Perata and Nunez Send Joint Letter to Schwarzenegger on Prison Bill to be Voted on Tomorrow

A quick fix without fundamental changes and effective reform is simply “running in place”.

Yet the Department repeatedly demonstrates it is flatly unable to deliver on its promises. Furthermore, Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 hearings expose glaring problems with the proposal before us.

At this time, the department is not prepared to manage the proposals now before the legislature.

Therefore, we need assurances about the following issues:

Fundamental Management Change

The Department desperately needs better management. High vacancy rates have plagued top management for the last several years. The recent reorganization created a level of uncertainty about lines of authority and responsibility, compounding the problem.

Before changes are implemented, management training programs must begin and individuals with expertise in management, budget and program must be assigned. Again, we suggest that you consider a “strike force” of individuals from other departments, retired annuitants, and professionals outside of government to assist CDCR.

Population management plan

In order to make effective decisions about inmate placement, programs and staff needs, you must produce a population management plan. Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 requested a plan during the 2006-07 budget discussion. It asked again last August during the special session. The Department has yet to produce it. Without the plan, it would be foolish for the legislature to appropriate $10 billion as you have requested.

Infill Beds

As part of your proposal, you included 16,000 new infill beds. The Office of Facilities Management at CDCR has 309 employees with 35 vacancies. While the infill proposal, or at least variations of it, has been in circulation for nearly 9 months, the Legislature has yet to receive an analysis of the staffing needs to supervise these beds. At the least, in order to accomplish this infill plan, the department will need significant staff increases in this unit.

The infill beds proposed do not meet the security needs of inmates. If the department constructs the beds as proposed, there will be an excess of custody level one and level two beds but a shortage of level four beds.

Furthermore, the department has conducted only 11 site assessments, while the plan calls for facilities at 26 different locations. Therefore, it is unclear if this number is even feasible. Moreover, cost overruns have chronically plagued the Office of Facilities Management. Recently, project budget overruns average sixty-two percent (62%).

Finally, it was unclear if this construction is to replace bad beds or add capacity at existing facilities. Publicly, the secretary has said that they are replacements, yet privately we have been told that they are not. This has serious implications including: potential court involvement, staffing needs, program space and inmate participation, costs to local communities, and general fund expenditures. In the package we send you today, we clarify that the purpose of the beds is to replace the temporary beds.

Therefore, rather than providing the department with a single allocation, each project should be scheduled separately to provide appropriate and necessary legislative oversight. This requires a master plan for Legislative review prior to construction demonstrating that beds constructed meet the inmate need and that appropriate custody, program and construction staff are available. Program space is integral to provide adequate programs.

Reentry Beds

You proposed to construct 16,000 reentry beds in counties to house parole violators and inmates nearing their release dates.

The Department reports that it is in discussions with 22 local agencies regarding reentry facilities. But, no site work has begun??

In an April 12 hearing in Senate Budget Subcommittee 4, CDCR disclosed that local governments will have authority to select who will be housed at these facilities. While this may help in “selling” these projects to local communities, it seems to abrogate decisions about the level of custody and programming.

In sum, the plan for the reentry bed proposal needs work. Fundamental questions need answers, including: location, community support and infrastructure, services provided and capacity for these services, staffing needs and targeted inmates.

Staff Vacancies

There are thousands of vacancies for correctional officers, teachers and medical and mental health providers. With the exception of correctional officers, the department has no program to recruit or retain staff. Given the current vacancies, it is hard to believe the department can maintain existing programs much less operate expanded population and program without an aggressive recruitment and training plan.

Coordination with the Receiver

The department must work cooperatively with the Federal Receiver on capital outlay and staffing decisions. A virtual financial “black hole” exists now. It is impossible to set a budget under these conditions. There is specter and likelihood of enormous department deficiencies that will “crowd out” other essential general fund proposals like education, social services and basic infrastructure.

Programs and recidivism reduction strategies

Programs that will cut recidivism must be a fundamental component of any true reform. Inmate assessments, substance abuse and mental health programming for inmates and parolees, and vocational training must be a part of the package. The staff and space necessary to provide these services to inmates and parolees must be trained and available. There is no such evidence that this will be available.

In conclusion, we have agreed upon some key provisions of your proposal, but we must have a level of certainty that the department is in a position to deliver on its promises. And, we must have better substance abuse, mental health and education programming or the system will never change, our incarcerated population will grow as will the costs to taxpayers.

The people of the state of California expect that tax dollars will be spent efficiently and effectively. Without a clear plan and appropriate oversight, we do not believe the department can accomplish what you set out for it to do.

We believe that this proposal addresses our concerns, while achieving our mutual goal of avoiding future federal interdiction.

Sincerely,

Don Perata
Senate President pro Tem

Fabian Núñez
Speaker of the Assembly