Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

I would like to call the Assembly Budget Subcommittee number 6 to order.

Good afternoon. We'd like everybody that's here. Today, we will be covering issues on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I want to welcome our panelists from the Sister Warriors and the California Coalition of Women Prisoners as well as the recently appointed receiver for mental health, Colette Peters.

We are also joined by colleagues from the Legislative Women's Caucus, and thank you for being here, Assemblymember Elhawary. All public comment will be taken at the end of our last item, and each person will have up to one minute each for public comment at the discretion of the chairman. We will not be taking any votes today. Please keep your remarks within a lot of time communicated to you by my staff, and remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking.

You will be speaking in the order communicated to you by my staff.

Today's hearing focuses on two critical issues and challenging issues facing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. One of them is the challenges of delivering adequate mental health care in 31 prisons for over 35,000 incarcerated people who have mental health conditions.

The second issue is a follow-up to a hearing we had last year with sexual abuse, retaliation, and violence in CDCR women's prisons so that we may assess the progress that's been made and the challenges that remain.

Sexual abuse should not be tolerated in all corners of society, including incarcerated. And we need to ensure both prevention and accountability are continuing to happen.

Before we begin, would any would any of my colleagues like to make any statements moving forward? Assemblymember Elhawary?

I just wanna thank the Chair and the Committee Consultants for the opportunity to be here with you all today on behalf of the Women's Caucus and members who will be joining. This is such an important, opportunity to have a conversation that needs to be had to ensure that we're pushing for accountability in a real way and really looking at solutions that we know exist in this room that we can actually work toward together.

So really grateful for everyone for taking the time to be here and sharing your stories as well.

Thank you so much. With that, we'll move to issue one. Grants and Administration. We have Madeline McClain, Director of Division Administrative Services. Kathleen Ratliff, Associate Director Regional II CDCR. David Chriss, Deputy Director, Office of Internal Affairs, CDCR. Amarik Singh, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General. Caitlin O'Neil, LAO's Office. April Grayson, Political Director, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. Sandra Deanda, member, California Coalition of Women Prisoners. Amica Mueta, Executive Director, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, and Department of Finance, Alyssa Cervantes.

And we will start with Kathleen Ratliff. Right?

Yes.

Good.

That's correct. Good afternoon. I'm Kathleen Ratliff. I'm an Associate Director with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I oversee Region II, which is seven different institutions to include both of our women's facilities.

I also see the statewide MA family council, the implementation of SB 132, otherwise known as the Transgender Agency Respect and Dignity Act, as well as the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and visiting statewide. Would you like me to go into the presentation?

Yes.

So thank you for the opportunity to be able to be present before you today. Before I begin, I wanna acknowledge how serious this issue that we're addressing is. Sexual assault impacts people everywhere and no one should feel unsafe, especially those in our care. We have a responsibility to protect those individuals in our care and I take that responsibility seriously. This issue is also personal for me.

I have a close family member who was incarcerated within CDCR. She was housed at both of our female institutions. And so I was able to see firsthand what the impact of incarceration has on individuals, not just the individual themselves, but also their families and the folks that they leave behind. My family member came into the system very young. She was in her early twenties and she left behind a young child, excuse me.

And so having to navigate incarceration while also worrying about things back at home, I understand how that's challenging coupled with that for that person to feel unsafe and we just can't accept that at any level. I also wanted to mention that I've worked with in our female institutions for about fourteen years. That's at both CIW and CCWF. I've worked at the ground level as a correctional officer all the way up through administrative levels.

And in that time, I was able to build strong relationships with both the staff and the population at both of our female institutions.

That being said, I understand the responsibility that we have and I take that responsibility seriously. No one should leave our institutions in a worse position than the position that they came in. Our approach to sexual safety is rooted in the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA. It establishes national standards for prevention, detection, response, and investigation. These standards guide our operations including investigations, evidence collection, separation of individuals, and referrals for criminal prosecution.

We've strengthened our training to ensure that those processes are clearly understood and are consistently followed. Our actions align with the commitments outlined in our March 2024 report to the legislators, including improving reporting systems, expanding trauma informed care, strengthening training, and addressing the culture within our female institutions. What we recognized, however, is that compliance alone is not enough.

The incidents involving former staff member Gregory Rodriguez, along with other allegations, has made it clear that individuals did not always feel safe in reporting particularly due to concerns of retaliation. That understanding has shaped our work.

Since our last appearance, we've focused on strengthening both our systems and our culture. We've reinforced accountability and oversight, reviewing cases early to identify risk. And again, at the conclusion, to ensure corrective action is taken.

This allows us to address issues in real time and apply lessons learned systematically. We've increased independent oversight through engagement with the Ombudsman's Office and at the headquarters leadership level.

Additionally, our PREA compliance has been independently verified by federal DOJ Auditors. Specifically, in our most recent audit at Central California Women's Facility conducted in January 2026, CCWF was found to be in full compliance with all federal PREA standards. In addition to that, the most recent audit conducted at California Institution for Women in September 2024, they were also found to be full compliance with the federal PREA standards.

We've also strengthened our PREA appliance excuse me, PREA compliance infrastructure and that at both CIW and CCWF, we now have dedicated and established PREA compliance lieutenant and their primary focuses are ensuring compliance with PREA, while also identifying opportunities to strengthen our operations and practice.

We've strengthened our retaliation prevention and that we require structured follow ups for at least ninety days, after any PREA allegation.

And we require face to face check ins. This ensures that we hear directly from the individuals and not just rely on data alone. We've also made significant investments in training and culture change. This includes gender responsive training, trauma informed practices, and active bystander expectations.

We've partnered with external organizations, including the National Institute of Corrections, otherwise known as the NIC, the Moss Group, Just Detention International, and Valor US.

And this was done to support leadership development, operational improvements, advocacy services, and culture change. As part of our culture change initiative, we've also partnered with Former Secretary Kathleen Allison to improve operations as well as provide staff with the opportunity to observe best practices at other institutions and strengthen leadership engagement.

We've also increased increased our leadership presence, and that's with regular walk throughs, town hall meetings, and direct engagement with both the population and staff.

We've extended engagement with the population to build trust, and this includes partnerships with advocacy groups such as the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition to introduce the Peer Ambassador Program at both CIW and CCWF, as well as ongoing Peer Ambassador efforts and regularly held sexually assault, sexual assault prevention and response work groups. We continue to expand trauma informed support and work with external partnerships to ensure access to advocacy services through reporting processing.

Operationally, we've improved and implemented additional safety measures. This includes expanded body worn cameras and evaluating further technology to strengthen oversight. We enforce staff accountability wherein all allegations are reviewed and any substantiated findings result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. We continue to analyze data to identify trends, inform prevention strategies, and we've also seen an increase in reporting, which reflects the improved awareness and willingness to come forward.

While we've made progress, we recognize that challenges remain, particularly in building trust, ensuring consistency, and reinforcing a culture where individuals feel safe in reporting.

This work is ongoing as it's not just about policy, but it's also about enforcing policy, procedures, and ensuring that they're trusted, used, and effective in practice. We remain committed to strengthening accountability, improving trust, and ensuring safety and dignity. I thank you again, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we see David Chriss, Deputy Director.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman Ramos and members of the committee. Just to tell you a little bit about myself, my name is David Chriss, the Deputy Director of the Office of Internal Affairs for CDCR. 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, and supervising investigations.

I've managed and conducted serious investigations, including homicide, death investigations, sex assault investigations, and use of force investigations. Worked for more 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 Inspector General who's with us today.

Most recently in April, 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, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Next, we'll go to Amarik Singh, Inspector General.

Good afternoon, Chair Ramos and members. I'm Amarik Singh, the California Inspector General. I am here to talk about our office and give you a brief update today.

With me also is my Chief Deputy Inspector General, Sean Splane, who will also be available to answer questions. The OIG is an independent state agency separate and apart from CDCR. We are charged with providing oversight and transparency to several aspects of CDCR's operation. As it pertains to the issues on today's agenda, the OIG has long monitored the department's internal affairs investigations into allegations that CDCR staff committed acts of sexual abuse against incarcerated people.

Since the OIG began providing oversight of CDCR's investigative and disciplinary processes in 2005 in response to federal litigation, the Madrid litigation, the OIG has strived to monitor every investigation CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs conducted into these types of allegations.

However, during that time period, the Office of Internal Affairs only opened investigations into allegations for which it determined there was a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred. The remainder were investigated, but by each prison's locally designated PREA investigators. This was the primary manner in which we provided oversight and transparency of this process until 2020, when CDCR overhauled its grievance process, the process by which incarcerated people raised allegations of staff misconduct and other concerns. With this change, CDCR began sending every allegation of staff misconduct incarcerated people raise to the Office of Internal Affairs for a formal investigation.

This meant that all allegations of sexual misconduct would now be investigated by CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs. This has led to an exponential increase in the number of sexual misconduct investigations CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs conducts.

In 2025, Senate Bill 1069 took effect, providing the OIG with an increased focus of monitoring CDCR's sexual staff misconduct investigations and granting the OIG limited investigative authority into sexual misconduct allegations that CDCR either declined to investigate or was not investigating adequately in our opinion. We immediately began increasing our focus on these types of cases and sought funding to increase our monitoring capacity so we could provide oversight of a greater number of sexual misconduct allegations.

In last year's budget, we began receiving additional funding and have established a new sexual misconduct monitoring and investigation team whose sole focus will be monitoring CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs investigations into incarcerated people's allegations of staff sexual misconduct and performing investigative measures in appropriate circumstances. Although funding continues to trickle in, the team is mostly formed, trained, and has already begun monitoring cases.

To date, we are actively monitoring 161 investigations and have closed 10 cases, which are currently being reviewed and prepared for publication.

We have not yet performed any investigative work, as we have not yet identified any sexual misconduct complaint CDCR has not opened or investigations that we believe CDCR is not performing adequately. Although investigation monitoring is our primary method of monitoring CDCR's handling of staff sexual misconduct allegations, we also monitor the way in which CDCR screens the complaints it receives.

When CDCR overhauled its grievance process in 2020, it created a centralized screening team to review every grievance, identify allegations of staff misconduct, and refer them to the appropriate internal entity for handling. We have the capacity to monitor approximately 10% of the current volume of screening decisions. This is a critical point in the allegation review process to ensure allegations of sexual misconduct are identified and routed to the correct investigative body within CDCR.

Our review of this process reflects that the department has predominantly routed grievances involving sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and retaliation appropriately at the two women's prisons. Since the start of 2025, our office has reviewed 182 grievances out of CIW and CCWF that contained allegations of staff misconduct. 39 contained allegations of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and retaliation. We found that the department appropriately routed all but four of those grievances to the appropriate entity for investigation.

After we notified the department of our disagreement with those four decisions, it routed three of those four grievances for investigation.

The third way in which the OIG is involved in this area is through reviewing allegations of sexual misconduct via the complaints we receive from the incarcerated population and people who send complaints on their behalf. We serve as the Sadia ombudsperson and are required under federal regulation to refer every allegation of sexual abuse to CDCR for investigation. This process provides the incarcerated people a third party avenue to report these complaints with an option for the reporting party to remain anonymous.

Looking at the complaints we have received over the last three years, complaints of sexual abuse have increased yearly at CCWF, from 16 in 2023 up to 22 in 2024 and 26 in 2025. And already, we have received 10 through the first quarter of this year.

CIW, on the other hand, has decreased over the same time frame, from 15 in 2023 to 10 in 2025. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to provide this information, and we are happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you so much for your testimony. LAO?

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neil with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We've reviewed the administration's population projections, as we always do, and even after we make various conservative assumptions, we find that the state could close a prison within the next few years and still retain significant flexibility with which to manage any unexpected population increases. Doing so would save the state over $100,000,000 general fund once fully implemented.

And so in this context, we would note that these savings could, of course, be used to address deficits that the state is likely to face, but they could also be redirected into other general fund priorities.

For example, if the Legislature wanted to put additional resources into prevention or response of these types of concerns that we're hearing about today, this would be an option that it could pursue for finding the resources in this budget climate. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. And now we'll go to April Grayson, Political Director of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition.

Thank you, Chair and committee. My name is April Grayson, the Political Director of the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. As part of the sexual abuse response and professional working group, we are not just advisers. We are on the ground inside women's prisons confronting staff misconduct, sexual violence, and the overall overdose crisis in real time, while running consistent leadership programs at CCWF and CIW through the Sister Warriors Ambassador Program. We showed up in good faith.

Believing CDCR would meet this moment, it has not. There has been no meaningful systemic or cultural change. What we are seeing is not a glitch, it's a pattern. A pattern of obstruction, hostility, and disregard for both incarcerated residents and the organizations trying to support them. Proven state approved programs are being shut down or blocked, like the sudden cancellation of the PHI at CCWF and the barriers facing RIGHT grant partners who cannot even gain access to facilities.

Meanwhile, ineffective or harmful programs are being pushed on our residents, sometimes even coercing people into treatment they do not need. Specifically, residents are being forced to take Suboxone under the explicit threat of retaliation for noncompliance, creating new harm instead of healing. Despite clear legislative mandates to streamline access for community partners, CDCR continues to ignore the law. Organizations bringing life saving services are forced through inconsistent, opaque processes designed to keep them out.

Since 2023, we have repeatedly met with CDCR leadership, yet not a single recommendation has been implemented. We are done repeating ourselves while nothing changes. At women's prisons, where the state has caused deep, documented harm, CDCR should be leading with urgency and accountability instead of standing in the way. We're asking this committee to act. Why are state funded programs being blocked?

Why is legislative intent being ignored? It is time to stop funding a system that actively obstructs rehabilitation. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Now we'll go to Sandra Deanda, member of California Coalition for Women Prisoners.

Good afternoon. I'm Sandra Deanda. I was released from Central California Women's Facility in August after serving nineteen years. I'm currently a plaintiff in the CCWF lawsuit. I'm Native American from the tribes Mono and Pomo, born and raised in California.

I'm here to talk about my experiences with staff abuse and retaliation and what currently and formerly incarcerated people need for prevention and healing. I was at CCWF on 08/02/2024 when the guards unleashed brutal, excessive force on over 150 vulnerable people. As the video footage shows, staff locked people in the dining hall while conducting a large scale search of ourselves for hours. It was over 100 degrees and people were asking for water, food, and medication.

While the prison staff say that incarcerated people became disruptive, the truth is people were experiencing medical emergencies and not receiving any care.

Officers used physical force, batons, and chemical agents while people were sitting down and wearing plexi cuffs. People were pepper sprayed and tear gassed at close range while packs of officers beat them. Many people were wearing bright yellow mobility vests signaling their disabilities, and injuries were severe, including a stroke, spinal injury, and a traumatic brain injury. The incident was not random.

The sergeant who ordered the attack had threatened retaliation if residents didn't stop reporting PREA violations of sexual misconduct and filing lawsuits. We are all deeply traumatized by this incident. Even those who witnessed it were terrified, because it reminded us of how we were beat or abused in the past. I still remember hearing everybody screaming and crying. While this incident was extreme, officers used weapons and force routinely to silence people who were trying to get medical attention, mental health care, or report abuse.

Here are a few examples that I experienced.

Once I was in a conflict with a peer, and Officer Reynolds held a pepper spray can inches from my face. Instinctively, I turned away, and my ponytail hit his face. He threw me on the ground even though I was in cuffs, and I was charged with a battery on staff and spent a year in solitary confinement. In 2016, I asked an officer to be sent to mental health. He told me to get into the room because we had count coming up.

I told him I urgently needed mental health. I was put in my cell anyways, and I slit my wrist. I received twenty-four stitches to my left arm. We always got denied mental health, even if we knew it, but they didn't help. I've seen staff physically and sexually abuse peers during my entire sentence.

Back in 2010, an officer demanded me and another incarcerated person to put on a show for him. He offered us phones and cartons of cigarettes. One day, he told me he needed me to get a box of toilet paper, and he followed behind me into the room, but didn't turn on the light. I grabbed the box, trying to hold it between us while trying to get out of the room.

I tried to pass him, but he stepped in my same direction, blocking me repeatedly as I tried to get around him.

He kept me in that room and wouldn't let me go until I grabbed his penis and rubbed on it. I told him somebody was coming and ran out. This officer would demand sexual things and threatened to send us to administrative segregation if we didn't do it. He was able to retire with no blemish or accountability. I stayed in constant fear of retaliation. I didn't say anything or report it until I got out. For the people still incarcerated at CCWF, we need stronger accountability measures, safe reporting, and access to the care and support provided by commmunity based orginizations. Then when we come home we need recources for re entry. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Now we'll go to Amika Mota, Executive Director of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee, and the Legislative Women's Caucus. Amika Mota with Sister Warriors. Sexual violence in our prisons is not historical. It's happening now. And how California responds is a choice being made in this room today. Since we met last year, retaliation against survivors of staff sexual abuse has escalated. Survivors are losing jobs and peer roles, denied privacy when reporting, and facing ongoing harassment. There is no meaningful confidentiality. Reporting puts a target on your back. At CIW, officers are telling incarcerated people that basic necessities are being cut to pay for lawsuit settlements.

That is not budget management. It is collective punishment. Survivors paying again for harm done to them by state employees. We must not balance budgets on the backs of survivors. That is complicity.

Following our last hearing, Sol, who spoke about retaliation involving a lieutenant at CCWF, was interviewed by internal affairs. She later learned that the officer was forced into retirement without consequences. Former CDCR staff, some of whom are in this room today, describe the same culture. Reporting misconduct leads to harassment, denied promotions, and fear of losing your job. Speaking up is more dangerous than staying silent.

That must change. Accountability is optional. Justice is not delivered. California cannot keep following this path. So what do we need to do now?

Release the 50 to 70 survivors who are imprisoned with their abusers. Their abuse has been substantiated by the state.

The Secretary must use his authority to recommend re-sentencing. Close additional prisons in alignment with LAO guidance and reinvest in survivor-centered funding through CPEDV, CalOES, and VOCA. A community-based healing and re-entry fund administered through the Sister Warriors Ambassador Program. Expand the RIGHT grants to include survivor-centered programs including Unapologetically Hers, whose Red Flag Guide teaches people how to prevent and interrupt staff abuse. PREA peer programming through Just Detention International. Parole readiness and healing after harm programming like Uncommon Law.

Survivors need two things: release from harm and real pathways to heal outside of it. That is within your power. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Department of Finance.

Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time, but here to answer questions.

Thank you so much. I'm bringing it back to the dais. Any questions from the dais? Questions or comments from members?

What would you like to address Deanda for a second?

I'd like to address Ms. Deanda for a second. I just want to acknowledge the seriousness of what you expressed here today and the courage that it takes to share that in this environment. I worked with both you and your sister at CCWF, and we built a really good relationship. Again, I apologize for what you shared today.

No one should have to go through that, you or anybody else, and we take that seriously. When you talk about things such as retaliation, that's a part of my responsibility. And as you know, from when we were at CCWF together, when those things came up to the level where I was made aware of, you and my team, we addressed it. So I just want to make sure that I didn't miss an opportunity to let you know that. It takes a lot of courage to share that.

Definitely. Thank you again for your testimony being here. It does weigh pretty heavy on this committee. Assemblymember Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our panel. I'm going to say right out the gate that I have a lot of questions directed at representatives of CDCR and the Office of Inspector General. But to our three panelists right here, I am going to ask you a question at the end of my line of questioning, and that's really what more do you think the committee should know and be taking into account.

Obviously, if there's anything that's discussed with me and other panelists, I would welcome that input.

I also want to acknowledge, before I go down the rabbit hole, Mr. Chair, I'm piggybacking off of a comment from one of our other panelists, how challenging and tough it is and how courageous you must be to talk about the experiences that you've seen and been through, and obviously working with a lot of folks that are in CCWF and our other institutions. It takes an incredible amount of bravery to come in a very public way and talk about that before this committee.

I bring that up to say that whether it's in this hearing today or in any of our institutions on any given day, we cannot tolerate any acts or threats of retaliation against a person who speaks out or is seeking help. And so I want to be, this is not directed at any of you individually, but I want to be incredibly clear.

If I catch wind that there is any form of retaliation in any way, shape, or form based on what we hear in this room today, I will use every available tool at my disposal to have the most robust public oversight hearings.

I want to be extraordinarily clear. You're doing the right thing in coming forward and talking about all of this in front of our committee. I expect no retaliation from any state agency or any state employee. With that understanding, I would like to start with talking about the August 2024 incident. I had a chance to see what I would categorize as an appalling and disturbing video of the incident.

I do have a couple of questions about the incident. The first is, there was a guard in the video from what I saw that was carrying what I would describe as a Super Soaker type weapon. Not asking for his name, but I'd like to know the rank of that officer, if anyone knows.

That individual was a correctional officer.

Okay. No elevated or heightened rank, just correctional officer?

That's correct.

Okay. It appears, at least from my view of the video, that after he deployed his weapon, other officers began to deploy the mace grenades and pepper spray despite no imminent threat. That's at least my take on it. I watched the video and saw many inmates wearing those bright yellow colored vests. Many appeared to be restrained, and I saw no provocation and certainly no imminent threat.

There was a complete void of leadership or professionalism in everything that I witnessed, and I'm again appalled by what I saw in that video. With that statement in mind, I would like to ask a couple of questions. Is it your assessment that the act of spraying without an imminent threat went against your use of force policy?

Absolutely. So in order for any individual to use force, they have to be able to not only identify, but articulate an imminent threat. I agree with you. In many cases, we found that there were some staff who used force and their force did not comply with our use of force policy.

Thank you very much. And I agree with your statement, and I appreciate the answer. Are you requiring that every officer who remains working for the department in that incident be retrained on use of force and de-escalation? And again, the question is every officer involved.

Absolutely. What I'll share is, in the eighteen-plus months since that incident has occurred, we've partnered with the Office of Correctional Safety, our internal security oversight, or I wouldn't say oversight, but our internal security, to provide not only use of force training, report writing, and communication de-escalation to all staff involved in the incident, in addition to staff who were not involved in the incident, as a preventative measure. We took that a step further.

We provided that training to staff at California Institution for Women as well. The thought is that many of our population transfer between the two institutions, and then to drive home how serious it was, and in our efforts to prevent it from happening again, we did provide that training.

Thank you very much. And I know that you're relatively new to the role, a lot to walk into and to take over management of this incident. Before I go to my next topic, I will just say, I mean, really of all the officers that I saw in the video, but certainly of the gentleman that I have described, I have seen no greater exercise of a lack of professionalism than this incident.

And quite frankly, this person should not be in the employ of the State of California. What I saw was a disgrace.

With that said, I'd like to change topics. In the agenda, it says that the department's own regulations specify that the legal concept of consent does not exist between CDCR staff and incarcerated individuals. And it goes on to say that any sexual behavior between them constitutes sexual misconduct and will subject the employee to disciplinary action and/or prosecution. Can you confirm that this is in fact the department's policy?

That's correct.

All right. That being so, I would assume that any inquiries after a complaint is filed do not ask the complainant whether there was consent, and the assumption is that it is legally impossible for the complainant to consent. Can you confirm that is the case?

I can. That's accurate.

Thank you. Would you say this is similar to the concept of consent between minors and adults, because in this case, the incarcerated person is under the custody and control of the state, whereas the employee is a sworn peace officer or otherwise employed by the state?

Correct.

How many cases of staff sexual misconduct are annually referred to a district attorney's office?

I don't have that information directly. I can look to get that information for you.

Thank you. I would certainly appreciate that. One more question on the topic of sexual misconduct. If a staff member has a sexual misconduct claim and if it is sustained, does that determination remain permanently on the employee's record?

Absolutely. When we look at our disciplinary matrix, it's what we use, the statutory guidelines, to impose the penalty. So what you'll find is, in many cases when it comes to sexual misconduct or others, it'll guide the discipline. But yes, if it's substantiated for a Prison Rape Elimination Act, it stays there, whether they retire or not.

Okay. And thank you. And what about other sustained acts of misconduct?

Yes. It stays on the record.

Okay. Thank you very much. I think my next question is for Ms. Singh, Office of Inspector General. The Inspector General's role seems very limited based on your statutory authority and resources, at least that's how I would personally describe it. So your office has some ability to monitor staff complaints generally, and you only recently received some resources and authority to monitor and investigate sexual misconduct in all of the state's prisons.

But the resources limit your ability to monitor, if I'm understanding correctly, about 25% of cases. Is that right?

That is correct.

Okay. When you finish an investigation, are you able to recommend the specific consequence that follows, such as termination?

Following the completion of an investigation, the OIG monitor can make a recommendation as to what we believe is the appropriate penalty, which does include recommending dismissal.

Thank you. In that case, how often are your recommendations concurred with by the hiring authority, the wardens?

I would have to get that information for you. I don't have specifics as to all of the cases we monitor or any specific present at this time.

Completely understand. That is information I would find very helpful, and I have to say I understand that the wardens that were before this committee this time last year are no longer the same wardens in place, but I found that testimony completely useless and void of any helpful facts in helping me to assess what's going on in our institutions. So your follow through and follow-up on that point would be greatly appreciated by this member. Thank you. All right.

I want to talk next about excessive use of force. How do you differentiate between excessive use of force and an actual battery?

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

How do you differentiate between an excessive use of force investigation or assessment as compared to the commission of the crime of an actual battery?

Right. So excessive force is defined as any force in excess of what's needed to perform their duties, to overcome resistance, affect custody, subdue an attacker. So it's more force.

Okay. Thank you. And I'll try to do a better job of maybe asking a more clear and specific question. If, for example, hypothetically, a correctional officer were to use a baton resulting in serious injury on a person who has their hands zip tied, sitting, and for the sake of this hypothetical not posing any threat, would such an incident be referred to a local prosecutor?

It could. There's a couple of things that have to be considered. So the reviewer would have to review the individual's report to identify what they articulate as their imminent threat. And so in cases where we look at use of force, it's reviewed at multiple levels. It's reviewed at the sergeant's level, the lieutenant, a captain, an associate warden, and it also goes through a committee.

But at any time during that review process, if there's a belief that the force was unnecessary or excessive, then yes. It'll be referred for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs. And then once that investigation comes back, if it's found that that force was excessive or unnecessary, then we'll go through the disciplinary process and that person will be disciplined. But it's hard to say because we'd have to look at whatever evidence exists.

So if that's body worn camera footage, if that's the audio/video surveillance footage, if it's not only that individual's report, but other reports.

If there's an allegation of excessive or unnecessary force, then they're going to review, they're going to interview the incarcerated person and any witnesses. So there's a lot to be taken into consideration before making the determination if that force was either excessive or unnecessary.

I appreciate that. Speaking about the August 2024 incident, have there been any criminal referrals to date?

There has.

Okay. In the past twenty-four months, or if you could just give me more of, like, an annual average, how many criminal case referrals are there from such excessive use of force cases?

Unfortunately, I don't have that information handy.

I'd have to get back to you.

I appreciate that. I know I'm throwing a lot of tough questions at you, but that information would be helpful to me, and I will move off this topic. But the reason that I'm asking these questions is I'm trying to understand whether the department's internal processes are sufficiently delivering adequate consequences and routing appropriate cases to DAs. Again, based purely on what I saw from that video, as a former practitioner myself, absolutely a case I would charge.

My final topic is really about the culture at CCWF.

It seems to me that there's a deeper culture, a cultural problem at the facility that may not be fully addressed through individual disciplinary proceedings alone. So what is the department considering to address this larger cultural and systemic issue?

I agree with you. We have also found that there are cultural issues not only at CCWF but also at CIW. When I mentioned in the beginning that we are working with external partnerships such as our previous Secretary Kathleen Allison and the Moss Group. So a lot of those efforts are to address the cultural issues that we have at our female institutions. I'll say that one thing that we've been championing is the see something, say something.

It's our active bystander training where staff are not just complicit and stand around when they see wrongdoing. So we've identified that there is a cultural issue. A part of that is the trust. We realize that that trust has been broken amongst the population. And so it takes a long time to rebuild trust.

And so we are boots on the ground when I say that from an administrative level, from the administrative team, myself and my team, we are in the institutions communicating with the staff and the populations, but it's a part of that larger cultural issue that you described.

I really appreciate your answers today. In a moment, I'm going to ask these other panelists if they have anything they'd like the committee to consider. The only thing I would offer, speaking only for myself, is that I would say it's not just with the MA population. Speaking for myself, my trust in the department is fractured based on everything that I have seen. I would love nothing more for that trust to be repaired and restored, but as I sit here right now, results matter.

And so I will be watching very closely to see what is done, what is the outcome of criminal referrals in this case, and I very much look forward to getting more information from you, ma'am, as well as our representative from OIG. Before I close out, three of you, I know you've been waiting patiently. There have been a lot of topics that we've addressed.

If there's anything else that you think the committee should know, I'd very, or anything you'd like to respond to, I'd love to hear your input today.

Yeah. You don't have to if you don't want to. I just—I wanted to extend the opportunity.

So, we are a part of this working group with CDCR, and the initial phase of it was us to work on a collaborative report, yet the report wasn't collaborative. We released our report with our recommendations based on the testimony of the folks inside and the town halls and the surveys that we had held about what they would need to be free from violence. And then, they released their separate report. And so, we're still in this working group.

And so, I would appreciate if we could collaboratively come together to produce the recommendations. That way, it's not just us saying what we think they need. They also are in collaboration with us. I think that that's how we will see change because it usually will talk about something we're met with per the recommendations in the department and all the stuff that's above my pay grade. And so, if we collaboratively came to suggestions, I think that's how we'll see the changes versus us and them.

And it's not a us versus them. We should all be working together for the solution for the folks on the inside.

Thank you. I would just like to add that we appreciate the attention that this committee is paying to the issue. I feel like we have the ability to be inside talking to survivors, and I just want to relay the level of fear that people are carrying every day. It is terrifying for folks. Not only have people understood that we cannot rely on CDCR.

For years and years and years, we've seen the same things, but now, the retaliation is increasing. And you've seen that as well with the August 2nd incident. So, it's compounding, and we just thank you for taking such great care.

Thank you all very much for your testimony and for answering my questions. I'm gonna hand it over to many of my other very capable colleagues to continue the line of questioning, but I just wanna emphasize if there's any point of common ground, I think it's this. When you're in the custody of the state, you do not waive your eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. And I have to say, I'm very disappointed in what I've seen of the department of late.

My challenge to the department is to do better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz, and women—to the Women's Caucus, the members that are here, Assemblymember Bonta, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, do you have any questions, comments? Assemblymember Quirk-Silva?

Thank you for being here. I appreciate it and thank you to the chair for including me. This is really triggering. I don't think it's necessarily because I'm a woman, but it certainly brings up that there's several of the Women Caucus members who have been working in this space and trying to understand more about what is happening, not just under sexual abuse and violence, but on women and who are incarcerated and how can we look to best practices.

I myself have a bill, AB 788, which is a two-year bill that was held.

It is coming back, and it was basically a master plan for women who are incarcerated, which is actually already the law, and CDCR did not oppose it in committee and then, as we move through the process, has opposed it saying that they can't comply, in essence. We're bringing that back. But on the, the very basics, for me, I think the big—and I did also see the video.

And I think the most shocking part to me is that there were so many correctional officers. So, whether they were the one with the, as you said, the spray, spray gun or how did you say that? Super soaker. There were so many more that stood by and watched. And this, this is fundamentally the problem.

I come from the city of Fullerton, and in 2011, six police officers beat and killed a homeless man, schizophrenic homeless man, on the streets of Fullerton—from the Fullerton Police Department. And it was initiated by, really, the first police officer on-site and then the second, but there were six that joined. And I saw the videos of that as well, and it brings me all the way back to that moment where you see a video and you see other public safety officers coming upon.

Now, they didn't know what the extent was, but there was one man who was being beaten and then ended up dying. And when I saw this video, it took me right back to that, where you see somebody leading and then so many others following.

But even if they didn't follow to the extent that that first officer did, there were so many that just stood by. And that tells me that it's not just about training. It's about what are the consequences. What are the consequences? So, one of the questions that was just stated, which is there is abuse and violence, but what is the percentage of officers that are actually losing their positions?

Because if you do something and you get written up, okay, it might happen again. You do it another time. It might happen again. If fifty percent of the officers maybe lose their positions, but if we know that seventy five percent of them lose their positions, that might be a deterrent. So, my question is, what is the percentage of officers that are losing their positions for sexual abuse and violence?

Unfortunately, again, I, I'm not equipped with that information. We'd have to go back and look at the data to be able to provide that request.

But even backing up to the question, what are the percentage that are being investigated?

Okay, so, any, all allegations of, of staff sexual misconduct, sexual misconduct for incarcerated person or incarcerated person, any allegation of excess or unnecessary force, every single allegation is referred for investigation.

And who's doing the investigations?

It it—so, that's the, the Office of Internal Affairs for CCR. And they're separate and independent from the institutions in, in location and in staff and in oversight.

Alright. So, I'll just kinda wind up here because I know there's, there's a lot of questions. But when I look at the notes and I'm not even talking about the August 2nd day, I'm talking about over a period of years. How, how is the institution, in essence, creating an environment where there can be so many sexual assaults? Where are these happening?

There's a lot of people around. So, what are—what is the basic scenario where these happen?

So, each allegation of sexual misconduct, they're different in nature. So, when it's staff, on incarcerated person or when it's incarcerated person on incarcerated person, when we're looking at those, so, a part of the review that I mentioned in the opening, is that we review the—any allegation on the front end within sixty days and that's what we're looking at. We're looking at infrastructure. We're looking to see if there's blind spots.

We're looking to see if it's the same individual who are—who's committing these acts against the population.

So, we're looking at the housing. We're looking at a lot of those things. I can't pinpoint one specific thing. A lot of it comes down to the individual when we look at some of the.

Can I ask the women, where, where would most likely these assaults be taking place?

Out of the view of cameras. It's a pretty common shared information where people can be to assault incarcerated people. This tends to be.

But there's, there's other people in proximity. Are they watching? They know about it? They're turning a blind eye?

You wanna take it?

Sometimes it's in plain sight or, like, when they do kitchen release works at five in the morning, sometimes some will be held back. Just depends. Most of the time, it's in plain sight where they just don't look.

So, there's other people around. They're just not intervening.

Not on first watch. It's only one officer.

Well, it just—I'll just end my remarks. This just goes back to a culture that maybe they're not the perpetrator, but they're close by or they know about it. We just saw an entire candidate for governor go stop his campaign. And now, what do we hear is a lot of people knew about this. So, when you say if you see something, say something, that, that is important, of course, but it's absolutely unacceptable that public safety officers have to have watch guards.

Just, I, I'm, I'm really shocked and horrified by it.

If I could add to that, when there's other staff members around who identify staff misconduct and they are not reporting it, that's also staff misconduct in and of itself. So, when we're having those interviews that we're doing with the population and we're conducting that investigation, if we find that there's other individuals around who failed to act, those individuals are held accountable as well.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your questions. Assemblymember Bonta.

Thank you, chair. And I wanna, again, extend my appreciation for including us in this conversation. And I also just wanted to just share with Ms. Mota, Ms. Grayson, and Ms. Deanda that I was able to hear your testimony, although I was not in this room.

And I wanna thank you, again, for always coming to be able to do what is very, very impossible and uncomfortable, which is have to be situated in a room to have to share again and again over and over again the trauma that you experience at the hands of the state. And, and that is not lost on me that every single time that we ask you to do that, it takes a little piece of you away.

And I wanna honor that and also recognize that when, when people are testifying with truth and with experience that is undeniable, it is a shame that we, in the state, and we, in our state prison system, are not able to come forward with information—detailed information and preparedness—that matches the level of information and detail that people who are inside our carceral system experience.

So, my first question around that is, did you all, those who are representatives of the state, have an opportunity to read this agenda and the background before you came into this room?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. So, in this agenda, it very clearly articulates some basic concerns and questions around reporting, whether or not information is reported to, to prosecutors, whether, what time frame it takes to be able to report, the number of instances and questions around whether or not instances are prosecuted. That I read in this backgrounder.

If I were coming into a room knowing that a hearing was being had around those issues and where I needed to be accountable, not only to this legislature, but to the individuals who give pieces of themselves to hold us accountable, I would be prepared with those responses. Why have you not been prepared with the responses that my colleague, assembly member, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, asked.

Understood. A part of the reason is because it, it takes—we have to be able to provide accurate information. And so, in order to provide you with that accurate information, we have to go into our different databases to pull it. And so—and instead of providing inaccurate information, I'd like to make sure that we're getting you what you're asking for.

So, I wanna make sure we get those cases that were actually referred for prosecution and how many individuals are held accountable, rather than quickly putting together something that's inaccurate.

Yeah. You knew these questions were coming, and Assemblymember Schultz, and certainly pulled those questions from just a review of this—a review of this report. And so, I would ask you again because this is a common theme, in Public Safety and with CDCR, especially to be seemingly ill-prepared to answer some basic questions. And at this point, I'm really fed up with it.

And we have state money and dollars going to your inability to be direct with the public, and that, for me, is unacceptable. Barring that, I will try to ask some questions to be able to see if you might be able to answer those. I wanted to specifically go into the area of concern around the instances of review, the internal review process, and how that comes about. You indicated that there is a time frame, a designated time frame by which internal investigations need to be completed.

What is that—what is that time frame?

It one year for correctional peace officers.

So, it takes—so, you have up to one year to complete an investigation?

Yes. Statutorily. Yes. The desire is to get it done sooner than that, but yes.

Are there—have there been any instances when you have not actually provided that information in a timely manner within the one year, which seems, quite frankly, outrageous, within the one year time frame that you have been allocated statutorily?

Yeah. Yeah. Not to my knowledge, not since taking this role. Previous.

How long have you been in your role?

About four and a half years.

Okay. How long have you been in your role?

I've been in this role just under a year, appointed, or I was confirmed last week.

Okay. So, again, how, how have there been instances where it's taken more than a year to be able to provide?

No. No. In, in a criminal—if it's a criminal matter, you can actually toll the case as well, until the criminal case is done, and then put the person off on administrative time off, you know, separate them, you know, from the place that they were working and make sure that the timelines are met.

Alright. I—my understanding is that there have been several instances where investigations have not been handled in a timely manner and they have gone on longer than they should have, which, by then, actually creates a secondary issue of the Office of Inspector General not having the information that they need in order to be able to address, address these instances.

So, we, we work very, very closely with the Inspector General. They—I actually used to work for that office, and they're co-located, co-located in our building. We meet on a very regular basis, and they also attend all the interviews on these cases. The case conferences. We, we are, we, you know, collaborate extensively with them, and they make suggestions and advice, and it, it is an imperative that that we take that advice.

I, I am committed to, and I think the Inspector General may comment on this as well, is, you know, they are a partner.

And we also have department attorneys. Our, our EAPT team also attends all of the, the interviews. They're involved in all of the case conferences. And they're—actually, after we complete the case and it's turned over to the hiring authorities to, to make a decision about discipline, the Office of the Inspector General is involved in those meetings, along with the Department Attorney. So, they have this collaborative team that makes decisions about discipline, and, and what happens.

The investigation collects the facts and the proof of the matter of what happened in the videos and the testimony and the documents and, and all of that information. And so, then, that, that information gets transferred and given to the hiring authorities to make decisions about discipline. But there—it's a collaborative effort.

Can I ask the Inspector General to speak to whether or not you are aware of whether there have been instances where the investigation has gone on longer than a year?

Yes. Amarik Singh, the Inspector General. Yes, we have monitored cases where the statute of limitations has expired, and that has precluded the wardens or the hiring authorities from actually taking disciplinary action. We did bring some data with us in anticipation of today's hearing, for cases from 01/01/2025.

We looked solely at CIW and CCWF cases. Thus far, one of our units has monitored 97 cases. Out of those cases, I can let this committee know that at least two of those had lapsed because the statute of limitations had run, and so, discipline was not being able to be taken. 22 of those cases—I'm sorry, I apologize—two of those cases were criminal, and the—I apologize. I can't, I can't read? Nine of those cases were criminal cases, and some were referred to the DA, some were not. And the balance were, in fact, all administrative investigations.

Do you have a response to that?

Yeah.

Because that was while you were there, where you just said there were none to your knowledge that had exceeded the statutory timeline.

Yeah. I, I am seeing that information. So, I, I trust their facts. But I, I, I do think that we work collaboratively. I, I'm not sure of the exact, you know, data of those cases, but I will, will certainly check and find out the information about at what point they were criminal and, and administrative and, and what were the, the facts of, of the particular cases.

But I, I do, I do wanna, you know, reemphasize that it is a collaborative effort and that we take very seriously the investigative work that we do and the suggestions of the Inspectors General.

Sure. I think he's, he's doing it.

...Do you have something to add? Can you state your position and, and where, where you are, you representing?

My name is Chris Chambers. I am the Director of the Division of Correctional Policy, Research, and Internal Oversight for the Department. Part of my area of responsibility is the Office of Internal Affairs. I can confirm that the information from OIG is correct.

There are several cases that have lapsed statute of limitations. Those are primarily administrative cases. The reasoning behind the lapse of cases is the number of investigators that we have available to handle the, the volume of allegations that are coming in overall. We have over 13,500 active cases right now, and I have a total of 109 investigators in the Allegation Investigation Unit. It is not our intent to continue to lose cases.

We are working on a number of items to try to rectify that, including standing up a separate PREA team within our Office of Internal Affairs that is consisting of special agents, instead of our, our custody investigators. We are also working on improving our triage to ensure that the video that is captured is used more appropriately and timely.

And we have also brought in a use of force consultant, as part of the Armstrong case that we have, to come in and provide comprehensive recommendations and review of our entire use of force policy, including training, use of force review, our policy and regulations, as well as our investigations. So, I did wanna clarify the comment that was made earlier. There was nothing that was lost in statute related to the CCWF case, but overall, yes, ma'am.

There are cases being lost to statute.

I appreciate the candor and specificity of that response. Thank you.

Thank you so much. But Mr. Chambers, what was your title again?

I'm Director, sir, of the Division of Correctional Policy, Research, and Internal Oversight, also known as CPRIO.

Okay. Thank you.

Another question, if it's okay, chair. I wanted to get to the nature of the internal investigation for sexual misconduct, especially conducted by CDCR. So, CDCR, just so that we are clear, has full authority to review, investigate, and substantiate or dismiss claims. The Office of Internal Affairs, which is within CDCR, conducts in—investigations—that we were just talking about, 13,500 claims that require some investigatory analysis around. They turn over the findings of the investigations over to the hiring authority.

That hiring authority is the Warden. Correct?

Correct.

And the hiring authority then decides whether the findings indicate the misconduct happened or not and then decisions—and then makes decisions about whether to refer those cases to the D.A. are also made at this stage.

Is that a fair representation of the process as you understand it?

Yes.

Okay. So, let me get this straight. You go through your own internal review for 13,500 cases eventually, when you get them, whenever you might get them, whether or not they're before or after the statute. You have the authority to review, investigate, and substantiate, or dismiss the claims. And then, you turn those investigation investigatory findings over to the Warden who is a part of the system and potentially a part of the system of abuse that is being perpetrated with people in—under their care.

Close. I just wanted to clarify that internal process. The investigation is not conducted within CDCR at the institutional level. The investigation is conducted outside with the Office of Internal Affairs. Once they complete their investigation, then it comes back to the institution for the wardens to be able to make that decision based on the evidence that's inside of the investigative file.

So, the invest—the Office of Internal Affairs, however, who's, who's the boss of the people who are sitting inside the Office of Internal Affairs?

So, so, I am.

Is it, is it, and, and you are with CDCR?

CDCR. Yes.

Okay. So, the Office of Internal Affairs is under the purview of people within CDCR?

Correct. But we're—just to back up just a little bit—we're, we're not making the findings of the case. What we're doing is collecting the facts and getting all the evidence. And with the Inspector General and our department attorneys is, together, assembling all that information together, the facts of the matter, and then, that is turned over to the department's hiring authorities, along with the department's attorneys and OIG, and they get together to make a decision about the discipline.

Hold on a second.

Yes.

The hiring authority has independent discretion about whether or not to turn that case over to a prosecutor?

No. That that happens at the, the Office of the Inspector General—I'm sorry, the Office of Internal Affairs. We routinely give a case over to a, a DA for prosecution.

Well, I don't know if it's routine or not, because you weren't actually able to report on how many cases actually go to the DA. So, "routinely" is a word that I'm going to, you know, hold in quotes at this point. My point, though, however, is that you have an Office of Internal Affairs that develops findings, and then is brought to the warden of that particular facility, and then, that warden makes a decision about whether or not to refer that case for prosecution?

No. The case is—the Office of Internal Affairs completes the, the case, the actual written report. That is given to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution—a, the, the, the matter at hand, those reports, you know, what actually happened is given to the hiring authority, and then they make a decision about discipline.

I'm gonna ask, for additional insight from the Office of Inspector General if it's okay, Chair.

Yes. Amarik Singh, inspector general. An investigation—when there's an allegation of misconduct, if it's criminal, there's a criminal investigation that's conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs. That criminal investigation, hypothetically, will say it's, an act of sexual misconduct. They conduct that investigation.

They do a criminal investigation. And if there's probable cause to believe a crime is committed, they will refer that matter to the local prosecuting agency for prosecution and consideration of prosecution. That misconduct can also be administrative. And then a separate team at Internal Affairs conducts the administrative investigation, and that investigation is then packaged up and sent to the warden, the hiring authority, to make a determination on whether or not discipline should be imposed.

So, one act of misconduct can be both criminal and can be administrative, and it goes down two separate paths.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification and for your responses. So, in the administrative arena, however, we do have a situation where the warden is then making decisions about whether or not to continue with administrative—with any findings that are kind of on the administrative route, around whether or not a person should be held accountable.

Yes. That is correct. They make the determination on whether or not allegations of misconduct should be sustained or not sustained. And if they are sustained, what penalty should be imposed.

And, and then, what is the role of the Office of Inspector General, the independent Office of Inspector General, in both the administrative and the criminal?

In regards to a criminal case, we can make a recommendation on whether or not the case should be referred to the District Attorney's Office. There are some cases where the Office of Internal Affairs, in a criminal case, determines there is not sufficient evidence to forward the matter to the District Attorney's Office. Sometimes we concur and sometimes we do not. If we do not, we try and raise that to the level so that it can get referred.

In an administrative investigation, similarly, we only make recommendations on whether or not allegations should be sustained or not sustained, and then, we make a recommendation on what we believe is the appropriate penalty.

And do you believe that you have enough capacity in the Office of Inspector General to be able to adequately weigh in on both the administrative and the criminal investigations?

When you say capacity, I will have to ask if you mean do we have enough staff or do we have enough authority? Authority?

I'm asking more around the authority.

Actually both.

The Chair's asking...

Resources and capabilities in statute.

Well, as we heard, there are over 13,000 investigations that are occurring and the Office of the Inspector General does not have the staffing to monitor all of those cases. We can only monitor our, our goal is up to 25% of the cases. That is the capacity that we have by way of staffing. In regards to recommendations, we do make the recommendations and there are opportunities built in if the hiring authority disagrees and we feel strongly about the case, we will elevate it and we will go through an elevation process and we will take it up to the secretary for that determination.

But, ultimately, we only have the ability to make a recommendation. We do not control what decision the department will make.

Because, typically, you don't have any authority to be able to do that. You can only recommend.

That is correct.

Yep. I, I think that is at the crux of what I am most concerned—well, one of the things that I'm concerned with, that it seems like there is a supposedly independent process through the Office of Internal Affairs run by CDCR where we've just learned only a small portion are able to be reviewed in a timely manner and that there are capacity issues with the number of investigators on those 13,500 cases instances, which is.

And that once that happens, there is this kind of, I don't know, bad metaphor right now, but kind of, I don't know, fox guarding the hen house kind of situation. And that is deeply concerning. And then, once you get past all of that, the only actual authority that we have that sits outside of that system, the Office of Inspector General, does not actually have authority. It can make recommendations, but you can also be overruled around both administrative claims and, and criminal claims.

So, that is deeply concerning to me because there are 13,500 instances.

I don't know how many people that represents who deserve justice, whether or not they are inside the system, or whether they are outside of the system. And that seems to me like an absolute failure of of justice. I have no more questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. Assemblymember Elhawary.

I really wanna start by thanking you all for sharing not only your experiences, as Sandra did, and both of you having also been through the system, but also, just being willing to continue fighting for everyone who's inside for especially the women who continue to face this just unacceptable culture that has been just continued, without the necessary supports to actually change systemically, which you all talked about.

Unfortunately, I can't stay long because I have to go present in another committee, but I did wanna ask two questions, and then I'll try my best to follow-up, if I can outside of this space. And I just wanna apologize because it's just crazy. I think the first one is to the stakeholders specifically in terms of solutions that we know we want to see, like, what is missing?

April, you talked about that folks haven't necessarily come to the table to actually want to be real partners and that you all started in good faith, but recognize that there's just a a willingness to accept the system as it is.

Like, what are the things that are still missing that we really need to be fighting for? And then, just because I might have to step out during part of that, which I apologize, just wanted to ask for Sandra as well. You talked about the coming home piece and the supports that are needed for the reentry.

I know you've recently been home, and so, if you could share a little bit about what that looks like, what that needs to look like so that we can continue to invest in folks who have been impacted in this way, especially by sexual violence.

You wanna talk about what you needed when you came home or what folks need?

When I came home, let me see. It was, you know, after nineteen years, it was, like, a little bit of, like, a culture shock. I was expecting to go to a program. Like, I wanted one because I thought I would need it to, like, transition successfully. But they didn't put me in one until at least, like, four months later, but I had asked for one before I left, but, like, an involuntary one in case it didn't work for me.

I have family members who've been to prison and also transitioned already. My sister is my co-defendant. She's been out for five years. She's already doing really good. She's a Supervisor at the NBC—NBC Suites.

She, she's doing, like, really good. You know? But, so, I had a lot of support, but they didn't put me on one until recently, matter of fact. And I only lasted, like, four days, but they weren't, like, they didn't know. Like, my men—my, my, my mental health, they weren't, like, okay with it because I'm autistic.

So, I lasted four days, and then, I had to go to a mental institution for a little bit and get re-diagnosed because I was misdiagnosed in the prison as bipolar. I had my psychosis, but that's been documented since BSPW. So, if anything, they need to do more with like mental health, because there was a point in time where about two years ago, I started hearing voices outside of my head and it was staff members.

And I had wrote at least, like, 36 O2s and I had told them, like, I'm hearing voices. It's staff members.

I relapsed. I started doing drugs again. I'm cutting on myself and I turned them in and nothing came about with them. Nobody like—even if they would've sent me to crisis or, like, EO, I would've been okay with something, but they never did it. I said I was too paranoid to come out of my room.

I need to, you know, like, I was in there for, like, thirty days because I couldn't tell the difference if it was, like, somebody talking or, like, my voices. You know? But I don't know that that's what happened. But I know mental health probably before we get out, and then, that's about it really. Just really with mental health.

Can I ask that? So as a person who parole after doing 17 years to this to the County of Sacramento, our resources for women are limited because we are the smallest margin. And so when you think about, let's say a 100 people and if it's only two of them are women, the resources automatically are not directed to us. They're directed to the men. And so I asked for a program too.

I didn't have a program. I prowed homeless. There was no clothing, no transportation, there's no vouchers. Like, there's nothing that's given to us to help us reacclimate or to successfully come into the community. And so it was up to my support system and my own self to ensure that I did what I needed to do.

Same as Sandra. Sandra is using her will to make sure that she does the things that she needs to do to get to the chapter meetings and to be a part of CCWP and to get to this hearing because the state has not set her up to succeed. And it doesn't set up anybody as far as the population of women to succeed unless you're a lifer where you're mandated to a program. But if you're not a lifer, you're not mandated.

And even with them, I'm sure they they face their own burdens and their own hurdles, but we do not have resources readily available to us so that we can have the things that we need.

I would just add to that as far as the question of what else is more layers of accountability that are not reliant on CDCR and the systems within CDCR.

And so, you know, as Sister Warriors ambassador program, CCWP, having layers of formerly incarcerated people going inside that have lived inside, that know the officers, that know the people on-site, it's huge because that has allowed us to actually really be in relationship with folks that are experiencing and have experienced assault and try to get them what they actually need, you know, trauma informed care support, things like that.

Just really, again, you know, Sandra touching on the mental health stuff, that's also one of the things on the inside. When people seek mental health care, it often can be weaponized and used against them, logged in their border for all hearing files. And so people are afraid to do that.

You know, so often we hear from survivors not so much about wanting to always report because they fear retaliation, but wanting to be able to talk about it with other folks and receive support outside of the system.

Can I say one more thing too? And then I know this isn't a policy committee, it's a budget committee. But oftentimes, like, our policies are not we don't make it out of appropriations. To Quirk Silva's point, like her bill became a two year bill. We worked on SB 1069, which was the OIG Bill, and we were met with budget issues.

We also are co-authors of 337, authored by Assemblymember Quirk Silva, which is a to do some more preventative measures inside the institution met and became a two year bill. Also, 464. Sorry. 337 was Menjivar, 464. And so the issue, I think, always boils down to budget and CDCR has, I think a $13,000,000,000.

Don't quote me. I'm not the budget person, but like, a $13,000,000,000 budget. And yet, whenever we bring a policy forward, it's always budget concern instead of taking the budget that's given and then using that for everybody and making sure that our policies can come through committee so that we can put the make it mandated in law so that people can have the protections that they need as well.

Well, thank you for that. You have any other questions? Okay. We'll take those questions as follow-up. Go ahead, Assemblymember Quirk Silva.

Last year, we as a Woman Caucus, started a working group focused on women incarcerated, and then we were tracking how many pieces of legislation that were put forward by women related to this topic. And don't quote me on the exact number, but I it was 12 or 13. And out of those 12 or 13 bills, one was signed. So and this is just a very short one year analysis. Like you said, some of them were held.

Some of them, there was no opposition made them made it all the way to appropriations and then behind the scenes were being worked against. So that's just something to know. I mean, this is my last year as a State Assemblymember. I know that Assemblymember Mia Bonta and others will continue to work in this space. But I do think for us as legislators knowing, you know, this is how many bills that are put in this space.

And if you look at, I think it was 12 bills. 1 out of 12 is a very poor record. So we have to do better.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Bonta?

On behalf of Senator Assemblymember Elhawary, she wanted to ask the question around considering the threat of retaliation. Have you considered alternative safer ways for the women to report on staff misconduct? That's for you your consideration?

We have. So in working in our work groups with Sister Warriors, it was said that many individuals who report are afraid of retaliation. There were some comments regarding once they report how our Investigative Services Unit will go over to escort the individuals to Investigative Services Unit for to do the interviews. And so, how that can, like, unnecessarily out those individuals to others and then they face retaliation from the population at times.

And so, we have we've met with our leadership at the institutions, both CIW and CCWF, as well as our investigative services unit to just do it a bit differently.

So they are required to interview those individuals in a private setting, so that we can make necessary arrangements to house them safely or to remove the perpetrator. But we are doing that a little bit safer. We're doing it in different areas, not necessarily removing folks from their work site. Having it done where we can docket them to other areas.

We do understand our responsibility to take immediate action, but we're trying to do it in a safer way so that that person is not unnecessarily outed to the population.

Do you all have any additional comments around that?

I would just say that we have been in, I myself have been in three times in the last month, and we are hearing that that is not the case. People are being outed, shamed, retaliate made fun of in front of others, staff, peers. It is just not hapting happening in practice. So, unfortunately, every time we go in, the the next horror story we hear, it's they continue on.

Yeah.

And I would also just say that as far as tracking forms of retaliation, if there is if it's reported and there's a mechanism, but we find that many ways of retaliation are very insidious and people understand that, you know, that their room will be tossed or a partner that used to work with the officer will that guards I mean, so it's just it works like that. It's really hard to track that retaliation because I think it happens in ways that we are unseen.

Yeah. Appreciate that. I did have one other question about the cost of inaction. When there's a criminal case or an an when when we move into the courts with action and charges of sexual misconduct, we know that there's been one instance where there was a $1,500,000 settlement that came from one instance and the others. Who pays for those that misconduct?

Who pays the settlement?

Unfortunately, it's outside of my scope. I'd have to get that information to you. I'm not sure exactly who pays.

Do you have a response to that?

It comes out of CDCR's budget, but it ultimately is all of us, the taxpayers.

Appreciate that. And that is true. So now we have knowledge of many claims that are not being addressed at all of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior by an individual nested inside a closed loop, highly protected system of investigation without much ability for an independent actor in the Office of Inspector General to have the author authority or the capacity to be able to take action to move those into prosecution, into the realm of prosecution.

And we have bad actors who are continuing to get moved around from one place to the other. And the state's CDCR budgets, which is the state's budget, the state general fund is paying for that inaction and wrongful conduct to the tune of tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars.

That's the costs to the budgets. We are in a budget hearing after all. The cost to our humanity as a state and the cost to those who are held in our system is priceless and has no denomination that can really take all of that. I wanted to just ask one question because I wanted this we brought on the table.

Amika, in the last time you were here, you offered one proposed solution to how we might be able to address the state of safety for people who are victimized and who are caused to be survivors when they are under the care of the State and CDCR.

What do you think inappropriate action is for us to be able to take when people are assaulted inside our prison system?

Every time we understand the political climate may not exist for release, but I cannot land anywhere else. Can you imagine staying inside a place where you have been raped and abused with that same set of officers and actors everywhere. I mean, it's just it doesn't matter how many times I testify. Like, I still cannot get myself together around that, around the people that are left inside.

And we don't have all of the solutions, but we know that it is just an it's insane to leave, these survivors on the inside to endure more harm and to keep coming back and reporting this.

So release and then access to more people on the outside that understand how to work with survivors and trauma informed care.

Thank you for that response.

Thank you so much to the Women's Caucus and the members that were here asking the questions. And certainly, to our witnesses, certainly hearing your testimony does weigh heavy with this committee. Some of the different statements that were said, I think April Grayson forced treatment. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that on forced treatment? And then we're gonna have follow-up from CDCR on that also.

I don't know the name of the program, but there is a program that is offering, I think, six weeks off of a person's sentence if they take this this substance called Suboxone. And so people started to

Map. Map. That's the program.

Sandra might know more.

Map. And so when people are trying to come off of this substance, they're not letting them off. So you take a person, let's say me, and they introduce Suboxone to me, a person who does not have any drug history ever and now I'm addicted to this substance.

And then when I try for six weeks to get six weeks off my sentence, and then when I try to come off the substance, I'm met with, no, I can't come off or I can't go to my transfer or I can't go to my outside facility and I have to stay on this substance.

And it's Suboxone. And Suboxone is a synthetic, a synthetic form of heroin is what I believe. And so people are are being forced or it's used as a care stick. Hey. Here's six months, get on Suboxone. And so people who wanna come home might get on Suboxone, and then they cannot get off.

Would you like to follow-up on that?

I'd have to defer to our health care partners. So when we deal with medication administration, it all falls under CHCHCS. So I'd have to defer that one to health care.

But is that an optional program or is it a forced program? Have you heard the term forced treatment before?

This is the first that I've heard forced treatment, but again, I'd have to defer to our California Health Correctional Health Care Services.

State your name and and your title.

Good afternoon. I'm Dwayne Reeder. I'm Deputy Director for the California Correctional Healthcare Services in the Fiscal Management Section. I am not aware of any forced treatments, around Suboxone.

Are you aware of the program?

I'm aware of the ICDT program. Yes.

And is it optional or is it mandatory?

To my understanding, it's optional. Most of the care within the facilities is optional to our patients. Like, they're not forced to go to mental health treatment. They're not forced to go to appointments if they choose to refuse.

If they're requesting mental health, is it provided to them?

Yes. Yes. It's provided to them, but patients have the right to refuse any treatment within the system.

So we're hearing a statement of forced treatment and a program that's given to those that are gonna be released within six months, I believe. And you're aware of that program?

I am not aware of that program. So I'll have to go back to my colleagues and get some more information from this committee.

And, yes, if you could follow-up with this committee and especially around the topic of forced treatment.

Yes.

On that. We'd be waiting for that information to come our way.

Yeah. I'll give you

Thank you so much.

For that. We also to Miss Deanda, the medical treatment that you received inside, but also the medical treatment mental health resources once you're outside. How how is that how is that working for you now?

Sure.

Well, the mental health treatment that I received in there, there was at one point in time I didn't go to mental health for like, I think like, two, three years because a officer who my ponytail accidentally hit and they gave me like eighteen months doubled in court. And then they gave me a year's shoe term. He worked there and I wanted to go to mental health, but I didn't wanna run into him. You know, I feared retaliation. I only went in there with ten years.

I got I caught an extra 11. And at one it was for the ponytail and then I Officer Collins, he escorted me and then stopped suddenly at a ball and he threw me on the ground. And next thing you know, he said he had lower back pain and a burning sensation in his neck. Like, I was you know, so I didn't report anything until I got out. Like, I only went with ten years.

I ended up doing 19. My total was, like, 21, 8 months. I yeah. I wasn't supposed to do all that time. But the mental health treatment that I received out here, I mean, it worked for me, you know it was my rediagnosis.

They misdiagnosed me the whole time I was in there. So the meds I was on really didn't work for me. It wasn't working for me. And, you know, it could be in part why I ended up with so much time too. But the officers in there weren't sensitive to people with mental health disorders and psychosis.

Like, I'm autistic, but I have a psychosis too.

You mentioned that you were denied mental health, mental health request?

And, yes, in 2016, I didn't go in the room with no, like, intention of doing anything. But when it was a recall, I came inside the unit last, and I was waiting to speak to the officer. And so I told him, I said, you know what? I don't feel right, like, going into the room. Like, something changed in my mind.

I need to go to mental health. He's like, well, it's about to be count time. Wait till after count. And when I had gotten in the room, I don't it was like, it's in and out. Like, it was in and out for me, but I had slipped my wrist and I ended up with twenty four stitches, 14 on the inside and 10 on the outside.

And I had punched through a window and I think I had a fight too. But, yeah, it was I don't know. That wasn't my intention when I was going in the room, But it happens. I've been denied a lot of times. Most of the time, they just say, unless you're suicidal, you can't go to mental health.

So you have to say you're suicidal in order to go there. But they had changed that probably like, maybe like, a year before I got out to where if you request it, you can go. Like, just tell them you need to speak to them, but it should've changed long ago. There's times where I wasn't suicidal, but like, I know I didn't feel right and I needed some form of help.

But you have to say, I'm suicidal, then go through the whole process, spend the night in crisis, and you know, sometimes you don't wanna go through all that.

You just need to talk to somebody.

On the CDC, are you aware of mental health request being denied?

I'm not. In fact, what, Deanda is describing is outside of our policy. So we do have our staff are trained on the referral process for mental health. So we have emergent times where mental health services are needed immediately, and then we have a referral process where we identify if it can be routine or not. In fact, our staff are trained if they're gonna activate an alarm for emergency services or to pick up the phone and contact mental health.

So that is concerning because it is outside of our policies with regards to referrals for mental health services.

But those that are there, within the prison, when there's a severe mental health request, do you do is there staff there that that look at that request if it's, needed right then at that time?

Yes. We have mental health staff on-site at all times. Our staff are trained on how to make those requests in mental health services and on who to contact for mental health to determine if that's something that they're gonna review right away.

And do they keep a log on the request coming in and the request denied?

I'd have to defer to CHCHCS because that's a health care function.

Is anybody in the room that could answer to that? I've seen different people stepping up, addressing different questions. So

Again, Deputy Director. I don't have an answer for you right now, but we will certainly follow-up on that one request as well.

Thank you. And it and it really is the request of mental health resources and how many times are being denied, and how they're being addressed during that time. We'll be looking for that information coming forward. Thank you so much for that. And we did hear about a working group that has been working. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that working group?

Yes. I can take that. You know, it's convened with a group of community partners. So it's Sister Warriors, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, other stakeholders with CDCR, and we've been meeting weekly since... Monthly since 2023 on this working group.

That was where we first came up with our set of legislative recommendations. That report was in 2024. We, April is really engaged in these work groups, and it feels like it's been a standstill. Like, there's just not a lot happening in these spaces.

CDCR often, you know, says that they can't speak on a particular issue, but we're trying to solve problems together in this space. And, you know, as April's testimony alluded to, we have not been able to move forward not one of those recommendations in the three years that we've been working with CDCR.

So in that working group, those that are in there, CDCR is part of that working group. And, you know, if we're if we're trying to solve a problem, then those that have lived through it would be the greatest advocates and the greatest voice to make recommendations to make change.

So what are those recommendations coming out of that working group? And if CDCR is involved, then the budget wise component is involved in it. So we would like to see some of the different request or or different recommendations that come out of this working group with the voices of those that are actually bringing forward things to change.

Can you walk me through a little bit more about how that working group works and if there's recommendations for change? I mean, we've heard about it's known that certain areas where cameras go dark, I guess, where there's no cameras at, that there's a lot of violation taking place there. I mean, have we worked on that component? Is that one of the recommendations that have comes out in this working group? I just wanna, enlighten me a little bit more on how that process works.

Right. So we do have that working group and we meet with Sister Warriors once a month. And so in that working group, we've recently changed the agenda. So prior to recently, Sister Warriors will put together the agenda for CDCR and we go through issues and try to solve those in real time.

Some of those recommendations are things that are outside of the control of CDCR with regards to the to PREA. So we fall under the federal PREA guidelines. So some of the recommendations, such as not necessarily putting the victim or the, excuse me, the perpetrator into RHU, restricted housing.

Because, you know, that individual is not necessarily found guilty yet, that it interrupts their program, it interrupts. While we understand that, we're still held by some of the guidelines under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Others, we run into issues. There's individuals who will speak directly to Sister Warriors and they, however, they don't wanna be identified.

So when Sister Warriors bring these to our attention, of course, we wanna address them in real time to prevent more victims, but it's kinda difficult when we don't have the names or the CDCR numbers for those individuals, which I understand why they don't always wanna come forward.

So I think, essentially, yes. The work group is working. We just, as April said, a lot of it is collaborating a little bit better, being able to share information. And then when it comes to a lot of the information with regards to active litigation. So some of the information that myself or my team weren't able to share had to do with the August 2nd incident that was being litigated or certain PREAs that were actually being litigated. So we are limited in some of the information.

But when we're able to share, we do. And we take the recommendations very seriously. It's just some of them we don't have the ability to address right away without going through the proper channels. And a lot of that is within the federal PREA standards. Those ones we don't have the ability to make changes to without going through the proper process. And so that's where we end up running into issues where we can't address those right away or as quickly as we would like to.

And you understand and I understand those that are bringing these issues forward. And as far as feeling uncomfortable with their names being addressed because of the culture of retaliation within CDCR. But we have to start looking at what the working group is bringing forward, especially the voices of those that have went through it so it doesn't keep happening.

If we're not gonna start to address those issues, then we're gonna, where are we gonna be? I mean, we certainly heard from testimony from the dais as far as the budget constraints and how long this issue has been going on and the cultural aspect of it. I also wanna get to a point with internal affairs.

So here, if law enforcement conducts things that are not to those standards, they could lose their POST certification and not be able to be hired anywhere else. Can you walk me through with CDCR and those that are in corrections, is there also, some type of certificate, something that they're holding that potentially statutorily could be removed from them if they're part of these types of activities.

So the CDCR peace officers are not part of the Commission on POST. They have a a different certification. It's under CPOST. And so...

So it's called CPOST?

CPOST. And so it's a little bit different. My understanding is is that the state, you know, did move in the in the direction of decertification process for someone who's committed certain types of wrongdoing. But that's regulated by the Commission on POST was was my understanding. And that's the California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training.

So CPOST is what correctional officers have inside the correctional facilities? That is administered by the by POST itself?

No.

Okay. So who administers CPOST?

Yeah. I'm not an expert on the the regulations regarding CPOST. But...

To the best of your knowledge, has anyone ever lost their CPOST certification over allegations?

Yeah. I'm not sure if the Inspector General has has this information either, but I am not aware of that happening. But I am aware of, you know, someone, you know, losing employment or, you know, by a criminal matter being, you know, convicted for an offense and, you know, serving serving a prison sentence. So those things occur, but I am we'll have to provide more information to you about CPOST and how that's regulated.

Definitely. Please do. And I think LAO.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but maybe some context. Oh, if you wanted to go ahead.

Go ahead. State your name.

Chris Chambers, Director of Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal Oversight. To answer your question, yes. When a peace officer is convicted, they would also lose their CPOST.

And CPOST is different than POST with local law enforcement?

It's similar, but one is for one is for peace officers under one statute. The other is for correctional peace officers.

So CPOST is administered by who? Who do you go to get the CPOST qualification?

I'm gonna have to come back to you on that. There is actually a commission called CPOST. The exact person, I couldn't tell you right off off the bat. But we can get that information.

Thank you for getting that information back to us. LAO, anything to add?

I was I was just gonna add that I think part of the, in terms of context, the part of the reason for decertifying peace officers was to prevent them from gaining employment in another agency. In this case, CDCR would know not to rehire that person.

I guess if the concern was that they would go to a local facility, then I don't, that would be something. I don't know. And, you know, we'd be happy to work with your office if you wanted us to, you know, look into that a little bit more, but the extent to which...

Certainly, want to look into it at under the premise that those aren't losing the CPOST certification, and they're moving around within the CDCR system and allowed to continue to perpetrate these types of acts against prisoners. In that premise, we would like the information coming back. And more information on the on the investigation, internal investigation, investigations in general.

There was time frames shooting around with some of the earlier good questionings from the Women's Caucus. The year investigation. Now the way I heard the dialogue going on, you have a year to investigate. What happens if that year comes and stops? Does the investigation stop because of statute requirements, time frames, or what?

No. So there's criminal investigations and there's the administrative investigation. So the government code allows, you know, it it provides for the investigation to be completed in one year. If you're working a criminal case that's part of that same matter at hand, it can allow that administrative case to toll. And so it actually allow you to complete both within the time frame to take action on both. A straight a straight administrative case without a criminal component would take one year. That's the maximum that a case could be investigated.

And the individual that's being investigated, are they moved outside of the area where the accuser's at so that it protects both, I guess?

Yeah. Typically, yes. And I...

Typically.

Kathleen could probably answer that.

They can be. So what happens is anytime there's an allegation made, our Investigative Services Unit along with our locally trained designated investigators for PREA will look at the evidence. So they'll review the audio video surveillance system.

They'll review the body worn camera footage. And if there's anything in there when they're reviewing that initial information that leads them to believe that or the evidence leads them to believe that it could have happened, then yes. We will take those necessary steps to remove that individual from the line, whether it be redirected to the mail room.

Depending on the severity of it, there's times when they're put on put on administrative time off while we go through the investigative process. But a lot of it depends on the the evidence that the staff are able to collect at the time when the when the allegation is made.

Now is that is the person moved out from any contact with the person that has the accusation?

Correct. So when we're removing individuals from their post, they're put in a position where they don't have access to any incarcerated individuals. So when I say something like the mail room, it would be off grounds where they're not dealing directly with the population, either the individual who filed the claim or others.

And that happens with everyone that's being investigated. Not typically happens, but happens...

Not everyone. So the evidence is gonna determine if that individual will be will be removed from their post and put either in the mail room or an administrative time off.

And when we start to look at now the criminal aspect of it, that's the more of a civil type deal. But the criminal investigations, that could last longer than a year?

Yes.

How many of those criminal investigations result in convictions? And I guess it would be you handing over the information to the district attorney or to another board that reviews it.

Yeah. The district attorney handles the prosecution of a criminal case.

The district attorney of the county where the prison resides?

Yes.

And are they part of the process in the beginning when the evidence is being collected?

They can be. Typically, what happens is our investigators, you know, gather information and evidence and then meet with the district attorney and show them what they have. It's not when the case is completed. It's typically try to involve them as as soon as possible.

And so with the prosecution of those and those that have been investigated within the one year, those types of things, do you see reoccurring individuals that are constantly being accused of things that continue to be investigated? Is that normal or not normal?

No. I think it goes back to if we're investigating some type of criminal incident or criminal matter...

Or the other, the accusation, internal, civil. If you see, the question is basically geared around if you see the same name appearing with accusations, is that taken more of a severity look into the instance or do we look at it in the same lens as the first case?

No. And that's actually part of our disciplinary matrix is a repeated offense is makes things more of a serious matter. But that's...

It is. I would agree with that. But I would also add to that when I mentioned that we look at the evidence to determine if that person's gonna be removed from having access to the population. That's another thing that we take into consideration.

So even if we're looking at the body worn camera footage, the audio video surveillance footage, but if we have many complaints from different incarcerated persons on that same staff member, we consider that when we're looking at removing that person from having access to the population while we do the investigation or while OIA does the investigation.

In a cultural question within CDCR. An inmate makes an accusation or makes some, you know, case forward. What is the mentality of the culture within CDCR? Do they take the victim's word? Or does it stand more on the side of CDCR personnel?

So the training that we provide is that we take every allegation seriously. So it's irregardless of the individual's belief on whether it happened or not, the expectation is that every allegation is taken seriously. Every allegation is referred for investigation.

And then we let the evidence that's conducted to through the investigation determine the outcome or if that staff member or even if it's an incarcerated person on incarcerated person, the evidence will dictate what happens, but every allegation is taken seriously.

So we did hear also testimony on those that witness assaults. I'll call them assaults on inmates. And other staff members are are standing there or they're in the those areas. Now you you mentioned that they have the the the duty to report that moving forward. And so is there also a culture of staff on staff retaliation for reporting misconduct?

I'm not aware of any specific staff on staff allegations for reporting misconduct. But when I mentioned that anytime there's an allegation of misconduct that's reported, how we monitor for 90 days, that also applies for staff. So we're also reviewing and monitoring those staff members for anything that can be retaliatory in nature. It's not just the incarcerated persons.

Because we do have staff that have come forward and mention some things that they've seen that don't look right, smell right, feel right, and or, you know, they'd witnessed or they talked to an individual and the staff member is doing that third party reporting. And so we do. We have protections for those individuals as well to include the whistleblowers.

And so internal internal investigations there. We've been focusing on the victims, which by rights we are. We're concerned with what's happening there in the culture that's continuing to grow and fester. But we now wanna look at the staff on staff retaliation. If a staff member comes forward, how deeply is that investigated, and does that go through the same year long process, or is that more immediate?

So it would be looked at through the same lens. It's the seriousness of the matter, and it doesn't matter who reports it. So we treat them the same. The staff, you know, it's a very serious incident, retaliation, you know, by whomever. The department also has something. It's called, you were talking about the same allegations or, you know, a staff person doing the same things. We also have an early warning system.

Through staff? Through...

Yeah. Director Chambers is here. And he actually...

Yeah. He stood right up.

He knows quite a bit about our early warning system.

That's correct, sir.

So staff on staff. Staff makes a report. Right? Because they don't like or what's going on, what they see. How does that investigated?

So it's investigated by...

And is it common? Go ahead.

It's investigated by a completely separate entity with an OIA. So that would go through our 989 process and be investigated by our special agents, versus our AIU team. And something I would like to point out, we have up to one year to deliver a determination.

That does not mean in all instances that we meet that one year. Many cases are are done, particularly on the special agent side, under that time frame. It's specifically the AIU or Allegation Investigation Unit that's receiving the inmate reported allegations that's taking longer because of the volume.

So two separate investigation components are bodies. One from the assault on inmates goes to a certain body. If a staff member reports misconduct from another staff member, correctional officer, that goes to a separate body.

That is correct, sir. Still within Office of Internal Affairs, two different offices or two different units within that team.

So if the individual in the one case, accusations against a CDCR officer, they're removed from being in contact with that one person. What about on the other side, the staff reporting on another staff member? Are they also removed from interaction?

It would determine, it would be based upon the totality of the circumstances, but in many instances that answer is yes.

Okay. And for Assembly Member Schultz, we did narrow down that here local law enforcement under POST certification can be decertified for future employment. We narrowed it down to a CPOST certification, but we're still...

If I may, I'd like to make a...

Speaking with another Member. And so CPOST is another certificate, and but we couldn't narrow down who administers that to CDCR. And looking at future pieces of statue through a policy committee.

My apologies, Chair, for interrupting. I would like to make a correction on that statement. I was able to determine that the decertification actually comes from the Peace Officer Standards and Selections Unit within CDCR. CPOST is who sets the regulations in the framework. And then POST would work with with any other agency related to background to ensure that that officer is unable to to become a peace officer again.

I believe we'll definitely unravel that chain. The Inspector General, we were talking about and you heard the conversation going on. First, I wanna give you an opportunity to address anything that the questions that we've asked that you think that you could add to.

There was a lot. Amarik Singh, the Inspector General. First, in regards to the retaliation that you addressed for a staff member reporting misconduct on another staff member, the Office of the Inspector General has a unit that will also review those.

So CDCR staff are able to contact my agency for us to do a whistleblower retaliation on staff members who feel that they are being wronged because they reported misconduct or they are being wronged for some other purpose. So we actually do have our legal unit review those allegations.

Whether or not they're immediately moved, I can't say in all circumstances we have seen that in just the limited number of cases we've seen. And also, CDCR staff have a few other avenues available to them if they feel that they are being retaliated against by their own administration that they can utilize through the equal opportunity, the EEO type complaint system.

And I also do know in the cases that we monitor regarding whether an accused staff member is moved from their position, their post, we do see that in some cases. It is not in all cases that a staff member who is accused of some type of misconduct that is that they are moved from their from their assignment. CDCR will do an evaluation based on the severity of the allegations and make that determination.

But not all staff who are being investigated are moved from their positions. And then I think, finally, regarding this decertification. It is my understanding that CDCR is specifically excluded from that statute of being decertified. But I don't know if that has changed recently. The last time I looked at the statute, CDCR is specifically excluded from the decertification process.

Thank you for that. And we were here last year with a hearing on these issues. Do you think that there's been some progress on the challenges that face inmates and the stories that they're telling so bravely here today?

I do believe there has been progress. CDCR has made some positive moves in trying to make some progress in protecting the incarcerated population at the women's prisons. I do believe they have a lot more that they can do, that they are working on.

As the Associate Director Ratliff described to this committee, they have put additional resources in place to try and protect the incarcerated population. They brought in some outside stakeholders. They are trying to engage in more positive programming. My agency has also done, taken some steps to go out and meet with the incarcerated population.

We try and get out there at least twice a year to meet with the Incarcerated Person Advisory Council, the women there who are who are basically in pseudo leadership, the incarcerated women in pseudo leadership roles to meet with them to also be a voice for them so that we can try and facilitate and make recommendations to both the wardens and to CDCR administration to make any positive changes that could help out the population.

Thank you so much for that. And I know changing a culture that has existed for some time continues to be challenging. But I think we have to look at what we're being presented here today. I mean, there is some concern where you're saying that those that are being investigated are moved away from a population of those that are accusing them.

And we're hearing now that not all are actually separated from that. So there has to be, there's concern that is it truly happening or is it not. And certainly, the voices of those that that come forward within this working group are things that we wanna see, as far as the recommendations coming out of there.

And that was another question, to the Inspector General. Do you think that the voices of those within this working group have been beneficial, and have they moved CDCR in a direction that's adequately addressing the concerns of those voices?

The Inspector General's Office is not a part of that working group.

Wow. Okay. Okay. So a neutral body that comes into the deal is not part of the working group. So who assembled the working group? Is it all under CDCR?

It's a collaboration between CDCR and Sister Warriors.

Okay. So there's options for people to be included into it in it.

That's correct.

Okay. Because we are concerned. And certainly, accusations without names coming forward, but, you know, we all understand why those names aren't coming forward because of the culture of retaliation within CDCR, within the women's prisons that we've been in looking at and having hearings on. And if it's a culture there, then you have to, the question comes, is it a culture throughout the whole organization?

And so these are questions that we would like to to see addressed. Certainly, we'll look into the the CPOST, find out the exemptions, those things. But the change has to come from within. I mean, certainly, I think you made the statement that staff that see these things should be reporting them. And that brought up the question, staff on staff retaliation. Right?

And so people know, right, what's going on, areas within the prison where cameras aren't able to view. Right? So we know there's concerns, red spots, red hot spots that are there. But today, we heard the voices of these, the individuals coming forward, victims that are bringing that forward. They wanna work, despite of what they went through, they still wanna work to make a change in the system so others don't have to go through it.

And that's what this committee is concerned about. Their voices are coming forward. Right? And now it's time for the organization to start to make that change. And and not just say we're gonna make the change, but to hold some accountability to it.

That's why we keep bringing up that CPOST. And we'll dive into it. This is a budget committee. That would take a statute and policy to even start the dialogue moving forward. But I think there has to be that strike a balance there for those that are in staff that would report these things to make it a better system for everyone going through. And certainly, those that are incarcerated are there for a reason.

But that doesn't mean that their rights go away. And that's the concern of this committee. That the budget that we spend on CDCR and the amount of culture that needs to change within CDCR so these types of situations don't keep happening.

And we're here with those that have brought this forward to us, but I'd imagine it's a generational culture. It's time that we start to take that and make that change here in the state of California. With that, we're gonna move on to the next panel.

Thank you.

Our next panel will be mental health re receiver action plan overview and related budget proposals. Colette Peters, Receiver, Coleman receiver's office, Darcy Delgado, Senior Advisor, Coleman receiver's office, Dwayne Reeder, Deputy Director, Fiscal Management Section, California Correctional Healthcare Services, CDCR, Orlando Sanchez, LAO, Ryan Weinberg, Department of Finance, and Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. And I believe we're gonna start with, Colette Peters. Is that right?

That's correct.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair, Members. My

name is Daune Reeder. I'm the Deputy Director over Fiscal Services for Health Health Care. I'm gonna introduce the proposal, so then, we have Colette Peters here to help answer questions, as well as someone from the tele mental health program. There's two BCPs in this item. One is for the receiver's office to establish her office and continue bonus payments that were started over the summer.

So the request is for 33,900,000 in 26-27, and the funds will be coming from the special deposit fund. 8,200,000 of that request is tied to the receiver's office, and then about 25,300,000 of the request is tied to the bonuses that we'd like to continue. The second item is a tele mental health staffing augmentation BCP, which is requesting 69 positions and 8,900,000 in 26-27, and growing to a 119 positions and 12,800,000 ongoing in 28-29.

With me today is Colette Peters, the Mental Health Receiver, as well as her Senior Adviser, Delsey Dr. Darci Delgado. Excuse me.

And then for the telehealth proposal, we also have doctor Tony Martello here to help address questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you very much. My name is Colette Peters. I am the court appointed receiver in Coleman v Newsom.

For those of you who do not know my background, I have been in public safety and law enforcement for over 35 years. I recently led the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and before that was the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, the Oregon Inspector General, and the director of the Oregon Youth Authority. So I have been an agency head for over sixteen years. In this role and all of the other roles that I've served, I believe that corrections should be grounded in safety.