the staffing that we have to do.

We are hoping that with this, additional positions that we'll be getting, that we'll be able to increase that so that we'll be closer to 25% of reviewing the grievances.

All right, I'll just pause there.

Thank you so much. Any other comments? Assembly Member Bonta.

I want to thank Amarik for your testimony today on behalf of Sister warriors. And certainly I want to thank Sol for being able to speak to your experience. As I shared in kind of my opening comments, I just want us all to kind of take in the incredible power dynamics that. That are at this table right now.

You had somebody who had to out herself as an anonymous complainant and who still had the bravery to come here and tell her story. And she didn't talk about.

She talked about past things, but she talked about things that were happening right now, issues that she's facing right now to be able to, in her words, continue on her healing journey and to provide the opportunity to provide healing to others.

And so just because at the end of the day, we know that power dynamics reign incredibly in a way that we cannot control. I want us just to all be human for a moment. What is your response to the testimony that Sol and Amarik offered? I'd like to hear from the Inspector General as well as the wardens.

The testimony you provided was very moving. It was very moving to me. And I. I agree with the concerns that, that you share about the issues that are occurring now. And I think that needs to be addressed by CDCR.

If there is a person who is being denied entry into an institution for rehabilitative purposes, the person has a plan. She has a plan. She needs to go in. She needs to do this work as part of her responsibilities. Then I agree that the here and now needs to be addressed.

And although we are just oversight, we do not have the authority to actually go in and conduct these types of investigations or reviews. We will. We do refer these. And it would be, it would be my position to tell the CDCR to request for them to look into these issues and to address these complaints.

And then we always ask them to let us know how they're addressing the complaints and what the outcome and the resolution is.

Well, I'm sorry that you have to go through this, and it's very unacceptable that any of this took place. I feel that we need to move swiftly. We need to do a change and we need to move forward. We need to make things better within the institution.

You know, it's hard to put words into what you went through. You know, I have family Members. My mother, sister, you know, they all just recently passed away, as well as my daughter. And to have them go through the things that you've gone through will be heartbreaking for me as well.

So I just hope you the best for your road to recovery, because I know it's going to be a long process and it's going to be something that we all have to live with.

I want to echo that hearing. It is extremely. It's horrific, the things that you've had to endure. As you've mentioned, you've had some incidents at the institution, and I'll be looking into them as soon as I get back to. Well, I'll be looking into after this. Okay. But I agree, this is. This is.

It's come to light, and it's horrific and it's unacceptable. And I have expressed that to my staff, I've expressed that to the incarcerated population that it's not acceptable. I will not tolerate staff misconduct at Ccwf, and they know that. We've talked about it in town halls and in trainings.

I wholeheartedly understand the gravity of everything that has happened and that's allegedly continuing to happen. And we will continue to forward those up for information, investigation and criminal prosecution, if necessary.

I appreciate you all responding with the intentionality that these women deserve to be addressed. The fact that so many of the women who end up incarcerated in California are there with the likelihood of sexual abuse and trauma being a part of the experience for why they ended up incarcerated, I think makes this even more heartbreaking to hear that the level of abuse is, quite frankly, so pervasive within a power dynamic that they have no ability to do anything about.

You referenced Inspector General. That there might be 2,400 complaints if you were to be able to average those. I'm certain that that has to be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of registered complaints, because it takes a lot for a person to be able to deal with the incredible power dynamic associated with that.

Deal with retaliation, deal with punitive manner, deal with being put into the shoe, deal with all of the things that keep them from being able to speak up, and they don't. So the complaints that you have are the tip of the iceberg. The very, very tip of the iceberg. And just from a systems perspective, we are humans that run systems.

I'm deeply concerned about the fact that the goal for the Inspector General's office is to move from addressing 10% of the grievances to 25% of the grievances And I hear and respect that you did that from a perspective of your budget change proposal and how much you think you would be able to do within the capacity of that budget.

But why in the world are we sitting here and not saying it's our responsibility to address 100% those grievances and complaints? We spend $14.6 billion a year in CDCR. Our budget speaks our values.

Why in the world are we not getting to a place where we have the ability to fully investigate every single one of these complaints, to fully ensure wardens that you have the resources that you need to not only do the training, but to keep people from being recycled from one prison to another?

Bad actors shouldn't just be able to say they're acting badly, you know, give a high five and go somewhere else in their system to continue to commit harm. So I just, I ask us in this Legislature, what are we?

What why are we here if we're not willing to get to 100% of grievances and making sure that they don't occur in the first place? And I will just end by asking us all to recall what Amica said was the number one recommendation, which was to keep our women not in prison from a trauma informed care approach.

If the state is re traumatizing, abusing, raping, assaulting our women and the return that they get for that is retaliation, we are broken.

So I ask again, not only this Committee, but our Legislature and you all, are we going to consider that number one recommendation to consider when somebody has been abused by the state, that in return for that they get their freedom? I think it's something that we need to fully consider.

I know that these are hard conversations and I know you all are sitting here in the hot seat.

But there are people who have been hurt and harmed. And I do want to hear specifically because we're in the budget hearing. And I'll stop. Inspector General, where did you get 25%?

We had to look at the projected numbers. So we look at how many grievances will the Department of Corrections get per year. And then we had to discuss what percentage can we look at and monitor that we can make meaningful recommendations. So we basically have to find a representative sample.

It's to find that number so that we can look at enough where we can see if there are trends, where we can make recommendations, where we can see if the Department is actually doing what they're supposed to be doing. And we had our audits team.

We use our auditors to help us come up with what is a representative sample where we can make those meaningful recommendations. And we started off with 10% initially with the initial staffing packages that we had. And we're slowly trying to increase it. The number of grievances has been increasing, so we are actually looking at a larger number.

But again, we have to get the staffing in place, get them hired, get them trained before they can be fully functioning so that we can be looking at the greater numbers.

But right now we believe that 25% getting to that goal of 25% will be a representative sample of being able to make recommendations and being able to do an assessment of CDCR.

I just think that's completely a wrong calculus that we're doing. The calculus that we need to be doing is 100% and what's that number? And work backwards from there.

I do want to make one clarification. So the number of grievances that come in. CDCR should be investigating those or reviewing those 100%.

They should be looking at every single grievance that comes into the system, and they should be looking at it 100%, reviewing it and making a determination of which route that claim, that case will actually go to. We do not have the staffing to look at all of the thousands of complaints they get. I believe.

I believe it was quite a substantial number last year. We only have the staffing to look at 25% to make sure that they are doing the right thing. So I don't want to say that CDCR isn't looking at and investigating every single one of those. They should be doing that at 100%. As the oversight entity, we only have the capacity to try and get to that goal of 25%.

I'll defer to my colleagues. I'm sure I might have other questions.

Thank you, Member Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to begin by saying I echo the comments and questions and sentiments posed by all three of my colleagues who've spoken so far. Most of my questions today will be really limited to the four of you sitting on this end of the panel.

But I do want to thank all of you for coming in today. I will be having some very high level questions. I'm not asking about specific cases, but I do want to better understand the process and what I. What I perceive to be deficiencies in our investigative and reporting structure.

I will say right out the gate, though, though, that. To. To Amika and Sol, thank you both for your testimony today and specifically to Ms. Mercado. Thank you very much for your bravery in coming forward. I can't imagine that that must have been a very difficult story to tell so publicly, but.

But if it's any consolation, I think it's important that we start talking about what is happening in our state prison system. So thank you for shedding some light on what's happening. Thank you. Yeah. Nothing but my immense respect and appreciation. Now, my question to our Office of Inspector General and to our wardens, I want to better understand.

And actually, let me make one other comment before I dive right into it. I've spent my entire career in prosecution and public protection. And I will just say that as a. At least speaking for one Member of the Assembly, I have no stomach whatsoever for someone who abuses the power and authority of their office.

And someone who is found to have committed these sort of atrocious crimes in our state prison should have the badge ripped off their chest. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And that's the culture that we need to instill. So when there is a complaint that is brought forward, I want to understand.

I understand that there's a CDCR review of the grievance that's been filed, and apparently only 10% are potentially reviewed by the Office of Inspector General. What is our mechanism for referring that out to independent investigation by a prosecutorial agency, Department of Justice, or a local District Attorney's office?

Do you want me to. So when a complaint comes in, the Department of Corrections can classify that as a criminal investigation, and they have their own Office of Internal Affairs, Criminal Investigations teams that can investigate and will investigate crimes and refer those to a prosecuting agency for prosecution.

Whether or not it goes out to an outside entity is a determination that the CDCR executives make. And I Can't speak on their behalf.

Okay. And I guess as a follow up to that, to the extent that either of you have information, I mean, I want to set the stage here. We have. They may be an inmate of one of these two institutions, but at the end of the day, they're a victim of a potential crime, reporting violent crime.

I want to know what are the factors that CDCR takes into consideration and whether deciding to turn it over to a local District Attorney. And if you don't have that information, I'd like that provided after today, Mr. Chair.

Okay. I can provide it to you afterwards.

So I take it just to be clear, you don't have that information on hand today?

Okay. Thank you both for your candor. I don't mean to put you on the hot seat, but I do think these are questions the public has a right to know because we have victims coming forward complaining of violent crime.

No.

And I can tell you that as a prosecutor, if someone makes a complaint, that's something that we need to investigate. The last point I'll make on this is that the reason I'm asking this line of questioning is that dealing with one of the cases I handled in my background were officer involved shooting cases.

An administrative investigation is very different from a criminal one. Whether to take a statement of an involved officer or a corrections officer. In this case, they're going to have much different protections, and the approach is going to be very different than a prosecutor who is coming in and trying to conduct an interview.

So I would like to better understand this at a future date, Mr. Chair, but as for the internal process from CDCR, I take it from all of your testimony that we are seeing an uptick in the number of grievances that have been filed. Can you give me any perspective historically, over, say, the last five years, 10 years, how much is it increasing?

Well, I don't have our grievance numbers now, but I agree it has been increasing. And it's. For me, I attribute that to them willing to come out and write the grievances and get a response back.

Okay, so I want to be clear, you're attributing it to maybe more willingness to come forward and to report what's happening?

I mean, is it just as plausible that we could actually see an uptick in actual occurrences that could also be another factor?

Yes.

I wouldn't be able to tell you that, but I could just tell you from my experience talking to the population and talking with outside entities, they have more avenues to report to. They have the ambassador program where they can report misconduct. They have the grievance process to where they can file misconduct.

They also have hotlines that they can call, excuse me, to report the misconduct. So now they have more avenues to make the report, and it also makes it more available to them to where they feel comfortable to come out.

Because for the longest time, or at least the way that I look at it, they didn't have those opportunities. So it could be there was no reporting misconduct was probably taking place, but nobody wanted to come forth and report for various different reasons.

Now that they know that we're actively out there and we're pursuing and we want to ensure that we are taking the appropriate steps, the appropriate measures, the appropriate punishment, we want to make sure that it's being out there, and they know that, so they're coming forward with their testimonies.

Thank you. Now, let's say, hypothetically, you're seeing a particular staff Member with multiple complaints coming in. Does that trigger any special approach in terms of investigating the conduct when you're having 5-10 grievances filed against the same individual?

Yes. Yeah.

Can you. Can you elaborate?

Not knowing the particular circumstances of the complaints? Because anything that's sexual misconduct, let's assume that it is. For purposes of the hypothetical, then I am removing them from the institution, especially at CIW. CIW, we do PI.

We have Administration to where we'll take them from the institution and move them away from female offenders and place them, like, at another institution, per se, pending the ongoing investigation.

Why wouldn't they be placed on administrative leave? Why would they be allowed to still perform the functions of their job if they've proven that they're committing violent acts against people in their custody?

Well, they won't be doing the duties of the job of a correctional officer. They'll be placing something like the mailroom, reviewing mail coming in at another institution. For the most part, they do have a due process in which we do have to follow in regards to their. Bargaining unit rights, pro bar rights,

And actually for real I appreciate your comment there, sir, because that highlights the distinction between an administrative investigation, which is what I've been harping on, versus a criminal investigation.

So I do think that in addition to everything we're talking about today, I think we need to take a real hard look about what are the factors and guidelines we are using to refer this to an external, independent criminal investigative team to conduct a full workup, because these folks are.

I think we can all agree that the folks that are in our state prisons are no less deserving of the protections of our justice system than anyone else who's going to come forward and complain about sexually violent behavior. I AM Almost done, Mr. Chair. Just a couple follow ups here.

I want to turn the attention now to the person that is actually making the complaint. How does CDCR go about preserving the safety of the person who has made a complaint against a staff Member?

Well, first we're removing the individual that's alleged to have the misconduct out of the area. We're providing services to the incarcerated person, whether it's mental health services, a victim advocate service of their choice. We have the outside entities, such as the sister lawyers Ambassador program that comes in that they can speak to.

We have lots of different support systems that come in that they can take advantage of the services that they provide.

Two more questions, Mr. Chair. If a sexual abuse complaint is sustained internally by either CDCR or let's say, upon review by the Office of Inspector General, is there any automatic provision by which that complaint is referred to a District Attorney's office or the California Department of Justice for follow up for criminal purposes?

It is referred to the our county District Attorney's office in every instance, yes.

Okay. And last question. Does CDCR have any policies that require staff Members to report incidents of sexual harassment or abuse that they witness or know about committed by another employee of the Department?

Absolutely. We are sworn officers and we're mandated reporters. So any kind of misconduct that they've seen, they have, they need to report it.

And what's the consequence if they don't?

Well, they'll become subjects of the map of the matter.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

Also become subject of the matter. So they'll also be included in regards to the misconduct. They witnessed something and failed to report on it.

And in the history of the Department, has anyone actually been disciplined for failing to report this sort of conduct to your knowledge?

Not to my knowledge.

That's concerning to me. But thank you both for your candor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. I do want to make sure and. Give the offer our women's caucus Members any last remarks?

Thank you, Chair. I just have two more questions. There's a theme around removing the officer that is known to have a complaint against them. What's the process for ensuring that the friends, family, buddies of the folks who committed that complaint are also shielded from continuing to perpetrate harm in a retaliatory sense against the complainant?

It's hard for me to try to explain it because for the most part, we have to be Vigilant in regards to observing or having that information come to our attention so that we can act appropriate to it. Preventing someone.

If I don't know, if I don't have that information as to who's doing what, then it's hard for me to react to it. But if I know the who, what, when, who, where, when, then we can take the necessary steps to ensure that those individuals are also, you know, dealt with. Unless they're not working for the Department. But it's all that information be referred to the investigators.

You just heard that there are very few. I think the answer was none of additional reports that are made when people are aware of a situation. So I, I believe that that is a systemic.

Well, it wasn't hypoth. I'm sorry. And then I'm not trying. I thought it was a hypothetical,

Hypothetical question. I think he was asking a very.

He was.

You think that the Assembly Member was asking a hypothetical question?

No, he said he, Never mind. I'm sorry, I, I, I'm misunderstanding what you're bringing forth, you know, but I love to try and clarify it. I just gotta get a little bit more understanding, please.

Yeah. My question was again systems. So if there's somebody who is, who makes a complaint against an officer, you all have indicated that you remove that officer.

You have not shared at all how the people affiliated with that officer who are still left around and about the way, whether it's a mail room or the commissary or any of the other places of power within the system, they're still there able to retaliate on behalf of that officer.

So what by way of training procedural process to ensure to Assemblymember Schultz's point around protection of the complainant. What other things besides sending them over to a very worthy support provider and sister warriors are is CDCR doing to protect that complainant, including the people who are still in power who might be a little upset that their friend got removed.

Well, if we, if I hear that anybody's retaliating against an incarcerated person, of course I'm going to take action and refer that person as well. And that may require the removal of that person out of that area as well. Because we won't. Any allegation of misconduct, whether it's retaliation, preventing the reporting of an incident is going to get referred for investigation.

Do you have a breakdown of how many in the aggregate? I'm not asking you to reveal anything. What percentage of complaints where there was also a concern of retaliation? What, what percentage of the complaints also had additional retaliation associated with them.

I don't have that data right now, but I can find out.

I think that would be helpful as a start. And then my final question on this, Mr. Chair. So California is moving towards single selling, right? It's something that we've talked about as providing a more humane way of ensuring, of moving away from congregate care, ensuring that people have the ability to have their own space.

We know that San Quentin is moving towards a single cell model very shortly, I believe has been discussed as a plan. It's the justification for why we continue not to be willing to close down prison yards or prisons.

Given the fact that so many of these assaults that are happening for our women and Trans people are happening in their cells. What do you think the impact of moving towards a single cell system will be if we clearly have not actually developed the underlying protective measures to ensure that people are safe within our prison?

I'm trying to understand because I don't want to be misquoted again or misunderstood as well. You're asking what's the impact of if.

We're thinking about moving to a single cell model? That, I mean, that's a budget question, right? It costs money to be able to do that. It's the justification for why we don't close down our prisons and close down prison yards because we're going to need to be have more room to be able to do that.

And we know that a portion of a good majority of the portion of assaults that happen actually happen within the confines of a resident cell.

If we have not addressed the underlying concerns that you've heard raised here, and that is the subject of lawsuits, what is going to be the impact of investing in single cells when we have not invested in fully addressing these complaints or protecting the complainants?

We just heard from the Office of Inspector General that for capacity reasons, they're only willing to go from addressing 10% of the complaints to 25% of the complaints. There's a budget change proposal of close to $4 million to be able to do just even that part.

But then on the other hand, we're investing, I think the number was $178 million to the idea of single selling in other parts of our system. So where we're here to just make sure that we're spending money in the best place that's possible.

If we know that it's likely that people are going to continue to get assaulted and have no redress in our current system, as it's laid out, why would we also be moving towards a single Cell model. And why would that be a recommendation for spending by the Legislature?

That will be up to our from their determination in regards to what money we need towards it.

All I can be is vigilant at my institution ensuring that we're providing the appropriate programs, groups, medical attention, psychiatric care, you know, in order to prevent the training, you know, at my level we're trying to, you know, get more interaction to where we can prevent such such actions. You know, we like to get to 100% as well.

So as far as investing money in regards to it, I mean we do have to take care of the first portion of it as well to ensuring everyone's safety. But to foresee it.

I think I'll. Try to ask a little bit more of a concrete question. You can wrap this up into your response.

I think first and foremost is that number one is the safety and security of the population at our institution. It wouldn't be for us to decide if we were going to go single cell housing.

Whatever the Governor or the Legislature approves, the safety and security is still number one and we would still address any staff misconduct to the fullest of our abilities and ensure that we are holding people account.

I'll just ask this final question. Thank you for your flexibility. Chair. This is a budget hearing. It's a budget and oversight hearing. You all are the wardens of these two facilities that have had significant complaints where the safety and security of the residents have been violated.

Hearing what you have in the testimony today, the questions that the Legislature has offered in your own experience and expertise, from your perspectives around ensuring greater safety and security, shared safety for community and for people who are residents of these two facilities. Where would your recommendation be for how we resource your facilities to secure safety and security?

We continuously work with what within our budgets that have been provided with us and we're doing the best that we could.

Do you have a more explicit response?

Well, I agree with Warden Parker. We, we work with what we have as the wardens. We, we are at the pleasure of the Governor. So whatever the Governor or the Legislature.

Passes. We will follow it.

Thank you for that direction.

Thank you so much for that. Any final comments? Assembly Member Sharp Collins

I just had a comment. I wanted to say that based on the responses that I'm hearing today, I completely understand why they fear women. You all fear opening up and reporting the crimes that are being committed to them.

When you're saying that these things are allegedly happening, as a woman, when I tell you that it's happening, I need you to know and understand that it's happening. It's not an allegation. And I think that you know that it's there. The removal of the officers that are committing a crime, they're still allowed to be employed there.

That is something that's completely unacceptable. And I truly believe that because they are incarcerated that you're not standing up to the correct to the overall corrupt system. Because of their current status, you are allowing them to remain in a system of being abused. And that should not continue on at all.

All we want to do, and I'm saying we because I am a woman as well, and all we want to do in these situations is be heard. We want to be valued. We want to be respected. We want to be protected. So your goal should be 100%, not 10%, and not 25%.

Everyone's allegations should be taken to the highest extent that's possible. So I completely understand why it took so long for you and so many others to stand up and to speak out because you didn't feel valued, you didn't feel heard, and you did not feel protected. And that's a problem that we have to address.

So I'm encouraging you all to figure something out sooner, sooner rather than later in regards to how we want to continue to work to protecting our women. I don't believe that we should have to remove the victims from where they are.

But if it comes down to that point of you knowing that this has happened five times to individuals, or you've had multiple complaints and you're saying, well, they are no longer incarcerated, but the officer has been removed. Or those that are still incarcerated, officer has been removed. You may have to move the other person, the victim.

Sometimes they may have to move. Sometimes the retaliation is not just from the officers. They have friends that are there. So it could be for other people that are living in that pot as well, that could be retaliating against them. Because now you've taken away someone who's bringing in whatever contraband to them or et cetera.

So retaliation goes beyond just the officers. It goes into the inmates as well. Those things have to be looked into as we continue to move forward. So I don't want us to have to move the victims, but you got to think about that and their mental stability. This is a lot.

They've already had abuse coming in, not all of them, but some have. But then once you come into that, and, and it was already stated that this was something that has had a lasting impact on her life. But what about the other victims lives? And it's not just her life but her family's life.

This is something that she has to continue to deal with. So what other mental health support services are we providing? Knowing that this is taking place, moving them is something. But you still have the whole other home, whole family aspect that you have to now address.

So I just had a closing remark just to say that I get it, I'm appalled, I am concerned and something has to happen sooner rather than later. And I look forward to continuing on this dialogue with all of my colleagues and what we can do to get this system correct.

Thank you so much for that. Any final comments from Majority Leader?

I just want to again, thank you all for being here today. Not done. We're not near it and I expect we can come to some conclusions or some help. This is just out of hand.

I've seen too, I've heard too many of these stories and the one that bothers me the most is that I'm doing a Bill right now and my witness was retaliated against and couldn't show up to come speak because it got word out that she was going to speak and she's not. She wasn't there. That's not right.

She has every right to tell her story. And so it breaks my heart that she was scared to death to come and speak. And we need to let people's voices be heard. So I continue, I'm sure we'll continue to work with you all.

I would like to think it's going to be a partnership of some sort, and I use that pretty broadly because right now I don't feel like we have one, but we need to work on it. So I want to thank you all for being here. Mr.

Chairman, thank you very much for having us and my colleagues, thank you very much. I appreciate everything everyone's trying to do.

Thank you, Madam Majority Leader, Assemblymember Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, I just wanted to follow up on the question and the answers I heard from Assemblymember Bonta. First of all, I thank all four of you, but especially you two, for being in the hot seat today. I know it's not fun.

I got to be honest, I didn't love the answer that I heard to Assemblymember Bonta's question. And so this is not the last time we're going to be talking about this.

So I what I want to leave you with is for the next time you're before us, I don't want the answer to be we'll work with whatever we're given. I want you to dare to dream.

I want you to assume that the Governor and the Legislature, because I do believe it's the case, we want to end this epidemic of violence and abuse in our prison system. So when you're back before us, I want you to communicate what you need to end it. I certainly have my thoughts.

I think all four of us do, all six of us. I think there's some great comments that we heard from some of the folks that were testifying today as well. But when you're back before the Legislature, I plan to ask the same question again.

And I really want you to dare to dream tell us what it's going to take because you should not be limiting yourselves. You need to be asking for every available resource to end this because it's not acceptable.

Well, thank you so much for that. And we do have some questions ourselves to follow up on. First, for the two wardens, how long have you served as wardens over those institutions?

Myself, one year, March 1, 2024.

Myself, I just hit two years.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. We heard different cases and we'll get into the process a little bit with another one of my questions. We heard different 300 cases a year, but we also heard 1400 to 24 cases a year.

And to the wardens, knowing that you're in this position now for a year and two years, do you feel that there is some underreporting going on that maybe those numbers are higher?

When you mean underreporting, do you mean.

That underreporting of the cases that are brought before you?

Well, for the PREA cases, we've had over 400 reports in 2024. The previous year we had less than that. So I do feel like there is a lot more reporting going on.

Do you believe that because the women's caucus got involved and started having some different discussions and even hearings on this topic has allowed others to come forward with reporting of what's going on inside the institutions?

Absolutely.

Yeah. Thank you for that. And I want to talk about the accusations of sexual abuse against a staff Member what happens to the staff Member? Can you walk us through that?

If there is a sexual abuse accusation against a staff Member, what first takes place and knowing that CDCR is the first one to investigate, Office of the Inspector General comes a little bit later in the process. So I want to hear from that. What happens to that. That person when the accusation is there?

We remove. We remove that individual from that, from the area, from the institution. And then we refer everything up to our Office of Inspect, Office of Internal affairs, to the central screening team.

And at that time, the central screening team will make a determination as to which route it should go, whether it should go to Office of Internal affairs

At same institutions?

Yes.

So it's an overall policy that you're actually held accountable to, that's happening within your own institution?

Yes, yes.

So what happens and how do we get to the point to where the person is then placed on leave? Is that part of a process that comes down from the top to the institutions itself?

Well, each case is different. So, for example, if it's getting referred to the Madera County District Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution, then we would elect to put that person on ato.

But up until that point, or even the process following that is basically based on policy given to you from the top down, if you will. So overseeing of your institution is basically guided by policies from the top down of things that you might be seeing within your own institution.

And how is it decided when an internal investigation is turned over to the District Attorney through that process? Also, can you walk me through that?

That's what Office of Internal Affairs.

So this gets turned over from your institution, what you're seeing, to Office of Internal Internal affairs under CDCR, right? Yes. And then that then decides whether they go after prosecution of the wrong that's been done in your institution?

Yes.

So help me understand, when the role of the Office of Inspector General gets involved, we heard from 10 to 25%. But I do want to make it clear that I believe that when the Office of Internal General gets involved, it's because there's cases that are reaching areas that need to now be exposed and be transparent to the public.

I can address how we get involved. There's a number of different places where we can be involved. When a complaint goes to the centralized screening team, I have staff Members that look at a percentage of those complaints.

And if it's a case that meets our criteria, then we will identify that case to the Office of Internal affairs and let them know that we will be monitoring that case. And so we Pick it up.

From that point forward, we'll monitor the investigative process that occurs by the Office of Internal affairs, whether it is an administrative investigation or a criminal investigation. And we will attend interviews, we'll make recommendations, and we will follow the case through until it goes to the DA's office for prosecution.

We don't monitor DA's offices, so we will stop there. And then we will pick up the administrative case and we will monitor that investigation and continue to make recommendations as appropriate so that the case can move forward.

And then we will also go to the final resolution when it goes to the wardens, when they go to make a decision on discipline, we will make our recommendations at that time as well.

If there is a staff Member who is held accountable, we will follow that case through the State Personnel Board hearing process to ensure that the matter is handled within CDCR policy.

Thank you for that. And this. This agenda has been posted and we did give notice to CDCR. So is there anyone here in the audience from Internal Affairs CDCR, that could explain a little bit more about the process of where. When we get to filing that prosecution and turning it over to the District Attorney?

Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm David Chriss. I'm the Deputy Director of the Office of Internal affairs for CDCR. Yes. So absolutely. PREA cases, when they come to every prea case is investigated. The cases that get referred to us, they can come to us in a few ways.

And that can be by an incarcerated person filling out a form called a 602. It'll come directly to us. It doesn't have to be screened by anybody. All the layers are gone. We're in a process. And I can talk a little bit about our process a little bit more in a few minutes.

But we've created a system where you don't have to ask permission. It doesn't have to go to a Committee. They can directly file a complaint. And it comes to our centralized screening team and then gets routed to us for investigation.

And when does the decision is made to send that information to the county District Attorney for prosecution of wrongdoing.

Our team does that. We take a look at what the facts are. We gather evidence, we gather statements. And cases that meet the criminal elements are referred to the District Attorney's office in the county that they occurred.

It would be interesting if you don't have the number now, this Committee would like to see that how many times cases have been referred for prosecution against the amount of different cases coming your way.

Yeah, I don't have that information, but we can certainly get that for you.

Well, thank you for that. And we also do want to dive into a question that was asked as far as the single cell use, and I think is someone here from Budget from CDCR? Unless you could answer that, too.

No, I can't.

I didn't think.

Hello, Cynthia Mendoza. In terms of single selling, it's. The cells are very small. And part of the idea behind single selling is to also prevent incarcerated person upon incarcerated person violence as well. So we feel, and there is research behind this, that overcrowding people can also lead to increased aggression.

And so as part of that, yes, we want to eradicate violence in the prisons. Absolutely. Whether it's staff, unincarcerated person or incarcerated person on incarcerated rated person. And by single celling people, it gives them privacy and space.

And yes, cameras are not in cells for privacy purposes, but staff need to do better and ensure that people are safe whether they're single celled or with other people.

Thank you for that. We would also be interested in and the different data on staff assaults and inmate assaults. But one of the questions also is, do you believe that the single cell use will reduce assaults in General.

Yes.

From staff and inmate, or is there a difference in the two?

I think that's a good question.

I think we would be interested in getting feedback on that. If you have any further comments on that.

We hear you. I mean, absolutely. We'll be collecting the data. We'll see through the 607s, we'll see through staff reports, hopefully to our external organizations as well as internally. But by giving people a little more space, there's less likelihood for aggression. Now, that doesn't include the bad actors. They're still bad actors.

And we will do everything we can to make sure that those don't continue to occur. But I can't say it's going to prevent it per se, but that we need to put more measures in place to prevent it.

Thank you for that. We will be interested in getting that data back and how we're looking at blind spots within the institutions themselves. I think knowing that the wardens have been there for two years, one year, that we know those blind spots aren't something new. So these are reoccurring. And we would hope that within the budget aspect of it that that could also be taken care of.

Yes, we want cameras everywhere. We want to make sure people are safe. And we need to build our staff up, the. The good actors to make sure that they're reporting this, this should not occur ever. And we should have people in place who are in control who make sure that this doesn't occur. And if it does, that they respond quickly.

Well, thank you for that. And I do understand that we're going to get that information back and then we'll be able to look at that.

And I do want to offer to Amika and Sol that your words that you shared here today didn't fall on deaf ears, that it is something that this Committee is very much engaged in. You can see by the presence of Members here and the questions that we asked and the information that we're asking for follow up on.

I want to thank you for sharing your testimony and bringing these things to light. And so we are engaged. And I'm going to offer, if you have any closing remarks.

I would just like to thank the chair and the Committee for the questions that you've asked. That lets us know that you're thinking deeply about the issues that we hold close every day as we think about our people that are inside currently enduring some really intense circumstances. We need you. We need you. Thank you.

I'm not gonna lie. There was a lot of questions that you guys asked the wardens, and I really wish that we could have been able to answer it ourselves because we were the ones that were living in those. Behind those walls. So. So there's a lot of things that I wish to say.

I want to say thank you. And one of the things that I wanted to point out to keep in mind is, yes, there are blind spots, but like the August 2nd incident, there was footage that was missing. There was body cams that were turned off, and there are still staff working in there that did not.

That are still causing harm. And especially people that have been released, too. You know, I was released four years ago, and I'm still being victimized by it, and the person is still working under the warden. And that should not be acceptable. You know, the staff should not be rotated around throughout prisons.

You know, they should not be able to retire with their pension after committing a crime. They should be punished by law, just like a person that when they get punished because they assaulted a staff, you know how quickly that gets referred to the DA When a person assaults a staff, that should quickly get referred to the DA When a person incarcerated gets assaulted, too.

And it should be looked at that when people get put in actig. My experience that I have seen is they make reports saying that the people refuse to lock in. And, you know, when people are reporting stuff and people are afraid to speak up till now, because I get phone calls all the time. I get phone calls.

I work with people that have expressed to me how they're feeling. And especially with the same person that did it to me and the Delta dogs and all that stuff, they still being victimized.

They're talked down, they're ridiculed, they you know, so there's a lot into that that needs to be looked at, especially making them sign papers saying that they were not report staff and the write ups that they got after that. So there's a lot of things that really need to be looked at.

And I hope that this is the beginning of opening those doors because none of that stuff should have been happening.

Thank you for that.

Can I just say one last thing? I just wanted to say from our experience in talking working with survivors for many years that the line of questioning around reporting is important because what we see is that the majority of people are not reporting.

And so although we are looking at the numbers and the processes, it leaves out a significant amount of people that will not report because of the fear of retaliation.

Well, thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you all for coming forward on this testimony on this topic here at this Committee as now we're going to move to issue two.

Issue two Rehabilitative Reentry Programs in the California's Women's Prisons Amy Casias, Division of Rehabilitative Programs Anissa De La Cruz, Warden, Central California Women's Facility Lavelle Parker, Acting Warden, California Institution for Women Precious Johnson, Prison Reform Advocate and Reentry Consultant Norhan Abolail, Advocacy Manager, Transformation Transformative Program works that one. We'll start with Amy Casias.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members. I am Amy Casias, Director of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I feel privileged to have been appointed to this role a little over a year ago. Over the past decade, California has made significant investments in rehabilitative programming status statewide.

In the past three fiscal years, almost 6,000 students have earned their GED or high school diploma. In the past three fiscal years, almost 6000 students have earned their GED or High School Diploma. 2,800 students earned associates, bachelor's and Master's degrees and there were more than 8,000 completed career technical education programs and industry certifications combined.

DRP's programs also extend into the community pre release such as the Female Community re entry programs as well as post release support for supervised individuals.

DRP programs at Central California Women's Facility and the California Institution for Women provide opportunities to participate in academic education, career technical education, substance use disorder treatment, cognitive behavioral programs, reentry preparation courses and grant funded programs provided by our valued community based organization partners like the ones we have here today.

We also work with our partners at cchcs, California Correctional Healthcare Services and CalPIA.

Academic education allows for growth through literacy, basic education, earning a high school diploma or GED and enrolling in college just last month and at Ccwf, Fresno State graduated the first group bachelor's degrees cohort of women in California where four of those students were summa Conelau.

CDCR has also expanded their use of technology and education and all our college students received laptops to access coursework, textbooks and class materials online. Currently, CCWF and CIW have combined a total of eight career technical education programs through drp.

In addition to the CTE programs at CCWF, the Occupational Mentor Certification Program, OMCP is offered which provides participants the opportunity to earn an alcohol and other drug AOD counselor certification.

In addition, we also offer a Peer Support Specialist program, pssp at CCWF and soon at ciw, where upon completion of the program, individuals can take the California Mental Health Services Services Authority or Cal MESA certification for eligibility as a peer Navigator. CALPIA also offers numerous programs at CCWF and CIW that teach a variety of job skills.

In partnership with cchcs, DRP also manages the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment Contracts which provide important treatment and services. With ongoing process improvements, the enrollment at CCWF has increased by 24% and at CIW by 17% over the last year. Beginning with the new contract term in July of 2025.

CDCR will also incorporate gender responsiveness through the inclusion of an evidence based gender responsive curriculum at CCWF and CIW. CDCR recognizes the importance and value of rehabilitative program programming.

The Statewide Recidivism Report for Individuals which was just published last week indicates a lower rate of recidivism for those with enhanced credit earnings over those who do not earn any credits. These rehabilitative programs provide help to those we serve, be successful upon Re-entry and therefore increase public safety.

I also want to highlight our Female Community Reentry Program which is integral to support incarcerated women who are preparing to re enter our communities. This program offers rehabilitative services and social support to prepare the participants for success upon release.

In these programs, women serve up to the last two years of their sentence in the community where they can work and attend school. It allows participants to leave incarceration with a job and money in the bank.

CDCR and our partners provide all the opportunities, but it's the women that I want to recognize because they are doing the hard work to reach these milestones and now I want to give our wardens a chance to speak about the specific programs at their institutions.

Good afternoon again. I'm Warren De La Cruz from CCWF Our institution has established several programs that focus on rehabilitation and prepare individuals for successful reentry into society.

Upon release in a recent graduation, we honor the incarcerated women who earned 39 career technical education completions, 102 computer related technology completions, 15 high school diplomas, 74 GEDs, 51 associate of arts degrees, 14 bachelors of arts degrees with six more in May, and even one master's degree.

As Agenda notes, we provide more than 1800 programming slots across my institution. I am also proud of our face to face college programs which have been significantly expanded in the recent years. The variety of programs provided has never been greater, from cognitive behavioral treatment to job training volunteer programs to academic programs.

I meet often with the women in my institution to hear about their needs and desires, including what they would like to see with their programming. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee today and discuss operations or facilities and address any concerns you may have and I'll pass it on to Warden Parker.

Good afternoon Chairman and Members. Again. Again, my name is Lavelle Lee Parker, Warden from California Institution for Women. Thank you for the opportunity to be here to be present. In my short time as warden, I have been honored to preside over multiple graduations from high school, college and firefighter program.

My favorite part of the day is walking the yard talking to staff and the population regarding current events, programming and daily life within the institution. Our facility is committed to fostering a diverse environment that prioritizes rehabilitation and safety for both staff and incarcerated population.

Each day we strive to enhance our programs and practices to support staff and incarcerated persons while ensuring the continued safety and growth of our institution. Across CIW, we have more than 1,000 program enrollments as well as a variety of volunteer led programs.

This is a significant expansion compared to when I started working for the Department and results in reduced recidivism and safer prison to live and work in. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move to Precious Johnson, Prison Reform Advocate Re Entry Consultant.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Precious Johnson and I represent the California Coalition for Women's Prisoners. I am a Member. I served 15 years on a life sentence first at Valley State Prison and then at Central California Women's Facility.

And since my release in May 2023, I have devoted myself to advocating for formerly incarcerated in their successful reintegration. I also work with numerous nonprofit organizations dedicated to prison reform and reentry.

My firsthand experience in the justice system reveals critical gaps in support, especially for women The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has made limited progress in preparing individuals for careers after release. Although vocational and employment programs exist, they are outdated, misaligned with today's workforce and in the workforce demands.

I held various jobs that did not require traditional application processes or offer transferable certifications, leaving significant gaps in my resume that provided challenging challenges for job interviews. Moreover, the vocational training at Central California Women's Facility fails to equip individuals with modern skills such as digital literacy, proficiency in Microsoft, Google Workspace, the effective use of tools like Zoom.

These are essential in today's workplace and market. Although the facility offers programs provided by community based organizations, none are specifically tailored to workforce demands upon release.

To make matters worse, CCWF is facing budget cuts that have resulted in the removal of critical programs and restricted community organizers from conducting vital workshops due to an exceeding stringent Also with exceedingly stringent approval processes for those who have served longer sentences, the challenges are even greater.

Many have never used modern technology or navigated the digital work digital world, making skills like paying bills online or completing job applications nearly insurmountable without proper training. Research indicates that nearly 70% of of formerly incarcerated individuals struggles to secure meaningful employment within the first six months after release due to lack of essential skills and practical training.

While college programs provide valuable theoretical knowledge, they often fail to they fall short in offering the hands on experience that system impacted individuals need to land jobs in today's competitive market. This gap in practical training significantly contributes to recidivism and undermines public safety.

Community based organizations such as Unapologetically Heard, the Ella Baker center, and the Coalition for Women Prisoners play a critical role by offering guidance through mentorship, robust advocacy, effective career preparation, and a support network of peers.

They deliver the practical hands on assistance that departments currently lack, ensuring that formerly incarcerated individuals gain access to livable wages, transferable skills, and meaningful employment opportunities. Yet far too often they make sense on a dollar inside women's institutions, underscoring the urgent need for systematic change.

We must update vocational programs to reflect current job market needs by incorporating digital literacy, coding, technical skills along with offering certifications recognized by employers. Too many of us come home and cannot put our work experience on our resumes and get our employers called for references, hence making it very hard for us to get jobs once we're released.

Unless we are employed by nonprofit organizations, we need short term boot camps and targeted digital skills training to align with the real world demands.

We need to allocate necessary resources to reduce wait lists inside the institutions and hire qualified instructors and eliminate practices that exclude individuals serving life or life without the possibility of parole from accessing essential job readiness programs.

I call on you today to transform our approach from one that neglects potential to one that empowers and uplifts by providing these women with the skills and opportunities they deserve so that we can continue reducing offending recidivism and also strengthen our communities and fulfill the promise of rehabilitation. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker will be Norhan Abolail.

Thank you to the Committee for the Opportunity to speak about these vital and life changing programs. My name is Norhan Abolail. I'm the Advocacy Manager at Transformative Programming Works, also known as CPW. TPW represents over 100 community based organizations providing high quality rehabilitative programs in all of CDCR's prisons.

The Wright Grant, which stands for Rehabilitative Investment Grants for Healing and Transformation, funds these community based organizations and I want to take a second to thank Assembly Member Bonta for her continued support of the Wright Grant. Programs run by CBOs foster personal transformation through a diverse array of interventions.

They offer gender responsive and trauma informed programs, restorative justice programs, violence intervention, family reunification, emotional literacy, entrepreneurship, job employment training, yoga and mindfulness practices, arts and music programs, and much more. These programs provide people in prison with the tools for self improvement, healing, accountability and investment in these programs ultimately creates safer communities and reduces recidivism rates.

The majority of these programs are eligible for Rehabilitative achievement credits or RACs, and participants in those programs have the lowest recidivism rates across CDCR consistently. We know from the report that just came out last week that people who didn't participate in credit bearing programs had a recidivism rate of about 44%.

In comparison, people who did participate in these programs had a recidivism rate of 25%. That's almost half. There's been two previous rounds of the Wright grant, both rounds of one time funding which allowed us to reach approximately 33,000 incarcerated participants this year.

For Wright 3.0, we're requesting a $20 million allocation to ensure that we can sustain and expand these programs. There still remain long wait lists that call for this expansion. I want to emphasize that investment in the Wright Grant allows for the prioritization of gender responsive and trauma informed programming in women's prisons.

The Wright Grant directly incentivizes CBOs to provide programs to incarcerated women. It uses a point based distribution system dependent on the program's size and budget and allocates extra points to organizations serving special populations such as such as women, people in rural facilities and those in administrative segregation or solitary confinement.

We're very proud to say that currently about 33% of TPW's Member organizations are able to provide programs in women's prisons due to this incentive. Rehabilitative programs funded by the Wright Grant are essential to addressing unique needs of incarcerated women and facilitating their successful reintegration to society. These community led programs help break cycles of incarceration.

They give incarcerated women the opportunity to heal their trauma and they strengthen ties to their families and communities which has proven to foster long term stability and improve re entry outcomes. They also create safer prison environments. They don't only transform the individuals inside but also the culture inside these prisons.

That's why investing in these community led rehabilitative programs is the right choice for California. They thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that. Now we'll bring it back to the dais if there's any questions from Members on the dais. Comments? Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank You Chair I think we've already kind of really been able to see the harm that we've perpetrated on particularly our women in our carceral system. And this is an opportunity to do quite the opposite with making sure that we're making true investments in rehabilitation reentry.

I did want to just recognize and acknowledge precious the comments that you offered in terms of the quality of that programming. And very clearly with the CDCR's most recent report, we know that there's an opportunity for really seeing reduced recidivism rates when we make the right investments. I didn't mean that to be a pun, but I do.

And so I just want to just make sure that we have an opportunity to get much clearer on some of the ways in which we need to potentially restructure the programming that is available that is made. Have you all speak to some of the additional pitfalls that you see in the existing programming that is available.

And I will just end my comments by also acknowledging that the Incarcerated Women's Working Group has put together a budget ask and with your indulgence, Chair I just wanted to just be specific about what was included in that letter that is submitted to the chair.

There's a $20 million ask to be able to continue to support community based organizations providing in person programming. We know that that is something that has been successful and is really focused on community based programs able to have the access and the ability to be able to support support what is happening in our prisons.

We have an additional $10 million to Fund project Rebound, a request from Assemblymember Quirk Silva, which I think speaks to what we know happens when we allow our CSU system to be able to provide opportunity. We have a $1.6 million ask to Fund Impact Justice's the Menopause Project.

This is a women's working group and we are deeply concerned and focused on the way that our incarcerated women or at least 40% of our incarcerated women in California prisons are experiencing menopause and don't have the resources that they need to be able to support that. Senator Menjavar made a request of funding OIG's oversight.

What we just talked about before. I will note that she had an oversight to be able to hit Fund 50% of the cases, not the 25% that have as in the BCP that this Committee is reviewing.

Another asked to be able to increase funding for California's female community reentry programs, recognizing that our women and Trans women who are coming out of prison don't have an extremely disproportionate access to reentry beds as compared to their male counterparts. And also providing additional female reentry housing to be able to support reunification and gender responsive supports.

And lastly to sustain and expand funding for the California justice leaders, which ensures that we have the ability to have our justice leaders have the ability to support more of a reentry structure and $1.5 million ask to expand the youth fire camp programs for female youth facilities, which we know is an incredibly effective model.

Just wanted to give you a sense of what the working group has been able to the public a sense of what the working group has been able to hold together as potential asks. And I know that they are under consideration by this Committee.

Bottom line is we already know that we're not providing enough funding for reentry and rehabilitation programs. Precious has talked about the quality of those programs needing to be significantly updated to meet the modern times so that people can actually go and get a job after they reenter and seek to reintegrate with our community Members.

And finally, we know that the portion that is targeted for women is even substantially less than that. So we have a lot of opportunities to improve in this area. And with that I will just end my comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Bonta. We do have some questions and to the Wardens looking at the success of some of these programs. Right. So I want to let you know that we are looking at some of the successes also of what's happening within the institutions. But there is some areas that we want to bring up.

One of the areas that we've seen in the data that we've been given is the overall population. We see that data wise, statistically wise, African American women and Native American women are per capita wise incarcerated at a higher rate.

The question is, are culturally relevant programs offered that recognize the experience and histories that they have already been through?

Yes, we have rehabilitative achievement programs that addresses those concerns in regards to their cultural beliefs.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on the cultural sensitivity, I guess, of historical trauma and then how we're moving forward?

Well, we have several different rehabilitative groups that typically come to the institution. They're RAC credits and they perform, not perform, but they speak with the population in regards to various different cultural aspects. So we do have Chicano Studies group, we have African American group as well, as well as Native Americans that come in and, you know, teach.

Ms. Casias, can you even add a little bit more to that as far as the cultural sensitivity and some of the rehabilitation that's taking place?

Sure, let me see what I can. So as far as drp, we do provide education and in that our teachers are taught in adult learning theory, andragogy, which definitely when they're teaching, they are aware of cultural concerns, history of the people that we're teaching. So in our education classes, the teachers should be addressing some of that.

As far as our DRP program specifically, they are not for certain groups of women, I guess I would say.

But a lot of that work is done through our community based organizations, which I think, and I want to just reiterate how valuable that is because we talked about recidivism rates decreasing with not only our DRP funded programs, but also our community based organization programs which are racc, which is what we've been talking about.

But when you put the two together, we're talking recidivism rates of like 14%. So I just want to reiterate that even though maybe our DRP programs don't specifically address some of those concerns, that our community based organizations through these grants bring some perspective in as well. I hope that helps answer your question.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And we did hear both sides of the equation, success with recidivism and then some that still need some work preparing those for the job market and the training that's taking place.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on any specifics to how we get to those job trainings that are there as far as do they fit the market as far as make sure that people are equipped to. To go after jobs once released?

Yes, I can. So we are required by Penal Code 2053.5. I wanted to make sure I got it. To take a look at jobs availability, livable wage, and our ability to actually provide the technical knowledge and industry certifications. That's one of our focus.

We do want to give everyone, specifically women, in this case, industry certifications that they can go back out to their communities and receive jobs. We look at EDD data. We talk with the California Workforce Development Board. We talk with American Job Centers of California.

We look at livable wage calculators to determine what occupations we think would be very helpful for people reentering our communities. So they're a livable wage. We want them to be successful and flourishing upon reentry.

Is some of that data specific to geographical locations also, or is it basically more a statewide approach?

It's both, but we do have women in both of those locations releasing statewide as well. So we do look at every multiple areas. I hope that makes sense throughout the state.

Thank you. And Precious, you brought that up as one of your testimony points. Can you elaborate a little bit more on what we're hearing?

When I was incarcerated, I got out in 2023, May 2023, when I left, you had carpentry, you had dental, PIA dental, you had PIA HFM. You have optical, you have. The vocations that you have are carpentry, Microsoft, maybe Windows 67. And a lot of those vocational training programs are shut down. They don't have the funding.

You're getting paid cents on a dollar at the PIAs. When dentures we know are expensive, either partials or fulls. I work there. So we know that each case of dentures comes with a set price. So the vocational training programs that they have there are not up to date. We're talking about, like, web design.

We're talking about administrative, like, basic things that you need for a job. They're not teaching us that there. Right. Zoom interviews. When you get out, you're gonna do three interviews on zoom. At least at best. They don't know how to write resumes. They don't know how to write cover letters. They.

They don't know that they have to fill out applications online. It's no more. Go inside the store and hand an application. You're hiring. A lot of folks have been down 10, 15, 20, 30 years.

The guys that I work with that are coming home in reentry, they're gone for 30 or 40 years and they don't know what to do. And not just with a cell phone, but just with living, period. Some are coming home with disabilities, they're older, they cannot work. So they don't even know how to apply for Social Security.

So I'm not just saying that, you know, CDCR is lacking in vocational things which they are right for the job workforce, but they also need to be prepared fully for how to come home and live. They don't know anything about minimum wage, they don't know about the cost of living.

She's saying that they go by this penal code, but that's not true. From my experience, there's no job that I had in there that I came home and I was able to present that certification or that job reference or use any of those skills that I learned inside to come home and be successful in my reentry.

And so they're outdated and they are not with the modern times of what's going on. No, we cannot provide them with the Internet inside. We know that security risk, right. But you can upload things on their tablets. They have tablets now.

You can download E Learning, you can download different programs for folks to be introduced to the real world application. Give them scenario based curriculum that is preparing them to be adults. They're so used to being inside and being taken care of, canteens bagged up for them. They're not a grocery shop.

I had a guy that had been down 40 years, didn't know how to grocery shop. I said, hey, you make out a grocery list and then we go in there and shop. He didn't know how to read the aisles. Right.

And so the re entry skills that were that they need is not just lacking in, you know, college or vocational. College degrees are great. I got my college degree there, Business management coastline, right. I was at ccwf. I got my college degree there. So I'm not saying that the programs are so bad and terrible and horrible, but.

But am I a business owner? Did I come home and get a business, my business management degree? I did not. Right. And so some of the things that you guys are providing are not preparing them for real world scenario based things. People are coming home older. Statistics is showing 5060 years old. How do they retire?

They can't retire inside a CDCR. So they don't know about a 401k and savings. And how do I retire? I can't work. They can't work. They're getting older.

And so I'm not trying to bash CDCR at the same time I want you guys to just look at your systems and look at your processes and make them more up to date with what's going on so that they can survive. This world, it's changing constantly.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for everyone in your testimonies. Bringing forward AS now, we'll move to issue three. We have David Chriss, Deputy Director of Internal Affairs. CDCR Cynthia Mendoza, Deputy Director of Office and Fiscal Services. CDCR Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. Kimberly Harbison, Department of Finance. And Caitlin O'Neil Lao.

Go ahead, Mr. Chriss.

All right, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is David Chriss and I'm the Deputy Director of the Office of Internal affairs for CDCR. We're here today to discuss CDCR's revised staff complaint process.

CDCR staff misconduct processes were designed with the goals of eliminating bias, increasing transparency and improving staff accountability by addressing allegations of staff misconduct submitted from all sources. As the Deputy Director of the Office of Internal Affairs, I have over 40 years of experience in law enforcement investigations and agency oversight.

My law enforcement career started in 1981 as a police officer working for two local agencies, achieving the ranks of field training officer, corporal sergeant, watch commander, and supervising investigations.

For 14 years, I've managed and conducted serious investigations including but not limited to homicide and death investigations, sex assault investigations, and investigations related to medical care issues, patient harm and death, workplace violence, EEO retaliation and and use of force investigations.

I've worked for multiple agencies, including but not limited to the Medical Board of California, the Department of Consumer affairs and the Office of the Inspector General who we heard from today. In April.

Most recently, In April of 2021, I was appointed by the Governor from outside of CDCR to be the new Deputy Director of the Department's Office of Internal Affairs. I have several degrees, numerous certifications, and extensive investigative training.

Specifically, as the Deputy Director of the Office of Internal Affairs, I oversee the internal affairs investigative function and the Office of Civil Rights for the Department's 66,800 employees. I also have oversight of and direct the Deadly Force Review Board and am the Chairperson of the Post Investigation Review Committee.

As a Deputy Director, it is my responsibility to ensure we uphold the best interest and confidence of the public by conducting complete, objective, unbiased and independent and timely investigations of employee misconduct. In 2020, the Department took a proactive approach to improve its staff complaint process by promulgating updated regulations and policy to process these complaints.

On June 1st of 2020, CDCR implemented emergency regulations to improve the grievance and appeal process. Based in large part on the revised grievance and appeal regulations issued by the California Correctional Health Care Services under Federal oversight, these emergency regulations were made permanent on January 52022.

On January 1, 2022 CDCR implemented emergency regulations to improve the screening process by establishing a centralized screening team and improving the investigations process by establishing the Allegation Investigation Unit for allegations of misconduct by staff directed at an incarcerated person. These emergency regulations were made permanent on October 20, 2022.

On January 1 of 2025, CDCR implemented emergency regulations with the intent of improving the staff misconduct, employee discipline, and administrative remedies processes. CDCR plans to implement permanent regulations on July 12025 after considering internal feedback, external feedback, and public comments as provided by the Administrative Procedures Act.

Highlights of these changes include a new routine review process as part of CDCR's emergency regulations, CDCR discontinued the allegation inquiry process including the use of locally designated investigators who conducted those inquiries. Claims previously handled by locally designated investigators will instead be handled by the local supervisors for a routine review.

However, if facts are gathered during the review which causes supervisors to believe the claim could result in adverse action, the routine review shall be suspended and elevated to the Office of Internal affairs for investigation. Additionally, the Department added special circumstances permitting the closure of investigations to staff misconduct regulations where video evidence clearly proves or refutes a claim.

The Department added requests for reasonable accommodations to the administrative remedies regulations and the Department updated the language and the employee discipline regulations to match all the other changes.

In addition to the changes to the regulations I noted, the Department is in the process of implementing additional changes to ensure staff misconduct allegations are reviewed and addressed appropriately, thoroughly, timely, and equitably. CDCR is also establishing a new centralized Allegation Resolution Unit to review and resolve investigations conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs.

In the current process, the Allegation Investigation Unit completes an investigation and the local hiring authority reviews the investigative files and determines whether to sustain an allegation and imposed discipline. This new unit will help alleviate an overwhelming number of investigations for review and determination by the local wardens while providing consistency in the decision making process across the Department.

This process started January 1, 2025 and is currently providing services to six institutions. The Department also revised the Allegation Decision Index. This index is a list of criteria used by the centralized screening team to determine whether an allegation of staff misconduct should be referred to the Office of Internal affairs for investigation or to a local supervisor for routine review.

The revisions to the Allegation Decision Index were implemented to provide the centralized screening team with more clarity on the types of claims that should be routed to the Office of Internal affairs versus a local supervisor. The Department has also implemented a multidisciplinary Grievance Team.

The Multidisciplinary Grievance Team provides individuals who frequently file grievances with a meaningful opportunity to immediately resolve complaints with a team of experts or open an investigation if warranted by the facts. This team will conduct face to face meetings with claimants monthly.

The team includes local grievance staff and healthcare professionals Additionally, CDCR is committing to improving screening, grievance reviews and investigations through enhanced auditing. These enhanced audits will help ensure corrective and disciplinary actions are taken. The post investigation review process and several other audits have demonstrated the benefit of monitoring.

This increased internal auditing will be implemented in coordination and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. CDCR will also be working with a California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training certified vendor to develop a new training course for CDCR investigators.

This course content would surround investigation strategies, statute of limitations, allegation, scoping, evidence gathering, interview plans, preparation and hiring authority decision making. The objectives are to improve and build upon investigators skills and knowledge. Thank you for your time today and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that.

Cynthia Mendoza available for questions.

All right, Department of Finance

LAO also available for questions.

Thank you. Bringing it back to the dais. Any questions, comments from Members? Assemblymember Sharp Collins

all right, I know I missed a good chunk of it, so hopefully I didn't miss his answer, but if I did, please go back to restate it. So when we're talking about the revised staff complaint process, wondering so how will CDCR track improvements in accountability and bias reduction after implementing the updated staff complaint process?

So we've developed a reducing bias in investigations training and all of our staff have taken that training and I mentioned earlier internal auditing and so we'll look at our progress through that process. I mentioned post investigation review. So that's a system where we review cases that have come through and identify any shortcomings.

And what we do is we roll those things into building new training and for further developing our system. And I think that's really the main focus of all of our changes.

What we're trying to do is we stood up a new system that I mentioned and it's a better system I mentioned a little bit earlier when I was up for testimony earlier is there's no you can file a direct complaint and it comes to cst, which is the centralized screening team and, and they send it to us.

So you don't need to it doesn't need to be reviewed by different levels. And so I think that's it's important and we continue to build on that over time and refine the process. We're also working with the Office of the Inspector General. We collaborate with them. I mentioned that I used to work for them. I know Amarique.

And we're actually, we have working groups to look at this new process and help further refine it. So we're really serious about trying to get it right and making improvements on an ongoing basis.

But even with the training as well, how often is it training? Is it once a year? Are you doing twice a year? Three times a year?

So we have updated training once a year, but this course is given as part of a new employees. If you're new to the Office of the Internal Affairs, you need to take this training to understand bias and to limit it. And so all the staff that were working for us when we developed this training, they all had to take it. It's a mandatory process.

Well, just, I mean, thank you for doing it once a year, but I just want to flag it, as I mentioned earlier too, this training has to be more than just once a year. If you have so many biases and you have different microaggressions that also exist. So there's other.

To me, it should be more than just one training that's happening once a year. But also my last question is what alternative position classifications for Suicide Watch are being considered and how are they expected to lower costs while maintaining the service quality?

I think that's a question for the institution staff. I think that's, that's outside of our, our lane.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Well, thank you for your comments. Any others?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, sir, when, when you were describing the revised intake and screening process, I see here that one of the things that is being looked at is whether the grievance contains a serious allegation of staff misconduct requiring investigation by the aiu.

Is that the stage where, if there were potential concern that this could be. Worthy of criminal investigation, is that the. Juncture at which it would be referred out?

Yes, it comes to us immediately, you know, depending on the seriousness of the offense. PREA cases are all serious and we treat them as such. And so the, you know, the criminal elements are there. We, we investigate it as a criminal matter and then prosecute through the local DA's office.

And just broadly speaking, what are the professional qualifications for someone conducting that assessment at the centralized screening team?

So they're given a list of criteria. That's not exclusive. If the elements are there, there's no, it's not evidence based. If it's, if it's written on the complaint, then it automatically comes to us. So the person just has to make the complaint. It doesn't get excluded.

Okay. And then I guess the last question, it's kind of a question and a comment, is the One concern that I do have is that hopefully the person making the assessment of whether I believe on a prior issue, you talked about whether there's criminal elements that are at present or not.

Yes.

Hopefully the individual making that assessment has some background in conducting criminal investigations or prosecution.

So they certainly do. And when it rises to that level, it's at our special agent level. These people have the very most experience in our investigative staff.

We also have a vertical prosecution system where there's attorneys, there's Department attorneys that are embedded and they give advice from the very beginning, the very beginning of the case all the way to the end. And so oftentimes the office, the Inspector General, attaches and monitors our cases at the same time.

So there's an attorney from the Office of the Inspector General and an attorney from the Department. Most of those people are former prosecutors and they advise us along the way. So we have experienced staff and then we also have experienced legal staff that help us plan the case in the beginning, all the way through to prosecution.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for that and thank you for your testimony and ability to answer questions. But as you start the process moving. Forward, the new complaint process, we want. To see how successful it is.

And I know you said you have working groups to fine tune that, but this Committee would be interested in getting updates throughout the year as far as how successful it's doing and bringing those complaints forward. So if you could update this Committee through your process.

I know that it's ongoing, but certainly we don't want to wait a whole year to figure out if something's working or not.

Absolutely. We certainly can.

Well, thank you so much. As now we move to issue four. Issue four is there's no presentations, but if any Members have questions, questions on this topic, we would entertain them. Thank you. Well, we have one question. It's related to the San Quentin proposal.

Considering the topics we discussed today, are we prioritizing resources in the most reasonable way?