OFFICE

OF THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL

M ATTHEW L. C ATE , I NSPECTOR G ENERAL

ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

REVIEW OF AUDITS

OF THE

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS
2002-2003
TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH PREVIOUS
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL

JULY 2005

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Matthew L. Cate, Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

July 21, 2005

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
P.O. Box 13908
Sacramento, California 95853
Dear Secretary Hickman:
Enclosed is the final report of the Office of the Inspector General’s 2005 Accountability Audit of the
Board of Prison Terms, which became part of the Board of Parole Hearings effective July 1, 2005.
The 2005 Accountability Audit of the Board of Prison Terms found that the board has made progress in
correcting deficiencies identified in 2002 and 2003 by the Office of the Inspector General, but that a
number of problems remain and some deficiencies threaten to become worse. Of the 26
recommendations from the original reviews, the board has fully or substantially implemented fewer than
half, indicating there is still work to do.
This report makes 12 additional recommendations to remedy the remaining problems and deficiencies.
My office will continue to monitor the board’s progress in implementing all recommendations.
Thank you for the cooperation extended to my staff during the course of the audit.
Sincerely,

MATTHEW L. CATE
Inspector General
MC:SC:lr

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
P.O. BOX 348780, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834-8780

PHONE (916) 830-3600

FAX (916) 928-5974

CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 1
FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 3
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS .............................................. 3
PAROLE REVOCATION ................................................................................... 22
SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS ...................................................... 29
HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS ......................................... 40
REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS .......................................... 45

RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS ....................................ATTACHMENT

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T

his report presents an assessment of the progress made by the Board of Prison Terms in
implementing recommendations from reviews conducted by the Office of the Inspector
General in 2002 and 2003. The report is the second of three comprehensive follow-up
reviews comprising the Office of the Inspector General’s 2005 Accountability Audit, the purpose
of which is to examine the progress of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency and its
subordinate entities in implementing recommendations from 32 reviews and management review
audits conducted by the Office of the Inspector General since April 2000. In addition to the two
reviews covered here, the original 32 reviews and audits included nine management review
audits and reviews of the California Youth Authority and 21 management review audits and
reviews of Department of Corrections institutions and programs. The first report in the 2005
Accountability Audit — a comprehensive follow-up review of the California Youth Authority —
was released in January 2005. The comprehensive follow-up review of the Department of
Corrections will constitute the third report in the 2005 Accountability Audit series.
The 2005 Accountability Audit of the Board of Prison Terms determined that the board has made
progress in correcting deficiencies identified in 2002 and 2003 by the Office of the Inspector
General, but that a number of problems remain and some deficiencies threaten to become worse.
On the positive side, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency has exerted leadership to change
the parole revocation process to eliminate delays and address problems of coordination between
the Board of Prison Terms and the Department of Corrections. These changes are contained in
the remedial plan pursuant to the Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger class action lawsuit, which is in the
final stages of implementation. As part of this effort, the board has improved its ability to track
and schedule parole revocation cases to ensure that alleged parole violators receive timely
hearings. The board has also improved its supervision of deputy commissioners by increasing its
supervisory staff and scheduling deputy commissioners for a larger number of hearings each day.
The Office of the Inspector General found the following continuing deficiencies, however:
•

For inmates serving life terms with the possibility of parole (indeterminate sentences), the
board still lacks the information technology to accurately identify the statutory due dates for
inmates’ indeterminate sentence hearings. The board continues to use the same manual
process it used at the time of the Office of the Inspector General’s initial review. As a result
the board has no way to ensure that hearings are held within the time frames required by law.

•

The board’s official reports indicate that the board has greatly increased the number of
indeterminate sentence hearings it holds each year and that it averaged more than 4,600
hearings a year for the years 2002 through 2004. But the Office of the Inspector General
found that the reported figures represent hearings scheduled, rather than hearings conducted.
The number of hearings actually conducted was nearly 4,000 fewer than the figures reported
by the board.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-1

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

•

The board’s reported backlog of overdue hearings for inmates sentenced to indeterminate
prison terms has increased 15 percent, from 1,400 in December 2001 to 1,607 as of March
31, 2005.

•

The ability of the Board of Prison Terms to accurately project the number of deputy
commissioners it needs to fulfill its responsibilities continues to be hindered by the board’s
failure to implement a time-management system for deputy commissioners.

•

The board continues to hold automatic 60-day placement hearings for mentally disordered
offenders placed into the custody of the Department of Mental Health even though the
hearings are unnecessary and inefficient.

The Office of the Inspector General has made 12 additional recommendations as a result of the
2005 Board of Prison Terms Accountability Audit. Those recommendations are listed in the
following summary.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In the original reviews that are the subject of this follow-up Accountability Audit, the Office of
the Inspector General made 26 specific recommendations to improve the Board of Prison Terms
programs and functions. Of those 26 recommendations, the Board of Prison Terms has fully
implemented nine (35 percent), has substantially implemented three (12 percent), and has
partially implemented six (23 percent). Four of the 26 original recommendations (15 percent)
have not been implemented and another four (15 percent) are no longer applicable. In some
instances, the board has successfully addressed the problems by implementing alternative
solutions, and wherever that has occurred, those achievements are acknowledged in the body of
this report.
Following is a summary of the findings and follow-up recommendations from the 2005
Accountability Audit of the Board of Prison Terms.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Of the ten recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General as a
result of an April 2002 follow-up review of indeterminate sentencing and appeals
procedures, none (0 percent) have been fully implemented; two (20 percent) have
been substantially implemented; three (30 percent) have been partially
implemented; two (20 percent) have not been implemented; and three (30 percent)
are no longer applicable.
In a review released in March 2000, the Office of the Inspector General examined the
procedures used by the Board of Prison Terms in conducting parole consideration hearings
for inmates sentenced under indeterminate sentencing laws. The review found that the board
had a large backlog of parole consideration hearings, most of which were more than six
months delinquent, and that the board’s procedures were inadequate to ensure timely
hearings.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-2

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In a follow-up review released in April 2002, the Office of the Inspector General found that
the procedures used by the board to identify and schedule parole consideration hearings
continued to be incapable of ensuring that the hearings were held on time. That review found
that the Board of Prison Terms had not taken effective measures to reduce the backlog of
parole consideration hearings; that the board’s schedule for eliminating the hearing backlog
was unrealistic; and that the board’s process for responding to appeals filed by inmates and
parolees challenging board decisions was inadequate to provide for timely disposition.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
As a result of the 2005 follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector General found that
while the Board of Prison Terms database captures extensive amounts of detail for lifer
hearings, the board still has not developed information technology that allows it to obtain
information from the Department of Corrections necessary to identify inmates needing
hearings. The board continues to use the same process it used at the time of the Office of the
Inspector General’s initial review. In scheduling lifer hearings, the board uses primarily
manual methods involving a monthly exchange of faxes between board staff and a
coordinator at each of the 31 Department of Corrections institutions housing lifer inmates. As
a result, the board has no way to ensure that hearings are held within the time frames required
by law. Further, the backlog of initial parole consideration hearings has increased since the
2002 review. Moreover, the board has experienced a significant increase in hearing
postponements, resulting in inefficient scheduling and failure to reduce the backlog. An
agency task force created in response to the Rutherford v. Margarita Perez, et al. lawsuit is
working toward developing improvements to the parole consideration process. Finally, the
backlog of appeals has been largely eliminated because of a rule change that allows
appellants to bring challenges of board decisions directly to the courts.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following additional actions to address the remaining deficiencies:
•

Develop an information system in cooperation with the Department of
Corrections that will result in the board having access to the most current,
accurate, and relevant information necessary to manage its lifer hearing
responsibilities. Such information should include, for example, minimum
eligible parole dates and details of inmates’ status that may affect legally
mandated subsequent hearing dates.

•

Further develop regular monthly reports for use by board management in
forecasting, scheduling, and managing the lifer hearing workload.

•

Develop a system of quality control over data entry and compilation to ensure
the quality of management reports.

•

Move the board’s regular monthly meeting to Monday to increase the number of
hearings held during that week. In the alternative, the board should conduct a

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-3

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

half day of hearings at local prisons beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the Monday
preceding the regular Tuesday meeting.
•

Develop policies, procedures, and regulations to minimize the number of hearing
postponements, both inmate-initiated and board-initiated.

•

For official reports, discontinue the current method of calculating the backlog of
hearings and replace it with a method that reports an actual count of hearings
that have passed their statutory due dates.

•

Work with the Legislature to reconsider how the hearing “backlog” is defined in
Penal Code section 3041(d), as revised by passage of S.B. 737. Additionally,
consider the impact of the requirement to have hearing panels consist of at least
two commissioners when the backlog reaches zero.

PAROLE REVOCATION
Of the six recommendations from the January 2003 review of the Board of
Prison Terms pertaining to parole revocation, five (83 percent) have been fully
implemented and one (17 percent) is no longer applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review of the Board of Prison Terms
identified significant deficiencies in the state’s parole revocation process. The review
determined that the state lacked an effective means of tracking to ensure that parolees
detained for violating parole received a hearing within the 45-days specified in state
regulations or within a “reasonable time period,” as specified in federal law. The Office of
the Inspector General found that the deficiencies stemmed in part from the overlapping
responsibilities for parole revocation between the Board of Prison Terms and the Department
of Corrections and in part from the board’s failure to manage the revocation process and to
adequately supervise its deputy commissioners.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The 2005 follow-up review determined that the Board of Prison Terms has made significant
progress in tracking the thousands of revocation cases processed annually to help ensure that
suspected parole violators receive timely hearings. The revocation scheduling and tracking
system implemented pursuant to the Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger remedial plan now tracks
the status of parolees from the day of arrest to the day the parole revocation hearing is held.
The system also provides management with both summary reports and access to more
detailed information. Responsibility for parole revocation has been consolidated in the Board
of Prison Terms. The board also reported that it has identified all parolees eligible for
treatment under Proposition 36 who had been placed in custody before October 1, 2002 and
released them to drug treatment programs.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-4

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None
SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS
Of the six recommendations from the January 2003 review of the Board of
Prison Terms concerning supervision of deputy commissioners, two (33
percent) have been fully implemented; one (17 percent) has been substantially
implemented; two (33 percent) have been partially implemented; and one (17
percent) has not been implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review of the Board of Prison Terms was
prompted in part by the board’s proposal to fill 24 of its vacant deputy commissioner
positions. The review was conducted to determine whether the board had a legitimate need to
fill the positions in light of the state budget crisis. As a result of the review, the
Office of the Inspector General found that the board did not need additional deputy
commissioners, and that, in fact, with more efficient use of its resources could fulfill its
responsibilities with slightly more than half its then-existing staff. The Office of the Inspector
General also found that deficiencies in the parole revocation process stemmed partly from the
board’s failure to adequately supervise the deputy commissioners.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The 2005 follow-up review determined that the Board of Prison Terms has improved the
supervision and productivity of deputy commissioners by increasing both the number of
supervisors relative to deputy commissioners and the number of hearings scheduled for
deputy commissioners each day. The board also has made progress in evaluating the number
of deputy commissioner positions it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, but its ability to more
accurately make that evaluation is hampered by its failure to implement a time-management
system to accurately record the time deputy commissioners spend on various activities. The
implementation of a new parole revocation process pursuant to the Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger litigation has also affected the board’s ability to determine how many
deputy commissioners it needs because of the lack of historical information for projecting
time required for the new process.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following additional actions:

• Develop and implement a time-management system for deputy commissioners.
•

Use information from the time-management system to support future workload
analyses. The two critical factors in the workload analysis report – total hours
required to complete hearings and the total number of hours each deputy

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-5

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

commissioner can work in one year – should be updated to accurately reflect
current capabilities.
•

Continue efforts to increase the number of associate chief deputy commissioner
positions relative to the number of deputy commissioners they supervise and to
make the compensation of the associate chief deputy commissioner position
commensurate with the responsibility of the position for supervising deputy
commissioners.

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
Of the two recommendations from the January 2003 review of the
Board of Prison Terms concerning hearings for mentally disordered
offenders, one has been fully implemented and one has not been
implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review of the Board of Prison Terms
found that the board was automatically holding placement hearings for mentally
disordered offenders 60 days after the inmate was placed into the custody of the
Department of Mental Health, even though state regulations require a hearing only if the
inmate requests that a hearing be held. An inmate may request a hearing 60 days after
arriving in custody to determine whether he or she is to be treated as an inpatient or an
outpatient. But because 60 days does not allow enough time for the medical treatment
team to assess the patient’s suitability for outpatient treatment, 99 percent of the 60-day
placement hearings result in an order that the patient remain in a Department of Mental
Health hospital for continued inpatient treatment. At the time of the Office of the
Inspector General’s January 2003 review, the 60-day hearings required a significant
commitment of resources because state regulations require that hearings for mentally
disordered offenders be conducted by not just one, but two Board of Prison Terms deputy
commissioners.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
As a result of the 2005 Accountability Audit, the Office of the Inspector General found that
the Board of Prison Terms continues to hold automatic placement hearings for all mentally
disordered offenders 60 days after the patient is placed in the custody of the Department of
Mental Health, even though the hearings are unnecessary and inefficient. Regulations
effective July 1, 2003, however, allow hearings for mentally disordered offenders to be
conducted by one deputy commissioner instead of two.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms
discontinue the practice of automatically conducting placement hearings for
mentally disordered offenders 60 days after the patient is placed into the custody of

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-6

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

the Department of Mental Health. Instead, the board should conduct mentally
disordered offender placement hearings only at the request of the parolee or of the
Department of Mental Health.
Depending on the timing of other reforms planned by the Board of Prison
Terms, it may be beneficial for the board to implement this recommendation
immediately. If the Board of Prison Terms deems it necessary to amend the
California Penal Code to implement this recommendation, it should amend
section 2964(b) rather than section 2966(b).
REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS
Of the two recommendations from the January 2003 review of the Board of Prison
Terms concerning review of board decisions, one has been fully implemented and
one has been partially implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review determined that the Board of
Prison Terms was not complying with state regulations requiring that board decisions
undergo systematic review before taking effect to ensure that they are complete, accurate,
and consistent and that they promote public safety. Decisions subject to review include those
resulting from mentally disordered offender hearings, parole revocation hearings,
indeterminate sentence hearings, sexually violent predator probable cause hearings, and
serious offender hearings. The Office of the Inspector General found that the board’s parole
revocation decisions lacked consistency and that deputy commissioners who reviewed
decisions involving mentally disordered offenders had not been trained in conducting
mentally disordered offender hearings. The Office of the Inspector General recommended
that the Board of Prison Terms establish formalized training for deputy commissioners and
associate chief deputy commissioners and establish a systematic decision review process.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms is still not
complying with state regulations that require board decisions to be systematically reviewed
to ensure that they are valid and consistent and that they further public safety. However, the
Office of the Inspector General questions the practicality and necessity of reviewing all
proposed decisions and notes that the requirement appears to be overly burdensome. The
purpose of the regulations could be accomplished by using sampling techniques to complete
the review process, as originally recommended by the Office of the Inspector General.
Reviewing a sample of proposed decisions instead of all proposed decisions requires changes
to California Code of Regulations, Tile 15, section 2041.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms
modify California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 2041 to allow for review
of a portion of proposed decisions rather than all decisions.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE ES-7

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

T

his report presents the results of a comprehensive follow-up audit of two previous reviews
of the Board of Prison Terms conducted by the Office of the Inspector General in 2002
and 2003. The purpose of the audit was to assess the progress of the Board of Prison
Terms in implementing the Office of the Inspector General’s previous recommendations. The
audit was performed pursuant to California Penal Code section 6126, which assigns the Office of
the Inspector General responsibility for oversight of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
and its subordinate departments.
BACKGROUND
The Board of Prison Terms conducts hearings in order to grant, deny, revoke, or suspend the
parole of inmates, and makes decisions on parole consideration hearings for inmates sentenced
under indeterminate sentencing laws. Indeterminate sentencing applies to a prison term that,
instead of being fixed in advance by the court, is set by the court for an “indeterminate period”
such as 25 years to life. Offenders are eligible for parole consideration after serving the
minimum prison term specified by state law for the particular crime committed. The board also
conducts parole revocation hearings for parolees who have violated the conditions of their
parole. In addition, the board advises the governor on applications for clemency and helps
screen inmates scheduled for parole to determine whether they should be classified as mentally
disordered offenders to be confined to state hospitals for treatment, or classified as sexually
violent predators subject to civil confinement.
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 5075, et. seq., the governor is authorized to appoint
nine commissioners to the Board of Prison Terms for four-year staggered terms, subject to
Senate confirmation. At the time of the Office of the Inspector General’s fieldwork, there were
three vacant commissioner positions.
In addition to the commissioners, the Board of Prison Terms has 72 approved deputy
commissioner positions. The deputy commissioners conduct parole revocation hearings, serve as
panelists in parole consideration hearings, and conduct other hearings and functions under the
board’s jurisdiction. The deputy commissioners are supervised by seven associate chief deputy
commissioners. For fiscal year 2005-06, the board has a proposed operating budget of
$72,852,000.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
To conduct this follow-up audit, the Office of the Inspector General performed the following
procedures:
•
•

Reviewed the two special reviews and one follow-up review conducted by the Office of the
Inspector General of the Board of Prison Terms.
Contacted the Board of Prison Terms and requested information and documentation
concerning the board’s progress in implementing the Office of the Inspector General’s
recommendations.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 1

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INTRODUCTION

•

Examined reports and documents produced by the board’s information storage and retrieval
systems.

•

Conducted site visits to the board’s executive offices to interview key employees.

•

Observed parole consideration hearings.

•

Evaluated the information developed from the audit procedures and classified the progress of
the board in implementing each recommendation into one of the following five categories:
► Fully implemented: The recommendation has been implemented and no further
corrective action is necessary.
► Substantially implemented: More than half of the corrective actions necessary to fulfill
the recommendation have been implemented.
► Partially implemented: Half or less than half of the corrective actions necessary to
fulfill the recommendation have been implemented.
► Not implemented: The recommendation has not been implemented.
► Not applicable: The recommendation no longer applies because the program or function
audited has changed.

The following chapters present the results of the 2005 Accountability Audit of the Board of
Prison Terms. Each chapter describes the findings and recommendations of the original special
review and follow-up review and includes a table reporting the Board of Prison Terms’ progress
in implementing the recommendations. Where appropriate, the Office of the Inspector General
has provided additional recommendations to correct deficiencies.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 2

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD

Previous recommendations: 10
Previous reviews found that the Board of Prison
Terms had a large backlog of overdue parole
Fully implemented: 0 (0%)
consideration hearings for “lifer” inmates — those
Substantially implemented: 2 (20%)
sentenced to indeterminate sentences — and that
many of the hearings were as much as six months
Partially implemented: 3 (30%)
delinquent. The follow-up review determined that
despite upgrading from an outdated manual
Not implemented: 2 (20%)
process to an automated tracking system for
Not applicable: 3 (30%)
hearings, the board has not succeeded in shrinking
the hearing backlog. Instead, the number of
overdue hearings reported by the board has
actually grown 15 percent since December 2001,
from 1,400 to 1,607. The Office of the Inspector General also found that the
statistics reported by the board are misleading. In reporting the number of hearings
“conducted,” for example, the board includes hearings that were merely scheduled,
whether or not the hearing actually took place — a collective over statement of
almost 4,000 hearings for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. And in reporting the
backlog of overdue hearings, the board relies on a formula that excludes hearings
that were not held because they were postponed by the inmate.

In a review released in March 2000, the Office of the Inspector General examined the
procedures used by the Board of Prison Terms to schedule and manage parole
consideration hearings for inmates sentenced to indeterminate prison terms. The review
found that the board had a large backlog of parole consideration hearings, most of which
were more than six months delinquent, and that the board’s process for identifying and
scheduling the hearings failed to ensure that hearings were held within required time
limits.
In a follow-up review released in April 2002, the Office of the Inspector General found
that the board’s system for identifying and scheduling parole consideration hearings
continued to be incapable of ensuring that the hearings were held on time. That review
found that the Board of Prison Terms had not taken effective measures to reduce the
backlog of parole consideration hearings; that the board’s schedule for eliminating the
hearing backlog was unrealistic; and that the board’s process for responding to appeals
filed by inmates and parolees challenging board decisions was inadequate to provide for
timely disposition.
BACKGROUND
Conducting parole consideration hearings for inmates sentenced to indeterminate prison
terms —so-called “lifer” inmates — is one of the core responsibilities of the Board of
Prison Terms. Under California Penal Code section 3041(a), the board must meet with
lifer inmates for the purpose of setting a parole release date one year before the inmate’s
minimum eligible parole date. Accordingly, Department of Corrections Operations

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 3

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Manual, section 62090.5.1.2 requires the initial parole consideration hearing to be
scheduled 13 months before the inmate’s minimum eligible parole date.
The parole consideration hearing panel may set a parole date at the initial parole
consideration hearing unless it determines after considering the timing and gravity of the
inmate’s conviction offense and past offenses that public safety requires a longer period
of incarceration. In such cases, the panel may set a subsequent hearing for a date up to
five years in the future for inmates convicted of murder and for up to two years in the
future for all other inmates. In practice, it is rare for an indeterminate sentence inmate to
be granted a parole date at the initial hearing. Often, an indeterminate sentence inmate
will undergo 10 to 15 subsequent hearings before being granted a parole date, or dying in
custody. Some inmates have undergone as many as 20 subsequent hearings.
Overall, initial parole consideration hearings make up approximately 15 percent of
scheduled hearings for indeterminate sentence inmates, while subsequent hearings make
up approximately 84 percent, and the remaining 1 percent of indeterminate sentence
hearings are taken up by miscellaneous proceedings, such as recission hearings.
Proposed decisions by board hearing panels to grant parole are subject to review by the
board’s legal staff and to additional review by the governor. Parole consideration
hearings are held at state prisons and other locations, which requires commissioners and
deputy commissioners to travel to hearing sites. In addition to the inmates and board
panelists, hearing participants may include inmate legal counsel, representatives from the
district attorney’s office, and crime victims or their survivors.
The board has attributed its persistent hearing backlog to a variety of factors, including
vacancies in board commissioner positions and the inability of inmates to receive timely
psychiatric evaluations because of a shortage of psychiatrists at the institutions. To
address the backlog, in 2001, the Legislature enacted S.B. 778 (Chapter 131, Statutes of
2001) — a bill that temporarily amended California Penal Code section 5076.1, which
requires parole consideration hearing panels to include at least two Board of Prison
Terms commissioners. The bill instead allowed parole consideration hearings to be
conducted by two-person panels that include only one commissioner. (The other person is
a deputy commissioner.)
The measure, which effectively doubled the number of panels available for hearings, was
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, but the passage of S.B. 737 (Chapter 10,
Statutes of 2005) in May 2005 made permanent the board’s ability to convene two-person
panels with only one commissioner. In addition, S.B. 737 defines for the first time in
statute what items are to be considered part of the “backlog” of lifer hearings and
provides that when the backlog reaches zero, the board’s hearing panels are to be
composed of three or more members, the majority of whom are commissioners.
The Board of Prison Terms reports that it has held an average of more than 4,600 parole
consideration hearings over the past three years. Meanwhile, however, the population of
lifer inmates in the state’s prisons has continued to grow. Between 1990 and 2004, the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 4

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

number of lifer inmates more than tripled, increasing from 8,153 to 27,375, presenting an
even greater challenge to the board’s ability to handle its hearing workload.
Other events affecting the Board of Prison Terms have occurred since the Office of the
Inspector General’s previous reviews. At the time of the Office of the Inspector General’s
2002 follow-up review, the Board of Prison Terms also provided inmates and parolees
with an appeals process by which to challenge board decisions, and the board had a
backlog of more than 2,200 appeals pending. Since that time, rules requiring inmates and
parolees to exhaust administrative remedies through the board’s appeals system before
presenting cases to the courts have been repealed. Under rules effective May 1, 2004,
inmates and parolees may now take appeals directly to the courts. As a result, the backlog
of appeals has been virtually eliminated.
In still another development, Jerry Rutherford, an inmate at California State Prison, San
Quentin, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Marin County Superior Court in
May 2004, alleging the state has failed to “hold a timely lifer parole hearing.” His courtappointed attorney filed a motion for class certification, which was granted by the court
in November 2004. The order defined the affected class as “all prisoners serving
indeterminate terms of life with the possibility of parole dates without receiving parole
hearings within the time required” by Penal Code section 3041(a).
The resultant class action became the basis for the “Rutherford Task Force,” which was
established by the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. The task force, comprised of
members from the Board of Prison Terms, the Department of Corrections, and the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency, began meeting in February 2005 to discuss the backlog
of hearings, commissioner vacancies, hearing postponements, and other issues affecting
the parole consideration hearing process.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the April 2002 follow-up to the March 2000 review:
•

The system used by the Board of Prison Terms to identify and schedule indeterminate
sentence hearings continued to be antiquated and did not ensure that the hearings
were properly managed and were held with reasonable promptness.

•

Management reports generated by the Board of Prison Terms contained inaccurate
information.

•

The Board of Prison Terms had not taken proactive measures to reduce the backlog of
indeterminate sentence hearings and the backlog had continued to grow until the
implementation of S.B. 778, which temporarily increased the number of available
hearing panels. Reductions in the backlog resulted entirely from the enactment and
implementation of the provisions of S.B. 778.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 5

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

•

By holding monthly board meetings on Tuesdays instead of Mondays, the board was
not maximizing the number of hearings its commissioners could hold. This is because
commissioners frequently took the entire Monday before the meeting to travel to the
site of the board meeting.

•

The board’s estimated schedule for eliminating the indeterminate sentence hearing
backlog by May 2002 was unrealistic.

•

The board’s appeals process was inadequate for handling appeals in a timely manner.
As a result, there was a backlog of more than 2,200 appeals from inmates and
parolees, but the board had taken no action to address the backlog.

The Office of the Inspector General made 10 recommendations to address the
deficiencies.
SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The Office of the Inspector General found that of the 10 recommendations issued by the
Office of the Inspector General in April 2002, none has been fully implemented; two
have been substantially implemented; three have been partially implemented; two have
not been implemented; and three are no longer applicable. In summary, the Office of the
Inspector General found the following:
•

The lifer database still cannot identify accurate statutory due dates for inmates’
initial and subsequent hearings. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the
improvements to the database described by the board and found that while the board
captures extensive amounts of detail for lifer hearings, it has not developed
information technology that allows it to obtain information from the Department of
Corrections necessary to identify inmates needing hearings. The board continues to
use the same process it used at the time of the Office of the Inspector General’s initial
review. In scheduling lifer hearings, the board uses primarily manual methods
involving a monthly exchange of faxes between board staff and a coordinator at each
of the 31 Department of Corrections institutions housing lifer inmates. After
interviewing board staff and evaluating both the “initial hearing report” and the
“subsequent hearing report,” the Office of the Inspector General found these reports
to be of limited value in identifying statutorily mandated hearing dates or in
scheduling future hearings. As a result, the board has no way to ensure that hearings
are held within the time frames required by law.

•

The statistics the board reports on lifer hearings are misleading. The way the board
reports the number of hearings it conducted each year inflates the total. The board
reported that it conducted 4,826 hearings in 2002; 4,498 in 2003; and 4,550 in 2004.
But the Office of the Inspector General determined that those figures actually
represent hearings scheduled. Hearings actually conducted in each of those years
totaled 3,926; 3,138; and 2,844, respectively — a collective overstatement of nearly
4,000 hearings for the three-year period. The decrease in hearings actually held
during each of the three years in that period coincides with a dramatic increase in

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 6

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

hearing postponements. Hearing postponement rates went from 18 percent in 2002 to
30 percent in 2003, and reached 37 percent in 2004 after the board adopted a
regulation allowing inmates to request a hearing postponement “for any reason” no
fewer than 10 working days before the scheduled hearing. During the period from
August 2004 through April 2005, the postponement rate rose to 44 percent.
Rescheduled hearings add to the board’s future workload and could ultimately affect
the backlog.
The way the board determines the number of overdue hearings comprising the
hearing backlog is similarly flawed. Instead of actually counting the number of
overdue hearings, the board relies on a formula-driven calculation that excludes
hearings that were postponed by the inmate, but never actually held. For purposes of
the board’s official reports, the calculation counts inmate-initiated hearing
postponements as “hearings conducted.”
•

The reported backlog of parole consideration hearings has increased. As noted in
the Office of the Inspector General’s April 2002 report, in early December 2001, the
board reported a backlog of 1,400 hearings. Since that time, the backlog has grown.
As of March 31, 2005, the board reported a backlog of 1,607 hearings —a 15 percent
increase over 2001. According to the board, vacancies in appointed commissioner
positions contribute to the backlog. The Office of the Inspector General confirmed
that only six of the nine commissioner posts provided by statute were filled at the
time of the most recent fieldwork, and the board has not had a full complement of
commissioners since December 2002.

•

S.B. 737 allows hearings up to 30 days overdue to be excluded from the “backlog.”
S.B. 737 defines backlog as those hearings held more than 30 days past the statutory
due dates for reporting purposes [emphasis added]. As a result, hearings overdue by
30 days or less are not counted in the backlog. Therefore, it is theoretically possible
for the board to hold all of the hearings past the statutory due dates, yet still report a
backlog of zero.
Furthermore, according to S.B. 737, when the backlog reaches zero, the board’s
hearing panels are to consist of at least two commissioners. This has the effect of
reducing by half the number of hearings that can be held even though hearings are as
much as 30 days past due.

•

Task force created to address indeterminate sentence hearing process. In response
to class action litigation (Rutherford v. Margarita Perez, et al.) the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency formed a task force in February 2005 made up of representatives
from the Department of Corrections and the Board of Prison Terms to address issues
affecting indeterminate sentence inmates, including hearing postponements,
vacancies in commissioner positions, and hearing workload. The task force is
working toward developing remedies and toward identifying resources needed to
implement necessary change.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 7

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Appeals backlog has been largely eliminated. In contrast to the backlog of mandated
parole consideration hearings, the backlog of appeals of board decisions by inmates
and parolees has been nearly eliminated because regulations that formerly required
inmates and parolees to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing grievances
before the courts have been repealed. Inmates and parolees may now appeal the
board’s decisions directly to the courts, leaving the board to handle only complaints
regarding clerical or procedural errors.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following additional actions:
•

Develop an information system in cooperation with the Department of
Corrections that will result in the board having access to the most current,
accurate, and relevant information necessary to manage its lifer hearing
responsibilities. Such information should include, for example, minimum
eligible parole dates and details of inmate status that may affect legally
mandated subsequent hearing dates.

•

Further develop regular monthly reports for use by board management in
forecasting, scheduling, and managing the lifer hearing workload.

•

Develop a system of quality control over data entry and compilation to
ensure the quality of management reports.

•

Move the regular monthly board meeting to Monday to increase the number
of hearings held during that week. In the alternative, the Office of the
Inspector General recommends that the board conduct a half day of hearings
at local prisons beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the regular
Tuesday meeting.

•

Develop policies, procedures, and regulations to minimize the number of
hearing postponements, both inmate-initiated and board-initiated.

•

For official reports, discontinue the current method of calculating the
backlog of hearings and replace it with a method that reports an actual count
of hearings that have passed their statutory due dates.

•

Work with the Legislature to reconsider how the hearing “backlog” is
defined in Penal Code section 3041(d), as revised by passage of S.B. 737.
Additionally, consider the impact of the requirement to have hearing panels
consist of at least two commissioners when the backlog reaches zero.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 8

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

2002 FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms system for identifying and scheduling
indeterminate sentence hearings continued to be antiquated and could not ensure that the hearings were properly managed
and conducted with reasonable promptness.
2002 FOLLOW- UP RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
implement new technologies and systems to
develop an efficient and effective hearing and
appeals operation that includes the following
elements:
•

The Board of Prison Terms should identify
specific information that would help to
effectively manage various activities and
develop new systems for compiling,
processing, and analyzing that information.
The information processed should address
and support each unit’s objectives, track
hearings, and appeals in the system, and
document the outcomes.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that the board has developed and
implemented a lifer database from which it can extract information to
produce various reports. For example, the board can use the database to
produce an “initial hearing report” identifying an inmate’s mandated initial
hearing date based on the minimum eligible parole date recorded in the
Department of Corrections Offender-Based Information System. Similarly,
the board can produce a “subsequent hearing report” identifying an inmate’s
subsequent mandated hearing date.
The board also reported that it has developed and implemented the
following:

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

•

Daily, weekly, and monthly reports of hearing decisions. The reports,
which are compiled from hearing decisions faxed daily from hearing
officers in the field and entered into the lifer database, facilitate
accurate reporting of proposed subsequent hearing dates.

•

A report identifying all lifer hearings requiring a rehearing. The reports
identify the reason for the rehearing and assist staff in addressing
patterns or trends.

PAGE 9

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

•

An enhancement to the existing lifer database documenting conflicts of
interest involving panel members. The database alerts users to any
conflict and identifies the reason to ensure that the issue is addressed
when the hearing is rescheduled.

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the improvements to the lifer
database described by the board and found that while the board captures
extensive amounts of detail for lifer hearings, it has not developed
information technology that allows it to obtain critical information from the
Department of Corrections to identify and schedule inmates needing
hearings. The board continues to use the same process it used at the time of
the Office of the Inspector General’s initial review. In scheduling lifer
hearings, the board uses primarily manual methods involving a monthly
exchange of faxes between board staff and a coordinator at each of the 31
Department of Corrections institutions housing lifer inmates.
After interviewing board staff and evaluating both the “initial hearing
report” and the “subsequent hearing report,” the Office of the Inspector
General found these reports to be of limited value in identifying statutorily
mandated hearing dates or in scheduling future hearings. A critical element
driving each inmate’s initial hearing date is his or her “minimum eligible
parole date,” which is subject to revision based upon the inmate’s incustody behavior. The minimum eligible parole dates recorded in the
Department of Corrections Offender Based Information System, which
form the basis for the board’s reports, are not updated to reflect such
revisions frequently enough to be reliable. Consequently, the board must
rely on Department of Corrections staff at each of the prisons to place
inmates on the schedule for their initial hearings based upon the most
accurate minimum eligible parole date for individual inmates.
The board’s subsequent hearing report is similarly unreliable. While it lists
the most recent “next hearing date” for each lifer inmate anticipating a
subsequent hearing, those dates may not reflect the next statutory due date.
A typical report of subsequent hearing dates may list several inmates whose
next hearing dates are several months or even years in the past, but only

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 10

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

manual research in conjunction with the Department of Corrections records
can disclose whether the reason for such apparent lateness is because the
inmate in question earned a new prison term, is temporarily housed outside
the prison, or has escaped the notice of those responsible for scheduling his
hearing. The next hearing dates for other inmates listed on the report may
appear to be several months in the future, but could be revised dates
assigned to them as the result of board-initiated postponements and not the
actual statutory due dates. In either case the report does not contain
adequate supplementary information, and further manual research of the
Department of Corrections records by board staff is required to discover the
underlying history of each item. As a result of the lack of information, the
board again relies on the Department of Corrections to schedule the inmates
for subsequent hearings.
The board reported that these reports collectively identify which inmates
should be scheduled for a hearing and are used as a mechanism to alert the
board’s scheduling staff if an inmate is not placed on a hearing calendar by
staff at the inmate’s institution.
The Office of the Inspector General found, however, that whatever value
these reports might have had as a mechanism for cross-checking the hearing
schedules submitted by individual institutions is negated by the fact that the
board’s scheduling staff does not perform such cross-checks, citing a lack
of resources to do so.
•

In cases where the Board of Prison Terms
already produces management reports, the
board should evaluate whether the reports
contain accurate information, and if
necessary, correct internal errors. Further,
the Board of Prison Terms should
implement quality control procedures
relative to data entry and compilation,
which would improve the overall accuracy
of reports.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

NOT IMPLEMENTED

This recommendation was directed toward enhancing internal quality
control procedures to improve the accuracy of the various management
reports produced by the board. The response from the board, however,
addressed only the expanded capability of the existing system to provide a
broader spectrum of information to users and to provide management with
more data with which to make decisions.
For example, the board reported that it now provides the Department of
Corrections with a monthly list by institution of postponed hearings, which
identifies the reasons for postponement and allows the department to
address issues underlying postponements at specific institutions. The report

PAGE 11

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

also identifies whether the postponement was at the request of the inmate
(or his attorney), or the board.
Other enhancements to the lifer database have eliminated duplicative efforts
by allowing hearing documentation to be entered and processed into one
comprehensive record containing information such as the following:
•

Hearing decisions by individual panel members to aid in analysis of
hearing results.

•

Dates of critical events, such as receipt of tapes and transcripts.

•

Electronically scanned hearing transcripts, eliminating the need for
microfilm and providing a more efficient means of conducting research.

•

Scheduled hearings requiring video conferencing equipment or any
special accommodations needed to meet Americans with Disability Act
mandates.

The board’s response did not address its quality control process over reports
it produces for management. As the Office of the Inspector General noted
above, the accuracy of key board reports is heavily dependent upon
information from individual Department of Corrections employees at each
of the prisons in the state correctional system, and the reports currently
produced by the board are unreliable.
•

The Board of Prison Terms should assign a
specific staff member the responsibility for
data collection and analysis. In addition, it
should maintain data for a sufficient period
of time to permit identification of trends
and to establish baseline standards and
expectations.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The board has identified its management information systems manager as
the individual with overall responsibility for data collection and analysis.
Data entry in the lifer database is limited to specifically trained staff; access
by other users is permitted on a read-only basis.
While the board’s response identifies an individual responsible for data
collection, it does not address data analysis. The Office of the Inspector
General found that while the board’s data system collects and stores a

PAGE 12

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

variety of information, its systems and processes have not developed to
allow for meaningful and routine analysis of the information it collects. For
example, the board has not developed an analysis of its projected future
workload that would allow its management to plan for personnel and
material resources, nor has it developed reports that would permit
management to identify and analyze the barriers to completing lifer hearings
by their statutory due dates.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms take the following additional actions:
•

Develop an information system in cooperation with the Department of Corrections that will result in the board having
access to the most current, accurate, and relevant information necessary to manage its lifer hearing responsibilities. Such
information should include, for example, minimum eligible parole dates and details of inmate status that may affect legally
mandated subsequent hearing dates.

•

Further develop regular monthly reports for use by board management in forecasting, scheduling, and managing the lifer
hearing workload.

•

Develop a system of quality control over data entry and compilation to ensure the quality of management reports.

2002 FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms had not taken proactive measures to reduce the
backlog of indeterminate sentence hearings, which continued to grow until the implementation of S.B. 778. Reductions in the
backlog had resulted entirely from the enactment and implementation of S.B. 778 (Chapter 131, Statutes of 2001).
2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

To ensure that Board of Prison Terms
commissioners and deputy commissioners
work at least an average of 40 hours a week,
the Office of the Inspector General

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

COMMENTS
The Board of Prison Terms reported that it has developed and administered
a plan to reduce the backlog of lifer hearings in conjunction with the
passage of S.B. 778, which temporarily enabled the board to conduct
hearings using two-person panels consisting of at least one commissioner,

PAGE 13

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

recommended that the board increase the
number of hearings it schedules each week.

instead of three-person panels requiring two commissioners. That legislative
change allows the board to convene twice as many hearing panels as before.
The board cites the ability to use two-person panels as its greatest tool in
reducing the hearing backlog.
The board also reported that it has taken steps to ensure that the maximum
number of hearings are scheduled and conducted each week. According to
the board, commissioners are assigned to institutions near their homes to
reduce travel time and are now assigned 3 to 5 hearings each working day,
for an average of 21 cases per week. The board emphasized that because
commissioners must prepare for hearings in advance, time spent in the
hearing venue represents only a portion of the effort invested. According to
the board, the preparation is usually done the previous evening following a
full day of hearings that may stretch from morning to early evening.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that the board now schedules
commissioners for an average of 21 hearings a week, compared to the
weekly average of 18 found during the Office of the Inspector General’s
April 2002 review, and noted that the board has averaged more than 4,600
scheduled hearings annually for the three-year period ending December 31,
2004. In addition, recent passage of Senate Bill 737 amended Penal Code
Section 3041 to permanently allow the board to conduct hearings with twoperson panels consisting of at least one commissioner.

The board should also move its monthly board
meetings from Tuesday to Monday to increase
the number of hearings conducted during that
week.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

NOT IMPLEMENTED

The board’s response did not address the matter of moving its regular
monthly meetings to Monday.
The Office of the Inspector General notes that the board allows a day and a
half for preparation and travel on the Monday preceding the regular
monthly board meeting scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday. As an
alternative to moving the regular board meeting to Monday, the board could
schedule hearing panels at local prisons beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the
Monday preceding the board meeting. By doing so, it could conduct more
hearings that week while still permitting a half day for meeting preparation
on Tuesday.

PAGE 14

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

In addition, the board should conduct an
internal review of the indeterminate sentence
hearing process to identify measures to achieve
greater efficiency.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The board did not conduct an internal review, but responded that it conducts
hearings as efficiently as possible in an environment in which many
intangible, dynamic factors significantly influence the process and
determine whether a hearing begins on time, is completed, or is postponed.
The board noted that the quasi-judicial nature of the hearings necessitates
placing a high priority on protecting the due process rights of all parties
rather than on allocating a specific period of time to deliberate a decision.
Commissioners often manage highly emotional situations involving the
interests of victims and inmates, whose personal freedom is at stake.
Decisions are deliberated with all pertinent factors unique to each hearing
weighed and thoughtfully considered.
The board said that successful completion of a parole consideration hearing
is also influenced by logistical factors beyond the board’s control, such as
the need for videoconferencing equipment, the ability to complete timely
psychological evaluations, and the availability of attorneys who represent
inmates.
The Office of the Inspector General notes that these critical issues became
the subject of study and discussion by the Rutherford Task Force, formed
by the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency in response to class-action
litigation initiated by a San Quentin inmate alleging that the state failed “to
hold a timely lifer parole hearing” in his case. The task force began meeting
in February 2005 to discuss issues such as the backlog of hearings,
commissioner vacancies, and hearing postponements only after the Marin
County Superior Court granted class certification in the case on November
29, 2004.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 15

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the board move its regular monthly meeting to Monday to increase the
number of hearings held during that week. In the alternative, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the board
conduct a half day of hearings at local prisons beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the regular Tuesday meeting.
2002 FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that the estimated schedule of the Board of Prison Terms for eliminating the
hearing backlog by May 2002 was unrealistic.
2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
take measures to ensure a consistent, adequate
delivery process for indeterminate sentence
hearings. To improve its efficiency, the Office
of the Inspector General recommended that the
board restructure its scheduling system by
increasing the number of scheduled hearings
for each of the four hearing panels to offset the
12 percent of hearings postponed. That
measure would also alleviate the workload in
the event of short-term commissioner
vacancies.

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The board did not directly respond to the Office of the Inspector General’s
recommendation to increase the number of scheduled hearings to offset
anticipated postponements. As discussed in Finding 2, however, the board
has increased the number of hearings from 18 to an average of 21 hearings
per week per commissioner. That action substantially addresses the intent of
the Office of the Inspector General’s recommendation.
The board reported in its response that in the last three years, it has
conducted a record number of hearings, holding 4,826 in 2002, 4,498 in
2003, and 4,550 in 2004. The totals are reportedly more than twice the
number of annual hearings conducted in any year before 2001. At one point,
according to the board, the hearing backlog fell by approximately 1,700
cases, from an initial total of 2,000 to 300. On March 31, 2005, the board
reported a backlog of 1,607 hearings.
While the board’s response cites an increase in the number of hearings it
conducted, the figures it cites — 4,826 for 2002; 4,498 for 2003; and 4,550
in 2004 — are actually the number of hearings scheduled, not the number of
hearings conducted. The Office of the Inspector General found, based on
reports prepared by the board, that actual hearings conducted are 3,926 for
2002; 3,138 for 2003; and 2,844 for 2004. The Office of the Inspector
General notes that there are fewer annual hearings conducted for each

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 16

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

successive year during that time owing to a dramatic increase in the number
of postponements throughout that period. Statistics provided by the board
indicate that 12 percent of scheduled hearings in calendar year 2001 were
postponed. This figure has increased steadily in recent years, rising to 18
percent in 2002, 30 percent in 2003 and 37 percent in 2004.
The dramatic increase in postponements is exacerbated by the board’s
adoption in June 2004 of rule changes to Section 2253(b) of Title 15, which
now states that “a prisoner may request a postponement for any reason” no
fewer than 10 working days prior to the scheduled hearing. Immediately
after adoption of this change, the overall postponement rate for hearings
scheduled for August 2004 through April 2005 rose to 44 percent.
Rescheduled hearings add to the board’s future workload and could
ultimately affect the backlog.
In addition to the extra expenses associated with the need to re-schedule
postponed hearings, the openings left in the hearing schedule by last-minute
inmate postponements further contribute to the backlog. The growing trend
in postponements results in fewer hearings conducted and more hearings
becoming backlogged. In March 2005 for example, 313 (86 percent) of the
362 lifer hearings conducted were held after their recorded “next hearing”
dates and were late by an average of more than three months. As a result,
the efforts of the hearing panels are consumed primarily with late hearings,
leaving little time and resources available for hearings that are currently
due.
According to the board, vacancies in appointed commissioner positions
contribute to the backlog. The Office of the Inspector General confirmed
that only six of the nine commissioner posts provided by statute were filled
at the time of the most recent fieldwork, and that the board has not had a
full complement of nine commissioners since December 2002.
The board further reported that, as an unintended consequence of S.B. 778,
the board’s ability to convene more panels has placed added stress on its
limited support resources and clerical staff.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 17

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In addition, the board reported that as the number of hearings conducted
reaches historically high levels, the related number of postponements
increases, contributing to the backlog. The board takes the position that
postponements requested by an inmate or his/her attorney, in contrast to
postponements initiated by the board, result in a change to the hearing due
date and should not be included in the backlog of hearings. The board
demonstrated to the Office of the Inspector General its new ability to
differentiate between postponements requested by inmates and
postponements caused by the board and has documented that inmaterequested postponements are in the majority. For example, the board’s
statistics for postponements occurring from August through April 2005
show that inmates or their attorneys requested 1,001 (62 percent) of the
1,623 postponements. Consequently, future reports of backlogged hearings
will be adjusted to not include postponements requested by inmates.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the “backlog” figure used in
the board’s official report is not an actual count, but is a figure calculated by
subtracting the number of board-postponed hearings (as opposed to those
initiated by inmates) from the number of “scheduled hearings” each month.
The net figure is considered the number of “hearings conducted,” which is
then compared to the number of “hearings needed” for the period. If
“hearings conducted” exceed “hearings needed,” the backlog is reduced by
the difference; if the opposite is true, the backlog is increased by that
difference.
The principal in omitting inmate-initiated postponements from the
calculation is to include in the backlog only those postponements for which
the board is responsible. While there is merit to this approach, the
calculation method described above causes inmate-initiated postponements
to be counted as “hearings conducted” in the board’s official “Report of
Lifer Parole Hearings,” thus overstating the number of conducted hearings
and causing the report to be misleading.
S.B. 737 (Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005) defines the “backlog” of lifer
hearings for reporting purposes as the number of cases in which an inmate
has not received a completed initial or subsequent parole consideration

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 18

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

hearing within 30 days of the hearing date required by statute, unless the
inmate has waived the right to those timeframes. The Office of the Inspector
General notes that under this definition, it is hypothetically possible for the
board to report a “backlog” of zero while still holding hearings up to 30
days after their statutory due dates—and providing a continued target for
additional litigation. Furthermore, according to S.B. 737, when the backlog
reaches zero, the board’s hearing panels are to consist of at least two
commissioners. This has the effect of reducing by half the number of
hearings that can be held even though hearings are as much as 30 days past
due.
The evaluation of the backlog is among the issues being addressed by the
Rutherford Task Force that convened in February 2005.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms take the following additional actions:
•

Develop policies, procedures, and regulations to minimize the number of hearing postponements, both inmate-initiated and
board-initiated.

•

For official reports, discontinue the current method of calculating the backlog of hearings and replace it with a method that
reports an actual count of hearings that have passed their statutory due dates.

•

Work with the Legislature to reconsider how the hearing “backlog” is defined in Penal Code section 3041(d), as revised by
passage of S.B. 737. Additionally, consider the impact of the requirement to have hearing panels consist of at least two
commissioners when the backlog reaches zero.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 19

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

2002 FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms processes were not adequate to handle appeals in a
timely manner and had resulted in a backlog of more than 2,200 appeals from inmates and parolees, but the Board of Prison
Terms had taken no action to address the backlog.
2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following corrective actions to clear
the excessive backlog of appeals:
•

Consider transferring responsibility for
reviewing and completing indeterminate
sentence appeals from the deputy
commissioners to the board’s legal section
to eliminate a duplication of effort and
potential conflict.

NOT
APPLICABLE

The board reported that after it conducted a thorough review of the appeals
process in conjunction with other affected agencies and citizen groups, it
abolished the appeals process that existed at the time of the Office of the
Inspector General’s April 2002 audit.
According to the board, its review revealed that historically, approximately 97
percent of prisoner appeals were denied, and that all denied appeals concerned
challenges to the discretionary actions of the board’s hearing panels. In contrast,
the majority of appeals granted concerned clerical or ministerial errors easily
identifiable and quickly remedied. The board concluded that the appeals process
was cumbersome, resource-intensive, and did not satisfy a legitimate need.
The board further determined that the legal doctrine requiring prisoners to
exhaust administrative remedies before taking cases to court was a time-wasting
impediment. As a result, the board proposed to eliminate as much of the
administrative appeals process as possible and adopted regulations in
accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, effective May 1, 2004.
According to the board, the new regulations and procedures reduce the appeals
backlog and create a more streamlined process that allows the board to address
and correct obvious errors rapidly. An inmate or parolee need only send a letter
to the new Quality Control Unit. The reforms also provide speedier access to the
courts for prisoners and counsel who believe they have meritorious claims.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 20

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of the Inspector General noted that the appeal backlog has rapidly
diminished since enactment of the new regulations, with remaining appeals
numbering slightly more than 300 in January 2005 — substantially fewer than
the more than 2,200 overdue appeals at the time of the Office of the Inspector
General’s April 2002 review.
•

The Board of Prison Terms should develop
an operations manual and written
guidelines on processing appeals for the
appeals unit.

•

The Board of Prison Terms should crosstrain staff from other units on processing
appeals as a back-up in the event of staff
absence or shortage.

NOT
APPLICABLE

NOT

APPLICABLE

Although the board has abolished the appeals process, board staff told the
Office of the Inspector General that the board is developing a procedures
manual for its Quality Control Unit.
Because the Board of Prison Terms has abolished the appeals process, this
recommendation is no longer applicable.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 21

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Board of Prison Terms has improved its parole
revocation hearing tracking system since a January
2003 review and is implementing a new parole
revocation process pursuant to the Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger class action lawsuit.

PAROLE REVOCATION

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 6
Fully implemented: 5 (83%)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 0 (0%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)

The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003
Not applicable: 1 (17 %)
review of the Board of Prison Terms identified
significant deficiencies in the state’s parole revocation
process. The deficiencies stemmed partly from poor
coordination between the Board of Prison Terms and the Department of Corrections, and
partly from the board’s failure to properly manage the revocation process and to
adequately supervise its deputy commissioners.
BACKGROUND
The Board of Prison Terms conducts parole revocation hearings for parolees who have
violated parole conditions. In carrying out its duties for the parole revocation process, the
board shares responsibility with the Department of Corrections. At the time of the Office
of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review, more than 7,000 incarcerated parolees
were awaiting parole revocation hearings to determine whether they should be returned to
prison. State and federal law has established that alleged parole violators have a due
process right to a hearing within 45 days of incarceration, or within a “reasonable time
period.” Yet, in the 2003 review, the Office of the Inspector General found that 81
percent of a sample of parole violators had been incarcerated longer than 45 days and that
7 percent had been held more than 100 days. In many instances, by the time parolees
received hearings to determine whether parole should be revoked, they had already
served at least as much time as the parole revocation sentences they would have received
for the violations of which they were accused.
The class action lawsuit Valdivia v. Davis (now Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger) was
pending in U.S. District Court at the time of the January 2003 review. The court had
granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that California’s
parole revocation system violated plaintiffs’ due process rights under the 14th
Amendment by “allowing a delay of up to forty-five days or more before providing the
parolee an opportunity to be heard regarding the reliability of the probable cause
determination.” In November 2003, the Board of Prison Terms and the Department of
Corrections reached a court-approved settlement to resolve the lawsuit.
The remedial plan developed in response to the Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger litigation has
resulted in broad changes to the revocation process. The defendants are now required by
court order to fully implement the revocation process described in the Valdivia remedial

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 22

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION

plan by July 1, 2005. Among the most significant changes to the parole revocation
process are the following:
•

All alleged parole violators will be assigned an attorney at the beginning of the
process.

•

All alleged parole violators will be served with actual notice of the alleged parole
violation, including a short factual summary of the charged conduct and written
notice of the parolee’s rights regarding the revocation process and timeframes.

•

To determine whether there is sufficient justification to proceed to a hearing, all
alleged parole violators who do not waive or seek a continuance of a probable cause
hearing will have a probable cause hearing within 10 business days after the parolee
has been served with notice of charges and rights.

•

All persons subject to parole revocation who do not waive or seek a continuance of a
final revocation hearing will be provided with a parole revocation hearing within 35
calendar days, unless the parolee requests a continuance.

The Board of Prison Terms projects that it will receive approximately 85,000 referrals of
parole violations from the Department of Corrections in fiscal year 2005-06. The board
estimates that approximately 66 percent of the cases referred are resolved before hearing
and that it will conduct approximately 28,900 parole revocation hearings in fiscal year
2005-06.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the January 2003 review:
•

The state did not have an effective means of tracking to ensure that parolees detained
for violating parole received a hearing within the 45-day time-frame specified in state
regulations or within a “reasonable time period,” as specified under federal law.

•

The parole revocation process was unnecessarily burdensome and prevented the state
from affording inmates and parolees their due process rights to a timely hearing.

As a result of the January 2003 review, the Office of the Inspector General made the
following recommendations to the Board of Prison Terms:
•

Refine the revocation scheduling and tracking system to ensure that it provides the
information needed to efficiently administer the parole revocation process. The
system should be able to accomplish the following:

•

Track the status of parolees from the day of arrest to the day the parole revocation
hearing is held.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 23

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION

•

Provide current information regarding the length of time parolees have been awaiting
hearings.

•

Provide complete information about the revocation hearing proceedings, including the
number of elapsed days between each phase of the hearing process, the decision
reached during the hearing, and the basis for the decision.

•

Explore the feasibility of consolidating responsibility for the parole revocation
process in one department, with the Department of Corrections the most logical
choice for that function.

•

Eliminate the parole revocation screening process and instead proceed directly to the
parole revocation hearing. The State should conduct all such hearings within 30 days
unless the parolee requests an extension.

•

Identify Proposition 36-eligible parolees who were placed into custody prior to
October 1, 2002 and who remain in custody, and release them to a drug-treatment
program.

SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the six recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in January
2003 concerning the parole revocation process, five have been fully implemented; and
one is no longer applicable.
In summary, the Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms
has made significant progress in tracking the thousands of revocation cases processed
annually to help ensure that suspected parole violators receive timely hearings. The
revocation scheduling and tracking system implemented pursuant to the Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger remedial plan now tracks the status of parolees from the day of arrest to
the day the parole revocation hearing is held. The system also provides management with
both summary reports and access to more detailed information. The board also reported
that it has identified all parolees eligible for treatment under Proposition 36 who had been
placed in custody before October 1, 2002 and released them to drug treatment programs.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 24

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 31
The Office of the Inspector General found that at the time of the review the state had only recently developed a means of
tracking to ensure that parolees detained for violating parole received a hearing within the 45-day guideline specified in state
regulations or within a “reasonable time period,” as specified under federal law.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
refine the revocation scheduling and tracking
system to ensure that it provides the
information needed to efficiently administer
the parole revocation process. The system
should be able to accomplish the following:

STATUS

COMMENTS
The Board of Prison Terms reported that version 2.5 of the revocation
scheduling and tracking system was implemented in October 2002, soon after
the Office of the Inspector General completed fieldwork for the January 2003
report.
At the time of the Office of the Inspector General’s 2005 fieldwork, version
2.5 of the revocation scheduling and tracking system was still in operation and
until February 1, 2005 was used for tracking parolees placed on hold. On
February 1, 2005, the Board of Prison Terms implemented an updated version
of the tracking system specifically designed to accommodate the new
revocation process pursuant to the Valdivia remedial plan. That new version of
the revocation scheduling system, which is known as RSTS 3.0, is used to
track parolees placed on hold since February 1, 2005, while the older version
continues to be used for parolees placed on hold before that date.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms has
made significant progress in tracking the thousands of parole revocation cases
processed annually. The RSTS 3.0 system provides management with
summary information about the status of cases in process statewide at any
point in time or over a period of time, such as a month or year. The system also
allows management to obtain more detailed summary information, such as
cases in process in a particular region, or cases assigned to a particular person,
so that problems can be identified and corrected.

1

Numbering of findings coincides with the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 report and therefore is not sequential in this report.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 25

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

Track the status of parolees from the day
of arrest to the day the parole revocation
hearing is held.

PAROLE REVOCATION

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that this recommendation was satisfied
with the release and implementation of RSTS 2.5 in October 2002.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the revocation scheduling and
tracking system versions 2.5 and 3.0, and found that the system can create a
case status record for tracking the status of parolees facing parole violation
charges, whether in custody or not, from the date of hold or discovery to the
completion of the case, including the hearing results.

•

Provide current information regarding the
length of time parolees have been awaiting
hearings.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that this was accomplished with RSTS
2.5, which was released and implemented October 2002.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the revocation scheduling and
tracking system versions 2.5 and 3.0 report the length of time parolees have
been awaiting hearings.

•

Provide complete information about the
revocation hearing proceedings, including
the number of elapsed days between each
phase of the hearing process, the decision
reached during the hearing, and the basis
for the decision.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that the revocation scheduling and
tracking system will be modified to include the dates of key events in the new
revocation process outlined in the Valdivia remedial plan.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the summary of the revocation
hearing and decision (form BPT 1103) is entered into the tracking system for
all cases. For hearing locations with access to the tracking system, the entering
is done online by the deputy commissioners at the actual hearing, making the
information immediately available in the tracking system.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 26

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that the state’s parole revocation process was unnecessarily burdensome and
prevented it from affording inmates and parolees their due process rights to a timely hearing.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended the following actions:
•

The state should explore the feasibility of
consolidating responsibility for the parole
revocation process in one department, with
the Department of Corrections the most
logical choice for that function.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported to the Office of the Inspector General
that the federal court order (Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger) and settlement
agreement under the Valdivia remedial plan provides for consolidating
responsibility for the parole revocation process in the Board of Prison Terms.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the stipulated order for
permanent injunctive relief in the matter of Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger and
found that the revocation process has changed significantly. The Department
of Corrections continues to have responsibility for custody of parolees
suspected of violating parole. Department employees are responsible for
making a probable cause determination and, if appropriate, recommending
alternative sanctions to parole revocation. If alternative sanctions are not
appropriate, the department is responsible for notifying the parolee of charges
and for preparing a revocation packet that serves as the referral to the Board
of Prison Terms for possible parole revocation. The Board of Prison Terms
handles all aspects of the revocation process from the point of referral, except
for parolee custody, which is handled by the Department of Corrections.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency has assumed responsibility for developing and
implementing the new parole revocation process, thereby providing the
necessary coordination between the Board of Prison Terms and the
Department of Corrections. Also, on May 10, 2005, the governor signed
Senate Bill 737, which abolishes several departments and boards within the
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency and creates instead the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. Under the provisions of the new law, the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 27

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PAROLE REVOCATION

Department of Corrections will be known as the Division of Adult Operations
and the Board of Prison Terms will be known as the Board of Parole
Hearings. These changes become operative July 1, 2005.
•

The Board of Prison Terms should
eliminate the parole revocation screening
process and instead proceed directly to the
parole revocation hearing. The State
should conduct all such hearings within 30
days unless the parolee requests an
extension.

•

Identify Proposition 36-eligible parolees
who were placed into custody prior to
October 1, 2002 and who remain in
custody, and release them to a drugtreatment program.

NOT APPLICABLE

FULLY

IMPLEMENTED

This recommendation is no longer applicable. The Valdivia remedial plan
provides for screening offers to be made to each parolee before proceeding to
the hearing. According to the court order, all hearings must be conducted on
or before the 35th calendar day after placement of the parole hold.

The Board of Prison Terms informed the Office of the Inspector General that
this task was completed by December 31, 2002.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the new revocation process
pursuant to the Valdivia remedial plan provides opportunities for remedial
sanctions at many steps in the process. The remedial sanctions include
placement in drug-treatment programs as an alternative to parole revocation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 28

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD

The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Board of Prison Terms has increased supervision of
its deputy commissioners since the
January 2003 review, but has still not implemented
a time-management system, hindering its ability to
project the number of deputy commissioners it
needs to fulfill its responsibilities.

Previous recommendations: 6
Fully implemented: 2 (33 %)
Substantially implemented: 1 (17%)
Partially implemented: 2 (33%)
Not implemented: 1 (17%)

Not applicable: 0 (0%)
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003
review of the Board of Prison Terms was prompted in
part by the board’s proposal to fill 24 of its vacant
deputy commissioner positions. The review was conducted to determine whether the
board had a legitimate need to fill the positions in light of the state budget crisis. As a
result of the review, the Office of the Inspector General found that the board did not need
additional deputy commissioners, and that, in fact, with more efficient use of its
resources, could fulfill its responsibilities with slightly more than half its then-existing
staff. The Office of the Inspector General also found that deficiencies in the parole
revocation process stemmed partly from the board’s failure to adequately supervise the
deputy commissioners.

BACKGROUND
Deputy commissioners are central to the mission and functions of the Board of Prison
Terms. The deputy commissioners conduct parole revocation hearings; participate with
Board of Prison Terms commissioners in indeterminate sentence hearings; conduct
hearings for mentally disordered offenders and sexually violent predicators; and develop
“screening offers” for parole violators— proposed parole revocation prison terms —
which parolees may either accept or reject, with the latter triggering a revocation hearing.
The board has 72 authorized deputy commissioner positions for fiscal year 2004-05,
representing 31 percent of its personnel costs. To justify the positions, the board uses a
“workload analysis,” a calculation that incorporates the number of hearings and other
functions conducted by the board each year, the time required to complete each function,
and the number of hours each deputy commissioner is available to work.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the January 2003 review:
•

The Board of Prison Terms had significantly overstated the number of deputy
commissioner positions it needed to fulfill its responsibilities and actually needed
only about 39 positions — slightly more than half its existing deputy commissioner
staff.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 29

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

Board of Prison Terms deputy commissioners, who carry out most of the board’s
functions, received little supervision and the board had no means of accounting for
how they spent their time.

The Office of the Inspector General made the following six recommendations to the
Board of Prison Terms concerning supervision of the deputy commissioner staff as a
result of the January 2003 review:
•

Develop and implement a time-management system for deputy commissioners. The
system should require that deputy commissioners accurately record the amount of
time spent on daily board activities, including hearings and other tasks, and should
ensure that the deputy commissioners account for their time on a daily, weekly, and
monthly basis. The system should contain enough detail to allow management to
analyze the typical daily activities of a deputy commissioner.

•

Use information from the time-management system to support the workload analysis.
The two critical factors in the workload analysis –total hours required to complete
hearings and the total number of hours each deputy commissioner can work in one
year – should be updated to accurately reflect current capabilities.

•

Establish more associate chief deputy commissioner positions based on a ratio of
eight deputy commissioners to one associate chief deputy commissioner, with
compensation commensurate with the responsibility of the position to supervise
deputy commissioners.

•

Associate chief deputy commissioners who are responsible for supervising deputy
commissioners should do the following:
•

Ensure that the deputy commissioners work an average of 40 hours per week
as specified in the collective bargaining agreement.

•

Systematically review hearing proceedings and decisions reached to ensure
that deputy commissioners conduct hearings properly and consistently.
Reviews should be coordinated with similar reviews completed by other staff
members.

•

Require deputy commissioners to use the revocation scheduling and tracking
system.

SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the six recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in January
2003 concerning the board’s supervision of the deputy commissioners, two
recommendations have been fully implemented; one has been substantially implemented;
two have been partially implemented; and one has not been implemented.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 30

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms has improved
the supervision and productivity of deputy commissioners by increasing both the number
of supervisors relative to deputy commissioners and the number of parole revocation
hearings scheduled for deputy commissioners each day. The board also has made
progress in evaluating the number of deputy commissioner positions it needs to fulfill its
responsibilities, but its ability to more accurately make that evaluation is hampered by its
failure to implement a time-management system to accurately record the time deputy
commissioners spend on various activities. The implementation of a new parole
revocation process pursuant to the Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger litigation has also affected
the board’s ability to determine how many deputy commissioners it needs because of the
lack of historical information for projecting time required by the new process.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison
Terms take the following additional actions:
•

Develop and implement a time-management system for deputy
commissioners.

•

Use information from the time-management system to support future
workload analyses. The two critical factors in the workload analysis
report – total hours required to complete hearings and the total number
of hours each deputy commissioner can work in one year – should be
updated to accurately reflect current capabilities.

•

Continue efforts to increase the number of associate chief deputy
commissioner positions relative to the number of deputy commissioners
they supervise and to make the compensation of the associate chief
deputy commissioner position commensurate with the responsibility of
the position for supervising deputy commissioners.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 31

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms had significantly overstated the number of deputy
commissioner positions it required to fulfill its responsibilities and that the actual number of deputy commissioner positions it
needed was only about 39 – slightly more than half its deputy commissioner staff.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
use information from the time-management
system proposed in Finding 2 to support its
workload analysis. The recommendation noted
that the two critical factors in the workload
analysis –total hours required to complete
hearings and the total number of hours each
deputy commissioner can work in one year –
should be updated to accurately reflect current
capabilities.

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The board reported that it has updated both the number of hours required to
complete hearings and the number of hours each deputy commissioner can work
in one year to accurately reflect current capabilities and has adjusted workload
formulas accordingly.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the board’s workload analysis for
fiscal year 2005-06 and found that in most cases, minutes per activity were
updated based on the results of a deputy commissioner workload study issued
by the board in January 2004. The Board of Prison Terms noted, however, that
the January 2004 workload study was completed before implementation of the
new revocation process developed pursuant to the Valdivia remedial plan. The
number of hours required to complete the steps in the new process, therefore, is
only an estimate.
The board calculated the number of hours each deputy commissioner can work
in one year at 1,290 hours. That number is a critical element in the workload
analysis; yet, the time needed for training and travel again are only estimates,
because the board lacks a time-management system that provides accurate data
on those activities, and because travel is expected to increase as a result of the
new revocation process.
In reviewing the workload analysis, the Office of the Inspector General noted
that the board did not account for administrative tasks, special assignments, or
wait time. The board’s January 2004 workload study found that deputy
commissioners spent an average of 10 hours per week on those activities during
the study period. The board maintains that 10 hours per week would overstate
the time spent if applied to the full year. Nonetheless, some amount of time

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 32

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

must be allocated to those areas. Even five hours per week per deputy
commissioner spent in those activities would require an additional 15 deputy
commissioner positions a year, while two hours per week per commissioner
spent on administrative activities alone would require five additional deputy
commissioner positions. Without a time management system to capture the time
deputy commissioners spend on tasks, another workload study will be necessary
to compile accurate data for the new revocation process.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms use information from the time-management
system (proposed in Finding 2) to support future workload analyses. The two critical factors in the workload analysis report –
total hours required to complete hearings and the total number of hours each deputy commissioner can work in one year –
should be updated to accurately reflect current capabilities.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the deputy commissioners of the Board of Prison Terms, who carry out most of
the board’s functions, received little supervision and the board had no means of accounting for how they spent their time.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following actions:
Develop and implement a time-management
system for deputy commissioners. The system
should require that deputy commissioners
accurately record the amount of time spent on
daily board activities, including hearings and
other tasks, and should ensure that the deputy

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that, as an alternative to a timemanagement system, it completed a 13-week deputy commissioner workload
study in 2003 using a time-reporting instrument. The board asserted that a
time-management system for deputy commissioners is not feasible because
the labor agreement governing deputy commissioners specifically limits
recording work time to client billing, budgeting, and case or project tracking.

PAGE 33

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

commissioners account for their time on a
daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The system
should contain enough detail to allow
management to analyze the typical daily
activities of a deputy commissioner.

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

The board also noted that changes in deputy commissioner duties under the
Valdivia remedial plan will necessitate further analysis of actual work and
the time required to conduct parole revocation hearings.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the labor agreement governing
deputy commissioners and found that the contract does not prohibit the
Board of Prison Terms from requiring deputy commissioners to provide
detailed time recording. The confusion arises because deputy commissioners
are in Work Week Group “E” (formerly 4C) and are therefore exempt from
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Exempt employees are not hourly workers, but
rather, receive compensation based on the premise that they are expected to
work as many hours as necessary to provide the public services for which
they were hired. These employees are not required to report hourly time for
payroll purposes, and in fact are not required to report less than full-day
absences for purposes of salary or leave adjustments. However, exempt
status does not prohibit management from tracking deputy commissioners’
time for budgeting purposes.
Bargaining Unit 2 (attorneys and hearing officers) represents the deputy
commissioners of the Board of Prison Terms. The most recent Bargaining
Unit 2 labor agreement, covering July 1, 2001 through July 2, 2003, which is
still in effect, states in paragraph 6.3 C, “Employees may be required to
record time for purposes such as client billing, budgeting, case or project
tracking” [emphasis added]. This section therefore permits the board to
implement the time-management system recommended by the Office of the
Inspector General.
The Office of the Inspector General also reviewed the board’s deputy
commissioner workload study of January 2004. The study, which included
data gathered over a 13-week period in the latter half of 2003, describes the
critical tasks performed by deputy commissioners and records the time
required to accomplish those tasks. The Office of the Inspector General
found that the usefulness of the study is limited in two ways. First, the study
covers only a 13-week period, which is too short to accumulate accurate
annual averages for some activities, such as training, travel, and

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 34

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

administrative time. Second, the daily activities of the deputy commissioners
are changing with the implementation of the Valdivia remedial plan,
meaning that yet another workload study will be needed to determine the
changes to activities and the average time needed to complete each activity.
These limitations further illustrate the need for a current time management
system.
Establish more associate chief deputy
commissioner positions based on a ratio of
eight deputy commissioners to one associate
chief deputy commissioner, with compensation
commensurate with the responsibility of the
position to supervise deputy commissioners.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that there continues to be an inadequate
number of associate chief deputy commissioners, and that due to budgetary
constraints the ratio of eight deputy commissioners to one associate chief
deputy commissioner has not been realized. The board noted that the
associate chief deputy commissioners are also required to supervise
correctional counselor I and correctional counselor II positions assigned to
them.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms
has 72 deputy commissioner positions and seven associate chief deputy
commissioner positions authorized for the 2004-05 fiscal year. This
represents a ratio of approximately ten deputy commissioners to one
associate chief deputy commissioner, a significant improvement over the 16to-1 ratio reported in the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003
report. The audit team noted that 64 of the 72 deputy commissioner positions
were filled at the time of the follow-up fieldwork and the board is attempting
to fill the remaining eight vacancies.
The Board of Prison Terms also reported that the compensation package for
associate chief deputy commissioners lacks safety retirement, although this
supervisory position continues to supervise peace officers who do have
safety retirement. According to the board, there is insufficient external
support for a compensation adjustment for the associate chief deputy
commissioner classification.
The January 2003 report issued by the Office of the Inspector General found
that the lack of safety retirement creates a disincentive for deputy
commissioners who might otherwise seek promotion to associate chief

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 35

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

deputy commissioner. As a result, the board sometimes places deputy
commissioners into acting associate chief deputy commissioner positions on
a 12-month temporary basis while holding the resulting deputy
commissioner vacancies open for the deputy commissioners’ eventual return.
The follow-up audit team found that four of the seven associate chief deputy
commissioner positions currently filled at the Board of Prison Terms are
deputy commissioners in acting positions. As a consequence, the board is
unable to fill the deputy commissioner vacancies being held for the four
acting associate deputy commissioners.
Associate chief deputy commissioners who are
responsible for supervising deputy
commissioners should do the following:
•

Ensure that the deputy commissioners
work an average of 40 hours per week as
specified in the collective bargaining
agreement.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that the workday of deputy
commissioners has been more carefully detailed based upon the workload
study. The board reported that it implemented increases in the number of
assigned hearings in 2003 wherever possible; trained supervisors; and
empowered them with clear expectations to monitor staff work hours and
work product.
The Office of the Inspector General found that effective February 3, 2003,
the board increased the number of parole revocation hearings scheduled per
day from six to seven at hearing locations where seven hearings a day are
possible. According to the board’s workload study, each hearing takes an
average of 64 minutes, resulting in approximately 7.5 hours per day of
hearing time and leaving only 30 minutes for miscellaneous administrative or
other duties. Starting January 1, 2005, however, the board again decreased
the number of hearings per day to accommodate the Valdivia agreement to
provide an attorney to each parolee because hearings with an attorney
generally take longer to complete than those without.
To address findings reported by the Office of the Inspector General, the
Board of Prison Terms issued a hearing directive effective August 11, 2003,
that provided the daily start time for deputy commissioners would be

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 36

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

8 a.m. at non-hearing sites. The directive also cited Hearing Directive 02-15,
issued September 6, 2002, which requires that deputy commissioners who
complete a scheduled assignment before 3 p.m. must contact the nearest
Central Office Calendar, Discharge Review or Revocation Screening
Calendar to determine whether additional assistance is required. When
distance or time prevents the deputy commissioner from providing effective
assistance, the deputy commissioner is required to contact his or her
supervisor for guidance and direction.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that the Board of Prison
Terms provided a comprehensive training course to managers and
supervisors in July 2004.
The board told the Office of the Inspector General that changes planned with
the new revocation process resulting from the Valdivia litigation will
improve the ability of associate chief deputy commissioners to directly
supervise and monitor the work schedules of deputy commissioners.
According to the board, approximately 70 percent of revocation hearings will
be held at 13 new decentralized revocation units and these units are expected
to become the designated headquarters for deputy commissioners. The new
arrangement is expected to eliminate the travel time presently incurred from
the deputy commissioners’ home headquarters to hearing locations. These
and other issues are currently being negotiated with the bargaining unit.
•

Systematically review hearing proceedings
and decisions reached to ensure that
deputy commissioners conduct hearings
properly and consistently. Reviews should
be coordinated with similar reviews
completed by other staff members.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that reviews of hearing proceedings are
done by on-site associate chief deputy commissioners and the chief deputy
commissioner. Other reviews of proceedings and decisions are performed for
a variety of reasons, including the following:
•

The Board of Prison Terms legal staff and Prison Law Office attorneys
perform reviews during visits to monitor compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

PAGE 37

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

•

Associate chief deputy commissioners and other board staff perform
reviews as a result of appeals and grievances.

•

Associate chief deputy commissioners and the chief deputy
commissioner review decisions in response to complaints and feedback
from Department of Corrections staff and the public.

•

Deputy commissioners perform reviews while assigned to Central Office
Calendar when discrepancies referred by Department of Corrections
records staff need to be analyzed and amended.

The Office of the Inspector General interviewed one of the board’s associate
chief deputy commissioners and found that the number of decisions reviewed
is left to the discretion of the associate chief deputy commissioners and
depends on the level of concern the supervisor has about the work of a
particular deputy commissioner. The Office of the Inspector General
concluded that the increase in the number of filled associate chief deputy
commissioner positions provides for more direct supervision of deputy
commissioners. The requirement for a systematic review of Board of Prison
Terms decisions is provided by California Code of Regulations, sections
2041 and 2042, and the anticipated implementation of a review process is
discussed in the last chapter of this report.
•

Require deputy commissioners to use the
revocation scheduling and tracking system.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Board of Prison Terms reported that it implemented statewide use of the
revocation scheduling and tracking system by deputy commissioners at
major parole revocation hearing sites in October 2002. The board also
reported that screened cases are recorded electronically in the system.
Asked about deputy commissioners who have previously refused to enter
information into the revocation scheduling and tracking system, an associate
chief deputy commissioner told the Office of the Inspector General that all
deputy commissioners are directly updating the tracking system with hearing
and other information at locations that have access to the tracking system.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 38

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SUPERVISION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms take the following additional actions:

• Develop and implement a time-management system for deputy commissioners.
• Continue efforts to increase the number of associate chief deputy commissioner positions relative to the number of deputy
commissioners they supervise and to make the compensation of the associate chief deputy commissioner position
commensurate with the responsibility of the position for supervising deputy commissioners.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 39

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Board of Prison Terms has not revised its practice
of holding automatic 60-day placement hearings
for mentally disordered offenders even though the
hearings are inefficient and unnecessary. A change
in state regulations has improved the resources
needed for mentally disordered offender hearings,
however, by allowing the hearings to be conducted
by only one deputy commissioner instead of two.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 2
Fully implemented: 1 (50%)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 0 (0%)
Not implemented: 1 (50 %)
Not applicable: 0 (0 %)

The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003
review of the Board of Prison Terms found that the board was automatically holding
placement hearings for mentally disordered offenders 60 days after the inmate was placed
into the custody of the Department of Mental Health, even though state regulations
require a hearing only if the inmate requests that a hearing be held. An inmate may
request a hearing 60 days after arriving in custody to determine whether he or she is to be
treated as an inpatient or an outpatient. But because 60 days does not allow enough time
for the medical treatment team to assess the patient’s suitability for outpatient treatment,
99 percent of the 60-day placement hearings result in an order that the patient remain in a
Department of Mental Health hospital for continued inpatient treatment. At the time of
the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 review, the 60-day hearings required a
significant commitment of resources because state regulations require that hearings for
mentally disordered offenders be conducted by not just one, but two Board of Prison
Terms deputy commissioners.
BACKGROUND
The Board of Prison Terms may require inmates to be placed in a Department of Mental
Health treatment program as a condition of parole. That condition is imposed when
clinical evaluations and a review of court documents show that the parolee will pose a
substantial danger to others due to a severe mental disorder. Parolees are given several
opportunities to be evaluated to ensure they meet criteria established in the law defining
mentally disordered offenders. The first is a “certification hearing” immediately
following a Board of Prison Terms order and transfer to a state hospital for treatment. If
the Department of Mental Health has not placed the parolee into outpatient treatment
within 60 days, the board automatically holds a “placement hearing” to determine
whether the parolee can be released to the community. Mentally disordered offenders
also have the right to request an annual review hearing to determine whether they should
be treated in a state hospital or in a community treatment outpatient facility. The Board of
Prison Terms projects that it will conduct approximately 900 hearings for mentally
disordered offenders in fiscal year 2005-06.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 40

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the January 2003 review, the Office of the Inspector General found that the
board’s practice of automatically scheduling mentally disordered offender placement
hearings 60 days after the inmate’s arrival in the custody of the Department of Mental
Health was inefficient and unnecessary. The Office of the Inspector General found that
the requirement that two deputy commissioners conduct the mentally disordered offender
hearings was similarly unnecessary.
The Office of the Inspector General made the following two recommendations to the
Board of Prison Terms concerning hearings for mentally disordered offenders as a result
of the January 2003 review.
•

Revise procedures to conduct mentally disordered offender placement hearings at
the request of the Department of Mental Health, rather than within 60 days of the
date the patient is placed into the custody of the Department of Mental Health.

•

Seek modification of state regulations to allow the Board of Prison Terms
mentally disordered offender hearings to be conducted by one deputy
commissioner with the expertise needed for the hearings.

SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The Office of the Inspector General found that of the two recommendations resulting
from the January 2003 review concerning hearings for mentally disordered offenders, one
recommendation has been fully implemented and one has not been implemented. The
Office of the Inspector General found the following:
•

The Board of Prison Terms continues to hold automatic placement hearings for all
mentally disordered offenders 60 days after the patient is placed into the custody of
the Department of Mental Health, even though the hearings are unnecessary and
inefficient. The board concurred with the recommendation, but reported that
implementation requires modification of California Penal Code, section 2966(b). It
therefore intends to propose modifying the section as part of a legislative reform
package.

•

Regulations effective July 1, 2003 allow hearings for mentally disordered offenders to
be conducted by one deputy commissioner instead of two.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison
Terms discontinue the practice of automatically conducting placement
hearings for mentally disordered offenders 60 days after the patient is placed
into the custody of the Department of Mental Health. Instead, the board
should conduct mentally disordered offender placement hearings only at the
request of the parolee or of the Department of Mental Health.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 41

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

Depending on the timing of other reforms planned by the Board of Prison
Terms, it may be beneficial for the board to implement this recommendation
immediately. If the Board of Prison Terms deems it necessary to amend the
California Penal Code to implement this recommendation, it should amend
section 2964(b) rather than section 2966(b).
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 42

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 51
The Office of the Inspector General found that the board’s practice of automatically scheduling mentally disordered offender
placement hearings 60 days after the inmate’s arrival in custody was unnecessary and inefficient and that the requirement
that two deputy commissioners conduct the mentally disordered offender hearings was similarly unnecessary.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following actions:
•

Revise procedures to conduct mentally
disordered offender placement hearings at
the request of the Department of Mental
Health, rather than within 60 days of the
date the patient is placed into the custody
of the Department of Mental Health.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The board responded that it agrees with this recommendation, but reported
that implementation requires modification of California Penal Code section
2966(b). The board told the Office of the Inspector General it will propose
legislation for the next legislative session to modify the statute to allow the
placement hearing to be postponed until either requested by the Department of
Mental Health or nine months after the parolee’s admission to the state
hospital, whichever occurs first.
The Office of the Inspector General found that California Penal Code section
2964(b), rather than Penal Code section 2966(b), is the relevant section to be
modified if a statutory change is necessary. The Office of the Inspector
General also noted, however, that section 2964(b) does not appear to limit the
board’s ability to change its policy of automatically holding a hearing for all
parolee patients within 60 days of placement. The statute provides as follows:
“If the State Department of Mental Health has not placed a parolee on
outpatient treatment within 60 days after receiving custody of the parolee or
after parole is continued pursuant to Section 3001, the parolee may request a
hearing before the Board of Prison Terms, and the board shall conduct a
hearing to determine whether the prisoner shall be treated as an inpatient or an
outpatient.”

1

Numbering of findings coincides with the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 report and therefore is not sequential in this report.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 43

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HEARINGS FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

The Board of Prison Terms also reported that implementation of this
recommendation has been delayed because the issue is part of a larger
legislative reform package. The board is developing broad reform of its
practices concerning both placement hearings and commitment hearings for
mentally ill offenders that will eventually address this recommendation, as
well as other issues. The purpose of the reforms is to make placement and
commitment hearings more timely and relevant to the real-world
circumstances of the inmate. Development of the proposal is continuing, but
final decisions and a course of action, which will require legislative approval,
are pending.

•

Seek modification of state regulations to
allow the Board of Prison Terms mentally
disordered offender hearings to be
conducted by one deputy commissioner
with the expertise needed for the hearings.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that regulations that took effect
on July 1, 2003 allow the board to use one deputy commissioner instead of
two to conduct mentally disordered offender hearings.
The board also reported that it has provided comprehensive training in
conducting mentally disordered offender hearings to a total of 42 deputy
commissioners and that the most recent training was provided on June 19,
2003. The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that 25 deputy
commissioners attended a seven-hour training course on hearings for mentally
disordered offenders on June 19, 2003.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms discontinue the practice of automatically
conducting placement hearings for mentally disordered offenders 60 days after the patient is placed in the custody of the
Department of Mental Health. Instead, the board should conduct mentally disordered offender placement hearings only at the
request of the parolee or of the Department of Mental Health. Depending on the timing of other reforms planned by the Board of
Prison Terms, it may be beneficial for the board to immediately implement this recommendation. If the Board of Prison Terms
deems it necessary to amend the California Penal Code to implement this recommendation, it should amend section 2964(b)
rather than section 2966(b).

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 44

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Board of Prison Terms has not implemented a
systematic process for reviewing its decisions as
required by state regulations.
The Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003
review found that the Board of Prison Terms was not
complying with state regulations requiring that board
decisions undergo review before taking effect.

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 2
Fully implemented: 1 (50%)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 1 (50%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)
Not applicable: 0 (0%)

BACKGROUND
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 2041 and 2042, require decisions
rendered by the Board of Prison Terms to undergo review before they take effect to
ensure that they are complete, accurate, consistent, and uniform and that they promote
public safety. Decisions subject to review include those resulting from mentally
disordered offender hearings, parole revocation hearings, indeterminate sentence
hearings, sexually violent predator probable cause hearings, and serious offender
hearings.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms was not
complying with decision review requirements. Decisions in indeterminate sentencing
cases were undergoing review by the board’s legal department only if parole was granted.
If parole was denied in an indeterminate sentencing case, the decision underwent only a
superficial review intended to verify the clerical accuracy of the hearing documents. Only
a small fraction of mentally disordered offender hearings—those in which the inmate was
to be released from inpatient treatment or from the mentally disordered offender
classification — underwent meaningful review. The other hearings for mentally
disordered offenders were reviewed by a second deputy commissioner who might lack
training in the medical complexities of the case. And the board was providing no review
at all of the 38,000 parole revocation hearing decisions issued each year, which constitute
the bulk of the deputy commissioners’ workload. The Office of the Inspector General
also found that a high percentage of decisions resulting from the mentally disordered
offender hearings were later overturned by the board’s offender screening analysts, again
indicating possible lack of expertise by deputy commissioners.
As a result of the January 2003 review, the Office of the Inspector General made the
following two recommendations to ensure that hearing decisions of the Board of Prison
Terms are proper, consistent, and fully documented:
•

Establish formalized training for deputy commissioners and associate chief deputy
commissioners.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 45

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS

Institute a systematic review process that fulfills the requirements in California Code
of Regulations Title 15, sections 2041 and 2042 related to a decision review process.
Ideally, such a process would use sampling techniques to minimize the resources
needed to complete the review process.

SUMMARY OF THE 2005 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the two recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in January
2003 concerning review of Board of Prison Terms decisions, one has been fully
implemented and one has been partially implemented.
In summary, the Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms is
still not complying with state regulations that require the board decisions to be reviewed
to ensure that they are valid and consistent and that they further public safety. However,
the Office of the Inspector General questions the practicality and necessity of reviewing
all proposed decisions and notes that the requirement appears to be overly burdensome.
The purpose of the regulations could be accomplished by using sampling techniques to
complete the review process, as originally recommended by the Office of the Inspector
General. Reviewing a sample of proposed decisions instead of all proposed decisions
requires changes to California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 2041.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison
Terms modify California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 2041 to allow
for review of a portion of proposed decisions rather than all decisions.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 46

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 41
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Board of Prison Terms was not complying with state regulations requiring
that board decisions undergo systematic review to ensure that they are valid and consistent and that they further public
safety.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Board of Prison Terms
take the following actions to ensure that
hearing decisions are proper, consistent, and
fully documented and supported:
•

Establish formalized training for deputy
commissioners and associate chief deputy
commissioners.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The board reported that the revocation scheduling and tracking system would be
modified to include the business practices specified in the Valdivia remedial
plan.
The board’s response did not address the Office of the Inspector General’s
recommendation for formalized training for deputy commissioners and
associate chief deputy commissioners. The Office of the Inspector General
therefore requested information regarding formalized training for those
employees. The board provided the Office of the Inspector General with
evidence of formalized training curricula on the duties of deputy
commissioners, as well as attendance rosters documenting attendance by deputy
commissioners and associate chief deputy commissioners.

•

1

Institute a systematic review process that
fulfills the requirements in California
Code of Regulations sections 2041 and
2042 related to a decision review process.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Board of Prison Terms reported that
reviews of hearing proceedings are done by on-site associate chief deputy
commissioners and the chief deputy commissioner. Reviews of other
proceedings and decisions are performed for a variety of reasons, including the

Numbering of findings coincides with the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2003 report and therefore is not sequential in this report.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 47

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Ideally, such a process would use sampling
techniques to minimize the resources
needed to complete the review process.

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS

following:
•

The Board of Prison Terms legal staff and Prison Law Office attorneys
perform reviews during visits to monitor compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

•

Associate chief deputy commissioners and other board staff perform
reviews due to appeals and grievances.

•

Associate chief deputy commissioners and the chief deputy commissioner
review decisions in response to complaints and feedback from Department
of Corrections staff and the public.

•

Deputy commissioners assigned to Central Office Calendar perform
reviews when discrepancies referred by Department of Corrections records
staff need to be analyzed and amended.

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 2041 and 2042 require that
Board of Prison Terms decisions be reviewed to ensure that they are complete,
accurate, consistent, and uniform and that they further public safety. The Office
of the Inspector General found that the reviews described above do not meet the
requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 2041 and
2042 because they do not cover all proposed decisions.
At the same time, the Office of the Inspector General questions the practicality
and necessity of reviewing all proposed decisions and notes that the requirement
appears to be overly burdensome. The purpose of the regulations could be
accomplished by using sampling techniques to complete the review process, as
originally recommended by the Office of the Inspector General. Reviewing a
sample of proposed decisions instead of all proposed decisions requires changes
to California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 2041.
During the course of the follow-up review fieldwork, the Board of Prison Terms

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 48

BPT 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

REVIEW OF BOARD OF PRISON TERMS DECISIONS

management reported that it established a quality control unit in approximately
September 2004 and that review of parole revocation decisions is among the
responsibilities of the quality control unit. The Board of Prison Terms told the
Office of the Inspector General that those reviews began in May 2005.
According to the board, the quality control unit reviews approximately 250
randomly selected parole revocation decisions per month. The board also
reported that it is considering changes to the Title 15 requirement that all
proposed decisions be reviewed, but has taken no action to date.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Board of Prison Terms modify California Code of Regulations, Title
15, section 2041 to allow for review of a portion of proposed decisions rather than all decisions.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 49

ATTACHMENT

RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS

State of California

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Memorandum
Date

:

July 11, 2005

To

:

Matthew Cate
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
PO Box 38780
Sacramento, CA 95834

Subject:

RESPONSE TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT OF THE BOARD OF PRISON
TERMS
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) appreciates the
opportunity to respond to the draft report of the Office of Inspector General’s June 28, 2005,
Accountability Audit of the Board of Prison Terms. This audit was performed to assess the
Board’s progress in implementing recommendations from two previous audits reported in
2002 and 2003.
As you know, on July 1, 2005, the departments, boards and commissions that formerly
comprised the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, became the CDCR. Included within the
reorganization, the Board of Prison Terms merged with the Youthful Offender Parole Board
and the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Board and became the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH)
reporting directly to the Secretary of the CDCR. With the consolidation of the Boards, new
leadership was appointed.
The accountability audit is deemed a high priority for the Department. The draft report has
been reviewed by BPH staff. They are in general agreement with the findings and
recommendations. To afford the new leadership time to fully review and understand the
findings and recommendations contained within the report, we respectfully request an
additional 60 days to respond. We will submit a comprehensive plan, including specific
timelines for implementation to you by September 12, 2005.
Please call me at 916.323.6001, if you have questions.
Original signed by
J. S. WOODFORD
Undersecretary
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

° CDC 1617 (3/89)