Senate Budget Sub5 — 2026-03-12

Okay.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Aaron McGuire. I'm the executive Director for the Board of State and Community Corrections. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the bsec, as well as answer any questions that you may have regarding our BCP request for permanent position authority. And also we're prepared to provide a brief update on the progress of the In Custody Death Review Division as well as some overview of our grants administration. The Board of State and Community Corrections provides services to county adult and juvenile systems by inspecting county jails and and local juvenile detention facilities, providing technical assistance on local issues, establishing training standards for local correctional staff and probation staff. We also administer county financing for the construction of local detention facilities, and we administer a wide range of public safety, reentry, violence reduction and rehabilitative grants to local governments as well as to community based organizations beginning in July of 2024. Senate Bill 519 also expanded the Board's mission to include the review of investigations of any death occurring in a local detention facility. With me today is the Director of the In Custody Death Review Division, Allison Ganter, who is happy to provide a brief update on the progress of that. With that looking to the Chair, would you like to a brief overview of our budget change proposal or just a summary of sort of our grant administrative functions? Well, let me. Let me start off with the just our budget change proposal. We're requesting some additional permanent position authority of 11 positions to accommodate an increased workload and enhance workflow efficiencies. These new positions will allow us to provide enhanced technical assistance and support for existing programs. Examples of the grant programs that the BSCC currently administers is the California Violence Intervention prevention program, the Prop 47 grant program, Prop 64 grant program, and also we administer the organized retail theft grant programs. Over the past five to seven years, the number of grants administered by the BSEC has almost tripled. We currently have more than 600 grant agreements with more than $1.5 billion currently out in the field. Right now, our staffing infrastructure has not grown as on pace with that growth in workload, which is why we're seeking that additional position authority as part of the BCP process. I would just note that the positions that we are seeking come from our existing administrative funds. We're not seeking additional general fund authority for those additional positions. And with that, we appreciate your support for that proposal. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Allison Gantor to provide a brief update for In Custody Death review.

Thanks.

All right.

Do we have any comments from the lao?

Thank you. Any comments from the Department of Finance?

Kyle Gaiman, Department of Finance no further comments on BSEC. But on the Prop 47 comments, we would just mention that we agree that the impacts of Prop 36 are still uncertain. It's new been established in November 2024 and we continue to work with CDCR to refine that and how it affects Proposition 47. And we'll have updates on that as we move into May revision.

Thank you. Very little comments in regards to the Prop 36 and the effect on Prop 47 funding and things like that. We're not going to know that until Prop 36 is appropriately funded and implemented. And then there's going to be a period of time where you have to actually accumulate data and then you'll be able to actually see that. So at this point we're kind of just guessing, is that correct?

Yeah. Because even the data that's coming out now is not going to reflect the true impacts or results from Prop 36 because we're not even close to funding it at the level that it should be funded according to the measure itself. So I would just caution against thinking that that is the number, because until we get it fully funded and fully operational, that's when we'll have the real numbers about what the effects are. Thank you.

revised in terms of the estimated proposition 47 savings that we'll be expected to administer?

We're just noting that the methodology that the administration uses to calculate the estimated reduction in the prison population attributable to Prop 47 is shaving is assuming that all of the people going to prison as a result of Prop 36 are shaving off that Prop 47 impact, when in fact there's elements of Prop 36 that had nothing to do with Prop 47 from just a pure law interaction, sentencing law interaction perspective. So that's just a methodological assumption that would result in underestimation of the Prop 47 savings kind of on a systematic level regardless of how Prop 36 is implemented or what the.

Yeah, so it's just sort of a technical assumption that isn't reflective of how the two laws actually interact with each other.

I'm actually Kyle. Kyle Gaiman, Department of Finance.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, so who's Anthony? Ah, there he is.

Okay. I'm sorry, Kyle.

Okay, great. So then that helps clarify, Ms. O', Neill, what we're actually doing doing is getting it to Mr. Gaiman who will provide the information, not Mr. McGuire. I'm glad. I'm sure you're happy about that.

One last thing, Anthony. Did you have anything you wanted to add? Okay. All right, Senator Durazzo,

Yes, we agree that we need to make some updates.

Thank you.

So we are just now getting updated manner and means of death. It's taken quite a bit of time to get updated records, so I don't have the ones from Los Angeles from this year. Specifically, it does take Quite a bit of time to get those records to us and review the documentation. The patterns that we see in the manner and means that we have recorded are the top cause is accidental death, overdose being the cause, natural and suicides by hanging. Those are the top three causes of death in local detention facilities. And we have not made recommendations yet because we are just starting to receive complete investigations and we are just starting to conduct our reviews.

Yes, that's.

Yes, that's just what the. Yeah. What the coroner or the medical examiner has determined, determined is the manner and means of death. We will then take the complete investigation, which includes the coroner, medical examiner, toxicology, all of the reports generated by the investigation. Look at it, you know, as a complete picture of what happened with that individual. And we'll make our recommendations based on not just that documentation, but the operation at the local detention facility and what was going on on with that individual's medical and mental health care. So our recommendations will be based on a full review of that information.

So we are brand new. So we're just. The Department of Justice has been collecting data on the manner and means of deaths in local detention facilities for quite some time. Their top reason, their top manner and means over the last few years are the same in a little bit different order. And again, these are DOJ data. We're just starting to put our data together and do those analyses. Natural From 2005 to 2025, natural was the most common manner of death, suicide and accidental falling underneath. Obviously, with the rise of opioids, fentanyl use in the community, in local detention facilities, those numbers are turning upside down a little bit. But we don't have full records from the 136 deaths that have happened since July 1, 2025.

Sure we are. Grant programs have tripled in the past five to seven years. Really? And so part of the reason we didn't use the full amount of administrative funding was we didn't really need it. And now we really do. We have over 600 grant agreements out in the field. We need additional staff. Not only have the numbers of grants grown, but the complexity of our grants has changed and the type of grantee that we work with has changed. And we're seeing increasingly that we're working with community based organizations who are sometimes new, small, don't have the administrative infrastructure that is required to monitor and administer a grant. And it's taking a lot of our staff time to provide the technical assistance and support that they need to be able to fulfill their grant obligations. So all of those changes combined have led to the realization that we need additional staff. We need additional accounting staff, audit staff and oversight staff to be able to provide the appropriate level of monitoring.

We see it as permanent. It's taken dollars.

Our biggest grants, Prop 47, Prop 64, the cannabis grant and the California Violence Intervention and Prevention grant grant, are continuously appropriated grants. And so any administrative funding that we don't use rolls back into local assistance and we can put that out to the field. And so we don't anticipate it will have a substantial impact on the amount of local assistance dollars going out.

We don't.

That is true, but I think what we're anticipating is that we've done projections about, you know, on how much of the money we will need to sustain these new positions. If for some reason we don't need all of that, it rolls right back into local assistance. But we haven't, we don't anticipate it will be a substantial impact in the amount of dollars that have gone out. We've been able to already identify, you know, dollars that we're not using and put them out to the field. It's not a substantial amount.

Sure. And we continue to go out and inspect those facilities. Our inspector was out there just last week and so we continue to monitor those facilities. What has changed slightly is that the board recently decided to join in litigation. So we have filed a motion to file a friend of the court brief before the court. We filed that brief in February, late February, which will be heard at THE END On March 25, we are urging the court to take additional action with respect to the monitoring oversight of the Los Angeles county facility facilities. And we're joining. Joining with the Attorney General to support that endeavor. So that's the current status the facilities in terms of where they are right now. The board declared that the Los Padrinas Juvenile hall is unsuitable, that the Barry Jane Eydorf Juvenile hall is unsuitable. Those facilities still are unsuitable. And then we continue to monitor as. And there's multiple court cases that are going on right now. So the Juvenile court there has ordered the depopulation of the Los Padrinos Juvenile hall that's currently in progress. We are also monitoring the transfer of youth from that facility to the other facilities, including Campus Kilpatrick, which we are also regularly inspecting right now.

Well, in terms of whether or not we are joining in that litigation, there's three active court cases right now in Los Angeles. We are participating. Well, we are a party in one of those because we've been sued by the county of Los Angeles. And then we are providing information to the courts so that they are informed as to what next steps that the court should take to further improve the facilities.

Sure.

Thank you, Senator. I just have a few questions. First of all, for Ms. Ganter. Could you tell us a little bit about family notification? That's been one of the issues that's been noted in the press that unfortunately, if someone has passed in custody, the family hasn't necessarily been notified in a timely manner and certainly providing details and so on. So what's the process? How quickly are family members notified and what happens?

Okay, have you heard that this is a concern, the fact that.

members,

Is this something you need legislative assistance to direct to happen or is it something your department can establish on your own?

So what do we need to do to have you do that? Do I need to request it of Mr. McGuire or

Sorry.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. My next question for Mr. McGuire. I appreciate your request of the additional positions. It was good that we heard from the LAO and DOF that they didn't oppose. However, I will tell you that we have a very serious budget situation. We're hoping that we're going to be able to not have a deficit this year based upon the revenues that have come in. But we are projecting, the governor and Lao and others, Department of Finance were projecting that we do in fact have a structural deficit. So if there were to be cuts in your department, do you have any idea where that would come from? I know, I guess it was in 24, there were department wide reductions of about 8% that were recommended. But other than that, what other areas do you see, see that we could potentially consider that would not decimate your department and impact the programs and services?

So we're going to be asking that of, you know, all of the individuals in more of a management capacity. So I'm going to officially request that you could provide to the committee any potential areas that you could foresee that could have a modest reduction without impacting the programs and services. Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, last question for Ms. Curtin. Last year we heard concerns about compliance issues that organizations with the adult reentry and CALVI grants we're having. Have those issues been addressed?

Thank you. If you could, upon your next time of coming, just share with the committee more specific details about these two programs and that the issues have been addressed.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, we're going to move to issue number two. Issue number two is an overview of CDCR with Secretary Jeffrey Maycomer, joined by the Deputy Director of Fiscal Services, Cynthia Mendoza. Please come forward.

Thank you very much for coming in today and giving us an update on some of the things going on. First question I have. When we do a facility or prison closure, there is a savings for that, right? Does that savings go back into the general fund, or does it stay with the prison system?

So what I was getting at with that question was that, you know, with the high amount of other needs in the prison system, including facility needs. You talk about the education and rehabilitation part of. Would be nice for. Visited these. A few of these prisons, and it would be nice for them to have a education facility that actually looks like an education facility. So it kind of removes people out of that, because these are people that are getting out. These are people that are going back in society. That puts them in an environment that is conducive to the learning part of it and the improving of skills. And when we're taking money from this, from the state perspective, when we take money and then we pull it out, and then we try to find money later to do some of these projects and tell them, well, we can only do half. What we should be doing is every dime that is saved in the prison system, within the prison system, should go back in to start accelerating, fixing some of these issues, addressing the H VAC issue, addressing, you know, the Fire issues and things like that. Because if we're just taking it out, putting it in the general fund and they lose it forever, obviously there's a compounding issue with the secretary who's talking, talking about. And then in addition, we wind up trying to find money for the other things when we should already have that. My second question, my last question. The facility down in Norco, it's closing in 2026 and September. The city is trying to work with the state. We have to make it easier for communities to absorb the loss because they're losing some economic vitality from that and at the same time advance some of the other mandates that they have under. I understand that the city has been trying to work with CDCR to do some preliminary work because I believe they want to purchase the land and then have that become part of their affordable housing plan. And they're having a lot of difficulty, let's call it that animosity, when they're trying to access and at least do some of the preliminary stuff. They're not trying to go in there and start grading. They're talking about. I don't know whether they need soil samples and things like that. It would be nice if we are closing facilities in these communities, that CDCR work with the communities to ensure that they are working towards that transition. That is going to have to happen for the community, because if they don't, what happens is everybody is on hold until the day that everybody moves out. And then it's on hold while this one or two years of transition of, you know, we don't know what we're going to do happens. And then the city has to start a process that's probably going to take them eight to 10 years because of the way we do things in California just to do affordable housing. And somehow we have to speed that up both for the community and for the people that may live in those affordable homes later on down the road. And so do you have a comment on what has been going on there or.

Why there's been this. This butting of the heads between the city and the state.

a win win for everybody. Nobody has to look for something to buy the land.

I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.

subject today, but just going along with Senator Sardo's comments, I really agree. But maybe at another time or in another meeting we can talk more about what the community goes through and I'm sure it's different from one place to another. But how do we work with them in advance, how to really try to do a plan so that those kinds of issues don't get you don't get bombarded with them reacting. So I think they're really legitimate and important for our communities. Good to see you, Secretary. On the issue of the savings, ongoing savings, there's been a drop in the actual savings as I understand it.

Well, just in general, the budget, the 24 Budget act assumed 390 million in efficiency savings.

And then that went down to 186 million. So the savings are decreasing. So I just want to ask you about that is in general, but in particular what will happen to in prison programming if the savings fall below the budget at 375 million.

And have you looked at other cost controls?

Thank you. On the you mentioned or I think gave examples of the climate protections, do you have a rough estimate of what the full statewide cost of those kinds of climate protections would be?

So

We triage the best we can and we have high heat events. We have what we call a heat plan in place to help both incarcerated and staff and that could be things ranging from providing, you know, ice water to when it gets too hot. We'll actually have healthcare staff do medical rounding and so we are doing those type of things. But we have some places that regularly get over 100 degrees that do not have any air conditioning at all. That's the challenge we're in.

Correct.

Yes.

20 year plan where we want to give that comprehensive look where we're not just requesting product or products, you know, buildings and infrastructure upgrades on, on a one off basis. You can, we could also look at potentially at places where it may come cost more to retrofit where some places it may make better sense to rebuild. You know, we have, our prisons are old. You know, we have prisons that are 170 years old. In some instances it's going to make better sense to construct a new housing unit versus trying to rehab an existing one. I don't want to throw good money to bad if that makes sense. And as I mentioned before, a lot of our facilities were not designed for things like ADA access that are a more important issue now that if I can rebuild and provide greater access and as Senator Sirocco said earlier, if I can provide as I do that better rehabilitative facilities tied to those housing units. Everybody wins there.

Yes, we, on a recurring basis.

So we have a heat plan that's in effect from May to the end of October where in every housing unit we take the temperature hourly so we know the temperatures. Right. Also piloting two prisons right now we're hoping to go statewide where we're taking automated temperatures, we're using WI fi and things like that to do automated temperature readings which is a huge benefit because we're going to know well ahead of time, not just at the local level, but we can review it at our facilities level if we have a unit go down, if we see an anomaly in the temperature. So we're hoping to get to, to automated temperatures and then we use those temperature readings to know when we have to provide additional measures for the incarcerated and staff. We talked about, you know, additional ice water, cool showers, you know, more breaks, things like that that go into effect once we hit those triggers.

That was the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.

I think you were there at the kickoff, weren't you?

Oh, okay.

I think we're trying to change our mindset of not thinking about projects as we historically have. We used a progressive design build model that allowed us to move the project along quicker and really looked at it differently to move that, that project along. And I'm glad you brought that up because we've had conversations with the team that we are not going to leverage what we did there to move our projects along quicker for the benefit of the incarcerated and our staff. And I really think it's an important, important issue to get ahead of. If we don't get ahead of it, we're going to face another, you know, more litigation on this issue that's going to cost the state even more money. And I really want to avoid that and show that we're capable of managing the system and treating our, you know, employees and incarcerated how they should be.

What was it was using. It was using a process where we did design and planning and other steps that overlapped. And I think you're going to have. My director of facilities is here and I think he's going to talk later. That will speak more eloquently about it than I will. But you're running some parallel processes to move a project along quicker.

Thank you. Senator Durazzo, have a few questions here. Thank you, Secretary, for being here in person and presenting. First of all, my financial numbers differ a little bit from your testimony. My notes show that despite the prison closures and efficiency reductions, the CDCR's total budget is basically the same as it was the last five years, while the population has decreased by about 10,000 people. And in the five years before that, the budget actually increased by $2 billion while the population dropped by 30,000 inmates. In 2024, CDCR was directed to make reductions of around 400 million, but only made half of that. And then the CDCR came back and asked for 400 million more due to overspending its budget. This is not acceptable. And in the meantime, we're facing serious threats to health care and social safety net issues and many competing priorities that this legislature has to deal with. So where is the fiscal responsibility and why isn't the CDCR able to, once you set your budget, keep it? Because we're not going to be able to have continuing to come back and ask for 400 million more. Could you share more specific steps that the CDCR is taking to ensure that we don't end up with another year of not meeting your budget?

up that, the percentage may go down, but the amount of money isn't necessarily correlated. So that's kind of apples and oranges.

Okay, sorry. My job is the chair of the subcommittee, so, you know, it's my responsibility to speak very frank with you. Again, I'm going to read that despite the prison closures and efficiency reductions, CDCR's total budget is basically the same as it has been in the last five years when, while the population has decreased by about 10,000 people and in five years before that, the budget actually increased by $2 billion. While the population dropped by 30,000 in 2024, CDCR was directed to make reductions of about 400 million. You were directed to do so and did not do so. So what I'd like for you to do is if, with Ms. Mendoza, take a look at these numbers. If they're not correct, let me know. They're not correct, and I'm okay with that. But if they are, then we need to have an honest discussion about the budget. Right now we're facing that we can't provide health care for people in the state of California. So although I can emphasize no, I can have empathy and understand what you're saying. We have departments throughout the state of California who are having to pay lump sums. We have everybody where we have an aging population of employment and people are retiring. So these are consistent things that we see throughout the state. And all departments have to make the appropriate adjustments. So. So I reread those for the record. If you could come back and share with us whether you feel these are correct or not correct. But certainly going forward, what we have to convey is that the budget, whatever we end up setting the budget, what we can't have is coming back in the middle of this next fiscal year and saying we need 400 million more because we don't have 400 million more to give, unfortunately. So we just want to be up front to make sure that you understand that. With that in mind, you talked about the need for ADA improvements and so on at the 31 facilities, how are they divided up? Do you have them kind of geographically, or do you have the age population more in one location, people with health needs in another location? So that maybe we could. If, for example, all the prisons you have, you know, all of them have age populations, all of them have health issues in the private sector, oftentimes what you do is you consolidate so you can minimize having to have all of them have multiple. Multiple, you know, health support. So is that currently done at the 31 prisons?

So I know that your facilities person is coming up later in today's hearing. Hearing, if you wouldn't mind providing that information by facility, kind of how you cluster these different areas. My next question is the cdcr, in regards to vacancies, you have had some positive results of reducing your vacancy rates. However, in regards to the medical and mental health areas, those numbers are still pretty high in the double digits. What are you doing to address those vacancy rates?

So it's my understanding some of your labor partners have offered that in lieu of doing some of your out of state or out of area contractors, that they could provide a registry of their members throughout the state that could potentially be brought in. And it's my understanding that those individuals make a lower rate than those when you're contracting out. Are you familiar with that and have you looked into that?

Okay, that would be great. My next question is the state spent about at least 250 million on the San Quentin Rehabilitation center, which I know was a priority of the governor. Do you expect to spend any more money or is that done now?

There will be no.

Okay, perfect. That's what I wanted to hear. My next question is, is it true that all inmates have iPads?

In their cells all the time?

Okay.

Okay. Was that a legislative requirement?

All right. And when we get the update of the facilities, where we're going to have info about how you cluster the individuals, can you also provide what the percentage in those locations are? Single, single bed vs double bed selling?

Let's see. Last question. My hardest question, unfortunately, I have to ask. Those were softballs, the earlier ones. So according to numbers that I have, based upon the court ordered. I forget the specific name of how the courts do determine what the appropriate capacity level is. Potentially there could be. It could be viewed that we have 10,000 more. I'm trying to. Let me make sure how I'm wording this that an additional prison could potentially be closed given the current population and so on. I realize that you're right in the middle of doing one. What are your thoughts of if in fact we need to come and do a second one, which it appears based upon the numbers and I know numbers aren't everything, but that could be called to be needed.

So I appreciate your answer. However, according to the numbers, it would not be overcrowding because it would meet the actual specific guidelines that you've been provided. So assuming that's not the case, the focus on programming I certainly agree with and have supported and I'm sure you're aware of that. But the overcrowding is not according to the numbers of what we've been provided. It, it would not be overcrowding.

Yes.

Okay, so that I hear what you're saying, the overcrowding piece. No, but how you just described. We all have our different perspectives. I too, you know, have understood that single selling, you know, obviously there's less safety and all these other issues. However, you know, I grew up in a single bedroom with my sister. We shared a bathroom. And, you know, if I had to choose between two inmates who are double selling, which is allowed and has been done for many, many years, versus being able to provide health care for citizens, people who. Not citizens, for people who reside in the state of California, I would clearly err on that end. And so, unfortunately, those are the things that we're facing, and I'm sure you're aware of that. But we will certainly do the best that we can. All of the programming we, you know, this committee has been very supportive of and we look forward to continuing to do so. I would just say if you have any specifics that say that double selling is. Aside from understanding the preferredness of it, it's my understanding double selling has gone on for many, many years. So is that not correct?

Okay. All right.

Yes.

400 million?

Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazzo, did you have any closing comments?

All right, sir, thank you for your candidness, for your. The progress that you've made since you've been secretary. It definitely is noted. And this commission committee appreciates all of your work and all of those who work with you, and we look forward to supporting in every way that we can.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Cynthia Mendonza, Deputy Director Officer of Fiscal Services, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation the department is requesting 91 million ongoing for correctional officers and nursing staff separating from state employment and requiring payment for unused leave credits. We call this a lump sum payout. Historically, these payments were funded through salary savings from vacant positions as other departments handle the same. But reductions in position authority and the operational necessity of these posted position positions, including BU6 peace officers and healthcare nurses, mean there are fewer vacancies available, limiting the use of salary savings for the unused leave. Without dedicated funding, the department would have to divert funds from other areas should salary savings be insufficient, potentially impacting public safety and inmate health services. With that, the Department is happy to answer any questions you might have.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Caitlin o' Neill with the lao. I am going to provide our assessment and recommendations on the lump sum funding proposal before you, as well as our comments on the underlying structural shortfall issue that has generated the need for this proposal. And I'm also going to provide our offices comments and recommendations on the ongoing work to achieve what Is currently scored as 125 million in savings in the current year and 250 million in the budget year increasing in the out years associated with the contract with the Boston Consulting Group. So turning to the lump sum payments proposal, we do find that the funding is reasonable in the near term, given that the department does appear to be to have a structural shortfall and it doesn't have a choice, as was already stated, on whether to pay the pay out these payments to separating employees. However, we find that it's unclear if this vacancy savings issue is going to be an ongoing condition for the department, given that it's highly tied to this issue of closing facilities in rapid succession. And so once the state is no longer doing that and reaches sort of a new normal as far as prison capacity, whenever that may occur, we may see that the vacancy rate goes back up to historical levels, in which case the department would again have more vacancy savings in its budget which it could use to pay for these costs. So we recommend approving the funding on a limited term basis and requiring reporting to come in at the end of that period to ensure the legislature has the information it would need to assess whether additional funding is still needed going forward. Moving to our comments on the underlying issue that there is a structural shortfall in CDCR's budget, we have two concerns. The first is that this is a transparent this raises transparency concerns because part of the way that departments respond to structural shortfalls is by either not doing certain things that they were budgeted to do or delaying things that they were budgeted to do. And those are typically decisions that are made internally to the administration. So the legislature would not be able to know whether or not one of its priorities is perhaps getting canceled or delayed. And then the second concern is that the department could still overrun its budget even if the proposal for the lump sum payment funding is approved. And that would likely not become clear until the end of the fiscal year, at which point the legislature would have little choice but to approve an augmentation. And of course, in this fiscal climate, that would come at the expense of other general fund priorities. So we recommend the legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's taking in the current year or is considering taking in the budget year to free up funds to address the shortfall, as well as the size of the shortfall and what it's made up of. And in responding, we would suggest the legislature ask the department to discuss any programmatic implications of its decisions. And then moving to the contract with the Boston Consulting Group that was authorized in the 2025 Budget Act. It's our understanding that the administration is in the early stages of of identifying efficiencies and just starting to kind of move toward implementation on some things. But as a result of being in the early stages, they still were not able to share much detail. We've also been told that the administration anticipates receiving or anticipates reflecting further erosions in the savings estimates that are expected to result from this effort as of the May revision. So basically what this mean is means is that you don't have a lot of information now, but you're going to get some more information at the May revision. And so we would we recommend that the legislature use spring budget hearings to begin to prepare to make a decision at May revise on whether to continue with the contract or modify the contract or in the contract. And so to gather information, the legislature can ask questions, for example, to better understand the role of the contractor, what expertise the contractor is bringing or benefits there are of having a contractor as opposed to having state staff develop efficiency ideas. The legislature could also seek updates on the progress of the work, given that when we spoke to the administration about this, it was already a month ago and there may be new updates to share. And then the legislature can also probe about other potential benefits of this contract that may be beyond short term or near term savings. In other words, maybe there's benefits that may not help the budget condition currently or in the next few years, but maybe will be worthwhile nonetheless. So when the legislature has gathered that information, we recommend it reassess the contract as part of the May revision, given the savings estimates have come down significantly. So it's important the legislature reaffirm whether it wants to continue moving with moving forward with this effort. And if it decides to move forward, we would recommend requiring quarterly updates from the administration. And then finally, just generally, given that we've had two years in a row where the budgets have assumed relatively large unallocated savings that have failed to materialize or have fallen short, I should say we would recommend viewing unallocated savings proposals skeptically going forward. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, Anthony Franzoi from Department of Finance. My colleague can speak to the lump sum payments issue if you wish. But in terms of the LAO's comments on CDCR's work with the Boston Consulting Group, the administration, I should say, as the LAO mentioned, that work is wrapping up. There was a contract, there was money set aside in the 2025 Budget act for that contract. Contract began in the fall. That work has been ongoing between bcg, CDCR and Department of Finance throughout this year. Again, it's in the final stages. So the administration is working to see what might be achievable on what timelines and those details will be provided at the mayor vision, as has been done at the Governor's budget. At this stage in the process, the administration does not feel the contract would be able to be reacted assessed. Again, that money was approved, the contract has been in place, work is continuing. And because we're nearing the end of that work, it's unclear what the LEO would like to revisit or restructure. But again, the administration doesn't believe that's feasible at this juncture. And I think the administration would contend that any savings achieved as a result of the work with B CCG are laudable because ultimately, even if those savings do take time to realize in out years, ultimately they're going to create a more efficient CDCR and lead to general fund savings. I'm happy to answer questions or get into detail, but those are the high level talking points and again, we're happy to address the lump sum payment issue as well.

Kyle Gaiman, Department of Finance Just to touch on the lump sum issue, the secretary eloquently touched on a lot of these points earlier, so I won't belabor those. But just to note that as their vacancy savings have declined, it's become a less stable fund source, if you will, to use for these ongoing structural costs that they are required to cover. So providing them that funding on an ongoing basis as opposed to a limited term basis, we think it makes more sense for their planning purposes and stability. And finally, I'd like to note that last year when the JLBC wrote a letter to the administration in regards to CDCR's deficiency, at the time, they specifically called out this lump sum payments issue as a, as a driver of that deficiency and something that the administrative administration should address. And they wrote, given the likely persistence of these deficits, it's imperative that the administration act swiftly and transparency to align CDCR's actual costs with its budget. So that's why we have proposed this ongoing to address that structural piece permanently so that CDCR can pay those costs.

think you may have for cdcr. So the LAO recommends limited term approval for the payments. Do you agree with that? You don't agree with that? And what evidence supports ongoing need given that vacancy rates and population levels are going to continue to change?

So what systemic reforms, scheduling changes or, or otherwise are you exploring to reduce leave liability going forward?

I thought CALHR required reduction plans.

I believe for posted positions it's different.

So historically we've had a salary savings, so people changing positions, leaving for whatever reason, the full authority of positions. There's been funding and maybe the bodies weren't there. So we've had vacancies. And that creates a pot of savings that could cover that for our correctional officers. I believe that vacancy rate has come down to about 7%. So that leaves very little to cover things like, like overtime, like fire watch, suicide watch, medguarding, general overtime to cover behind long term sick individuals, workers compensation fees, and then the lump sum payout. So there's some very large costs that salary savings has covered historically and, and now those costs remain, but the pot is much smaller. So it puts CDCR in a position where we no longer have the ability to cover what we need. And so we are trying to come forward with those items that have been deficit drivers for us. So for example, in the last couple years we've come forward to come for the actual cost of food, utilities costs, waste reduction. These are things that we're trying to come forward for to keep up at least with the actual costs that we are experiencing. Because if we don't, those cost increases over time we just have to continue to absorb. And I can say, like I was gonna throw this out when the secretary was here, but I didn't. Since 2019, 20 right before COVID to now, there has been 20 to 26% increase in costs overall in California. Just generally inflation costs.

And those same increases in costs, you know, are also, you know, affecting this department.

Unless I'm happy to help try to clarify further if that, if any, that is needed, but no comment.

Sure. This is really a feature of how the state Budgets at a large scale, not just a CDCR issue. That's kind of colliding with where CDCR is right now in this facility closure trend that it's been having. And it is something that has been growing over the years. And we have seen proposals come forward tied to this. It's now become kind of more abundantly clear that there's a structural shortfall, which is why we called it out specifically. But sort of the, the underlying issue is that or just feature of, of how the state budgets, not necessarily an issue is that the, the departments are budgeted assuming all positions are filled. So their budgets start out with dollars associated with salaries and benefits for all authorized position positions. But in reality some of those positions are going to be vacant at any given time due to turnover. Exactly. And there's, and given CDCR has approaching, you know, over over 50,000 positions and a lot of its budget is just the cost of paying people. That's a lot of money that could potentially that is associated with positions that are actually vacant. Some of it of course, goes to paying tax over time to backfill behind posted positions, but some of it is money that can be redirected to other things. And the other feature of how the state budgets is that traditionally departments have been expected to use vacancy savings to pay for certain costs. So it's not that those dollars are just sort of money that can be spent on anything. In practice, at least some amount of them are expected to be used for lump sum payments like we've been discussing. But also departments don't always receive inflation adjustments. So they, you know, if there's now, now CDCR gets an inflation adjustment for food costs. But for years it was kind of like they just absorbed increased costs related to food inflation through salary savings. So what you have happen is that there's dollars in the budget that are budgeted for positions, but in reality they get spent on these other things. And then now we've been in a world where CDCR as you know, is deactivating capacity. And when we close facilities, we zero out the entire budget basically for that prison, including dollars that were associated with vacant positions that were going to sort of subsidize or some amount of it was actually paying for these centralized costs. And you also have people moving from the closed facility to fill vacancies at other prisons. So there's this double kind of feature. And there was also a vacant position sweep that was done last year that pulled 14 million out of CDCR's budget.

at the end of the day, you have vacancy dollars going down by more than the actual cost that they've been historically paying for. So you get this mismatch. We're saying that that may be a temporary condition related to prison closure. So anyway, but that's hopefully that's helpful.

Thank you, Senator. Ms. Mendoza, based upon the amount of time we have, I'm going to ask if you could in writing, confirm, confirm or share another perspective based upon information that I have, according to the vacancy savings, my information says that while vacancy savings have Significantly decreased since 2022 to 2023, the current levels are similar to or greater than the pre pandemic levels. For example, the average vacation vacancy savings in the medical services program for 2016 through 2017, through 2018 and through 2019 were 130 million. And for 2023 and 2024 through 2025 and 2026, they were 306 million. For non custody staff, those numbers were 67.9 million and 103.7 million, respectively. And for custody staff, I'm sorry, the previous one, I don't know if I said non custody. This one is for custody staff. It's 380 million and 373 million, respectively. So my numbers are a little different than what I'm hearing. So if you could please clarify the numbers that we have based upon what your presentation is today.

Okay. Thank you. My second question is, Let's see, what steps is the CDCR taking to reduce its leave liability and to ensure that officers, nurses and other staff are able to take their leave so we don't have this lump sum problem at the end.

Okay.

So if I were to ask staff and employees are in fact they being encouraged to utilize their time. You think they would say yes?

Okay, well, we'll double check that. Okay, my next question, last question. Please provide an update on the activities with the outside consultant. Is CDCR on track to achieve 125 million in current year savings?

So my question was, do you expect to achieve the 125 million in current year savings that we are anticipating, especially in light of the fact that you didn't do the cuts that you were supposed to do do the previous year

Okay. Well, it's my understanding you were given the charge to do were expected based upon the budget that was submitted. We are anticipating 125 million in your current year savings. And the message we're trying to convey is this isn't anymore we're going to try. We're anticipating and basing our budget based upon what we're being told that you're able to achieve. And if you don't achieve it, that means that's 125 million we have to take from a pot from someplace else. So it's really important that these budgets that are being submitted and authorized that it's not a. Oh, you know, it's kind of something on paper we hope to do, but it's actually something we need to more closely adhere to because of our limited resources.

Sure, of course.

But you've also had a reduction in population as well. So Those operational costs of inmates should have gone down also.

Agree.

And that's why we may need to consider additional prison closures so that you can make maximize your staff with the inmates that you have.

Yes. Yes, ma'.

But I appreciate your comments and concur and understand with what you're saying. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right. With that, we're going to move to issue number four, which is our last issue, and that has to do with population estimate and prison capacity. We will be joined by Ms. Kathy Jefferson, Deputy Director of Office of Research, Ms. Sarah Larson, Director of Facility Planning, Construction and management. And Ms. Mendoza is going to stay for a third dose as our Deputy Director of Office of Fiscal Services. And we have the same individuals with LAO and Department of Finance. I will be departing in about 10, 10 minutes. Senator Durazzo will take over in terms of managing this hearing, which she's more than capable of doing. So anyway, we will begin. So we're going to start with cdcr. Please go ahead.

we expect

Thank you. Ms. Mendoza, are you here to support or did you have an additional presentation?

Okay. Thank you. Senator Durazzo. Oh, I'm sorry, Eliot. Yes, ma'. Am. And if you could summarize your comments.

I was just thinking we really should have had Ms. Mendoza speak. Go ahead. If you have anything specific about the closure you wanted to share. Yes, ma'.

I just wanted to give a general overview. We expect net general fund savings in the next year at 99.6 million with the elimination of 522 positions and then ongoing savings of roughly 150 million and 778 position authority. And this proposal also targets retention and realignment funding to ensure continuity of health care, transportation, IT services, rehab programs, workers compensation obligations and other statewide operational needs.

Okay.

don't have any concerns on the budget proposals related to the closure of the California Rehabilitation center on the state's broader need for prison capacity going forward. We do find that after making various conservative assumptions that the state could close an additional prison within the next few years, we also found that of all of the prisons where there are infrastructure proposed modification proposals included in the governor's budget, the correction of training facility in Soledad appears to be the strongest candidate for closure. Happy to share our the criteria we used in that if. If you'd like. And that it would be inefficient to proceed with projects at a prison that is shortly closed shortly thereafter. We also wanted. We also note that there are some indications that CDCR has been in the process of deactivating portions of of Solano and Avenal State Prison. However, the administration has declined to confirm or deny this and instead has alluded to potential updates that could be provided at the May revision. This is similar to a dynamic that played out last year as well. And we find that this practice limits legislative oversight of what are significant operational changes from the budget plan that we was enacted and second, limits information to the legislature that is relevant to this conversation about prison capacity. So moving into our recommendations, we recommend directing CDCR to close another prison which would align capacity with actual population trends as well as save general fund money ongoing. And we would recommend not approving the two proposals at the correctional training facility unless CDCR identifies or the administration identifies a different prison foreclosure. And then we recommend directing CDCR to report in hearings on any steps it is taken to date, such as formally notifying staff or the incarcerated population to implement yard deactivations, as well as passing statute requiring CDCR to report going forward to the legislature when it implements a capacity review.

Yes, again, Anthony Frenzo, Department of Finance. The administration has not proposed any additional prison closures at this time. And again, I would just reiterate the challenges with prison closures that Secretary McCumber mentioned. And naming a closure is not part explicitly part of the person closer justice and process is laid out in Penal Code 2067, and that's for a very specific reason, is because naming an institution before CDCRs have the opportunity to go through its own internal process and to follow the penal code, that can create confusion and unintended consequences in a few ways. Number one, for the institution and the staff at the institution, not just the custody staff, but, you know, all the other rehabilitative medical and other staff staff there, the incarcerated population themselves creates a lot of unknowns. The families of the incarcerated, if a prison does get closed without having a final decision, can create a lot of confusion for where their family member might go and they might be in a completely different part of the state. And then lastly, also for the surrounding community, Senator Sallardo mentioned, you know, the kind of hardships that can create a prison closure can create in a community. Lastly, I'll just say, for something as high profile and sensitive as a prison closure, we don't think holding hostage specific funding for an institution like Soledad until the administration can announce an alternative institution foreclosure is a collaborative approach for CDCR to thoughtfully manage its operational needs to speak to the deactivations at Avidol and Sol Solano. More information will be forthcoming about those specific institutions and yards and facilities as part of the population process at the May revision. And again, happy to answer any questions.

PAL Gaiman, Department of Finance. Nothing to add on the prison closure piece, but just on the Prop 36 and population projections. Just to note that we're continuing to work with CDCR on the methodology and monitor how those are being counted and projected so we can provide future updates.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam Chair. Just with this last issue of the notification of closures, we struggled with this over several years of the need to give the legislation notice of the closures so that our decisions and the policies and the legislation we pass, the budget that we pass all take that into account. So it's not a new issue. We really have to grapple with it. Senator Sillardo made comments about the. I think it was the Norco prison and we just, we can't be left out of that process and the community can't be left out of that process. So somewhere it looks like there's a credible conversation taking place about two prisons being closed, and yet it's just hanging out there without our involvement. So I know sooner or later we have to be involved, but that's a pretty serious responsibility on our part.

Ms. O'?

Oh, just would clarify on my comments. It's from what we, we are hearing, it's just portions of those two prisons, not the entire prison. The difference this and, and you're absolutely right. We have been continuing to, to ask for notif like information about potential future prison closers so we can avoid infrastructure modifications. In this case, it appears that the administration has actually implemented changes like actually gone ahead and made those capacity reductions. That's kind of what the indications are suggesting or set things in motion, which is a little bit of a different flavor from simply asking for future. For insight into future possible prison closures. But issue is limited to just portions of prisons in terms of the actions that have already been taken as opposed to future notification. Just wanted to clear that up a little if that's helpful.

Anthony Defenseway, again, Department of Finance, I would say regarding the facility closures or deactivations, again, as Caitlin mentioned, kind of smaller units or facilities within a broader institution. Sometimes there are operational decisions and again, if Cindy wants to add more detail, she can. There are operational decisions that CDCR makes in the middle of the current year that don't neatly line up with the budget process process or the population process. So to the extent that something isn't captured in the governor's budget in that population adjustment, that's why we have a biannual population process. So that at the May revision we can notify the legislature of the changes that were made for, you know, x, Y or z reasons. And again, just on full prison closures, I would just reiterate that there is nothing that's contemplated in the governor's budget and there's nothing, no other prison closures being contemplated at this time.

I would just echo Anthony's sentiments. It's an operational decision and we. It just. The timing doesn't line up with the governor's budget. So we come forward at May revision and have the full conversation once we know which direction we're requesting.

So not that they're left out. We just distinguish between brand new admissions under Prop 36 versus individuals that would have had another felony offense in conjunction with Prop 36. So they would have come here anyway. So what we're trying to isolate in that group of individuals are the extended additional time they would serve in state prison because of Prop 36. So we're still counting them, but there's. It's a nuanced approach where we're just trying to. Trying to figure out how much extra time they're serving due to Prop 36. So we have the new admissions and then we have those that come in and may have a longer sentence because of Prop 36.

Yes. So the impact for that group, and please note, we've only included the first six months. So in May revision we'll have additional data. But the estimate right now for the additional time that these individuals serve is about 1,000 days. So what that does is it temporarily, temporarily decreases what we thought would go to parole because they're not going there as sooner or as fast as we had anticipated last spring. So the POP is going to remain slightly higher and the institution population and then the parole pop is going to increase at a later time.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and staff. Ryan Moore, muni with Council, the California State association of counties, representing all 58 counties. First, you know, we'd like to acknowledge, as it relates to Prop 36, we'd like to acknowledge the ongoing recognition of county concerns specifically from this committee in terms of all the mounting fiscal pressures that counties are facing, especially in light of HR1 absence, any state funding, we will. Counties will be unable to delay deliver the level of services required in terms of services, programming and treatment. And then as it relates to a specific request. We are in support of a request that was submitted by some of your colleagues in the assembly and Senate last week for specifically for court services and treatment in the tune of $400 million. And we're happy to discuss any specific county impacts and needs needs further with this committee. So thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

My name is Micah Doctoroff. I'm here on behalf of Smart Justice California.

in decades and is projected to keep dropping.

thousands of empty beds statewide, it is

Thank you very much.

My name is Ayo. I'm here on behalf of the GRIP Training Institute. We run a year long trauma informed program focused on transformation, emotional intelligence and accountability in California state prisons. I'm commenting on issue two. We spoke on the importance of education and rehabilitation in this meeting today. And I just want to emphasize that it's important to not reduce programming and it's essential to fund the right grant to ensure programs are maintained and keep bringing CDCR recidivism rates down.

Thank you. Okay, that's it for public comment. Okay, so having heard from all the members of the public, there's no more members to ask questions. Thank you to everyone who participated in the public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Comments and suggestions are very important to us. Thank you to everyone for your participation. We've concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate subcommittee number five. Five on Corrections, public safety, Judiciary, labor and transportation is adjourned. Thank you.