GOOD AFTERNOON. WE WILL CALL TO
ORDER THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE NUMBER FIVE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY ON THIS MARCH,
27TH. THANK YOU. WE WERE OVER
VISITING AT THE STATE OF THE
JUDICIARY. WELCOMING PATRICIA
GUERRERO THE FIRST DO YOU CHIEF
JUSTICE LATINA CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THEN 29TH JUSTICE AND THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. SO IT'S A
WONDERFUL MOMENT FOR CALIFORNIA.
TODAY, WE WILL BE DOING A COUPLE
OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND
BUDGET PROPOSALS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. I WANT TO
WELCOME MS JENNIFER SHAFFER, THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE BOARD
OF PAROLE HEARING, MR KEITH
WATLEY, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF UNCOMMON LAW, AND DON SPECTER
, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
PRISON LAW OFFICE. MR SPECTER IS
JOINING US VIA WEBEX TODAY ON
ISSUE ONE SUB PANEL TO THANK YOU
FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING
TODAY. WE WILL NOT BE TAKING ANY
VOTES TODAY IN PUBLIC COMMENT
WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER ALL
ISSUES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND
DISCUSSED. AT THE END OF THE
HEARING. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
ROLL CALL, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
I WANT TO HERE PART FIRE,
PATTERSON. WE WILL ASK ALL
PANELISTS INTRODUCE THEMSELVES
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. WE WILL BEGIN
TODAY WITH ISSUE ONE, WHICH HAS
TWO SUB PANELS RELATED TO PAROLE
HEARINGS. I WILL PAUSE AFTER
EACH SUB PANEL FOR QUESTION FROM
THE SUBCOMMITTEE BEFORE I MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT SUB PANEL. WE
WILL BEGIN WITH SUB PANEL ONE
PROMOTING EQUITY IN THE PAROLE
HEARING PROCESS. THE L U HAS
PROVIDED A HANDOUT, SUMMARIZING
THEIR REPORT TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE. THIS HANDOUT IS
ALSO POSTED ON THE ASSEMBLY
BUDGET WEBSITE. LET'S BEGIN WITH
MISS O'NEIL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
START BY PROVIDING SOME BRIEF
BACKGROUND ON THE PROCESS.
SPECIFICALLY UM, THE BOARD OF
PAROLE HEARINGS WITHIN THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
IS COMPOSED OF 21 COMMISSIONERS
, WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE.
THESE COMMISSIONERS TYPICALLY
CONDUCT HEARINGS WORKING WITH
ONE UH, CIVIL SERVICE STAFF
MEMBER CALLED THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER. UM SO TO
INDIVIDUALS SITTING ON THE
HEARING PANEL, I'LL BE REFERRING
TO BOTH OF THEM TODAY AS
COMMISSIONERS FOR SIMPLICITY.
THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT TYPES
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO
RECEIVE PAROLE HEARINGS. AND
THOSE ARE THE LARGEST GROUP
BEING ALL PEOPLE WITH
INDETERMINANT SENTENCES THAT IS
SENTENCES THAT ARE A SPECIFIC
NUMBER OF YEARS TO LIFE. THE
SECOND GROUP, WHICH IS A
RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF
PEOPLE. UM IS PEOPLE SENTENCED
TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF PAROLE FOR CRIMES THEY
COMMITTED AS MINORS. UM AS A
RESULT OF SOME U. S SUPREME
COURT RULINGS RECEIVE PAROLE
HEARINGS AFTER SERVING 25 YEARS
IN PRISON. AND THE THIRD GROUP
IS CERTAIN PEOPLE WITH
DETERMINANT SENTENCES AND
DETERMINATE SENTENCES ARE
SPECIFIC, ARE SENTENCES TO A
SPECIFIC NUMBER OF YEARS, AND
SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE
PARTICULARLY LONG DETERMINATE
SENTENCES ARE ELIGIBLE TO
RECEIVE PAROLE HEARINGS AND, UM,
FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING
RELEASED EARLIER THAN OTHERWISE
. SPECIFICALLY PEOPLE WHO WERE
UNDER THE AGE OF 26 WHEN THEY
COMMITTED THEIR CRIME. UM AND
I'VE SERVED AT LEAST 15 YEARS IN
PRISON OR PEOPLE WHO ARE AGED 50
AND OVER AND HAVE SERVED AT
LEAST 20 YEARS CAN GENERALLY,
UM, RECEIVED PAROLE HEARINGS.
TURNING TO PAGE TWO. THERE ARE
TWO KEY DECISIONS MADE IN PAROLE
HEARINGS. THE FIRST, UM IS WOULD
THE CANDIDATE POSE AN
UNREASONABLE RISK OF DANGER TO
THE PUBLIC IF RELEASED, AND
THAT'S BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT
THAT IS THE CENTRAL QUESTION IN
A PAROLE HEARING AND THAT THE
COURT HAS ALSO RULED THAT, UM,
DENIALS OF PAROLE MUST BE BASED
ON SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE
CANDIDATE CURRENTLY POSES A RISK
OF DANGEROUS NOUS TO THE PUBLIC.
AND IF THE CANDIDATE IS NOT
RELEASED, THEN THE QUESTION
BECOMES, WHEN SHOULD THE
INDIVIDUALS NEXT HEARING OCCUR?
HOW MANY YEARS IN THE FUTURE AND
THAT PERIOD IS REFERRED TO AS
THE DENIAL PERIOD TYPICALLY I'M
GOING TO HIGHLIGHT NEXT, A FEW
KEY STEPS IN THE PROCESS. SO THE
FIRST IS ABOUT FIVE YEARS PRIOR
TO THE PERSON'S FIRST PAROLE
HEARING. THEY HAVE THE CHANCE TO
MEET WITH THE COMMISSIONER TO
DISCUSS THE PROCESS AND FACTORS
RELEVANT TO SUITABILITY,
DETERMINATION OR DETERMINATION
THAT THEY'RE SUITABLE FOR
PAROLE. THEN THE HEARING ITSELF
IS, UM, SCHEDULED ABOUT SIX
MONTHS IN ADVANCE, AND ABOUT
FOUR MONTHS IN ADVANCE. BPH
STAFF WILL ASSIGN AN ATTORNEY TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT RETAIN A
PRIVATE ATTORNEY. UM, THESE
ATTORNEYS ARE WORK FOR THE BOARD
ON A CONTRACT BASIS AT A RATE OF
$750 PER CASE AND ARE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN BASIC LEGAL
SERVICES TO THEIR CLIENTS. UM
SOME INDIVIDUALS, AS I MENTIONED
, DO RETAIN PRIVATE AT HER KNEES
AND PRIVATE ATTORNEYS SOMETIMES
OR TEND TO PROVIDE MORE
EXTENSIVE SERVICES. UM. ALSO
ABOUT FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THEIR
HEARING. CANDIDATES ARE
GENERALLY INTERVIEWED BY A BPH
STAFF PSYCHOLOGIST TO ASSESS
ASSESS THEIR RISK OF VIOLENCE.
AND THEN NO LATER THAN 45 DAYS
BEFORE THEIR PAROLE HEARING
CANDIDATES CAN WAIVE THEIR RIGHT
TO A HEARING FOR 1 TO 5 YEARS OR
STIPULATE TO UNSUITABILITY. AND
ONE MIGHT CHOOSE TO TAKE THESE
ACTIONS AS A STRATEGIC WAY TO
AVOID GOING TO A HEARING AND
POTENTIALLY RECEIVING A LONGER
DENIAL PERIOD. THEN OF COURSE,
THERE'S THE PAROLE HEARING
ITSELF. UM DURING THE HEARING,
COMMISSIONERS ASKED CANDIDATES
QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR SOCIAL
HISTORY. MENTAL STATE ADDED TO
TOWARDS THEIR CRIME AND RELEASE
PLANS. UM AND IN RECENT YEARS,
BPH HAS ADOPTED A STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK TO
GUIDE COMMISSIONERS AS THEY WALK
THROUGH THOSE, UM THOSE TOPICS
DURING THE HEARING. I AM SO TO
GUIDE THEM TO FOCUS ON THE
FACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO
BE MOST ASSOCIATED WITH RISK OF
VIOLENCE. AND THEN FINALLY,
AFTER AFTER A DECISION IS MADE
IN THE HEARING, THE GOVERNOR HAS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW GRANTS
OF PAROLE. MOVING ON TO PAGE
FOUR. I'LL BEGIN DISCUSSION OF
OUR FINDINGS. SPECIFICALLY WE
FOUND THAT TWO ASPECTS OF THE
PAROLE HEARING PROCESS COULD
LEAD TO INEQUITABLE OUTCOMES.
THE FIRST OF THOSE ASPECTS IS
THAT OVERLY BROAD DISCRETION
AFFORDED TO KEY ACTORS IN THE
PROCESS COULD ALLOW BIAS TO
OPERATE WITHIN DECISION MAKING,
FOR EXAMPLE, UM, AS I MENTIONED
COMMISSIONERS USE A STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK TO
GUIDE THEIR, UM, FOCUSED DURING
THE HEARING. HOWEVER, THEY STILL
RETAIN SIGNIFICANT DISCRETION IN
THAT THEY CAN CONSIDER FACTORS
THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE
FRAMEWORK AND THEY CAN THEY
RETAIN FULL DISCRETION AND HOW
TO WAIT THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT
THEY CONSIDERED TO PRODUCE A
DECISION. THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND
THE GOVERNOR ALSO MAINTAIN A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DISCRETION
IN THE PROCESS. AND WE DO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME AMOUNT OF
DISCRETION HAS BENEFITS. BUT
THAT OVERLY BROAD DISCRETION CAN
ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF
COGNITIVE BIASES AND OTHER TYPES
OF OR INSTITUTIONAL BIASES TO
IMPACT DECISION MAKING. FOR
EXAMPLE, RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT
PEOPLE CAN EXHIBIT SOMETHING
CALLED IMPLICIT BIAS, WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY WHAT, UM, THAT
PEOPLE SOMETIMES UNCONSCIOUSLY
ASSOCIATE CERTAIN GROUPS OF
PEOPLE WITH CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES.
SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN FOUND BY
THE RESEARCH. FOR EXAMPLE, THE
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BLACK MEN
AND VIOLENCE AND SO, TO THE
EXTENT SOME INDIVIDUALS ARE
SUBJECT TO THESE NEGATIVE TO
NEGATIVE, IMPLICIT BIASES IN THE
PROCESS. THAT COULD DISADVANTAGE
THEM, UM, DISPROPORTIONATELY
RELATIVE TO OTHER GROUPS AND
VICE VERSA. FOR THOSE SUBJECT TO
POSITIVE, IMPLICIT BIASES, WE
ALSO FOUND FOUND THAT THE
PROCESS LACKS KEY SAFEGUARDS ON
THE USE OF DISCRETION, SUCH AS
REGULAR DATA REPORTING BY
SUBGROUP AND EXTERNAL
MONITORING. TURNING TO PAGE
FIVE. I'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND
ASPECT OF THE PROCESS THAT WE
IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY
LEADING TO INEQUITABLE OUTCOMES.
AND THAT IS THAT THE PROCESS
POTENTIALLY A AFFORDS
INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE
LEGAL AND HEARING PREPARATION
SERVICES. UM REALLY QUICKLY. WE
KIND OF CAME UP WITH THE TERM
HEARING PREPARATION SERVICES,
TOO LOOSELY ENCOMPASSED THAT
SERVICES THAT, UM TEND TO GO
BEYOND OR A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
FROM WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY
THINK OF AS LEGAL SERVICES, BUT
ARE NONETHELESS HELP PEOPLE FIND
HELPFUL AND PREPARING FOR THEIR
PAROLE HEARING LIKE HELP
PREPARING FOR REENTRY PLANS OR
RELAPSE PREVENTION PLAN OR
SIMPLY DOING THE INTERNAL WORK
TO THINK, LEARN OR PRACTICE HOW
TO COMMUNICATE ONE'S CHANGE IN
WHO THEY ARE, SINCE THEY
COMMITTED THEIR CRIME. SO WHEN
WE LOOKED AT THE DATA, WE FOUND
THAT CANDIDATES REPRESENTED BY
STATE APPOINTED ATTORNEYS WERE
GRANTED PAROLE AT AROUND HALF
THE RATE OF THOSE REPRESENTED BY
PRIVATE ATTORNEYS. THIS COULD BE
FOR VARIOUS REASONS. FOR EXAMPLE
, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE WHO
THINK THEY HAVE A STRONGER
CHANCE AT RELEASE WOULD BE
WILLING TO MORE WILLING OR THEIR
FAMILY WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO
HIRE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY AND VICE
VERSA. UM HOWEVER, THERE IS SOME
. THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY IT
IS POTENTIALLY OF CONCERN THAT
WE SEE THESE THIS. THESE
DISPARATE OUTCOMES BETWEEN THE
TWO GROUPS. ONE IS THAT THERE IS
A SURVEY OF PAROLE CANDIDATES
THAT SUGGESTS THAT, UM,
SPECIFICALLY, THE CANDIDATES
REPORTED THAT IN ONLY 8% OF
CASES, THEIR STATE APPOINTED
ATTORNEY HAD MET ALL THE MINIMUM
EXPECTATIONS FOR SERVICES THAT
BPH REQUIRES. THIS IS A VERY
LIMITED DATA SOURCE. UM BUT IT
IS NONETHELESS, THE ONLY DATA
THAT WE HAVE ON ON THIS TOPIC.
UM AND THEN SECOND, IT'S SIMPLY
POSSIBLE THAT EVEN IF ATTORNEYS
ARE MEETING ALL OF THE
REQUIREMENTS, IT MAY BE THAT
PRIVATE ATTORNEYS ARE JUST
SIMPLY PROVIDING A HIGHER LEVEL
OR MORE DIVERSE TYPES OF
SERVICES. SO THIS RAISES A
POTENTIAL EQUITY CONCERN AND
THAT IT WOULD MEAN THAT
OTHERWISE IDENTICAL CANDIDATES
COULD HAVE JUST DIFFERENT
CHANCES OF BEING RELEASED FROM
PRISON BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO
ACCESS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY. UM TO
THE EXTENT THAT THAT IS
OCCURRING, THAT WOULD ALSO COULD
ALSO REINFORCE OTHER BY BIASES
OR INEQUITY EQUITY ISSUES IN THE
PROCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, IT COULD
BE THAT THE CANDIDATE WHO SAY
FACES IMPLICIT BY IS MORE LIKELY
TO EXPERIENCE A NEGATIVE,
IMPLICIT BIAS OR SOME OTHER, UM
, CONCERN IN THE PROCESS MAY BE
THE CANDIDATE THAT MOST NEEDS OR
WOULD MOST BENEFIT FROM A
ATTORNEY WHO IS PROVIDING A
HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE OR, YOU
KNOW, VERY ZEALOUS ADVOCACY. SO
TURNING TO PAGE SIX. UM THERE.
THE STATE HAS TAKEN TWO STEPS IN
THIS AREA IN RECENT YEARS TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS AROUND LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE PAROLE
HEARING PROCESS. THE FIRST. IS
THAT THE IN 2019 20 BPH ITSELF
CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE
REPORTING CONCERNS ABOUT ITS
ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN
COMPETENT ATTORNEYS AND WAS
GIVEN A BUDGET INCREASE IN ORDER
TO INCREASE PAY FROM $400 TO
$750 PER CASE, AS WELL AS TO
CONTRACT WITH A NONPROFIT TO
INCREASE TRAINING AND MENTORSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE
ATTORNEYS. ALSO IN 1920. $4
MILLION WAS PROVIDED TO UNCOMMON
LAW TO PILOT A PROGRAM TO
DELIVER HEARING PREPARATION
SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THE
TRADITIONAL ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP. THE STATE HAS ALSO
BEEN EXPANDING, NOT NECESSARILY
UNDER THE GUISE OF PRO
PREPARATION, BUT VERY VARIOUS
OTHER INSIGHT FOCUSED OR VICTIM
IMPACT FOCUS TYPES OF PROGRAMS
THAT COULD ALSO BE HELPING
PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE PRISON
SYSTEM PREPARE FOR THEIR
HEARINGS. SO THERE HAVE BEEN
THESE STEPS TAKEN. BUT IN SHORT
, UM THERE, WE FOUND THAT THERE
ISN'T ENOUGH. THERE HASN'T BEEN
ANY EVALUATION OR THERE ISN'T
ENOUGH COMPREHENSIVE DATA
COLLECTED ON THESE TOPICS FOR US
TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE IF THE
STEPS OF THE STATE TOOK HAVE HAD
AN IMPACT. SO MOVING TO PAGE
SEVEN, WHERE I'LL DISCUSS OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ISSUE OF
DISCRETION. WE RECOMMEND THE
LEGISLATURE CONSIDER LIMITING
THE DISCRETION OF PAROLE
COMMISSIONERS. UM THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THIS THIS SOME
EVIDENCE STANDARD HAS BEEN SET
THROUGH CASE LAW, SO IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS WEIGHED IN ON AT THIS POINT,
SO WE RAISE IT AS A POSSIBILITY.
UM FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT WING
AND ON, UM AND THEN WE DO
RECOMMEND ALSO REQUIRING THAT
BPH RELEASE DATA ON TO THE
PUBLIC ON RISK ASSESSMENT,
PAROLE HEARING AND GOVERNOR
REVIEW OUTCOMES BY SUBGROUP AS
WELL AS SUPPORT REGULAR STUDIES
BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS OF
THE ASSESSED RISK ASSESSMENT IN
HEARING PROCESSES. AND THEN
FINALLY, ON PAGE EIGHT. OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE
CONSISTENT ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE
LEGAL AND HEARING PREPARATION
SERVICES ARE AT A HIGH LEVEL,
REALLY, TO JUST ASSESS THE
CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN, UM,
IMPLEMENTED SO FAR TO UNDERSTAND
, UM, WHAT PROBLEMS STILL EXIST
AND WHAT SEEMED TO BE THE MAIN
BARRIERS AT THIS TIME. TO GUIDE
FURTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN
THIS AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MISS O'NEIL. WE'LL MOVE ON TO
MISS SCHAEFER NOW. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME HERE TODAY, SO IT'S BEEN MY
EXPERIENCE. UM, AFTER 11 YEARS,
SERVING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR
THE BORDER PAROLE HEARINGS THAT
, UM, DISCRETIONARY PAROLE IN
GENERAL. ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE
CONVICTED OF THE MOST SERIOUS
CRIMES. GENERATE SIGNIFICANT
INTEREST. FROM MANY PEOPLE WHOSE
VIEWS AND LIFE EXPERIENCES VARY
GREATLY. AND WHILE THE BOARD
RESPECTS THOSE VERY IN
PERSPECTIVES WHEN IT COMES TO
DECISION MAKING DETERMINING WHEN
PEOPLES WHO ARE SERVING LENGTHY
SENTENCES FOR CRIMES SUCH AS
MURDER, KIDNAPPING AND RAPE CAN
SAFELY BE RELEASED FROM STATE
PRISON. THE BOARD FOCUSES ITS
DECISIONS ON THE LAW AND WHAT
WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE SCIENCE
OF RISK ASSESSMENT. IT'S FROM
THIS PERSPECTIVE THAT I'D LIKE
TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE REPORT. BASICALLY I THINK
THE LAOS REPORT CAN BE DISTILLED
. THE TWO MAIN ISSUES. UM ONE IS
A CONCERN THAT THE BOARD'S
DECISIONS MAKE MIGHT BE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO IMPLICIT BIAS.
THE OTHER IS A CONCERN ABOUT THE
QUALITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION
PROVIDED TO ATTORNEYS WHO ARE
APPOINTED TO REPRESENT
INCARCERATED PEOPLE THROUGHOUT
THE PAROLE HEARING PROCESS. THE
BOARDS. BOTH OF THESE ISSUES ARE
VERY IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD. UM
I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME
OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE BOARD
HAS BEEN ADDRESSING THESE
IMPORTANT ISSUES. SO THE BOARDS
APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF
IMPLICIT BY ITS HAS THREE MAIN
COMPONENTS. EXTENSIVE TRAINING.
HEARING PROCEDURES AND RESEARCH.
WITH RESPECT TO TRAINING, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS PROVIDE HAS PROVIDED THE
BOARD WITH TRAINING SIMILAR TO
THE TRAINING THAT SUPERIOR
COURTS EXCUSE ME, EXPERIENCE
COURT JUDGES RECEIVE ON JUDICIAL
DECORUM AND BIAS. WE'VE HAD
SPEAKERS PROVIDING TRAINING ON
THE TOPIC OF IMPLICIT BIAS THAT
ARE PUBLIC BOARD MEETINGS, AND
ALL BOARD STAFF ARE REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE CDCR S IMPLICIT BIAS
TRAINING COURSE. THE BOARD'S
HEARING. OFFICERS HAVE ALSO
RECEIVED TRAINING ON IMPLICIT
BIAS BOTH ONLINE AND IN PERSON
AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES THAT
THEY ATTEND SPECIFIC FOR
PAROLING AUTHORITIES THAT THEY
ATTEND ANNUALLY, AND ALL NEW
COMMISSIONERS ARE REQUIRED TO
ATTEND AN INTENSIVE EIGHT DAY
COURSE ON HOW TO CONDUCT FAIR
HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE
NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE IN
RENO, NEVADA. AS FOR PROCEDURES
IN PLACE TO THE GUARD AGAINST
BIAS AND THE PAROLE. THE EXCUSE
ME THAT PAROLE HEARING PROCESS
FIRST WAS MENTIONED. STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING. I'D LIKE TO
GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. IN 2019.
THE BOARD IMPLEMENTED THIS
EVIDENCE BASED, STRUCTURED
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK. IT
WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY THE
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA.
IN CONJUNCTION WITH FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGISTS. THE FRAMEWORK
FORK FOCUSES OUR PAROLE HEARINGS
ON SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT DECADES
OF RESEARCH ON RISK ASSESSMENT
AND CRIMES ASSISTANTS THEORY
HAVE SHOWN TO IMPACT THE
PERSON'S OVERALL RISK OF
RECIDIVISM RECIDIVISM. THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
CORRECTIONS AND THE ASSOCIATION
OF PAROLING AUTHORITIES
INTERNATIONAL HAVE ADOPTED THE
STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING
FRAMEWORK AS AN EVIDENCE BASED
BEST PRACTICE FOR DISCRETIONARY
PAROLE DECISIONS. AND TODAY IT'S
USED IN AT LEAST 10 STATES IN
ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL PRO
BOARD OF CANADA, PROCEDURALLY.
EVERY HEARING IS CONVICTED
CONDUCTED BY A PANEL OF AT LEAST
TWO PEOPLE, ONE COMMISSIONER AND
ONE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. WE
ROTATE THE COMPOSITION OF THOSE
PANELS WEEKLY SO THAT
COMMISSIONERS ARE WORKING WITH A
DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER ALMOST
EVERY WEEK. OUR DEPUTY
COMMISSIONERS ARE CIVIL SERVICE
ATTORNEYS. THEIR CLASSIFICATION
IS ACTUALLY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES. I THINK IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
PAROLE DECISIONS AND DO NOT
BECOME FINAL FOR UP TO FOUR
MONTHS. DURING THAT TIME PERIOD
. ANYONE CAN REQUEST THAT THE
DECISION BE REVIEWED BY THE
BOARD'S CHIEF COUNSEL, WHO CAN
REFER IT FOR REVIEW BY THE FULL
BOARD AT A PUBLIC BOARD MEETING.
AND ALL PAROLE DECISIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
GOVERNOR AND THE COURTS. WITH
RESPECT TO RESEARCH. THE MOST
RECENT INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF
THE BOARD'S PAROLE HEARING.
OUTCOMES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
WAS CONDUCTED BY èC, BERKELEY.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE
ON REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE.
THE STUDY LOOKED AT OUTCOMES OF
ALL PAROLE HEARINGS CONDUCTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2019 AND 2020, THE
REPORT FOUND, AND I QUOTE,
UNLIKE THE OTHER PARTS OF THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE ONE
YEAR SAMPLE OF PAROLE HEARINGS
REVIEWED PRO GRANT RATES ACROSS
RACIAL GROUPS SHOWED LITTLE
DISPARITY. WHITE PEOPLE WERE
GRANTED PAROLE AT A RATE OF 36.
BLACK PEOPLE AT 34% AND LATINO
PEOPLE AT 34% WHEN THE RESEARCH
TOOK INTO ACCOUNT DISCIPLINARY
RULES VIOLATIONS, THEY FOUND
THAT GRANT RATES FOR BLACK AND
LATINO PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY
HIGHER THAN THE GRANT RATES FOR
SIMILARLY SITUATED WHITE PEOPLE.
WHILE THESE FINDINGS MIGHT BE
USEFUL THE BOARD BELIEVES A MORE
ROBUST RISK BASED ANALYSIS IS
WARRANTED, WHICH IS WHY THE
BOARD APPROACHED NATIONALLY
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS DR STEPHEN
RAFAEL AND DR JENNIFER SCHEME TO
SEE IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED
IN CONDUCTING A MORE IN DEPTH
STUDY. SPECIFICALLY WE ASKED IF
THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK AT
ALL AVAILABLE RISK RELEVANT
FACTORS. CONTROL FOR THOSE
FACTORS AND DETERMINE WHETHER
RACE OR AN ETHICIST OR ETHNICITY
APPEARS TO BE RELEVANT, A
RELEVANT FACTOR IN OUR PAROLE
DECISIONS. THEY OBTAINED
INDEPENDENT FUNDING FOR THE
PROJECT, AND THE PROJECT HAS
BEEN APPROVED BY èC BERKELEY
AND CITY CRS RESEARCH OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE. THE BOARD AND CDC ARE
SCHEDULED TO CONFIDENTIALLY
TURNOVER SIGNIFICANT DEMOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTIONAL SENTENCING, RISK
ASSESSMENT AND PAROLE HEARING
INFORMATION TO DOCTORS, RAFAEL
AND SCHEME LATER THIS WEEK. THAT
HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE
SOME TIME. FOR THOSE OF YOU
DON'T KNOW HOW RESEARCH HAPPENS,
IT HAD TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF
APPROVALS FOR THEM TO CONDUCT
THIS RESEARCH, SO WE'RE REALLY
PLEASED THAT IT'S COME AS FAR AS
IT HAS, AND THAT THE DATA IS
ABOUT TO BE TURNED OVER. THE
BOARD IS ALSO WORKING WITH
CARLETON UNIVERSITY'S CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, DECISION MAKING
LABORATORY ON RESEARCH TO ENSURE
WE ARE USING APPROPRIATE
INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES TO OBTAIN
THE MOST ACCURATE AND RELEVANT
INFORMATION FROM PERSONS WHO
HAVE A VARIETY OF LIFE
EXPERIENCES AND IN A MANNER THAT
IS SENSITIVE TO CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES, AGE, GENDER,
HISTORICAL TRAUMA AND OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS. MOVE ON TO THE
SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE
REPORT. THE CONCERN ABOUT THE
QUALITY OF ATTORNEY
REPRESENTATION IN PAROLE
HEARINGS SPECIFICALLY ATTORNEYS
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD. WE REFER
TO THEM AS PANEL ATTORNEYS, SO
IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO
MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. SO COLUMN
PANEL ATTORNEYS THAT'S OKAY.
OKAY SO IN 2019 THIS ISSUE THE
QUALITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION
BY PANEL ATTORNEYS WAS THE
SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. IT
CONTINUES TO BE THE SUBJECT OF
LITIGATION. UM COUNSEL FOR THE
PERSON WHO SAID THE BOARD ON
THIS IS SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO ME
. THIS IS, UM IT'S STILL
PENDING. SO UM WITH THAT,
THOUGH. AFTER THREE DAYS OF
EVIDENTIARY TESTIMONY. IN THAT
CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
LEVEL OF REPRESENTATION WITH
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT THE BOARD.
NEVERTHELESS EVEN WITH THAT
FINDING, AND AT THE TIME WE
THOUGHT THE LITIGATION WAS
CONCLUDED. UM, ON OUR OWN
INITIATIVE. TOOK SIGNIFICANT
MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL
QUALITY OF PANELS. ATTORNEY
REPRESENTATION. THE PANEL
ATTORNEY APPLICATION PROCESS NOW
INCLUDES AN INTERVIEW BY THE
BOARD'S ATTORNEYS AND REFERENCE
CHECKS. MINIMUM EXPECTATIONS FOR
PANEL ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED, MANDATED TRAINING
HAS BEEN GREATLY EXPANDED AND
IMPROVED. THE AMOUNT PAID TO
PANEL ATTORNEYS IS WAS ACTUALLY
INCREASED AGAIN FROM 750 K
DOLLARS TO OKAY. A CASE TO $900
PER CASE THAT WILL EXPIRE IN
JUNE. SO WE'RE A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT WILL BE.
BUT THAT WAS A TEMPORARY
ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUDGET MADE BY
THE LEGISLATURE IN 2020, THE
BOARD CONTRACTED WITH THE
NONPROFIT ENTITY PAROLE JUSTICE
WORKS TO OVERSEE THE TRAINING OF
PANEL ATTORNEYS AND MONITOR THE
QUALITY OF THEIR REPRESENTATION.
THROUGH HEARING OBSERVATIONS.
REVIEWING HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
AND CONDUCTING SURVEYS OF THE
INCARCERATED POPULATION AND THE
BOARD'S HEARING OFFICERS. THE
PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF PAROLE.
JUSTICE WORKS IS ATTORNEY HEIDI
ROMMEL, WHO ALSO SERVES AS A
DIRECTOR OF USCS GOULD SCHOOL OF
LAW'S POST CONVICTION JUSTICE
PROJECT, WHERE SHE HAS TAUGHT
STUDENTS HOW TO COMPETENTLY
REPRESENT PEOPLE AT PAROLE
HEARINGS FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS.
DRYING AND HIDING HEIDI ROMMEL'S
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE PAROLE
JUSTICE WORKS HAS DEVELOPED A
MANDATORY PANEL ATTORNEY PROGRAM
CONSISTING OF 30 INTERACTIVE
EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS FOR WHICH
PARTICIPANTS RECEIVED MINIMUM
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
CREDIT FROM THE STATE BAR. WE
CALL IT P J W I KNOW WE'RE
HORRIBLE BACKRONYM ZIP, BUT IT'S
HARD FOR ME TO SAY PAROLE.
JUSTICE WORKS ALL THE TIME.
PEARL JUSTICE WORKS, OR P. J W.
HAS ALSO DEVELOPED A WEB BASED
PORTAL FOR PANEL ATTORNEYS WHERE
THEY CAN ACCESS THE TRAINING
VIDEOS, ALONG WITH AN EXTENSIVE
LIBRARY OF RESOURCES AND
DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS
FOR CLIENTS WRITTEN IN BOTH
ENGLISH AND SPANISH. THEY HOST
VIRTUAL PANEL ATTORNEY
ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS EVERY THREE
WEEKS, AND THEY COORDINATE
POPULAR A POPULAR AND ACTIVE
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM THAT PAIRS
NEW ATTORNEYS WITH EXPERIENCED
ATTORNEYS FOR GUIDANCE, ADVICE
AND FEEDBACK. UNLIKE THE SURVEYS
REFERENCED IN THE LEOS REPORT,
WHERE I BELIEVE THEY WERE ONLY
SENT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED
PAROLE AND OVER ONLY OVER A
COUPLE OF MONTHS WORTH OF
OUTCOMES. P J W SENDS A CLIENT
SURVEY TO EVERY INCARCERATED
PERSON WHO APPEARS AT A PAROLE
HEARING THUS FAR THEY HAVE
RECEIVED AND PROCESSED OVER 2000
CLIENT SURVEYS. 63% OF PEOPLE
RESPONDING REPORT THEY WERE
EITHER SATISFIED OR MORE THAN
SATISFIED WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS
REPRESENTATION AT THE PAROLE
HEARING, AND 60% DESCRIBED THE
ATTORNEYS PRE HEARING
PREPARATION OF THEM IS EITHER
MAKING A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE
HEARING OR IMPORTANT OR HELPFUL
IN THE HEARING. LAST POINT, I
PROMISE. I'M SORRY. IT'S A LOT
OF INFORMATION. IN CONCLUSION,
THE BOARD'S FOCUS ON THE LAW,
THE SCIENCE OF RISK ASSESSMENT
AND IMPROVED ATTORNEY
REPRESENTATION HAS ENABLED US TO
SAFELY RELEASED MORE THAN 11,000
PEOPLE SERVING TERMS OF LIFE
WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE
AND SERIOUSLY RS RECIDIVISM
REVOKED. REPORTS CONSISTENTLY
SHOW THAT LESS THAN 1. ARE
CONVICTED OF A NEW FELONY, UM,
INVOLVING HARM TO ANOTHER
PERSON. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
HAVING ME HERE. I'D WELCOME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOU OR
YOUR STAFF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ANYTIME IN THE
FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'LL MOVE ON TO MR KEITH
WATLEY NHÀ. GOOD AFTERNOON. I
WANT TO START MY REMARKS BY, UM
POINTING OUT THAT OUR LAWS AND
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ACTUALLY DICTATE THAT. THAT
THOSE CONVICTED OF THE MOST
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIMES IN
THE STATE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
RELEASED. IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT
STARTING POINT THAT, UM SOMEHOW
GETS LOST IN THIS DISCUSSION.
BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT STARTING
POINT. I THINK AND FRAME THROUGH
WHICH TO REVIEW THE L A REPORT
AND TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. SO I'M
KEITH WATLEY, THE DIRECTOR OF
UNCOMMON LAW WHERE WE PROVIDE
WHAT WE CONSIDER TRAUMA,
INFORMED COUNSELING AND LEGAL
REPRESENTATION. AND POLICY
ADVOCACY FOR PEOPLE WHOSE WHOSE
RELEASED FROM PRISON IS
DEPENDENT ON THE PAROLE BOARD.
UM AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP CHAIRWOMAN BANTER ON
RECENTLY I SAW THAT YOU WERE THE
PRESS CONFERENCE AT SAN QUENTIN
, ANNOUNCING ALONGSIDE GOVERNOR
NEWSOM. SOME MAJOR CHANGES THAT
THAT INSTITUTION UM POTENTIALLY
A MODEL FOR SOME STATEWIDE
IMPLEMENTATION. UM. I MENTIONED
IT NOW BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE'S A
MISMATCH. BECAUSE A MISMATCH
BETWEEN THE TYPES OF PROGRAMS
EXCUSE ME THAT THAT HELP
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. MM THAT
HELPED THEM FUNDAMENTALLY
CHANGED THEIR LIVES. AND THE
PAROLE BOARD'S APPROACH TO
RELEASE DECISIONS. THERE'S A
MISMATCH BETWEEN THE TWO. SOME
OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
ARE THOSE THAT SUPPORT PEOPLE IN
PROCESSING AND HEALING FROM THE
TRAUMA THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED IN
THE TRAUMAS THEY'VE CAUSED. BUT
THIS WORK IS SOMETIMES
SUPPLEMENTED BY PRIVATE
ATTORNEYS COUNSELORS THERAPIST
WHO FILL THE GAPS IN AVAILABLE
PROGRAMS IN THE IN THE PRISON.
THAT'S MOST OF WHAT OUR
ORGANIZATION DOES. BUT BUT
HERE'S THE MISMATCH AT A PLACE
LIKE SAN QUENTIN TOUTED AS THE
CENTERPIECE OF THE STATE'S
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING. ONLY
18% OF THE SCHEDULED PAROLE
HEARINGS ARE CURRENTLY RESULTED
IN PAROLE GRANTS. 18% WHICH IS
THE LOWEST IT'S BEEN AT THAT
PRISON IN FIVE YEARS. AND
CONSIDER THIS THIS IRONY AT THAT
PRESS CONFERENCE. ONE PERSON WHO
WAS SINGLED OUT IS WAS ONE.
HAYNES, WHO IS THE AWARD WINNING
EDITOR OF SAN QUENTIN NEWS HELD
HIM UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF LIKE THE
BEST THE STATE HAS TO OFFER IN
TERMS OF REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMMING. WITHIN ITS PRISONS.
YET THE PAROLE BOARD FOUND ONE
UNSUITABLE FOR PAROLE. AND
DENIED HIM. HE'S GOING TO BE
CONSIDERED AGAIN AND IN A COUPLE
OF MONTHS HE'S 65 YEARS OLD. HAS
BEEN IN PRISON FOR 27 YEARS.
THERE'S A MISMATCH. BETWEEN THE
PROGRAMS AND WHAT THE PRO BOARD
IS LOOKING FOR. I THINK WE NEED
TO, UM WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THE PAROLE PROCESS ITSELF.
IS INHERENTLY BIASED. HERE'S
HERE'S SOME OF THE HISTORY. THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FIRST
STRUCK DOWN THE PAROLE PROCESS
AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BACK IN 1975
, BECAUSE THE DECISION MAKING
WAS ARBITRARY AND BIASED. ALL
THE RESEARCH AT THE TIME
CONFIRMED THAT PAROLE
COMMISSIONERS PSYCHOLOGISTS,
SOCIOLOGISTS ARE UNABLE TO
RELIABLY PREDICT FUTURE
VIOLENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, IN
OTHER WORDS, WE WERE WE WERE
ASKING OR EXPECTING THE PAROLE
BOARD TO DO SOMETHING. THAT THEY
AREN'T CAPABLE OF DOING. THAT
THIS WAS KNOWN IN 1975. INSTEAD.
WITHOUT THIS ABILITY TO ACTUALLY
PREDICT THEY WERE SIMPLY MAKING
DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN
BIASES. THE LEGISLATURE
RESPONDED. THEY RESPONDED BACK
THEN, AND THEY HAVE SINCE
RESPONDED MANY TIMES OVER THE
YEARS. WITH A WHOLE SERIES OF
REFORMS INTENDED TO OVERCOME THE
BOARD'S BIAS SO THAT PEOPLE
WOULD BE RELEASED FROM PRISON AT
MUCH HIGHER RATES. AH, AND WE
CAN THINK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE
REFORMS. ONE OF THE FIRST ONES.
IT'S REALLY SET THIS STATUTORY
SCHEME, UM IN PLACE, WHICH WAS,
UM SP 42, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
REALLY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE AND IN
INCLUDING MANDATORY LANGUAGE
DIRECTING THE PAROLE BOARD TO
NORMALLY GRANT PEOPLE PAROLE.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE CLEAR
NORMALLY GRANTED PAROLE. THAT'S
YOUR JOB. WE ALSO ADDED RIGHT TO
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL THE RIGHT
TO AN ACTUAL HEARING THE RIGHT
TO A TRANSCRIPT RIGHT TO A
WRITTEN DECISION WHILE YOU'RE
DENIED PAROLE FOR A WHILE, WE
EVEN HAD A RIGHT TO AN APPEAL.
YOU COULD APPEAL YOUR PAROLE
DECISIONS IF YOU WERE DENIED. IN
2008. WE HAD THE SUPREME COURT
BANNED THE BOARD'S USE OF A
PERSON'S CRIME AS THE REASON TO
DENY THEM PAROLE. WE'VE WE'VE
ALSO REQUIRED SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
SURVIVORS OF INTIMATE PARTNER
BATTERING AND ITS EFFECTS. WE'VE
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR PEOPLE
WHO WERE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR
ELDERLY PAROLE. REQUIRED THEM TO
GIVE GREAT WEIGHT. TO THE YOUTH
FACTORS AND YOUTH PAROLE
HEARINGS. UM. ALL OF THESE.
THESE REFORMS WERE PUT IN PLACE.
TO COUNTER THE INHERENT BIAS IN
THIS PROCESS. AND NONE OF IT HAS
WORKED. THE PROGRAM RATE IN 1981
WAS 10. IN 2022. IT WAS 14.
REMEMBER PAROLE SHALL NORMALLY
BE GRANTED. IT HAS NEVER BEEN.
UM. HERE'S WHERE THE BIAS I
THINK IS MOST CLEAR. THERE HAVE
BEEN NOW I COUNT FIVE DIFFERENT
SETS OF RESEARCHERS. I HAVE
OBSERVED THAT BLACK PAROLE
CANDIDATES HAVE THE LOWEST
PROGRAM RATES. THAT INCLUDES THE
ONE STUDY THAT MISS SCHAEFER
CITED ALSO FOUND 34 IS LOWER
THAN 36 BY MY VERY ROUGH MATH.
UM AND. EVEN THAT YEAR, YOU
KNOW, TO TAKE ONE YEAR OUT AND
SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T CONCLUDE.
THAT THERE'S BIAS BECAUSE THE
ONLY 2% POINTS LOWER THAT'S IN A
10 YEARS SPAN OF TIME, WHERE
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 10
YEARS BLACK PAROLE CANDIDATES
WERE THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE
GRANTED PAROLE. EXCEPT FOR TWO
YEARS. AND EACH OF THOSE YEARS
THEY WERE THE SECOND LEAST
LIKELY TO BE GRANTED PAROLE THAT
SAME SPAN OF TIME, NOT A SINGLE
YEAR. WERE WHITE PAROLE
CANDIDATES LEAST LIKELY TO BE
GRANTED PAROLE. NOT ONCE. CHANCE
WOULD DICTATE THERE WOULD BE A
VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOME. UM AND
MORE RECENT DATA IS ALSO TELLING
US MORE ABOUT THE INDICATING
MORE EVIDENCE OF BIAS. FOR
EXAMPLE. PEOPLE RECEIVING MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT. ARE ABOUT HALF
AS LIKELY TO BE GRANTED PAROLE.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
DISABILITIES ARE LESS LIKELY TO
GRANTED PAROLE. AND WHAT I'VE
SEEN IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
OLDER PEOPLE WERE TRANSGENDER.
PEOPLE FOR WHOM ENGLISH IS A
SECOND LANGUAGE. AND THOSE WHO
PRESENT IN A WAY THAT THE BOARD
PERCEIVES AS DIFFERENT. ARE THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE LEAST LIKELY BE
GRANTED PAROLE. IN OTHER WORDS,
THE SAME GROUPS THAT EXPERIENCED
DISCRIMINATION AND EVERY OTHER
ASPECT OF OUR SOCIETY ALSO
EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION IN
THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULDN'T BE A
SURPRISE. HMM. ALSO NOTE THAT
THE. THE PAROLE GRANT RATES IS,
UH, IS LOWER NOW THAN WHEN. THE
. THE ATTORNEY INTERVENTIONS
THAT MISSHAPEN REFERRED TO WERE
IMPLEMENTED. UM. THE PROGRAM
RATE IS LOWER THAN IT WAS WHEN
THEY WHEN THEY STARTED THAT UH,
IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBERS, AND
I CAN, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE A LOT
OF THESE LOT MORE OF THE ACTUAL
NUMBERS. UM IN A LETTER. I CAN
FOLLOW UP WITH THIS WITH THIS
COMMITTEE BUT ALSO HAVE A NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED BY
THIS PROCESS, AND YOU MAY ALSO
HEAR FROM SOME OF THEM DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT. TODAY. UM, THE
ONE MIGHT PERCEIVED MY COMMENTS
TODAY AS AS AN ATTACK ON PAROLE
COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES. IT'S
NOT I DON'T WANT THEM TO BE
DEFENSIVE. I WANT THEM TO BE
HUMBLE AND CURIOUS. I DON'T
THINK THEY'RE BAD PEOPLE, AND
THEY'RE PROBABLY DOING WHAT THEY
THINK IS RIGHT. BUT THIS IS A
CONDEMNATION OF AN ARBITRARY
PROCESS THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN
PRETENDING. IS BASED ON FAIRNESS
AND OBJECTIVITY. WE KNOW NOW
WHAT WE KNEW IN 1975. BROUGH
COMMISSIONERS, PSYCHOLOGISTS,
SOCIOLOGISTS ARE UNABLE TO
PREDICT VIOLENCE ONCE 15 YEARS
OR SO HAVE PASSED SINCE THE
PERSON'S CRIME. THAT'S THE MOST
THE MOST INCONVENIENT TRUTH
ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS. IT
GETS IN THE WAY OF ALL THE
POLITICS. OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO
IN THESE CASES, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THERE'S SOMEONE OR SOME CLASS OF
PEOPLE THAT WE DON'T LIKE.
REGARDLESS THEIR AGE, THEIR
CURRENT CONDITION. THERE'S
PEOPLE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DENY
THEM PAROLE FOR FOREVER. UM, THE
LAW DOESN'T ALLOW IT. AND THE
MORE THE BOARD CONTINUES TO ACT
ON ITS OWN BIASES. IT'S AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS. UM
ABSENT. WHAT WE SEE IS ABSENT
ANY SCIENTIFIC OR OBJECTIVE
BASIS FOR MAKING PREDICTIONS OF
VIOLENCE RISK. ALL PRO PRO
COMMISSIONERS HAVE LEFT ARE THE
SAME BIASES THAT PLAGUE EVERY
OTHER ASPECT OF OUR SOCIETY. WE
NEED TO STOP PRETENDING
OTHERWISE, I'LL CONCLUDE WITH A
QUOTE FROM GOVERNOR NEWSOM AT
SAINT QUENTIN 10 DAYS AGO. HE
SAID. THIS IS ABOUT DOING THINGS
DIFFERENTLY AND ACKNOWLEDGING
WITH HUMILITY THAT WE HAVE
FAILED FOR TOO LONG. I
APPRECIATE WHAT THE L A IS
HIGHLIGHTED IN HIS REPORT.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S LONG
OVERDUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR WATLEY. I WILL GO AHEAD AND
ASK A FEW QUESTIONS BEFORE
TURNING IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES. I WANTED TO START
WITH MISS SCHAEFER. CAN YOU
REMIND US OF WHAT PAROLE HEARING
RELATED DATA POINTS ARE
CURRENTLY BEING COLLECTED AND
REPORTED HIM? SO UM, ANNUALLY
THE BOARD, UM PRODUCES A REPORT
OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS. AND IT'S
PUBLISHED ON OUR WEBSITE. IT'S
NOT INTENDED FOR PEOPLE THAT
OKAY? STORY, SO I USED TO BE
ASKED A LOT ABOUT STATISTICS,
AND I FINALLY DECIDED TO JUST
PUT THEM ALL DOWN IN WRITING AND
DO THEM ANNUALLY. IT'S NOT LIKE
AN ANNUAL REPORT WITH A LOT OF
FLUFF TO IT. IT STARTS WITH
WORKLOAD AT A GLANCE AND IT JUST
STARTS LISTING STATISTICS ABOUT
OUR PAROLE HEARING PROCESS. IT'S
ALL OF OUR HEARINGS. THE OUTCOME
OF THOSE HEARINGS. ONE THING
THAT YOU'LL NOTICE IS THIS
DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? UM THE REPORT
THAT I THE STUDY THAT I
REFERENCED SAID THAT, UM PEOPLE
HAD A 34% CHANCE ARE GETTING
GRANTS, RIGHT? UM ROUGHLY,
THAT'S ABOUT OUR THAT'S BEEN OUR
PAROLE RATE FOR A FEW YEARS. IT
DID GO DOWN LAST YEAR. FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS THAT ARE RISK
RELATED, NOT RACER, ETHNICITY. I
DON'T THINK BUT WE'LL WAIT TO
HEAR FROM èC BERKELEY'S TO
WHETHER THAT STANDS TRUE OR NOT,
BUT UM WHERE WAS I GOING WITH
THAT? THEY. THE GRANT RATES.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO STICKLEY
OF GIVING GRANT RATES. THE ONE
THAT MISTER WATLEY USES QUITE
OFTEN IS GRANTS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SCHEDULED HEARINGS. SO WE
SCHEDULED OVER 9000 HEARINGS
LAST YEAR. BUT A HEARING CAN BE
RESULT IN A WAIVER OR A
POSTPONEMENT. SOMEBODY CAN
STIPULATE TO BEING UNSUITABLE
FOR PAROLE. SO THE OTHER GRANT
RATE IS OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY GO
TO HEARING HOW MANY OF THEM ARE
GRANTED PAROLE. SO 34% OF PEOPLE
WHO ACTUALLY GO TO HEARING, UM,
CONSISTENTLY HAVE BEEN GRANTED
PAROLE OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS. 3 TO 4 YEARS LAST YEAR
THAT DID GO DOWN TO 26% BUT
SINCE JANUARY ONE OF THIS YEAR,
IT'S BACK TO 34% I CAN TELL YOU
WHY. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT LAST
YEAR, WE HAD A VERY HIGH NUMBER.
UM, ROUGHLY 10% MORE OF THE
PEOPLE THAT WERE SCHEDULED AND
FOR A HEARING, UM, WERE
CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES AND WERE
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX
OFFENDER. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED ASSEMBLY BILL 32 34,
WHICH EXPANDED OUT EARLY PAROLE
, THEY GAVE US A DEADLINE. THE
END OF 2022 TO GIVE EVERYONE A
HEARING WHO WAS NEWLY ELIGIBLE
UNDER THAT LAW. WE HAVE FOUND
THAT A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO WERE AGED 50 AND HAD
SERVED 20 YEARS OF INCARCERATION
, VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES, AND
THEY WERE NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE
A PRO SUITABILITY HEARING, AND
THEY DID NOT DO AS WELL DURING
THE HEARING PROCESS LAST YEAR
AGAIN, WE WANT TO WAIT TO SEE
WHAT YOU SEE. BERKLEY HAS TO SAY
ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE
PEOPLE THAT CAME BEFORE US
BEFORE WE MAKE ANY ANY CONCRETE
CONCLUSIONS FROM THAT DATA, BUT
I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE MOST
NOTABLE. WE ALSO HAD FEWER YOUTH
OFFENDERS COME BEFORE US LAST
YEAR, SO WE THINK THAT'S
PROBABLY MADE A SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE. BACK TO YOUR
QUESTION. THERE ARE A LOT OF
STATISTICS. I APOLOGIZE. UM
PUBLISHED IN THAT REPORT ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, ALSO IN THAT
REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS WAS
THE OUTCOME LAST YEAR WAS THE
FIRST YEAR THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY PRODUCE IT BASED ON
RACE AND ETHNICITY FROM THE
RESULTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF THE PENAL CODE.
THANK YOU, AND YOU DID MENTION A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE
TRAINING MATERIALS AND TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES, UH, FOR PAROLE
ATTORNEYS, DO YOU ALSO TRACK
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
? THAT'S ALL MANDATED TRADING.
SO YES, WE DO WE TRACK WHO HAS
ACTUALLY ATTENDED THE TRAININGS
. YES MANY PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS
THE TRAINING VIDEOS AND
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PANEL
ATTORNEYS. I APOLOGIZE. I WAS
CONFUSING IT WITH OUR HEARING IT
OFFICERS WHO MØT. AS TO THE MORE
ATTORNEYS AS WELL. THE PALAIS
ATTORNEYS. I HAVE NOT. BUT I DO
HAVE A REPORT FROM FROM PAROLE.
JUSTICE WORKS I'D BE HAPPY TO
PROVIDE YOU AND YOUR STAFF.
GREAT. THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR
SOME COMPARISON, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT MR WATLEY UNCOMMON LAW,
ACTUALLY. HAVE ENGAGED IN A
PILOT AND HAVE SOME INFORMATION
AT FORTHCOMING AT SOME POINT TO
SHARE. WHAT IS THE TYPICAL
AMOUNT OF TIME IS SCHAEFER.
COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY OR
PAROLE ATTORNEY SPENDS ON THE
PAROLE HEARING, SO IT REALLY
VARIES. UM, ONE IMPORTANT THING
THAT, UM ABOUT HOW WE STRUCTURE
OUR FEE ARRANGEMENTS WITH PANEL
ATTORNEYS IS THAT PANEL
ATTORNEYS. FIRST OF ALL THEY
REPRESENT OVER 90% OF THE PEOPLE
THAT COME BEFORE US ONLY 10% OF
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SCHEDULED
HEARING ARE REPRESENTED BY UM,
PRIVATE COUNSEL. SO PANEL
ATTORNEYS REPRESENT OVER 90% OF
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SCHEDULED FOR
PAROLE HEARING. THEY. EXCUSE ME.
THE PANEL ATTORNEYS, UM OH, MY
GOODNESS. I LOST MY TRAIN OF
THOUGHT. I APOLOGIZE. SO THE
QUESTION WAS, HOW MANY? HOW MUCH
TIME THE TIME THEY HAVE SPENT ON
PAROLE HEARING AND THEN WE CAN
EXPAND TO JUST WHETHER YOU HAVE
A SENSE OF HOW MUCH PREPARATION
TIME GOES IN AND WHETHER THEY
MEET THE PERSON PRIOR TO THEIR
PAROLE HEARING. APOLOGIZE SO
WHAT THEY DO IT THE WAY WE
STRUCTURE IT IS THAT THEY WILL
BE ASSIGNED AN ENTIRE WEEK'S
WORTH OF HEARINGS AT A
PARTICULAR INSTITUTION. SO THEY
USUALLY WILL HAVE 10 TO 13
CLIENTS, UM, SCHEDULED FOR A
PAROLE HEARING FIVE MONTHS LATER
. SO THEY ACCEPT THAT
APPOINTMENT. THEY REPRESENT 10
TO 13 OF THOSE FOLKS. THEY CAN
DO ONE PANEL A MONTH. UM FOR THE
MOST OF THEM, AND SO THAT'S HOW
MANY CLIENTS THAT THEY'RE GOING
THROUGH. WE PAY A FLAT FEE OF
$900 PER CASE. AND WHAT THEY
WILL DO IS SOME OF THOSE FOLKS.
THEY'RE WAVES THEIR HEARING.
THEY'LL REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT
AND SO IT FLUCTUATES. UM IT HAS
TESTIMONY DURING THE LITIGATION
AND TALKED ABOUT IT KIND OF
WASHES OUT. IN THE END. THERE
ARE SOME CASES WHERE THEY SPEND
A LOT MORE TIME WITH SOME
CLIENTS, AND THEY SPEND LESS
TIME WITH OTHER CLIENTS
DEPENDING ON WHEN THAT PERSON OR
THE RESOLUTION OF THAT PERSON'S
HEARING. SO I WOULD SAY JUST TO
BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC A
LOT MORE TIME A LITTLE TIME CAN
OKAY, SO THE RELATIVE MINIMUM
EXPECTATIONS THAT WE HAVE IS
THAT THEY WILL MEET WITH THEIR
CLIENT 1 TO 2 HOURS PRIOR WITHIN
THE 1ST 30 DAYS AND THAT THEY'LL
MEET WITH THEM A SECOND TIME
PRIOR TO THEIR COMPREHENSIVE
RISK ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW. AND
THAT THEY WILL MEET WITH THEM.
ONE MORE TIME BETWEEN THE RISK
ASSESSMENT ARE AFTER THE RISK
ASSESSMENT IS PREPARED IN BEFORE
THEIR HEARING, SO IT WOULD BE
ROUGHLY 3 TO 6 HOURS OF
INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION. IN
ADDITION TO WHATEVER TIME THEY
ARE SPENDING, UM OUTSIDE OF THAT
CONSULTATION TIME, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. AND
MR WHITELEY JUST FOR COMPARATIVE
PURPOSES UNDER YOUR PROGRAM.
WHAT'S THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND
PREPARATION? UH THAT, UH, YOUR
ATTORNEYS PROVIDE OR THE BROADER
LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDE FOR A
PEARLY. POTENTIAL PEARLY. WELL
WE DON'T REALLY KEEP TRACK, UM
OF THE HOURS, BUT WE KEEP TRACK
OF THE PROGRESS THAT OUR CLIENTS
MAKE OVER THE WE WORK WITH
CLIENTS MINIMUM OF ABOUT SIX OR
EIGHT MONTHS. BUT MORE TYPICALLY
, IT'S A YEAR. TWO YEARS I'VE
WORKED WITH CLIENTS 10 YEARS. IN
THE PAST, UM AND WE'LL SEE THEM.
UM ON AVERAGE, PROBABLY EVERY
MONTH EVERY SIX WEEKS, MAYBE IN
THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOR AN HOUR
OR TWO EACH VISIT. UM. SOMETIMES
A LOT MORE THAN THAT, DEPENDING
ON THE CLIENT'S NEEDS. WE ALSO
HAVE IN ADDITION TO OUR
ATTORNEYS, WE HAVE, UM LEGAL
ASSISTANTS WHO WORK WITH WITH
OUR CLIENTS. WE HAVE A TEAM OF
THERAPISTS THAT WE SEND IN TO
MEET WITH SOME CLIENTS WHO NEED
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, WHICH IS AN
INCREASING PERCENTAGE. CLIENTS.
FRANKLY UM IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT
EXPERIENCE AND I THINK WHAT IT
IS, UM YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS
TALKING ABOUT EARLIER AND THE
DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT SEEMS
THAT COMMISSIONERS ARE
PERCEIVING. OUR CLIENTS ARE
PERCEIVING THE FOLKS WHO ARE
APPEARING BEFORE THEM. THOSE WHO
SEEM DIFFERENT STRANGE, UNUSUAL,
UNFAMILIAR. ARE THE ONES THAT,
UM, SEEMED TO BE THE ONES THAT
COMMISSIONERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO
GRANT PAROLE TO A LOT OF OUR
WORK. IS TO GET TO KNOW OUR
CLIENTS WELL ENOUGH. SO THE
WEEKEND, UM, HELP THEM EXPRESS
THEMSELVES. AND WE CAN. UM
INDIVIDUALIZED, HUMANIZE THEM.
IN THE PRO BOARDS I SO THEY CAN
SEE THE PERSON BEYOND THE
CONVICTION. THEY CAN SEE THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR
TRANSFORMATION BEYOND THE PAPER
THAT THEY MAY HAVE READ ABOUT
THEM. AND IF THE CLIENT DOESN'T
KNOW HOW TO REALLY EXPRESS
THEMSELVES TO TELL THEIR OWN
STORY. IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
TO DO THAT, AND IT TAKES A WHILE
BECAUSE WE ARE REGULARLY
REVISITING CHILDHOOD AND
ADOLESCENT TRAUMA THAT THEY MAY
HAVE NOT DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE
ELSE BEFORE. BUT THEY RECOGNIZE
THE PAROLE BOARD'S ASKING THEM
THESE VERY DEEP PERSONAL
QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE THEM TO
DO THAT WORK WHERE MOST OF THE
INSTITUTIONS DON'T REALLY
PROVIDE A LOT OF SPACE TO DO
THAT WORK. IT TAKES A LOT OF
HOURS. YOU KNOW IF I IF I PUT A
MINIMUM ON IT. WE'RE PROBABLY
2025 HOURS MINIMUM THAT WE SPEND
WITH AN INDIVIDUAL. CASE AND
SOME, IT'S MANY TIMES THAT THAT
AMOUNT, FRANKLY, ALSO WANT TO
NOTE Ó. THE TRAINING THAT, UM
MISSHAPEN MENTIONED BOTH THE
BOARD'S TRAINING AND THE
TRAINING FOR, UM, PANEL
ATTORNEYS. SOME ASPECTS OF THAT,
UM ALTHOUGH I HAD BEEN PROMISED
WAY BACK WHEN THERE WAS
LITIGATION, UM, AND AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING MR SCHAEFFER
REFERRED TO IN 2019. THINGS LIKE
THE SURVEYS OF PEOPLE APPEARING
BEFORE THE BOARD AND AN OBSERVER
TO PROVIDE SOME OVERSIGHT OF THE
PANEL ATTORNEYS. THAT HAPPENED
AFTER OUR LITIGATION. UM.
PROBABLY IN RESPONSE TO IT. AND
. IT'S INTERESTING TO, UM,
ALWAYS INTERESTING TO HEAR WHEN
THERE'S THIS LIKE THIS.
DISCUSSION OF TRAININGS.
IMPLICIT BIAS IS A REAL THING. I
THINK WE ALL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE.
AND FOR CERTAIN SYSTEM. CERTAIN
PROCESSES. UM. NO AMOUNT OF
IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING. IS GOING
TO OVERCOME THE ACTUAL BIAS AS
IT SHOWS UP. WE CAN LOOK AT ALL
THE MANY, MANY HOURS OF TRAINING
THAT POLICE OFFICERS ENGAGE IN
AND HAVE ENGAGED IN OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS. AND STILL SEE
THE LAST YEAR THEY SET A RECORD
IN A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT THEY
KILLED. UM, THE TRAINING IS NOT
ENOUGH. TO OVERCOME THESE BIASES
, AND I THINK THE DECADES OF
EFFORTS ON THIS PROCESS TELLS US
THAT THERE'S THIS THE
CONSISTENCY WITH WHICH THESE
PAROLE GRANT RATES REMAIN SO LOW
UM, TELLS US A LOT AND WE SHOULD
WE SHOULD ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION
TO IT. I THINK THERE'S THIS THIS
. IT'S RIGHT THAT MRS SCHAFER
MENTIONED WE HAVE A WE TALK
ABOUT THE PROGRAM STRAIGHT OUT
OF, UM THE PERCENTAGE OF
SCHEDULED HEARINGS. UM, OUR DATA
COMES FROM THEM. THEY'VE TALKED
ABOUT IT, TOO, UNTIL IT BECAME
LESS CONVENIENT. UM MY NUMBERS.
ARE THERE NUMBERS I DON'T HAVE
THE DATA. UNTIL THEY GIVE IT TO
US. THEIR REPORTS SHOW. THAT IN
IN 1981 THEIR PROGRAM WAY WAS
10. I DIDN'T DO THAT NUMBERS. UM
. BUT THEIR THEIR THEIR
INTENTION IS TO BE ABLE TO SAY
WHAT WE'RE DOING IT FINE JOB
WHEN OUR COMMISSIONERS UM
PRESIDED OVER A HEARING. BUT
THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING LAST YEAR
, THE PROGRAM RATE DIPPED DOWN
TO 26% BY THEIR COUNT, CHOOSE
WHICHEVER NUMBER YOU WANT. IF
THEY'RE HERE. DEFENDING A
PROGRAM RATE. THAT'S BELOW 30%
WHEN THIS LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN
TELLING THEM FOR 50 YEARS TO
GRANT MOST PEOPLE PAROLE.
THEY'RE HAVING A VERY DIFFERENT
CONVERSATION THAN THEY SHOULD
BE. WHAT I FIRST WANT TO. JUST,
UH QUITE FRANKLY. THE FACT THAT
THERE IS DATA FOR US TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE A REASONABLE
CONVERSATION AROUND IS, UH AN
ASPECT THAT IT HAS BEEN LACKING
IN A LOT OF OTHER ASPECTS OF, UH
OF OPERATION, SO I APPRECIATE
THAT WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO
US. UM I DID WANT TO JUST ALSO
JUST MOVED TO THAT MISMATCH THAT
YOU REFERENCED A LITTLE BIT,
MISTER WATLEY EARLIER AROUND THE
PRO BOARDS RELEASED DECISIONS
VERSUS THE PROGRAMMING AND GET
INTO A LITTLE BIT. SOME OF THE
VARIABILITY THAT WE KNOW EXISTS
ACROSS VARIOUS PRISONS AROUND
PROGRAMMING AND GET A SENSE FROM
YOU MISS SCHAEFER AROUND HOW YOU
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVALUATING A
PERSON'S PARTICIPATION IN
PROGRAMS WHEN THERE MAY OR MAY
NOT BE AVAILABILITY TO DO SO. SO
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, AND IT'S
ONE THAT WE HAD TO, UM, REALLY
HIT HEAD ON DURING COVID WHEN
MUCH OF THE PROGRAMMING IN
PERSON CAME TO A SCREECHING
HALT. UM SURPRISINGLY, OUR GRANT
RATE DID NOT GO DOWN. DURING
THAT TIME PERIOD. WHAT WE HAVE
FOUND IS THAT RISK AND VIOLENCE
IS A VERY FLUID THING, AND IT'S
HAPPENS SOMEBODY'S PROPENSITY
FOR VIOLENCE CAN CHANGE FOR A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REASONS. SO
WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
COME BEFORE THE BOARD THAT HAVE
HAD FANTASTIC COGNITIVE
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION THERAPY
. UM THROUGH THE ISSUE, DT,
WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE
BIT LATER. THE INTEGRATED
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT
AND THE LIFE SKILLS COURSES THAT
ARE UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. UM WE
HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GO TO
SELF HELP GROUPS. THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO JUST LITERALLY WAKE
UP ONE DAY AND HAVE AN EPIPHANY
THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE
THIS WAY ANYMORE. WE HAVE. IT
JUST RUNS THE SPECTRUM SO WE
DON'T THERE'S NO FORMAL
PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENT, UM,
NECESSARILY FOR A PROGRAM. WE'RE
JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF THE
PERSON IS ACTUALLY CHANGED AND
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AND IF THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT
CONCLUSION SO I WOULD SAY THE
ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN REALLY
GOOD HAS BEEN THE COGNITIVE
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
THAT ARE NOW AVAILABLE AT ALL
PRISONS. I ALSO THINK THAT THERE
ARE NUMBER OF SELF HELP GROUPS
NOW THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY HOPE.
AND OF A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY
FOR PAROLE. IT HAS INCENTIVIZED
A REALLY LARGE PORTION OF OUR
PRISON POPULATION TO ACTIVELY
PROGRAM EITHER THROUGH
CORRESPONDENCE COURSES THROUGH
SELF HELP GROUPS THROUGH FORMAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND
THROUGH REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS
. THERE ARE MORE PROGRAMS
AVAILABLE NOW THAT IT'S REALLY
HARD FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF
THEM ALL. BECAUSE EACH PRISON
HAS, UM I DIFFERENT VARIETY OF
BASED ON LOCAL VOLUNTEERS AND
PEOPLE THAT COME INTO THE
PRISONS, BUT FOR US, IT'S JUST
REALLY MATTER. IF YOU HAD TO
BOIL DOWN A PAROLE HEARING. IT'S
WE WANT TO KNOW WHO THE PERSON
WAS. WHEN THEY COMMITTED THESE
CRIMES. WE WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY
ARE TODAY, AND WE WANT TO KNOW
THE DIFFERENCE AND HOW THEY GET
HOW THEY GOT THERE DOESN'T
REALLY MATTER SO MUCH. WE JUST
WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE TODAY
AND IF THEY CONTINUE TO POSE AN
UNREASONABLE RISK AND THEN MY
JUST LAST QUESTION ALTERNATE
OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES, UM MISTER
WATLEY JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT
. WHILE THERE ISN'T A FORMAL
REQUIREMENT FOR PROGRAMS FOR
FOLKS WHO ARE SEEKING PAROLE. DO
YOU BELIEVE THAT? THERE'S UH
INFORMAL. OR KIND OF COMMON
KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY NEED TO BE
ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMS
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A
CHANCE AT A SUCCESSFUL PAROLE
HEARING. WELL, YEAH, THE AS MISS
SHAPER, YOU KNOW, INDICATED THE
EXPECTATIONS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE
ABLE TO ANSWER THE WHY QUESTIONS
LIKE YOU KNOW WHY? WHY YOU
COMMITTED A CRIME WHEN YOU WERE,
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. AGE 15 16 18
20. AND, UM. AND THEN THEY CAN
SHOW THAT THEY HAVE USED THEIR
TIME IN PRISON TO ADDRESS
WHATEVER THE WHY WAS AND THAT
REQUIRES RELEVANT PROGRAMMING.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
SOME PEOPLE DON'T NOT ENOUGH
PEOPLE DO SOMETIMES THE
PROGRAMMING, THOUGH, THAT PEOPLE
NEED LOOKS MORE LIKE, UM,
THERAPY. JUST COUNSELING. AN
OPPORTUNITY. TO EXPLORE THOSE
REALLY DIFFICULT EXPERIENCES
FROM CHILDHOOD AND TO UNDERSTAND
HOW THE IMPACTED THEIR
DECISIONS, THEIR ACTIONS
ASSOCIATIONS. AND YOU NEED A
SAFE SPACE TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW,
IN OUR EXPERIENCE IS SORT OF WHY
WE'VE DEVELOPED THIS. THIS THIS
MODEL THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S NOW
ARE IN PRISON PROGRAMS BECAUSE
WE RECOGNIZE THAT UM, OUR
CLIENTS HAD THE BEST SUCCESS. IN
THIS PROCESS IF THEY WERE HOUSED
AT AN INSTITUTION THAT HAD
PROGRAMS WHERE THEY CAN CONTINUE
THE SAME CONVERSATIONS WE WERE
HAVING. BUT CONTINUE THEM
OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW,
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL VISITING ROOM
. THEY'RE HAVING IT ON THE YARD
OR HAVING IT WHEN THEY'RE
MEETING WITH THEIR THEIR FRIENDS
ARE WALKING THE YARD. UM THAT'S
WHERE A LOT OF THIS WORK TAKES
PLACE. BUT IF YOU'RE IN PRISON
THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF
ENVIRONMENT THAT KIND OF
SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY. THOSE
CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING. THE
CONVERSATIONS ARE. HOW DO WE
SURVIVE TODAY? AND NOT EVERYONE
HAS THE LUXURY. OF BEING ABLE TO
ENGAGE IN THAT KIND OF WORK. SO
THE MORE YOU HAVE THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES CREATE THOSE
COMMUNITIES, WHETHER YOU CALL
THEM THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES OR
SOMETHING CLOSE TO THAT. THAT
MUTUAL SUPPORT IS KEY. TWO
PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SUCCEED IN
THIS PROCESS IN LIFE AND THEIR
FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, ETCETERA.
SO WHERE WE SEE THAT HAPPENING,
WE SEE PEOPLE HAVE MUCH BETTER
SUCCESS, AND IT'S IN THAT THAT
CAN HAPPEN EVEN AT THE HIGHEST
SECURITY LEVEL PRISONS THAT WE
HAVE WE DON'T GIVE UP ON THEM.
UM, WE DO SEE SOMETIMES AT SOME
INSTITUTIONS THAT THAT, UM. THE
EXPECTATION ON THE PRISON YARD
PRISON YARD IS CERTAIN PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE.
OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T OR THEY MAY
BE FOUR FACILITIES THAT ONE
PRISON THEY SAY THIS IS THE
PLACE. THIS IS THE PROGRAMMING
FACILITY. THE REST OF THEM ARE
NOT PROGRAMMING FACILITIES WERE
NOT GOING TO GRANT PAROLE THERE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA SEND PROGRAMS
THERE, ETCETERA. WE'VE WRITTEN
THEM OFF. AND WE DON'T BELIEVE
IN THAT. I THINK THAT EVERYONE
HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE
IN THAT KIND OF WORK. AND TO
HAVE IT TRANSLATES INTO I GET TO
GO HOME TO MY FAMILY WHEN I
DIDN'T WHEN I DONE THIS THEN IT
CREATES A MUCH SAFER ENVIRONMENT
FOR ALL OF US INSIDE THE PRISONS
AND OUT OF THE PRISONS, BUT
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE DONE THAT WORK
AND HAVE BEEN TO THE PAROLE
BOARD 10 AND 12 AND 15 AND 20
TIMES. AND THEY'RE TOLD THIS
COMMISSIONER. THANKS. YOU LACK
INSIGHT. THIS ONE THINKS YOU
HAVE INSIGHT. THE GOVERNOR HAS
ZONE OPINION ABOUT INSIGHT INTO
YOUR CRIME. UM YOUR DECISION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET
RELEASED FIELDS JUST AS
ARBITRARY AS AS IT EVER HAS, AND
THAT'S THAT'S THE MOST NOT JUST
FRUSTRATING PARTS BUT
DEVASTATING PART DEVASTATING THE
FAMILIES TO COMMUNITIES.
RELATIONSHIPS. UM. I'VE LOST
MORE MORE PEOPLE THAN I CAN
COUNT TO THIS PROCESS BECAUSE
THEY GAVE UP BECAUSE THEIR WORK
WAS NOT TRANSLATING INTO A
PROGRAM. AND THEY LOST HOPE THE
FAMILY MEMBERS DISAPPEARED. THEY
DIED. RELATIONSHIPS FELL APART.
UM THIS PROCESS IS DEVASTATED
AND SO MANY LEVELS THAT THAT
REALLY DOESN'T GET THE ATTENTION
THAT IT SHOULD. UH MR HOCKEY
QUESTIONS. YEAH. THIS IS REALLY
DELICATE DISCUSSION TRUTHFULLY.
UM. PRISON COMPLEXITIES ARE
VERY, VERY INTENSE. AND THEY
HAVE VERY INTENSE OUTCOMES. GOOD
BATTER AND DIFFERENT AND SO I
THINK STEREOTYPING. HOW WE
INTERPRET DATA IS DANGEROUS.
ALSO. UM AND SO. I'M HOPING THAT
WE CAN TRY TO BE BALANCED IN OUR
PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK ONE
THING THAT IS COMPLETELY
FORGOTTEN. AH, TOO OFTEN. ONE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAROLE. IS,
UH VICTIM. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
AND HOW ARE THEY HEALING? AND
ARE ARE THEY? I KNOW THERE'S
SOMEWHAT CONSIDERED IN THE
PAROLE PROCESS. THERE'S
NOTIFICATION. I THINK THEY GOT
LIKE 30 DAYS NOTICE TO IF THEY
WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE
HEARING. BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT'S IRRELEVANT. I DO THINK
THAT THE NATURE OF THE CRIME,
AND I'M SURE THE PAROLE BOARD
ACTUALLY CONSIDERS THAT HEAVILY
BECAUSE THE RISK ASSESSMENT IS A
VERY DELICATE ONE. EVERYBODY
HOPES FOR REHABILITATION, BUT
THE RE OFFENSE IS TRAGIC. AND SO
YOU HAVE HOPE VERSUS. POTENTIAL
TRAGIC OUTCOME, SO THAT'S A
VERY, VERY TOUGH CONSIDERATION.
AND SO. I THINK YOU HAVE A
THANKLESS JOB, AND I REALLY DO.
I THINK THAT, UH EVEN WHEN YOU
GRANT PAROLE THAT THERE'S A
CERTAIN POPULATION THAT FEELS
LIKE THEY'VE BEEN BETRAYED. AND
WHEN YOU DON'T THERE'S ANOTHER
POPULATION THAT FEELS LIKE
THEY'RE BETRAYED. AND I THINK
IT'S A NO WIN BATTLE IF YOU'RE
GOING FOR POPULARITY, AND
HOPEFULLY THAT'S NOT WHAT DRIVES
THE DECISION, BUT POLITICAL
INFLUENCE IS SOMETIMES.
SOMETIMES EQUATE TO POPULARITY.
AND SO I THINK IT'S DANGEROUS
AND I HOPE THAT THAT'S NOT THE
DRIVER. AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION
TO THE L A. OH I WONDERED IF
YOUR REVIEW SAW ANY KIND OF
IMPROVEMENT OF ANY MEASURABLE UM
ACT ACTION OF IMPROVEMENT AFTER
THE ATTORNEY PAY INCREASE TOOK
EFFECT. THEY'RE WHAT WE FOUND IS
THAT THERE JUST ISN'T DATA ON,
UM ON THE. LEVEL OF SERVICES
THAT ATTORNEYS PROVIDE. SO THERE
JUST WASN'T ANY WAY FOR US TO
ASSESS THAT. UM MISS SCHAEFER
INDICATED THAT THERE THE
NONPROFIT THAT THE STATE
CONTRACTS WITH TO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO THE CONTRACT
ATTORNEYS, UM COLLECT SOME
CLIENT SURVEYS. THOSE ARE NOT
AVAILABLE TO THE LEGISLATURE OR
THE PUBLIC. UM SO WE'RE WE
WEREN'T ABLE TO REVIEW THEM.
UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT
BECOME CAME AVAILABLE ONLY
RECENTLY. UM SO THAT'S
ULTIMATELY WHY WE RECOMMENDED UM
, THAT THE LEGISLATURE MOVE IN
THE DIRECTION OF MORE DATA
COLLECTION AND EVALUATION IN
ORDER TO GUIDE FUTURE
LEGISLATIVE ACTION. THAT'S FAIR.
I THINK ANYTIME YOU YOU TRY TO
DEBATE SALARIES. THAT'S AN
IMPOSSIBLE DISCUSSION BECAUSE
EVERYBODY THINKS THEY'RE
UNDERPAID, NO MATTER WHAT YOU
DO. AND YOU CAN ARGUE THAT YOU
ARE AND SO IT'S VERY DELICATE.
SO I JUST WONDER IF THERE WAS
SOME KIND OF MEASURE METRIC OR
SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK TO
FEEL A LITTLE MORE CONFIDENT
ABOUT. THE INCREASES. I THINK
ONE THING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
COULD THINK ABOUT IS MAKING A
DISTINCTION OR CAN BE HELPFUL IN
THIS SITUATION. THIS DISCUSSION
TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
WHAT IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT
FOR SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. THE
LEGISLATURE DID CREATE THIS
RIGHT TO ATTORNEY TO AN ATTORNEY
. AND UM THERE'S SOME OF COURSE
, DIFFERENT WAYS OF INTERPRETING
WHAT THAT MEANS. AND THERE IS
ONGOING LITIGATION AS YOU HEARD
SURROUNDING WHAT IS THE UM, THE
LEGAL LEGALLY REQUIRED LEVEL OF
SERVICES. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT WE LOOKED AT OR WEIGHED IN
ON. WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS MORE
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT?
WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICES MIGHT
PEOPLE NEED TO ENSURE THAT
PEOPLE GIVEN DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE, UM,
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO A CHANCE AT
SUCCESS IN THE PROJECT PROCESS
OR THAT THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF
RELEASE ISN'T CONTINGENT ON
THEIR OR THEIR FAMILY'S ABILITY
TO AFFORD A PRIVATE ATTORNEY,
FOR EXAMPLE, SO THERE'S THAT SO
I THINK YOU YOU COULD YOU COULD
THINK ABOUT KIND OF FROM DO DOES
THE LEGISLATURE IN IMPLEMENTING
THIS REQUIREMENT THAT IT PUT
INTO STATUTE TO GIVE PEOPLE THE
RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY? WHAT DOES
IT WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE? AND
THERE'S DIFFERENT CRITERIAS TO
CONSIDER CRITERIA TO CONSIDER
THAT THERE ARE ONE BEING EQUITY
. UM BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO THE
QUESTION OF HOW WHAT IS THE BEST
WAY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.
IS IT THROUGH AN ATTORNEY, OR
MAYBE IT'S THROUGH THERAPISTS OR
OTHER TYPES OF PROGRAM MODELS.
UM AND AS YOU HEARD THERE IS AN
ONGOING PILOT TO LOOK AT THAT.
BUT WE AGAIN DON'T HAVE THE
INFORMATION OR THE RESULTS FROM
THAT. SO I THINK IN TERMS OF
THINKING ABOUT METRICS, UM WE'RE
STILL ALMOST AT THE PHASE OF NOT
ONLY NEEDED TO COLLECT DATA BUT
DECIDE ON WHAT METRICS WE EVEN
WANT TO BE EVALUATING. THANK YOU
FOR THAT. I JUST WANT TO CLOSE
WITH THE FACT THAT I KNOW THAT
STEREOTYPES ARE VERY HARD TO
AVOID, FOR SOME PEOPLE AND OTHER
PEOPLE. I MEAN, ALL OF US. ARE
GUILTY TO SOME DEGREE WE TRY NOT
TO BE, UM AND I'M JUST VERY
SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT I
BELIEVE THAT THE PRISON
POPULATION JUST LIKE THE REGULAR
POPULATION. NON PRISON
POPULATION ARE COMPLICATED. AND
COMPLEX. AND THERE ARE MANY
VARIABLES THAT ARE REALLY HARD
TO EVALUATE. AND WHEN YOU'RE ON
A PAROLE, BARRED, MAKING THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER YOU'RE
TO BE GRANTED. YOUR FREEDOM. AND
WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO REOFFEND
AS A VERY DELICATE BALANCE, AND
I RESPECT IT, AND I HOPE THAT WE
CAN ALL COLLABORATIVELY WORK
TOGETHER TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN
MAKING THAT BECAUSE OF PEOPLE
HAVE REHABILITATED AND HAVE HAD
A CHANGE OF HEART AND HAVE NO
INCLINATION AT ALL TO REOFFEND,
THEN WE NEED TO WELCOME THEM.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE DOING THE
BEST WE CAN. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR ROCKY. MR JOHNSON. AND
ACTUALLY, THIS IS A. REALLY
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. WE HAVE TO
HAVE, UM UH AS CHAIR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY. I GET A LOT OF CALLS.
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT THEY
SHOULD. BE PAROLED OR THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD BE
PAROLED. AND WHAT I'VE SAID THAT
MANY OF THESE, UM MEETINGS IN
THE PUBLIC IN THE NEWSPAPER. UM
ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE SAY, UM
WE'VE BECOME A LITTLE LAX AND
LETTING PEOPLE OUT I HAVE TO
REMIND HIM PROBABLY MORE THAN
THE HARDEST THINGS YOU COULD
EVER DO. IS GET PAROLED IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT IS NOT
EASY. AND HOOPS. YOU HAVE TO GO
THROUGH. IS UM QUITE A BIT IF
YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE IT THROUGH
THAT THE MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT
THINGS YOU NEED TO DO, UM UM,
YOU WHEN YOU GET PAROLED. YOU
PROBABLY NEVER WANT TO GO BACK.
TO THAT SYSTEM AGAIN. AND I EVEN
REMEMBER TRYING TO GET SOMEONE
OUT WHO BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE
INNOCENT. AND PART OF WHAT THEY
WERE ASKED TO DO WAS TO ADMIT
THAT THEY DID WRONG. AND THIS
PERSON WANTED TO BRING IN
EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT
COMMIT THE CRIME. AND IT WAS MY
UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE TOLD BY
THE PAROLE BOARD. THEY COULDN'T
BRING THOSE FACTS. INTO BECAUSE
OF WHAT IT WAS ABOUT IS ARE YOU
A DIFFERENT PERSON NOW THAN WHEN
YOU CAME IN? AND IT'S REALLY
ABOUT YOUR TIME IN PRISON AND
WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO MOVE
FORWARD. UM BUT WE STILL HAVE
PEOPLE WANT TO RELITIGATE.
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN PRISON.
AND I KNOW IT. I KNOW FOR SOME
FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES
THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT PERSON IN
BECAUSE THAT PAIN THAT THEY
FEEL, WHICH IS LEGITIMATE PAIN,
HONEST PAIN THAT WE HAVE TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND
THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO GET THE TWO
TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY BOTH ARE
IN PAIN AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT.
UM IT. JUST BE IT HIT ME, THEN
THAT THE ONE OF THE MISSIONS OF
THE PAROLE BOARD IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL IS NO
LONGER THAT INDIVIDUAL. THAT
CAME IN THAT THEY'VE MADE
CHANGES, AND IT'S STILL REAL
DIFFICULT TO GET THAT TO GET
THAT DONE, AND THE PERSON I WAS
TRYING TO HELP STILL IS IN
PRISON. UM AND STILL HAS TROUBLE
GETTING THROUGH THE PAROLE BOARD
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF
HOW TO GET OUT. AND SO, UM, THIS
IS THIS IS THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
ME, BECAUSE, UM, WE REALLY DO
NEED TO JUST KIND OF SIT DOWN
AND TRY TO REALLY FIGURE OUT I
THINK THE MAIN PURPOSE I THINK
BOTH OF YOU HAD THE SAME MAIN
PERSON, BUT THAT THAT PERSON HAS
CHANGED. AND WE NEED TO UM HONOR
THAT. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY, UM, TO RE ACCLIMATE THEM
INTO SOCIETY. SO THAT OBVIOUSLY
YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO RECITE A
BAIT. BUT MOST IMPORTANT UM,
THIS WHOLE CONCEPT OF SECOND
CHANCES FORGIVENESS. NO. CHURCH
WAS YESTERDAY BUT THIS WHOLE
CHRISTIAN BELIEF OF FORGIVENESS.
UM SOMETIMES GET LOST IN THE
DISCUSSION, AND SOMETIMES IT'S A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT REVENGE. NOT
NECESSARILY ABOUT REDEMPTION.
AND SO IF WE CAN, WE CAN START
TO FIGURE OUT A WAY INDIVIDUALS
CAN REDEEM THEMSELVES. UM
ESPECIALLY IF THEY DID SOMETHING
WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD. I MEAN,
WHEN I SAY CHILD AND YOU'RE LIKE
YOU'RE 13 14 15. AND YOU'RE NOW
40 50 YEARS OLD. THAT IS NOT THE
SAME PERSON THEN OR YOU MAY HAVE
CANCER AND YOU COMING TO THE END
OF YOUR LIFE AND WE'RE NOT
LETTING THEM OUT BECAUSE WE
STILL WANT TO PUNISH THEM, EVEN
THOUGH THEY ONLY HAVE A MONTH TO
LIVE. I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TO BE A
LITTLE INHUMANE. ALSO. AND SO WE
REALLY DO NEED TO HAVE A SERIOUS
CONVERSATION WITH ALL OF US.
ABOUT UM BETTER WAYS THAT WE CAN
WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH PEOPLE. WHEN
THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
PAROLED. UM THE SYSTEM IS AND
ANYBODY CAN HEAR MY VOICE AND
I'M NOT. AND I THINK, UM ONE OF
THE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU CAN
ATTEST TO. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT
TO GET PAROLED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS IS NOT AN EASY
PROPOSITION. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
MAKE IT EASIER, WHICH IS TRYING
TO MAKE SURE IT'S FAIR. FOR
EVERYBODY AND THEN AND THAT
OBVIOUSLY WANT TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC. BUT PROTECTING THE
PUBLIC DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN YOU
GOTTA LOCK EVERYBODY UP FOREVER
AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. AND THAT
IS THE ANSWER. THAT'S A SIMPLE
ANSWER. COMFORTING, MANSOUR.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE COMFORT FOOD AS
LONG AS THEY'RE LOCKED UP IN A
WAY WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
THAT. BUT LET'S GET BEYOND OUR
COMFORT LEVEL. AND FIGURE OUT A
WAY. THAT, UM, WE CAN ASSURE THE
PUBLIC THAT ONCE SOMEONE'S
RELEASE AND WE CAN GET THAT DATA
. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO GET TO LET'S TRY TO
GET THAT DATA THAT PEOPLE WHO
DID DO GET PAROLED. UM THEIR
RECIDIVISM RATE IS REALLY,
REALLY LOW. FROM WHAT I FROM THE
FROM THE DATA I'VE SEEN. MAYBE
BECAUSE WE DON'T LET MANY PEOPLE
OUT. BUT THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER
DISCUSSION. BUT LET'S LET'S TALK
ABOUT HOW SUCCESSFUL WE ARE AT
LETTING PEOPLE OUT AND CONTINUE
THAT SO WE CAN GET MORE AND MORE
PEOPLE OUT. UM WHO CAN LEAD
PRODUCTIVE LIVES BACK INTO THE
SOCIETY? MAY I RESPOND TO THAT?
BRIEFLY SURE. SO I THINK ONE
THING THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD
FIND SURPRISING IS THAT FIVE
MANY YEARS AGO, ONLY 5% OF OUR
GRANTS WERE ACTUALLY ISSUED AT A
PERSON'S FIRST PAROLE HEARING.
IT'S NOW AROUND 35 TO 40% OF OUR
GRANTS OF PAROLE ARE ISSUED TO
PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD A PRO
HEARING BEFORE. SO THEIR FIRST
TIME COMING FOR THE BOARD THERE
GRANTED PAROLE AND RELEASED. SO
THE CHANGES IN THE LAW THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DONE OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS GREATLY
EXPANDED WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR PRO
HEARING AND MADE THEM ELIGIBLE
EARLIER. I THINK TO BE HONEST,
WE'RE AT THE WE'RE AT THE
BEGINNING OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
BECAUSE AS PEOPLE COME INTO
PRISON TODAY, THEY'RE TOLD
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PAROLE
HEARING. YOU COULD GO HOME. UM
AT THIS TIME, AND THAT'S THEIR
TARGET WHEN THEY COME IN,
WHEREAS A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT
HAVE COME BEFORE US RECENTLY
NEVER HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. UM
DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY WERE
GOING TO HAVE A PAROLE HEARING
AND FOR MANY YEARS HAD NO HOPE.
A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT
REALLY WANT TO DRESS. I'D LOVE
TO HEAR THE CASE THAT YOU'RE
ACTUALLY SPEAKING OF LIKE TO
HAVE THOSE DECISIONS REVIEWED
FAMOUS CASE SO I DON'T WANT TO.
OKAY LET ME KNOW MAYBE OUTSIDE
OF THIS HEARING, BUT I WOULD
LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
UM WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT
PARTICULAR CASE? BECAUSE PEOPLE
DO NOT. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT
ADMIT GUILT. UM AND THERE'S A
WHOLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR
DETERMINING YOU KNOW HOW TO
HANDLE THAT IN A PAROLE HEARING.
WE LOOK FOR WHETHER THEY'RE
DENIAL IS PLAUSIBLE OR NOT, AND
A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS, BUT
YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'RE LOOKING AT
WHO THE PERSON IS TODAY. AND I
ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WOULD
GREATLY HELP THE PROCESS. ONE IS
GREATER TRANSPARENCY RIGHT NOW.
WHAT THE PROCEDURES WHAT
DOCUMENTS WERE LOOKING FOR? WHAT
INFORMATION WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
UM IS SORT OF THIS MYRIAD OF
STATUTES REGULATIONS CASE LAW IN
ITS ITS COMPLEX LITIGATION MAKES
THINGS COMPLEX SOMETIMES AND
VERY NUANCED. AND YOU ADD ON TO
THAT WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IT'S NOT
1975 ANYMORE FOR THE LAST TWO
DECADES. THERE HAVE BEEN
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND PEOPLE
CAN PREDICT WITH REASONABLE UM
CERTAINTY. UM WHAT INCREASES
SOMEBODY'S CHANCE OF RECIDIVISM
VIOLENTLY. AND WHAT, UM, REDUCES
THEIR CHANCES, SO I THINK THE
WHOLE THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY HAS
DEVELOPED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM
1975. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM STATE
PRISON AFTER THEY'VE BEEN DENIED
PAROLE, SO THE DETERMINANT LEE
SENTENCED ELDERLY, PAROLE AND
YOUTH OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN
RELEASED AFTER BEING DENIED
PAROLE FROM THE BOARD. THEY
ACTUALLY RECEPTIVE EIGHT AT A
MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE, SO AND
I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK ALCOHOL WAS
THE REASON THAT HAPPENED OKAY
FOR THE FOR THE MURDER CASE. AND
WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD ASKED
THEM. IF THAT PERSON HAD BEEN
ANY CLASSES. PUT APPLE IS, UM,
HE SAID NO. BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER
OFFERED. THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH
CLASSES. SO IT'S LIKE A CATCH 22
. THEN HE TOLD THE PEOPLE WHO
CAME TO ME THAT HE WAS NO LONGER
DRINKING. I HAD TO REMIND HIM
YOU'D PROBABLY GET MORE ALCOHOL
IMPRISONED IN ANY OTHER PLACE SO
WE CAN'T GO WITH BY THAT. BUT
ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH BACK AND
FORTH. ENDED UP WITH THAT PERSON
STAYING THERE AND NOT JUST MR
WILEY, IF YOU WANT TO. JUST I
THINK YOUR POSITION IS WE COULD
HAVE MORE. IF WE HAD BETTER WE
GET BETTER OUTCOMES. IF WE DID
MORE IS THAT THAT WHERE YOU'RE
GOING? THAT'S THAT'S FOR SURE.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT THAT IF
THE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING THE
OUTCOMES WERE MORE OBJECTIVE.
MORE PREDICTABLE IN TERMS OF
PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO KNOW WHAT I
NEED TO DO. IN ORDER TO GET OUT
OF PRISON. UH CHANGED MY LIFE.
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? WHAT DO
THEY NEED TO SEE? AND, UM WHAT
WE'VE SEEN, THOUGH, IS UP UNTIL
2008. THE PAROLE BOARD DIDN'T
REALLY CARE THAT MUCH WHAT
PEOPLE WERE DOING IN PRISON,
THEY FOCUSED ON THEIR CRIME. WE
WOULD SIT IN A HEARING FOR THREE
HOURS AND THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT
THE CRIME HOW BAD IT WAS. UM,
IT'S ONE OF THE MOST. I'LL PUT
THIS WAY. MAYBE IT'S THE IT'S
THE LEAST HEALING SPACE FOR
SURVIVORS OF CRIME TO SIT
THROUGH THAT. UM IT REMAINS ONE
OF THE LEAST HEALING SPACES
IMAGINABLE TO RELIVE THAT. UM
WITH NO OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY
SEE THAT THE PERSON HAS HAS
CHANGED, AND HERE THE BOARD
RECOGNIZED ON THIS PERSON'S
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED. INSTEAD
THERE'S THIS SORT OF A FOCUS ON
THE ON THE GRAVITY OF THE CRIME.
AFTER 2008 WHEN THE SUPREME
COURT SAID, WELL, YOU CAN'T DO
THAT ANYMORE. THEN THE PAROLE
BOARD'S HAVE BUT WE ARE WITHOUT
THAT. WHAT DO WE GO WITH? WELL?
IF WE PERCEIVE THAT SOMEONE IS
STILL DANGEROUS, AND WE'RE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO DENY THEM PAROLE,
EVEN WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEIR
CRIME. BUT WHAT? HOW DO WE DO
THAT? WELL, LET'S USE THIS IDEA
OF INSIGHT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T
HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHY THEY
COMMITTED A CRIME. 2030 40 50
YEARS AGO. THAT WILL BE OUR
BASIS FOR DENYING PAROLE. IF
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REMORSE
THAT WILL BE A BASIS FOR DENYING
THEM PAROLE. UM THERE IS ZERO
EVIDENCE. THE PRESENCE OR
ABSENCE OF INSIDE OF REMORSE
CORRELATES THE VIOLENCE RISK.
PERIOD. UM. THEY'RE THE MOST
SUBJECTIVE FACTORS WE COULD
IMAGINE. FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
SOMEONE IS SUITABLE AND IT'S
WHAT THE BOARD USES REGULARLY.
ALL THE TIME AND EVERY HEARING.
AND IT IS THIS SUBJECTIVITY THAT
LENDS ITSELF TO THE BIAS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IF I CAN'T
UNDERSTAND HOW YOU PRESENT I
DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR CULTURE,
YOUR BACKGROUND YOUR LANGUAGE.
THEN I'M GOING TO PERCEIVE YOU
IN A WAY THAT I MIGHT NOT
PERCEIVE SOMEONE I'M FAMILIAR
WITH. THAT'S HOW BIAS SHOWS UP.
IT'S WHAT IT'S WHAT IT DOES.
IT'S WHO WE ARE IN THIS COUNTRY.
WE JUDGE PEOPLE BASED ON THIS
LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION. WE
RUN WITH IT AND ASSUME WE KNOW
EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
THEM. IT'S WHAT WE DO. AND I
THINK IT'S A MISTAKE TO PRETEND
THAT DOESN'T LIVE IN THE PRO
PROCESS. IT'S JUST BEING LIKE
INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT OF WHAT'S
OBVIOUS. IT'S INCONVENIENT. BUT
IT'S STILL TRUE. AND I THINK THE
MORE WE GET WE PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE THERE BEYOND THE PAPER,
THEN WE WILL GET DIFFERENT
OUTCOMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
UH, FOR THE SAKE OF THE OTHER
TIME, THE OTHER TWO PANELS. UM
I'M GOING TO JUST, UH, REMAIN
CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC, UH, IN MS
SCHAEFER'S WORDS, THAT WE ARE
REALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. I THINK WE
DID HAVE A GOVERNOR WHO JUST
CALLED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT,
AND, UM AND I THINK WE ARE
MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. I DID
WANT TO JUST HAVE YOU SHARE.
MISS SCHAEFER. THE U. C.
BERKELEY REPORT THAT YOU
MENTIONED WHEN YOU THINK THOSE
FINDINGS ARE GOING TO BE
AVAILABLE SO THAT WE MIGHT HAVE
YOU BACK. I DO NOT KNOW AS SOON
AS THEY GET THE DATA, AND WE
START SORT OF GOING BACK AND
FORTH WILL PROBABLY GET A
TIMELINE FOR WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE. AND WHEN IT WILL BE
AVAILABLE, I'M REALLY LOOKING
FORWARD TO INFORMATION,
MEANINGFUL INFORMATION THAT'S
BASED NOT JUST ON OUTCOMES. UM,
AND SOME SOME RATHER RUDIMENTARY
METRICS, BUT ACTUALLY A VERY
THOUGHTFUL, I THINK AND
METHODICAL APPROACH TO UM, YOU
KNOW WHAT'S DRIVING OUR PAROLE
HEARING PROCESSES AND OUR
OUTCOMES. SO YES, WE WILL
DEFINITELY SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
AND I KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE THE
OUTCOMES AND REPORT BACK ON THE
PILOT. BUT UNCOMMON LAW IS
ENGAGED IN AS WELL. SO THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR
SPEAKING HERE TODAY WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PANEL,
OKAY? WILL NOW BE MOVING ON TO.
DID YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION? I
DO. I HAVE SOME INFORMATION FOR
YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE IT, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. WE WILL BE MOVING ON
NOW TO SUB PANEL TO MEDICAL
RECORDS FOR I S U. D T P AND THE
PEARL HEARING PROCESS. FOR THIS
DISCUSSION, WE WILL BE FOCUSING
SPECIFICALLY ON RECORDS RELATED
TO THE INTEGRATED SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROGRAM. BUT
MISS SCHAEFER WILL PROVIDE US
WITH A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW
MEDICAL RECORDS ARE USED IN
PAROLE HEARINGS FIRST. WE ARE
ALSO BEING JOINED BY MR SPECTER
, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE PRISON LAW OFFICE ON
WEBEX. WE WILL BEGIN WITH MISS
SCHAEFER.
OKAY ONCE AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME HERE. UM I WANT TO
BEGIN. I HEARD NOT TOO LONG AGO
. A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR YOUR
AGENDA. YOUR MEETING CONCERNING
ISSUED ET YOU HAD SOME FOLKS
HERE FROM CORRECTIONAL
HEALTHCARE TALKING ABOUT STD T
INTEGRATED SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROGRAM. UM I
RUN A BEGIN MY COMMENTS TODAY BY
EXPRESSING OUR THE BOARD'S
UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT OF THE I S
U. D T PROGRAM. WE SEE POSITIVE
RESULTS FROM THE PROGRAM EVERY
DAY IN OUR PAROLE HEARINGS. WE
BELIEVE IT'S SAVING LIVES, AND
IT'S HELPING PEOPLE TO BECOME
SUITABLE FOR PAROLE. THE BOARD
HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE
ISSUE DT PROGRAM AND
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE STAFF
TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR
RESPECTIVE PROGRAMS. AND WE HAVE
LEARNED A LOT FROM ONE ANOTHER.
RECENTLY I S U D T DEDICATED ITS
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR THE
INCARCERATED POPULATION. UM TO
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT
CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS AND
THE SETI PROGRAM. I HAVE IT
COPIES OF THAT HERE I CAN
PROVIDE FOR YOU. IT INCLUDED IN
THAT NEWSLETTER WAS A LENGTHY
INTERVIEW WITH ME TO HIGHLIGHT
THE FACT THAT THE BOARD
CONSIDERS PARTICIPATION AND
ISSUED ET, UM, AS A POSITIVE
THING. FOR PEOPLE WHO COME
BEFORE THE BOARD. SO THE HEART
OF THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING
TODAY CONCERNS TWO IMPORTANT
COMPETING ISSUES, COMPETING
INTERESTS, PATIENT
CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE BOARD'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE INFORMED
RISK BASED DECISIONS ABOUT WHO
CAN BE SAFELY RELEASED INTO OUR
COMMUNITIES. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND
AND RESPECT THE FACT THAT THIS
IS A THAT THIS IS SENSITIVE
INFORMATION. AND WE WANT TO
ENCOURAGE ALL INCARCERATED
PERSONS TO SEEK HELP WHEN
NEEDED. THE INFORMATION IS ALSO
CRITICAL TO ME TO MAKING
INFORMED PAROLE DECISIONS. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY
THAT THIS IS A POLICY QUESTION.
NOT A LEGAL ONE. FOR THE
ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS AREA IS
CLEAR. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT
INCARCERATED PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE
A PROTECTED RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN
TREATMENT RECORDS WHEN THE STATE
HAS A LEGITIMATE PENA LOGICAL
INTEREST THAT REQUIRES USE OF
THE RECORDS. THE BORDERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHO
CAN SAFELY BE RELEASED FROM
STATE PRISON, WHICH IS A
LEGITIMATE PENA. LOGICAL
INTEREST. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY
DISCRETIONARY PAROLE PROCESS IN
THE COUNTRY OR THE WORLD, FOR
THAT MATTER. I DO WORK QUITE A
BIT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
PAROLING AUTHORITIES
INTERNATIONAL. I DO NOT KNOW OF
A SINGLE JURISDICTION THAT
ELEVATES A PATIENT'S RIGHTS TO
PRIVACY OVER THE NEED OF THE
PAROLING AUTHORITY TO MAKE
INFORMED RISK BASED DECISIONS.
THIS IS BECAUSE TREATMENT
RECORDS CAN BE EXTREMELY
RELEVANT TO ASSESSING A PERSON'S
RISK. AT ITS CORE, AS I
EXPLAINED BEFORE THE PRIOR PANEL
THAT PRO CONSIDERATION INVOLVES
ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS OF WHO THE
PERSON WAS WHEN THEY COMMITTED
THEIR CRIME WHO THEY ARE TODAY
AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO ACCESS TO MEDICAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH INFORMATION IS CRITICAL
TO EVALUATING A PERSON'S RISK
BECAUSE ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONAL
PRINCIPLES OF RISK ASSESSMENT IS
TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS
HISTORICAL RISKS. THOSE FACTORS
THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR
CRIMINALITY, FACTORS THAT MAY
INCLUDE THINGS SUCH AS SUBSTANCE
ABUSE OR MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER
. WHEN LOOKING AT WHO THE PERSON
IS TODAY, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT IF THOSE RISK FACTORS REMAIN
VERY RELEVANT TO THEM TODAY. HAS
THE PERSON ADDRESSED THEIR
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER. WHERE
ARE THEY IN THEIR RECOVERY? FOR
PERSONS WHO HAVE A MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER. WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE
IF THEY'RE COMPLIANT WITH
TREATMENT WITH THEIR TREATMENT
PROGRAM. FOR PERSONS WHO HAVE A,
UM I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE
MANY PEOPLE WHO MANAGE THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
SUCCESSFULLY AND WITHOUT
VIOLENCE IN THE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. WE'RE LOOKING TO
SEE IF THE PERSON BEFORE US WILL
BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IF
RELEASED. NOT ONLY IS ACCESS TO
THIS INFORMATION LEGALLY
PERMISSIBLE, SOME STATUTES
ACTUALLY REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD
CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION. WHAT
EXAMPLE IS ELDERLY PAROLE. THE
PENAL CODE REQUIRES THE BOARD TO
GIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO
THE PERSON'S DIMINISHED PHYSICAL
CONDITION, IF ANY, WHEN
DETERMINING THEIR SUITABILITY
FOR PAROLE THAT REQUIRES MEDICAL
INFORMATION. AND THIS ISSUE. I
JUST REALLY WANT TO CAUTION
FOLKS. THIS ISSUE GOES WELL
BEYOND THE BOARD'S DISCRETIONARY
PAROLE PROCESS. IN CALIFORNIA.
THERE'S ALSO A SEXUALLY VIOLENT
PREDATOR PROGRAM AND A PROGRAM
FOR OFFENDERS HAVE BEEN A HEALTH
DISORDERS. THIS THESE PROGRAMS
AUTHORIZED INCARCERATED PERSONS
WHO MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO A STATE HOSPITAL
FOR TREATMENT. INSTEAD OF BEING
RELEASED AT THE END OF THEIR
TERM IF THEY CONTINUE TO POSE A
RISK TO THE PUBLIC. THE STATUTES
GOVERNING THESE PROGRAMS REQUIRE
BOARD STAFF AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE HOSPITAL STAFF TO
ACCESS AND EVALUATE TREATMENT
RECORDS. IF AN INCARCERATED
PERSONS RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS
DEEMED TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE STATE'S LEGITIMATE PENA
LOGICAL INTERESTS, IT WILL
GREATLY IMPACT THOSE PROGRAMS AS
WELL. I WANT TO CONCLUDE MY
COMMENTS WITH ONE FINAL THOUGHT,
AND THAT IS THE BOARD DOES NOT
ACCESS TREATMENT RECORDS FOR
PUNITIVE PURPOSES. I THINK
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. IT'S
NOT FOR PUNITIVE PURPOSES WHILE
IN SOME CASES THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN TREATMENT RECORDS
MAY CONTRIBUTE TO A FINDING THAT
THE PERSON IS NOT SUITABLE FOR
PAROLE IN FAR MORE CASES. THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CASES
THAT INFORMATION CONTRIBUTES TO
A FINDING THAT THEY ARE SUITABLE
FOR PAROLE BECAUSE CONTAINED IN
THOSE RECORDS IS A LOT OF
INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE FACT
THAT THE PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN
POSITIVE COGNITIVE. BEHAVE
BEHAVE. EXCUSE ME, COGNITIVE
BASED REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMMING. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL, UH,
WILL MOVE TO MR SPECTER.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PRISON LAW
OFFICE. MM HMM. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
GREAT. UH FROM THE DIRECTOR. I'M
DOWN. SPECTER THE DIRECTOR OF
THE PRISON LAW OFFICE, AND I
AGREE WITH MITCH SCHAEFER. UM
AND EVERYONE WHO'S LOOKED AT
THIS MATTER AND REASONABLE WAY
AND WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ISSUE
DT PROGRAM AS A TREMENDOUS
SUCCESS. IT IS SAVED LIVES. IT'S
REDUCED MEDICAL COSTS. IT'S
AIDED AND REBUILT IN
REHABILITATION, WHICH IN TURN
WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
VICTIMS AND HOPEFULLY WILL LOWER
THE RECIDIVISM RATE AS WELL.
THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE
STATE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING
WITHIN REASON TO MAXIMIZE THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE
IN THIS PROGRAM. AH! IT'S
PROBABLY IN MY EXPERIENCE AND MY
TENURE TRACKING THE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS. IT'S PROBABLY
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS
THEY'VE AND SUCCESSFUL THINGS.
AH THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DONE
IN THE LAST THE SEVERAL DECADES.
AND PART OF THE SUCCESS OF THE
PROGRAM DEPENDS ON THE
CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THOSE
WHO PROVIDE THE TREATMENT. YOUR
STAFF IN THE MEMO THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO US. POINTED OUT THAT
THE ANALYSIS BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WHICH SAYS THAT
PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY
OF PATIENT INFORMATION IS
CRITICAL. AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT
WITHOUT ADEQUATE PROTECTION
CLIENTS MAY AVOID TREATMENT WHEN
THERE IS A LACK OF
CONFIDENTIALITY. THAT IS EXACTLY
THE SITUATION WHICH WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT TODAY. ONE CAN
HARDLY EXPECT ALL PATIENTS. TO
BE CANDID WHEN THAT INFORMATION
MAY BE USED AGAINST THEM BY A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL
APPOINTED BY THE PROBE, YOU KNOW
, UH, WHO'S PART OF THE PAROLE
BOARD TO DENY THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR FREEDOM IN THE
FORM OF PAROLE? THE BOARD,
HOWEVER, AND YOU, UH JUST HEARD
MISS SHAVER EXPLAIN THEIR
POSITION DOES NOT RESPECT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE TREATMENT
RECORDS, INSISTING. THAT IT HAS
COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE PRO
APPLICANTS MEDICAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH FILE, INCLUDING THE I S U
D T TREATMENT RECORDS. THE BOARD
USES THIS INFORMATION TO THE
PAROLE AND A COUPLE OF WAYS
FIRST, IT CAN USE A RELAPSE AS A
REASON TO DENY PAROLE SOMETIMES
, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
PATIENT HAS SUCCESSFULLY
MAINTAINED SOBRIETY. SECOND THE
BOARD MAY USE THIS INFORMATION
AND IT DOES AND FROM WHAT I
UNDERSTAND, IT'S IMPORTANT. TO
THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO IMPEACH
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PAROLE
APPLICANT AT THE AT THE PAROLE
HEARING IF THEIR TESTIMONY DOES
NOT MATCH THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE MEDICAL
RECORDS. IN SHORT, I THINK THE
BOARD'S POLICY AND PRACTICE
INHIBITS PEOPLE FROM
PARTICIPATING IN THE S U. D T
INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING THAT
PARTICIPATION. ON THE OTHER HAND
, THE BOARD'S POLICY ALSO MEANS
THAT APPLICANTS WHO DO NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE ICU DT HAVE A
BETTER CHANCE OF GAINING PAROLE
BECAUSE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
IMPEACHMENT OF THEIR TESTIMONY
WILL NOT EXIST. AND THE BOARD
MAY BE LESS AWARE OF WHETHER
THEY HAVE A RELAPSE AND USED
DRUGS WHILE THEY'RE IN PRISON.
SO. THE BOARD STATES THAT IT
NEEDS ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION
TO GUARD AGAINST A RELAPSE IN
THE COMMUNITY AND AS YOU AS A
RESULT OF THAT RELAPSE, THE
PERSON WOULD, UH, POSSIBLY
COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME. BUT THESE
PATIENTS OR OR ADDICTED TO
SUBSTANCES, AND AS SUCH, THEY
ARE ALWAYS AT RISK OF THE RELAX.
THE BEST THING THE STATE CAN DO
FOR THEM, AND MY OPINION IS TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE BASED
TREATMENT. AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY THAT
REDUCES THAT RISK, AND THAT'S
THE ISSUE DCI PROGRAM. THE
BOARD'S POSITION IS THAT AS A
MATTER OF LEGAL OUT LEGALITY AND
POLICY THAT IT'S ENTITLED TO
THIS INFORMATION, AND IT NEEDS
ACCESS TO ALL RELEVANT
INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE A
DECISION AS YOU JUST HEARD. MISS
SCHAEFER DESCRIBED THAT THAT
POSITION BUT IT DOESN'T. HAVE TO
HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO RELAPSE
INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROGRAM. THAT SO THEY ANOTHER
WORDS, THE PAROLE HEARINGS FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE ABUSED, ADDICTED
TO SUBSTANCES, BUT ARE NOT
PURCHASING ANY PAINTING IN THE
PROGRAM PROVIDE LESS INFORMATION
THAN THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING
IN THE PROGRAM. AND AS MISS
SCHAEFER SAID, THERE ARE TWO
COMPETING INTERESTS HERE. ONE IS
THE BOARDS NEED FOR INFORMATION
, AND THE OTHER IS THE INTEREST
OF THE STATE AND THE PAROLE
APPLICANTS TO ENCOURAGE
PARTICIPATION IN THE ISSUE. K¾T
IN MY OPINION RIGHT NOW, THE
BOARD ISN'T BALANCING THOSE
INTERESTS. IT IS UNYIELDING AND
ITS DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO ALL
RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I
AGREE WITH MS SCHAEFFER THAT
THIS IS NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.
IT'S A POLICY QUESTION FOR YOU
AS LEGISLATE TOURS TO ADDRESS
AND IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
ENACT LAWS WHICH. PROMOTE UH AND
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE ISSUED K¾T, EVEN IN THE
FACE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE
TO GO FOR THE POOR IN FRONT OF
THE PAROLE BOARD, WHERE THIS
INFORMATION MAY BE. DISCLOSED
AND WE WOULD I WOULD ARGUE THAT
IT SHOULDN'T BE DISCLOSED OR AT
LEAST NOT DISCLOSED FULLY. SO I
HAVE A PROPOSAL. THAT I HAVE YET
TO SHARE WITH MISS SCHAEFER. SO,
UH, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ON TOO
MUCH OF A SPOT, BUT AND IT'S THE
PROPOSAL IS TO BALANCE THE TWO
COMPETING INTERESTS. UM INSTEAD
OF PROVIDING THE ACTUAL
TREATMENT RECORDS TO THE
COMMISSIONERS. AND THE REST OF
THE BOARD STAFF. IT SEEMS TO ME
TO BE ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS
PROBLEM ISSUE IS AT LEAST IN THE
I S U D T CONTEXT. IS TO HAVE
THE RECORD SUMMARIZED BY THE
TREATING CLINICIAN AT CDCR. UH
IN THIS WAY, THE RECORDS WERE
REMAIN WITH THOSE WILL REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL EXCEPT FOR THE
SUMMARY. AND THE SUMMARY WILL BE
PROVIDED BY THE PERSONS WHO ARE
MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE
EFFECTS OF THE ADDICTION AND THE
TREATMENT AND WHO CAN PLACE THE
APPLICANT SUBSTANCE ABUSE
HISTORY IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.
AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOARD
WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS
TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMEONE SHOULD
BE GRANTED PAROLE. IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT THIS IS A WORKABLE
SOLUTION WILL REQUIRE SOME EXTRA
EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE CDCR
CLINICIANS. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME
TO BE, UH, REASONABLE COMPROMISE
BETWEEN THE TWO COMPETING
INTERESTS. AND IT WILL ENCOURAGE
OR AT LEAST LESS INHIBIT PEOPLE
FROM LIST DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM
NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE I C U D
T AND ALSO PROVIDE MISS SCHAEFER
WITH AT LEAST SOME OF THE
INFORMATION THAT SHE THINKS THE
BOARD NEEDS IN ORDER TO MAKE A
DECISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. I ALMOST WANT JUST LET
YOU RESPOND RIGHT AWAY. OKAY, UM
. JUST SAY YES. SO IT'S MR
SPECTER AND I HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS QUITE OFTEN. SO
IT'S AS IF WE'VE JUST INVITED
YOU ALL TO ONE OF OUR
CONVERSATIONS. UM SO. YEAH, I'M
NOT GOING TO SAY YES, BUT I
WOULD I WILL GO BACK AND REALLY
CONSIDER THIS. I WILL GIVE YOU
SOME OF MY CONCERNS. ONE IS WHAT
I HAVE FOUND SINCE I CAME TO THE
BOARD IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF
THE PUBLIC INCLUDING CLINICIANS
, UM, WITHIN CDCR, NO OFFENSE TO
THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HERE. UM
THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT RISK.
THEY'RE NOT FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGISTS. THEY DO NOT GET
THE EXTENSIVE TRAINING THAT WE
GET ON WHAT ACTUALLY IMPACT
SOMEBODY'S RISK. SO WHAT? YOU
WOULD BE PROPOSING WHAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING IS THAT WE WOULD BE
DELEGATING. TO SOMEBODY WHO
HASN'T ALL HAD ALL THAT
TRAINING. TO DETERMINE WHAT'S
RELEVANT AND WHAT'S NOT. AND I
THINK THAT'S CREATES A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT DISCONNECT. I ALSO
THINK IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT TO HAVE CONSISTENCY IN
HOW SOMEBODY SUMMARIZES THAT
INFORMATION. WHAT THEY INCLUDE
AND WHAT THEY DON'T INCLUDE.
WHICH IN THIS INCREDIBLY THE
TAGES, UM, ARENA THAT WE HAPPEN
TO BE IN, UM I THINK WOULD BE
REALLY PROBLEMATIC. UM BECAUSE
NOW WE'RE DEFERRING TO SOMEBODY
ELSE AND MAKING DECISIONS BASED
ON THAT IF I WERE AN ATTORNEY
WHO WAS REPRESENTING A CLIENT
BEFORE THE BOARD, I'D WANT TO
KNOW WHO MADE THAT
DETERMINATION. WHAT WAS LEFT OUT
WHAT WASN'T LEFT OUT? AND UM,
WHETHER THAT'S AN ACCURATE
PORTRAYAL OR ACCURATE SUMMARY OF
THAT INFORMATION, SO I THINK
THAT THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT,
UM, PROBLEMATIC. UM THE OTHER
THING THAT I THINK, UM PERHAPS
APART FROM THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT
A, UM, A DISCLOSURE DURING AN
ISSUE DT CLINICIAN RELATIONSHIP.
UM THERE ARE, UM. THERE THERE IS
TESTING DONE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOT IN I S U D T RIGHT PEOPLE
ARE RANDOMLY THEY SUBJECTED TO
YOUR ANALYSIS TESTS THROUGHOUT
THE PRISON POPULATION AND WE GET
THOSE RESULTS. UM IN THAT
RESPECT, THIS IS NOT MUCH
DIFFERENT FROM THAT. THE OTHER
THING IS THAT IT SOUNDS AND I
APPRECIATE MR SPECTER'S
PERSPECTIVE. UM IT SOUNDS MEAN.
AS IF THERE IS A PERSPECTIVE
THAT THIS INFORMATION IS ONLY
USED FOR NEGATIVE REASONS AND
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
DIFFICULTY WITH IS THE REVERSE.
WE ASKED PEOPLE TO COME AND BE
BRUTALLY HONEST WITH US WHEN
THEY COME INTO A PAROLE HEARING
PAROLE PANEL ATTORNEYS
CONSTANTLY TELLING THEIR THEIR
CLIENTS TO BE HONEST WITH THE
BOARD. SO IF THEY COME IN AND
SAY YES, I HAD A RELAPSE. IT WAS
DOCUMENTED. THIS WAS MY RESPONSE
. MY RESPONSE TO IT WAS PRO
SOCIAL, UNLIKE WHEN I WAS IN THE
COMMUNITY, I SOUGHT HELP. I GOT
HELP. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I
DID NOT RESORT TO VIOLENCE. IT
DIDN'T RESULT IN ANY SORT OF
IMPULSIVE RESPONSE. WE HAVE NO
WAY IF WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
THE DOCUMENTS. THERE'S NOT A WAY
TO CONFIRM THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY
HAPPENED TO HAVE SUMMARIZED THAT
IN THE DOCUMENTATION. WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IN THAT CASE COULD DELAY
THAT PERSON'S GRAND. I JUST
THINK THAT THERE ARE SO AND
WE'VE GONE DOWN THIS PATH. WE'VE
GOT SOMEONE DOWN SO MANY PATHS.
UM DOING THIS DANCE TALKING
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UM,
COMPETING COMPETITION OF
INTERESTS. EVERY. EVERY
OPPORTUNITY. EVERY EVERY
PROPOSAL THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH
THAT, UM ANYBODY HAS SUGGESTED,
UM, HAS RESULTED IN UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES WHEN WE SIT DOWN,
AND WE TRY TO APPLY IT TO EVERY
FACT PATTERN THAT COMES BEFORE
US. THERE ARE NEGATIVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, AND SO
I WOULD CAUTION, FOLKS, UM OF
STEPPING INTO THIS AREA WITHOUT
A LOT MORE INFORMATION. I'D LIKE
THE OPPORTUNITY. TO REALLY TEST
RIGHT? WHAT AND HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MORE
INFORMED DECISIONS. SO IF THERE
IS SOMETHING THAT IS A CONCRETE
PROPOSAL, UM WHICH I PERSONALLY
DO NOT SUPPORT. UM BUT, UM, IF
THERE WAS, MAYBE THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT AND
SEE WHAT THE OUTCOMES WOULD BE.
UM THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS,
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IS
NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO
THIS INFORMATION, BUT THIS
INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY
NECESSARY FOR FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGISTS Tð. ACCURATELY
APPLY. UM, THE RISK ASSESSMENT
TOOL, THE STRUCTURED UM
STRUCTURED JUDGMENT, STRUCTURED
, PROFESSIONAL MODULE MODEL THAT
THEY USE FOR DETERMINING RISK IN
OUR PAROLE HEARINGS. THIS
INFORMATION IS VERY RELEVANT TO
THEIR ASSESSMENTS, SO I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THE, UM HOW IT WOULD
AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THOSE
RISK ASSESSMENTS IF THEY DID NOT
HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION,
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE PRO BOARD
DURING THE HEARING. IT'S THE
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS LEADING
UP TO THAT HEARING THAT THAT
WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS AS
WELL. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I
ASSUME THAT YOU WILL, UH BE ABLE
TO FOLLOW UP WITH MR SPECTER.
YES, GREAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO
GET A LITTLE BIT OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION. UH PRIOR OF THE
PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF I
S U D T. UH PROGRAM AND
MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT
PROGRAMMING AT THE SCALE THAT IT
IS NOW HOW DID THE PAROLE BOARD
ASSESS A PERSON'S SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF
MAKING A PAROLE DETERMINATION?
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL BE
SURPRISING TO YOU OR NOT, BUT
USUALLY THERE ARE A LOT OF
INDICATORS, UM, THAT SOMEBODY
HAS AN ISSUE WITH SUBSTANCE
SUBSTANCES IN PRISON, SO THERE
MIGHT BE SOME CONTRABAND THAT
WAS FOUND. THERE MIGHT BE, UM,
DRUG DEBTS THAT ARE OWED. THERE
MIGHT BE A VARIETY OF OTHER WAYS
. THERE'S ALSO THE RANDOM
TESTING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
AND AGAIN WE TELL PEOPLE WHAT'S
MOST IMPORTANT IS TO BE REALLY
HONEST WITH US. LOTS OF PEOPLE
ADMIT TO WHEN THEY LAST USED.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE IMPEACHED WITH
OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IN
THE RECORD THAT SUGGESTS
OTHERWISE. BUT A LOT OF TIMES
THEY'RE NOT SO IN THAT RESPECT,
THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED VERY
MUCH. ONE THING THAT HAS
CHANGED, WHICH I WANT TO ADD, IS
A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC HERE AS
WELL. I RESPECT WHY IT HAPPENED
, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
THERE IN THE MENTAL HEALTH
DELIVERY SYSTEM WHO RECEIVE
THEIR REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING
THROUGH. THE MENTAL HEALTH
DELIVERY SYSTEM. SO NOTES ABOUT
THE REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING
THAT THEY'VE TAKEN IS IN THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH RECORD. AND THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE
ACCESS TO SO I THINK THAT, UM I
THINK THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER
TIME THAT HAVE MADE THIS A
PARTICULARLY COMPLEX ISSUE. BUT
. IT IS IN ANY WAY DISCOURAGING
PEOPLE FROM SEEKING TREATMENT TO
THE CONTRARY. WHAT WE TELL
PEOPLE IS THAT THE SOONER YOU GO
TO I S U D T THE SOONER THAT YOU
SEEK TREATMENT AND SHOW US THAT
YOU ACTUALLY CAN SEEK HELP. FOR
WHAT YOU KNOW YOU NEED HELP FOR
THAT IS THE FIRST STEP TO
BECOMING SUITABLE FOR PAROLE. I
THINK IT IS A FALLACY TO SUGGEST
THAT PEOPLE WERE DENIED OUR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE
WHO STILL HAD ACTIVE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE ISSUES. I JUST DON'T I
HAVE NOT SEEN EVIDENCE OF THAT.
THANK YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. SO IF A PERSON FIRST
CAME INTO PRISON AND WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH A SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER, BUT NEVER PARTICIPATED
IN TREATMENTS. BUT ALSO NEVER
FAILED A DRUG TEST OR GOT
WRITTEN UP FOR ANYTHING RELATED
TO DRUGS. BASED ON THIS FACTOR
ALONE WITH THIS PERSON LIKELY BE
DENIED. BECAUSE THEY NEVER
PARTICIPATED IN A PROGRAM OR
WOULD THEY LIKELY BE RELEASED
BECAUSE THEY NEVER GOT IN
TROUBLE? SO WE WOULD APPLY THE
STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING
FRAMEWORK. THAT ALONE SHOULD NOT
BE THE ISSUE THAT GETS THEM IF
THEY ARE DENIED DENIED. IT IS
USUALLY MY EXPERIENCE A MYRIAD
OF FACTORS, NOT JUST ONE. WE
HAVE HAD CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE
JUST ABSTAINED. UM AND THERE'S
NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT
THEY CONTINUE TO HAVE A
SUBSTANCE USE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE
ISSUE. SO IT IT VARIES. IT'S A
VERY INDIVIDUALIZED
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND I
DO THINK THAT GIVEN I LIKE THE
AND APPRECIATE THAT BOTH OF YOU
INDICATED THAT THIS IS
ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF POLICY,
AND I DO THINK THAT THERE IS
SOME EVIDENCE. TO THE EFFECT OF
ENSURING THAT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE
TO STEP IN AND THAT AND HAVE THE
SAFE SPACE THAT MAY BE CREATED
TO THEM THROUGH THE PROVISION OF
ISSUE D T P BEING USED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THEIR
PAROLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW SAFE
THAT SPACE CAN BE, UM AND
WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ACTUALLY
BE SEEKING THE TREATMENT THAT
THEY THAT THEY NEED QUITE AS
FREQUENTLY SO I THINK AN AREA OF
FURTHER EXPLORATION FOR SURE. I
APPRECIATE YOUR FORTHRIGHTNESS
AND. AH AND BEING WILLING TO BE
INCREDIBLY RESPONSIVE TO THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED
HERE IN ONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME. BEFORE WE
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TIME, I
MIGHT JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE
COMMENT. THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC IS
RAGING IN OUR COUNTRY AND IN OUR
PRISONS, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
MADE CRITICAL INVESTMENTS IN
FENTANYL RELATED ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES, AND I S U D T P WE
HEARD FROM MISS HINES ABOUT THE
INCREDIBLE WORK THAT THE HEALTH
STAFF HAVE BEEN DOING TO
IMPLEMENT. I SEE DTP AND THE
PROMISING RESULTS SO FAR. THE
DIFFICULTY WITH THIS ISSUE IS
THAT WITH MOST SUBSTANCE USE
DISORDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS
INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE PRISON.
RELAPSES ARE COMMON. ARE A
COMMON OCCURRENCE, AND IT WAS
EASY TO KEEP IF IT WAS EASY TO
HEAR. WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE
CURRENT SITUATION. IF YOU GET
TREATMENT ON THE OUTSIDE, THERE
ARE MANY PRIVACY PROTECTIONS DUE
TO THE STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION
. WHILE WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
REPLICATE THAT LEVEL OF
PROTECTION IN PRISON, AND THERE
ARE OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER,
IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT WE WANT
TO ENCOURAGE AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE IN PRISON TO
PARTICIPATE IN GETTING
TREATMENT. NOT ONLY TO HELP
THEM, BUT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
DEPENDS ON THE ABILITY TO BREAK
THE NEXUS BETWEEN SUBSTANCE USE
AND CRIME. AND THE USE AND
HEALING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN OUR
PRISON SYSTEM. AND IF THERE IS A
PART OF THE PAROLE PROCESS THAT
COULD BE SAFELY MODIFIED IN
ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION
, WE SHOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST
TRY IT OUT. AND IF WE CAN'T
SCALE IT FOR DECADES, WE'VE BEEN
REALLY SEEING PEOPLE FROM PRISON
THAT HAVE YET TO COMPLETELY
MANAGE THEIR SUBSTANCE. USE THIS
USE DISORDER AND WE STILL DO. WE
HAVE A TOOL NOW. WE'RE USING IT.
LET'S CONTINUE TO USE IT. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE PANELISTS FOR
THIS IMPORTANT CONVERSATION, AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED
CONVERSATION. WE'LL MOVE ON NOW
TO OUR NEXT ISSUE. WHICH IS
ISSUE TWO CLASS ACTION
LITIGATION. FOR THIS ITEM. I'VE
ASKED THE LAO TO PROVIDE US WITH
AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR CLASS
ACTION LITIGATION CASES. AGAINST
CDCR, AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM
CDCR ON THEIR BUDGET PROPOSALS,
THEIR LITIGATION STRATEGY, THE
PROGRESS THEY'VE MADE ON THE
LAWSUITS, INCLUDING CHALLENGES
AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THESE LAWSUITS. WILL BEGIN WITH
THE L A. OH, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MY NAME IS ORLANDO
SANCHEZ WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST SAUSAGE OFFICE. OBVIOUS
STARTING OFF BY PROVIDING AN
OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE SIX.
SORRY SOME OF THOSE SIX LIKE
MAJOR LITIGATIONS AFFECTING CDCR
ARE AND I'LL START OFF WITH THE
COLEMAN CASE. COLEMAN IS A
FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
FILED IN 1990. ON BEHALF OF
INCARCERATED PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED
MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND CDCR IN
1995. THE COMMON COURT RULED
THAT CDCR WAS NOT PROVIDING
CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE MENTAL
HEALTH CARE. THE COURT
IDENTIFIED VARIOUS AREAS OF
IMPROVEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE
COURT FOUND THAT THE STATE HAD
CHRONIC UNDERSTAFFING OF
PSYCHIATRIC UH, PSYCHIATRISTS
AND LED TO SIGNIFICANT DELAYS
AND EVEN DENIAL OF ACCESS TO
CARE FOR. FOR PEOPLE WITH SEVERE
MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS. AS A
RESULT, THE COURT APPOINTED A
SPECIAL MASTER TO MONITOR AND
REPORT ON CDCR S PROGRESS
TOWARDS PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE
LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTHCARE TO
IMPROVE THE CARE OF THE STATE
HAS TAKEN VARIOUS ACTIONS,
INCLUDING IMPLEMENTING STAFFING
CHANGES AND MENTAL HEALTH
INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PSYCHIATRIC
FACILITIES. BUT I JUST WANTED TO
NOTE THAT THE SPECIAL MASTER
CONTINUES TO MONITOR THE ISH AND
ISSUE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
DEPARTMENT. ANOTHER CASE IS THE
PLASTIC CASE FILED IN 2001 IS
CONTENDS THAT CDCR FAILED TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE.
THE PLOT OF CORE FOUND NUMEROUS
PROBLEMS SUCH AS LACK OF MEDICAL
RECORDS AND LACK OF QUALIFIED
STAFF THAT EVENTUALLY LED TO
PREVENTABLE DEATHS IN 2006 AFTER
FINDING THE LEVEL OF CARE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE PLOT
ACCORD APPOINTED A FEDERAL
RECEIVER. TO TAKE CONTROL OVER
THE DIRECT MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATION OF CDCR S MEDICAL CARE
SYSTEM. THE RECEIVER HAS
INITIATED VARIOUS PROJECTS SUCH
AS IMPLEMENTING THE ELECTRONIC
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS I T PROJECT
, INCREASING WAGES OF MEDICAL
STAFF AND BUILDING ADDITIONAL.
MEDICAL CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE,
THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY IN STOCKTON AND AS WELL
AS NUMEROUS HEALTH CARE FACILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. UM, AND
MEDICATION DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS
ACROSS THE STATE. THEY'RE NOT.
MOVING ON IN 2006 PLAINTIFFS IN
BOTH THE PLATTER CASE THAT I
JUST SPOKE ABOUT IN THE COLEMAN
CASE FILED MOTIONS TO THE COURTS
TO CONVENE A FEDERAL THREE JUDGE
PANEL THE ARGUED THAT PERSISTENT
OVERCROWDING WAS ONE OF THE MAIN
REASONS PREVENTING CDCR FROM
FROM PROVIDING ADEQUATE
HEALTHCARE. IN 2011, THE U. S.
SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE RULING.
FROM THE THREE JUDGE PANEL THAT
OVERCROWDING WAS ONE OF THE
MAJOR ISSUE ISSUES LEADING. TO
UM, LEADING TO HEALTHCARE BEING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE
UM 100. IT ORDERED THE STATE.
REDUCE OVERCROWDING AND IT'S AND
IT'S FACILITIES TO 137% OF ITS
DESIGNED CAPACITY. AT THE TIME
THE STATE PRISON SYSTEM HAD
ABOUT 145,000 PEOPLE, WHICH
REPRESENTS ABOUT 180% DESIGN
CAPACITY. FOLLOWING THIS RULING,
THE STATE IMPLEMENTED A SERIES
OF ACTIONS TO REDUCE
OVERCROWDING SUCH AS THE 2011
REALIGNMENT. THE BUILDING OF
INFILL FACILITIES AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROP 57. THE
STATE NOW HAS BEEN BELOW THIS
CAB FOR SINCE ABOUT 2015. AND AS
OF MARCH, THE STATE'S PRISON
POPULATION OCCUPIES ABOUT 110%
OF THE PRISON SYSTEM. THE
PRISONS DESIGNED CAPACITY, THEN
I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SET OF
COURT CASES THAT ARE IN RELATION
TO THE AMERICAN WITH
DISABILITIES ACT, WHICH PROVIDES
CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS. AND
ACCESS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SERVICES FOR THOSE FOR THOSE
WITH DISABILITIES. THE ARMSTRONG
CASE IN 1994 PLAINTIFFS FILED A
FEDERAL CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
ALLEGING THAT CDCR WAS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH A D. A THAT
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES DID NOT
HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. FOR
EXAMPLE, PEOPLE WITH HEARING
IMPEDIMENTS WERE NOT PROVIDED
THE SAME LEVEL OF ACCESS TO
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS WHICH
AFFECTED THEIR ABILITY TO BE
RELEASED BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE
HEARINGS. 1999 CDCR NEGOTIATED A
SETTLEMENT. AND. AND WITHIN THAT
SETTLEMENT DEVELOPED THE
ARMSTRONG REMEDIAL PLAN, FOR
EXAMPLE, AND AS PART OF THE
REMEDIAL PLAN, THE STATE HIRED
QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS AND
PROVIDES NECESSARY MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT AND ACCOMMODATIONS.
THE ARMSTRONG COURT CONTINUES TO
MONITOR FOR COMPLIANCE. AND THEN
. ANOTHER. A SECOND ONE IS PART
OF THE A. D A HAS BEEN THE CLERK
LITIGATION IS ANOTHER FEDERAL
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON BE FILED
IN 1996 ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. THE
CASE. CONTENTS AT THE STATE
VIOLATED 88 BY DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST PEOPLE IN PRISON. AND
DENYING THEM ADEQUATE
ACCOMMODATIONS. IN 2001, THE
STATE AGREED TO TAKE A SERIES OF
ACTIONS TO SETTLE THE CASE. BY
COMPLYING IN REVISING ITS
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND
THIS BECAME KNOWN AS THE CLARK
REMEDIAL PLAN. AS PART OF THE
REMEDIAL PLAN. THE STATE NOW
IDENTIFIES PEOPLE WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND
PLACES THEM AT DESIGNATED
FACILITIES. THERE THEY CAN
RECEIVE. PROGRAMMING AND ACCESS
TO TREATMENT, AND THE CLERK
COURT CONTINUES TO MONITOR THE
STATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REMEDIAL PLAN. THE LAST MAJOR
COURT CASES KNOWN AS ASHKAR
ASHKAR IS A FEDERAL CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
FILED IN 2009. AMENDED AGAIN IN
2012 ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE WHO
WERE IN LONG TERM SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT. WITHIN CDCR S
SECURITY HOUSING UNITS
SPECIFICALLY AT PELICAN BAY
STATE PRISON. IN 2015 CDCR
SETTLED THE LAWSUIT. THE TERMS
OF THE SETTLEMENT INCLUDED
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO CDCR S
SECURITY HOUSING UNIT POLICIES
THAT LIMIT ITS USE AND REQUIRE
THE DEPARTMENT TO TRANSITION
PEOPLE TO GENERAL POPULATION
MORE QUICKLY THAN BEFORE. THE
COURTS HAVE ORDERED ADDITIONAL
MONITORING DUE TO ONGOING
VIOLATIONS, SUCH AS FINDING
RETAIL. FINDINGS OF RETALIATION
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS. UM AND
THAT WRAPS UP THE SIX MAJOR ONES
AFFECTING SYRIA, CDCR THINKING
I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
I WILL JUST NOTE THAT AND THANK
YOU FOR THE VERY THOROUGH, UM,
OVERVIEW. UH MY CALCULATION WAS
THAT THIS IS FIVE MAJOR CLASS
ACTION LAWSUITS. THAT
CUMULATIVELY ADD UP TO 104 YEARS
OF LITIGATION. AH WELL NEXT YEAR
FROM CONNIE GIBSON, DIRECTOR OF
DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS.
APOLOGIZE MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
MADELEINE MCLEAN. I'M GONNA DO
THE BRIEF OVERVIEW. AND THEN I
DO HAVE MY COLLEAGUES HERE, UM,
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE TO BREAK THIS UP INTO TWO
PARTS. ONE IS JUST TO TALK ABOUT
THE THREE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE
BEFORE YOU AND THE SECOND PIECE
IS TO TALK ABOUT LITIGATION
COSTS. THE FIRST THERE'S THREE
PROPOSALS INCLUDED IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. THE FIRST IS
3.7 MILLION GENERAL FUND TO
SUPPORT DOJ LEGAL FEES. BY
STATUTE. DOJ REPRESENTS. STATE
AND CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERS
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT'S
APPELLATE CORDS AND SUPREME
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE
UNITED STATES. THIS REQUEST
UTILIZES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FOR
21 22, A COMBINATION OF ACTUAL
AND ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR
22 23 IS THE BASIS FOR THIS
REQUEST, AND I REALIZED I
APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT INTRODUCE
MYSELF. MADELEINE MCLEAN DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, CDCR THE SECOND
PROPOSAL IN THIS ITEM IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IS 500,000
ONGOING GENERAL FUND FOR TWO
OMBUDSMAN TO SUPPORT COURT
MANDATED REMEDIAL MEASURES
ASSOCIATED WITH ARMSTRONG, THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AS
LIAISON BETWEEN CDCR AND
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
STAKEHOLDERS. UH AND IT AND AS
SUCH, PROVIDES SUPPORT TO
INCARCERATED POPULATION ADVOCACY
GROUPS AND THE PUBLIC. THE
OFFICE ALSO PROVIDES
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND
THEIR FAMILIES AND NEUTRAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL PLATFORM TO
COMMUNICATE CONCERNS. A NEW
MEASURE THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED AS
PART OF THE ARMSTRONG REMEDIAL
PLAN REQUIRES THE OFFICE TO
PARTICIPATE IN QUARTERLY
INTERVIEWS OF CLASS MEMBERS AT
THE SIXTH INSTITUTIONS
IDENTIFIED IN THE RICHARD J.
DONOVAN ARMSTRONG REMEDIAL PLAN
AND THEN THE FIVE PRISON
REMEDIAL PLAN. THE LAST PROPOSAL
WILL PROVIDE 2.8 MILLION ONGOING
GENERAL FUND AND 17 POSITIONS TO
SUPPORT REMEDIAL MEASURES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLERK CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT AND INCLUDES TWO
COMPONENTS. ONE IS I T RESOURCES
TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN
UPDATE TO THE STRATEGIC OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO SUPPORT
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY COMPLIANCE FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION
FIVE, AWAIT COMPLIANCE AND 15
POSITIONS TO BE DEPLOYED AT
INSTITUTIONS WITH THE HIGHEST
NUMBER OF CLARK CLASS MEMBERS.
THESE POSITIONS WILL PERFORM
TASKS TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF
THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
POPULATION AND INCLUDE
COMPLETION AND AUDITING OF THE
ADAPTIVE WALKS OF SUPPORT LOGS,
VICTIMIZATION, INTERVIEWS AND
ASSISTANCE WITH READING AND
WRITING ACTIVITIES. BOTH OF
THESE PROPOSALS WILL INCREASE
THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO MEET
THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS
WITH DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES. AS NOTED IN THE
AGENDA. CDCR SUBMITTED ITS
ANNUAL REPORT ON CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT EXPENDITURES ON JANUARY
31ST 2023. THE CRS EXPENDED
APPROXIMATELY 145.5 MILLION ON
LITIGATION OVER THE PAST FIVE
FISCAL YEARS. OF THAT
APPROXIMATELY 243.6 MILLION WAS
FOR THE SEVEN CASES THAT ARE IN
THE REMEDIAL PHASE APPROXIMATELY
ONE MILLION FOR THE FOUR CASES
THAT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
COURT AND ARE STILL IN THE
LITIGATION PHASE AND
APPROXIMATELY 900,000 FOR THE
REMAINING SEVEN CASES THAT ARE
NOT BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE COURTS
. SPECIFICALLY 142.8 MILLION IS
ON ARMSTRONG ASHKAR COLEMAN AND
PLAYED A AS THE ELIO UM IT'S
PROVIDED IN THEIR OWN OVERVIEW.
LITIGATION COSTS INCLUDE OFFICE
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL FEES.
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY FEES.
COLEMAN SPECIAL SPECIAL MASTER
FEES OUTSIDE COUNSEL CHARGES IN
COURT EXPERT FEES. IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE COMPLIANCE.
THE STATEMENTS DEMONSTRATE ITS
ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND
CARE TO ALL INCARCERATED.
THEREFORE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH IMPLEMENTING ANY COURT
ORDER OR SETTLEMENT WILL
CONTINUE AFTER THE LITIGATION IS
RESOLVED AS THE OBLIGATION TO
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES, UM TO
MEET THE INCARCERATED NEEDS MUST
REMAIN IN PERPETUITY. AS SUCH,
THESE COSTS ARE NOW PART OF THE
STATE'S ONGOING OVERALL
EXPENDITURE PLAN. CCR TAKES
THESE MATTERS VERY SERIOUSLY AND
CONTINUE TO WORK CONTINUES TO
WORK WITH THE COURT'S PLAINTIFFS
, COLEMAN SPECIAL MASTER AND
PLOT A RECEIVER AS APPROPRIATE
TO RESOLVE ISSUES WHEN RAISED.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE CONTINUE TO
PREPARE FOR A POST LITIGATION
ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE STATE
PROVIDES THE APPROPRIATE
CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL OF CARE,
MEETS OR EXCEEDS COMMUNITY
STANDARDS AND MAINTAINS A SAFE
AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS AND
STAFF. ADDITIONALLY CDCR IS
TAKING PROACTIVE STEPS TO
CHALLENGE CORRECTIONAL NORMS BY
CREATING A HEALTHIER AND SAFER
ENVIRONMENT AND PREPARING
INDIVIDUALS SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL
COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION. AS
MENTIONED BY SECRETARY MCCUMBER
. CDCR S COMMITTED TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
MODEL, THE FOUNDATION OF WHICH
IS BASED ON TO CORE PILLARS. THE
FIRST IS FOCUSED ON THE WELLNESS
OF OUR STAFF, AND THE SECOND IS
BASED ON SUPPORTING THE UNIQUE
NEEDS OF EACH INCARCERATED
PERSON WITHIN OUR CARE.
ADDITIONALLY CCR S LOOKING TO
LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF
INCARCERATED AND STAFF
OPERATIONS WHILE ENHANCING
INSTITUTIONAL SAFETY. CCR IS
FOCUSED ON ACHIEVABLE IT
SOLUTIONS AS PART OF ITS
COMPREHENSIVE DIGITAL STRATEGY.
TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY,
TRANSPARENCY. COMPLIANCE TO
REDUCE LITIGATION. GRIEVANCES
INCREASED STAFF MORALE, ACHIEVED
COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND REDUCE
PAPERWORK PROCESSES. BOTH OF
THESE EFFORTS ARE DESIGNED TO
COMPLEMENT EXISTING OPERATION
AND ACTIVITIES TO ASSIST WITH
ENDING CURRENTLY LITIGATION AND
AVOIDING FUTURE LITIGATION. I
WILL NOTE THAT YOU DID REQUEST,
UM, OVERVIEW OF OUR LITIGATION
STRATEGY. WE DO HAVE OUR CHIEF
COUNSEL IN THE AUDIENCE. HOWEVER
WE DO WANT TO CAUTION THAT WERE
IN ACTIVE LITIGATION ON THESE
CASES AND THE STATE'S APPROACH
TO LITIGATION OR ANY STRATEGY TO
MITIGATE LITIGATION CANNOT BE
DISCUSSED. HOWEVER THE STATE HAS
A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF IN ANY
DECISIONS MADE IN REGARDS TO
THIS OR DONE IN CONSULTATION
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE. AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THAT REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE IN
ALL MATTERS BEFORE THE COURTS.
WITH THAT. I HAVE DIRECTOR
CONNIE GIBSON HERE AND DR VICK.
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE. THANK YOU. I THINK WE'LL
HEAR FROM DR WICK NOW. WELL,
JUST FOR QUESTIONS, OKAY? MISS
HEWITT. ALLYSON HEWITT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NO
SPECIFIC COMMENTS, BUT AVAILABLE
FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, UH AND I'LL JUST START OFF
BY SAYING I'M APPRECIATIVE OF
THE PROVISION OF SOME OF THE
INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR COSTS
RELATED TO LITIGATION. I AM A
BIT BAFFLED, HOWEVER, BY THE
OVERALL INCOMPLETENESS OF THAT
INFORMATION. ONE OF THE PRIMARY
FUNCTIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS
TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND IN
ORDER TO FULFILL THAT DUTY FIRST
AND FOREMOST, WE ACTUALLY NEED
THE INFORMATION. AND NOT JUST
SOME OF THE INFORMATION BUT ALL
OF IT. AND IN THE INSTANCE HERE
WE HAD I THINK SOME CHALLENGES
AND BEING ABLE TO NOT ONLY
UNDERSTAND DIRECT LEGAL COSTS,
COSTS OF SETTLEMENT AND COST OF
REMEDIATION OVER TIME, SO I'M
STRIVING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ACTUALLY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE
VIEW OF THE COST OF LITIGATION
THAT HAS OCCURRED WITH CDCR, AND
EVEN IF IT WAS JUST THESE CLASS
ACTION LAWSUITS. OVER THE PAST
CUMULATIVELY, 106 YEARS OF
LITIGATION. SO MY FIRST QUESTION
IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
. YOU SENT US A LIST OF THE BCPS
SINCE 2016 TO 2017 THAT YOU
CONSIDERED RELATED TO THE CLASS
ACTION LAWSUITS JUST LOOKING AT
THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED RESOURCES,
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ONLY LISTED OUT
THE COURT COMPLIANCE BCP. WE
HAVE TWO OTHER BCPS ONE. OF THEM
IS ACTUALLY TITLED CLARK
LITIGATION COMPLIANCE, AND THE
OTHER ONE IS DOJ LEGAL FEES.
PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND FROM
YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THOSE WHY
THOSE RESOURCES WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE TABLE. THANK
YOU, ALISON HEWITT AGAIN, SO
FINANCE DID NOT PREPARE THIS
TABLE. SO AT THE RISK OF
ATTRIBUTION, WE WORKED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT WHO IS ABLE TO
PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION. I'LL
DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE SO I WILL
ASK THE QUESTION OR HOPEFULLY
HEARD THE QUESTION WILL BE ABLE
TO ANSWER IT. CERTAINLY WHEN WE
WERE PREPARING THAT LIST, WE
WERE TRYING TRYING TO FIND A
LIST OF EXAMPLES THAT WOULD
HIGHLIGHT THE NEED THAT WE FOR
THE ITEMS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY
COURT ORDERS, FOR EXAMPLE, UH,
THE CLARK COMPLIANCE IS
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY
COURT ORDERED US TO ASSIST IN
THE REMOTE IN OUR GOAL, AND WHEN
MEETING THE REMEDIATION PLAN,
DOJ LEGAL FEES, UH, COMPONENT
WAS IS A MIX OF BOTH CLASS
ACTION AND OTHER LAWSUITS. SO
IT'S A CUMULATIVE LOOK AT ALL OF
THE HOURS THAT WE SPEND IN TERMS
OF LITIGATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, SO IT'S NOT ISOLATED TO
ONE SPECIFIC CLASS ACTION
COMPONENT. I'M JUST PUZZLED BY
THEIR NOT BEING A CHART OF
ACCOUNTS THAT ACTUALLY HAS
ATTRIBUTION AROUND PARTICULAR
REMEDIATION. LEGAL COSTS AND
SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY
PARTICULAR CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT,
GIVEN THE EXTENT OF THE OF THE
IN. SAD TO USE THIS WORD
INVESTMENT THAT WE'VE MADE IN
LITIGATING THESE CASES. I THINK
THAT BCPS ALONE FROM 16 2016 TO
2022 RELATED AS WE CAN SEE JUST
WHERE I GUESS CLASS ACTION WAS
MENTIONED, UH, WERE TOTALED
$4.25 BILLION, SO. AT SOME
POINT, I THINK WE NEED A LOT
MORE VISIBILITY INTO ACTUALLY
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. UM SO
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'VE
NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY PRISON
CLASS ACTION. LITIGATION DO HAVE
A SENSE OF WHAT WHAT BILLING IS
BECAUSE I'VE HAD TO DO IT MYSELF
. UM AND I DO KNOW THAT SOME
COURT ORDER SPECIFICALLY ORDER
WHAT THE STATE HAS TO DO. OTHER
COURT ORDERS THAT A REQUIREMENT
THAT THE STATE MUST MEET. BUT
PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY AS TO THE
STRATEGIES THAT CAN EMPLOY TO
MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, SO I'M
TROUBLED BY A RESPONSE THAT
ESSENTIALLY SAYS WE CAN'T FIGURE
IT OUT OR WE DON'T KNOW OR IT'S
CLOUDED OR IT'S. IT'S JUST NOT
AVAILABLE TO US. UM BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE US WITH
THIS OBJECTIVE INFORMATION THAT
WE NEED OR THE OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO
PREVENT. UM NOT OVER INVESTING
IN PARTICULAR LITIGATION. HAVING
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHY
IT'S COSTING US SO MUCH TO
LITIGATE AND RELITIGATE THESE
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS, AND IT'S
NOT GIVING THIS COMMITTEE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE THE INFORMATION
THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO
OUR JOB. CAN YOU SPEAK TO
WHETHER ANY CLASS ACTION
LAWSUITS NOT JUST THE MAJOR
CASES DISCUSSED TODAY HAVE PAID
OUT SETTLEMENTS TO CLASS
MEMBERS. I AM NOT 100% CERTAIN I
WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH OUR
LEGAL COUNSEL ON THAT, UM I
APOLOGIZE. WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE?
COOL. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
JENNIFER NEAL, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS AT
CDCR. WE HAVE NOT PAID OUT ANY,
UM, CLASS ACTION MONETARY
SETTLEMENTS, EXCEPT FOR ONE THAT
I CAN THINK OF WHICH I DON'T
THINK PAYMENT HAS EVEN HAPPENED
YET. AND THAT IS FOR AN EMPLOYEE
CLASS ACTION FROM OUR EMPLOYEES,
NOT FROM AN INCARCERATED
POPULATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO
THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE CASH.
PAYMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT. TODAY
THAT I CAN THINK OF. YES, AND
THAT'S FOR BACK WAGES. IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE
DOCUMENTED AND THAT IS ACTUALLY
TRACKED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY.
UM YES, WE WILL HAVE THAT. ALSO
WITH KELLY CHAR. UM IT'S PART OF
THE PAYING OF THAT TWO WERE
JOINT DEFENDANTS. THANK YOU. MY
NEXT QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE
DEPARTMENT'S LITIGATION
STRATEGY. I STILL DON'T THINK
IT'S CLEAR TO ME WHAT YOUR
STRATEGY IS BEYOND WHAT A
FEDERAL JUDGE REFERRED TO AS A
COSTLY SCORCHED EARTH.
LITIGATION STRATEGY. DR BIC AND
MISS GIBSON. IF YOU CAN DO YOU
PLAY A ROLE IN DETERMINING THE
LITIGATION STRATEGY. I'M HI. I'M
KINDA GIBSON. I SERVE AS A
DIRECTOR FOR THE DIVISION OF
ADULT INSTITUTIONS WITHIN CDCR.
AND I AM INVOLVED IN MEETINGS
WITH OUR AGENCY EXECUTIVE AS
WELL AS OUR LEGAL TEAM. UM WHERE
WE DO DISCUSS, UH, WHAT WOULD BE
OUR STRATEGIES, BUT I THINK, AS
MISS MACLEAN SAID, BECAUSE WE'RE
IN LITIGATION WITH THESE CASES
WERE NOT ABLE TO SAY OPENLY WHAT
OUR STRATEGY IS. I CAN TELL YOU
WE TAKE THESE CASES VERY
SERIOUSLY. AGENCY SECRETARY
DOES. MONTHLY MEETINGS ON THREE
OF THOSE LAWSUITS HERE, WHERE
HE'S GOT ALL THE INVOLVED
PARTIES AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT ARE OUR BARRIERS TO
COMPLIANCE AND HOW DO WE GET OUT
OF THESE LAWSUITS? SO THERE'S
SOMETHING THAT'S CONSTANTLY
DISCUSSED WITH THE AGENCY ABOUT
THE CHALLENGES WERE HAPPENING.
WHAT ARE SOLUTIONS SO THAT WE
CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND
HAVE SUSTAINABLE COMPLIANCE TO
BE ABLE TO COME OUT OF THESE
LAWSUITS? SO THE LITIGATION
STRATEGY DOES EMPLOY. FOLKS
BEYOND ATTORNEYS. YES ACTUAL
PRACTITIONERS, PEOPLE WITHIN
CDCR WHO ARE SEEKING COMPLIANCE.
WOULD YOU CONCUR? GOOD AFTERNOON
, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JOSEPH
VICK. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
CARE SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL ALSO CARE SERVICES
AND CDCR. AND YES, I WOULD AGREE
WITH DIRECTOR GIBSON. WE ARE
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. AND I WOULD SAY
THAT MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN VERY
DIFFERENT AS FROM WHAT YOU'VE
CHARACTERIZED. IN FACT, IT'S NOT
A CHARACTERIZATION. IT'S
ACTUALLY AN INDICATION OF WHAT
THE FEDERAL JUDGE REFERENCE THE
LEGAL STRATEGY TO THANK YOU FOR
THAT CORRECTION. MY EXPERIENCE
HAS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT SHE HAS WRITTEN THERE. WHAT
I HAVE SEEN IS INTENSE EFFORTS
TO COLLABORATE WITH PLAINTIFFS
AND WITH THE COURT EXPERTS AND
THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING OUR
PATIENTS, OUR CLIENTS IN A WAY
TO TRY TO BRING THEM THE
SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. SO MY
EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN DIFFERENT IN
THAT REGARD. LOOK AT THAT. I ASK
MY COLLEAGUE IF HE HAS ANY
QUESTIONS FOR WORK CONTINUE. I
THINK AND I'VE BEEN HERE FOR A
LITTLE BIT. UM, BEEN THROUGH,
UH, THE PREVIOUS RECEIVER. I
THINK WHAT. THE FRUSTRATING PART
IS THIS IS THE BUDGET COMMITTEE,
WHICH I USED TO CHAIR. AND, UM.
OBVIOUSLY UM WE WANT SOME TYPE
OF TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE THE
PUBLIC LOOKS AT US. UM HERE IN
THIS COMMITTEE TO GIVE THEM
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING
ON IN EVERY DEPARTMENT, CDC ARE
IS NO DIFFERENT. AND SO IT IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL. IF WE COULD
GET THAT INFORMATION, SO I'LL
USE THE WORD HELP US MOVE
FORWARD. WHO CAN MAKE CDCR
BETTER. UM I GUESS THE
FRUSTRATING THING IS. NOT BEING
ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION,
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS
COMMITTEE I COME FROM A SMALL
CITY CALLED LOS ANGELES AND THEY
USED TO GO WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY INTO
CLOSED SESSION. SO THEY COULD
DISCUSS SENSITIVE MATERIAL OR
THINGS THAT BECAUSE OF
LITIGATION. UM AND THEN WE WERE
SWORN TO SECRECY. WHOEVER WAS IN
THAT MEETING THAT THEY COULD NOT
OBVIOUSLY, UM SAY WHAT? WHAT'S
GOING ON? UM I DON'T THINK THIS
COMMITTEE HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING
EVEN CLOSE TO THAT. AND I
WOULDN'T I WOULD IMAGINE WE
WOULDN'T WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO
THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE GET AS MUCH
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
OTHERWISE, WE'LL DO THINGS LIKE
. IF WE CAN'T GET THE
INFORMATION OR IF WE DON'T KNOW
WHY THINGS ARE GOING ON, IF WE
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE KEEP
PAYING AND PAYING MORE OUT, UM
YOU'LL HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS
LIKE MYSELF RECOMMENDING THAT WE
PAY THESE BILLS OUT OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. SO THAT YOU
GET A SENSE OF HOW IMPORTANT IS
THIS TO US? THAT YOU WORK HAND
IN HAND WITH US. TO ENSURE THAT
WHATEVER REMEDIES THAT NEED TO
HAPPEN THAT THERE WILL BE DONE.
AND A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU DON'T
FEEL THE PAIN, THE PAIN IS
COMING FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
THAT'S OR LAWSUITS ARE NOT PAID
OUT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. LAPD DOES SOMETHING IT'S
NOT PAID OUT OF THEIR BUDGET.
IT'S PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL
FUND, SO NO ONE REALLY ACTUALLY
THINK IT'S A SPECIAL FUNDS. SO
NO ONE REALLY EVER FEELS THE
PAIN AND NOBODY REALLY
UNDERSTANDS. HOW THE MAGNITUDE A
LOT OF THE LAWSUITS THAT ARE
GOING ON. AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY
THE FRUSTRATION YOU'RE FEELING
RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING
A SENSE. THAT, UM WE'RE GETTING
THE FULL STORY OF WHAT'S GOING
ON. AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT WE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW
WE CAN GET TO THAT, UM AND AGAIN
IF IT'S. CLOSED SESSION OR WE
CAN TALK. IF YOU GET ENOUGH
ATTORNEYS AROUND SOMEBODY ELSE.
FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THIS DONE.
UM WE ALL SIT AROUND AND FIGURE
THIS OUT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. UM,
ESPECIALLY LAWSUITS THAT WE FIND
OUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND ENSURE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO
REPETITION. IT'S SO IMPORTANT
THAT WE DON'T HAVE REPETITION
RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY AT THIS
JUNCTURE. UM AS WE MOVE FORWARD
, AND SO THAT MIGHT SUGGESTION
IS IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN
GET THE ATTORNEYS. COME TOGETHER
TO GIVE US SOME ADVICE ON HOW WE
CAN BE BETTER. INFORMED ON
WHAT'S GOING ON. THANKS. I THINK
THE CHALLENGES THAT, UH, GIVEN
THE FACT THAT COLEMAN IS
LITERALLY 33 YEARS OLD STARTED
IN 1990. IT'S STILL GOING ON FOR
20 NOW AND 2023. UH, THE UM,
JUSTIFICATION OF WE CAN'T
DISCUSS BECAUSE WE ARE IN ACTIVE
LITIGATION FEELS LIKE AN EXCUSE.
TO ACTUALLY. TAKE ACTION. UM AND
. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DESIRE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CALIBER
AND I RECOGNIZE IT AS A LEGAL
EXCUSE. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS
AN EXCUSE BECAUSE THESE THINGS
SHOULD BE DISAPPEARING, NOT JUST
BEING ALLOWED TO CONTINUE YEAR
AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER 100
YEARS, UH, THE WE TALKED ABOUT
THE CALIFORNIA MODEL, AND I
DON'T THINK THAT THE CALIFORNIA
MODEL IN THIS MOMENT THAT WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS OPPORTUNITY
THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, TOO.
TRANSFORM OUR CARCEL SYSTEM.
INCLUDES A LEGAL STRATEGY THAT
APPARENTLY HAS AN APPROACH OF
OPPOSITION. NOT REALLY BEING
ABLE TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF CLIENTS.
THOSE THERE THOSE CLIMATE
CLIENTS THAT WANT TO BE ABLE TO
WHEN THE CASE AND THERE ARE
THOSE KINDS OF CLIENTS THAT WANT
TO ACTUALLY DO, RIGHT. AND STOP
DOING HARM. AND IN THESE CASES,
WHICH ALL INVOLVE REMEDIATION IF
WE ARE TAKING AN OBSTRUCTIONIST
APPROACH IN OUR LEGAL STRATEGY,
UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME
CASES THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING
145.5. MILLION IN DIRECT LEGAL
COSTS BEING SPENT OVER THE LAST
FIVE YEARS. BAKED INTO OUR
BUDGET AS A CONSTANT WHILE WE
ARE NOT ABLE TO AND DON'T HAVE
THE RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAMS AND THE SUPPORT AND THE
REHABILITATION THAT WE KNOW
ACTUALLY CREATES A DIFFERENT
REALITY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
IN OUR CARCEL SYSTEM. SO I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR
RESPONSE TO THAT, BUT THAT IS
ESSENTIALLY THE TRADE OFF THAT
WE'RE MAKING. WE'RE INVESTING IN
LITIGATION. NOT REMEDIATION. OR
REHABILITATION. AND IN TIGHT
BUDGET YEARS. WITH AN AGENDA AND
A DESIRE TO PROMOTE THE
CALIFORNIA MODEL. THOSE THINGS
DON'T ADD UP TO ME. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR QUESTION AND YOUR
STATEMENTS. I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE COST TO
THE DEPARTMENT INTO THE STATE IS
REALLY IN THE LITIGATION. AND WE
HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND
HIGHLIGHTED THAT FOR YOU IN THE
REPORT. I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN WE
HAVE DISCUSSED THESE CASES AND
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE COURT,
WE'VE AGREED TO EITHER A
SETTLEMENT OR REMEDIAL MEASURE
AND THE BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSALS.
THAT FOLLOWED ARE NOW PART OF
THE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATIONS AND
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD
THINGS TO MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS
GETTING OUT OF THESE LITIGATION
. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH PLATA WE
HAVE NOW, UM HAVE 20
INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
DELEGATED BACK TO THE STATE. WE
ARE MAKING PROGRESS IN THESE
AREAS. UM WITH COLEMAN. WE'RE
DOING SEVERAL INITIATIVES THAT
HAVE REDUCED THE OVERALL
POPULATION. WE'VE YOU KNOW, HAD
SOME STRUGGLES, AND WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS AN
ADDITIONAL CONTEMPT ORDER.
HOWEVER WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE COURT TO ADDRESS THOSE
ISSUES. UM SOME OTHER THINGS I
JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS YOU
KNOW WITH CLARK IN THE CLARK
CASE ARE DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED PERSONS AUDIT TOOL IS
NEARLY COMPLETE. WE'RE DOING
JOINT AUDITS AT INSTITUTIONS
ANNUALLY. SO FOR ALL OF THESE
CASES, WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS
AND THOSE WERE CAPTURED IN THE
BUDGET CHANGE. PROPOSALS ON
THOSE ARE NOW PART OF OUR
OPERATING BUDGET, SO REALLY, THE
COST NOW FOR CLASS ACTION AND
FOR LITIGATE IS JUST THE
LITIGATION COSTS BECAUSE WE HAVE
EITHER AGREED TO HER REMEDIATION
PLAN. WE'VE SETTLED OR WE WERE
ORDERED BY THE COURT TO DO SO.
WELL, NOT SHARING THE SPECIFICS
OF ANY PARTICULAR LEGAL STRATEGY
IN THESE FIVE. AH! CLASS ACTION
SUITS THAT ARE STILL ONGOING. DO
YOU ALL THIS LEGAL COUNSEL HAVE
THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE AN
OVERALL ATTITUDE AND INTENTION
OF HOW YOU APPROACH LITIGATION
OR INTENDED REMEDIATION. AGAIN.
AS I INDICATED WE ANY LITIGATION
STRATEGY IS DONE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES
ATTORNEYS AS THEY ARE THE ONES
WHO WILL LEAD THE ACTION ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE. WE
GENERALLY HAVE ALWAYS HAD A
COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE WITH THE
COURTS AND THE PLAINTIFFS, AND
WE DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH THEM
AND ADDRESS ISSUES AS THE LAST
YEAR COMES UP, SO IT'S NOT A
MATTER OF US FIGHTING FOR THE
SAKE OF FIGHTING. WE ARE ALWAYS
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT WHAT IS THE
BEST STRATEGY FOR THE STATE AND
AGAIN. THAT'S PART OF OUR
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE IN IN APPROACHING
THIS. LET'S JUST PULL ON THE
THREAD AROUND, IMPLEMENT WHAT IS
THE BEST STRATEGY FOR THE STATE?
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS THE BEST
STRATEGY FOR THE STATE IN TERMS
OF ADDRESSING ISSUES RELATED TO
CDCR AND THE GRIEVANCES THAT ARE
THE BASIS OF THESE CLASS ACTION
LAWSUITS ARE APPROACH IS TO
EVENTUALLY AND THE LITIGATION
AND IF I COULD SPEAK CONNIE
GIBSON AGAIN. I ALWAYS THINK OUR
APPROACHES WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR PRISONS ARE SAFE AND
SECURE AND THAT THE INDIVIDUALS
IN OUR CARE AND CUSTODY HAVE
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, MENTAL
HEALTH CARE, DENTAL SERVICES AS
WELL AS PROGRAMMING
OPPORTUNITIES AND SO AND THEN
TRY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES
THAT ARE REQUIRED OF US BEING
RESPONSIBLE, FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE, AND SO I THINK
THAT'S ALWAYS OUR GOAL IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE IN OUR CARE
AND CUSTODY WE'RE PROVIDING
SERVICES TO AND THAT'S ALWAYS AT
THE FOREFRONT OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE
THE ENVIRONMENT IS SAFE AND
SECURE FOR THE STAFF WHO WORK
THERE. AND FOR THOSE WHO LIVE
THERE. I APPRECIATE THAT
RESPONSE. ASKAR 24 YEARS. IS
THERE IS THERE. IS IT TRUE 2009
LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED AND IT'S
STILL ONGOING. 2023. CLARK. I'M
SORRY. OH, SORRY. MY MOUTH IS
OFF ON THAT ONE. UM JUST
RELATIVE URGENCY. IT SEEMS LIKE
AN INCREDIBLY LONG TIME THAT
WE'RE TAKING TO BE ABLE TO
ACHIEVE THE STANCE OF OVERALL
PUBLIC SAFETY IF I CAN GIVE A
LITTLE CONTEXT AROUND THE ASHKAR
CASE THAT CASE WAS SETTLED WITH
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AH!
WE BELIEVE WE'VE COMPLIED WITH
THE ELEMENTS OF THAT AGREEMENT.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE
STILL ON THE PILL. BUT AS I
BELIEVE THIS BODY IS AWARE WE
DRASTICALLY CHANGED WHO IS
INCORPORATING TO OUR SECURITY,
HOUSING UNITS AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING UNITS? AND TODAY WE'RE
SITTING AT AROUND 3100
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE IN SOME
FORM OF RESTRICTIVE HOUSING IN
OUR SYSTEM, WHEREAS 10 YEARS
AGO, WE WERE CLOSE TO 10,000
PEOPLE, PROBABLY. AND SO WE'VE
MADE BIG STRIDES AND THERE
AREN'T FOLKS WHO ARE LOCKED UP
IN RESTRICTIVE HOUSING JUST
BECAUSE OF THEIR GANG
AFFILIATION. WE NO LONGER DO
THOSE PRACTICES. IN THAT CASE,
IN PARTICULAR, IS APPARENTLY
BACK IN COURT DUE TO RETALIATION
AGAINST MR ASHKAR. THAT'S PART
OF THE COURT RECORDS, RIGHT?
YES. MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD JUST
ADD. I BEEN WORKING IN
CORRECTIONS IN THIS STATE AND
INTERNATIONALLY FOR THE LAST 30
YEARS. AND IT MAY SAY, SOUNDS
STRANGE TO SAY I'VE NEVER BEEN
MORE OPTIMISTIC WITH THE FUTURE
OF HEALTH CARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE
INCARCERATED IN THIS STATE, AND
BY EXTENSION, THE PUBLIC HEALTH
AS WELL. I BIGGEST CHANGE I'VE
SEEN RECENTLY IS AN EFFORT TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THINGS NOT JUST
BECAUSE THEY'RE COURT ORDERED
BECAUSE THEY'RE WHAT'S BEST FOR
OUR PATIENTS AND FOR THE STATE.
AND YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT SOME OF
THOSE THINGS TODAY. THE I S U. D
T PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE WHERE 98%
OF OUR PATIENTS ARE SCREENED
COMING INTO OUR SYSTEM. ABOUT
THREE QUARTERS OF THOSE WHO ARE
INCARCERATED, THE STATE HAVE
SOME SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. AND
IT'S A MAJOR REASON WHY THEY'RE
INCARCERATED. WHY THEY FAIL WHEN
THEY'RE PAROLED. SO IDENTIFYING
THOSE PATIENTS AND GETTING THEM
ON TREATMENT. WE HAVE 21,000
AROUND SOME TREATMENT FOR THEIR
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER NOW AND
WE'RE AND THAT NUMBER WILL
INCREASE IS A HUGE STEP FORWARD,
AND THAT WASN'T COURT ORDERED.
SIMILARLY WITH HIV TREATMENT,
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD IS
THAT 90% OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HIV
WILL KNOW IT. 90% OF THOSE WHO
KNOW IT WILL BE ON TREATMENT AND
90% OF THOSE WHO ARE TREATMENT.
WHERE WERE UNDETECTABLE VIRAL
LOADS AND THE UNDETECTABLE AND
WE'RE AT THAT GOAL, SO WE'RE
SENDING PEOPLE BACK INTO THE
COMMUNITY, KNOWING THEIR HIV
STATUS AND NON CONTAGIOUS TO
THEIR PARTNERS WHEN THEY WHEN
THEY RETURN, SIMILARLY, WITH
HEPATITIS C AND STAGE LIVER
DISEASE USED TO BE ONE OF OUR
MOST COMMON CAUSES OF DEATH. WE
NOW HAVE THE MOST AGGRESSIVE
TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR HEPATITIS
C IN PRISONS IN THIS NATION, IF
NOT THE WORLD. WE'RE ON A PATH
TOWARD ERADICATING HEPATITIS C
WITHIN OUR PATIENT POPULATION
WE'VE TREATED OVER 26,000
PATIENTS. 95% OF THEM HAVE BEEN
CURED, AND SO WHEN THEY GO BACK
TO THEIR COMMUNITIES, THEY'RE
NOT CONTAGIOUS. THEY'RE NOT
TAKING HEPATITIS C WITH THEM. WE
COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON WITH
INITIATIVES LIKE THIS, THAT
WE'RE NOT COURT ORDERED, AND
IT'S A BASIS FOR MY ENTHUSIASM.
UM WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE
MONITORS IN EACH OF THESE COURT
CASES. AND I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE
PROGRESS. OUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE
RIGHT NOW, I THINK IS STAFFING.
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT VACANCIES,
AND THAT'S HINDERING OUR
ABILITIES TO COMPLY WITH SOME OF
OUR COURT ORDERS. THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, WELL, SO.
OVERALL I THINK THAT FOR ME,
THERE'S UH A HUGE DISCONNECT. I
JUST. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE
. HAVE CREATED A STANCE OF BEING
FINE WITH YEARS OF LITIGATION.
YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR
COSTLY, INCREDIBLY COSTLY. LEGAL
RESOURCES BEING APPLIED IN YOUR
DEPARTMENT AND UH, THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND. AND
INORDINATE AMOUNT OF FUNDS BEING
PUT INTO RESOLUTION. WITHOUT
ACTUAL RESOLUTION BECAUSE THESE
CASES STILL CONTINUE TO BE LIVE.
AS OPPOSED TO BEING PROACTIVE IN
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE CREATING
AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE DON'T
NEED THESE LAWSUITS. SO IN MY
OPINION, A TRULY PROACTIVE
APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
DEPARTMENT MAKING CHANGES BACK
IN 2005. WHEN CONCERNS WERE
FIRST RAISED AROUND ONE OF THESE
FIRST CASES. SO WE JUST HAVE TO
HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
ABOUT WHAT? I THINK A PROACTIVE
ENLIGHTENED STANCE TAKES AND
CERTAINLY I THINK FROM THE SENSE
OF OUR BUDGET. WE ALSO NEED TO
THINK ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD BE
INVESTING OUR BEST RESOURCES.
MOVING FORWARD. I'M CLEARLY NOT
ONE THAT BELIEVES IN A STANCE OF
LITIGATING TO RELITIGATE AND
DEFENDING CRIMES. SORRY.
POSITIONS OR APPROACH PRACTICES
THAT CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OUR PARTIAL
SYSTEM, TOO. NOT BE TAKEN CARE
OF, AND TREATED WITH HUMANITY
AND DIGNITY. SO WHILE I
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHERE WE ARE
NOW I AM VERY HOPEFUL THAT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE DIRECTIVE THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION
. I KNOW THE DIRECTION THAT I'VE
HEARD FROM THIS SUBCOMMITTEE
ABOUT OUR FOCUS ON SUPPORT OF
OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OUR
COMMERCIAL SYSTEM AND THAT WE
ARE SPENDING OUR DOLLARS WISELY.
YEAH, MOVING FORWARD. SO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PRESENT
PRESENTATION OF THIS INFORMATION
. I DO WANT TO JUST REITERATE
THAT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THIS
INFORMATION FROM UH, WELL, A LOT
OF THIS INFORMATION CAME FROM
THAT YOU SEE IN THE REPORT HERE
CAME FROM STAFF ACTUALLY PULLING
IT TOGETHER THIS STAFF PULLING
IT TOGETHER, AND I WOULD
DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE A MORE
PROACTIVE STANCE AROUND BEING
TRANSPARENT IN THE INFORMATION
THAT WE PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC
AROUND THE COST OF LITIGATION.
FIRST RESPONSE WAS AFTER THIS
REQUEST WAS WELL, IT'S ALL OVER
THE PLACE, AND IT'S NOT TRACKING
THAT'S NOT AN ACCEPTABLE THAT'S
NOT AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. FOR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS. WE SHOULD KNOW
THE COST OF LITIGATION WE SHOULD
KNOW. SETTLEMENT COSTS, WE
SHOULD KNOW THE COST OF
REMEDIATION. RELATED TO THESE
CASES. THAT'S OUR FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY. SO THANK YOU.
WE'LL MOVE ON. BEFORE PUBLIC
COMMENT. UH, I JUST WANT TO.
WELL WE'LL JUST MOVE ONTO PUBLIC
COMMENT. WE'LL BEGIN WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT. WE WILL START WITH ANY
PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE HEARING
ROOM. EACH PERSON WILL HAVE UP
TO ONE MINUTE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
. NEXT, WE WILL TURN TO THE
PHONES. THE PHONE NUMBER TO
CONNECT IS ON THE COMMITTEE
WEBSITE AND SHOULD BE ALSO ON
THE SCREEN. IF YOU'RE STREAMING
THIS HEARING, THE NUMBER IS FOR
PUBLIC TOLL FREE NUMBER 877692.
THE PUBLIC ACCESS CODE IS 131.
5437. WE'LL MOVE TO ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT IN THE HEARING ROOM.
YOU'LL HAVE, UH, WHAT ARE YOU
TWO MINUTES. WHAT TWO WILL BE
FINE. SO GIVE ME TWO. YOU WILL
GET ONE MINUTE AND A HALF. I'M
GONNA PRESS THE BUTTON. YOU TALK
AND YOU'LL HEAR ME. YEAH OKAY.
HELLO MY NAME IS DIRE. UM I WAS
INCARCERATED FOR 30 YEARS. I'M
HERE TO TALK ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE
AT THE PAROLE BOARD
DISCRIMINATION AS A TRANSGENDER
SURVIVOR OF ABUSE. I MEAN, NO
DISRESPECT TO ANYONE IN THIS
ROOM. BUT MISS JENNIFER SAFER.
I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE COME
OUT THE SKY BOX AND GET INTO THE
PLAYING FIELD. WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS NOT CORRECT, AND MY
HEART IS IN A LOT OF PAIN HURT
AND LISTEN TO THIS. IT TOOK ME
SEVEN HEARINGS BEFORE I GOT A
COMMISSIONER WHO WASN'T
TRANSPHOBIC. EVEN WHEN I HAD A
DECADE OF RIGHT UP FREE, I WAS
RIGHT UP FREE, LOW RISK ON THE
CYCLE VALVE, POSITIVE
PROGRAMMING, AND I PROGRAMMED IN
YOUR PROGRAM FOR I D S T WAS
CALLED EL TOP AT THE TIME. I WAS
A MENTOR. AND IF YOU DO DISCLOSE
ANYTHING, IT IS PUT AGAINST YOU
BECAUSE IT WAS PUT AGAINST ME AS
A MENTOR. I WAS FOUND UNSUITABLE
EXPERIENCE CONSTANT TRANSPHOBIA
AT THE BOARD. MY LITTLE SISTER
SAVED HER LUNCH MONEY. AND HER
JOB TO HIRE MR KEITH WATLEY TO
REPRESENT ME AND IT IS TRUE. HE
TOOK HIS TIME HE HUMANIZED ME.
BUT WHEN I WENT TO THE BOARD I
WAS I WAS VICTIMIZED BY SAYING
THAT MY TRANSPHOBIA AND MY
TRAUMA UM, I WAS BLAMING OTHERS
REFUSED TO LISTEN AND BELIEVE
WHAT I HAD TO SAY. THEY SAID
YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES. I DON'T
WANT TO HEAR THAT. THEY WOULDN'T
EVEN TALK TO ME ABOUT BEING
TRANS. YET THEY WERE TRYING TO
KEEP ME IN PRISON BECAUSE OF
TRANSPHOBIC MYTHS. THEY THEY
THEY VICTIM BLAME ME AND
ATTACKED ME FOR CRYING IN MY
HEARING BECAUSE THEY SAID I WAS
ON TESTOSTERONE. I SHOULDN'T BE
CRYING. THEY SAID, IF I WAS TO
BE RELEASED, WILL LIKELY COMMIT
A CRIME FOR ACCESS FOR HORMONE
TREATMENTS. I'M STANDING HERE
FOR STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF
YOU FOR EVERY TRANS, WHO IS
SUFFERING DISCRIMINATION BY THE
PAROLE BOARD WHO CANNOT HAVE
THEIR VOICES HERE TODAY. I'M
HERE TODAY TO BE HEARD. THE
BOARD IS DOING, UH THE BOARD IS
WRONG. AND I'M SAYING THAT THEIR
REPORT IS NOT JUST WORDS. THAT'S
PART OF ME. IT REPRESENTS ME.
AND IF THE PROCESS WAS FAIR, WE
WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU. HI UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MY NAME IS DR ELIZABETH AREA.
I'M AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
GENDER VIOLENCE AT U. C. L. A
I'VE BEEN LEADING RESEARCH
INITIATIVES FOR SURVIVORS OF
RAPE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FOR
OVER 20 YEARS. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE L. A REPORT ON
PAROLE. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT
BPH PRACTICES BOTH IMPLICIT AND
EXPLICIT BIAS AGAINST SURVIVORS
OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE,
AND, FRANKLY, SOMETIMES OUTRIGHT
HOSTILITY AGAINST SURVIVORS AND
THOSE HEARINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE
WOMAN WAS REPEATEDLY DENIED
PAROLE FOR OVER TWO DECADES
BECAUSE SHE REFUSED THE BOARD'S
DEMAND TO RETRACT HER STATEMENT
THAT SHE WAS RAPED AND SHE
DEFENDED HERSELF TO SAVE HER OWN
LIFE. THE BPH OFTEN DECIDES THAT
STATEMENTS OF FACT ABOUT GENDER
BASED VIOLENCE IS EVIDENCE OF
LACK OF INSIGHT. I CAN'T TELL
YOU HOW PROFOUND THE TRAUMA. IS
THAT THAT THIS PARTICULAR UM
ERASER OF SURVIVOR EXPERIENCE
CAUSES. ALSO THE PENAL CODE
REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD GIVE
GREAT WEIGHT. TO ABUSE. UM BUT
THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS CAN
JUST CIRCUMVENT THAT LAW. SEEN
THEM, DO IT. ANOTHER SURVIVOR
HAD, UM ONE A REPORT FROM THE
BOARD'S OWN I P B INVESTIGATORS
SUBSTANTIATE IN HER ABUSE. TO AN
ADDITIONAL REPORT FROM AN EXPERT
WITNESS. THREE EYEWITNESS
TESTIMONY, ALL AFFIRMING THAT
SHE WAS IN FACT ABUSED AND FOUR
A LOW RISK ASSESSMENT ALOT
SIERRA ASSESSMENT. AND THE BOARD
DENIED HER PAROLE. WHY BECAUSE
THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE
THAT SHE YOU CAN WRAP UP. THEY
BELIEVE THAT THEY SAID SHE
HADN'T BEEN ABUSED. SO DESPITE
SUBMITTING A DECISION REVIEW
REQUEST TO CHIEF SCHAFFER THE
BOARD SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE TO
DEFEND THEIR CHOICE TO IGNORE
ALL OF THE EXPERT REPORTS. THERE
IS SYSTEMATIC, UM, BIAS AGAINST
SURVIVORS. I THINK THERE'S UM
IT'S A BIG, BIG PROBLEM. AND I
WANT THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS COLBY LENS, AND I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS,
MOSTLY VOLUNTEER RUN, COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATION WORKING WITH
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S
PRISONS FOR OVER 25 YEARS, THE
MAJORITY OF OUR MEMBERS INSIDE
PRISONS AND HAVE COME HOME HAVE
HAD DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THE
PAROLE BOARD PROCESS. BRIEFLY
SOME OF THE PATTERNS WE'VE SEEN
OVER THE PAST DECADES INCLUDE
BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
PEOPLE WITH LABELED MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES, PARTICULARLY
THOSE HOUSE IN MENTAL HEALTH
UNITS, ONE OF WHICH THE BIGGEST
AND LOWEST LEVEL MENTAL HEALTH
UNIT AT THE WOMEN'S PRISON. CW
HAD NO PAROLE GRANTS IN OVER 20
YEARS. OUR MEMBERS HAVE ALSO
EXPERIENCED BLATANT TRANSPHOBIA
AS WELL AS AGEISM, RACISM AND
SEXISM. THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED
PAROLE DENIALS BASED ON
ASSERTIONS OF BEING VICTIMS OF
VIOLENCE. EVEN AS THEY EXPRESS
REMORSE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR HARM THEY CAUSED IN THOSE
CONTEXTS. THERE'S SO MUCH MORE
TO SAY ON EACH OF THESE TOPICS,
BUT I'LL CLOSE BY TOUCHING ON
ONE OF THEIR SPECIFIC CONCERN.
THE GOVERNOR'S POWER TO REVERSE
PAROLE GRANTS FURTHER OPENS THE
DOOR FOR AN EQUITABLE PAROLE
DECISIONS IN CALIFORNIA BASED ON
POLITICS, INCLUDING ELECTORAL
CHANCES. ONE OF OUR MEMBERS. AN
ELDERLY WOMAN IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIM WHO WAS
CRIMINALIZED IN THE CONTEXT OF
TRYING TO SURVIVE THAT VIOLENCE,
DIED THIS PAST YEAR. UM AT CCW F
AFTER ALMOST 30 YEARS IN
MULTIPLE PROGRAMS BECAUSE
GOVERNORS CHOSE FEAR BASED
POLITICS OVER PEARL EQUITY,
REVERSING HER PROGRAMS, WHICH,
OF COURSE, WERE HARD TO ACHIEVE.
IN THE FIRST PLACE. SHE DIED
SECOND HOPELESS, TREATED
ESSENTIALLY AS A POLITICAL PAWN.
THIS IS NOT EQUITY IN HER CASE
IS, UNFORTUNATELY, NOT AN
EXCEPTION. THE SYSTEM NEEDS AN
OVERHAUL, INCLUDING EXTERNAL
OVERSIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALMOST TO THE PHONE LINES.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN FOR PUBLIC
COMMENTS, PLEASE PRESS ONE THAN
ZERO ON YOUR PHONE. YOU'LL
RECEIVE A LINE NUMBER AND THEN
BE PUT BACK IN. Q LOSING A
SPEAKERPHONE. PLEASE PICK UP THE
HANDSET BEFORE PRESSING THE
NUMBER ONCE AGAIN FOR PUBLIC
COMMENTS ONE THEM ZERO. AND WE
WILL START WITH LINE NUMBER 42,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. NO. HELLO. YEP.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. OH, OKAY.
SORRY. I WAS NOT EXPECTING WITH
THE NUMBER 42 TO GO FIRST. AND
BUT MY NAME IS SUSAN CHAMPION.
I'M AN ATTORNEY, UM, HANDLING
POST CONVICTION MATTERS AND I
RECENTLY WE'RE TALKING A LOT AT
THIS HEARING ABOUT RISK, AND I
JUST WANTED DESCRIBE A RECENT
EXPERIENCE I HAD WITH MY CLIENT
WHO HAS AN ADULT BASIC EDUCATION
SCORE OF FOUR, MEANING HE READS
AT BEST OF FOURTH GRADE LEVEL
FUNCTIONALLY HE CAN BARELY READ
AND CANNOT RIGHT. HE'S ALMOST 60
YEARS OLD. HE HAS SUCH SUCH
SEVERE COPD THAT HE CANNOT WALK.
FOR MORE THAN 10 YARDS WITHOUT
GOING OUT OF BREAST. HE USES TWO
INHALERS AND WEARS A TUBE AROUND
HIS NECK. BUT IF HE HAS
BREATHING CRISIS, THE DOCTORS
IMMEDIATELY PLUG HIM INTO A
BREATHING MACHINE CONTINENT AND
MUCH WEAR A DIAPER. HE'S IN
PRISON FOR STEALING TWO CANS OF
OIL AT A GAS STATION 25 YEARS
AGO AND HAS NEVER EVER COMMITTED
A CRIME, WHICH IS VICTIM WAS
PHYSICALLY INJURED. HE'S BEEN IN
PRISON FOR OVER 25 YEARS AND WAS
DENIED POOL STUCK IN TIME. LAST
WEEK BECAUSE WE HAD A RECENT
WRITE UP. HIS WRITE UP WAS FOR
REFUSING TO GO LIVE IN A DORM
SITUATION. HE WAS TOLD HE HAD TO
GO TO A DORM, SAID AN ELDERLY
AND FRAIL AND THEN CONTINENT AS
DANGEROUS FOR ME TO BE IN A
DORM, THEY SAID, YOU HAVE TO GO
TO A DORM. HE SAID. PLEASE TALK
TO THE SERGEANT SERGEANT KNOWS
MY PAPERWORK SAYS I SHOULDN'T BE
IN A DORM. SERGEANT SAYS, OH, I
DON'T SEE WHAT THE PAPERWORK IS.
HE REFUSED TO GO. HE DIDN'T
CREATE VIOLENCE. HE DIDN'T YELL
AT ANYBODY WHO JUST SAID LOOK,
THIS IS MY LIFE AT RISK. ALL THE
COMMISSIONERS DID WAS WAS
SCHOOLED HIM LIKE A CHILD FOR
NOT HAVING, UM, USED HIS TOOL,
WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO. UM TO, UH, TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. IT TOOK
THEM TWO WEEKS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT
THE ISSUES. SO FOR TWO WEEKS, HE
WAS WAITING FOR THEM TO FIGURE
OUT THAT AN INCONTINENT 60 YEAR
OLD MAN CAN'T BE HOUSED IN A
DORM WITH, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF
OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE. AT RISK OF
BEING PREYED UPON. THANK YOU. WE
NEED YOU TO WRAP UP. FOURTH
GRADE LEVEL. I'M NOT SURE WHEN
HE WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE THE KIND OF INSIGHT
THAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING FOR.
YOU CAN BARELY READ. THANK YOU,
CALLER, RIGHT? SO THANK YOU.
OKAY. NEXT, WE WILL GO TO LINE
NUMBER 54, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
EVENING MY NAME IS BILLY
TERRITORY, AND I'M THE MANAGING
ATTORNEY AT COMMON LAW AND
COMMENTING ON THE REPORT AND THE
CURRENT INEQUITIES IN THE PAROLE
PROCESS. I HAVE REPRESENTED
COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS BEFORE THE
PAROLE BOARD AND I WITNESSED THE
DISCRIMINATION AND BIAS ELIA
REPORT DESCRIBES FIRSTHAND. I
WANT TO DRAW THE COMMITTEE'S
ATTENTION PARTICULAR TO
DISCRIMINATION AND BIAS BASED BY
ELDERLY PEOPLE AND PEOPLE WITH
PHYSICAL AND COMMENTED
DISABILITIES. FOR THIS GROUP OF
PEOPLE. THE BOARD HAS FAILED TO
BOTH ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THIS
STATISTICALLY INDISPUTABLE
IMPACT OF ADVANCED AGE ON RISK
AS WELL AS HOW AS PEOPLE AGE,
THEY BECOME A LESS ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS THE
BOARD CURRENTLY REQUIRES. I
REPRESENTED ONE CLIENT, WHO WAS
HERE IN THE LATE SIXTIES USES A
WHEELCHAIR FOR MOBILITY,
SURVIVED CANCER AND HAS
PARKINSON'S AND EARLY STAGES OF
DEMENTIA. THE BOARD REPEATEDLY
DENIED HER PAROLE, CLAIMING THAT
HER MEMORY LAPSES, EVIDENCE
MANIPULATION AND THAT THE PAUSES
IN HER SPEECH EACH OTHER RESULTS
FOR PARKINSON'S, INDICATED SHE
WAS NOT CREDIBLE AND THAT SHE
WAS TRYING TO KEEP HER LIES
STRAIGHT. NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH UNTIL THE
BOARD RECKONS WITH THE NEED TO
ACTUALLY TREAT ELDERLY PEOPLE
AND PEOPLE WITH COGNITIVE
IMPAIRMENT DIFFERENTLY. THESE
INEQUITIES CONTINUE. I THINK THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WE WILL GO TO LINE NUMBER 57,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NUMBER
SEVEN. HELLO MY NAME IS MELISSA
MOORE WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. UM I
MYSELF SERVED 23 YEARS IN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SYSTEM
AND WHAT SUBJECT TO RECALL IN
UNUSUAL PROCESS OF BPH
REPEATEDLY DENIED FOR REFUSING
TO SPEAK ON CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS I
WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR
HAVING MEMORY LAPSES AND LOST
THAT WAS ALSO DOCUMENTED. UM I
THINK THAT THE VERY FACT DOCTORS
THAT DEAL WITH THIS THESE TYPES
OF ISSUES HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH
DID YOU NO HARM AND THE FACT
THAT PEOPLE WITH WITHOUT MEDICAL
DEGREE ARE ASKING THESE TYPES OF
QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING TO DO
MORE HARM THAN GOOD IS SERIOUS
RISK. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO
TAKE TIME TO GIVE CREDENCE TO
EVERYONE THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME
THAT I HAVE WITNESSED ALL OF
THOSE THINGS AND ALL OF THOSE
STRATEGIES. TRAGEDIES PURPOSELY
DONE UPON MY PEERS. FOR DECADES
WHILE INCARCERATED IN THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS. I THINK IT'S DUE
PASTIME THAT THESE DRACONIAN
WAYS ARE BLACK POINTED END. I
THINK THAT MAJOR OVERSIGHT
REFORMS ARE NEEDED, AND I THINK
THAT INCARCERATED FOLKS NEED TO
BE A VOICE AT THE BASE OF THAT
WORK, BECAUSE THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
INSANE THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF
WILL GO THROUGH PROLONGED
HEARINGS AND TALK ABOUT
SIGNIFICANT TRAUMAS. THAT ARE
NOT RECOMMENDED BY MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS. AND THEN AT THE
END OF THE HEARING WHEN I WAS
FOUND SUITABLE, AND I REQUESTED
TO SPEAK WITH MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS, I WAS RELIED HELP
AT THAT TIME AND SENT BACK TO MY
ROOM AND TOLD I SHOULD BE HAPPY
THAT I WOULD SOUND SUITABLE. UM
WHILE THE TRAUMA THAT I LIVED
THROUGH IT WAS LATE AT THE
WAYSIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE WILL GO TO LINE NUMBER
59, PLEASE GO AHEAD. LINE NUMBER
59. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. CAN YOU
HEAR ME? YES. ALL RIGHT. HELLO
MY NAME IS FELIPE KELLY ON THE
OUTSIDE FELLOW WITH THE ELEVATOR
CENTER. I'M A RETURN CITIZEN WHO
DID 23 A HALF YEARS IN PRISON AT
THE AGE OF 15. I WAS RELEASED ON
FEBRUARY 7TH 2023 AT THREE.
PAROLE HEARINGS. GOVERNOR BROWN
AND WAS READY TO BE RELEASED,
BUT THE COMMISSIONERS HE
APPOINTED DISAGREED WITH HIM. MY
EXPERIENCE WITH THE PAROLE BOARD
WAS ADVERSARIAL PREJUDICE, BIAS
AND ADVERSE. UM COMMISSIONERS
ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE DECISIONS
BASED ON SOMEONE'S CURRENT
PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. AND TO BE
IMPARTIAL, BUT THOSE THINGS
REALLY HAPPEN IF AT ALL I AM
THOUSANDS OF OTHER PAROLE
APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN DENIED.
BASED ON THESE PRACTICE THE BOX
CLEAN TIME CRIMINAL THINKING
NEXUS TO A CRIME LIKE SELF
AWARENESS, COMMITMENT OFFICE AND
COMMISSIONERS BIAS, LACK OF
PROGRAMMING A PERSON'S HISTORY
OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF PRISON FOR
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY
COMMENTS TODAY AND THEN MY
EMAIL, YOU CAN FIND AN IN DEPTH
BREAKDOWN OF THESE TERMS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS
IN QUÊ. THANK YOU. THIS WILL
CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC SAFETY FIVE
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.