CDCR, the State of California, and any elected officials, officers, agents, or employees are not liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information contained in this website. Extreme care must be taken in the use of the information in this website.
Construction of the provisions of this disclaimer and resolution of any disputes related to this website on the information contained herein are governed by the laws of the State of California and shall be filed in Sacramento County. Inmate Charles McGee of San Bernardino, who came to the clinic for treatment of a spinal injury, says good care comes down to whether staff really wants to help, "instead of just brushing you off.
McGee says, "if you tell a nurse, 'My chest is really hurting,' some will say, 'Just take a pill. Four years ago, the federal receiver found that asthma was the leading killer of inmates. Medical records are still on paper. But he says prison doctors are at a disadvantage because they often treat patients without knowing medical histories.
That's because prison medical records are still on paper — paper that has a way of piling up. James says it makes it tough to catch up because doctors ask for up to inmate files a day — which means any loose papers can't get filed in those folders… and doctors can't find what they need. News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism. Special Projects Highline. HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. Follow Us. Terms Privacy Policy. Part of HuffPost Politics. All rights reserved.
Suggest a correction. What's Hot. More In Politics. Donald Trump Jr. GOP Rep. The state has significantly expanded the capacity of rehabilitative programs in recent years. This is generally because correctional policies over the year span when the prisons were built reflected either less emphasis on rehabilitation or emphasis on different types of rehabilitation relative to today. For example, while a prison built in the s may include space for education programs, it may not have sufficient classrooms for CDCR to also deliver cognitive behavioral therapy, a treatment modality not developed until the s.
CDCR has found ways to work around infrastructure limitations, such as by holding multiple small group therapy sessions at once in large gymnasiums, as is currently being done at San Quentin State Prison SQ. Such settings, however, are not ideal because the groups lack privacy, which can be important given the personal nature of the topics discussed in some rehabilitation programs.
In recent years, the state has taken steps to address this need. Such a plan is particularly important given the extent and severity of prison infrastructure needs, as well as the possibility of prison closure in the near term. Without such a plan, it is difficult for the state to prioritize infrastructure spending in such a way as to ensure that the most urgent needs are addressed first and that projects are done in a logical and efficient manner.
For example, it would not be ideal for the Legislature to approve a modification to a building that would be replaced or closed a few years later due to a decline in the prison population. We also note that having a prison infrastructure plan that prioritizes future projects allows the state to plan for the costs of these projects and their potential impact on prison operations. In this section, we provide a road map to guide the Legislature in the development of a plan for managing prison infrastructure.
Next, we recommend directing CDCR take specific steps to develop a strategy for upgrading its remaining prison facilities to meet their infrastructure needs and achieve other operational or programmatic goals. Figure 6 p rovides an overview of our recommended road map for developing a prison infrastructure plan.
As a first step in developing a prison infrastructure plan, we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to close two prisons in the near term. We also recommend directing CDCR to begin the process of developing a detailed prison closure plan. We discuss these recommendations in detail in the next section.
However, we recommend closing two prisons due to the extensive infrastructure problems that have been identified. While this approach would require the state to maintain male inmates in publicly operated contract prisons in the near term, it would create three specific benefits.
We note that to remove these inmates from contract prisons, as well as close two prisons, the state would need to take steps to further manage the inmate population, as discussed in the nearby box. Specifically, prioritizing prison closure would:. The state has various options it could consider to reduce the need for contract prisons. Specifically, the state could take steps to:. Whether the state chooses to close two prisons in the near term, or only one as proposed by the Governor, it will need to identify the prison or prisons it will close.
In order to guide the identification of prisons for closure, we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to prioritize prisons for closure using the following criteria:. Ranking facilities based on the above criteria—and any other criteria that the Legislature may wish to consider—would allow the state to identify which two prisons to close in the near term. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature withhold action on all prison infrastructure proposals until it receives this ranking. After identifying which prisons to close, the state will need a plan to address the logistics of implementing the closure process.
For example, the state may develop an agreement with unions specifying the amount of money that employees who are required to relocate to fill CDCR vacancies elsewhere would receive. To the extent that there are not enough vacancies to accommodate employees affected by prison closure, the state may want to create incentives for employees to voluntarily separate from state service in lieu of a layoff.
This would encourage more senior employees—who are more costly to the state and would otherwise not be affected by the layoff—to voluntarily leave state service and prevent the need for less senior employees to be laid off.
The state could consider other alternatives as well, such as training employees at risk of layoff to fill vacancies elsewhere in the department or state government. Given the complexities of implementing these details, the layoff process can take six to nine months to complete.
In addition, there are various other logistics that will require advanced planning, such as how the inmate population at the prison will be drawn down and transported elsewhere.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature direct the administration to begin developing a closure plan as soon as the prisons slated for closure have been identified. After identifying which prisons to close in the near term—and , therefore, which prisons will be operated over the medium and long terms—we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to create a strategy to improve the infrastructure at these prisons.
Specifically, we recommend the department 1 i dentify which projects should be pursued and 2 d etermine a priority order and time line for accomplishing these projects. Below, we outline various factors that we recommend the Legislature direct the department to consider in developing this list. Possibility of Further Prison Closures.
To the extent the inmate population continues to decline after June , it is possible that the state would be able to close additional prisons in the medium term. The state will want to identify these prisons, based on the criteria discussed earlier in this report, so that it can appropriately gauge the degree of infrastructure upgrades to make at these prisons. For example, if it appears likely that a particular prison may be closed in ten years, it would be reasonable for the state to approve funding to replace an electrical generator with an expected useful life of roughly ten years.
This information—along with the prison prioritization list discussed above—would help the Legislature determine what level of infrastructure upgrades to make at prisons that may be closed in the medium term.
These projections would allow the state to annually readjust its expectations for the need for infrastructure projects. Actual Viability of Existing Infrastructure. However, the study also noted that with diligent maintenance, some systems can be reliably operated past their expected useful life. Accordingly, when identifying which projects are necessary, CDCR, should consider which of the buildings and systems recommended for repair or replacement can continue to function for a longer period of time with appropriate maintenance.
This would help the state to focus infrastructure upgrades on the buildings and systems that are most likely to fail in the near future. Alternatives to Repairing Existing Facilities. The study did not consider other potential operational cost savings or programmatic benefits that could be achieved by redesigning, relocating, or consolidating facilities rather than simply repairing or rebuilding them similar to their current designs. After identifying a list of projects to accomplish over the next ten years, the state will need to determine when the projects will be completed.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to provide a project priority order and time line by January 10, We further recommend directing the department to develop this project prioritization and time line using the following steps:.
In order to guide the Legislature in the development of such a plan, we outline in this report a road map for closing two prisons and prioritizing infrastructure projects at the remaining prisons. Skip to main content. Toggle navigation. LAO Contact. Back to the Top. Report in PDF. The major factors that drive prison infrastructure needs and spending include: Prison Age and Condition.
0コメント