MULE CREEK STATE PRISON

.'~ .. ;;'.. ,.' ~- .:: " '. . .

'" ·::·/··::::;·.~·.:.'~';0~·~f'.:~::~·;'·L ·.: ... .:...." . .......

I,II

I

P.02209 274 4861MULE CREEK-WARDEN~~V-20-2006 13:17I" .t

. , -.,

'.

" ...

0 0 ': ,' •••••

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Corrections Standards Authority600 Bercut Drive, Suite A

Sacramento, California 95814www.csa.ca.gov

«,' ... :..

':.': .,..': .''' ..

IJ

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII\

I

This first evaluation allowed the Team to pilot test the staff safety criteria developed by the panel ofsubject matter experts. Based 011 this experience, the Team made several modifications to tl,le origulalcriteria. The following "lessons learned" fron1 the staff safety evaluation of MCSP will beincorporated into future evaluations.

The Staff Safety: Evaluation Team, created by the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) in responseto your concern about institutional safety, conducted its evaluation of Mule Creck State Prison(MCSP) July 5-8, 2005. The enclosed report. which will be presented to the CSA at the nextscheduled meeting in September, lists a number of findings for your consideration.

On behalf of the eSA Staff Safety Evaluation Team (Team), I would like to express our sincereappreciation to MCSP Warden Rosanne Campbell and her staff, who provided all written materialsrequested and gave the Team full access to all areas of the institution. Staff members were open andcandid during the evaluation, and it was clear that they understood their n,le and the mission of theinstitution. which was very clean and well maintained. There is a very positive working atmosphere atMCSP, and I believe this translates into a safer work environment. The Team reported observingWarden Campbell in the prison yard talking to inmates. MCSP staff indicated that this is a commonoccurrence and expressed an appreciation that she takes the time to do so.

P.03209 274 4861

MNOI.D SC~IWARZl:N5CClER. GOVERNOR

D5· 25

WM~ DEN'S OF FiCEHCSP

'05 ~JUL 22

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Dear Secretary Hickman:

Secretary Roderick Q. HickmanCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation1515 S Street, Suite 205 SouthSacramento, California 95814

• Staffassault trend data alone are insufficient for conducting an adequate evaluation. The Teamwill collect infonnation before arriving that will be helpful in dle evaluation and increase theefficiency of the team when it is on-site. Most of the needed data can be obtained froIn theCDeR Adult Operations Data Analysis Unit.

• Half ofthe fIrst day was conswned by a facility tOUf. The Team leamed that four days was toolittle time to conduct the evaluation. Future evaluations are scheduled for five days and willnot include a tour.

• The Team added an assessment of the physical plaut: staffing, training, and inmate population(e.g., classification, housing), all of which were deemed critical to a thorough evaluation ofstaff safety.

• TIle Team also recognized that it is imperative to interview staff on safety related issues. Astructured set of interview questions was developed and pilot tested. Based 011 this experience,

July 19, 2005

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABIl.ITATION.

600 Bercut DriveSacramento, CA 95814

NDU-20-2006 13:17~ ..

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

In closing, I want to again extend our thanks and appreciation to Warden Campbell and her staff fortheir professionalism and the cooperation they extended to the Team. If you have any questions orcomments, please feel free to contact me.

the list of questions will be reduced and perhaps modified to facilitate the sununarization ofresponses.

• The panel criteria focused exclu&ively on custody staff. However, it became apparent after thefirst day at MCSP that this approach was shortsighted. As a result, the Team's evaluation alsoincluded interviews with non-custody staff.

Enclosure

P.04

July 19,2005

209 274 4861

Page 2

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Sincerely,

Karen L. Stoll, Executive Officer (A)Corrections Standardl) Authority

cc: Warden Rosanne Campbell, Mule Creek State PrisonJoe McGrath, ChiefDeputy Secretary, Adult Operations

Secretary Hickman

NDV-20-2006 13:18, f

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

If

NOU-20-2006~

13:18 MULE CREEK-WARDEN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

209 274 4861 P.05

BACKGROUND .. 111 ,. , •••••••••••" •••••••• 1

EVALU'ATION 1\mTHODOLOGY •.••••••••••, , 1

FACILITY PROFILE •.••.•••••.•••.••••••• .,1 ••••••••••,••••• ,.".,•••••••,••••••,••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,•••••••••• 3

Facility Description , 3

Current Useage 10 •••••••••••••••••• 10 3

Population SUlDmary.••.•......•••..••. f , 4

Staffing tt .t ••••••••••••.• t't· ••• tt ••• t·, ••••••••• ,. ~~ " ••••••••••••••••••••••••• It ••••••••••••• " •• " •••••••••• 4

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTAnON ~ 'lt 5

StaffAssault Incident Repolts , , ' f ••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5

Trai11ing. ~~ t~ t , , ••••••••••••••••••••• , •• 7

Safety Equipment 8

PHYSICAL PLANT & STAFFING•••.••••••• IJ•••••••••••••••~••••••••••••, ••••••IJ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10

Findings Corrunon To Facilities A. B, & C 11

Findings Specific To Facility A 11

FindinfiS Specific To Facility B 1 " , •••••••• ••••••••• ,.1I , 12

Findings Specific To Facili.ty C 12

Findings Specific to Central Services 12

ST.APF INTERVIEWSlJt IJ.,•• IJ•••••••••••••"" ••••••••••••••••_ •••••••••, •• , 13

Interviews with Managers 13

Interviews with Supervisors 14

Interviews with Line Staff ,., If ,., ,., 14

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION •••••.••••••••••••.••••,•.•.••••••••,••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• IJ•••••••••••••, 15

ENTRANCE LETTERu•.•••• t ..t , , , ••• Attachment A

DATAMATRIX ,.." , Attachment B

DESIGN CAPACITY v. CURRENT CAPACITY Attachment C

STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE•.•••••••••.•.••.•.•...., AttRchment D

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS AND ASSIGNMENT Attachment E

RepOrt MCSP.d~.:7/19f200S

""""",Q,,:'iiii,,,ii,(i!4wa:::::; .,j,"!!!3!i,!I!!,\i. ;;;;;;;::;;;;,.".,,~,

RcpcJtMCSP.uO~;7/l91200S

EVALUATION ~ETHODOLOGY

The Facilities Standards and Operations Division of the CSA led the evaluation team. The teamwas divided into three teams, each comprised of staff from the CSA, Adult Operations andJuvenile Justice (each team had a member from each discipline - see Attachment E for a rosteroHeam members and assignment).

Using a conference room in the Administrative Building as the base of operation, the team brokeinto workgroups and began the review process but continued to meet daily to discuss theirobservations. Available documentation was reviewed relative to the physical plantconfiguration, policies, safety equipment, staffmg levels, staff assaults and inmate population.The group looked for any trends or related issues.

P.06209 274 4861

BACKGROUND

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

The evaluation began on Jnly 5, 2005, at the institution, with an entrance conference withWarden Campbell, appropriate it1stitutional adminisb'ativc staff and evaluation team members.The conference included an operational overview of the institution by Warden Campbell as wellas an overview of the evaluation process by CSA Deputy Director Jerry Read. Following theentrance conference, the evaluation team members were provided a tour of the facilities.

Mule Creek State Prison was selected as the initial adult facility for review and an entrance letterwas sent to Warden Roseanne Campbell infonning her of the July 5·8, 2005 site visit dates andthe proposed operational plan (Attachment A). The criteria panel had suggested using a datamatrix to record information from incident reports (CDC 837) of inmate assaults on staff todetermine if any trends could be identified. The institution staff was asked to review the reportsand complete the matrix before the site visit. (Sec attachment B). The evaluation team asked thatall incident reports and related documentation be made available during the site visit. As theevaluation progressed, the team identified other information appropriate for review and staff atthe institution provided copies of existing documents or researched their records for information.

In March 2005, Secretary Roderick Hickman requested that the Corrections Standards Authority(CSA), develop a plan to evaluate staff safety issues at all of the state's adult and youth detentionfacilities. At the May 19,2005 meeting of the BOe) the proposal was presented and accepted.On May 24-25) 2005, a panel of state and national subject matter experts was convened toestablish the criteria by which the evaluations would be conducted. Based on those criteria, e.team was developed and a timeline of evaluations was established.

On July 5.8, 2005, a team comprised of staff from The California Departn1ent of Corrections andRehabilitation ceDeR) CSA, Adult Operations and Juvenile Justice staff conducted the firS!

Staff Safety Evaluation at Mule Creek State Prison. The evaluation protocol consisted of arequest for advance data on staff assaults including victim and perpetrator data, a preliminary sitevisit of the physical plant, random interviews with various custody and non-custody staff, areview of applicable written policies and procedures goveming the operation of the institutionand a review of documentation including incidents of staff assaults, staffing levels, inmatepopulation and safety equipment.

NDV-20-2006 13:18\ .

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

NDV-20-2006 13: 18 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.07

The physical plant team reviewed the institution design as it reiated to staffing, and the inmatepopulation. The purpose was to identify any issues that would affect staff safety such as iIunatecrowding, limited visibility, insufficient supervision or lack of communication.

An exit conference was conducted with Associate Director Darrel Adamst Warden Campbell andthe institution management staff to provide a summary of the results the evaluation. The exitconference included a presentation of the team's perceptions and observations as well as asummary of comments made by staff.

Institutional managers as well as staff and supervisors on each of the three watches wereinterviewed to provide an opportunity identify their concerns regarding staff safety issues. Aquestionnaire was developed in preparation for the review to ensure some consistency among theinterviews, and is included as an attachment to this report (see Attachment D). The responseswere categorized and a summary of the responses is included in the Staff Interview section ofthis report (page 13-14). Conflicts between ,the documentation. the staffs' perception of thepractice and staffs' concerns for safety issues were noted during the interviews and are includedin this report. The review team also made their own observations and those are noted.

2Report MCSP.doc:;7/19/200S

..

NQV-20-2006 13:18 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.08

CUlTeot Usage

Facility Description

Located outside of the secure perimeter are the two dormitories that comprise the minimumsupport facility (MSF). Each dormitory was designed to hold 100 beds but currently contain 200open bunk beds. Additionally, the MSF has an exercise yard area, medical clinic. visiting room,library, irunate canteen and clothing, education and chapel area, kitchen/dining facility, andvarious offices that make up the facility.

Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) is located 40 miles southeast of Sacramento in lone, California.It was first opened in June 1987 as a general population institution with vocational trainingprograms. educational programs and Prison Industries Authority programs. USillg a 270-degreedesign, the institution was originally constructed to house 1500 Level III inmates in threefacilities and up to 200 inmate workers in the mjnimum~security support unit housing for a totalinstitutional capacity of 1700.

3

FACILITY PROFILE

There are three facilities within a secure perimeter, Facilities A, B, and C. Each facility isessentially a mirror of the others, containing five buildings, located in a semi~circulD1' fashioncreating a perimeter on one side of the exercise yard of each facility. The buildings each contain100 individually secured cells; originally designed to be single occupancy cells that wereequipped with two beds. Each cell also contains a toilet/washbasin combination unit.Additionally, each facility has a gymnasium that has been converted to an inmate dormitory ~

each containing 160 beds. An administrative complex comprised of various staff office space,inmate vocational, academic and PIA programs, inmate chapels, inmate medical, dental andmental health, canteen, clothing and plant operations are located within each facility.

MCSP is currently used as a medium to high security institution housing general populationinmates up to a Level IV. It is a mental health hub institution for Enhanced Out Patient Program(EOP) and CCCMS inmates and houses inmates with sensitive needs (Sensitive Needs Yard orSNY). EOP inmates are those inmates with acute mental health needs. SNY imnates requirespecial housing because of the high profile nature of their crimes, threats from other inmates orbecause they have "dropped out" from some previous gang affiliation and are now targets forassaults. The designation of being a "hub" institution means the prison bas the capability ofproviding the enhanced services needed for the appropriate carc of inmatcs with more acuteneeds within these classifications. MCSP is the only institution in the state designated to houseinmates classified as being both, EOP and SNY. The institution continues to provide inmateprograms including vocational training for several trades and professions (e.g., graphic arts,cabinet, grounds.keeping, meat cutting, geographic infonnation systems, etc.), educational studyfor high school diploma/OED, Prison Industries, and other various programs to either support thecommunity or otherwise better prepare the inmate for reentry into the community.

Report MCSP.doc;7/J 912005

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIII

NOV-20-2006 13:19, .,. MULE CREEK-WARDENREVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION

209 274 4861 P.09

III

The Data/DocumentatioD Review Team reviewed available documentation, records and policymanuals to identify any trends or commOll themes among the incidents. The items reviewedincluded:

• Incident reports for staff assaults or attempted assaults (CDC 837).• Staff Assault Review Committee Minutes.• State Compensation Reports (SClF) for assaults on staff.• Imnate appeals (602).• Inventories of authodzed safety equipment.• Use afForce Executive Review Committee (ERe) findings.• Facility training records.• Corrective action plans from previous audits and inspections.• Employee safety grievances.• Daily chrollologicallwatch commander's report.• Involuntary overtime by inverse seniority records.• Staffing infonnation.• Classification records.• Inmate files.• Department Operations Manual (DOM) - Relevant sections only.• Restricted Department Operations Manual (Red DOM) - Re)evant sections only.

Staff Assault Incident Reports

FINDING: After a collective review and discussion of the above listed documents, there wereno obvious trends identified relative to the issue of staffbattery. Other than imllate classification(see discussion below), no issues were identified as being significantly consistent among thevarious incidents.

DISCUSSION: Thirty-nine incidents of battery and attempted battery on staff were reportedduring the time perio~ July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 at Mule Creek State Prison. Theinstitution reports that over 40 staff members were victims of battery or were injured duringincidents:

• Twenty-eight victims were from the ranks of correctional officers and two were sergeants.The remaining ten victims included five MTAs and five health care workers.

• The average age of the victims w~ approximately 38 years with 9.5 years of service.• Twenty-nine ofthe victims were male and ten were female.• Twenty-six of victims were white, six were black, six were hispallic, and two were reported

as '·other".

The team was unable to contion whether the victim demographics were consistent with those ofthe institutions as those statistics were not readily available.

Report MCSP.doc:7/191200S

FINDING: Additional training is needed for staff responding to emergencies.

DISCUSSION: In the reports reviewed. no serious injuries I we~e initially reported by thevictims and few required medical attention following the initial treatment at the institution'sinfhmary. In all but three incidents, no staff workdays were lost. In the most serious case, noinitial serious injuries were reported; however, two staff members have been off duty for over 40days as a result of their injuries and have not retumedto work.

Three additional officers were injured, although not reported to be serious, during the process ofresponding to the incident. The Return to Work Coordinator provided statistics from the sametime period showing a category described as "Responding to alarms" as being the third leadingcategory of frequencies ofstaff injury, with 15 reported injuries during the las! fiscal year. 111esestatistics would support the need for training ways to safely respond to incidents.

I

I,II

NOU-20-2006 13:19, . MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.10

FINDING: Race and age do not appear to be significant assault factors.

DISCUSSION: No significant variances were noted when comparing the race, age or connty ofcommitment of the assaultive inmates to that of the overall facility inmate population. Hispanicand white inmates were responsible for 29 incidents with the remaining 10 being dispersedamong the other races. The inmates had been committed from twelve counties with none beingunusually represented.

The average age of involved inmates was 36. consistent with the prison population's average ageof 38 and they had been incarcerated for an average of 1357 days including 725 days at MuleCreek. The average classification score of the involved inmates was 95 which would qualify as aLevel IV. The documentation reflected only three incidents that involved inmates on a modifiedprogram.

FINDING: Inmates with high security classifications or serious mental health issues are morelikely to commit assaults on staff.

DISCUSSION: As in any facility, an inmate's housing location is largely detennined by his orher classification score. Twenty-three of the incidents involved inmates with high securityclassifications or s~ious mental health issues. Ten of the incidents occurred in theadministrative segregation unit, which hO'L1SeS as many ali 175 iml1ates already identified as beingthe most disruptive or assaultive in the prison. Another 10 incidents occun·ed in areas locatedwithin Facility "AU which houses almost 1000 Level IV General Population (GP/SNY) inmates,the highest security level within the prison and an additional 160 Level III inmates housed in thegymnasium. Three incidents occurred in Facility a, Building 6, the Enhanced Out Patient (EOP)irunate housing unit. EOP imnates, While generally described as mental health patients becauseof their diagnosis, require a significantly higher level of clinical care. Facility B, Building 6 has

I Aserious injury is defined by Title IS. Section 3000 ll.'> U serious impairment uf physicll1 condition. including, but not limited to,the following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted los:; or impairment of function of any bodily memberor organ; a wound requiring suturing; and disfigurement.

RepOI1 MCSP.doc;7J1912005

FINDING: Inmate manufactured weapons were not a factor in assaults on staff.

been housing approximately fifty Level VI EOP/SNY inmates. The institution has just activatedan EOP unit in a Level IV building in Facility A, housing 6 inmates as of this review date.

DISCUSSION: bunate manufactured weapons were not involved in any of the incidentsreviewed. Imnates threw or attempted to throw an unknown liquid substance o~ staff in 6 of theincidents. In the remainder of the cases reviewed, inmates battered or attempted to batter staff byhead-butting, kicking or unlawfully touching with their hands. In the incident resulting in themost serious injury to staff, the inmate was able to head butt the officer, knock him off balance,kick him several times and finally bite him on the leg. Six incidents occurred during escorts andthree during meal service when officers opened food ports.

IIIII

NOlJ-20-2006 13:19\ ~

MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.ll

The days of the week with the least frequent incidents were Wednesday and Thursday and theremainder of the incidents was divided among the other days of the week. The number ofincidents was evenly distributed between second and third watch and none occurred during firstwatch.

l'raining

FINDING: Custody staff appear to be receiving training in safety related issues. Non·custodystaff; however,receive fewer hours of training and are less compliant in attending training.

DISCUSSION: The training manager provided documentation of mandated training andinstitutional orientation training for both custody and non-custody staff. MCSP provides 40hours of orientation training all new employees including approximately 10 hours 011 safetyrelated issues.

Mandated training topics are specified by both Califomia law and the DOM. Each institutionmay add training that would be considered as being site-specific. Depending on the institution'smission and construction, site-specific training topics are detemlined by the Warden.

Sergeants and Lieutenants are scheduled to receive approximately 57 hours of annual training, 10of wllich are related to staff safety. Twelve of the hours are optional and based on monthlytraining bulletins proyided from headquarters. MCSP tracks the supervisors' annual trainingbased on the employee's birthday. Each employee's training year begins on their birthday, not acalendar or fiscal year, therefore, using the CUtTent 1ST tracking program, we were unable toconfrrm that all of the training mandates were being met. The training files reviewed indicatedthat regular, ongoing training was being performed. The training manager reported that all of thesupervisors, with exception of those on extended leave, were compliant with the trainingmandates.

The remaining custody personnel are scheduled to receive approximately 40 hours of annualtrainiug including approximately 21 hours related to staff safety. Again, we were unable toconfinn that all of the training mandates were being met. The training manager reponed that all

Report MCSP.doc;111912005 7

Safety Equipment

FINGING: Officers in some positions are not provided sufficient communications equipment.

FINDING: There are 87 officers and many MTAs and CC that have not been issued a stab­resistant vest.

DISCUSSION: The soft body annor stab resistant vest inventory records were reviewed. Thearmory Sergeant infonned us that 651 officers have been designated to be issued a stab resistant

P.12209 274 4861

8

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Rcpon MCSP.doc;7/1912005

DISCUSSION: The Correctional Officer assigned to Body Cavity Surveillance cells was notequipped with a personal alann, intercom capabilities or radio (although post orders reflect aperson alann is to be worn). Additionally. the camera did not monitor the hall where the staffperson is stationed but was positioned to mOlutor the inmate.

TIle Department Operations Manual, Section 55050 addresses equipment involving weapons.chemiC$l agents and the annory. This section, in part identifies departmentally approvedchemical agents and munitions. MCSP issues chemical agents to correctional officers duringeach shift. Additional chemical agents, impact munitions and less-lethal devices are maintainedin the control booths and armory and at designated areas within the institution. The equipmentinventory records did not make any deficiencies apparent.

The non-custody personnel are scheduled to receive 8 hours of annual training, 6 of which arerelated to staff safety. The training manager reported that 80% of the non-custody personnelwere compliant with the training manda.tes. The sample files reviewed supported thatpercentage.

FINDING: During interviews with supervisors, they indicated that staff would benefit fromspecified training (cell extraction, mental health intervention, etc.). In fact, the majority of staffintervIewed identified the need for more meaningful training.

of the custody officers, with exception of those on extended leave, were compliant with thetraining mandates.

Only one radio is issued to the two correctional officers working inside the housing unit as floorofficers. Typically the position designated as "floor one" is assigned to maintain the radio. Thisposition is also designated as the primary respOlldent, during Code I and II emergencies. Thisprocess results in the second correctional officer remaining in the unit without radiocommunication. A radio was assigned to the Facility A Gym. In an effort to maximize the use ofa single radio, staff had secured the radio to the podium as a point of centralized use. Theevaluation team agreed that the institution should consider providing all floor officers with aradio.

DISCUSSION: Supervisors said that correctional staff needed hands-on training for cellextractions (the use of cell extraction equipment), and mental health techniques for dealing withEOP and CCCMS inmates.

NOV-20-2006 13:19, .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

NQU-20-2006 13:19 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.13

IIII

vest. The records reflect that 54 officers within the ranks of correctional officers, sergeants andlieutenants have been fitted for vests; however, thc vests have yet to be issued. Thirty-threeofficers have not been fitted for or issued a vest at the time of the evaluation. Sufficient vests areavailable at the facility for those officers to check out for use during their shift until theirpersonal vests are available. Officers reporttld a reluctance to wear these vests. saying that thevests were not cleaned appropriately. The records reflect that the remaining 564 officers, havebeen fitted and have been issued a vest. .

The MTAs and Correctional Counselors (CC), who are custody staff, are not included in theabove numbers. The team was informed that many of these personnel have been fitted for vestsbut have not received vests. The team was funher informed that the bargaining unit representingMTAs and CCs has filed a grievance (with the agency not the institution) over this matter.

Additional correctional officers were posted in other locations in the institution (i.e.: centralservices, vocational/educational areas, towers, infirmary, etc.).

Each facility contains a large inmate exercise yard. Facility A has three correctiom~l officersassign~d to supervise the exercise yard while Facilities B and C each have two officers assignedto the exercise yard.

Facility A houses level IV inmates. Building 5 in Facility A is currently coming online to housethe Level IV EOP inmates that were previously housed in Facility B, Building 6. An additionalfloor officer is assigned to this unit due to the increased supervision needs ofEOP imnates.

Facility C, Building 12 contains administrative segregation housing, and Building 13 (Facility C)serves as overflow administrative segregation housing. Buildings 1l.14 and 15 contain 60 E­beds in the dayroom area and again, only forty of these beds are used. As with other buildingscontaining E-beds, an extra floor officer is posted on the first and third watches.

P.14209 274 4861

10

PHYSICAL PLANT & STAFFING

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Facility B, Building 6 houses the EOP inmates. An additional floor officer is assigned to this unitdue to the increased supervision needs of EOP inmates. Buildings 7, 8, 9, 10 eaeh have 60additional E-beds located in the dayroom area. Only 40 of the 60 beds are currently utilized.Buildings containing E-beds are provided one additional cOlTectional officer assigned as a floorofficer during the first and third watch.

Activated in 1987, Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) was originally designed to house male adultLevel I-ill inmates. The institution currently operates as a Level I, II, III, and IV generalpopulation facility. The Level III and IV housing is constructed on a 270 design. celled housingcriteria. There are three facilities maintained within a secure perimeter (Facilities A, Band Ceach containing five buildings) and a Level I housing facility is located outside of the secureperimeter. The Institution was originally designed to house 1700 inmates. At' the time of thisstaff safety evaluation. the institution was housing 3517 inmates within the secure perimeter and330 inm.ates within the Level I facility. See the Facility Profile section of this report for furtherinformation.

During the second and third watches, each building was staffed with two correctional officersdesignated as floor one and floor two, and an armed correctional officer posted in a securelocation above the dayroom designated as the control booth offic~. First watch bas onecorrectional officer assigned floor duties and one control booth officer. The gymnasiums werestaffed with two floor officers and only the gymnasium in Facility A had an anned observationbooth officer, which was assigned during all three watches.

Located outside of the secure perimeter are the two dormitories that comprise the MinimumSupport Facility (M5F). Each dormitory contains 200 open bunk beds. Additionally, anexercise yard, visiting space, inmate canteen, combination education/chapel area, classrooms andvarious offices are included in the facility. One correctional officer is posted in each dormitoryduring each watch.

Repon MCSP,do/:;7119J20D5

NDV-20-2006 13:20

IIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIII

Findings Specific To Facility A

Findings Common To Facilities A. B. & C

The evaluation team toured the institution, reviewed institutional procedures and interviewedstaff at various classification levels. The evaluation team looked specifically at the overallconditions of the physical plant. the staffing levels within each areEl of the institution, and thenumber of inmates and their classification within each building of the institution. The evaluationrevealed the following concerns within each facility:

P.1S209 274 4861

11

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

• The gymnasium was being utilized for the housing ofinmates. Imnatcs housed in thegymnasiwn were observed draping towels, blankets and clothing from their bW1ks. Thispractice obscured the already limited visibility within this area. Staffstated that this issuehas been reported to facility management and some managers allow this practice whileothers do not.

• Each of the buildings had a pad lock that was applied to each cell during the sleepinghours. The locks became necessary when it was discovered that inmates could lift thesliding door off of the track providing a means of exiting the cell. Teal'D members areconcemed about inmate and officer safety during emergency situations requiringimmediate removal of an inmate from a cell. as the padlocks arc located at the top of thecell doors. During a fue situation. lock removal could be hampered by the collection ofsmoke in these areas (as opposed to being able to maintaining a low position to mitigatethe effects of smoke) and shorter staff having a difficult time reaching lock.... Teammembers recommend consulting the State Fire Marshal for an opinion on this practice ofpad locking the doors during sleeping hours.

• The team' recommends the institution consider placement of convex security mirrors atthe end of the dayroom of each building, to enable correctional officers at the controldesk to see blind spots near inmate telephone areas.

• The inmate exercise yard in this facility is very large; particularly considerulg it is usedby Level IV inmates. Three correctional officers were assigned to the Facility A yard.These officers were not assigned specific sections of the yard for supervisionresponsibilities. Additionally: yard officers were observed leaving the yard withoutnotifying their fellow officers. Sergeants were unable lo locate yard officers when askedto do so. While the team felt three correctional officers were sufficient. the practice ofnot having specific areas of coverage responsibility within the yard and leaving the yardwithout notifying other officers could possibly comprise staff safety. Due to theclassification of the inmate population in this facility. the team recommends diViding theyard with fencing or masomy to aid in the supervision of inmates.

• Inconsistencies were noted in the responses provided by correctional officers withinseveral buildings regarding incident response procedures. Post orders and practice werenot consistent. When interviewed. staff gave inconsistent infonnation regarding incidentresponse responsibilities.

• Building 5 has office furniture and equipment being moved into the dayroom for EOPstaff. This furniture and equipment may pose a staff safety issue. as it could be used a

Report MCSP.doc:;7IlSl12005

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Findings Specific To Faciliw.c

Endings Specific to Central Services

Findings Specific To Facilitv B

weapon or used to make weapons. The team recommends that the office furniture bereplaced with detention grade furnishings.

P.16209 274 4861

12

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

• Officers in Building 14 stated that the inmates have the ability to control the TV volumeand the volume becomes loud enough to hinder verbal communications between officers.

• Officers in Buildings 11) 14 and 15 reported that work orders are not addressedconsistently. Team members observed lights that were burned out and doors located nearthe showers with locks that were sticking.

• Staff in Buildings 11, 14 & 15 reported concerns about 110t having adequate coverageduring the AM feeding release and recall.

• Only two officers were assigned to this exercise yard. The team agreed this was aninsufficient number of yard officers. The evaluation team suggests that the institutionconsider assigning an additional officer to this yard as well as in the exercise yard ofFacility C. The issue of yard officers not having specific areas of supervisionresponsibility was also observed in these exercise yards.

• E-beds contained in Buildings 7. 8. 9 and 10 (as well as Buildings II, 14 and 15 inFacility C) present a staff safety risk. Poor visibility due to inmates draping itemsbetween the bUl1ks and inability to secure these inmates contribute to this concern.Additional staff are provided on third watch, but not second. Logic is that inmates,during the second watch, are on the yard or attending vocational programs. Eachbuilding containing E-beds was observed with inmates in the dayroom area during thesecond watch. These inmates were not assigned to a vocational program and chose not tobe on the yard. As a result, these inmates wcre either on their bunk. or in the dayroomarea. The team recommends a third correctional officer be assigned to these units toprovide supervision ofthese additional inmates.

• The institutional fire identification system alarm was not working properly. Staffreported that the system ~s historically not functioned correctly and that during the rainyseason, the problems with the system are exacerbated.

• The Correctional Officer assigned to the Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) did nothave a personal alarm.

• In the CTC, Bl'l electrical room has been convened into a staff break room/inmate clerkoffice. The room contained cleaning supplies and a staff refrigerator. The inmate clerkwas not being directly supervised md had access to officer food.

Rl:pon MCSP.doc:711 9/2005

NDV-20-2006 13:20

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

NOV-20-2006 13:20 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.17

f

,

It

It

III,

IlIIIII

STAFF INTERVIEWS

Random interviews were conducted with custody and non-custody staff from Wednesday, July 6through Friday, July 8, using a questionnaire (questionnaire included as Attachment D)developed by the Corrections Standards Authority. Due to limited staff resources and timeconstrclints, the interviewing team chose to conduct random interviews with custody staffassigned to facility A, B, C (e.g. ad seg, ad seg overflow, gymnasiums, EOP, SNY, centralservices, and CTC), Minimum Security, and selected support functions (lSU, and transportation).

For purposes of this report, responses from custody managers, supervisors, and line staff ategrouped and perceptions concerning staff safety are detailed. Staff safety interviews wereconducted on Friday with non~custody staff (managers andlor supervisors in each program area);however: their responses have not been grouped together for this report out due to a lack of timefor preparation. However. the review tcam did find that the supervisors and managers (non.custody) shared many of the custody concerns.

Interviews with Managers

We meet with the captains on Wednesday, July 8, and we asked them to comment on their staffsafety concerns. They unanimously agreed that the two major issues affecting staff safety werecrowding and the increase in SNY program inmates.

FINDING: Level IV inmates with mental health issues and sensitive needs are being housed ininappropriate facilities (270 versu.'l 180 design).

DISCUSSION: Staff shared with us that Mule Creek State Prison is considered the uhub" forEOP/SNY inmates, designating it as the only institution that houses EOP and SNY inmates.Compounding the situation, many of the 8NY inmates have Level IV classification pointsrequiring 180 design housing; however this institution was designed as Level III with 270 designhousing. As a result, staff safety becomes a concern when SNY inmates. with assaultivehistories, are housed in these facilities. The team was informed that the department has no 180design facilities to house these Level IV SNY inmales.

FINDING: Crowding leads to a potentially unsafe environment.

DISCUSSION: A second concern is the overcrowding in the facilities. which result ill E beds(extra beds). or triple bunk beds placed in housing unit dayrooms, and double and triple bunkingof the gymnasiums. Designated housing units have up to 40 inmates sleeping in E beds. Whilean additional floor officer is assigned to supervise these inmates, it is difficult for the officer tosupervise these inmates due to obstructed sightJines. Gymnasium A uses triple bunks, andGymnasiums Band C use double buw to house up to 160 inmates. Gymnasium A has twofloor officers and one gunner, and Gymnasium B and C have two floor officers but no gunner,because the inmates are cla.c;sified as Level 1-2. These gymnasiums are perceived as staff safetyissues, as it is difficult to supervise the inmates due to the large number of beds and diminishedsightlines.

!tepa" MCSP,doc;7119I2UOS 13

NOV-20-2006 13:20. MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.18

FINDING: Post and bid prevents managers from filling posts with the best-qualified staff.

DISCUSSION: Additionally, the captains believe that "post and bid" (a process in whichlieutenant. sergeants and COs request to work a specific post based on their seniority) restrictstheir ability to ensure a high level of institutional and staff safety. The best-qualified individualis not always placed in a position, based solely on seniority.

Interviews with Supervisors

FINDING: Supervisor concerns mirrored those ofthe managers in the following:

• Crowding with E·beds and the using gymnasiums as dormitories.• Post and bid - supervisors were restricted from diverting an officer from one position to

another based on operational needs.

FINDING: During interviews with supervisors, they indicated that staff would benefit fromspecified training.

DISCUSSION: Supervisors said that correctional staff needed hands-on training for cellextractions (the use of cell extraction equipment), and mental health techniques for dealing withEOP and CCCMS inmates.

Interviews with Line Staff

FINDING: Staff reported that safety equipment is adequate for performing their duties and ratedthe equipn1ent as "good" to "okay".

DISCUSSION: Line staff said the type of safety equipment issued to them includes personalalanns, radios in designated positions, handcuffs, side-handle batons, and OC spray. Theyindicated that equipment could be obtained at the sergeant's office, control booths, or from theperson being relieved at shift change.

FINDING: Not all custody staff have been issued stab-resistant vest and are reluctant to wearvests from the '~vest pool".

DISCUSSION: Of the staff interviewed, all had been fitted for stab-resistant vests, but not allhad been issued a vest. The evaluation team reviewed the body armor report, and noted that 567custody staff had been issued vests and 87 custody staffhad not. Staff indicated that if they wereassigned to a position which required a vest, they would not wear a vest from the "vest pool" asthey believed that these vests are not maintained in a sanitary condition, and they were concernedwith the integrity of the material to withstand an attack by an inmate. Staff were familiar withdepartment policy which requires that a vest be worn by staff in specified positions, but did notalways comply.

.:

Report MCSP.doc;7/191200S 14

As directed by the Corrections Standards Authority. the fmdings from this evaluation will bepresented to the CSA at their next scheduled meeting and copies ofthe report will be provided toCSA members, CDeR administration and Warden Campbell. It is outside the scope of thisproject for the CSA to receive and monitor a corrective action plan; appropriate action will be theresponsibility of CDCR Adult Operations.

This was the first of fony-one Staff Safety Evaluations which will be conducted at California'sstate prisons and youth detention facilities. The initial evaluation pilot tested the criteria that wasdeveloped by a panel of subject maner experts. The evaluation team made a number ofmodifications to the process as a result of the pilot test; nevertheless, several observations andrecommendations are contained in this report.

The majority of observations were the result of crowding at the institution. classification issues(BOP, SNY, and Level IV inmates) including classification overrides, safety equipment issues(stab-resistant vests, communications, etc.), training issues, labor issues (management limitationsdue to post and bid), physical plant issues and staffing concerns. Institution management cannotaddress many ofthe issues identified in this report. as they require a funding source or changes inoverarching policy andlor labor agreements.

,IIIIIIIII,

I

NDV-20-2006 13:21

RCJlort MCSP.dllC;71191200S

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

15

209 274 4861 P.19

I

I\,I;

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

II .

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

NOlJ-20-2006 13: 21 MULE CREEK-wARDEN

ATTACHMENT AENTRANCE LETTER

209 274 4861 P.20

In order to facilitate the process, please provide the following for the evaluation team's use while:: a1 MuleCreek State Prison:

• A contact person with whom the team may coordinate theil' activities {plea.qe call or e-mail thisinfonnation when the contact is identified}.

• An office or conference room equipped with a table, chairs and a telephone in which a team ofninemay work.

9161445·5073WWW.BOCORR.CA.GOV

209 274 4861 P.21

STATE OF CALIFORNIAARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Attachment A

BOARD OF CORRECTIONS600 BERCUT DRIVE, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

• Access to all levels of staff for short interviews. These interviews can take place at their assignedwork areas a~d we will avoid interrupting their schedules as much as possible.

• Incident Reports for Assaults on Staff- CDC 837:o A data collection form was sent to Chief Deputy Bill Des Voignes. asking that facility staff

code staff assault incident reports for the past year in the identified fonnat, addressingincident information, inmate information and vic1im(s) information (please provide anelectronic copy of this data as soon as practical). .

Rosanne Campbell, WardenMule Creek State PrisonP.O. Box 409099lone, CA 95640

Dear Warden Campbell:

The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) asked the Board of Corrections (aOC) to develop aplan to evaluate staff safety issues at Department of Corrections (CDC) and Department of the YouthAuthority (eYA) detention facilities. At their May 19, 2005 meeting, the Bonrd unanimously approved aproposal to assemble a panel of subject matter experts to develop criteria for conducting staff safetyevaluations.

The panel met on May 24-25,2005 and established the criteria by which the evaluations will be conducted.As a result, a team comprised of BOC, CDC and CYA staff will be conducting the evaluations over thenext 28 months beginning with the MuJe Creek State Prison on July 5-8, 2005. We expect to be on site torfour days and plan to observe operations during all shifts ifpossible.

We would like to begin with an entrance conference with you and/or appropriate administrative staff onJuly 5, 200S at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the method by which the staff safety evaluations will be conductedand to get a general overview of facility operations and any concerns you may have.

NOU-20-2006 13: 21-

June 20, 2005

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

*= 2004 and 2005 to date

Karen L. Stoll, Executive Director (A)

Sincerely,

Supplemental Data Sources - to be accessed as needed

June 20. 2005

209 274 4861 P.22MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Attachment APage 2

• StaffAssault Committee Minutes

The evaluation team may ask for additional resources, depending on the initial assessment. Please keep inmind that Mule Creek Stale Prison is the first facility for which staff safety evaluations will be conducted,so all needed information is still being detelmined.

• A copy ofthe Confidential and Restricted Department Operations Manual (Red DOM)

Upon completion of the on site portion of the evaluation, we would like to schedule an exit conferencewith you andlor appropriate members of your staff (on or about July 8. 2005). The results of the evaluationwill be reported to the BOC at its regularly scheduled meeting and a written report will be forwarded toYACA with a courtesy copy sent to you.

• Facility Health and Safety Committee Minutes·o Grievances, Recommendations. Actions

• hunate Appeals (CDC) '"• Daily Activity Report (DAR); Notice of Unusual Incident (NOU) at certain facilities*• Authorized Equipment and Functionality• Use ofForce Committee Minutes and responses to recommelldations*• Employee Training records for selected areas'"• Corrective Action Plans for previous audits'"• Men's Advisory Counsel (MAC) minutes*

• State Compensation Reports (SClF) for assaults on staffSummaries are reportedly available from facility Return to Work Coordinator

co: J. S. Woodford, DirectorDepartment ofCorrections

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, pleasefeel free to contact Jerry Read, Deputy Director (A), at (916) 445-9435 or jread@bdcolT.ca.gov.

Warden Campbell

NDV-20-2006 13:21.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

NDV-20-2006 13:211

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

ATTACHMENT BSTAFF ASSAULT DATA

209 274 4861 P.23

Mule Creek State- PrisonSiaff AsS8Ull Data FY 2004105

Page 1 of2

---_._--_...- .. -'~-'

Attacbment B

....t'\lI"l...

lfU:lDElI'I.FOIUtIA'PDN 18l1lTl!lWARD 11IF0/INA1101C \lIC1lU1.FOllUA.noa.J

8 fiB

i ~ Nlw;parod S,oddi~

RtlCdCOC ~~0"'/°' SiIIo Ir>II 'neat Se<\"". tlln.... 'J:~

R<ll H"'JlIIlg '""'9'- Wolk 010 or YrlIafIMIll' Dale rne Weell lccalltJ. Assllalt In)Jly WOlIp;n ItMYAI iii c;.YA ReL'd rast DaltIPllD IAQII Loe 5111'$ Glr4 ~ GlInller flO - 11•• SIlS "-~a

1Q'-1\lI1·UIl1-Q261 I11Z1IZ1l'J~ 125 SAl Il1.OO 1 s"nan NO ~ I1IlI351 IILK 81 JAllII(JI 1l1_ 211111106 21 At·21tL NIA BIIRRIO lINK lot m 23 2UlI 1Mn

).rzp.HJ3-D1Jl19.0tB8 !l/U1200ol 1915 rUES BlJ)G3 ~nEUPf NO NO K1Sl138 Il!5P 1fQ2J1D!16 &11 DI:lODl mUla05 oIT A3-117 CCCIolS t6A UNK U liar... 2!1 2.tT Rue

MCP-NI-l.cl~194 !lII9IZOa~ 145 SUN BLDG 4 NO PI26U WIll !J 1I1ll12lll11l 8n212OO3 UFE 4 M-13JL CCCMS tM UNK f NT'" 311 ua WIlT

MCP-Aa.-o4lO6·e12! llII5IZOH 115 ruES ...ClINe StoTTEflY NO NO 1R!05<12 ',111 111 tL'fI2/1996 12l1812l1ll3 5l2!l!'lDIJ :IS ~IOU CCCA\S NtA U'I!( F MfA 40 :u IwKT

liICI'o.ACt..Q4IIl1~ I.e! 11612004 910 lUES EDIICA'DII IlIJ1GlY NO NO P40Z43 llISP 51 5fZ4n999 4IBt1OlIO UQQI2l1ZS $4 AHlll iliA Nt" U* '" CO '2 WHJ

UCP.J\DIl.U/ID-OZt1 IW2120N IlII8 SAT DN!HG s:..nelY NO NO DUOI4 AMI 111 2ol51r.l8li tIf"..<JQlII!O L.lfI' 42 .... till. ORPr U~ .. 00 43 111.25 WHJ

lICP.ADiI-44110002C lW2120D4 eelS SAT DNlHG GASSING NO - D21014 1JIl 111 %/5/tlllill 8tSOll\lllO If'E 42 .... tIIA DRPr UflK '" 00 !3 111.$' WHJ

lICP"'DII·t4JlOo~ 1OI11naD4 1~ S\I11 ClI'(lNG "nENPr flO NO TlI1513 HlSP S6 fnar:m 3Il4l1l11D D:z1lll11 48 CI3-tI2L CCXUS fLOPet UN!< .. co !ll lOll \"flit

MCP..AO...HJI1-OZ50 111101200. 1730 '''ED DNING O",lTERY NO lID ~16&ZI H1SP II 1ZlM1XXl 4I2ilaGlU 1121202 42/lG,1I!Ia iliA IlIA UIO< .. SCI :Ill ItI!llI HlSP

MCP-AE044005·0IJ 6/24t2GD4 B5lI lHUR EDUCAllOO IAmIlY NO HO K22P.33 WKT II lon:rnMil M23QOD.'I 1/11,'2OlI ... AD:J~1.IL CCCUS IlIA 1,,11( F 1BOiEF 54 9..5 MiT

loICP..u:D4W11-DI41 1.'CQG04 18:l5 SUH A. ClINIC G:.SSi.'IG tlO 1lO IuUDJlI ILK 1M' 7110119!l1 :m11211G3 Un 4Z A~15L CCCUS IlIA UNlC F MfA 2& ,~ Wltr

'YCP.ASU~Ul9-DI9 9114QtO~ 1(;1]0 lUES 1:&.1 Il"TrEftY HO IlO !nuN HlSP lU tJUlI LIFe 3.5 CI2.U1L !ttA N SIRe UN''( F MfA 37 2 ftIr

thO-blOt i,UmIlltG4 114'5 lHORS ~ AtTENpl' NO NO 11'140 \'Hr 61 61llflOO3 1lII'21Q1lO1 11/4I'l1I1!lI 3112·uR ECIP IN/A lJH· .. CD 31 S WIlt

!U:P.ASUJWII·1I25 11~41ZQ(JS 17JO Ms ,\SO GIlSSING 110 NO mow II'Mr 15'.1 ~19118 lI.'3llI2OJ4 SQ5Il!DI:I 41 12·I:NL EOP NJ. 1mX '" MrA 57 • ItI.J(

1ICP..,o,su.t5.Q'·DI4 II24QIlOS 1320 ~OH ASU BAUERY NO I«) P419:t6 IISP 191 8IWIllI9 121l1'20U 911121:0' 2612-23SL EOI' NzA. NlA U 0 31 942 WHf

.~ ••o, "Ill.OI. II24QOO~ 1320 NON ASU OAnER\' NO I.IJ :NUWI IIISS> 161 II/!IIISsg 121llllIlN4 tnl2llll5 21i 12·Z3'l lOOP NIl. iliA N 0 :IS 512 WH'

ua>-I,SU·ISID5IlIr& 51II1:lDOS ",S V.ED ASU IU,TlERY ..0 NO BUIll I/'l'lIr 4' 1lQJ2Qll4 12l1'nOH '''omlOS ~ 2·219L EOP N/I\ WA ~ CO 011 2.11 WilT

'Acp·,lSlJ.lsm-on 5fil200S 730 FlU IASU 8AnERr NO NO f45i!tS IBLK 4B :l(4J2OlIZ 41281'ZOIl5 1amaJ5 Z4 IZoZl)l EOP N/I\ IlIA JJ co 3t 17 VI'"

"CPoASU·G5JOl!j-OU l!IJ3l.2oo5 13!Q FRt ASu IlAnEAr NO NO 1017~B WIll ~l& IntllG ZI2/1Cltl4 !1lI2012 ~ 12·129L cc~s WHY MIA II co 211 UB HlSP

M::N\SU.e.ws-011 M:v21J115 1300 FRI I'.5U WITTER\' NO NO )(..W48 WHl 315 1/l11l'Jll7 V2t1GD4 mJ2012 ~ 1l-1ZSL CCCNS ~HT HI'" \: I.CSW 31 D nHf

M::P-IoSU·lWlI:>.QI1 5I1312DD:5 1350 FRt ASlf BATTERY NO NO K3l"748 WIlt 316 1/l1l1991 'U2nlJ1)f 31211012 ll.Z ll-t2!lL 1ccQ.1$ \IIHr IU... M IGl D 2l1.B3 \1Hr

IIICP-AYlJ.I.l411o-llZl' 1G",2004 1110 RtHU5 AYMII BATTERY NO NO JJQZ&l lIUC 17 al91ltlM '*1199 lGl.!JIW09 311 A4-215U IfIjl, iliA UNK IF co <4lI UII HSP

/I~IBI lWa2DN 1U5 MoOtI BLDG' 8AnEAV NO NO r"'l~ 0111 ~I ltUl2C02 6/19mlD2 ~1OQOO6 28 JlIB.I4l1U EOP HlA UNK F Ln 2lI 1."tHY

iW:P-8lIl-D4I'I 1-025IJ 111l212QD4 1BI5 ,otOH aLOGa -nERY NO NO DOailII WIlT I~ IOOglaOlI 't3IRlIlXI 11/14I1B33 44 1&:244U EOP HlA UNK .. co 41 2.SlI HSP

ICI'-8II6-DUlI-02S1 1tlJOl'"dID4 1510 lUES BlDGIl ....t1ENpr No tlO ~ HlSP 15 3Q~.11l9!I 11151211(I) 1l/20W00i 311 es:z4OU ECf> "'''' lHl!( F AN sa 211.42 I"IHr

MCl'-8Dll-lMIIl1.(J16' 713012G04 1415 FRI OlOGB ~lNG lO 110 P'819l1 "Iff 5I1112llOO eJ4nOOJ 1111!JJZllOS ~llB-ISIL NIA "''A UtI!( III co n '-'3 01H

"CP-IDe-04/Ot..clJllI 9/23/ZGD4 143S ll1UR& B1QGO IlAnEllY ~Q flO P.~ ~sp 3:1 Q~211_ 5.'1Dr200l Il/MlIO!i J1lea·142\J iruA "" UIII( fll 56T 3Z OM liSP

~~.IG! 8I1llGOOS II., IiUH 8CS SAnER'f l:O NO .HIm WHT 9' 1U1lltl9M 1N2IlCI3 311211012 ~ llCStl IolHC8 NIo\ lff,A It co 44 lU6 YJ1Ir

MCP-801I-1l6AJ6.104 IIIIIlQOO5 16511 SAT 81llN1t«i AnEIIpr IlO 110 Wll14 WHr 21 1GfI2t2OO4 215QOOS S/22I10~ 21l11S-1OSU EOP WHrPR UNI< M co 4!l lie Wltl

MCP-IlPG.o.-017 3/'l3/2OU 1034 UOtI PflOGIIAIoI 8AnERY NO • 110 TeleU WHT 44 3QMillQ 7n12OO3 'JIlMOlM ~ lIIS-I3RL EOP Nio\ 11IO< .. co 40 z.u tII!J'

NCP-C~1'()ln 712_ 101lI FIlr BlDG. 1'1 ~nEliPT NO HO lOJ~& OTHl 2. 111I3I'I991 MIl_ CI5-IJ1L lff,A Nu. 11IO< U co 35 t 81K

MCP-CIs.ocnO~1 1Ot2_ .505 SAT BlOO1.5 ilATTEfn 110 HO 103116 &lK :u I2tZ2tzallII 7Il12llCM 1Ol23t2017 2lI C15-l14\J "" Nu. IJIll( F co 43 n vntr

llCP-CCl-D«64l3E &n1ll2OO4 11110 UON ceulne GASSING NO tlO iII'olllGr. WHT .4 IIl82ll03 12JZJ2003 '''112017 47 Cl4-lOU CCCUS HIA Ull1C F NI"" 35 0..51 ASIR

I.ecP-CO,"4m.oIJl 11/2912004 830 11J£S COINltlG !lAnEJlY NO PROJ Dnle8 \1IHT :14 7/W19117 112312004 111411.52 sa ell·2om IIL\ Nu. UM;c u co 311 I~ll BLK

~5D4-l1ll1 4IWt.!005 19511 SAT CflAGU AnEIJPT /(0 NO ol522~~ HlSP 111 '.lQ8I2004 111812005 .t.z:ll2Ql1 23 el5·I3JU co::us HlA UMIC Ii co 44 9.41 vntT

MCP.cl~12.(1211 'l2t27Q01l' I leO LlC»l eTe IlATlEAY 1(0 NO CI54l1 \VHI 201 12Q0118B:1 2IlQllCl2 IFE 51 12·1211 CCCUS WI.. UMIC W co 53 lUI WIl'

MCI'.etC4501l5-Q1l2 ~ .r..a WEO eTC "nEUr'T 1:0 NO 1/'24120 HlSP 31 ~12IN04 :lIMIlCIS tll1r20llll 31 CTCG9 CO::US NIA WA F CO 41 1925 81K

McP-CTC4UIl-lOl 5Q112Oll5 T\I£S etc IlAnERY NO 110 ~ OlK 2J !Q4I199S 8/1111915 IQll/2OSS lI$ cron NIA MIA WA F fIN '5 U WIlT

UcP~44.QT-OI!i! 1Q5Q~ 1625 SUN eyARO NO NO DIGH8 HlSP 118 3r19118lili :112112001 Mtl4l2010 n A2·121U Nl.\ NIA. UMlI .. Co 35 1 WIll

~~s.oJ-Oll7 tn.aar.s 1445 SAT CYAAD 8ArrERY lID KO lc24211ll IilSP 2' 1_1998 IIJllII_ 1111maiS 34 CIJ. lO7t. NIAo NIA. lJNlC 101 00 32 95 "lItJ

&oI!CP-G\'t).G5lQ1.(Jf11 111_ 1445 SAT CYAAD 9A.TTEm NO "0 TII8200 IIISP 26 ellCll2GOJ :11121200. 1V11'2812 25 UlIK Nl.\ NIA. UIOC Ii Co 33 95 yntJ

INCP-RIIR-45D5-OaS 511112005 18211 ruES AU AnEIIPJ NO 1:0 1/'24!>20 HlSP 50 2l11/lCD1 511712llCM 2Qlfl1Ill6 37 12-119L fOP SUflENl Nl.\ U k:o .8 2055 8lJ(

iNCP-RaR-l),505~ SlISl20tlS IlIDO WED R4A BArTERY tiO !CO 1/'24520 IIISP !D 2111ml04 5/U12OO4 21211'lD01i 3112-126L EOP StlANO NIA FA k:o 42 118UC

Q.

.-4NM.-4

- -

Mule Creek Slale PrisonStaff Assault Data FY 2004/05

Page 2of2

Attachment B

ATTACHMENT CDESIGN VERSUS CURRENT CAPACITY

IIIIII,

I

NOV-20-2006 13:22.. MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.26

.iI

I!

I

I~

Designed Bed Current sedArea Desi~med Capacity Count Current Capacity Count

Facllltv A.Bulldlnrl1 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 100 Double OccuDancv CeU5 200Buildinll 2 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 100 Double Occupancy Cella 200Building 3 100 Single OccuDancv Cells 100 100 Double OccucanC'Y Cells 200Bulldln~4 100 Single Occupancy Cens 100 100 Double OCCUDanC\l Cells 200Building 5 100 Single OccupanCy Cells 100 100 Double OccupanC\l Cells 200GvmnaslumA 0 160 Bed Open Dorm 160exerclse YardFacllltvS

94 Double Occuopancy Cells +6 single Occupancy level IV

Bulldlna6 100 SlnQle Occupancv Cells 100 EOP Beds 19498 Double Occupancy Cells"' .j.

Bulldlna7 100 SlnClle Occupancy Cells 100 40 E-beds 23698 Double Occupancy Cells" +

Buildlna8 100 Sinale Occupancy Cells 100 40 E-beds 23898 Double Occupancy Cells· +

Building 9 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 40 E·beds 23698 Double Occupancy Cells" +

Isulldlng 10 100 Sinale Occupanev Cells 100 40 E-beds 236Gvmnasium B 0 160 Bed Open Dorm 160Execrclse YardFacility C

98 Double Occupancy Cells" +Building " 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 40 E-beds 236Building 12 100 Smgle Occupanev Cells 100 . 100 DOUble Occupancy Cells 2008ulldlna 13 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 100 Double Occupancy Cells 200

98 Double Occupancy Cells" +Building 14 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 40 E.beds 236

98 Double Occupancy Cells· +BuildIng 15 100 Single Occupancy Cells 100 40 E·beds 236GvmnasiumC 1eo Bed Open Dorm 160Minimum SecurityDorm 1 100 Bed Open Dorm 100 200 Bed Open Dorm 200Dorm 2 100 Bed Open Dorm 100 200 Bed Open Dorm 200

Total 1700 4126

NOV-20-2006 13:22, "

MULE CREEK-WARDEN

Design Capacity Versus Current CapacIty

209 274 4861 P.27

Attachment C

• Two cells In these buildings were converted to restroom facilities for the E-bed inmates.

NOlJ-2el-2006 13: 22..MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.28

ATTACHMENTDSTAFF INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

iIL: .;

~. ~

~r, ,\' :

i:::t'

2. What is your assignment? What are your primary duties (post Orders)?

S. How many inmates do you supervise? What is their general classification (EOP)?

7. Do you have a stab vest? Have you been titted for one? Do you wear it at alltimes?

6. What safety equipment is issued to you? What safety equipment do you utilize atall times, otherwise have access to, or have to check out from ~ central location?

r.,!..

fI

!I;!

P.29209 274 4861

Mule Creek State PrisonJuly 5 - 8, Z005

MULE CREEk-WARDEN

Line Staff:

1. What is your current job title?

3. When did you start working for the department as..•?

4. How long have you been assigned to this facility?

NOV-20-2006 13:22

II.I

If

If

IJ

III

8. What is the general condition of your safety equipment?

9. Is the safety equipment issued to you adequate for yourjob duties?

10. If the answer is no, what additional safety equipment is necessary?

1

NDU-20-2006 13:22•

MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.30

11. On a scale ofl to la, with 1 as the lowest score and 10 as the highest score, howsafe do you feel working at this facility? Why do you feel that way?

12. Where do you feel the least safe? Can you describe why that is? Where andwhen do you feel the most safe? How do other staff feel about this?

13. What staffsafety issue are you most concerned about? What worries you themost as you are performing your duties?

14. Do you have any general suggestions or comments relating to staffsafety?

15. What most would you like to do or see changed to improve staff safety?

16. How often do you see and/or speak with your supervisor? Your supervisor'ssupervisor? The warden?

17. Are protocols in place for emergency responses?

18. (policy?)What happens when a staff member is assaulted? If the staff person isinjured, where do they go for first aid or fol' emergency treatment in more seriouscases? How long might that take? Who investigates? Are criminal charges filed?

2

iii

I;

iI

!j~

f;rI;•

ti'o.r![1,

""

f[!0,

r.

~~

[!:.

,tJ.JUWW*,*,::W:;;i "",tii .#Q'w.x.a.z : Z4#".&$5M $N.%$MI4MtttQt:;::JJ:;U:;:;:40i:;;:m:t:;: h

;,:z:v;..~ ..

2

Supervisors:

1. How long have you been assigned to this facility as a supervisor?

2. How many years do you have as a supervisor?

3. Have you worked as a supervisor at any other CDC institution?

4. Describe your duties and responsibilities, and how you carry them out during aroutine shift.

5. How many officers do you directly supervise?

6. How many do you indirectly supervise?

7. What is the percentage of time (shift) do you spend personally observing yoursubordinates?

8. Can you describe the safety equipment that is issued to line staff?

9~ -- What safety equipment is issued and carried by your-staff?

i!!

"I:~ '

-- - -I;'·

10. Is there any other safety equipment, which you know of, available for staffs use?:iI

4t

ij; ~

'I

ilII~:~ I::

" smm::lII.. . 6JQ.J6iQ.QiQiWiQ.MiWiQi"',:;.M.((i::.Q.W;::;.Q•. w.«n:.C3.•. ( . .J • .' . ..

..0'.!

, UQ :1

n:1~I,.•1

1":1:1

3 ~!I

... ----- .----- --------------_..~-- -._-.-._.._ ~ .._._._---_ " '~ _----_.._._- ..•• •• ••• _ •. 4_.•• • • __ ···-·

,.'-. -_._---_. -'- ..__._---_.- .......-

~QQ, t (3i (6 .#.!b .-* ,0,,1( .{3,$.. ..".: .. &>.3 ... ... !.i.'!'*"!'l)';;;(;;;;;;;;;;;::)ji#'::'l..i~"i!i««.ei"(JiM.(ii . '.M hP.e':ZZ;WZ .0PM.as ..3. .0&(3,&0:«« "".".QQ'''S ..•{3.3•.•e.&''''Z;:''; pi< ..'i'Q'iWiiJR -.&/-':.':"

11. Ifthe answer is yes, what is the additional safety equipment and how is it issued?

12. Do you have II stab vest? Have you been fitted for one? Do you wear it at alltimes?

13. Does your staff have stab vests? Have they been fitted for one? Do you ensurethat they wear it at all times?

IIIII

NOV-20-2006 13:22 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.31

14. How often do you see your supervisors?

15. How many ofyour available officers are on overtime? Ordered over? Voluntary?

16. On a scale of 1 to 10. with 1as the lowest score and 10 as the highest score, howsafe do you feel working at this facility?

17. What is your greatest concern about staff safety for your subordinates?!.

18. What kind ofcomplaints do you get from staff? Ate there any patterns thatemerge? How do you handle them? j"

,

19. What do you do to ensure a safe working environment for your staff?

4

21. What protocols in place for emergency responses?

20. What would you like to do or see chl:lIlged to improve staffsafety and reduce staffassaults?

22. What happens when a staff member is assaulted? If the staffperson is injured,where do they go for first aid or for emergency treatment in more serious cases?How long might that take? Who investigates? Are criminal charges filed?

I~

IIIIIIIIII

NOV-20-2006 13:22 MULE CREEK-wARDEN 209 274 4861 P.32

5

4. Describe your duties and responsibilities, and how you carry them out during aroutine shift.

5. Have often do you walk through the facility to talk with staff and observe generalstaff safety practices? .

2. How many years experience do you have as a manager?

3. Have you been a manager at any other CDC institution?

P.3321219 274 4861MULE CREEK-wARDEN

Managers:

1. How long have you been assigned to this facility as a manager,?

NDU-20-2006 13:22

I \

IIIIII1

II

6. Can you describe the safety equipment that is issued to line staff? What isavailable for them to use?

7: Is there any other safety equipment, which you know of, available for staff's use?

8. lfthe answer is yes. what is the additional safety equipment and how is it issued?

6

I

II,

NOV-20-2la06 13:22 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 2139 274 4861 P.34

10. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as the lowest score and 10 as the highest score, howsafe do you feel working at this facility?

IIII

9. How many ofyour staffhave been issued stab vests? How many have beenfined? What is the timeline for issuing vests? Who has been identified to receivethem?

11. When considering staffsafety, what types of concerns do you have?

12. From your perspective, what carries the greatest potential for staff injury?

13. What might mitigate or reduce staff assaults?

14. What kinds of complaints do you get from staff? Are there any patterns thatemerge?

15. Do you have any long range plans to ensure staff safety and to reduce staffassaults?

16. Do you have anyone assigned to monitor staffassaults or track occurrences toidentify trends?

7

iiiI,I

I

NDU-20-2006 13:23 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 2139 274 4861 P.35

]7. Ifyou had sufficient resources (money and staff), what changes would you maketo your operation to reduce staffassaults or the potential for assaults? Physicalplant, service and supply, operational changes and/or staff changes?

18. Have the number of vacancies, 4850's. other leave of absences affected staffsafety? Do you have mandated overtime for· staff and supervisors?

19 Do you have any staffoffduty as a result ofan assault? How long? Have youhad contact with them whUe they were off duty?

20. What level ofrepair is your facility? Have you made requests for service orspecial projects that affect the level ofstaff safety? Have those requests beenapproved?

21. What protocols in place for emergency responses?

22. What happens when a staffmember is assaulted? If the person is injured, wheredo they go for first aid or for emergency treatment in more serious cases? Howlong might that take? Who investigates? Are criminal charges filed?

8

NOV-20-2006 13:23 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.36

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

-

ATTACHMENTEEVALUATION TEAM ROSTER AND

ASSIGMENTS

NOU-2e-2006 13:23 MULE CREEK-WARDEN 209 274 4861 P.37

Evaluation Team MembersMule Creek State Prison

Team 1Staff Interviews:

Robert Takeshta, CSA Field RepresentativeJohn McAuliffe, Adult Operations, Correctional Counselor II

Jeff Plunkett, Juvenile Justice, Captain

Team 2Physical Plant. Staffing and Population:Gary Wion, eSA Field Representative

Mark Perkins. Adult Operations, FaciliLy CaptainGerry Garcia, Juvenile Justice, Lieutenant

Team 3Facility Profile, Documentation Review and Data Analysis:

Don Allen, eSA Field RepresentativeDave Stark, Adult Operations, Lieutenant

Bob Moore, Juvenile Justice, Major

Attachment E

!

1-- .

II

Robert Takeshta, Field RepresentativeCorrections Stadards AuthorityPhone: 916-322-8346Fax: 916-327-3317E-Mail:.btakeshta@bdcorr.ca.gov

Gary Wion, Field RepresentativeCorreetions·Stadards AuthorityPhone: 916-324·1641Fax: 916-327-3317e-Mail: gwion@bdcarr.ca.gov

Don Allen, Field RepresentativeCorrections Stadards AuthorityPhone: 916-324-9153Fax: 916-327-3317E-Mail: dallen@bdgorr.ca.gov

John McAuliffe, Correctional Counselor IIAdult OperationsPhone: 916-358-2628Fax: 916-358·2636e-Mail: iQjJn.meaullffe@corr ca,90v

Dave Stark, LieutenantAdult OperationsPhone: 916-358-.2.473Fax: 916·358-2499E-Mail: dave.stark@sorr.ca.gov

Mark Perkins. CaptaInAdult OperationsPhone: 916·358-26.2.6Fax: 916·356-2499E-Mail: moerklns@corr.ga.90v

Jeff Plunkett, CaptainJuvenile JusticePhone: 916-262-0802Fax: 916-262-1767E-Mail: jolunKett@cys.ca.oov

Bob Moore, MajorJuvenile JusticePhone: 209-.2.74-8115Fax: 209·E-Mail: bmoore@cya.c~.gov

Gerry Garcia, UelltenantJuvenile JusticePhone: 209-944-6113Fax: 209-465·2968e-Mail: agarcia@cya.ca.gov,.

TOTAL P.37

a,s XU). \:'M hiM" mWlM4itw Lb.,. ;,. !.ok }.4',.«,3,o, , .. .4.>...w•. o.v.3.G.v,. z. .,wS&. .. .R);:r:.t!S!,.bl':'~:;, .. lAI mw&t l . .&..z 431.;,,%:, fuM t

&)ltt¢!ti}:tX?! <.f ••!#.'~~.. is i4 l Il.. .n ~3~ .:::.'.'..