Association of State Correctional Agencies - Independent Assessment of the High Desert State Prison, CDCR, 2016
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Independent Assessment of The High Desert State Prison Submitted to the: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Prepared by the: Association of State Correctional Administrators Hagerstown, Maryland September 23, 2016 Table of Contents A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 B. Assessment Team Activities ......................................................................................... 3 1. Preparatory Contacts ................................................................................................... 3 2. Stakeholder Meetings .................................................................................................. 4 3. Site Visit Activities........................................................................................................ 5 C. The Institution: High Desert State Prison .................................................................... 5 1. Description of Institution .............................................................................................. 5 D. Assessment of the Current Culture .............................................................................. 6 E. Assessment of the Preferred Culture .......................................................................... 33 F. Specific Areas of Inquiry .............................................................................................. 42 1: Facility Mission and Operations .................................................................................. 43 2: Policy and Procedure.................................................................................................. 45 3: Facility Management................................................................................................... 46 4: Use of Force ............................................................................................................... 48 5: Staff Training .............................................................................................................. 51 6: Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process ...................................................................... 52 7: Inmate Discipline Process .......................................................................................... 54 8: Staff Complaint Process ............................................................................................. 56 9: Investigations and Staff Discipline .............................................................................. 57 10: Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation ................................................. 58 G. Recommendations for Improving HDSP’s Culture .................................................... 62 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 68 1: Definition of Culture .................................................................................................... 69 2: The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) ............................................... 71 3: Operational Areas Assessed at High Desert .............................................................. 72 4: Letter to Warden Spearman ....................................................................................... 77 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 1 of 115 September 23, 2016 5: Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings ............................................................................. 85 6: Schedule of Onsite Activities at High Desert .............................................................. 87 7: High Desert Assessment Team Members .................................................................. 97 8: The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument - Prisons (OCAI-P) ................. 104 9: Organizational Culture Types ................................................................................... 106 10: High Desert Focus Group and Staff Scores ........................................................... 107 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 2 of 115 September 23, 2016 A. Introduction This report provides a summary of an independent assessment conducted by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in Susanville, California. The assessment was conducted during a site visit by an eight-person team trained in the use of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP), a standardized process and instrumentation designed specifically for use in assessing a prison’s culture.1 The report details the assessment team’s activities while on site from July 15, 2016 through July 28, 2016. The primary goal of the assessment was to gain a thorough understanding of the unique culture of HDSP and how that culture impacts prison operations and the environment for both staff and inmates. The assessment followed two integrated inquiry tracks: (1) an assessment of both the formal and informal cultures at HDSP through a process of interviews, focus groups, direct observation and assessment of facility operations, management, policy and procedure using the ICAP protocol; 2 and (2) an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation, document review, and discussions with staff.3 The findings from both inquiry tracks are presented in this report. In March of 2016, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary Scott Kernan requested that ASCA conduct an independent assessment of HDSP. The request was based in part on conflicting reports Secretary Kernan had received from his agency and stakeholder groups. Reports from several Wardens’ Peer Audit Team reviews were consistently positive with only minor issues being noted. Likewise, COMPSTAT data collected from HDSP did not reflect any areas of concern and was consistent with other CDCR Level 4 prisons. In contrast with the information contained in those CDCR generated documents were reports produced by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Prison Law Office (PLO) alleging numerous instances of egregious behavior by staff towards the inmate population. B. Assessment Team Activities Preparatory Contacts Initial conversations between Secretary Kernan and ASCA occurred in early March 2016 to discuss the potential scope of the independent assessment. A proposal was submitted by ASCA to CDCR on March 18, 2016. Approval to begin the project was received in early June 2016. ASCA Co-Executive Director and Project Director George Camp met with HDSP Warden Marion Spearman on June 15, 2016, to discuss plans for conducting the independent assessment. Following that meeting, a letter was forwarded to Warden Spearman detailing the assessment process and requesting materials essential to the document review portion of the assessment.4 1 The ICAP was developed by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. through a cooperative agreement with the National See Appendix for a description of the ICAP protocol 3 See Appendix for a list and description of the operational areas assessed 4 See Appendix for a copy of the letter sent to Warden Spearman 2 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 3 of 115 September 23, 2016 The information requested in the letter included: • narrative addressing the mission of the institution and specific performance objectives for senior managers; • current capacity and recent capacity changes; • current population and any recent changes in size or demographics; • physical plant description; • discussion of strengths and limitations; • staffing and recruitment issues, • nature of workforce in terms of experience; • recent relevant events; • present concerns or issues; • weaknesses and strengths of institution and personnel; • staff turnover and reasons for leaving the institution; • significant incidents; • assaults on staff with injury: • assaults on inmates with injury; • number of incidents involving staff use of force; • nature of uses of force; • injuries to staff or inmates as a result of use of force; • findings, including determinations whether excessive force was used; • list of programs offered by the institution by the name of program and the number of participants; • number and breakdown of inmates employed in institutional job assignments; • the number of lawsuits filed, the number pending and disposed of and the number found in the inmate’s favor; • number and type of inmate disciplinary reports, including dispositions; • facility mission statement; organizational charts and rosters; policy manuals; staff training plans and curriculum; • inmate appeals data; • inmate discipline data; • staff complaint data; and • investigation and staff discipline data. A teleconference call between HDSP administrators and ASCA staff took place on June 28, 2016. During this call, questions pertaining to the document request were answered and final logistical details for the site visit were discussed. Documents provided by HDSP were shared with all assessment team members who independently conducted in-depth reviews and analyses of these documents prior to conducting the on site work. Stakeholder Meetings Early on in developing the project scope of work, Secretary Kernan and ASCA Co-Executive Director, George Camp agreed that meeting with CDCR officials and other stakeholders prior to Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 4 of 115 September 23, 2016 conducting the site visit at HDSP would provide the assessment team with a clearer understanding of concerns noted in stakeholder reports regarding HDSP. Five of the assessment team members met with CDCR officials and other stakeholders in a series of scheduled meetings over a three-day period from July 11 – 13, 2016. Meetings were held with: Secretary Kernan; California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA); Prison Law Office (PLO) and CDCR Legal Representation; CDCR Operations; Ombudsman’s Office; OIG; Executive Branch; Correctional Healthcare Services; and, Legislative Representation.5 Site Visit Activities A team of eight assessors conducted the site visit over a 14-day period from July 15 – 28, 2016. 6 During the visit, the team toured the facility, observed daily operations and conducted interviews on all three shifts. All housing and operational units were visited where routine staff-staff and staff-inmate interactions were observed. Individual interviews were conducted with the Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, five Associate Wardens, department heads, union representatives and various security officers. Assessment team members attended numerous institutional meetings including; Warden’s Morning Staff Meetings, Use of Force Review, Disciplinary Hearings, COMPSTAT Reviews, Emergency Medical Response Review, ADA Appeals Review, Appeals Review, and Inmate Classification. Team members conducted sixteen focus groups including: 1) management staff; 2) correctional officers from 2nd and 3rd watch in all four facility yards; 3 ) correctional officers assigned to health services; 4) sergeants from 2nd and 3rd watch from all facilities; 5 ) lieutenants from 2nd and 3rd watch from all facilities; 4) mixed support/line staff; and 6) healthcare staff. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons (OCAI-P)7 was administered during each of the focus groups and many of the interviews. In addition, the team conducted seven inmate discussion groups and numerous informal interviews with both staff and inmates. The Assessment Team’s schedule of activities while on site at HDSP is included in the Appendix. C. The Institution: High Desert State Prison Description of the Institution High Desert State Prison (HDSP) is located in Susanville, California, in Lassen County. Susanville is a small, relatively remote community approximately 190 miles from Sacramento, CA and approximately 90 miles from Reno, NV. HDSP was activated in September 1995, and covers 364 acres. The institution has a design capacity of approximately 1,900 and currently houses an inmate population of approximately 3,500. It is comprised of four facilities (A, B, C, D), a Correctional Treatment Center (Medical Unit), a short-term restrictive housing unit (Z Unit) and a Level 1 minimum security facility (E 5 See Appendix for schedule of stakeholder meetings Appendix for assessment team member bios 7 See Appendix for a description of the OCAI-P 6 See Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 5 of 115 September 23, 2016 Unit). There are 16 inmate housing units designated as 180 degree design which make up the buildings in C & D Facilities, 10 inmate housing units designated as 270 degree design which make up the buildings in A & B Facilities, 2 dormitory type Level 1 inmate housing units located on E Unit and 1 high-security stand-alone building, Z-Unit. Along with the inmate housing units there are approximately 87 program support buildings located throughout the institution. The HDSP perimeter consists of three fences with a lethal electrified fence located between outer and inner perimeter fences. Two of the prisons thirteen towers are staffed on a reguar basis to provide armed coverage of pedestrians and vehicles entering and exiting the prison. The remaining eleven towers are staffed only during emergencies. The primary mission of HDSP is to provide for the confinement of general population and sensitive needs high security (Level IV) and medium security (Level III) inmates. There is a 32bed Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) to provide for the health care needs of the inmates. Additionally, HDSP is designed to house inmates with disabilities who require specialized placement to accommodate accessibility issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There are approximatley 1,260 staff assigned to HDSP. Of that number, approximately 750 are custody staff. The majority of custody staff work one of three 8-hour watches. Approximately 77 percent of all staff are white and approximately 74 percent of custody staff are white. The majority of non-white staff are hispanic. D. Assessment of the Current Culture The culture of an organization is a product of its mission or function, its history, and the everyday interactions among its staff. Organizational culture may be examined in terms of six major components: (1) its dominant characteristics; (2) organizational leadership; (3) management of employees; (4) organizational glue; (5) strategic emphasis; and (6) criteria of success. Each of these six aspects of High Desert State Prison’s (HDSP) culture are examined and discussed in this section of the report (see Appendix 1). A. Dominant Characteristics of High Desert State Prison’s Culture This cultural characteristic refers to those aspects of the culture that are most pervasive, and may be described in terms of how the workplace is generally defined by those who work in it. Given the functions of prisons, especially high security prisons such as High Desert, it is to be expected that the formal culture will be one that is highly structured, having a clear chain-of-command and with everyday actions guided by formal policies, directives and orders designed to ensure a safe and secure environment. 1. Formal Culture. As is displayed in Figure 1, the staff at HDSP perceives its culture as largely focused on the internal operations of the institution as opposed to its environment. The culture emphasizes the maintenance of stability and control through adherence to formal policies and procedures. The value given to the “consensus” component indicates that the staff sees themselves as a team and as having developed a strong sense of camaraderie through working together. Staff also perceives that the culture of HDSP is, to a significant degree, influenced by external agencies, as indicated by the weight give to the “prescriptive” Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 6 of 115 September 23, 2016 component; this is undoubtedly related to directives and orders from the legislature, headquarters and the courts. Finally, as to be expected in a prison, the staff does not view HDSP’s culture as valuing innovation and risk-taking. Figure 1 – Current Dominant Characteristics by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Dominant#Characteris3cs#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( This view of HDSP’s culture is widely shared among the staff, as shown in Table 1. There are, nonetheless, some observable differences. Civilian supervisors and service providers see HDSP as a much more structured and less personal place than do others, quite likely because their functions, though undeniably vital, are peripheral to the core functions of custody and control. Moreover, they are perhaps less likely to work as a team and their work in a prison environment is subject to regulations not present in the community. Interestingly, as can be seen in Table 1 sergeants view HDSP as valuing innovation more so than do others, and possibly at the expense of structure and control. This is perhaps because as first line supervisors they are charged with implementing on the ground directives that come from above, directives that may be confusing or even inconsistent or contradictory. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 7 of 115 September 23, 2016 Table 1 Current Dominant Characteristics by Staff Group All Staff Prison Management Warden Chief Deputy Health Care Management CEO Lieutenants Sergeants Yard COs Escort COs Health Care & Program Providers Service Providers Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured 28 29 75 50 16 10 32 30 31 24 24 16 11 0 0 13 15 12 25 16 24 18 23 26 0 0 33 25 25 25 21 23 17 33 34 25 25 38 50 31 20 33 29 41 N of Cases 191 14 1 1 11 1 11 16 99 11 14 16 11 27 46 12 2. Informal Culture. People interact in carrying out their roles within any organization, over time there develop patterns of behavior, shared attitudes and understandings, and even values that are not formally prescribed but which coexist and interact with the formal culture. This informal culture may enhance or impede the effective and efficient functioning of the organization (see Appendix 1). Some of the dominant themes in HDSP’s informal culture are described below. 3. Uncertainty. HDSP has had 15 wardens in the 21 years of its operation and has had five wardens in the last 18 months. This turnover at the top has left the staff without a clear sense of direction, and in particular unaware of the change toward rehabilitation in the department’s mission. In the absence of stable leadership, the rank and file staff still clings to the notion that HDSP is a Level IV prison that “manages the worst of the worst” who deserve only to be housed and fed, provided adequate medical care and some out-cell-time. In their view, efforts to rehabilitate inmates of the type housed at HDSP, who they view as little more than wild animals, are both futile and dangerous. The creation of SNY yards, the re-entry hub and the recent introduction of self-help programs has thus created uncertainty and not a little anxiety over the direction in which the institution is headed. When asked about mission and direction, lower level staff members often respond with a variation of “I don’t know any more. Every day we’re marching in a different direction.” Indignation. Officers at HDSP see the institution as the “protector for other prisons” in the state; they believe that the institution was created for that purpose, and that other prisons use the threat of a transfer to HDSP as a way to control difficult inmates. As a result, the inmates at HDSP are, in their view, all “disciplinary problems that the other places can’t handle,” and the HDSP staff takes enormous pride in the fact that they do handle them. HDSP is able to accomplish this because, unlike staff at other institutions, the HDSP staff enforces the DOM; “it’s all black and white here; there is no gray.” Because of their ability to Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 8 of 115 September 23, 2016 manage the most difficult prisoners and of having developed policy and procedures for doing so, such as the alarm response protocol, they believe HDSP to be the flagship prison of the system. The OIG and PLO reports might have been a nuclear blast, the shock waves of which still ripple throughout the institution, and unite the staff in indignation. Staff members are outraged by the allegations of racism. To a person, regardless of race or ethnicity, they deny using or having heard another use offensive language to any minority, staff or inmate. Nor do they believe minorities are treated differently. They claim the OIG cherry-picked their information, talking only to minority staff and inmates who told them what they wanted to hear and ignoring those who did not. In their defense, they point to other institutions where, according to those with experience elsewhere, there are informal policies that designate parking areas by race/ethnicity and where those who violate the policy, intentionally or not, may find their tires slashed. Why, then, they ask was the target pasted on our backs, and why has no one defended us? The allegations of excessive force were also a slap in the face to HDSP staff, though they seemingly excite less umbrage than do the charges of racism. A few deny the incidents happened; others claim “there must have been a reason for it;” and most believe the punishments were disproportionately harsh. Even senior members of the management team who acknowledge that the incidents happened and believe the punishments were fair are angered by the reports. In their opinion the charges of excessive force were a “bum rap” because the report made it seem as if the OIG investigators had uncovered the misconduct when, in fact, it had been uncovered by HDSP investigators and the officers involved had been punished before the OIG investigation began. Fear. “There are lifers and murderers here who’ll stick a knife in you faster than you can blink an eye.” Every so often at HDSP, there is an incident that validates this belief that death could be imminent. In the month before the assessment, for instance, an officer was brutally assaulted and nearly killed by an enraged inmate. The knowledge that they work in a hostile, dangerous and violent environment has a profound effect on how the officers at HDSP go about their jobs. Despite the assertion that they strictly enforce all the rules, they in fact do not. The modus operandi of HDSP correctional officers is “observe and react,” by which they seemingly mean they watch out for violence and then react in force. Yard officers, for example, typically sit in the shade watching some 200 or more inmates engaged in various activities. For example, a team member sitting with several yard officers observed some commotion among a group of about 20, and asked what was going. One of the officers replied that they were probably gambling, but if he were to start over there, they would stop and conceal the evidence. He did nothing. Similarly in another yard, team members were surprised to learn that the floor officers did not enter the day rooms while inmates were out of their cells. Rather, they observed the inmates through the windows in the gates and noted rule violations such as violation of dress code regulations or crossing over yellow lines within which inmates are supposed to stay, but took no action. They explained that, as they understood it, their job was to observe Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 9 of 115 September 23, 2016 and report violations and summon assistance if violence should erupt. Later they were quite comfortable sitting with the team members in an office from which they had no view of the dayrooms. In virtually every housing unit, visibility into cells was obscured by pictures posted on cell windows and makeshift curtains draped around the toilet. Officers appeared to be oblivious to these rule violations. It was as if the officers and the inmates had reached an agreement. “You can do your thing, and we’ll do ours, so long as you don’t get violent. If you do, we’ll come at you in force.” Fear for one’s personal safety is only one of several factors behind the “observe and react” modus operandi. Another is a fear that doing your job will result in losing your job. The PLO and OIG reports have engendered such a fear among the HDSP officers. Time and again, team members heard some variant of the following comments: The OIG report empowered the inmates. They don’t want to be here and now they’re making allegations to get out of here and closer to home. It’s not worth the fight now to make an inmate obey the rules. They’ll just file a staff complaint. Cops are flying under the radar so as to avoid getting 602s and getting fired. Adding further to the officers’ fears are the programs that “are being shoved down our throat.” The programs themselves increase security concerns and the time devoted to them cuts into the time they have available for pat-downs, cell searches and the like. Thus, in their minds, introducing programs without changing staffing levels and deployment jeopardizes their safety, and they are resistant to it. As one put it, “This madness has to stop.” Family. Part of the focus group protocol is to ask participants to come up with a slogan or logo for a Tee shirt that expresses their view of the institution. Groups such as correctional officers, who daily face danger in their work, are usually characterized by a strong sense of solidarity. Among the most common creations produced by the HDSP staff were designs that in some way expressed the notion that “We Are Family.” As evidence of this, some staff pointed to the fund they have established for members of the family who are faced with tragedy or particularly difficult circumstances, and that recently provided a large sum to the family of a young and relatively unknown officer who was killed in a motorcycle accident. One effect of the OIG report has been to strengthen this sense of solidarity. “Us versus them” no longer refers to just the officers v. inmates; for many, the departmental administration and institutional management seem also to be among “them.” This issue and more about who are “family” and who are not is discussed further in the sections on leadership, management and organizational glue. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 10 of 115 September 23, 2016 B. Organizational Leadership The leadership component of the culture refers to how staff members perceive the leadership style and approach that permeates the prison. As noted above, there has been a high rate of turnover among wardens since High Desert opened in 1995, and the current warden had been in office for only six months at the time of this assessment. Further, the CEO for healthcare and the chief deputy warden were also both new to their positions, the former having been at HDSP for only six months and the latter for only two months. This continual turnover in wardens has, as mentioned previously, contributed to a great deal of uncertainty at HDSP, and the recency of the current appointments provides staff with only a short time in which to observe the style of their new leaders. 1. Formal Culture. Figure 2 graphically portrays how those who work at HDSP see the institution’s leadership at present. The weighting of the graph toward the right indicates that staff members perceive leadership as coming primarily from outside the institution. The highest value is accorded to the “prescriptive” dimension, meaning that leadership is seen as being aggressive and results-oriented. The other dimensions are accorded equal weight, which is actually rather unusual for prisons where leadership is generally perceived to be more organized and coordinated and averse to innovation and risk-taking. Figure 2 - Current Leadership As Seen By All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Leadership#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( In more substantive terms, the HDSP staff view the institution’s leadership as coming primarily from the courts and headquarters rather than from the warden’s office. These commands or directives most probably concern those related to providing inmates more outof-cell time and programs, on the one hand, and more and better health and mental health care on the other. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 11 of 115 September 23, 2016 As is clear from the data presented in Table 2, this perception of leadership is widely shared among the staff. One notable exception, however, is the view of the warden who, far more than others, sees leadership as emphasizing coaching, supporting and helping people to grow, and as only marginally focused on innovation. Table 2 Current Organizational Leadership by Staff Group Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured N of Cases All Staff 22 23 32 23 191 Prison Management 26 19 31 24 14 Warden 60 10 0 30 1 Chief Deputy 50 0 0 50 1 Health Care Management 22 13 34 31 11 Health Care CEO 30 10 30 30 1 Lieutenants 24 20 40 16 11 Sergeants 17 29 36 18 16 Yard COs 22 24 30 24 99 Escort COs 22 30 30 18 11 Health Care & Program Providers 24 14 31 31 14 Service Providers 17 23 40 20 12 In interviews with team members, the warden stated that his leadership style was to effect change by introducing new ideas to his managers, explaining why they are necessary and leaving them to work out how to implement them at HDSP. Observations of the warden’s conduct of executive staff meetings confirmed this description. For example at one executive team meeting, the warden opined that something he had learned about – an Integrated Behavioral Treatment Module – might be useful at HDSP, gave examples of other institutions where it is in use, and suggested bringing in the people who had developed it to meet with the executive team. Several senior staff commented that they like the warden’s style much more than that of his predecessors. At this point, however, it is not clear that this change in style is having the desired effect or is even noticed by staff further down the chain of command. Just prior to the team’s arrival, the warden had worked with the executive team to craft a new mission and vision statement that emphasizes humane and safe supervision while providing the inmates with meaningful access to quality health care and treatment programming. At a Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 12 of 115 September 23, 2016 meeting on July 15 attended by the assessment team, the warden distributed the final draft of the two statements and asked for comments. There were none and the statements were published on July 18. However, in conversations and focus groups with staff conducted over the following week, it was clear that the vast majority of staff was not aware of the new mission and vision statements or even that they were being developed. And questions about his style typically elicited responses such as the following: “Don’t know the warden. He writes memos but is not out and about.” The warden’s teacher-coach style contrasts with the rather no-nonsense style of the health care CEO. Arriving at about the same time as the warden, the CEO has never worked in a prison environment and is quite clear that he sees HDSP as a health care facility not as a prison. Charged with bringing the prison into compliance with the orders of several courts, he translated these orders into a number of broad categories, each of which has a set of metrics. Primary responsibility for each category is assigned to a manager, assisted by several others. Staff meetings take the form of COMPSTAT meetings in which managers are quizzed about where they stand with respect to the metrics, and what they plan to do, and solutions for identified problems are developed by brain-storming with the entire team. Both the warden and the CEO agree that they are on the same page with respect to the management of HDSP. However, their differing objectives and styles appear already to be causing some confusion among the staff, and giving rise to the feeling among the uniformed staff that “medical is running the place.” 2. Informal Culture. With respect to leadership, the informal culture is characterized by feelings of betrayal, on the one hand, and distrust and suspicion on the other. Betrayal. As noted, the staff at HDSP perceives institutional leadership as coming primarily from headquarters. The majority expresses intensely negative attitudes toward that leadership, seeing it as consisting largely of “knee-jerk reactions to courts and outside critics.” In particular, the staff feels betrayed because headquarters did not respond to the OIG report. Comments such as the following are typical of those made in focus groups and casual conversations: “Shame on HQ for not defending us. We do our best to maintain the line between order and anarchy and are criticized for it.” “We’re seen as evil and are being attacked and our leaders aren’t defending us. Need to get rid of all those bureaucrats and politicians.” “I took the OIG report personally both as a community member and an HDSP officer, and I’m really pissed that there was no public response from HQ.” While the team was on site, a rumor was circulating that rekindled the anger directed at headquarters. According to those who shared the story with the team, at a statewide meeting of captains, the department secretary had the HDSP captains stand up, and in effect, announced to the others that HDSP is broken and that they do not want to be like these guys. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 13 of 115 September 23, 2016 Distrust and Suspicion. It is widely believed among HDSP staff that the warden was sent to HDSP to fire people. That belief was reinforced when he terminated several officers shortly after he arrived, despite the fact that he was merely carrying out decisions that had been made well before he came on the scene. Many staff expressed belief in a rumor that the warden, dressed in a jump suit and duty belt, sneaks around the institution trying to find people not doing their job and that he goes up into the towers to find people who are leaving work early. Yet another reason staff finds to distrust the warden is his lack of experience in a Level IV institution. They believe that this lack of experience is leading him to make some decisions that endanger them. One such instance occurred while the team was on site. Notes found in a housing unit warned that there was a plot to assault a staff member. The warden ordered that unit to be locked down while officers searched the unit and interviewed inmates to discover if the plot was real and who was involved. Staff in that yard were incensed that the whole yard was not locked down because, as they see it, (1) the potential assailant may be from a unit other than that in which the note was found and (2) because searching and interviewing the unit will require extra staff leaving the rest of the yard with fewer officers to cover it. C. Institutional Management This component of organizational culture generally refers to how employees are managed and how their supervisors relate to them. In prisons, however, even the lowest level employees, correctional officers, are managers and supervisors. For this reason, and especially because of the public allegations of racism at HDSP, we discuss that issue in this section as well. 1. Formal Culture. As displayed in Figure 3, HDSP staff members view management in much the same way as they perceive leadership. Management, however, is seen as somewhat more internally directed, as one would expect, and a bit more oriented to teamwork. This perspective on management is widely shared among the staff, although there a few significant differences as can be seen in Table 3. Both the warden and the health care CEO see management as more of a team effort, and correlatively much less “prescriptive” or topdown, than do the rest of the staff including their own management teams. This could be the result of managers not feeling comfortable with expressing alternative viewpoints in discussions with these new leaders who then take their silence as agreement. There was, in fact, relatively little discussion at the executive and health care management meetings attended by the assessment team even when, as noted, there was an opportunity to discuss the new mission and vision statements. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 14 of 115 September 23, 2016 Figure 3 - Current Management of Employees by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Management#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( Lieutenants and sergeants also view management somewhat differently than do most staff members. Both groups see management as being much less concerned with stability and predictability than do other groups. Lieutenants, on the one hand, view management as more as a team effort while sergeants, on the other hand, see it as more innovative and risktaking. These differences are quite likely because of their responsibilities for implementing on the yards decisions made by management, lieutenants perhaps having more input into those decisions and sergeants having greater responsibility for ensuring they are carried out. Finally, we note that health care and program providers perceive management as much more concerned with stability and control than do other groups. Quite probably this difference is also a product of their positions within the organization. For the most part, they work alone providing their services to inmates in a clinic or a classroom. They are greatly dependent upon the uniformed staff to ensure their clients arrive, and there are frequently delays and sometimes even lockdowns that interrupt their work schedules. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 15 of 115 September 23, 2016 Table 3 Current Management Style by Staff Group Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured N of Cases All Staff 30 16 28 26 191 Prison Management 23 12 37 28 14 Warden 60 10 0 30 1 Chief Deputy 25 0 25 50 1 30 14 26 30 11 50 10 10 30 1 Lieutenants 38 14 34 14 11 Sergeants 23 25 36 16 16 Yard COs 31 16 26 27 99 Escort COs 36 14 28 22 11 Health Care Providers 28 12 19 41 14 Service Providers 22 19 28 31 12 Health Care Management Health Care CEO Communication. In focus groups and conversations with staff, the team frequently heard comments such as the following. “There is no communication; it’s just not there.” “Communication is poor.” “I hear from a secretary that the captain has moved.” “Communication from the warden gets to inmates before it comes to the officers.” At HDSP, there appears to be an assumption that after a meeting, the necessary communication will flow down to staff. Moreover, much of the top to bottom communication occurs through memos and e-mail, and memos deemed important may be enlarged and posted. As noted above in regard to the new vision and mission statements, these mechanisms may be efficient for managers but may not be effective in getting the information to the intended targets. A serious breakdown in communication occurred just a month prior to the assessment. On May 31, 2016, the warden issued a memo to all custody staff notifying them that Ramadan would begin on June 7th or 8th and informing them of what accommodations should be made for Muslim inmates. That memo was amended by the warden to allow the Imam to announce the beginning of the feast over the PA system, something that had not been done before. That amendment was e-mailed to the AOD and the watch commander, among others, late on Friday night, June 3. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 16 of 115 September 23, 2016 On Sunday night, June 5th, the Imam arrived at HDSP to announce the beginning of Ramadan, which actually began on June 6th. The central PA system, however, was broken – and apparently had been for some time – so the watch commander instructed a sergeant to make the announcement over the institutional radio, which is broadcast only to staff. So at about 2100 hours that night, the staff was startled to hear an announcement over their radios that began with the words “As-salamu alaykum.” The next day, the operations captain was met with a number of officers expressing outrage that this had been allowed to happen. Clearly the watch commander bears the primary responsibility for making the decision to use the institutional radio for the announcement. However, this incident might have been avoided altogether if there had been better communication. Why, for example, was the warden not informed that the central PA system was broken? Why did the officers not expect an announcement about Ramadan, or did they expect it but thought it would be the next night because the dates in the memo were incorrect? As best we can determine, the major gap in communication appears to be between the yard captains and their staff. Officers complain that the “captains are tied up in meetings all day and we can go 2, 3 or 4 days without seeing our captain.” Moreover, staff meetings that are scheduled for each watch are either not held or held infrequently. The team discovered this one day when we planned to attend the 0830 meetings on each yard only to be told on arrival that “we’re too busy to do those anymore.” That change in practice was news to one associate warden, who when informed of it said that if he had known that, he would have been asking them for the minutes of each meeting. When directives do reach the lieutenants and sergeants, they often do not know where they came from or the reason for them, and thus, they seem arbitrary to the line staff, what some refer to as “the mythical order.” What they seem to mean by this is that because the order makes no sense to them, it may well have been made up by that person and can probably be ignored when she or he is not present. This accentuates inconsistency among officers, from day to day, and from watch to watch, thereby increasing the likelihood of confrontations between officers and inmates. Even when it is clear that the directive is real, the absence of explanation may confuse officers about what is expected of them. This is the case with the boxes of condoms that were placed in each housing unit during the assessment. Seeing this, many officers remarked to us, in effect, “This makes no sense. These guys are not supposed to have sex. Now we’re telling them it’s okay. What are we supposed to do, not write them up for having sex anymore?” Others saw it as a danger in that the condoms could be used to conceal drugs or even fashion weapons. 2. Informal Culture. The gap between the yard captains and the yard supervisors leaves the yards with considerable autonomy. A member of the Resource Team who has been at HDSP for several months characterized the institution as “being run from the bottom up.” In this person’s view, “nothing changes” because there is no accountability: supervisors interpret directives in ways that are the most convenient for them or may choose to ignore them altogether. Moreover, the supervisors themselves are not comfortable with holding others accountable because of their personal relationships. Most have worked together at Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 17 of 115 September 23, 2016 HDSP for 10 years or more and are friends off the job. Calling somebody to task may risk breaking up a friendship or end with a retort such as “Who are you to tell me to not do that? That’s what you did when we were working together.” The lack of accountability may be being aggravated by recent changes in policy and procedure. According to supervisors, changes in the investigation and disciplinary processes are overwhelming them with paperwork and tying them to their offices to the extent that they can’t tour the yard as much as they should. This was confirmed by the team’s first-hand observations. Reviews of a limited number of logbooks showed that sergeants’ signatures in red ink on most days and most shifts; however, because the times noted in the logbooks were close together, it is unlikely that complete unit tours are being conducted. No signatures of captains and lieutenant signatures were found. 3. Racism. Allegations of racism were among the most prominent of the criticisms leveled at HDSP in the OIG report. Staff members of all races and ethnicities vehemently deny these allegations, and minority staff members say they are welcomed and supported both at work and in the community. Observations of employees, uniformed and civilian, coming to or leaving work showed no evidence of the segregation seen in many other prisons, and interaction on the job appeared comfortable and even amiable. Moving about the institution, team members came upon scenes such as the following: White officers joking with an African American officer as they waited in the interlock to be let behind the fence. Three escort officers, two males (one an African-American) and a female, chatting about this and that and occasionally bursting into laughter while seated in a hallway waiting for inmates to be escorted back to their units. An African American officer who had been blinded by exposure to pepper spray being led by the arm to the nurses’ station by a white officer who then stayed with him while the nurse cleaned his eyes. In private interviews, African-American and Latino officers denied experiencing any racism at HDSP; to the contrary all said they felt welcomed and supported. Indeed, one young officer related how they had come to HDSP braced expecting to encounter racial animus because of what they had been told at the academy. To this officer’s surprise, the experience had been quite the reverse, and this officer has decided to stay at HDSP because of the acceptance and support received. Minority inmates to whom we talked in private deny being addressed with language they find offensive. However, some who work in close proximity to staff claim that they at times overhear conversations among staff that they find offensive, and all believe they are the victims of discrimination. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 18 of 115 September 23, 2016 The ASCA team reviewed data on work assignments, disciplinary violation reports and uses of force and found significant racial and ethnic disparity. The data in Table 4 is based on the distribution of program and work assignments on July 8, 2016.8 As can be seen there, White inmates held a much larger proportion of the skilled jobs than expected based on their representation in the prisoner population, and they were somewhat less likely to be unassigned. Hispanic inmates, in contrast to Whites, were much less likely to be in skilled positions than would be expected on the basis of their numbers, and they were also underrepresented among those in programs and somewhat over represented among those who were unassigned. African-American inmates were slightly over-represented among those in programs but otherwise assigned in proportion to their numbers. Table 4 Inmate Work Assignments In Program Skilled Job Unskilled Job Unassigned % of Population N of Cases AfricanAmerican 33.1% 25.3% 28.1% 26.2% 27.7% 974 Hispanic White Total N 44.9% 31.6% 50.5% 58.7% 53.0% 1857 22.0% 43.1% 21.4% 15.1% 19.3% 681 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 574 206 867 1865 • 2512 Data on Rules Violation Reports (RVRs) and Uses of Force by race/ethnicity are presented in Table 5. From March 1 through July 22nd, HDSP staff filed 876 RVRs. Compared to the racial/ethnic composition of the population, it appears that a considerably larger percentage of these reports were filed against Black inmates than is to be expected by chance and a much smaller percentage than expected are filed against Hispanic inmates and those of other races/ethnicities. COMPSTAT statistics reviewed by ASCA team show that HDSP averages about 43.15 use of force incidents per month. The data in Table 5 also break down the incidents that occurred from January 1st through June 2016 by the race and ethnicity of the inmates involved.9 As can be seen, a disproportionately large number of incidents in which force was used involved African-American inmates and disproportionately fewer incidents involved Hispanic inmates and those of other races or ethnicities. Incidents involving White inmates were about what would be expected by chance given their numbers. 8 These data exclude inmates of other races and/or ethnicities. Jobs considered skilled include those such as baker, carpenter, cook, clerk, electrician, plumber, mechanic, tutors and teachers’ aide. 9 Incidents involving inmates of different races/ethnicities were counted in each race/ethnic category. Thus, the total exceeds the total number of incidents that occurred during this period. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 19 of 115 September 23, 2016 Table 5 Reports of Rules Violations and Uses of Force by Race/ Ethnicity % of Population % of Rules Violation Reports % of Incidents Involving Uses of Force Black 26.0% 37.4% 42.8% Hispanic 49.7% 36.5% 32.9% White 18.4% 19.4% 21.1% Other 5.9% 0.7% 3.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N 3680 876 348 The existence of disparities such as the above does not prove discrimination, as there may be legitimate explanations for the differences. However, these processes and others should be closely examined to learn why the disparities exist in order to detect and correct any unjustified treatment and/or to be able to explain why they exist in the absence of discrimination, should such allegations be made. In an emotionally charged environment such as a prison, even innocent or well-intentioned actions, may be interpreted as racist. Managers and staff at all levels must be highly sensitive to the possible unintended symbolic consequences of their actions so as not to give rise to rumors such as the following, and to have the necessary information to counter them when they do. The incident with the Imam was a set up to try to get rid of him.10 Requiring Muslims to pray in Odin’s cage11 is an insult and a way to stop them from praying in the yard. Officers wearing red tee shirts are members a KKK-type group.12 Observation of the extreme self-segregation by race/ethnicity in the yard suggests a great deal of racial/ethnic tension among the inmates. This high degree of segregation is reinforced by permitting inmates to choose their cellmates, a practice managers believe keeps the prison safer. However, the nearly complete racial/ethnic segregation within the housing units perpetuates the tension that occasionally bursts into violence. Perhaps in recognition of this effect, HDSP now requires SNY inmates to agree to being assigned to cell with anyone in an effort to promote integration. This directive, however, is apparently one of those that either never reached the housing units or that has been ignored. One team member brought up this issue in an interview with an associate warden who assured him that the cells in SNY yards were integrated. He invited the team member to tour with him; the tour showed the cells to be nearly as segregated as those in the other yards. 10 The Imam left HDSP shortly after the incident to enroll in a graduate divinity program at a school that is at a considerable distance from HDSP. His departure had been planned prior to the incident. 11 Odinists are a religious group seen by many as associated with white supremacy. The space in the yards established for outdoor religious worship has been used only by Odinists, and African-‐American Muslims took offense when told they had to use that space for outdoor prayer. 12 The officers had been given permission to wear these shirts to honor veterans. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 20 of 115 September 23, 2016 Reducing racial and ethnic tension among the inmates is key to reducing the level of violence. The best way of doing this is to maximize racial/ethnic integration in the cells and participation in programs. Interacting on an equal basis with people of a different race/ethnicity over a period of time is a proven method of reducing hostility and tension, and there is evidence that integrating cells can be done in prisons without increasing violence.13 As programming is expanded at HDSP, careful attention ought to be given to integrating cells as well. D. Organizational Glue This dimension of culture refers to what holds the organization together. Is it pay and benefits, for example, or commitment, or formal policies and procedures, or excitement at being on the cutting edge, or some combination of factors? 1. Formal Culture. When this question was put to HDSP staff, the most frequent response, as noted previously, was some variant of family. The data in Figure 4 confirm this view. HDSP staff see the prison as held together equally by formal policies and procedures and mutual loyalty and trust. Figure 4 - Current Organizational Glue by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Organiza.onal#Glue#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( The sense of being bonded together by mutual commitment is not evenly shared among all staff, however, as can be seen in Table 6. Correctional officers, especially lieutenants, place a much higher value on loyalty and trust than do those who occupy other positions. Workers, like correctional officers, who face danger together every day, whose very survival 13 Reference Chad R. Trulson and James W. Marquart, First Available Cell: Desegregation of the Texas Prison System. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 21 of 115 September 23, 2016 could depend on the person next to him “having his back,” naturally form strong bonds with each other. It is no surprise then that the officers at HDSP value commitment, trust and loyalty so highly. What is somewhat surprising is the much higher value placed on loyalty and trust by the lieutenants. As they are in charge of yard operations on a day-to-day basis, this suggests that lieutenants are strongly bonded to those they supervise. And lieutenants, in particular, were singled out for praise in focus groups with officers where comments such as “we have really good lieutenants” and “we are tight with our lieutenants” were common. Table 6 Current Organizational Glue by Staff Position Sergeants, however, are seen less favorably than lieutenants. Some officers referred to sergeants as “two year wonders” explaining that many of the more experienced officers do not want to promote, and that the sergeants have to ask these more senior officers what to do. One officer told of how sergeants sometimes disavow giving an order if there is a bad result, and the group estimated that only 10 percent of the sergeants could be trusted to back you. In contrast to the correctional officers, health care, program and service personnel view the institution as held together more by formal policies and procedures than by mutual trust and loyalty. Not exposed to the same degree of threat as the officers and not expected to respond to critical incidents, these staff members do not experience the camaraderie that Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 22 of 115 September 23, 2016 grows out of the shared experience of facing danger together. Moreover, they are daily subjected to frustrating practices necessary to ensure safety, some of which hamper the performance of their jobs. Despite frustrations associated with logistical problems such as getting inmates to classes or appointments on time, non-uniformed staff generally agreed that relations between officers and civilian staff were cordial and cooperative, and expressed appreciation for the work that the officers do in keeping them safe. Some even cited instances where officers extended themselves to be helpful, for example a social worker told of an officer taking the initiative to find space where inmates waiting for an appointment could sit rather than stand in the hallway. The sense of being bonded together by commitment, trust and loyalty that is felt by the officers toward each other and other staff does not extend to the leadership, however. The failure of headquarters to defend HDSP against the allegations made in in the OIG report is seen as a betrayal to which line officers have had a very visceral response. Many are distrustful and suspicious of the warden who, they believe, is bent on firing people, and who, they believe, sneaks about the institution trying to find reasons to do so. In the same breath, they complain that they never see the warden, and resent that he stays in his office communicating with them by memos and e-mails. And on occasion he has violated “family etiquette.” When he does come onto a yard, according to the officers, he greets inmates before officers and shows more concern for the welfare of the inmates than he does of the staff. He has also declined invitations to attend potluck dinners and barbeques, which are key rituals in the HDSP culture. 2. Informal Culture. At HDSP, more so perhaps than at other prisons, staff solidarity is buttressed by cohesive relationships. Living in a small and remote community, HDSP staff members frequently socialize with each other off the job, are actively involved in community activities, and commute together to and from work. These friendships – for better or worse -carry over onto the job. In both the focus groups and casual conversations with staff, for example, the team frequently heard statements such as the following: I may not be happy about going to work every day but I do enjoy being with my co-workers. It’s like hanging out with friends all day. Feeling as if you are hanging out with friends may make work more enjoyable and less stressful by providing a sense of support, but it is scarcely an attitude appropriate for officers in a Level IV institution. It bespeaks of comfort rather than vigilance, inattention rather than watchfulness. Moreover, lieutenants and sergeants may find it difficult to correct inappropriate behavior when the subordinate is their next-door neighbor with whom they commute every day, especially if that supervisor behaved in the same way before being promoted. Civilian staff members, although part of the extended family, are not as involved as the officers in these more intimate networks off the job. Several treatment providers, for instance, observed that neither the treatment providers nor the officers extend themselves to form friendships, and remarked that while “I sometimes get invited to a potluck or barbeque, but I usually find some excuse not to go.” Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 23 of 115 September 23, 2016 E. Strategic Emphasis This cultural characteristic refers to what the staff perceives to be the mission and purpose of the organization. For instance, does the organization emphasize keeping operations simple, or meeting human needs, or achieving goals that stretch its capacities? 1. Formal Culture. The perceptions of HDSP staff concerning what is emphasized by the organization are portrayed in Figure 5. As befits a high security institution, the staff, as a whole, see the greatest emphasis as being placed on maintaining safety and security by keeping operations simple, reliable and dependable. Conversely, staff view relatively little emphasis placed on a concern for people and meeting their needs. Figure 5 - Current Strategic Emphasis by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Strategic#Emphasis#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( These mean values mask significant differences among the staff, however. As shown in Table 7, both the warden and the health care CEO, the top two managers, believe the strategic emphasis is on meeting people’s needs and helping them develop and grow, emphases that presumably reflect their commitment to greater programming and more accessible high quality health care for inmates. The weights accorded to the four dimensions by the prison’s middle management suggest that they do not see a concern for human needs as high on HDSP’s priorities. Rather, they perceive the institution as being driven by dictates that emanate from outside the institution. These dictates are seen as innovative and risk-taking, on the one hand, and as interrupting the controlled operations, on the other. Lieutenants and sergeants agree with the managers with respect to the relative lack of emphasis placed on smooth, dependable operations, and the sergeants in particular appear to view the organization as emphasizing doing things in new ways that may be risky. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 24 of 115 September 23, 2016 By contrast, treatment and service providers perceive HDSP as emphasizing stability and control and as not placing much emphasis on innovation. Interestingly, treatment providers do not share the health care CEO’s perception that the organization’s emphasis is on meeting human need. Table 7 Current Strategic Emphasis by Staff Group In sum, HDSP staff differs sharply on what they perceive to be the prison’s purpose and missions. These differences are clearly related to the roles and functions staff members play, and not the result of demographic differences14. Rather, it seems that each division sees its goal as primary and there is little sense of an inclusive message that unifies all. While the top two managers have a common belief that the organization emphasizes a concern for people and meeting their needs, they are in this regard out-of-step with the majority of the staff. 2. Informal Culture. Although staff had presumably been made known that a new mission and vision statement was being prepared, virtually no one outside of management seemed to be aware of it, and the fragmentation among staff was evident in both focus groups and conversations. When the mission or purpose of HDSP was raised with uniformed staff, the response typically was to maintain custody and control. Not infrequently, this was presented in words that expressed the extreme negativity felt by many officers. 14 Differences in perceptions of these culture components by sex, race/ethnicity, years in CDCR and years at HDSP were also analyzed. As no substantive differences were found, these data are not presented as tables in the main body of text. They are included in the summary statistics in the Appendix, however. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 25 of 115 September 23, 2016 “To protect society by taking animals off the street.” “To wear out the worst scum in the state.” The recent increases in programming and access to health care were viewed by officers as undeserved, burdensome and a threat as revealed by these typical comments. “Get programming done at all costs including officer safety.” “Programming, programming. They’re constantly expecting us to do more with less.” “They’re trying to run a Level IV prison like it was a Level II.” “Why should they get better health care than my grandmother?” Treatment and service providers, in contrast to officers, shared their CEO’s commitment to quality health care, but nonetheless view the prison’s concern with security an impediment that at times interferes with the provision of that care, and that is responsible for a high rate of turnover among health care personnel. They also express concern that the CEO’s concern with metrics may come at the expense of quality. In a focus group of providers, the following comments met with wide approval. “Meeting the metric goals sometimes comes into conflict with providing good treatment- the real clinical work gets squashed.” “Our mission is to make sure to check all the boxes.” F. Criteria of Success This aspect of an organization’s culture refers to how it defines success and what gets rewarded. Does it define success and reward employees for developing new and unique ways of doing things? Or is success seen as maintaining smooth and low-cost operations, or helping people develop and grow, or being the best organization of its kind? 1. Formal Culture. As is clear in Figure 6, the staff at HDSP believes that the organization defines success largely in terms of maintaining stability and control through dependable operations. All point to HDSP’s high scores on the recent ACA Accreditation audit as a mark of their success. Managers note the declining number of critical incidents and appeals, health care managers track the number of metrics moved from red to green, and correctional officers measure it by going home safely at the end of their watch. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 26 of 115 September 23, 2016 Figure 6 - Current Criteria of Success by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Criteria#of#Success#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( However, there are precious few means by which staff are recognized and rewarded for good work. Each month one person is selected as the Employee of the Month and their picture is posted on a board in the main entrance to the prison. This award has become a bone of contention recently, as there had been three such awards – custody, treatment and support – in the past. Despite the resentment at having the number of awards reduced, most staff members claim to regard the award as meaningless anyway. Performance reviews are seen by officers as a waste of time. When they are in fact done, they are often completed by a sergeant for whom the officer has never worked but who has the time to complete the process. The most common and appreciated indicators of having done a good job are the “atta boys” and “atta girls” officers sometimes receive from supervisors and peers. These seldom come from any one above the rank of captain, however, and this is at times painful for staff as the following incident related by an officer suggests. One time we had an outside youth offender program running in one of the yards. An incident took place in a nearby yard and we were told not to respond and keep running the program. Our staff handled the incident and kept the program running. No one told us “good job”. The youth offender group told Sacramento how good we handled the incident, but no one said anything to us The data in Table 8 confirm that nearly all staff views the current culture as defining success primarily in terms of dependable and efficient service. The one exception is the warden who sees success as defined in terms of a concern for people, helping staff grow and promoting Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 27 of 115 September 23, 2016 teamwork. Those working in the yards, however, do not feel that concern. Some officers, for instance, complained that, unlike past wardens, the warden does not come out to a yard after a critical incident to show his support and appreciation for their effort. Table 8 Current Criteria of Success by Staff Groups Consensus Innovative All Staff 22 19 20 39 191 Prison Management 21 23 25 36 14 Warden 90 0 0 10 1 Chief Deputy 25 0 0 75 1 27 10 23 40 11 30 30 10 30 1 Lieutenants 19 16 25 41 11 Sergeants 13 31 18 37 16 Yard COs 23 20 19 39 99 Escort COs 21 16 19 45 11 Health Care Providers 20 12 18 51 14 Service Providers 21 17 23 39 12 Health Care Management Health Care CEO 2. Prescriptive Structured N of Cases Informal Culture. When asked how they know they are doing a good job, some of the responses from officers reflected their widely shared disdain for inmates, their concern for their safety and job security. The following are remarks that typify these concerns. “Knowing the inmates don’t like me.” “Doing my job means the inmates hate me.” “When you see that sea of green coming in response to an incident.” “Staying out of the spotlight by avoiding 602’s.” Burdened with paperwork, mid-level managers and supervisors are prone to measure success by how much paper remains on their desk at the end of the day or a task is completed. As one health care provider remarked, it’s a good day “when the paper doesn’t come back because I’ve checked all the right boxes.” Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 28 of 115 September 23, 2016 Some recognition of success occasionally comes from inmates. Walking out of a yard with a teacher, one member of the team witnessed an inmate running across the yard to tell her that he had gotten a “B” on a college test. On another occasion, a staff sponsor of an inmate self-help group told two team members of the pride she felt in a formerly hostile inmate who has progressed in the group to the point where is now a co-facilitator. G. The Overall Culture The profile of HDSP’s culture, taking into account each of the six components discussed above, is presented in Figure 7. As perceived by staff, HDSP’s culture, as one would expect in a high security prison, is weighted toward maintaining custody and control through formal procedures that govern every-day practices. This, as we have seen, is largely the result of what staff sees as holding the organization together and what is defined as success. The weight placed on the “prescriptive” dimension reflects the staff view that leadership is largely from outside the institution and is tough, demanding, and results-oriented. However, achieving success and meeting the demands of leadership, especially in a hostile and violent environment, requires a great amount of teamwork and creates a strong sense of camaraderie. Figure 7 - Current Overall Culture by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Culture#Proﬁle#(Current) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( This view of HDSP’s culture is widely shared among the staff, but there are some significant differences as seen in Table 9. Custody staff, particularly lieutenants and sergeants, view the current culture as less oriented toward stability and control and correspondingly more focused on teamwork and innovation than do the heath care and treatment providers. The largest difference, however, is between the warden and everybody else including the other two top managers, the health care CEO and the chief deputy warden. These differences signal fault lines that fragment the prison’s culture. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 29 of 115 September 23, 2016 Due to rapid turnover in the top managerial positions, HDSP has lacked a consistent direction and its mission has not been redefined to align with changes in the department’s priorities. As a result the staff has clung to the prison’s original mission, which they define as being a Level IV facility that protects the entire system by managing the “worst of the worst,” those that other institutions cannot manage. Officers regard working at HDSP as a badge of honor and take great pride in operating the prison the “High Desert Way,” policies and procedures developed to handle dangerous inmates that they believe were developed at HDSP and have been adopted at other Level IV institutions, earning HDSP the reputation of being a “flagship prison.” The core of the HDSP culture is the operation of the four yards. Officers generally view inmates as akin to dangerous animals that deserve to be caged and provided no more than the basic necessities. There are few programs for inmates who spend as much as 18 hours per day in their cells, depending upon the yard. Lockdowns are frequent. Unlike the situation at other prisons in the state, which HDSP officers see as lax, they claim that the rules are strictly enforced at HDSP. Table 9 Current Overall Culture by Staff Groups When officers describe what their role is, however, they use terms such as “observe and react,” and observations of their behavior confirm this description. Officers on yard posts sit passively on benches while inmates gamble at tables nearby; those in the housing units observe inmates taking recreation in the dayrooms from behind the protection of thick steel gates. Viewing inmates as dangerous animals, the officers do little to prevent violence but rather keep their distance waiting for it to occur. When it does occur, which it does almost daily, they react quickly en mass to suppress it with force. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 30 of 115 September 23, 2016 Managers and supervisors know that policy prescribes that officers be more proactive, claiming not to have noticed its absence because they are tied to their desk. Many have been at High Desert for years; some for virtually their entire careers, and it is at least equally plausible that they have developed a sort of “house blindness,” not seeing the discrepancy between policy and practice because that is the way it has always been. Through working together in a hostile and dangerous environment, being part of the “sea of green” responding to an alarm code, the officers develop a strong sense of solidarity and feelings of camaraderie. Despite the stress, coming to work, as some describe it, is like “hanging out with friends.” At HDSP, as is common at other prisons located in remote areas, solidarity among the officers is buttressed by family and friendship networks rooted in the community. These networks, as well as “house blindness,” make it uncomfortable for managers and supervisors to hold their subordinates accountable. The charges of racism made public in the OIG report in December 2015 produced a very visceral reaction from the officers who adamantly deny the charge and accuse the OIG of having a political agenda and “cherry picking” for the evidence. Observations and interviews by the assessment team produced no evidence to support the OIG allegation. Officers interact on the job seemingly without regard to race or ethnicity, and minority staff, interviewed in private, say they feel included and supported, and deny experiencing any differential treatment. The OIG report has caused the officers to circle the wagons so to speak. Before the report, their solidarity was rooted in the danger posed by inmates; now it has been reinforced by the fact that the department’s leadership did not defend them. Incensed by the OIG’s charges they are enraged by what they see as a betrayal by those who are supposed to support them. The new management team, particularly the warden, is viewed with suspicion and distrust by the uniformed staff. In their minds, the warden has been sent to HDSP to terminate staff and rumors abound about how he sneaks about the prison trying to find reasons to fire people. Moreover, by virtue of the fact that he did not come up through the ranks and came from a Level II institution, in their opinion he is not qualified to be the warden of HDSP. His decisions regarding custody are openly criticized by supervisors in the yards, and the emphasis on expanding programs and out-of-cell time, though supported by most of those on his executive team, are seen as jeopardizing safety and security by the custody staff: “madness that has to be stopped.” Communication between management and line staff is largely by memo and e-mail and woefully inadequate as evidenced by serious breakdown that occurred with respect to the commencement of the Muslim month of Ramadan. Even memos that are enlarged and posted in places of high visibility seem seldom to be read. Managers assume that information put out in meetings will be passed onto line staff. This frequently does not occur, however, because scheduled staff meetings for each watch seldom occur. Captains are tied up in meetings on three days a week and buried in their office catching up on paperwork on the other two. Required tours of the yards by lieutenants and sergeants are either not made Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 31 of 115 September 23, 2016 or done in a perfunctory fashion because, they complain, changes in the investigatory and appeals processes have them tied to their desks as well. Increasingly, it seems, day-to-day operations on the yards are left to young and relatively inexperienced officers who make it up as they go along. The renewed emphasis on increasing inmate access to medical care and improving its quality adds to the confusion. Although claiming to be on the same page as the warden, the health care CEO sees the prison solely as a health care facility and his role as ensuring that standards set by the courts are met in a timely fashion. These differing conceptions, together with their contrasting leadership styles, could lead to conflict over priorities in the future. To date, relations between custody and treatment providers on the yards appear to be cordial and cooperative, but signs of strain are emerging. Clinicians express frustration at the interruptions and delays caused by security concerns. Officers are angered by their perception that undeserving inmates are receiving better care than members of their family, and are bewildered at the provision of condoms to inmates. They also resent a recent directive that requires them to give a direct order to inmates who refuse to go to a scheduled appointment and to submit an RVR on those who persist in their refusal. Comments such as “custody always wins,” and “medical is running the place” are common. In sum, HDSP’s culture appears to be composed of at least three, and maybe more, distinct subcultures. At the core of the institution, is an officer culture that takes pride in managing dangerous inmates that other institutions cannot handle, and that feels betrayed by the department’s leadership and distrustful of the new management. A second subculture is that found among the new management team. Having only recently arrived at HDSP, the team seems not as yet to have reached a shared view of HDSP, but does envision a future state in which there will be ample programming, trust in management, and in which the “wall between green and blue” will be lower. Joining the three top managers in this vision are several other managers who have experience in other institutions. The third subculture is one shared by treatment and program providers and centered in health care. At the moment, this subculture is aligned with both the management subculture and the officer subculture, but there are signs of strain emerging between this group and the officers. Moreover, the different conceptions of HDSP held by the health care CEO and the warden, along with their contrasting styles, could develop into conflict in the future. At present, HDSP’s culture has begun to move slowly and gradually toward the future state envisioned by management. However, intense resistance to further change is likely. Overcoming resistance and securing “buy in” from staff will require skillful management grounded in an understanding of the type of culture staff prefer and why. This is discussed in the next section. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 32 of 115 September 23, 2016 E. Assessment of the Preferred Culture 1. High Desert’s Preferred Culture As noted earlier in the report, a questionnaire was administered in each focus group to gather standardized to use in comparing the perceptions of different groups of staff. That questionnaire, the OCAP-I, consists of two parts: perceptions of the current culture and preferences for a future culture. Comparisons of the staff preferences for a future desired culture to current perceptions of the culture, along with material from the focus group discussions, can provide insight into the direction that change might proceed, aspects of culture and particular groups requiring the most attention, and where obstacles to change may be encountered to moving closer to the desired culture. A. Top Management and Staff Figure 8 compares staff members’ perceptions of the current culture with the profile of a culture they would prefer. As is evident there, staff would favor a change toward a more ‘consensus’ type culture that is one that is internally focused, involves participation and teamwork and is based on loyalty and trust. Conversely, the preferred culture would be less ‘prescriptive,’ one that is less influenced by external agencies and concerned with meeting goals set by them. As indicated by the degree of concurrence, however, the extent of change desired is relatively modest.15 Figure 8 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred by All Staff Consensus( Innova,ve 67%#Concurrence Structured Prescrip,ve All#Staﬀ#Culture#Proﬁle#(Current#&#Preferred) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( 15 The degree of difference is a measure of the difference between two distributions. It is calculated by summing the absolute differences between the categories in each distribution. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 33 of 115 September 23, 2016 Success in culture change is greatly dependent upon having top management in agreement upon the direction in which the organization should be going. The profiles of the preferred composite cultures of HDSP’s top three managers are presented in Figure 9. Although all three prefer change to about the same degree, there is considerable difference among them with respect to the direction that change should take. Both the warden and the health care CEO want to see an emergent culture that is more encouraging of innovation and less concerned with smooth operations. The warden, however, wants to maintain the focus on teamwork and meeting human needs while the CEO places much less value on this dimension and considerably more meeting goals and getting results. Whereas both the warden and the CEO prefer that HDSP be less concerned with predictability and stability, the chief deputy warden thinks the current weight placed on stability is about right and prefers a culture that is less oriented to innovation. Figure 9 – Comparison of the Preferred Culture for HDSP Three Top Managers Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve Administra*on,Culture,Proﬁle,Preferred,(Warden,,Chief,Deputy, Warden,,Healthcare,CEO) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( This lack of agreement among the top managers may result from the fact that all three are new to HDSP and to the different functions they perform. That said, it is clear that they need to spend time having frank discussions about the direction in which they want HDSP to change, how they plan to get there, and the role each will play in the change process. A comparison of Figures 8 and 9 reveals that the preferences the three top managers and those of the staff are quite similar in some ways but quite different in others. Along with the managers, staff members would like to see a culture that emphasizes commitment, participation and teamwork. Unlike the warden and the CEO, however, they do not want to sacrifice control to achieve a greater orientation to human needs. Rather, like the chief deputy, most staff members would prefer a culture that is less, not more, committed to trying to do things in new ways. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 34 of 115 September 23, 2016 HDSP has a new mission and vision statement that emphasizes treatment and preparation for re-entry along with security, and the institution is under court order to meet specified standards in health care. Thus, the warden and the CEO have mandates to introduce substantial changes in the way HDSP operates and, as discussed above, have begun to do so. Resistance to these changes was noted in the profile of the current culture, and the data in Figures 8 and 9 suggest that resistance may increase as more changes are introduced. Understanding which staff are on board with the changes and which are not, and why they are not, will help management to overcome resistance. This issue is addressed in the next section. B. Components and Dimensions of the Preferred Composite Culture The data presented in Table 10 compares the current and preferred profiles for each component of the composite culture for all staff. The comparatively low degree of difference for the ‘dominant characteristics’ and other components, suggest that the staff appears rather satisfied with things as they are. However, there are two components in which there is a rather strong preference for change on the part of all staff, including top management: ‘leadership’ and the ‘criteria for success.’ Table 10 Comparison of Profiles of the Current and Preferred Composite HDSP Culture Component, All Staff Current Culture Preferred Culture Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured Dominant Character. Leadership Management Org. Glue Strategic Emphasis Criteria of Success 28 22 30 33 20 22 16 23 16 14 23 19 23 32 28 18 24 20 33 23 26 35 33 39 Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured 39 43 43 47 36 46 17 14 14 15 14 14 18 13 15 14 19 14 26 30 28 24 21 26 Degree of Difference 23 57 29 30 32 49 1. Leadership. Given the sense of lack of support felt by HDSP staff toward headquarters and their questioning of the warden’s actions, it is scarcely surprising that their greatest desire for change is with respect to leadership. Apart from expressions of outrage and wanting leaders who would stand up for them, staff members in focus groups did make some comments that are substantively relevant to the changes in leadership that they would like to see. As indicated by the comments below, HDSP staff wants leadership to set more realistic goals and expectations that take into account the unique characteristics of the prison and the obstacles that staff faces in doing their jobs. This can be better accomplished, they believe, if decisions are made locally and they participate in the process. Sacramento does not take our unique needs into consideration when making decisions that impact us. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 35 of 115 September 23, 2016 They dictate policy with no clue about what it takes to get the job done. Set realistic goals and expectations. 2. Criteria of Success. Where in the past HDSP staff felt they were the flagship prison in the system, they now feel like the “step-child that nobody likes.” They yearn for signs that they are valued and appreciated. They are not looking for awards and certificates, but rather sincere and personal expressions of thanks for a job well done. They do, as has been noted, receive such reinforcement from their immediate supervisors and peers, but as the vignette about the youth program previously related suggests, they seldom receive personal expressions of appreciation from leaders. Several suggestions about what may make staff feel more appreciated were made in the focus groups. The warden needs to get out in yards more and get to know us and see what we do. Once a week the warden or the chief deputy ought to stand at the gate and shake hands as cops are going out. We used to have Warden’s Forums every month or so. He should do that again. 3. Differences Among Staff Groups. Most HDSP staff prefer a culture in which decisions affecting how the prison operates are made by those in charge of the institution rather than emanating from headquarters and a culture in which their work receives greater acknowledgement and appreciation from its leaders. As shown in Table 11, however, there are considerable differences among staff groups in their desire for change and in what components of the culture they wish to see change. Table 11 Degrees of Difference Among Components of HDSP’s Current and Preferred Composite Culture of Staff Groups Dominant Organizational Strategic Criteria of Composite Characteristi Leadership Management Glue Emphasis Success cs All Staff 33 23 57 29 30 22 49 Prison Managers 29 38 39 49 22 23 35 Health Care Mgrs 31 26 49 20 50 31 34 Lieutenants 44 39 81 47 21 34 67 Sergeants 44 37 72 62 31 41 63 Yard Officers 29 14 57 29 22 35 46 Escort Officers 60 70 82 44 62 42 73 Line Program Staff 56 40 56 51 78 55 57 Line Service Staff 38 23 54 55 44 29 59 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 36 of 115 September 23, 2016 a. Prison and Health Care Managers. As can be seen in Table 11, middle managers evidence only a modest desire for change, as indicated by the degree of difference for their preferred composite culture. Prison managers, many of who have come up through the uniform ranks and/or have been at HDSP for a long period of time, feel strongly bonded to the institution and to each other and express little preference for change in that aspect of culture. They also seem on board with the new vision and mission statement, although they expect considerable resistance from their subordinates, and appear more open to changing ways of doing things. In fact, the profile of their preferred culture closely resembles that of the warden and CEO, and they adamantly prefer a culture that is less focused on meeting goals set from outside the institution. The following is typical of remarks made in a focus group. We’re not allowed to fix things ourselves. Let us lead. We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. As can be seen in Figure 10, Health care managers and supervisors also express only a modest desire for change in the overall culture. However, and somewhat surprisingly, their preference is to decrease the emphasis on change and to increase the orientation toward smooth operations and stability. As comments made in the focus group suggest this is undoubtedly related to the great emphasis placed on bringing health care into line with court imposed standards. Although appreciative of the work the new CEO has done in organizing their efforts and developing the means by which to track their progress, they also feel “he has a lot to learn about prison,” and are concerned that the emphasis on metrics may sacrifice quality. Figure 10 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred for Prison Managers and Health Care Managers Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve Managers(Culture(Proﬁle(Preferred((Prison(&(Health(Care) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 37 of 115 September 23, 2016 It is also to be noted, that an area in which the health care managers express a strong desire for change is that of organizational glue. Working in a separate facility apart from both the prison managers and their own staff, they lack the sense of inclusion and teamwork that is felt so strongly by the prison managers. b. Lieutenants and Sergeants. As indicated by their respective degrees of difference (cf. Table 11), these two groups express a much greater preference for change than do the managers, and as shown in Figure 11 the profile of their preferred culture is very similar to their assessment of the current culture. Caught between the managers and the officers and charged with implementing directives on the yards, these two groups express the most desire for change in leadership and the criteria of success. Comments made in both the focus groups and casual conversations clearly indicate that they many of the directives they receive do not take into consideration the obstacles to implementing them on the ground and that the pace of change is much too fast. In particular they find themselves so burdened with paper work associated with investigations and appeals, that they cannot properly supervise and train younger officers. They are greatly concerned this is happening at a time when security is jeopardized by increased levels of programming. Figure 11 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred for Lieutenants and Sergeants Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve Sergeants)Vs.)Lieutenants)Culture)Proﬁle)Preferred)(Sgts)&)Lts) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( The dimension on which they express the greatest desire for change is consensus, by which they mean they want to be heard. Questions about what the warden should do to improve HDSP are usually met with replies such as the following: Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 38 of 115 September 23, 2016 Be more visible on the yards and talk to the guys in green. Get input from us before making decisions. c. Correctional Officers. Somewhat surprisingly, correctional officers assigned to the yards are among the staff groups expressing less desire for change in the current composite culture (cf. Table 11). Overall, as shown in Figure 12, yard officers and healthcare escort officers would prefer the culture to be more participative and concerned with their needs as compared to those of the inmates. However, there is great variation among yards and watches in preference for change. In some yards, as can be seen in Table 12, the officers like things pretty much the way they are while in others they express a strong desire for change. Figure 12 – Preferred Culture of Yard Officers and Escort Officers Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve CO#(Escort#&#Yards)#Culture#Proﬁle#Preferred#(Escort#&#Yards) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( Although expressing a desire for more participative culture, officers on the 2nd and 3rd watches on B Yard expressed little desire for change in other aspects of culture and the least overall among the yard officers. Third watch officers of C and A Yards, in contrast, expressed the most desire for change. More specifically, they would prefer a substantial increase in the ‘consensus’ dimension of the culture and substantially less emphasis on results. Their desire for change, while evident on all components, is most intense with regard to leadership and the criteria of success. As the following comments suggest, the change desired seems more directed at leadership on the yard than at Sacramento or the warden. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 39 of 115 September 23, 2016 The beatings will continue until morale improves. When we ask our supervisors about an order, we’re just told that’s the way it’s going to be. One of the supervisors hides out and tries to sneak up on staff. The officers in B yard, on the other hand, while airing the same complaints as those in the other yards, generally find their supervisors supportive: “the sergeant talks to us and lets us know us when we’re doing a good job.” Although they find increased programming burdensome, most of those in one focus group agreed with a remark to the effect that “inmates in programs make life easier.” Table 12 Current and Preferred Composite Cultures of Yard and Watch and Ranked by Degree of Difference B Yard, 3 rd Watch B Yard, 2 nd Watch C Yard, 2nd Watch D Yard, 2nd Watch D Yard, 3rd Watch A Yard, 2 nd Watch C Yard, 3rd Watch A Yard, 3 rd Watch Current Culture Preferred Culture Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured Degree of Difference 31 29 29 27 27 24 24 20 17 18 20 24 20 17 15 19 21 22 21 23 21 24 27 23 31 31 30 26 32 35 34 38 36 40 40 38 41 43 45 48 12 15 13 14 12 14 14 12 23 16 16 16 12 11 15 12 29 29 31 32 35 32 26 28 13 22 23 32 34 36 42 56 In contrast to the yard officers, those assigned as clinic escort officers expressed a stronger wish for change than did any other staff group. These officers are, on average, older than most, and all have been at HDSP for twenty years. Having been at HDSP since it’s opening, and with roots in the community, they were particularly incensed by the OIG report and the lack of a response by headquarters. Their very strong desire for a more ‘consensus’ type culture, as evident in Figure 12, reflects what they feel is a loss of trust. We’re not trusted anymore—not by the administration, not by the public, and not by Sacramento. We used to be trusted. Now we’re the evil guards. Caught in the intersection of custody and treatment, they identify with custody but increasingly find their duties defined by directives from the medical side, many of which they find inconsistent or confusing. Their comments in the focus group expressed deep frustration with their position. Medical tells custody what to do. No one on our side will stand up to medical. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 40 of 115 September 23, 2016 Who’s driving the car? Medical or custody? Medical needs to be put in check. d. Line Program and Service Staff. The preferred cultures of line program and service staff are displayed in Figure 13. As is true with all other staff groups, these two groups would like to see a culture that is more oriented to consensus building and team work and less focused on control by formal policy and procedure than they perceive it to be at present. Also, like most groups, the program and service staff wants greater control over their agendas. This feeling is especially strong among clinicians who are frustrated and angry that “Sacramento tells us how to deliver services without prior consultation with us.” Figure 13 – Preferred Culture of Line Program and Service Staff Consensus( Innova,ve Structured Prescrip,ve Line%Staﬀ%Culture%Proﬁle%Preferred%(Service%&%Program) Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.( The clinicians and teachers, not surprisingly, wish to see more programs for inmates. They overwhelmingly agree, however, that their relations with custody staff are good, that the OIG report greatly exaggerated the problems in getting inmates to classes and appointments, and that such delays as occur are not intentional but the result of short staffing. Of particular concern to service staff is inadequate training. Most of their training focuses on safety and security, and has little to do with what they do day-to-day on the job where they work in close contact with inmate helpers. They would like to see less training on compliance with court orders, PREA and the like and more issues regarding staff-inmate issues such as conflict resolution. In addition, they also express need for more mentoring by supervisors on how being an electrician or plumber in prison differs from the same work in the community. Whether it be in a classroom, a clinic or a utilities tunnel, most program and service staff work in relative isolation from other staff. Many at times, in the words of one, “feel like a Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 41 of 115 September 23, 2016 number that can easily be replaced.” As a remedy to this feeling of estrangement, one suggested that they be included in unit meetings and that there be regular team meetings of service providers from all over the institution. C. Conclusion Although fragmented into three or more subcultures at present, the profile of the culture preferred by HDSP staff evidences strong agreement among them in what they would like to see emerge. Although there are differences among staff groups in the strength of their desire for change and in the cultural components in which they would most like to see change, all prefer a culture that is more internally focused, more oriented to meeting human needs, and grounded in mutual trust and support. All would prefer less direction from external agencies, especially what they perceive as micro-managing by headquarters, and more personalized recognition and appreciation from leaders for the work they do. In large measure, these preferences are the same as those of the top management, but where nearly all staff outside of management desire less emphasis on changing operational practices, particularly with respect to programming, the warden and the CEO desire more. Moreover, these two managers also differ from each other, and with the chief deputy, in the relative emphases they would place on building consensus compared to getting results. An important prerequisite to changing the culture will be for these top managers to agree on the direction in which change is to proceed and the style of leadership and management most likely to be successful in bringing it about. F. Specific Areas of Inquiry As noted in the introduction to this report, our assessment followed two integrated inquiry tracks, one being an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation, document review, and discussions with staff. Specifically, the operational assessment focused on ten major operational areas that had been subject to considerable public attention. The team at HDSP visited all operational areas and all yards on each of the three watches including weekends. In all of these areas of the prison, and on different watches, Wayne Scott, Wayne Choinski, Calvin Brown and Gary Maynard paid particular attention to the ten major operational areas that covered specific functions and operations of the facility. Questions were prepared in advance to address each of the ten areas. Those questions were answered and are reported on here. The ten major operational areas that were assessed are: Operational Areas Lead Team Member 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Wayne Scott Gary Maynard Wayne Choinski Wayne Scott Gary Maynard Facility Mission and Operations Policy and Procedure Facility Management Use of Force Staff Training Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 42 of 115 September 23, 2016 6. Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process 7. Inmate Discipline Process 8. Inmate Complaints of Staff Process 9. Investigations and Staff Discipline 10. Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation Wayne Choinski Wayne Choinski Wayne Scott Gary Maynard Calvin Brown 1. Facility Mission and Operations High Desert State Prison is a facility in transition. A new warden, a new chief deputy warden, a new mission statement, and a new vision statement that emphasizes programming and rehabilitation efforts are a clear signal that HDSP is changing. It is evident from employee focus group dialog and direct one-on-one conversations with the staff that they are not aware of the new mission or vision statements. The challenge for the warden and the chief deputy is to effectively communicate their vision to the staff and get the employees to buy into these changes. Once the warden and chief deputy convince the staff to embrace the new mission and vision the changes will occur more rapidly because the line staff will feel invested in the process and work to make it successful. Warden Marion Spearman and Chief Deputy Warden Tammy Foss developed a new mission and vision statement for the High Desert State Prison with the collaboration of the senior management team and the Office of Public and Employee Communications (OPEC). These two new statements first appeared on the HDSP website on July 18, 2016. The new mission statement emphasizes humane and safe supervision while providing the inmates meaningful access to quality health care and treatment programming. The new mission and vision statements are provided below. Mission Statement High Desert State Prison protects the public by providing humane and safe supervision of offenders. We give offenders quality health care through meaningful encounters with licensed medical, dental, and mental health practitioners, and aspire to improve patient satisfaction. We offer our offender’s tools to effect change of culture, and inspire them to self-rehabilitate by facilitating educational opportunities, re-entry services, recreational activities, and leisure time activity group programs to reduce recidivism. Vision Statement Create a smart and healthy atmosphere for employees to work in, for offenders to safely serve their sentences as they gain a skill-set to reintegrate successfully back into society, and promote positive change in behavior while incarcerated. We commit to provide employees with proper training, tools, and equipment; develop ideas and collaboration between all High Desert State Prison departments and outside stakeholders. Our goal is to expose our offenders to as many rehabilitative services they want to avail themselves to; as we recognize many of today’s offenders will be tomorrow’s neighbor. Affect communities across the State of California through progressive thinking from within our secured perimeter. The CDCR provided numerous outside resources to assist Warden Spearman and his staff in supporting the mission and operation of HDSP. In December 2015 a Wardens Peer Audit Team was sent to HDSP to review adherence to agency policy and procedure and to make Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 43 of 115 September 23, 2016 recommendations to Warden Spearman in all areas found out of compliance. The team included experienced corrections officials from all the major disciplines within the Department. Warden David Long heads the team. The team consists of the following members. David Long, Warden CAC Jenna Castro, Associate Warden - COR Robert Davis, Associate Warden - Mental Health Compliance Team John Hunter, Associate Warden — SCC Marcus Pollard, Associate Warden - CAL Edward Vasconcellos, Associate Warden - HSM Jim Robertson, Chief - Classification Services Unit Minh Voong, Chief - Inmate Appeals Gabe Vela, CEA - Office of the Ombudsman Joe Stewart, Captain - SAC Jeanne Nichols, ERO - SATF Dianna Snow, IJOF Coordinator – NKSP The team has made on site visits to HDSP in December 2015, January 2016, and May 2016. The team is scheduled to make another on site visit to HDSP in August 2016. The team developed a corrective action plan for all non-compliant operational areas that the administration of HDSP has successfully completed and implemented. In addition to the Wardens Peer Audit Team, the CDCR executive administration deployed a Resource Team consisting of an associate warden, a captain, and a lieutenant to HDSP to assist the warden in implementing the corrective action plan and other duties as assigned by the warden. The Resource Team is still on site and actively working under the direction of Warden Spearman providing coaching and mentoring to the supervisory staff. An additional corrective action plan was developed based on issues raised in the December 2015 OIG report. The warden, chief deputy, and senior staff are working to implement those corrective action items that are within their purview. Fifty-two specific recommendations were developed for implementation in the OIG Corrective Action Plan. A review of the status of these corrective action items revealed that seven recommendations are fully implemented, six recommendations are partially implemented, thirty recommendations are listed as pending, six recommendations are shown as not implemented, and three recommendations have no status designation. The OIG Corrective Action Plan provided to the ASCA assessment team for review was dated December 16, 2015. The status designations for each of the recommendations in the CAP were valid up to mid-April 2016 when the report was furnished to ASCA for review prior to the cultural assessment examination in July 2016. Both the warden and chief deputy indicated to the assessment team that continuing progress toward full implementation of the recommendations was ongoing and a high priority for them. The executive administration of the CDCR also temporarily reassigned three experienced lieutenants to investigate the allegations in the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report. They arrived in mid-May 2016 and finished their assignment in mid-June. Cultural sensitivity trainers were also dispatched to HDSP by the CDCR executive administration to train all employees. This training was scheduled and conducted at HDSP as a direct result of the allegations in the OIG report. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 44 of 115 September 23, 2016 A $1,050,000 camera project is also underway at HDSP. The cameras will provide visual coverage of all the common areas in B Yard and other locations within the facility that are lacking visual coverage now. The cameras will record video and audio and store the images with the audio for 90 days. This is a significant security enhancement that will assist in providing a safe and secure environment for the staff and the inmates. It is clear that the CDCR executive administration is providing whatever additional resources Warden Spearman requires to carry out his new mission and vision statements to the fullest extent possible. Warden Spearman and Chief Deputy Foss are committed to operating a safe and secure institution. That commitment came through loud and clear through conversations with the warden and chief deputy and from direct observations of the ASCA assessment team. 2. Policy and Procedure The assigned task in reference to the Policy and Procedure questions about the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) was to determine the extent to which facility policy and procedure comply with California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy and the extent to which staff follow those policies and procedures. Kimberly Jennings is the Analyst for DOM/OP and ACA, and provided the following items and documents for review: -Department Operations Manual (DOM) -HDSP Policy and Procedures Manual -Sampling of Post Orders In summary, the Department Operations Manual (DOM) and the Local Operational Procedures (OPs) are written consistent with California Code of Regulations, and are consistent with national standards for correctional policy. The CDCR and the HDSP prison subscribe to the Standards of the American Corrections Association, and follow the audit standards of the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. As a result, they HDSP policies and Institution Supplements are written in very good form. The Department establishes the schedule for review, and the HDSP follows that schedule. The Policy Manager, Ms. Jennings is well organized and knowledgeable in the area of policy. She works with the staff and leadership to continually review, update, train and distribute information about policy changes. There were no problems noted in this area of independent assessment. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been involved with the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections for many years, and as a result the CDCR policies are written in compliance with the ACA Standards, which is consistent with the national standards. The Commission currently accredits the HDSP and it’s policies and procedures are well organized, and there is a solid system of review and revision throughout the year. Different staff has responsibility for a number of policies and Local Operational Procedures (OPs), and Ms. Jennings schedules each one individually so that each manager’s list of policies/procedures to review are reviewed throughout the year. The CDCR has the Department Operations Manual (DOM), which is the guidance for all policies. The DOM is consistent with the California Code of Regulations. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 45 of 115 September 23, 2016 The Institution Supplements, or OPs are for the facilities, and they are written consistent with the DOM. In some cases the Department directs the institution to draft a local procedure for a program, and other times they are sent the policy to implement. Other guidance is given through Warden’s Directives and Memos. The operational procedures are written in compliance with the facility policies and are reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if needed. The review of the OPs is during the same time frame as the review of the Department’s policies. A check was made to determine if the practice of the employees was always consistent with the written OPs or Policy. In the majority of cases the practice was consistent with the procedures at HDSP. However, in a couple of cases there were exceptions. For example, there was some confusion on different watches regarding the items the ASCA team members were allowed to bring into the facility, and where they would sign. There are a few exceptional cases that have been recognized by the administration where a practice is being conducted without basis in policy. One case is the Alert Response to Code 1’s either at HDSP or at its neighboring facility, CCC. If a Code 1 is called at CCC, the typical response from HDSP is to send many officers from several HDSP yards to CCC. We learned that this practice is under review. The same is true for the response from one HDSP yard to another, where for example we observed two sergeants deciding among themselves, which one would respond. We understand that when officers sign for their post orders, it specifies whether they are a first responder or not. Other examples occurred at the facility entrance, both at the front gate, and the traffic gate that allows entrance into the facility. In some cases, on different watches, the officer may not have been clear on which pass needed to be issued. In some cases at the front gate, people by name are logged in, and at other times they are not. All CDCR DOM’s are reviewed on an annual basis as are the facility OPs and Institution Supplements. The facility OPs review is scheduled throughout the year, and there are seven managers at HDSP who manage all the OPs. The Analyst tracks the OPs and they are all reviewed and updated each year. Post orders are written in accordance with the procedures, and are reviewed by the Analyst. 3. Facility Management HDSP is comprised of two Complexes each of which contains two Facilities / Yards (Complex 1 contains A and B Facilities, while Complex 2 contains C and D Facilities), a Correctional Treatment Center (Medical Unit), Z Unit (Short-term restrictive housing) and E Yard (Level 1 facility). The chain of command for security staff is: Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, Associate Warden (Complex 1, Complex 2, Operations), Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and Correction Officer. Three associate wardens oversee all security operations. One oversees Complex 1, another oversees Complex 2 and one oversees Operations. Each of the four facilities, Operations, and Health Care are assigned a captain. The Facility D Captain also oversees Z Unit. Lieutenants Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 46 of 115 September 23, 2016 are assigned as shift supervisors in each facility, Z Unit, Operations, and Health Care. Sergeants are assigned as first line supervisors in each facility, Z Unit, Health Care, and Operations areas such as the Central Kitchen, R&R, Visiting, Security & Escort, and Unit Control Booths. E Unit falls under the supervision of the Operations Captain and Lieutenants, with a sergeant providing onsite supervisory coverage. While the number of supervisors and overall span of control structure at HDSP is certainly adequate and comparable to what is found in other jurisdictions, the actual supervision of staff is inadequate. HDSP appears to have a sufficient number of appropriately assigned supervisors; however, there appears to be very little management by walking around at HDSP. Direct observation of and communication with line staff by supervisory staff is significantly lacking. Supervisors are required to conduct regular facility tours and document those tours in the unit logbook using red ink. Captains are required to tour monthly, lieutenants are required to tour weekly, and sergeants are required to tour daily. Facility tours by supervisors were found to be inconsistent. In reviewing a limited number of logbooks, sergeant signatures were observed in red ink on most days and most shifts; however, because the times noted in the logbooks were fairly close together, it is unlikely that thorough and complete unit tours are being conducted. It appears that captains and lieutenant rarely conduct tours. In the small number of logbooks reviewed, signatures of captains and lieutenants were not observed. This was communicated by staff during interviews and focus groups and observed first hand by team members. This may be due, at least in part, to the fact that captains attend a large number of meetings, which significantly reduces the amount of time they are in their facilities. Lieutenants and sergeants reportedly have a large volume of paperwork to complete on a daily basis including Level 1 appeals and incident report packages. Lieutenants are required to conduct disciplinary hearings for less serious rules violations committed in their facilities. Officers are not being supervised sufficiently to ensure that they are consistently following policy and procedures. Lieutenants and sergeants were rarely observed out of their offices. As an example: Officers assigned to supervise inmates in the recreation yard were observed congregating away from the inmates. Policy requires officers to walk the yard in pairs and conduct random pat downs. This was not observed. Sergeants were rarely observed in the yards and therefore not available to ensure that policy and procedures are being implemented properly. While supervisor offices are located within each facility, allowing for a quick response when necessary, supervisors do little proactive supervision of officers or inmates. They mainly react to incidents. There appears to be very little effective communication between supervisors and subordinates at HDSP. The Warden conducts a morning meeting each weekday with associate wardens, captains and other management staff. Associate wardens and captains are required to pass on pertinent information from these meetings to lieutenants and sergeants that report to them. Lieutenants and sergeants are required to conduct daily staff meetings each day with officers in their chain of command. While these daily staff meetings were noted on facility activity schedules, they rarely occur and were not observed during the assessment by any team member. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 47 of 115 September 23, 2016 Lack of verbal communication was a major complaint made by line supervisors and officers. Lieutenants stated that captains are rarely in their facilities on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays due to meetings. Lieutenants and sergeants were rarely observed outside of the program offices. Supervisors appear to be “desk bound” and complain that they have too much daily paperwork to complete. The primary method for staff communication at HDSP is email. New and revised polices, as well as other pertinent facility information is sent to all staff via email. The majority of staff indicated that they rarely check their email. All supervisors, and most importantly lieutenants and sergeants, need to be more visible to staff and inmates. They should conduct tours as prescribed by existing policy and be present in housing units and recreation areas monitoring facility climate and supervising officers. Communication between line staff and supervisors could be improved significantly through more regular and frequent tours of housing units and recreation/programming areas by supervisors. The amount of meetings and time spent in meetings by supervisors should be reduced. It appears that captains spend an inordinate amount of time in meetings away from their facilities. Captains should be in their facilities ensuring that lieutenants and sergeants are getting out of their offices to supervise staff and monitor the facility climate. All supervisors could benefit from time management training. This is something that, if not already part of new supervisor training, should be included. The fact that new supervisors do not attend new supervisor training immediately upon promotion exacerbates their lack of ability to manage time. Lieutenants and sergeants appear to have a large volume of paperwork to complete on a daily basis. This is magnified in facilities with a higher incident rate, as incident report packages and use of force packages are extensive. HDSP should enforce the existing policy of daily staff meetings in facilities. These meetings do not appear to take place on any watch. Enforcing this policy would go a long way in ensuring good communication up and down the chain of command. 4. Use of Force The ASCA assessment team reviewed the CDCR Use of Force policy found in Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Department Operations Manual. It was noted by the assessment team that the latest revisions to the policy were made in January 2016. The revisions were made to conform with recent changes to the Department’s regulations (Title 15) regarding Use of Force. These revisions further the efforts of the Department to comply with the Madrid court rulings regarding the Statewide Use of Force plan, and also provide further compliance with the Coleman court rulings for mental health considerations. The Department’s Use of Force policy is comprehensive, well conceived and written, and definitely in line with contemporary national standards. The policy is regularly reviewed and changes to the policy are made in accordance to the Department’s policy governing policy changes. It should be noted that HDSP recently underwent an American Correctional Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 48 of 115 September 23, 2016 Association (ACA) reaccreditation review and the Use of Force policy was reviewed as part of that process. The ACA reaccreditation team found no issues with the Department’s Use of Force policy. The Department’s Training Academy provides more than adequate use of force training for its’ cadets. An outline of the academy curriculum either directly or indirectly related to use of force is as follows: Application of Restraint Gear Cell Extraction Chemical Agents Emergency Operations Plan/Alarm Response Expandable Baton Firearms Familiarization/Qualification Impact Munitions/Assuming an Armed Post Use of Force Policy 6 Hours 7 Hours 10 Hours 30 Hours 20 Hours 60 Hours 16 Hours 8 Hours The training academy devotes 157 hours to the courses listed above. That calculates to 24% of the 640-hour coursework on use of force related topics. Additionally, experienced officers that are required to receive annual training get the following courses: Communication/De-escalation Techniques Use of Force/Forum Baton Annual Impact Annual Mini 14 Annual .38 Impact Munitions/Armed Post Chemical Agents Controlled UOF Alarm Response 2 Hours 3 Hours 2 Hours 1 Hour 1 Hour 1 Hour 1 Hour 1 Hour 1 Hour 1 Hour These courses total fourteen hours of use of force training that is given to experienced correctional officers as part of their required in-service training. The latest COMPSTAT statistics reviewed by the ASCA assessment team on use of force by the ten Level IV facilities shows that HDSP use of incidents fall within the mid or lower-range of these facilities. HDSP averaged 43.15 use of force incidents per month compared to the average of 52.48 for all ten Level IV institutions. That statistic places them fourth lowest in use of force incidents out of the ten facilities in this comparison group. When you compare HDSP with the other Level IV institutions in use of force incidents per 100 inmates, HDSP is rated at 1.24 versus the group average of 1.60. Once again this analytic puts HDSP fourth out of ten similar facilities. The COMPSTAT numbers show HDSP to be below average in use of force incidents as well as use of force incidents per 100 inmates. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 49 of 115 September 23, 2016 Once a use of force incident has occurred, the participating correctional officers and witnesses to the incident must fill out UOF statements before the end of their watch and present them to their sergeant or the designated Response Supervisor. It is the Response Supervisor’s responsibility to check and verify that the packet is complete. If further clarification is needed, the Response Supervisor sends the author a Clarification Request form for the additional information. The completed UOF packet is then forwarded to the yard lieutenant for review. The lieutenant performs an Incident Commander’s Review that is an abridged version of the complete UOF packet. Once the lieutenant completes his review it goes to the yard captain for the Manager’s First Level Review. The yard captain then forwards the packet to the Associate Warden of the two yards who does the next review called the Manager’s Review-Second Level. After the Second Level Review the incident/use of force packet is sent to the UOF Coordinators Office. The UOF Coordinator’s Office reviews the packet for completeness and sends it forward to the Institutional Executive Review Committee (IREC). Packets must be reviewed by the IERC no more than 30 days after the date of the incident. The warden or chief deputy chairs the IERC with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) representative present along with an UOF Coordinator. These meetings occur every Friday. The reviewing lieutenant, captain, and associate warden will make a written recommendation on the legitimacy of the UOF in question as part of the packet going forward. The UOF Coordinator will then review the completed UOF packet and also make a recommendation on the validity of the force utilized. The reviewing lieutenant, captain, or associate warden also has the option of sending the packet for further review to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) or the Investigative Services Units (ISU). If the warden has a question about an individual use of force incident, he can refer the case for further investigation to the OIA or ISU. All UOF cases are considered closed once the warden signs off at the weekly meeting. The ASCA assessment team sat in on the weekly IERC meeting and directly observed the warden ask pertinent questions about each case before him. The warden also watched all Use of Force videos for each case as well as video interviews with inmates involved in each use of force action being reviewed. The review process was thorough and held in accordance with the UOF policy. If a UOF case needs further review from outside the facility, it is referred to the Departmental Executive Review Committee (DERC) for their consideration. If an officer is found by the warden to have violated the use of force policy, the warden will sanction the officer. The sanction is determined by the officer discipline matrix that gives a range of punishments for the offense, the seriousness of the violation, and the number of times the individual officer has been sanctioned in the past. The Employee Relations Officer will call the individual officer to her office and inform him/her of the warden’s finding. The ASCA assessment team found that the use of force policy and review process is being carried out in accordance with the controlling policy. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 50 of 115 September 23, 2016 5. Staff Training The task in the independent assessment of staff training was to determine if the In Service Training (IST) at the High Desert State Prison was meeting national standards and if the training was delivered according to prescribed lesson plans. Records of the staff that were required to attend were reviewed to determine if they attended. In particular the training was assessed relative to use of force, management of special populations, diversity and PREA. The following documents were reviewed with the Training Officer, Lt James Crandall: -CDCR Annual Training Plan (ATP) -HDSP Training schedule -Lesson plan files -Instructor qualifications and certifications -Attendance rosters and verifications of each employees training The High Desert State Prison (HDSP) meets the national standards profession. The CDCR produces an Annual Training Plan (ATP), which facilities with instructions to plan their training accordingly. The times and within the purview of the facility; however, the topics that the facilities are and the hours for each topic are mandatory. recognized by is distributed to places to attend required to train the the are on, Lt Crandall is well established as the Training Officer, and meets all the qualifications to be the Trainer. He is a Master Trainer, and as such, can oversee the critical topics such as Use of Force, PREA, and Defensive Tactics. His training as a Master Trainer qualifies him to certify other instructors that meet the Department’s standards. All instructors giving instruction at HDSP are certified. The training schedule for the HDSP is consistent with the CDCR’s ATP. All topics required on the ATP are covered by the facility’s training schedule. Schedules were reviewed for correctional staff and support staff, and it was apparent that every one received the required training, and if for some reason they missed a class, records indicated that they attended a make-up class with the next cycle. Attendance is taken for all employees attending the training. Correctional officers sign in on a payroll form, and the support and administrative staff sign in on the Form 844. If an officer misses a class, the Training Officer redirects that individual to another training forum, and his days off are adjusted, if necessary. Diversity training with the inmate population was provided for HDSP as a pilot several months ago. It was in response to the OIG report and is being considered to start again in 2017 for all facilities. Initially, the Department scheduled a training program for employees at HDSP and sent trainers from Sacramento for a three-week period. HDSP was to get as many people trained as possible in the period. There were a total of 961 employees trained, with over 600 of those being custody staff. After the three week training, there was no more training on Diversity in the Department. Lt Crandall felt the training was received with some reluctance. Lt Crandall thinks that the training may pick up for all institutions next year. The Use of Force training at HDSP is consistent with the CDCR’s Operations Manual (DOM) and consistent with the national standards for prisons and jails. There are four certified Use of Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 51 of 115 September 23, 2016 Force Instructors at HDSP. All employees at HDSP, with the exception of a few managers, are given the Use of Force training annually. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) training is a part of the On-the-Job-Training (OJT) and is given on-line. It is a one-hour class and is required training for all employees, and a passing score is required. Next year it will become a two-hour class. Several employees’ training records were reviewed that indicated that on-line classes require that they be taken until passed. PREA, Use of Force, Lethal Force, Alarm Response, and CPR are all on-line classes. Other In Service Training (IST) is tested periodically to insure retention is adequate. A well-administered training program in a prison facility is key to long term success, as well as employee satisfaction and safety. The training program at the High Desert State Prison is a well-administered training program. Lt Crandall is alert to the needs and schedules of the employees and insures that if training is missed, that make-up is coordinated with the watch supervisor and the correctional staff are redirected to accomplish the training, adjusting days off, if necessary. Lt Crandall is a Master Trainer, and certified by the CDCR as such. He takes his job very seriously and has a very good program that serves the High Desert State Prison and it’s employees very well. It should be noted that conversations with the staff about the training and it’s quality seemed to vary from officer to officer depending on the amount of time they had been working at the HDSP. The ones who were new to the facility were very pleased with the manner in which they had been accepted into the work force, and commented about the good training they had received. Other officers of longer tenure felt the training was repetitive and not of value, especially the training regarding PREA, and other mandated training blocks. 6. Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process The HDSP appeals process is consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Article 8, Appeals, and CDCR Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Article 53, Inmate/Parolee Appeals. HDSP does not have a separate facility specific policy for inmate appeals; however, HDSP does have a Department Operations Manual Supplement #54100 that provides specific direction regarding the inmate appeals process at HDSP. The inmate appeal process at HDSP is comparable to those found in other jurisdictions that have good inmate appeals processes. The process provides for accountability in the submission, collection and resolution of appeals and inmates are provided written notification of submitted appeals and the resolution of those appeals. A number of other jurisdictions require an inmate to attempt to resolve their issue through an informal process prior to submitting a formal appeal. CDCR had such an informal process in place until approximately four years ago. Upon admission to HDSP, inmates are provided a copy of the HDSP Inmate Orientation Manual and CCR Title 15. The Inmate Orientation Manual contains a section entitled, Appeal Procedures (DOM Section 54100, and CCR, Title 15 Section 3084 through 3085), which clearly outlines the appeal process. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 52 of 115 September 23, 2016 The process for inmates to submit appeals at HDSP is consistent with the policy. Inmate appeal forms (CDCR Form 602) are readily accessible to inmates in all housing units. Inmates in locked units can request a From 602 from line staff. Once Form 602 is completed, inmates that have access to the dayroom can deposit the form in the locked Inmate Appeal boxes. Inmates that are housed in locked units can hand the Form 602 to the Appeals Office staff person during their daily (M-F) unit tour. Additionally, inmates can submit the Form 602 via inter-facility mail. All appeal forms (602) that are placed in the locked Inmate Appeal boxes located in each housing unit are collected daily (M-F) by an Appeals Office staff member. That staff member records the number of appeals collected in each unit in the unit’s logbook, along with the time and their signature. The keys to the locks on the Inmate Appeal boxes are included on the Appeals Office staff restricted keysets, which are drawn daily from a secure control center. No other staff is authorized to draw these keys. All submitted and collected appeals are brought to the Appeals Office where staff date stamp each appeal and record them in an electronic log. Each Form 602 is assigned a sequential number. The date stamp and sequential number are used to track the appeal through the appeal process in order to ensure time frames are met in accordance policy. For appeals that are accepted, the inmate submitting the appeal is sent, via inter-facility mail, an assignment notice that includes the appeal number. For appeals that are rejected (screened out), the inmate is sent, via inter-facility mail, an Appeal Screen-Out Form 695. Inmates receive notice of disposition for appeals filed at Level 1 and Level 2 directly from the Inmate Appeals Office. Notice of disposition for appeals filed at Level 3 are mailed to inmates directly from the CDCR Office of Appeals. Inmates that wish to make a staff complaint can submit the complaint using an appeal form (602). Appeals Office staff meets weekly with the Warden and Chief Deputy Warden to review all appeals submitted as staff complaints to determine if they are in fact staff complaints. Those that are determined to be staff complaints are routed for investigation. Those that are not determined to be staff complaints are routed through the regular appeal process. Inmates that were interviewed either during recreation periods or as part of the IAC believe the process to be fair. In fact, the inmate appeal process at HDSP appears to be extremely fair. HDSP exceeds the requirements of the CDCR policy for inmate appeals with regards to adherence to submission timeframes and limiting inmate abuse of the process. Appeals Office staff at HDSP screen out fewer appeals than any other CDCR Level 4 facility. Appeals that, by CDCR policy, could be screened out due to being filed outside of time frame limitations are almost always accepted and processed at HDSP. In conversations with Appeals Office staff, they indicated that this liberal approach to enforcing time frame limitations is in part due to the criticism and scrutiny that the prison had been the subject. Additionally, the CDCR policy allows for those inmates that submit appeals in excess of what the policy allows (1 every 14 days) to be considered for having restrictions imposed (1 every 30 days). HDSP Appeals Office staff stated they have several inmates who submit multiple appeals each week; however, for a facility with an inmate census of approximately 3,800, there were no inmates on appeal restrictions during the assessment. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 53 of 115 September 23, 2016 With regards to the inmate appeal process in general, staff believe the process is fair. However, where staff feels the process is not fair to them is in regard to the staff complaint process. The general consensus among staff is that they believe investigations regarding complaints lodged by inmates against staff are initiated far too often based solely on an inmate’s allegation absent any corroborating evidence. There appears to be too much redundant review in the appeal process at HDSP. As an example, approximately 40 Level 2 appeal packages are sent daily to the CDW for review and sign off. Once the CDW signs off on these packages, they are then returned to one of the two the CCII’s in the Appeals Office for another review. With the volume of work that the CDW has in addition to reviewing Level 2 appeal packages, the review is cursory at best. Occasional errors have been found by the CCII’s. According to the COMPSTAT Statistical Report provided by HDSP staff, the prison received an average of 450 inmate appeals per month during the 13-month period ending April 2016 with an average of 2 appeals being overdue in any one month (less than one-half of 1%). As far as recommendations, with regards to the review of appeals at HDSP, they may want to consider using a similar process that they currently use for staff complaint reviews. This process would involve the CCIIs being present when the CDW reviews the Level 2 appeals, providing a brief oral summary of the issue and it’s proposed resolution, followed by the CDW signing off on the agreed upon resolution. This process would eliminate some of the redundancy that the facility currently has built into the process. A number of other jurisdictions require an inmate to attempt to resolve their issue through an informal process prior to submitting a formal appeal. CDCR had such an informal process in place until approximately four years ago. An informal process can generally resolve many less significant issues, such as those related to property, without the involvement of the Appeals Office. HDSP should work toward adhering to the letter of the CDCR inmate appeal policy. There are a large number of appeals that are accepted at HDSP that would most likely be screened out at other Level 4 prisons. By not screening out these appeals, the HDSP Appeals Office is straining their resources and the resources of other staff that are involved in the processing of Level 1 and 2 appeals. 7. Inmate Discipline Process The HDSP inmate discipline process is consistent with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Article 5, Inmate Discipline, and CDCR Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Article 23, Inmate Discipline. HDSP does not have a separate facility specific policy for inmate discipline; however, HDSP does have a Department Operations Manual Supplement #52080 that provides specific direction regarding the inmate discipline process at HDSP. The inmate discipline process at HDSP is consistent with the discipline process found in comparable jurisdictions Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 54 of 115 September 23, 2016 Upon admission to HDSP, inmates are provided a copy of the HDSP Inmate Orientation Manual and CCR Title 15. The Inmate Orientation Manual directs inmates to familiarize themselves with Title 15, Article 5, Inmate Discipline. The disciplinary process at HDSP affords inmates due process. It provides inmates the opportunity to attend a hearing, provides them documentation of the charges against them and the findings subsequent to a hearing. It provides inmates an opportunity to provide a defense, to call witnesses and have an employee assist them in their defense. The inmate disciplinary process at HDSP further ensures that inmates subject to disciplinary action are screened for mental health issues and the ability to understand the charges against them. In cases where a mental health clinician determines the inmate’s mental health status played a role in the rules violation, the rules violation report is dismissed. Each step of the inmate discipline process at HDSP is well documented with written notifications of charges, hearing dates, and adjudicated findings provided to the inmate and maintained in a disciplinary file. Several inmate disciplinary files were reviewed and documents inspected to confirm inmate notifications were made in accordance with disciplinary guidelines. Additionally, inmate disciplinary hearings were attended and the involved inmates acknowledged they had received written documentation of their charges and hearing dates. Disciplinary hearings are conducted by HDSP Lieutenants. One Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) at the rank of lieutenant adjudicates disciplinary infractions for the most serious rules violations. Facility lieutenants adjudicate disciplinary infractions for less serious rules violations committed within their facility. A senior lieutenant trained in the disciplinary hearings process provides initial disciplinary hearing training for newly appointed lieutenants. The training involves the newly appointed lieutenant observing several disciplinary hearings being conducted. The newly appointed lieutenant then conducts several disciplinary hearings under the observation of the lieutenant providing the training. The lieutenant providing the training then signs off on a document certifying the training was completed. The inmate discipline process at HDSP appears to be fair. Data collected regarding inmate discipline at HDSP does not include the inmate’s race. Data provided through CDCR Headquarters for a period of approximately five months shows that black inmates are 1.4 times more likely to receive a disciplinary rules infraction than inmates of other races as shown in the table below: Inmate # Of % Of Race Inmates* Census Hispanic 1,830 50% Black 956 26% White 676 18% Other 218 6% *Census of 3,680 inmates on 7/25/16 **From 3/1 – 7/22/16 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 55 of 115 # Of % Of RVRs** RVRs 319 37% 326 37% 170 19% 57 7% Total September 23, 2016 Based on the limited data in the above table, it would appear that the discipline process at HDSP is not consistently applied in terms of race. However, both staff and inmates interviewed either through one-on-one interviews or in groups believed the inmate discipline process to be fair and consistently applied without any racial bias. It is recommended that HDSP consider including inmate race in the disciplinary data that they collect, and monitor that data over time to determine if race is a factor in the application of the disciplinary process. 8. Staff Complaint Process The inmate staff complaint process is covered in Chapter 5/Article 53 of the CDCR Department of Operations Manual entitled Inmate/Parolee Appeals. The inmate staff complaint process is specifically located in Section 54100.25 of the above referenced policy. HDSP recently underwent an ACA reaccreditation review and this policy was reviewed under the Inmate Rights section of the ACA standards that apply to this facility. The ACA reviewers found that the policy was in compliance with the ACA standard and thus met contemporary national standards. The ASCA assessment team looked at the inmate staff complaint review process to see if a cultural bias could be determined. The ASCA assessors could not make this determination because the facility does not track the race of the inmate complainant or the officer who is the subject of the complaint. High Desert State Prison does not compare very favorably with the other nine Level IV facilities in regards to the number of inmate staff complaints filed beginning in May 2015. Below listed are the monthly totals of staff complaints filed at HDSP. The average number of inmate staff complaints for HDSP per month from May 2015 through May 2016 is 36 as compared to an average of 20 for the other Level IV facilities during the same time period. These figures were obtained from the latest COMPSTAT report provided to the ASCA assessment team for our review. May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 20 21 30 28 35 21 29 46 49 46 59 42 38 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 56 of 115 September 23, 2016 The Appeals coordinating staff believes the spike that began in December 2015 is directly attributable to the issuance of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report. The Appeals staff reported that many of the inmate staff complaints contained language direct from that report. The hiring authority or warden at HDSP reviews all inmate staff complaints weekly. The warden makes a determination whether the complaint should be processed as a staff complaint or reclassified to another category such as a property complaint for example. A reclassification is routine if no evidence is presented in the complaint to suggest staff misconduct. The ASCA assessment team sat in on the weekly staff complaint appeals meeting and directly observed the warden in consultation with the chief deputy and the Appeals coordinator as they reviewed eleven inmate staff complaints. Of the eleven staff complaints considered, the warden classified four as staff complaints and forwarded them to the OIA for further investigation. The other seven complaints were reclassified to other categories more appropriate to the stated complaint. The warden asked thoughtful questions about each complaint and deliberated with the chief deputy before making a final determination. The ASCA assessment team found the review process to be very thorough and in accordance with the aforementioned controlling policy. If the complaint is referred to the OIA for further investigation, the Appeals coordinator will notify the complainant of the referral. The Appeals coordinator will handle the transfer of the complaint with all relevant documentation with the request for investigation to the OIA. Once the investigation is completed by the OIA, the complainant will be notified of the outcome. 9. Investigations and Staff Discipline As part of the Independent Assessment of the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) requested by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), this evaluation of the Staff Discipline procedures at the HDSP was conducted to determine the quality and effectiveness of the staff discipline process. The following items and documents were requested and received prior to the evaluation discussion and review. -CDCR policy on investigations and staff discipline -HDSP policy and procedure on staff investigations -Training records and certifications of investigators -Actions taken on employees as a result of investigation Ramona Schlauch, Staff Services Manager is the facility Employee Relations Officer (ERO) and manages the process of staff discipline. The process at High Desert State Prison follows the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Operations Manual (DOM) and is consistent with California Code of Regulations. Events that occur in the facility are initially investigated at the Unit level, and may be resolved there. Or, they may be appealed, if it is an inmate complaint. In that case, they are referred to Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 57 of 115 September 23, 2016 the weekly Appeals meeting. As a result of the Appeals meeting, the complaint, if for officer misconduct, may be handled directly by the Warden, or referred to the Institution Security Unit (ISU) or directly to the Department’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). If referred to the ISU, a packet will be prepared by them for the Warden’s signature, and then sent to the OIA. The OIA will investigate and when concluded, refer the information to the ERO for disposition. The ERO will conduct a “402/403” conference and the Warden will determine guilt or innocence. If guilty, the warden will determine the correct level of punishment. The employee may appeal and have a Skelly hearing. If not satisfied, the employee may appeal to the State Personnel Board. If found guilty of the charges filed against the employee, the hiring authority, or the High Desert State Prison Warden in this case, will make the determination of sanctions against the employee. The sanctions are prescribed according to the level of malfeasance, and the Warden uses the Employee Discipline Matrix to determine the correct level of punishment. Investigators at the HDSP conduct investigations on employees; however, their investigations do not result in findings or recommendations. Other investigations on employees are by conducted by the Department’s Office of Internal Affairs. And similarly, they also only present facts to the hiring authority, not conclusions or recommendations. The facility investigators are CDCR employees and office at the facility. The Department’s OIA investigators do not have an office at High Desert State Prison. California law requires that subjects of investigations be notified periodically as to the status of the investigation. CDCR and HDSP follow the law in this respect. However, it was noted that in some of the high profile cases in the last year or so, the employees were notified one day prior to the one-year limit. As in most cases of investigations, there are delays and employees are not always notified at the earliest time. In summary, the investigations that are conducted on employees at the High Desert State Prison are done within the guidelines of the CDCR, and are consistent with California law. In all of the conversations with employees during the two weeks we were visiting the prison, there was not one complaint or issue regarding the process of investigations and staff discipline. Although Ms. Schlauch was fairly new in her position, she was well read on the procedures, and followed the policy and procedure very well. 10. Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation Inmate Job Assignments The task assigned to the ASCA assessment team was to determine the availability and types, and the process for assignment and diversity in assignments. The following items were reviewed to aid in making this determination: -Wait List for Job Assignment -Observe inmates at work assignment Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 58 of 115 September 23, 2016 The process by which inmates at the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) are assigned to a job is one that requires that within 14 days of arrival at HDSP, inmates be processed through an Initial Unit Classification Committee (IUCC). The function of this committee is for custody classification and program/work assignment. Upon review of inmates’ record, risk needs assessments, TABE scores and release date, inmates are placed on a wait list for work assignment. Once the inmate is placed on the list, the assignment officer will assign inmates to jobs according to their relative position on the wait list. There are several job assignments available to inmates on each facility / yard, and several more in areas such as maintenance, food service, and institution grounds. For a detailed list of all job types see Work Assignment by Race. For each job assignment, there are a several slots, ranging from one to 15 on the three watches. For a detailed list of number of slots for each job, see Work Assignment by Race. The HDSP employs a lieutenant who has the responsibility of assigning inmates to available jobs. During the interview with the assignment officer, he revealed that he makes a valiant effort to maintain an ethnic balance to achieve diversity in assignments. All assignments show the percentage filled by each ethnic group. For a detailed list see Work Assignment by Race. Inmate Program Participation The ASCA team was also asked to determine the availability and types as well as the process for assignment and diversity in assignments. The below listed items were reviewed to assist in making this determination: -Program Rosters -Wait List for Program -Program Completion Rosters The process for assigning inmates to programs is very similar to the job assignment process. Within 14 days of arrival at HDSP, inmates go through an Initial Unit Classification Committee (IUCC) for custody, work/program assignment. Upon review of inmates’ record, risk needs assessments, TABE scores, and release date, inmates are placed on a wait list for program assignment. Once on the list, then the assignment officer will assign the inmate based on his priority release date and his custody level. There are five (5) broad program categories: ILTAGS (self-help) operated by volunteers; education, vocational tech (auto body, auto painting, and building maintenance), re-entry hub, and Cal-PIA, the California Prison Industry program. The core of the re-entry hub programming is Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) programming, an evidenced-based program designed for inmates who have a moderate-to-high risk to reoffend as assessed by the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), and who have an assessed criminogenic need, as identified by the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). The following groups are offered in the re-entry hub programs: Anger Management, Criminal Thinking, Family Relations, and Substance Abuse. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 59 of 115 September 23, 2016 There are a number of slots available for the CBT programs: Anger Management-48 slots (24am/24pm) Criminal Thinking-48 slots (24am/24pm) Family Relations-48 slots (24am/24pm) Substance Abuse-96 slots (48am only—one counselor position is vacant - for pm class) Program Directors/Coordinators report that efforts are made to ensure that diversity in assignments will occur. However, the data suggests that there is some degree of racial disparity in program assignment. See the following Inmate Work Assignment Chart. The Inmate Work Assignment Chart shows the overall percentage of program assignment by ethnic group. The Re-entry Hub programs, education, vocational tech, and CAL-PIA programs provided data that shows programs filled by race. There was not sufficient data available on all the completions for all programs. The only program that provided program completion by race was the Re-entry Hub Program. The data provided was for July 1, 2015. See Table Program Completions From July 1, 2015. Program Completions From July 1, 2015 Substance Abuse Criminal Thinking Anger Management Black 4 Hispanic 17 White 12 Black 4 Hispanic 26 White 21 Black 7 Hispanic 33 White 12 Family Relationships Black 3 Hispanic 7 White 9 There were a number of days that inmates were precluded from attending programs due to institutional lockdowns, or inmate unavailability. “Modified program” is when programs are not Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 60 of 115 September 23, 2016 running on their regular schedule due to some incident, as determined by HDSP leadership. Data from the last seven-month period (Jan 1- July 19) indicate that part of HDSP was on a modified program schedule for 154 days. This is a significant amount of time, and prevents inmates from being involved in programs that would be valuable in their institutional adjustment and release planning. See Table HDSP MODIFIED PROGRAMS 2016: HDSP MODIFIED PROGRAMS 2016 PSR NUMBER HDP-B-16-001 HDP-B-16-002 HDP-C-16-003 HDP-D-16-004 HDP-C-16-005 HDP-B-16-006 HDP-D-16-007 HDP-B-16-008 HDP-D-16-009 HDP-B-16-010 HDP-D-16-011 PSR START 1/2/2016 2/12/2016 2/12/2016 3/20/2016 3/20/2016 4/24/2016 5/6/2016 5/16/2016 5/27/2016 6/3/2016 6/10/2016 PSR END 1/27/2016 2/18/2016 2/22/2016 4/1/2016 4/4/2016 4/29/2016 5/26/2016 5/24/2016 6/23/2016 6/23/16 6/20/2016 LENGTH IN DAYS 15 6 10 12 10 5 20 6 23 20 10 HDP-D-16-012 HDP-D-16-013 HDP-B-16-014 HDP-A-16-015 6/27/2016 7/1/2016 7/8/2016 7/19/16 7/5/2016 7/7/2016 7/8/2016 7/22/16 8 6 0 3 REASON RIOT RIOT MISSING METAL MISSING METAL MISSING METAL RIOT BATTERY LOST BADGE RIOT RIOT ATTEMPTED MURDER OF A PO STAFF THREAT STAFF THREAT STAFF THREAT STAFF THREAT The two major reasons for inmates being removed from a program are Rule Violation Reports and inmate disruption. There is overall consistency in the process whereby inmates are placed in programs and on job assignments. HDSP has a process that ensures that all inmates will go through the initial classification process within 14 days of arrival. The correctional counselors on each yard ensure that all inmates go through this process. HDSP has far more inmates than they have job opportunities. The process of all inmates going through Classification for job/program assignment is effective. Additionally inmates are assessed on Risk-Needs Assessments (CSRA and COMPUS) are appropriate for program assignment. Risk Assessments are the standard bearer in getting inmates involved in programs; however, HDSP simply does not have enough program slots for inmates who measure as most in need. All of the inmates interviewed individually or those who were in discussion groups expressed overwhelmingly they would like to have more programs. Staff who run programs agree that they would like to offer more. HDSP is constrained from offering more programs due partly to space limitations. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 61 of 115 September 23, 2016 On the day that the assignment lieutenant was interviewed, there were 1,766 inmates on the wait list for a work/program assignment. With such a lengthy list of inmates waiting, it is conceivable that the majority of inmates will never be assigned to work or program. Inmates complained that although they were assigned to a particular job, i.e. adult care-giver (those who assist inmates with disabilities), they were rarely called out to work. Some of the minority inmates complained that they never got assigned to the “good” jobs, such as clerks and canteen workers. The assignment lieutenant stated that he often had a 602 filed against him, (inmate complaint) by minority inmates because of what they perceived to be racial disparity in work assignments. While staff make attempts at achieving diversity in inmate assignments, the preliminary examination of the data suggest that there may be racial disparity in work and program assignment. See Work Assignment by Race. HDSP also experiences frequent loss days due to “modified programming. This occurs when programs are not running on their usual program schedule. Data from the last seven-month (Jan 1- July 19) indicate that HDSP was on a modified program schedule for 154 days. “Inmates got nothing coming” is the initial impression one gets when it comes to more programs offerings. However when the programs were fully operative, the education/vocational tech, CAL-PIA, and Re-Entry Programs were at capacity. Inmates and providers were fully engaged. The ILTAGS programs that take place in the day rooms on facility yards are inmate led and lack sponsors and experienced difficulty in meeting consistently. Because the wait list so extensive, it is this assessor’s impression the wait list is often “cherry picked” instead of assigning the next eligible inmate on the list. G. Recommendations for Improving HDSP’s Culture An organization’s culture is the product of events, processes and everyday interactions that have occurred over the course of its history. Just as a culture has emerged gradually over time so too changes in culture, even directed changes, are incremental. Those wanting to see cultural change, thus, must be patient and the effort to produce change must be persistent. In moving HDSP closer to its desired culture, the facility’s readiness for change should be examined. Readiness for change encompasses two elements: a commitment to change, and the capacity for change. The commitment to change refers to the organization’s investment in the process of change; whether or not they have the human capital to participate in the process as well as to see the change through to the desired end and to maintain it into the future. The organization’s capacity for change refers to the actual ability the institution and staff have to produce change. That said, efforts that produce sustainable changes should be made collaboratively with the Central Office. 1. Commitment to Change Based on the assessment findings, HDSP staff desire culture change. This is evident by the facility’s preferred organizational culture profiles and supported by the focus groups as well as from formal and informal interviews. There is a desire for a culture shift to an internal Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 62 of 115 September 23, 2016 focus that emphasizes increased teamwork, staff recognition and camaraderie, as evidenced by the strong weighting towards the consensus culture component. There is a remarkable amount of overlap among all of the culture profiles indicating agreement regarding the desired culture change. There is a clear desire to focus on the internal environment. The facility wants to be more focused on the individual needs of the staff producing an environment that is supportive and team-oriented. 2. Capacity for Change Based on the assessment findings, HDSP also has the capacity to engage in organizational culture change. The leadership and staff desires to move towards a more consensus-based culture are indicators that they are prepared to engage in culture change. The following issues should be addressed in the process ensuring that culture change produces positive results. 3. Stability and Trust One of the factors affecting HDSP’s culture has been instability in its leadership. Transient leadership has left the prison without clear direction and led to the present situation in which most staff cling to the notion that it is a Level IV prison in which inmates should be provided with only the bare necessities and in which there is little, if any, programming. A prerequisite for successful change is that the leadership at HDSP remains intact for a sufficient time to plan and execute a change effort, at a minimum that should probably be three years. The OIG report and the lack of any response from headquarters have deeply embittered the HDSP staff members at all levels. Change effort must begin with repairing the chasm that exists between Sacramento and Susanville. These changes need to be a collaborative effort between the facility, the regional director and the Secretary and his staff. A first step in that reconciliation process might be to use this report to respond to some of the allegations made by the OIG. If that is not feasible, or even if it is, meeting with the staff at HDSP in conjunction with the publication of this report to listen to their concerns and respond to them is essential. There is widespread suspicion and distrust of the warden, and a major complaint of staff is that he is not visible and they do not know him. As one member of the team put it, “the warden has to learn that he is running for office.” The warden has good intentions, but his leadership and management skills must be focused on better communications with his staff. He has to find time to get out of his office and onto the yards, and when on the yards he must show as much, if not more, concern for his staff as for the inmates. Doing so will not only allow staff to get to know him better, but will permit him to dispel rumors such as those that now circulate among the staff, and will also provide him opportunities to “inspect what he expects,” such as whether his communications are reaching and being correctly interpreted by staff. Staff recognition at HDSP is limited to certificates for good attendance and naming an employee of the month. Staff does not feel supported or recognized for the good work they do. Consideration should be given to forming a committee consisting of staff from all disciplines to develop staff recognition programs that have real meaning to them. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 63 of 115 September 23, 2016 4. Improve Communication Good communication at HDSP, as in almost any complex organization, is difficult but not impossible to achieve. Memos are issued, e-mails sent and information distributed by word of mouth at meetings but much of it does not reach those for whom it is intended. One major gap in the communications network noted during the assessment is the failure of staff to hold the scheduled meetings at the beginning of each watch. Such meetings are a key link between management and the uniformed staff running the yards and the failure to hold them means that important information may not being passed down to those who need it or is transmitted via the grapevine on which it is quite likely distorted or misconstrued in some way. The warden can help in the communications if he walks through the facility more often and visits with staff about their jobs, and at the same time communicates with them about his vision and what he would like to see in the facility. He should also require the chief deputy and other department heads to communicate the same message in a similar manner. “Management by walking around” needs to be incorporated into how the HDSP administration communicates with staff and assesses institutional climate. Staff at HDSP should map the key communications channels to identify bottlenecks and formulate plans to make the processes more efficient by eliminating them. Similar mapping may also be undertaken to identify redundancies and duplications in reporting and so reduce the paperwork that supervisors complain overwhelms them. 5. Balance Change with Staff Concerns Both the warden and the health care CEO have mandates to introduce changes that realign HDSP with the department’s mission, on the one hand, and court–ordered standards of health care, on the other. The CEO is new to corrections and avowedly sees HDSP as a health care facility. With clear standards to be met and the authority of the court behind him, he appears much more concerned with getting results than with the concerns of his staff. By comparison, the warden’s mandate is less clear than the CEO’s and his management style is to be more of a mentor or coach than a commander. These differing mandates and styles are beginning to cause concern among clinicians about the quality of care and anger among officers assigned to the clinics who feel that “medical is running the place.” There needs to be more coordination between the warden and the CEO about changes that are to be made and how they are to be introduced. The warden needs to realize that he is not the only one who has a desire to move the facility forward. He needs to listen to staff and engage them in the implementation of new programming as well as new procedures that cause them concerns. Custody staff members below the rank of captain are nearly unanimous in the opposition to increased programming and out-of-cell time for inmates. Part of the opposition to more programming is that it increases the amount of work for officers and decreases the time available for security measures. At root, however, is a realistic concern for their personal safety in a sometimes hostile and violent environment. Not introducing more programs is not an option yet pushing programs “down the throats” of the officers may well generate resistance and incidents that may doom the effort. The introduction of more programs and out-of-cell time must be carefully planned and balanced with the officers’ concerns with security and safety. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 64 of 115 September 23, 2016 One way to decrease staff concerns is to demonstrate to them that it can be done. This process has already begun. B Yard has long been the facility at HDSP with the most problems. In attempt to reduce the amount of violence, the warden approved the transfer of select personnel from other yards to B Yard. As noted, these transfers are apparently producing positive results: officers in B yard are the most cohesive, feel supported by their supervisors, and seem to agree that more programming makes for better security. Assuming that the apparent success continues, using B Yard as a demonstration project and as a training facility for supervisors could reduce resistance and facilitate the introduction of greater programming on the other yards. 6. More Proactivity, Less Reactivity Uniformed staff at HDSP is proud of the “High Desert Way,” by which they mean their ability to respond to and quickly suppress violence. That pride in professionally handling violence is wellfounded, but the practice of “observe and react” is not in line with departmental policy and has its limitations. Measures to prevent violence such as removing obstructions to visibility into cells, prohibiting gambling on the yard, or conducting random pat-downs are left undone while officers stand at gates or sit on benches waiting to respond to outbreaks of violence. There are, undoubtedly, many reasons for this reactive practice, all of which will make it difficult to change: personal safety, large yards, extreme climatic conditions, staff shortages, custom, etc. However, the many alarm codes and lockdowns disrupt operations while more proactive measures to prevent violence may better ensure safety and security. A success on one yard may reduce resistance on others. If increasing programming on B Yard, for instance is accompanied by decreases in violence and alarm codes, it may be possible to convince the officers to be more proactive. Adding responsible programming to other Yards may increase stability and ease tensions within the inmate population. Programming must be well organized, supervised and strategically implemented. Currently, the amount of programming and jobs available for inmates appears quite low. The reason for this may partly be due to funding, and partly due to resistance from the line staff. Increasing programming in B Yard and elsewhere, however, will probably also require additional staffing to provide the coverage officers need to feel safe. The current experiment of adding programming to B Yard needs to include the collection of data regarding incidents and violence in all yards so the impact of the programming can be assessed. Collection of incident data, and sharing that with line staff may go a long way in making them feel more comfortable about increasing programming elsewhere. It was also noted that there was some disparity in job and program assignments based on race. The facility was provided ASCA’s Racial Disparity Survey Instrument and the Warden indicated that he would complete the survey and utilize it to help make racial/ethnic parity in job and program assignments a reality. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 65 of 115 September 23, 2016 7. Decentralize Decision-making Decision-making at HDSP, indeed in all of CDCR, is highly centralized resulting in HDSP staff members feeling that their voices are not heard. As we have seen, the dominant concern of the staff is to be a trusted member of a team whose concerns are considered in decisions that have an impact on them. In an organization as large as HDSP, it is simply not possible for the warden, or even an associate warden, to consult with every person affected prior to making a decision. Decisions should be pushed down to the lowest level possible to ensure inclusiveness in the decision making process. Planning how to introduce new programs, for example, could be delegated to the yards and left to the program and custody staff on each yard to work out. Similarly, ways to decrease delays in getting inmates to class or appointments might be worked out on each yard. Doing this may delay decisions but will increase the likelihood that staff members will take ownership of them and enhance the sense of being part of a team on the part of line program and service staff. 8. Accountability Decentralizing decision-making risks losing control, something that is threatening to organizations in the spotlight such as HDSP and CDCR. However, advanced management information systems and the considered development of metrics should allow managers to continually monitor their areas of responsibility, to spot emerging problems, and to take action to prevent or reduce them.16 Meetings of those having management responsibilities for activity on the yards should be held weekly or bi-weekly. At these meetings, managers should report on what they have done with respect to problems previously noted and with what effect, what problems they see emerging and what they plan to do about them, and to respond to questions put to them by top management. Regular meetings of this sort will counter the dangers posed by decentralizing decision-making and increase cooperation and coordination among the managers. Inspections are another means to improve accountability of all staff, at all levels. Areas that are not functioning well should be targeted for inspections by the leadership. If unit meetings are required to be held, and are not, it is an easy step for the warden to have his staff attend those meetings and provide him feedback. In time, the meetings will be a matter of routine and will provide a greater level of accountability. Summary Conclusions Bringing about change, even desired change, in a setting where a significant number of individuals and/or subcultures are strongly vested in maintaining the status quo can be a difficult and frustrating experience, particularly when the setting is a prison where strong reactions can occur even when change is well intended. Maintaining a stable and orderly environment in which institutional security as well as staff and inmate safety is not compromised, while simultaneously changing the culture of the prison, is no easy task and certainly not without risk. 16 One of the issues that should be monitored but is not, at least at the institution level, is racial disparity such as those noted in this report: RVRs, uses of force, and work assignments. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 66 of 115 September 23, 2016 Prisons thrive on stability. Change is often resisted even when the results to be realized are desired by staff. Historically, wardens, supervisors and managers have been praised and rewarded for their ability to maintain order, consistency and stability. A “good” day for many prison administrators is one during which “nothing happened.” For institutions that are running well, in which there is widespread acceptance of mission and purpose, and where the values and beliefs of staff are consistent with those of the Department, stability is a far more desirable outcome than one in which institutional operations are problematic and where the current culture in the prison is unsatisfactory to those who are part of it. Leading and sustaining change in a prison with longstanding and significant conflicting values is no easy task and certainly not one to be undertaken without recognizing and preparing to manage risk. The first step towards achieving culture change requires an understanding of how “ready for change” the prison is. Readiness for change involves two types of readiness. The first addresses commitment to change, and the second involves capacity for change. The prison’s commitment to change refers to the degree to which the staff are invested in the process of change, which can be lengthy and intensive. The prison’s capacity for change refers to the actual ability of the staff at the prison to change and whether they have the resources required to launch and sustain a culture change initiative. For instance, as eager and enthusiastic as a prison might be for change, if the capacity for leading and engaging in change activities, while simultaneously managing ongoing prison operation is limited, then the risk/reward quotient might tilt toward a decision that the prison is not yet ready for change. Based on HDSP’s capacity for change and its commitment to change, we think HDSP is ready for change. Staff clearly desire a change in the institutional culture, and seem open to the possibilities for change to actually occur. Staff genuinely felt that change could occur if they were part of the process of planning and developing the changes. While there were a few exceptions in a few areas of the prison, the similarities in the desire for change are apparent throughout the entire prison. This agreement on the desire not only for a change but also for very similar types of change forms a very positive foundation upon which to base culture change planning and action at HDSP. The process of culture change takes time and an equally strong commitment from the prison’s leadership and staff. Change does not happen because someone from the outside says it should; change happens because the staff within the prison buy into the process of change and recognize the inherent benefits it will produce for them, their fellow workers, the inmates, the community, and the public at large. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 67 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendices Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 68 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 1: Definition of Culture Culture is herein defined as a system of values, beliefs and norms held in common by a group of people and by which they interpret and give meaning to their experience. In the course of adapting to problems inherent in any physical or social environment, culture is reflected in the “persistent and patterned way of thinking about the central tasks of, and human relationships within, an organization.”17 As such, culture serves as a set of rules that guide prescriptively and proscriptively the behavior of members of the organization. Organizations have a formal culture that is codified in their mission statements, policies and procedures and embodied in the rules, roles, and operational routines of the institutions. New staff members in correctional institutions begin to be acculturated into the formal system at the training academy. This process continues as they learn the specifics of their jobs, attend training programs, and read policy materials and orders. Formally, cultural values are frequently communicated and affirmed through symbols and ceremonies. An example of such a ceremony would be a retirement party for a well-respected long-term employee, where all levels of staff are invited. Such a ceremony would reinforce the values of long-term service and an environment of inclusiveness while concurrently demonstrating that a job well done is recognized and celebrated. In addition to the formal culture that is explicitly stated, informal cultures also develop that stand beside and are juxtaposed to the formal cultural system. Staff must adapt and devise ways to respond to the realities of the physical and social environments of the institution. Over time, informal ideas, notions, and mutated values come to be persistent and patterned from these adaptive practices. These ideals are transmitted among organizational members and to new members through informal communication and relationships. Cultural elements, such as cohesion, trust, stress, support, and pride, are defined and embodied within the informal culture. Informally, cultural values are reflected in the stories that staff members tell. Operational practices are accomplished within the domains of both the formal and informal cultures that define the “texture” of institutional life and depend on the unique interpersonal styles that members come to use in relating to one another. When the formal and informal cultures are aligned, they support accomplishment of the organization's mission. However, when the two are not aligned, staff solidarity declines and performance suffers. Staff may experience anxiety and alienation. Trust may be lacking. Important information may not be shared. Fragmentation is likely. Such disconnection may occur between management and line staff, among functional disciplines, between labor and management or among specific individuals or groups. 17 E.O. Wilson (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, New York: Basic Books, Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 69 of 115 September 23, 2016 Organizational culture alerts us to the fact that within rationally designed organizations there may exist a variety of unplanned, organically developed and shared designs for living. These elements may facilitate or impede the attainment of organizational goals. In prisons, the capacity for sub-cultural development is perhaps greater than in other organizations of comparable size and complexity. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 70 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 2: The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) was developed by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) under a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to guide the assessment of institutional culture in correctional organizations. More specifically, the instrument is designed to address operational problems, chronic concerns, and/or critical incidents that negatively impact on institutional performance or that creates high liability risk for both the correctional facility and jurisdiction. Implicit in the use of the ICAP is the assumption that such issues frequently arise from a misalignment or incongruence among elements of the organization’s culture. The ICAP includes a standardized set of evaluative activities that allows for the identification and portrayal of the idiosyncratic sets of values that the organization and its members hold, the characteristic ways of thinking among them, and the attitudes and behaviors that ensue from those values and beliefs. The ICAP is designed to be administered through reviews of official records and documents, both formal and informal individual and group interviews, the administration of a standardized questionnaire (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument- Prisons (OCAI-P)), and observation of prison operations on all three shifts during a three-day site visit by a team of 3-5 experienced correctional practitioners and evaluators. The team triangulates observations and information gathered throughout the site visit and reconciles differences and inconsistencies in order to reach consensus on findings and conclusions. The products of the ICAP include both descriptive and quantitative information that can be used to design a strategy for implementing organizational culture change aimed toward improving operations, addressing specific problems, and improving the quality of life for both staff and inmates. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 71 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 3: Operational Areas Assessed by ASCA at High Desert Facility Management: Span of control; Extent to which staff are appropriately supervised; Communication with staff. 1. What is the span of control for security staff at HDSP? 2. Is supervisory staff at HDSP required to conduct facility tours on a regular basis (weekly or daily depending on rank)? Are those tours documented? 3. What methods of communication does supervisory staff use to communicate with subordinates? Is that communication effective in achieving it’s desired intent? 4. To what extent does supervisory staff verbally communicate with and observe security staff while on post at HDSP? Is the extent of direct communication and observation adequate and appropriate? 5. Does the existing span of control at HDSP provide for adequate, appropriate staff supervision? 6. How does the existing span of control for security staff at HDSP compare to the span of control for security staff at other facilities of similar size and mission in other jurisdictions? 7. Is staff being supervised to ensure that policy and procedures are followed? 8. To what extent is the span of control too broad to permit effective supervision of staff? 9. What measures can be taken to improve the span of control? 10. What measures can be taken to improve communications between line staff and supervisors? Facility Mission and Operations: Facility mission(s) and its impact on operations. 1. Does the executive administration of the CDCR provide the appropriate level of resources, training, and oversight to ensure that the facility can fulfill its’ mission? 2. Is the facility administration and staff committed to operating a safe and secure institution in accordance with all applicable laws, executive directives, and facility policies and procedures? 3. How does the mission and operation of the facility impact the culture of the institution? 4. How many internal and external reviews of the facility’s operations have been conducted in the last five years? Who performed the reviews? What were the results? 5. Has the facility put into place any corrective actions as a result of the findings of these reviews? Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 72 of 115 September 23, 2016 Inmate Discipline Process: Documentation; Adjudication; Recordkeeping; Outcomes. 1. Does HDSP have a policy that governs the inmate discipline process? Is that policy consistent with the CDCR policy that governs inmate discipline? 2. How are inmates at HDSP informed of facility rules and regulations, prohibited acts, disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, their rights in the disciplinary system and the procedure for appealing disciplinary findings? 3. Is each step of the inmate discipline process at HDSP documented? Are inmates provided documentation advising them of the charges against them, hearing dates, and disciplinary findings? 4. As part of the inmate discipline process, does HDSP have a disciplinary hearing committee that meets regularly to adjudicated inmate infractions? 5. Does the inmate discipline process at HDSP provide for due process? 6. How does the inmate discipline process at HDSP compare with inmate discipline processes in other jurisdictions? 7. Does the inmate discipline process at HDSP appear to be fair and consistently applied? 8. How do the inmates view the inmate discipline process? 9. What measures could be implemented to improve the inmate discipline process? Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process: Assess the inmate appeal process relative to the number and categories of appeals, recordkeeping, and outcomes. 1. Does HDSP have a policy that governs the inmate appeal process? Is that policy consistent with the CDCR policy that governs inmate appeals? 2. What is the process at HDSP for an inmate to submit an appeal? Is that process consistent with the policy? 3. Does that process provide for accountability regarding the submission, collection, and resolution of appeals? 4. How are inmates at HDSP informed of the appeal process, types of appeals and what decisions they may appeal? 5. Is there a formal process for inmates to file a complaint regarding staff misconduct? 6. Is each step of the inmate appeal process at HDSP documented? Are inmates provided documentation advising them of receipt of their appeal and notice of disposition? 7. How does the inmate appeal process at HDSP compare with inmate grievance/appeal processes in other jurisdictions? 8. Is the Grievance and Appeal Process fair? 9. Do inmates view the Grievance and Appeal Process as being fair? 10. Does staff view the Grievance and Appeal Process as being fair? 11. What, if any, changes should be made to improve the Grievance and Appeal Process? Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation: Determine the availability and types, the process for assignment and diversity in assignments. 1. What is the process by which HDSP’s inmates are assigned to a job? Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 73 of 115 September 23, 2016 2. What type jobs are available to HDSP’s inmates? 3. How many slots are available for each job assignment? 4. Does HDSP use a process to ensure that there is diversity in assignments? 5. What percent of jobs filled by each ethnic group at HDSP? 6. What is the process by which HDSP’s inmates are assigned to a program? 7. What type programs are available to HDSP’s inmates? 8. Are the programs evidenced based? 9. How many slots are available for each program assignment? 10. Does HDSP use a process to ensure that there is diversity in assignments? 11. What percent of programs filled by each ethnic group at HDSP? 12. What is the number of program completion by each ethnic group? 13. What percent of time are programs not offered due to lock-ins inmate unavailability? 14. Under what circumstances are inmates are removed from a program Investigations and Staff Discipline: Determine how investigations are generated. Are the individuals who conduct the investigations trained? Do the investigations adhere to CDCR policy? 1. What is the process for determining if an investigation is warranted, and who makes that decision? 2. Who determines sanctions against staff that are found to have violated the use of force policy? Are sanctions prescribed according the level of malfeasance? 3. Does the facility have its own investigators who conduct investigations of employees at HDSP? 4. If the investigators are CDCR employees, do they office at the HDSP? 5. Who has the final decision on investigations conducted on HDSP employees, and the outcomes? 6. Is the CCPOA involved in the discipline process, and to what extent is the CDCR Personnel staff involved? 7. Are investigations of alleged inappropriate staff behavior taken seriously by staff? 8. Are investigations of alleged inappropriate staff behavior taken seriously by management? 9. Are the individuals who conduct the investigations properly trained? 10. Do the investigations adhere to CDCR policy? 11. Are sanctions applied consistently? 12. Are sanctions applied in keeping with CDCR guidelines? Policy and Procedure: Determine the extent to which facility policy and procedure comply with CDCR policy and the extent to which staff follow those policies and procedures. 1. Are the HDSP policies written in compliance with the CDCR policies? 2. Are the operational procedures written in compliance with the facility policies? Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 74 of 115 September 23, 2016 3. Does the inspection of practice indicate the employees are following their own procedures? Staff Complaint Process: Process for submission and resolution. 1. Is the staff complaint process effective and does it comply with contemporary national standards? 2. Does the nature of staff complaints indicate that a cultural bias exists? 3. What subjects rank as the top five areas for staff complaints? 4. How are staff complaints reviewed and resolved? 5. How does the number of staff complaints compare to other facilities with a similar size and mission? Staff Training: Assess staff training relative to use of force, management of special populations, diversity and PREA. 1. Does the CDCR require the facility training operate consistent with an Annual Training Plan (ATP)? 2. Does the HDSP have a training schedule for all employees consistent with the CDCR ATP? 3. Is the curriculum developed for HDSP consistent with the CDCR ATP? 4. Is the attendance at the training events/classes maintained and insures all employees attend required training? 5. Is makeup training available for training missed by employees? 6. Are instructors certified to conduct training? 7. Is there training on working with a diverse inmate population? 8. Does the curriculum include training on Use of Force and is it consistent with national standards? 9. Is adequate use of force training instruction being provided on a regular schedule for all facility employees? If not, why? 10. Does training give adequate direction to employees about PREA and it’s compliance. 11. Does post training testing indicate that the subject matter is delivered effectively and that students take it seriously? Use of Force: Determine whether or not facility procedures related to the use of force are in line with the Department’ policies; Assess the effectiveness of those policies and determine whether or not they are being adhered to by staff. 1. Is adequate use of force training instruction being provided on a regular schedule for all facility employees? If not, why? 2. Is the use of force policy current and in compliance with applicable laws and contemporary national standards? 3. How does the number of uses of force at the facility compare to other facilities with a similar size and mission? 4. Is the use of force review process effective? Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 75 of 115 September 23, 2016 5. Are there administrative reviews of use of force incidents at the regional or executive level? 6. Who is the final authority for determining whether a use of force event was or was not in compliance with the policy? 7. Who determines sanctions against staff that are found to have violated the use of force policy? Are sanctions prescribed according the level of malfeasance? Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 76 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 4: Letter to Warden Spearman Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 77 of 115 September 23, 2016 ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS Executive Officers Regional Representatives President Vice President Midwest Northeast Leann Bertsch Brad Livingston Heidi Washington Rob Coupe Treasurer Past President Southern Western John Wetzel Ashbel T. Wall, II TBD Colette S. Peters June 17, 2016 Marion Spearman, Warden High Desert State Prison 475-750 Rice Canyon Road Susanville, CA 96127 Re: High Desert State Prison Independent Assessment Dear Warden Spearman: As you are aware, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has selected your institution – High Desert State Prison (HDSP) – to participate in an independent assessment from July 15 – 28, 2016. The primary goal of this assessment is to gain a deep understanding of the unique culture of HDSP and how that culture impacts prison operations and the environment for both staff and inmates. Institutional culture often impacts adherence to policy and practice. This assessment will follow two integrated inquiry tracks. They include: (1) an assessment of both the formal and informal cultures at HDSP through a process of interviews, focus groups, direct observation and assessment of facility operations, management, policy and procedure; and (2) an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation, document review, and discussions with staff. The findings from both areas of inquiry will be integrated into a set of conclusions and recommendations. This letter is intended to familiarize you with the assessment process and anticipated outcomes, as well as provide you with a list of specific information and documentation regarding your facility that we will need in advance to prepare for our assessment of HDSP. While on site at HDSP, ASCA assessors will follow the well-developed Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) which includes a range of tools and processes to assess and analyze institutional culture specifically in prisons. The ICAP is designed to enable the assessment team to understand and assess the more subtle aspects of institutional culture and to determine whether the facility’s mission, core values and principles are consistent with the Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 78 of 115 September 23, 2016 belief structures and practices of the workforce. We will also aim towards determining the degree to which the vision, values and expectations of the organization’s leadership are shared and enacted throughout the institution. We anticipate deploying a team of eight assessors to conduct the intensive on-site work and to assist in the preparation of a written report. We expect that the culture assessment at your institution will allow us to (1) provide you and the Department with feedback and information regarding the unique institutional culture of the facility, and (2) enable you and your staff to utilize proven methodologies for facilitating positive culture change. We have tentatively scheduled the site visit from July 15 – 28, 2016. In a separate letter I will send a proposed schedule of our activities while on site. In preparation for the assessment, we will require some specific information and documentation regarding your facility. It is important for this information to be available prior to our site visit, in order for us to develop a clear understanding about the operation of the facility. Although the request is somewhat lengthy, please be assured that the information is critical to the assessment process. To the extent possible, please provide the requested information in electronic format. The documents specified in the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol are as follows: 1. A narrative, drafted at your direction, which addresses the following items. If the narrative can be arranged in categorical format as indicated below, it will be most helpful to us: a. Mission of the institution and specific performance objectives that have been set by the you and your senior managers; b. Current capacity and recent capacity changes; c. Current population and any recent changes in size or demographics; d. Physical plant, description and discussion of strengths and limitations; e. Staffing and recruitment issues, nature of workforce in terms of experience; f. Recent relevant events; g. Present concerns or issues (both culture-related and operational); h. Weaknesses and strengths of institution and personnel; and i. Anticipated outcomes of the independent assessment process (e.g., what you would like to get out of the assessment). 2. A report from your institution, which contains the following inmate and staff demographic information as of the date of this letter: a. Inmate demographics: Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 79 of 115 September 23, 2016 i. Mean age; ii. Race/ethnicity (numerical and percent of total population); iii. Mean length of sentence; and iv. Any other relevant information available; b. Staff demographics: i. Mean age; ii. Race/ethnicity (numerical and percent of total workforce); iii. Total number of full-time (FTE) uniformed and non-uniformed staff; and iv. Total number of full-time (FTE) contractual employees, including the department(s) to which they are assigned; and v. Any other relevant information available. 3. A report from your institution, which contains the following information by month from January 2016 through June 2016: a. Staff turnover and reasons for leaving the institution/workers compensation: i. Retirements; ii. Resignations; iii. Terminations; iv. Lateral transfers; v. Number of staff out of work due to industrial accident and type of accident by category; and vi. Promotions. b. Significant incidents including: i. Disturbances; ii. Food or work strikes; iii. Lockdowns; iv. Assaults on staff with injury; v. Assaults on inmates with injury; and vi. Other. c. Incidents involving staff use of force: i. Number; ii. Nature of use of force (e.g., brief incident description); iii. Injuries to staff or inmates; and Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 80 of 115 September 23, 2016 iv. Findings (please include determinations that excessive force was used). d. Programs and participation levels: i. Name of program; ii. Description of program; and iii. Number of participants. e. Estimated inmate idleness: i. Idleness in terms of unemployment; ii. Idleness in terms of lack of program involvement; and iii. Number of inmates employed in institutional job assignments. f. Inmate grievances: i. Total and breakdown by category of grievances; ii. Number approved and type of grievances; and iii. Number denied. g. Staff grievances: i. Number and type of grievances; ii. Number of grievances brought to arbitration; and iii. Percentage of grievances filed per employee. h. Lawsuits: i. Number of lawsuits filed; ii. Number pending and disposed; and iii. Lawsuits decided, found in inmate’s favor and type. i. Number and type of inmate disciplinary reports, to include dispositions. j. An organizational chart and staff roster including all staff members. The staff roster should be broken down by shift and include staff members who are scheduled to work during the timeframe of the assessment. (Attached is a sample of the type of staff assignment information that we are seeking.) Please submit these documents as both electronic format as well as in hard copy. The staff roster should include the following categorical breakdowns: i. Name; ii. Rank/Title; iii. Assignment; iv. Gender; v. Race/ethnicity; and Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 81 of 115 September 23, 2016 vi. Years at the facility. The highest priority information is the staff roster that will enable us to randomly select, and your office to schedule, staff focus groups well in advance of the on-site work. The site visit includes a minimum of ten focus groups with specific groups of staff, and includes the administration of a standardized instrument – the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons (OCAI-P). In addition to the items previously listed that relate specifically to the assessment of HDSP’s culture, we are requesting several more items that relate specifically to the ten agreed to areas of inquiry. It would be helpful if you could assign a person on your staff with whom we could use as our contact for each of these areas. We have noted below the member of our team who will be responsible for working on each of these areas. (I realize that there is some overlap on the requests listed here with those previously listed in this letter.) Please provide requested items as attachments to emails. • • Facility Mission and Operations (Wayne Scott): Facility mission(s) and its impact on operations. Requested items are: o HDSP Mission Statement o HDSP Vision, Goals, Objectives Statements o HDSP Staff Orientation Document o HDSP Inmate Orientation Handbook o HDSP Visitor Orientation Document o Policy and Procedure (Gary Maynard): Extent to which facility policy and procedure complies with CDCR policy; Extent to which staff follow policy and procedure. Requested items are: o CDCR Policy and Procedure Manual (DOM?) (No need to send electronically, please just provide a printed copy for us in the conference room.) o HDSP Policy and Procedures Manual (No need to send electronically, please just provide a printed copy for us in the conference room.) o Any ACA Accreditation Audit Reports and CDCR/HDSP responses to them from 1-1-2005 to the present. • Facility Management (Wayne Choinski): Span of control; Extent to which staff are appropriately supervised; Communication with staff. Requested items are: o Current HDSP Table of Organization (Previously requested.) o Current schedule of all HDSP staff meetings o Minutes of all staff meetings from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 o Monthly reports from Warden to Central Office from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 • Use of Force (Wayne Scott): Determine whether or not facility procedures related to the use of force are in line with the Department’ policies; Assess the effectiveness of those policies and determine whether or not they are being adhered to by staff. Requested items are: Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 82 of 115 September 23, 2016 o o Use of Force reports/packets from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 After action outcome reports regarding staff involved in Use of Force incidents from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 • Staff Training (Gary Maynard): Assess staff training relative to use of force, management of special populations, diversity and PREA. Requested items are: o CDCR 2016 Annual Staff Training Plan o HDSP 2016 Annual Staff Training Plan o HDSP 2015 Report on Training Completed by HDSP Staff o Current Training Curriculum for HDSP staff for the following areas ! Managing Special Populations; ! Diversity; ! Use of Force; and ! PREA • Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process (Wayne Choinski): Assess the inmate appeal process relative to the number and categories of appeals; Recordkeeping; Outcomes. Requested items are: o Please refer to the items listed on page 4. • Inmate Discipline Process (Wayne Choinski): Documentation; Adjudication; Recordkeeping; Outcomes. Requested items are: o Monthly summary reports on infractions/disciplinary reports by type and outcomes from January 2016 through June 2016 o HDSP and CDCR current Inmate Discipline Process policies and procedures • Staff Complaint Process (Wayne Scott): Process for submission and resolution. Requested items are: o Number and type of formal staff complaints from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 o Appeal process guidelines/rules (policies and procedures) • Investigations and Staff Discipline (Gary Maynard): Determine how investigations are generated and who conducts them; Adherence to policy. Requested items are: o Number and type of investigation by month from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16 o Number and type of disciplinary action taken by month from 1-1-16 through 6-3016 • Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation (Calvin Brown): Availability and types; Process for assignment; Diversity in assignment. Requested items are: o Current number and types of Job and Program Assignments o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity assigned to each job type and program on or about July 1, 2016 o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity waiting to be assigned to each job type and program on or about July 1, 2016 o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity who successfully completed a program each month from January 201 through June 2016. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 83 of 115 September 23, 2016 The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol relies on the assessment team’s review of these documents and records in conjunction with their on-site work in order to fully assess the institutional culture. Whenever possible, those documents and reports that are available in electronic form should be sent as both electronic files. We will be conducting our review of these documents during the weeks prior to the visit. If these materials could be forwarded to me by June 30, we will have sufficient time to conduct our analysis and provide you with a much more thorough assessment We realize that this process may be somewhat cumbersome for you and your staff, but we have found each bit of information necessary to conduct a high quality assessment that will be of most use to both the Department and the facility. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions about either the assessment process or the preparation leading up to it. Sincerely, George M. Camp Co-Executive Director Attachment – SVSP Sample Roster Format cc: Scott Kernan, Secretary CDCR Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 84 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 5 Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings Monday July 11, 2016 – Suite 502S • 10:30 AM – 11:30AM Scott Kernan • 12:00 PM – 1:00PM CCPOA o Chuck Alexander, President o Suanne Jimenez, General Counsel o Bridget Hanson, CDCR Assistant Secretary of Labor Relations o Scott Kernan, CDCR Secretary • 1:00 PM -‐ Legal Representation o PLO – Sara Norman o Attorney General’s Office – Van Kamcerian (on the speaker phone) o CDCR – Alan Sobel o CDCR – Michael Minor • 3:00 PM -‐ CDCR Operations o Ralph Diaz (Undersecretary, Ops), o Kathy Allison (Director DAI), on the speaker phone, o Connie Gipson (Deputy Director DAI), o Jeff Macomber (Deputy Director DAI) 6:30 PM – Team Conference Call Ombudsman Office o Sara Malone, Chief Tuesday July 12, 2016 – o 1:00 PM – 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 OIG o Roy Wesley, Deputy IG o Shaun Spillane, PIO o Suzann Gostovich, Northern Region • 4:00 PM -‐ State Capitol, Room 1145 Executive Branch o Diane Cummins (Dept. of Finance), o Nettie Sabelhaus (Special Advisor to the Governor), and o Gabe Sanchez (Legal, Governor’s Office) o Scott Kernan (CDCR) • Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 85 of 115 September 23, 2016 Wednesday July 13, 2016 • 10:00 AM, Suite 502S-‐ California Correctional Healthcare Services o Clark Kelso (Receiver), o Rich Kirkland (Chief Deputy Receiver), and o Diana Toche (Undersecretary, Health Care Services) • 11:30 AM Room 502S Ombudsman Office o Sonya Valle, HDSP Ombudsman • 3:00 PM, State Capitol – Room 2082 Legislature o Senator Hancock (Chair, Senate Committee on Public Safety) and o Senator Hancock’s Staffer ______________ o Scott Kernan, CDCR Secretary o Kristoffer Applegate, Asst. Secretary, CDCR Office of Legislation • 5:30 PM Team Dinner o John Dovey, CCHS Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 86 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 6 Schedule of Onsite Activities at High Desert Please Note: During the course of the assessment, team members will be touring the institution, observing prison operations, and conducting both formal and informal interviews with staff and inmates over all three watches. Friday, July 15 7:15 AM Arrive HDSP, set up work area (Warden’s Conference Room) 7:45 AM Attend Morning Meeting (All team members) 8:15 AM Meet with Warden and Executive Staff (All Team Members) 9:00 AM Use of Force Review Meeting (Wayne Scott and Gary Maynard) 9:30 AM Andy Beck, Community Resource Manager (Leo and Calvin) 10:30 AM Don Clark and Richard Dreith, Appeals Office (Wayne C.) 10:30 AM Diana Fleetwood, Classification Chief (Margaret and Ruben) 11:00 AM Captain Lewis, Rosters (George, Wayne C.) 11:00 AM Interview Tammy Foss, Chief Deputy Warden (Margaret and Ruben) 12:00 PM Lunch with CCPOA representatives – Chris Gallyer, Bryan Vonrader (VP), Anthony Pickens, Sgt. Travis Kissinger, and Nick Guzman (All Team members) 1:00 PM Emergency Medical Response Review Committee (Margaret and Gary) 1:00 PM COMPSTAT - Total Bed Capacity / Use of Force / Inmate Disciplinary Meeting (Wayne and Wayne) 1:00 PM Meeting with Jason Pickett, AW (George Camp and Ruben Cedeno, Calvin Brown, Leo Carroll, and later rest of the team.) 2:30PM Interview Marion Spearman, Warden (Calvin Brown and Leo Carroll) 3:00PM Reconvene in Conference Room Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 87 of 115 September 23, 2016 5:00 PM Depart HDSP Saturday, July 16 9:00 AM Arrive HDSP 9:30 AM Depart for A/B Yards and C/D Yards 9:45 AM Tour All Four Yards / Facilities and Conduct Interviews with Sgts. and Lts. on each Yard / Facility • A-Yard/Facility Gary and Ruben o Met with: • B-Yard/Facility Wayne S. and Margaret o Met with: • C-Yard/Facility Wayne C. and Leo o Met with: D-Yard/Facility George and Calvin o Met with: • 12:00 PM Lunch with CCSO representative-Lt. Chris Fackrell (All Team Members) 1:15 PM Conduct four small group discussions with inmates on each Yard / Facility • • • • 2:30 PM A-Yard/Facility B-Yard/Facility C-Yard/Facility D-Yard/Facility Wayne C. and Leo George and Calvin Gary and Ruben Wayne S. and Margaret Tour All Four Yards / Facilities and Conduct Interviews with Sgts. and Lts. on each Yard / Facility • • • • A-Yard/Facility o B-Yard/Facility o C-Yard/Facility o D-Yard/Facility o Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Wayne C. and Leo George and Calvin Gary and Ruben Wayne S. and Margaret Page 88 of 115 September 23, 2016 4:15 PM Reconvene in Warden’s Conference Room 4:30 PM Depart HDSP Sunday, July 17 10:00AM Team meeting (Room 143) Monday, July 18 7:30AM Arrive HDSP All Day Interviews and Meetings • • • • 8:30 AM Healthcare Staff Meeting (Leo) Interview healthcare CEO (Leo) Informal interviews with A-Yard Officers (Leo) Interview Social Worker on A-Yard (Leo) CO Focus Group #1 (A Yard, 2nd Watch) Facilitator: Calvin 8:30AM Scribe: Gary with Wayne Scott CO Focus Group #2 (C Yard, 2nd Watch) Facilitator: Margaret Scribe: George 9:00 AM Interview healthcare CEO (Leo and Ruben) 11:00AM Meeting with Lt Crowe, PIO (Ruben) 12:00PM Lunch with SCIU Bargaining group representatives (George, Margaret, Gary, and Ruben) 12:00 PM COMPSTAT, Appeals Meeting (Wayne C. and Wayne Scott) 1:00 PM Inmate Discipline Meeting with AW (Wayne C.) 1:00 PM ED / VT Programs Mtg. B-Yard (Calvin) 2:00PM Warden’s Appeal Review Comm. Mtg. (Wayne Scott) 2:30PM CO Focus Group #3 (A Yard, 3rd Watch) Facilitator: Leo Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 89 of 115 Scribe: Gary September 23, 2016 2:30PM CO Focus Group #4 (C Yard, 3rd Watch) Facilitator: Ruben Scribe: Wayne C. 3:00 PM Meeting with Warden, CDW, and Lt. (Wayne Scott) 4:30PM Reconvene in Conference Room 5:30PM Depart HDSP Tuesday, July 19 7:15 AM Arrive HDSP 7:45 AM Attend Morning Meeting 8:15 AM ISU met with Lt. Davage, Investigation Unit / Gangs 8:30 AM Resource Team (Leo) 8:30 AM CO Focus Group #5 (B Yard, 2nd Watch) Facilitator: Calvin 8:30AM Scribe: Wayne Scott CO Focus Group #6 (D Yard, 2nd Watch) Facilitator: Ruben Scribe: George 10:30 AM A-Yard Captain Zumpano (Leo) 12:00PM Lunch 12:00 PM Classification Meeting (Calvin and Ruben) 12:30 PM Gate Officer (Ruben) 1:00 PM Appeals Coordinators Meeting (Wayne and Wayne) 1:00 PM CO’s in D-Yard Infirmary (Leo) 2:00 PM Linda Branch, Use of Force Coord. (Wayne Scott) 2:00PM Dental Office (Calvin and Ruben) 2:30PM CO Focus Group #7 (B Yard, 3rd Watch) Facilitator: Margaret Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 90 of 115 Scribe: Wayne C. September 23, 2016 2:30PM CO Focus Group #8 (D Yard, 3rd Watch) Facilitator: Leo Scribe: Gary 3:00 PM Warden (Ruben) 4:30PM Reconvene in Conference Room 5:00 PM Observation of GOGI Program (Calvin and Leo) 5:30PM Depart HDSP Wednesday, July 20 7:15 AM Arrive HDSP 7:45 AM Attend Morning Meeting 8:30 AM Sgt. Focus Group #9 (2nd Watch All Yard Sgts) in B-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Ruben 8:30AM Healthcare CO Focus Group #10 (Escort & Clinic Officers) in C-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Leo 9:00 AM Scribe: Wayne C. Scribe: George Observed Disc. Hearing / Met with disc. Lt. (Wayne Scott) correctiona; Counselors working in Classification (Calvin) 9:45 AM Met with Linda Branch in UoF Office (Wayne Scott) 10:00AM Travis Roberston, Reentry Hub Adm. (Calvin 10:00 AM Diana Hansen, Staff Services Manager for Personnel (Margaret 10:15 AM Met with In-Service training about UoF training requirements (Wayne Scott) 10:30 AM CTC talked with and CO’s and Sgt. 11:00 AM Peer Support Team with Lt. Matthews (Leo) 11:00 AM Z Building toured with the Lt. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 91 of 115 September 23, 2016 11:30 AM IMAN / Chaplain (Ruben) 12:00 PM Lunch 12:30 PM Focus Group #11 (Line Service Staff) in A-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Margaret 12:30PM Scribe: Gary Focus Group #12 (Line Program Staff) in D-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Calvin Scribe: Wayne Scott 1:30 PM Tammy Foss, CDW (Ruben) 3:00 PM Romona Schlaugue, ERO officer (Wayne) 3:00 PM Interviewed and administered the Instrument CEO Raul ________ (George and Wayne C.) 3:00 PM Use of Force Coordinator (Leo) 4:00PM Reconvene in Conference Room 5:00PM Depart HDSP Thursday, July 21 7:15 AM Arrive HDSP 7:45 AM Attend Morning Meeting All Day Interviews and Meetings 8:30 AM Sergeants Focus Group #13 (Central Adm. Sgts.) in B-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Wayne S. 8:30 AM Scribe: Calvin Lt. Focus Group #14 (All 2nd Watch Lts.) in C-Yard Visiting Facilitator: Wayne C. Scribe: Ruben 11:00 AM ADA Appeals meeting (Wayne Scott) 12:00PM Lunch Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 92 of 115 September 23, 2016 1:00PM Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates 12:30PM Managers Focus Group #15 (AW’s, Captains, Department Heads) Facilitator: George 12:30PM Scribe: Margaret Healthcare Focus Group #16 (Provider Staff) Facilitator: Gary Scribe: Leo 2:30PM Meeting with Captain McVay (Wayne Scott) 4:00PM Reconvene in Conference Room 5:00PM Depart HDSP Friday, July 22 12:00 PM Arrive CCC 12:15 PM Meet with CCC Warden and Managers 2:00 PM Depart CCC 2:15 PM Arrive HDSP 2:45 PM E-Yard (Leo and Ruben) 3:00 PM Conduct OCPAI Interview with Warden (George, Calvin and Gary) 3:00 PM Conduct OCPAI Interview with CDW (Margaret, Wayne S, and Wayne C.) 4:00 PM Observe Feeding on all Yards and Buildings; and observe activities on all Yards facility and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates • Facility A (George and Ruben) • Facility B (Gary and Margaret) • Facility C (Wayne C. and Leo) • Facility D (Wayne S. and Calvin) 8:00 PM Depart HDSP Saturday, July 23 11:00 AM Team Meeting (Off-site) Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 93 of 115 September 23, 2016 5:30 PM Dinner Team Meeting with Mike Picket Sunday, July 24 12:00PM Arrive HDSP 1:00PM Conduct four small group discussions with inmates (One group on each Yard) • A-Yard/Facility Gary and Calvin with 9 inmates • B-Yard/Facility Wayne S. and Margaret with 8 inmates • C-Yard/Facility Wayne C. and Leo with no inmates –all declined • D-Yard/Facility George with 6 inmates 2:00 PM D & C Visiting Rooms observation and discussion with officers (George) 3:00 PM Informal staff interviews (Team) 3:30 PM reconvene in Conference Room 4:00 PM Depart HDSP Monday, July 25 7:30 AM Arrive HDSP All Day Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates 8:00 AM Capt. Grether C-Yard (Wayne Scott) 8:00 AM Dr. Krause D-Yard (Calvin) 9:00 AM Ed Bertrand, Food Service Manager (Wayne C.) 9:00 AM Capt. Hale, Medical (Wayne S) 9:00AM Lt. Crandle, Staff training (Gary) Lt Harrington (Acting Capt. in D-Yard (Leo) Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 94 of 115 September 23, 2016 D’Andres CO B-Yard (Leo) Inv. And Staff Disc. Roman Schlauch (Gary and Wayne S.) Kimberly Jennings P&P (Gary) Kimberly Jennings (Margaret) Joe Shelton, Business (Margaret) 9:30 AM CEO / Warden Meeting (Calvin and George) 10:00 AM Morning Meeting 11:00 AM AW Hunter Anglea (Wayne /Wayne) 11:00AM Call Judith (George) 12:00PM Lunch Donnie Arminas, Office Tech. (Margaret) Audriana Wanamaker, Exec. Asst. to Warden (Margaret) 1:00 PM ISU Lt. DeForest (Wayne S and Gary) 1:00 PM AW Peery Complex 2 (George) 2:00 PM AW Rob St Andrea Central Operations (George) 5:00 PM Depart HDSP Tuesday, July 26 4:30 AM Arrive HDSP 4:45 AM Observe activities and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates • Facility A (Gary and Margaret) • Facility B (George) • Facility C (Wayne S. and Calvin) • Facility D (Wayne C. and Leo) 7:00 AM Reconvene in Conference Room Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 95 of 115 September 23, 2016 7:45 AM Attend Morning Meeting (George) Morning Interviews/Meetings with staff Morning Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates 12:00PM Depart HDSP 1:00 PM CCC Warden Peery (George and Gary) 3:30 PM Call (916) 324-‐8035. Sandra Alfaro, ADA 5:30 PM Dinner Meeting Wednesday, July 27 9:00AM Team meeting in Room 143 12:00PM Lunch 1:00PM Team meeting in Room 143 5:00PM Dinner Thursday, July 28 8:00 AM Arrive HDSP 9:00AM Pre-Closeout Meeting with Warden, CDW and CEO 10:00AM Full Closeout Meeting with HDSP Staff 12:00PM Depart HDSP Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 96 of 115 September 23, 2016 Appendix 7: High Desert Assessment Team Members Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 97 of 115 September 23, 2016 Outlined below are brief summaries of the proposed ASCA team members’ qualifications and experience: George M. Camp, Project Director George M. Camp has more than 40 years experience in correctional management and consulting. He served the public sector for fifteen years in a variety of positions that included Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections; First Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; Assistant Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction; and Associate Warden of the Federal Prison in Lompoc, California and the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. In his role as Co-Executive Director of the Association of State Correctional Administrators, he is engaged in several projects and initiatives including the expansion of the Performance-Based Management System (PBMS); Reducing Racial Disparity within Corrections; Contracting with the Private Sector; Providing Training and Professional Development Opportunities for Correctional Administrators; and Developing Guidelines for the Operation of Long-Term Restrictive Populations. He has conducted and directed independent operational audits, performance reviews and culture assessments in prisons throughout the country including California, Connecticut, North Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and many others. He just completed leading an independent performance review of staff safety, on behalf of the State Auditor, in all 12 of Washington’s state prisons. Prison work within CDC and CDCR dates back to the mid-1990’s while conducting a national study of strategies to manage prison gangs. That work included site visits to Soledad, DVI, Folsom and San Quentin. More recently he led the independent assessment of San Quentin’s CIC, directed the prison culture assessments at COR, SVSP, and CCWF, and served on a three-person Independent Performance Review team that completed a review of the entire correctional systems, resulting in a report entitled, Reforming Corrections. He is the author or co-author of several publications including The Resolution of Riots, published by Oxford University Press; Management of Crowded Prisons; Employees: Corrections Most Valuable Resource; Correctional Contracting: Staffing Analysis – A Training Manual; A Guide to Successful Experiences; Private Involvement in Prison Services and Operations; and the Corrections Yearbook. Prison Prison Prison Sector He has a Bachelor’s degree in American Literature from Middlebury College, a Master’s degree in Criminology and Corrections from Florida State University, and a Doctorate in Sociology from Yale University. Gary D. Maynard, Project Manager Gary Maynard will serve as Team Manager for this project at the High Desert State Prison. He will provide guidance to the Team Leader and the team of consultants. He will be responsible for working with the Team Leader to develop the final report and recommendations. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 98 of 115 September 8, 2016 Gary Maynard has served as Associate Director of ASCA since 2013. He has more than 35 years of experience in prison and jail operations at the state level. His experience at the facility level includes institutional parole officer, case manager, case manager supervisor, and deputy warden. He has served as warden at both medium and maximumsecurity institutions. He was a psychologist for the Bureau of Prisons. He has served as Director/Secretary for four state correctional systems, including the states of Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa and most recently, Maryland. He has significant experience in tackling tough issues. In Oklahoma he was involved in several hostage situations and prison disturbances and riots, and dramatically increased the professional expertise of both the negotiation and assault teams. In Maryland, when he became aware of the excessive force of officers, terminated 25 correctional officers against the protests of the Union and legislators. In time, 22 of the 25 were convicted or pled guilty, and Union and Legislative support returned to him even stronger. He conducted research and site visits to facilities in California CDCR regarding staff assaults, resulting in training and assistance to wardens to reduce the assaults. He has served as the Team Leader on several projects across the country, including a thorough review of staff safety initiatives in all 12 of the Washington State Corrections facilities, requiring his team to conduct 2-4 day site visits at each facility. Last year, with the Florida Department of Corrections, he served as the ASCA Project Manager to review Use of Force issues with that department, conducting site visits and interviews, and issued a final report with recommendations for corrective action. This past year he served as an Expert Witness for the NYC Department of Correction in their Use of Force litigation, and later served as Leader of a consultant team that provided Coaching and Mentoring to Jail Wardens and Deputy Wardens on NYC DOC’s Riker’s Island-a network of 11 jails that house extremely violent and disruptive detainees from the NYC court system. As a member of the Association of State Correctional Administrators since 1987, he has chaired the Information Sharing Committee, as well as served on the Executive Committee and as the Southern Directors President. He has been a member of the American Correctional Association since 1974, and is a Past President of ACA. He chaired ACA’s Staff Safety Committee. He has been active with ACA’s Commission on Accreditation for Corrections and their Standards Committee. He received the Courage and Valor Award from the Oklahoma DOC. Harold Clarke, Project Advisor Harold Clarke grew up in the Canal Zone in Panama. After college in Nebraska, he joined the Nebraska Department of Corrections in 1974 as a Counselor. He rose through the department, becoming Warden at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in 1987 and the Director of Corrections in 1990. In August of 1990, he was appointed Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, a position he held until 2005, when he began his role as Secretary of the Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 99 of 115 September 8, 2016 Washington State Department of Corrections. In 2007, he took on a new role, this time on the east coast as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction. On November 15, 2010, he was named the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. Harold was appointed by Governor Robert F. McDonnell as Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections effective November 15, 2010, and reappointed by Governor Terry McAuliffe in 2014. Harold is a Past President of the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA). Harold believes that the culture of a correctional facility largely determines the degree to which progress can be realized. A failure to strategically address cultural issues could lead to a troubled correctional system. Harold has focused on cultural transformation in the four correctional systems that he has had the privilege of leading. Most recently in Virginia, the efforts of Harold and his colleagues to change the culture of Red Onion State Penitentiary, a super-maximum facility, was recognized by the Southern Legislative Conference by providing Harold and the Virginia Department of Corrections with the STAR Award for Innovation in Government. Additionally, under his leadership, the VADOC has successfully implemented Step Down Programs for offenders in special management populations who for many years have refused to leave such units. Harold is the 1997 recipient of the Association of State Correctional Administrators Michael Francke Award and the 2014 recipient of the American Correctional Association’s E.R. Cass Award. Wayne Scott, Team Leader Wayne Scott will participate as the lead member of the on-site team and will play a primary role in formulating recommendations and drafting reports. Mr. Scott served over 30 years with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. He began his career in corrections in 1972 as a correctional officer and progressed through the ranks to serve as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). While serving with the TDCJ, Mr. Scott headed up a team of experts that examined the staffing at every Texas prison and established the base staffing requirements that are used by the agency today. Mr. Scott’s correctional consulting experience includes: Consultant on a comprehensive assessment of staffing needs for the Florida Department of Corrections; Consultant on a comprehensive review of all the policies, procedures, and processes relating to use-offorce within the Florida Department of Corrections; Consultant on a four-man team of security experts to review all agency policies and security procedures in the aftermath of a high profile escape; Consultant on a comprehensive assessment of staffing needs for the Detention Command of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Texas; Consultant on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement contract to provide support in administering and conducting the Detention Compliance Management Plan; Consultant on a comprehensive assessment of the administration and operations of the Massachusetts Department of Correction; Consultant on a justice system review for Tyler County, Texas; Consultant on a Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 100 of 115 September 8, 2016 comprehensive performance review of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and its related programs; Consultant on a criminal justice system and jail population study for Bexar County, Texas; Consultant on an agency wide operational analysis for the Florida Department of Corrections; Consultant on an assessment of the New Mexico Department of Correction's policies, procedures, and practices as they relate to the deployment of its correctional staff; Consultant on a project for the Cook County Judicial Advisory Council to develop an approach to assessing security staffing needs at the Cook County (Chicago, Illinois) Jail. Calvin Brown, Team Member Calvin Brown is currently a criminal justice consultant and has been involved in many projects involving culture and prison operations. In this proposal relating to the High Desert State Prison, Calvin’s expertise in minority relations and prison culture will be most beneficial. He has served as the Deputy Director of Facility Operations at the Georgia Department of Corrections, and was responsible for the overall direction and management of the Department’s daily operations at both the central office and facility levels. He began his career in corrections over twenty-seven years ago as a mental health counselor in a therapeutic community setting. Over the course of his tenure with the Georgia Department of Corrections, he has directed statewide programs in Counseling, Mental Health, Mediation/Conflict Resolution, and Inmate Administration. In 2015, he was involved as a consultant involving the New York City Department of Correction. He was part of a team of four consultants providing coaching and mentoring to the leadership of two of the Jails on Riker’s Island. In this capacity, he was teamed with the warden and deputy wardens of one facility and assisted them in scheduling, inspections, staff accountability and personnel actions. This coaching involved regular meetings with the warden and his staff, as well as weekly meetings with the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and his Deputy Commissioners, Chief of the Department and Deputy Chiefs. Mr. Brown has considerable experience in organizational culture assessment, having participated in eight organizational culture assessments in prisons in seven states (California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Connecticut, Missouri, and Maryland). He has been trained in the application of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) and has successfully applied it in a variety of correctional settings. His extensive knowledge of correctional organizations, programs, and operations at the local, state and national levels all add value to this current project. Mr. Brown graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Albany State University in Albany, Georgia. He received a Master of Education degree in Community Counseling from Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 101 of 115 September 8, 2016 Leo Carroll, Ph.D., Team Member Leo Carroll is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Rhode Island. His work in corrections dates back to 1968 when he was assigned to the U.S. Army/Air Force Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His doctoral dissertation, “Hacks, Blacks and Cons: Race Relations in a Maximum Security Prison,” was published in 1974 and updated and republished in 1988. As one of only a handful of in-depth studies of race relations in prison, it continues to be widely cited. Research for his most recent book-length publication, “Lawful Order: A Case Study of Correctional Crisis and Reform,” an institutional history of judicial intervention into Rhode Island‚s prisons, provided him rare insight into the complexities of correctional management and the processes of organizational change. In 2000, the book received the Outstanding Book Award from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, an award given annually to a book by an Academy member that is judged to make an extraordinary contribution to knowledge and understanding of criminal justice. Professor Carroll has also published numerous articles in professional journals. Margaret McMullian Pugh, Team Member In 1994, Margaret Pugh was appointed as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections by Governor Tony Knowles. She served as Commissioner until November 2002 administering a 180 million dollar operating budget, 1,400 staff in five labor unions and 4,200 offenders. During her tenure, she established a new female facility, built a new jail in Anchorage, established victims programs, upgraded and updated computerized information systems and increased treatment programs specifically for mental health and alcohol issues. Ms. Pugh began her career in the field of corrections as a Youth Counselor at the McLaughlin Youth Center and worked up to the position of Psychological Counselor at that facility. She has held positions as Probation Officer, Program Coordinator, Correctional Superintendent, Director and finally Commissioner. She also served as Legislative Assistant and as a member of the campaign staff of Fran Ulmer who was successfully elected as Lieutenant Governor. Ms. Pugh received a B.S. in Social Work from Florida State University. She continues her contributions to the field of corrections through her participation in both the American Correctional Association and the Association of State Correctional Administrators including working as an ICE inspector and assisting with other projects with state correctional agencies. Ruben L. Cedeño, Team Member Dr. Ruben Cedeño retired as the Deputy Secretary of the Washington State Department of Corrections’ Prison Division. After eighteen years of service in the state of Washington community college and public school systems, he entered the field of corrections in 1989 when he was appointed as the Superintendent for a female correctional institution in the state. He also held a number of other positions within the Washington State Department of Corrections, including Community Corrections Manager, Director of the Division of Offender Programs, and Superintendent of a male correctional institution. Just prior to his appointment as Deputy Secretary, Dr. Cedeño served as a Regional Director overseeing Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 102 of 115 September 8, 2016 the prisons and community corrections offices and work release centers operating in the southwest region of the state. Dr. Cedeño has considerable experience in organizational culture assessments. He has participated in nine organizational culture assessments in jails and prisons across the country. He has been trained in the application of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) and has successfully applied it in a variety of correctional settings. He has also worked with institutional staff and leadership to develop and support successful organizational change strategies. Wayne Choinski, Team Member Wayne Choinski brings over 30 years of experience in the field of corrections. His extensive correctional experience includes having served as a senior administrator at several large correctional institutions, the senior administrator for community corrections, and a regional administrator responsible for the oversight of nine correctional facilities including jails. In his role as a regional administrator, he served as a member of a state legislative committee on correctional staff safety. As a senior associate with ASCA since 2010, Wayne has consulted on collaborative projects with RAND Corporation, The Council of State Governments and The Pew Research Center in addition to assisting with a number of ASCA training programs. Recent work includes: Project Manager for CT DOC York CI Culture Assessment; An independent review of staff safety initiatives within the Washington State Department of Corrections; Operational staffing assessments for Florida Department of Corrections, New Mexico Corrections Department, Vermont Department of Corrections, Oregon Department of Corrections, and Nevada Department of Corrections; RAND Corporation Prison Closings Study; Independent assessment of a staff homicide at CO DOC; Technical assistance for HI DPS regarding use of disciplinary and administrative segregation in their prisons and jails; Master plan development for the relocation of the Draper, UT prison complex; Master plan development for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; Master plan development for the Philadelphia Prison System; and Detention standards compliance audits for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 103 of 115 September 8, 2016 Appendix 8: The Organizational Culture Assessment InstrumentPrisons (OCAI-P) The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons was adapted with approval from Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). The original instrument has been used in more than one thousand organizations and has been found to predict organizational performance. The instrument is broken down into two sections: the first section examining staff member’s impressions of the current organizational culture, and the second section examining the same staff member’s opinions about how they would prefer the organization to function. There are a total of six questions in each of the two sections of the instrument. Each question has four statements that try to describe how a staff person might feel about their correctional working environment. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, with participants encouraged to determine the degree to which they agree with each of the four statements. They are asked to weight each answer numerically, assigning them a number from zero to one hundred. The total score for the four parts of each category should equal one hundred (see below for an example question and weighted answers). What makes a good correctional officer? Now A. A good CO is a team player who interacts well with fellow staff and cooperates with others. 25 B. A good CO is flexible - s/he can adjust to circumstances that are changing all the time. 10 C. A good CO tries to be the best officer around. 15 D. A good CO is very disciplined - follows direction and gets the job done correctly and on time. 50 Total 100 In the first section, employees assigned to a particular focus group are required to provide a picture of how they perceive their organization to work and the values that Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 104 of 115 September 8, 2016 characterize it. After a brief group discussion of individual answers, the focus group members then proceed onto the second section of the instrument and score the same questions but from the perspective of how they would like their organization to function in five years. A second, more lengthy and introspective discussion ensues, with focus group members sharing their rationale for their individual responses. After the focus group session concludes, an analysis of the responses is conducted, and a ‘picture’ of both the current and preferred organizational cultures may be drawn (e.g., the ‘culture profile’ diagrams seen throughout this document). These diagrams are effective visual representations of the organizational culture, and are valuable tools for organizational leadership when determining long-range goals and future action in relation to implementing plans for culture change. Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 105 of 115 September 8, 2016 Appendix 9 Organizational Culture Types Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 106 of 115 September 8, 2016 Appendix 10: High Desert Focus Group & Staff Scores Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 107 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Overall Culture Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 25.6 18.5 24.3 31.7 42.3 14.9 15.5 27.3 66.5 191 All Staff Without Warden 25.3 18.5 24.4 31.7 42.2 14.8 15.5 27.4 66.2 190 Warden 65.8 14.2 0.0 20.0 58.3 25.8 3.3 12.5 70.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 24.5 16.8 23.7 35.0 42.5 13.8 11.4 32.3 63.9 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 29.2 19.8 20.8 30.3 39.4 12.9 16.3 31.4 77.4 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 20.0 19.0 22.8 38.3 47.8 12.5 12.1 27.6 44.3 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 23.7 14.7 27.4 34.2 44.9 14.6 14.7 25.7 57.5 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 28.6 18.4 21.9 31.1 39.7 15.4 16.4 28.5 77.8 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 27.4 24.2 22.6 25.8 37.5 14.4 16.4 31.7 68.0 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 30.9 16.6 21.4 31.1 36.1 12.3 22.6 29.0 87.2 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 26.8 19.5 21.4 32.4 41.4 11.6 12.2 34.8 66.0 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 22.9 30.9 25.4 20.7 53.3 9.1 14.6 23.0 34.6 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic) 24.9 21.3 23.1 30.7 55.2 10.0 12.2 22.7 39.6 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 18.5 16.2 28.4 36.9 37.3 16.7 19.2 26.9 61.5 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 22.4 13.4 20.8 43.4 44.7 19.3 10.3 25.7 43.6 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 23.8 23.0 27.9 25.3 36.7 19.2 20.2 24.0 74.2 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 31.4 16.0 27.8 24.8 53.3 12.9 15.5 18.3 56.4 11 (#15) Managers 23.9 19.2 30.9 26.0 34.7 23.1 20.6 21.6 70.8 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 24.1 13.0 27.7 35.3 37.2 15.5 14.8 32.4 68.7 11 Healthcare CEO 33.3 16.7 16.7 33.3 30.0 29.2 20.8 20.0 66.7 1 Chief Deputy Warden 33.3 12.5 16.7 37.5 45.8 8.3 12.5 33.3 75.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 44.2 14.4 11.1 30.3 44.7 21.1 12.2 21.9 83.3 3 Age: 35 or Younger 28.5 19.5 22.4 29.6 43.9 13.2 14.5 28.3 69.2 48 Age: 36-49 24.1 18.8 25.9 31.2 42.4 14.9 16.1 26.6 63.5 90 Age: 50 or Older 25.2 15.9 24.0 34.9 41.9 15.7 15.0 27.4 66.6 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 24.5 17.1 25.4 33.0 46.2 12.8 13.5 27.5 56.7 22 CO 2nd Watch 27.5 20.0 22.2 30.3 39.7 14.1 15.2 31.0 74.3 52 CO 3rd Watch 25.3 17.4 23.4 34.0 42.7 12.8 15.3 29.2 65.3 47 CO A Yard 22.3 17.9 23.2 36.6 45.1 13.2 11.8 30.0 54.5 23 CO B Yard 29.7 17.5 21.6 31.1 38.0 13.9 19.3 28.7 83.4 23 CO C Yard 26.5 17.3 24.0 32.2 42.1 13.7 15.6 28.6 68.9 27 CO D Yard 27.1 22.0 22.0 28.8 39.3 13.1 14.4 33.1 67.1 26 CO All Yards 26.5 18.7 22.7 32.1 41.1 13.5 15.3 30.2 70.7 99 All Males 25.8 19.3 23.6 31.3 42.7 14.6 15.9 26.7 66.1 158 All Females 24.0 14.3 27.4 34.3 41.1 15.7 12.7 30.5 63.0 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 20.6 14.7 24.3 40.4 41.3 18.1 14.4 26.3 51.9 26 Race: Caucasian 24.6 18.5 24.8 32.1 42.7 14.8 15.3 27.2 63.8 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 27.5 19.2 21.3 32.1 41.2 16.0 16.0 26.7 72.5 43 Race: African America 45.8 19.8 8.8 25.6 47.3 14.0 7.9 30.8 86.7 4 Race: Hispanic 26.5 19.6 21.0 32.9 38.9 17.1 16.1 27.9 75.1 26 Race: Asian 23.1 18.9 28.9 29.2 43.6 21.4 14.2 20.8 53.9 3 Race: Other 24.0 17.9 24.6 33.5 44.0 12.3 19.8 23.9 60.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 26.6 22.5 27.1 23.7 48.4 13.6 16.6 21.4 56.5 27 All Sergeants 23.3 27.0 26.7 23.0 45.0 14.1 17.4 23.5 55.7 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 27.3 16.9 22.0 33.8 41.8 14.5 13.8 30.0 71.0 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 24.8 16.7 27.4 31.1 43.2 15.2 15.9 25.7 63.3 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 23.6 22.4 24.5 29.5 42.3 14.9 16.9 25.8 62.7 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 24.3 18.7 23.4 31.1 40.6 14.1 15.2 27.3 65.0 12.0 Group Mean 25.2 18.9 24.6 31.3 42.6 14.6 15.6 27.2 62.0 11.8 Group High 31.4 30.9 30.9 43.4 55.2 23.1 22.6 34.8 87.2 14.0 Group Low 18.5 13.0 20.8 20.7 34.7 9.1 10.3 18.3 34.6 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 108 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Dominant Characteristics Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 27.9 16.0 22.8 33.3 38.6 16.8 18.0 26.6 77.0 191 All Staff Without Warden 27.6 16.1 22.9 33.4 38.2 16.9 18.1 26.8 77.1 190 Warden 75.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 35.8 12.5 26.3 25.4 35.0 19.6 14.6 30.8 75.0 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 38.6 11.4 16.8 33.2 37.1 13.2 17.1 32.5 95.7 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 25.0 14.5 21.8 38.6 43.2 19.5 9.1 28.2 53.6 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 23.5 15.8 23.5 37.3 38.5 18.8 18.5 24.2 63.8 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 32.5 14.6 17.1 35.8 45.4 14.2 12.9 27.5 74.2 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 29.6 24.3 20.0 26.1 38.6 13.6 18.6 29.3 75.7 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 26.4 17.5 22.1 34.1 29.5 14.1 25.0 31.4 87.8 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 32.5 14.3 18.5 34.7 40.4 16.3 14.2 29.2 80.3 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)28.1 26.9 25.6 19.4 51.9 9.4 15.0 23.8 43.8 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)23.6 24.1 22.7 29.5 58.6 10.5 15.5 15.5 30.0 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 15.8 11.3 26.7 46.3 23.3 15.4 22.5 38.8 76.7 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 23.8 17.7 17.4 41.1 36.4 25.0 14.6 23.9 60.1 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 32.5 22.5 25.0 20.0 39.4 22.5 15.6 22.5 81.3 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 32.3 11.4 25.0 31.4 50.0 13.2 18.6 18.2 60.9 11 (#15) Managers 25.7 12.1 28.6 33.6 32.9 23.9 23.6 19.6 62.1 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 15.9 13.2 33.2 37.7 22.3 20.0 26.4 31.4 73.6 11 Healthcare CEO 10.0 15.0 25.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 40.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 50.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 45.0 5.0 16.7 33.3 45.0 6.7 33.3 15.0 63.3 3 Age: 35 or Younger 33.4 16.4 22.6 27.6 43.0 17.1 13.5 26.4 79.5 48 Age: 36-49 25.9 16.7 23.7 33.7 36.7 16.4 19.3 27.6 78.4 90 Age: 50 or Older 27.1 13.0 21.5 38.4 37.6 17.3 20.0 25.1 70.4 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 19.8 18.6 28.0 33.6 40.5 15.2 20.9 23.4 58.6 22 CO 2nd Watch 34.1 15.9 19.9 30.1 38.9 15.0 16.0 30.1 90.4 52 CO 3rd Watch 26.8 15.5 21.5 36.2 38.0 17.2 16.7 28.1 74.2 47 CO A Yard 30.7 13.5 24.1 31.7 38.9 19.6 12.0 29.6 71.3 23 CO B Yard 29.6 16.0 19.5 35.0 37.8 14.1 18.7 29.3 83.5 23 CO C Yard 31.3 13.5 20.0 35.2 37.8 15.9 17.8 28.5 82.2 27 CO D Yard 31.0 19.7 19.3 30.0 39.4 14.8 16.5 29.2 83.1 26 CO All Yards 30.7 15.7 20.7 33.0 38.5 16.1 16.3 29.1 83.6 99 All Males 28.0 16.7 22.4 32.8 39.5 16.6 17.9 25.9 77.0 158 All Females 24.9 11.9 25.5 37.7 34.0 16.5 17.7 31.8 72.7 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 20.1 14.7 21.7 43.5 30.4 20.6 18.3 30.8 67.8 26 Race: Caucasian 27.8 15.7 22.9 33.6 39.0 16.6 17.8 26.6 75.9 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 26.6 17.1 22.9 33.4 36.3 20.0 18.0 25.7 74.9 43 Race: African America 42.5 16.3 13.8 27.5 63.8 6.3 3.8 26.3 57.5 4 Race: Hispanic 23.8 18.3 22.3 35.6 32.9 24.0 16.3 26.7 70.4 26 Race: Asian 25.0 50.0 25.0 30.0 33.3 30.0 13.3 23.3 63.3 3 Race: Other 28.0 13.5 27.5 31.0 35.0 12.0 29.5 23.5 82.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 31.1 19.3 25.2 24.4 47.4 14.8 16.7 21.1 67.4 27 All Sergeants 30.3 24.7 25.3 19.7 45.6 15.9 15.3 23.1 62.5 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 29.1 15.1 23.1 32.7 39.3 16.3 16.3 28.0 77.1 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 31.0 14.0 23.1 31.9 38.6 16.9 18.3 26.2 79.0 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 23.2 19.1 22.1 35.6 37.9 17.7 18.9 25.4 70.5 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 27.3 14.6 23.1 33.9 38.6 15.9 16.4 27.9 73.9 12.0 Group Mean 27.6 16.5 23.1 32.8 38.9 16.8 17.6 26.7 68.4 11.8 Group High 38.6 26.9 33.2 46.3 58.6 25.0 26.4 38.8 95.7 14.0 Group Low 15.8 11.3 16.8 19.4 22.3 9.4 9.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 109 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Leadership Culture Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 21.7 22.9 32.2 23.1 43.0 13.8 13.1 30.1 43.5 191 All Staff Without Warden 21.5 23.0 32.4 23.1 43.0 13.7 13.2 30.1 43.1 190 Warden 60.0 10.0 0.0 30.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 70.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 18.8 19.6 38.8 22.9 42.9 10.8 2.5 43.8 10.0 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 21.1 27.1 32.9 18.9 34.3 13.6 20.0 32.1 47.1 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 15.0 25.0 35.9 24.1 45.5 13.6 6.8 34.1 19.1 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 23.8 21.2 33.5 21.5 44.2 12.7 13.5 29.6 43.1 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 28.3 30.0 22.5 19.2 36.3 12.9 13.3 37.5 47.5 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 23.2 27.1 27.5 22.1 41.8 12.5 15.0 30.7 45.7 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 28.6 21.8 25.5 24.1 35.5 11.8 27.3 25.5 80.0 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 15.9 23.5 24.3 36.3 32.3 8.7 14.0 45.1 49.7 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)15.0 33.1 38.8 13.1 53.1 13.1 8.1 25.6 -1.3 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)21.8 30.5 29.5 18.2 61.8 7.7 11.4 19.1 18.2 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 16.8 22.8 40.0 20.5 39.6 19.6 16.3 24.6 46.2 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 23.6 14.6 30.9 30.9 50.7 15.7 7.9 25.7 43.6 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 18.8 24.4 33.8 23.1 32.5 19.4 16.9 31.3 56.3 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 23.6 19.5 40.5 16.4 64.1 10.5 11.4 14.1 19.1 11 (#15) Managers 21.8 21.4 35.7 21.1 36.8 22.9 16.4 23.9 61.4 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 21.8 12.9 34.5 30.7 40.0 11.8 10.9 37.3 50.5 11 Healthcare CEO 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 15.0 5.0 40.0 50.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 46.7 6.7 10.0 36.7 46.7 21.7 1.7 30.0 70.0 3 Age: 35 or Younger 21.8 24.0 32.3 22.0 41.3 12.7 12.2 33.9 37.3 48 Age: 36-49 22.1 21.4 32.9 32.6 44.6 13.5 13.9 28.0 46.2 90 Age: 50 or Older 21.8 23.5 31.8 23.0 43.2 14.0 12.4 30.4 42.3 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 21.8 21.7 32.0 24.5 50.9 9.8 11.1 28.2 34.4 22 CO 2nd Watch 22.8 26.1 30.4 20.8 38.8 12.5 13.1 35.7 38.3 52 CO 3rd Watch 20.9 22.8 29.8 26.5 39.4 11.7 15.3 33.6 48.6 47 CO A Yard 17.0 22.2 37.4 23.5 44.1 12.2 4.6 39.1 14.3 23 CO B Yard 28.5 26.1 23.9 21.5 35.9 12.4 20.0 31.7 64.8 65 CO C Yard 22.4 24.3 33.1 20.2 39.1 13.1 16.9 30.9 45.2 27 CO D Yard 19.8 25.5 26.0 28.7 37.4 10.7 14.5 37.3 47.5 26 CO All Yards 21.9 24.5 30.1 23.5 39.1 12.1 14.1 34.7 43.2 99 All Males 21.3 24.1 31.8 22.7 42.8 13.8 14.0 29.4 43.7 158 All Females 24.7 16.2 35.8 23.3 46.8 13.0 8.3 31.8 38.7 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 20.4 18.4 35.1 26.1 45.6 17.5 11.7 25.2 49.7 26 Race: Caucasian 20.4 23.7 32.9 23.0 43.6 13.7 12.5 30.3 39.1 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 25.7 22.6 29.3 22.3 43.0 14.4 13.6 29.0 52.2 43 Race: African America 38.8 32.5 8.8 20.0 50.0 12.5 5.0 32.5 52.5 4 Race: Hispanic 27.2 20.3 31.7 20.8 41.0 14.8 13.5 30.8 52.5 26 Race: Asian 13.3 23.3 38.3 25.0 43.3 23.3 15.0 18.3 40.0 3 Race: Other 20.5 24.5 28.5 26.5 45.5 11.5 17.0 26.0 50.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 19.6 25.0 38.0 17.4 51.5 13.9 12.0 22.6 25.9 27 All Sergeants 16.9 28.8 36.3 18.1 42.8 16.3 12.5 28.4 27.5 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 25.5 18.6 29.0 26.9 40.6 12.9 10.9 35.6 52.4 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 19.0 20.8 38.1 22.2 43.5 14.2 14.4 27.9 39.7 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 20.6 30.4 29.8 19.1 45.7 13.9 14.2 26.2 35.7 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 21.8 23.2 33.7 21.8 40.9 12.8 13.4 30.2 46.0 12.0 Group Mean 21.1 23.4 32.8 22.7 43.2 13.6 13.2 30.0 39.8 11.8 Group High 28.6 33.1 40.5 36.3 64.1 22.9 27.3 45.1 80.0 14.0 Group Low 15.0 12.9 22.5 13.1 32.3 7.7 2.5 14.1 -1.3 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 110 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Management Culture Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 29.7 15.8 28.2 26.3 43.3 14.3 15.0 27.4 70.7 191 All Staff Without Warden 29.6 15.7 28.3 26.4 43.3 14.2 15.0 27.5 70.4 190 Warden 60.0 10.0 0.0 30.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 80.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 27.5 15.0 25.0 32.5 34.6 13.8 18.3 33.3 84.2 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 26.4 12.9 33.2 27.5 40.7 12.9 15.0 31.4 63.6 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 24.1 20.0 26.8 29.1 50.0 7.7 9.5 32.7 40.9 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 33.5 11.2 30.0 25.4 48.5 15.0 11.9 24.6 62.3 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 31.3 12.5 27.5 28.8 40.0 13.3 17.1 29.6 79.2 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 34.3 23.2 23.6 18.9 42.9 14.6 14.6 27.9 65.0 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 29.5 12.5 28.0 30.0 33.6 12.7 23.6 30.0 91.3 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 38.8 16.3 23.0 21.8 41.8 10.5 12.6 35.1 67.5 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)19.4 30.6 35.6 14.4 53.1 5.6 17.5 23.8 13.8 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)35.9 14.5 27.7 21.8 52.3 10.0 9.1 28.6 53.6 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 21.9 18.8 28.3 30.9 49.6 13.8 17.5 19.2 44.7 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 28.4 12.3 18.6 40.7 47.1 19.3 8.9 24.6 48.6 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 27.5 18.8 35.6 18.1 42.5 16.3 18.8 22.5 61.3 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 37.7 14.1 34.1 14.1 49.5 15.9 13.2 21.4 58.2 11 (#15) Managers 23.2 12.5 36.8 27.5 36.4 23.9 16.8 22.9 50.7 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 30.0 14.1 26.4 29.5 37.7 12.7 17.7 31.8 80.0 11 Healthcare CEO 50.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 45.0 13.3 11.7 30.0 31.7 35.0 18.3 15.0 43.3 3 Age: 35 or Younger 31.0 15.5 24.8 28.8 45.4 10.7 13.6 30.2 68.3 48 Age: 36-49 28.8 15.7 30.8 24.7 43.0 15.5 16.5 25.1 70.9 90 Age: 50 or Older 30.5 16.0 27.2 26.3 44.0 15.5 12.1 28.4 68.9 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 33.0 14.3 27.0 25.7 45.0 11.4 13.4 30.2 66.8 22 CO 2nd Watch 29.9 16.1 27.4 26.6 39.7 13.7 16.2 30.5 72.7 52 CO 3rd Watch 31.7 14.9 27.0 26.4 43.7 11.6 14.3 30.4 68.1 47 CO A Yard 25.9 17.4 25.9 30.9 42.0 10.9 14.1 33.0 63.5 23 CO B Yard 30.4 12.5 37.7 29.3 37.0 13.0 20.2 29.8 85.0 23 CO C Yard 29.8 12.0 31.7 26.5 44.4 13.9 13.5 28.1 63.7 27 CO D Yard 36.4 20.0 23.3 20.3 42.4 12.7 13.7 31.2 66.2 26 CO All Yards 30.8 15.5 27.2 26.5 41.6 12.7 15.3 30.5 70.5 99 All Males 30.6 15.9 26.9 26.6 43.1 14.3 14.9 27.8 72.7 158 All Females 26.3 15.6 32.2 26.0 44.7 14.5 15.0 25.8 63.2 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 25.4 15.3 32.1 36.2 48.3 16.7 12.9 22.1 51.5 26 Race: Caucasian 29.6 15.7 28.4 26.3 44.7 14.1 14.0 27.2 68.0 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 30.5 18.7 22.0 28.7 40.1 15.8 16.9 27.2 80.8 43 Race: African America 47.5 18.8 10.0 23.8 52.5 15.0 11.3 21.3 87.5 4 Race: Hispanic 30.5 20.0 20.8 28.7 37.7 15.4 19.0 27.9 85.6 26 Race: Asian 18.3 15.0 28.3 38.3 38.3 25.0 11.7 25.0 40.0 3 Race: Other 27.5 16.5 28.0 28.0 42.0 14.5 15.0 28.5 70.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 29.3 20.4 35.0 15.4 48.5 13.0 16.1 22.4 47.4 27 All Sergeants 23.4 24.7 35.6 16.3 47.8 10.9 18.1 23.1 37.5 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 32.7 13.5 23.3 30.5 43.0 14.4 13.5 29.1 77.6 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 28.5 14.7 32.9 23.9 45.3 14.7 15.4 24.6 64.9 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 27.7 20.4 29.8 22.1 42.1 14.5 15.7 27.8 59.8 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 29.0 14.3 27.9 27.5 42.7 13.6 15.9 28.3 61.8 12.0 Group Mean 29.3 16.2 28.8 25.7 43.8 13.6 15.1 27.5 60.3 11.8 Group High 38.8 30.6 36.8 40.7 53.1 23.9 23.6 35.1 91.3 14.0 Group Low 19.4 11.2 18.6 14.1 33.6 5.6 8.9 19.2 13.8 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 111 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Organizational Glue Characteristics Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 32.5 14.2 18.5 34.8 46.8 14.8 13.6 24.7 70.1 191 All Staff Without Warden 32.4 14.2 18.6 34.9 46.9 14.7 13.6 24.8 70.0 190 Warden 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 50.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 31.7 12.5 15.4 40.4 54.4 10.6 11.0 24.0 54.5 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 48.9 16.4 8.2 26.4 45.4 12.9 11.4 30.4 85.7 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 24.1 12.7 15.9 47.3 53.2 13.2 9.5 24.1 40.9 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 29.2 9.6 19.2 41.9 47.3 13.5 14.6 24.6 56.2 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 32.1 16.3 20.0 31.7 37.5 17.9 17.1 27.5 85.8 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 32.1 18.6 20.4 28.9 36.1 14.6 17.9 31.4 87.1 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 47.7 10.9 14.5 26.8 50.9 7.7 17.7 23.6 87.3 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 31.7 13.8 19.2 35.4 47.1 11.3 10.1 31.5 69.2 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)44.4 13.8 16.9 25.0 67.5 7.5 7.5 17.5 53.8 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)29.1 15.0 16.8 39.1 60.0 9.5 10.5 20.0 38.2 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 19.2 13.3 27.1 40.4 36.3 18.3 15.0 30.4 55.8 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 18.6 11.4 22.9 47.1 47.4 21.6 10.4 20.6 21.9 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 31.9 21.9 19.4 26.9 40.0 17.5 18.1 24.4 83.8 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 49.5 11.4 13.6 25.5 60.0 10.9 10.9 18.2 79.1 11 (#15) Managers 30.4 17.1 24.6 27.9 35.4 23.6 20.7 20.4 77.1 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 23.6 12.7 21.4 42.3 43.6 17.7 13.6 25.0 50.0 11 Healthcare CEO 30.0 10.0 10.0 50.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 -20.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 35.0 20.0 11.7 33.3 41.7 30.0 13.3 15.0 63.3 3 Age: 35 or Younger 39.4 15.2 14.9 30.5 50.2 13.6 13.1 23.0 78.3 48 Age: 36-49 29.4 14.3 20.4 35.9 45.9 14.3 13.5 26.3 67.1 90 Age: 50 or Older 29.2 13.2 19.1 38.5 47.1 16.5 14.1 22.3 57.5 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 26.4 13.9 19.1 40.7 51.8 13.6 12.0 22.5 49.1 22 CO 2nd Watch 36.5 16.1 15.9 31.5 43.1 14.0 14.4 28.5 86.8 52 CO 3rd Watch 33.0 11.7 17.3 38.0 49.5 11.5 13.0 26.0 67.0 47 CO A Yard 28.0 12.6 15.7 43.7 53.8 11.8 10.3 24.0 48.4 23 CO B Yard 39.6 13.7 17.4 29.3 43.9 13.0 17.4 25.7 91.3 23 CO C Yard 39.4 13.1 13.5 33.9 46.3 13.1 13.0 27.6 86.3 27 CO D Yard 31.9 16.3 19.8 31.9 41.2 13.1 14.3 31.5 81.5 26 CO All Yards 34.8 14.0 16.6 34.6 46.1 12.8 13.7 27.3 77.4 99 All Males 33.6 14.6 17.4 34.4 47.9 14.2 13.9 24.0 71.4 158 All Females 25.8 12.5 23.5 38.2 42.5 17.9 12.0 27.6 55.9 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 18.8 12.3 24.8 44.0 42.3 20.1 12.5 25.1 37.5 26 Race: Caucasian 30.8 14.2 18.5 36.5 46.6 15.2 13.6 24.6 66.6 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 31.7 15.9 18.4 34.0 47.9 15.0 14.7 22.4 67.7 43 Race: African America 57.5 17.5 6.3 18.8 38.8 20.0 10.0 31.3 62.5 4 Race: Hispanic 31.0 16.2 17.9 35.0 46.3 15.2 13.5 25.0 69.2 26 Race: Asian 23.3 15.0 31.7 30.0 43.3 16.7 20.0 20.0 56.7 3 Race: Other 26.0 15.0 20.5 38.5 57.0 15.0 18.0 13.0 38.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 42.8 15.2 16.3 25.7 56.3 11.9 12.0 19.8 73.0 27 All Sergeants 38.1 17.8 18.1 25.9 53.9 12.5 12.8 20.9 68.8 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 30.6 14.6 17.9 36.9 45.4 15.0 12.5 27.1 69.6 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 34.8 12.8 17.9 34.5 48.0 15.6 14.0 22.5 68.1 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 30.4 16.3 20.4 32.9 48.1 13.9 14.4 23.6 64.5 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 31.7 13.6 19.2 33.6 47.2 13.4 12.5 24.3 62.7 12.0 Group Mean 32.8 14.2 18.5 34.6 47.6 14.3 13.5 24.6 64.2 11.8 Group High 49.5 21.9 27.1 47.3 67.5 23.6 20.7 31.5 87.3 14.0 Group Low 18.6 9.6 8.2 25.0 35.4 7.5 7.5 17.5 21.9 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 112 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Strategic Emphasis Characteristics Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 19.7 23.2 24.1 33.0 35.8 15.3 19.2 29.7 67.9 191 All Staff Without Warden 19.5 23.2 24.3 33.0 35.6 15.2 19.3 29.8 67.7 190 Warden 60.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 30.0 0.0 10.0 80.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 9.6 25.8 18.3 46.3 39.6 14.6 12.9 32.9 40.0 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 14.3 24.3 16.4 45.0 37.5 11.8 18.2 32.5 50.0 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 18.0 18.5 14.0 49.5 45.0 12.7 17.7 24.5 38.5 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 17.0 19.7 34.2 29.1 37.7 14.6 17.7 30.0 56.8 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 20.8 21.3 22.5 35.4 30.8 17.5 21.3 30.4 80.0 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 21.4 28.6 24.6 25.4 27.5 15.0 18.2 39.3 60.0 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 25.9 19.5 24.1 30.5 29.5 12.7 26.4 31.4 86.4 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 16.8 25.9 27.7 29.7 36.4 10.5 11.8 41.3 37.3 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)21.3 41.9 22.5 14.4 43.1 7.5 26.3 23.1 31.3 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)18.6 27.2 23.3 30.9 39.1 11.4 15.0 34.5 51.8 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 16.7 14.2 25.0 44.2 24.6 16.7 29.2 29.6 70.8 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 19.9 12.7 17.4 50.0 40.6 19.5 12.9 27.1 45.0 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 15.0 27.5 30.0 27.5 26.9 20.6 28.8 23.8 76.3 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 26.8 23.6 28.6 20.9 43.6 14.5 20.5 21.4 65.5 11 (#15) Managers 21.4 29.3 34.3 15.0 28.4 24.1 28.2 19.4 77.4 14 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 26.6 15.2 26.8 31.4 40.0 16.8 11.4 31.8 69.1 11 Healthcare CEO 50.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 90.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 -50.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 45.0 31.7 13.3 10.0 53.3 20.0 3.3 23.3 56.7 3 Age: 35 or Younger 21.6 25.5 21.3 31.6 35.2 12.5 18.3 34.0 68.1 48 Age: 36-49 19.0 25.6 26.2 29.1 37.7 15.5 19.4 27.5 62.8 90 Age: 50 or Older 18.8 15.0 24.5 41.6 33.2 16.9 20.2 29.7 67.4 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 22.6 21.2 25.0 31.1 39.5 14.1 13.2 33.2 62.1 22 CO 2nd Watch 16.6 25.1 20.5 37.8 33.8 14.6 17.7 33.9 65.8 52 CO 3rd Watch 19.3 21.0 25.4 34.3 37.2 12.7 18.2 31.9 64.2 47 CO A Yard 13.6 22.3 16.3 47.8 42.2 13.7 15.2 28.9 42.9 23 CO B Yard 23.3 20.4 23.3 33.0 30.2 15.2 23.7 30.9 85.2 23 CO C Yard 15.6 22.1 25.0 37.3 37.6 13.1 18.0 31.3 56.0 27 CO D Yard 19.3 27.3 26.0 27.3 31.6 12.9 15.2 40.2 49.5 26 CO All Yards 17.9 23.1 22.8 36.1 35.4 13.7 17.9 33.0 65.0 99 All Males 19.8 24.4 23.9 31.8 35.9 14.9 20.3 28.9 67.8 158 All Females 18.8 17.1 23.3 40.8 33.6 17.4 13.3 35.6 69.8 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 18.4 13.4 20.9 47.3 33.2 18.2 20.4 28.2 60.8 26 Race: Caucasian 18.3 23.0 25.9 32.8 34.6 15.3 20.1 30.0 67.5 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 23.7 23.6 18.4 34.3 36.3 15.1 17.4 31.2 74.9 43 Race: African America 36.6 22.5 12.5 28.8 38.8 13.8 7.5 40.0 72.5 4 Race: Hispanic 21.7 22.7 17.5 38.1 33.7 16.5 17.9 31.9 75.5 26 Race: Asian 28.3 25.0 26.7 20.0 56.7 15.0 13.3 15.0 43.3 3 Race: Other 22.6 26.1 20.5 30.8 36.0 12.0 21.5 30.5 71.2 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 21.7 30.2 27.2 20.9 38.5 14.3 24.6 22.6 63.0 27 All Sergeants 18.1 34.7 26.3 20.9 35.0 14.1 27.5 23.4 58.8 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 21.8 21.7 23.2 33.3 35.9 15.0 16.1 33.0 71.9 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 17.5 21.4 26.0 35.2 37.7 15.3 20.1 26.9 59.5 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 18.4 26.6 24.9 30.2 33.1 15.3 22.9 28.8 70.6 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 19.3 24.0 24.4 30.7 37.6 14.6 18.2 30.2 58.4 12.0 Group Mean 19.4 23.5 24.4 32.8 35.6 15.0 19.8 29.6 58.5 11.8 Group High 26.8 41.9 34.3 50.0 45.0 24.1 29.2 41.3 86.4 14.0 Group Low 9.6 12.7 14.0 14.4 24.6 7.5 11.4 19.4 31.3 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 113 of 115 September 8, 2016 Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Success Criteria Characteristics Group Name Now Overall Preferred Overall Degree of Difference N A B C D A B C D Composite Staff Results 21.7 18.9 20.0 39.4 46.4 14.2 14.0 25.5 50.7 191 All Staff Without Warden 21.4 19.0 20.1 39.5 46.4 14.1 14.0 25.5 50.0 190 Warden 90.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 1 (#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch) 23.6 15.7 18.3 42.4 48.8 13.3 9.2 28.8 49.7 12 (#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch) 25.7 26.4 17.1 30.7 41.4 13.2 16.1 29.3 68.6 14 (#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch) 13.5 23.3 22.2 41.0 50.0 8.2 20.0 21.8 27.1 11 (#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch) 15.2 11.0 23.8 50.0 53.5 13.1 12.3 21.2 19.2 13 (#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 26.7 15.8 21.7 35.8 48.3 16.7 16.7 18.3 55.0 12 (#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch) 23.9 23.2 19.6 33.2 38.2 16.1 13.9 31.8 71.4 14 (#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch) 27.3 17.3 14.1 41.4 37.7 14.5 15.5 32.3 76.4 11 (#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch) 25.1 23.0 15.5 36.4 50.6 12.6 10.5 26.3 49.0 12 (#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 9.4 39.4 13.1 38.1 51.3 11.3 13.1 24.4 16.3 8 (#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)20.5 16.3 18.6 44.5 59.1 10.9 11.8 18.2 22.9 11 (#11) Line Service Staff 20.8 16.7 23.3 39.2 50.4 16.3 14.6 18.8 40.8 12 (#12) Line Program Staff 20.0 11.8 17.5 50.7 45.6 14.9 7.1 32.4 42.6 14 (#13) Central Admin. Sergeants 16.9 23.1 23.8 36.3 38.8 18.8 23.1 19.4 56.3 8 (#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch) 18.6 15.9 25.0 40.5 52.3 12.3 18.6 16.8 32.7 11 (#15) Managers 21.1 22.9 25.4 30.7 38.4 20.0 17.9 23.7 65.4 14 9.7 23.6 40.0 39.5 14.1 9.1 37.3 65.5 11 (#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors 26.6 Healthcare CEO 30.0 30.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 1 Chief Deputy Warden 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 1 Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO) 48.3 10.0 3.3 38.3 50.0 13.3 3.3 33.3 90.0 3 Age: 35 or Younger 24.0 20.4 18.7 37.0 48.5 12.8 16.0 22.6 50.8 48 Age: 36-49 19.5 19.1 21.3 40.1 46.5 14.3 13.8 25.4 46.1 90 Age: 50 or Older 23.5 14.8 19.9 41.7 46.1 13.9 11.4 28.7 54.9 46 Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers 23.6 13.0 21.1 42.3 49.3 12.5 10.5 27.7 48.5 22 CO 2nd Watch 25.0 20.6 19.1 35.3 43.8 14.8 14.0 27.3 62.2 52 CO 3rd Watch 20.1 18.4 19.0 42.4 48.2 12.1 14.4 25.2 43.8 47 CO A Yard 18.8 19.3 20.2 41.7 49.3 10.9 14.3 25.4 38.9 23 CO B Yard 27.0 16.5 18.0 38.5 43.3 15.7 16.1 25.0 67.4 23 CO C Yard 20.6 19.0 20.4 40.0 47.2 13.1 14.3 25.4 46.8 27 CO D Yard 24.5 23.1 17.7 34.7 43.9 14.5 12.3 29.3 61.1 26 CO All Yards 22.7 19.6 19.1 38.7 45.9 13.5 14.2 26.3 53.5 99 All Males 21.3 20.2 19.3 39.2 47.2 14.1 14.7 24.1 48.2 158 All Females 23.4 12.5 24.4 39.7 45.1 14.6 9.8 30.4 52.3 30 All Non-Uniform Line Staff 20.4 14.0 20.2 45.4 47.8 15.5 10.6 26.1 42.2 26 Race: Caucasian 20.5 18.7 20.2 40.6 47.5 13.9 13.9 24.8 46.0 130 Race: All Non-Caucasian 26.5 17.0 16.7 39.8 43.7 15.7 15.6 25.0 65.6 43 Race: African America 52.5 11.3 1.3 25.0 40.0 16.3 10.0 33.8 72.5 4 Race: Hispanic 24.8 20.1 16.0 39.0 42.1 16.7 16.2 25.0 25.0 26 Race: Asian 30.0 15.0 23.3 31.7 46.7 18.3 11.7 23.3 60.0 3 Race: Other 19.5 12.0 22.5 46.0 48.5 12.0 17.5 22.0 42.0 10 All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined 15.4 25.0 21.1 38.5 48.0 13.9 18.3 19.8 34.8 27 All Sergeants 13.1 31.3 18.4 37.2 45.0 15.0 18.1 21.9 36.3 16 Years at HDSP: 4 or Less 23.9 18.0 15.3 42.8 46.4 13.2 13.5 26.8 54.9 68 Years at HDSP: 5-14 18.2 16.5 26.5 28.8 46.0 14.4 13.4 26.2 44.3 59 Years at HDSP: 15 or More 21.7 21.4 19.9 37.1 47.0 14.4 15.4 23.3 49.3 56 Focus Group Summaries TOTAL GROUPS Group Median 21.0 17.0 20.7 39.6 48.6 13.7 14.3 24.1 49.4 12.0 Group Mean 20.9 19.5 20.2 39.4 46.5 14.1 14.3 25.1 47.4 11.8 Group High 27.3 39.4 25.4 50.7 59.1 20.0 23.1 37.3 76.4 14.0 Group Low 9.4 9.7 13.1 30.7 37.7 8.2 7.1 16.8 16.3 8.0 Institutional Culture Assessment High Desert State Prison Page 114 of 115 September 8, 2016