OFFICE

OF THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL

M ATTHEW L. C ATE , I NSPECTOR G ENERAL

SPECIAL REVIEW
OF THE

COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICER
STANDARDS AND TRAINING

MAY 2005

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Matthew L. Cate, Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

May 4, 2005

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
1515 K Street, Suite 520
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Secretary Hickman:
Enclosed is the Office of the Inspector General’s report on its special review of the Commission on
Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training.
As you know, Senate Bill 737 proposes to abolish the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer
Standards and Training and to transfer the commission’s responsibilities to a new entity known as the
Corrections Standards Authority within a new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
However, the enclosed report makes recommendations to the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency or
its successor regardless of whether or not Senate Bill 737 becomes law. Accordingly, we would
appreciate your written comments on the report and its recommendations by Wednesday, June 15, 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General appreciates your agency’s cooperation during this special review. If
you or your staff have any questions, please contact Deputy Inspector General, In-Charge Sam Cochran
at (916) 830-3664.
Sincerely,

MATTHEW L. CATE
Inspector General
MC:JL
Enclosure

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

PHONE (916) 830-3600

FAX (916) 928-5974

Matthew L. Cate, Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

May 4, 2005

Michael Knowles, Chairman
Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training
1515 S Street, Suite 207 North
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Knowles:
Enclosed is the Office of the Inspector General’s report on its special review of the Commission on
Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training.
As you know, Senate Bill 737 proposes to abolish the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer
Standards and Training and to transfer the commission’s responsibilities to a new entity known as the
Corrections Standards Authority within a new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign Sentate Bill 737 into law, there is no need for the commission to
respond to this report. However, should the commission continue to exist, please provide my office
your written comments on the report and its recommendations by Wednesday, June 15, 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General appreciates the commission’s cooperation during this special
review. If you have any questions, please contact Deputy Inspector General, John Lassetter at
(916) 830-3642.
Sincerely,

MATTHEW L. CATE
Inspector General
MC:JL
Enclosure

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

PHONE (916) 830-3600

FAX (916) 928-5974

CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 5
FINDINGS
FINDING 1 ..................................................................................................... 7
FINDING 2 ..................................................................................................... 8
FINDING 3 ................................................................................................... 12
FINDING 4 ................................................................................................... 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T

his report presents the results of a special review conducted by the Office of the
Inspector General on the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards
and Training, known informally as C-POST. The purpose of the review was to
assess whether the commission has been fulfilling its mission, which is to enhance the
training and professionalism of state correctional peace officers by developing and
monitoring training and selection standards. The review examined the commission’s
development of training standards, administration of the Correctional Peace Officer
Apprenticeship Program, and other administrative functions.
The Office of the Inspector General found that since its inception in 1998 the
Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training has made only
minimal progress in developing correctional peace officer training standards. The review
found that the commission has developed training standards for only 7 of the 27
correctional peace officer classifications for which it is responsible and that it has yet to
approve any of the standards that have been developed. The review also found that the
apprenticeship program lacks key components essential to an apprenticeship program and
is threatened with decertification for non-compliance with state and federal standards.
The review determined that the work of the commission has been hampered by budget
cutbacks, lack of funding and personnel within the state’s correctional departments for
the development of training standards, and a persistent stalemate on the executive board
between management and labor representatives. As an example of the latter, every one of
the board’s six roll-call votes between January 1, 2002 and July 24, 2003 resulted in a 3-3
tie, with labor and management evenly split. At present, the commission’s work is at a
near-standstill because of a commissioner vacancy and consequent refusal of labor
commissioners to attend executive board meetings. As a result of the dispute, the
executive board has not met since June 3, 2004 and the commission chairman has
cancelled all future meetings because without the labor commissioners, the board lacks a
quorum to conduct business.
In June 2004, the Corrections Independent Review Panel recommended that the
Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training be eliminated.
Consistent with that recommendation, the governor has proposed that the commission be
abolished and that its funding and functions be redirected to a new Corrections Standards
Authority, yet to be established. The proposal is embodied in the governor’s correctional
reorganization plan, which was approved by the Legislature in April 2005 as an urgency
measure and will take effect immediately upon enactment. Accordingly, this report both
identifies deficiencies in the present commission and presents recommendations to
enhance the development and monitoring of correctional peace officer training and
selection standards regardless of the entity responsible for that function.
In summary, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the administration
provide to the state’s correctional departments the resources needed for the development
of correctional peace officer training standards, as well as the resources required to bring
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 1

the Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program into compliance with state and
federal standards.
If the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is not abolished,
the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the administration and the
Legislature resolve the commission’s voting stalemate by either amending the California
Penal Code to end the practice of appointing equal numbers of commissioners from labor
and management or establishing an alternative mechanism for breaking voting deadlocks.
Additional recommendations are presented in the body of the report.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 2

INTRODUCTION

T

his special review of the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and
Training by the Office of the Inspector General was conducted between January
26, 2005 and April 21, 2005. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the
commission is fulfilling its mission, which is to enhance the training and professionalism
of state correctional peace officers by developing and monitoring training and selection
standards. The review 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 entities. Under California
Penal Code section 13600, the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and
Training is located within the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
BACKGROUND
The mission of the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
to enhance the training and professionalism of California’s state correctional peace
officers through the development of sound selection criteria and training standards. The
commission received its initial funding in fiscal year 1998-99. California Penal Code
sections 13600 through 13603 define the commission’s structure, rules, duties, and
responsibilities.
The Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is comprised of
an executive board and a small commission staff headed by an executive director. The
executive board is made up of six commissioners, each of whom are appointed for fouryear terms. California Penal Code section 13600 requires that three commissioners
represent management and three represent labor. Two of the three management
commissioners are appointed by and represent the Department of Corrections and one is
appointed by and represents the Department of the Youth Authority. The three labor
commissioners are appointed by the governor upon the recommendation of the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association. Two of the labor commissioners must be rankand-file employees and one must be a supervisory employee. An alternate member is
appointed for each commissioner to vote in place of the commissioner whenever the
commissioner is absent. The commissioner positions are part-time and are not
compensated by the commission. Generally, commissioners remain employed by the
Department of Corrections or the Department of the Youth Authority and are allowed
work time to perform their commissioner duties.
The commission’s operating procedures require the executive board to meet at least every
other month —six times a year— to vote on agenda items related to commission
business, including approval or disapproval of staff recommendations.1 A quorum
consisting of at least two management commissioners and two labor commissioners is
required for all executive board actions.
1

State of California Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training Operating
Procedures, section 1.03A.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 3

The commission appoints the executive director, who is responsible for the commission’s
daily operations.
The commission’s core functions are the following:
•

Developing selection and training standards for 27 correctional peace officer
classifications of the Department of Corrections and the Department of the Youth
Authority.2

•

Monitoring the training academies of the Department of Corrections and the
Department of the Youth Authority, as well as local training programs, such as those
offered at state prisons, to ensure compliance with commission standards.

•

Administering the Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program, which is
intended to ensure that entry-level officers attain professional competence through
structured on-the-job training in a variety of work assignments. Although the
instruction occurs at the academies, prisons, and other sites, the commission staff
provides consultation, training, and liaison to local apprenticeship subcommittees on
behalf of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial
Relations.

To perform those functions, the commission established three advisory committees to
perform staff work and make recommendations to the executive board:
•

The Appeals and Grievances Committee. The purpose of the committee is to
address appeals and grievances submitted by apprentices that cannot be addressed
at the institution level and to review and make recommendations concerning
apprenticeship time credit applications. The committee is made up of two labor
commissioners and two management commissioners (one representing the
Department of Corrections and one representing the Department of the Youth
Authority).

•

The Education Committee. The purpose of this committee is to function as a
working group to develop curriculum projects and certificates and to liaison with
the community college system, the California State University system, and the
University of California system in the development of curricula. The committee
also certifies and decertifies college courses for Commission on Correctional
Peace Officer Standards and Training credit and grants equivalency credits for

2

The California Penal Code originally required the commission to develop selection and training standards
for all correctional peace officer classifications, including entry-level, advanced rank-and-file, and firstand second-line supervisory correctional peace officers. Senate Bill X1-25, signed by Governor Gray Davis
on May 5, 2003, reduced the number of classifications subject to commission standards to 27 by limiting
the commission’s authority over Department of the Youth Authority classifications to entry-level
classifications.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 4

previous education and training. Committee membership consists of one educator,
who serves as committee chair; one management commissioner and alternate; and
one labor commissioner and alternate.
•

The Curriculum Review Committee. The purpose of this committee has been to
monitor compliance with training standards by reviewing department lesson plans
for correctional peace officers. In the past, the committee has consisted of two
non-commissioner labor representatives and two non-commissioner management
representatives.

The commission’s fiscal year 2004-05 budget is $1,132,000 and includes 8.5 full-time
positions, including a staff services manager I, a correctional consultant, and other
administrative support staff. The commission was funded for $2.3 million and 20
positions in fiscal year 2000-01, but has undergone cuts over the past three years,
including a 50 percent reduction in fiscal year 2003-04.
The commission is slated for elimination as part of the reorganization of the state
correctional system proposed by the governor and recently approved by the Legislature.
Under the reorganization plan, the commission’s funding and associated functions are to
be transferred to a new Corrections Standards Authority.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this special review was to evaluate the commission’s effectiveness in
carrying out its mission. To that end, the Office of the Inspector General examined the
commission’s development and monitoring of training standards for correctional peace
officers; its administration of the Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program;
and other administrative functions. The review scope did not include evaluating the
development of selection standards or the work of the commission’s advisory
committees.
During the course of the special review, the Office of the Inspector General performed
the following procedures:
•

Interviewed commissioners and administrative staff, including a former interim
executive director, to gain an understanding of the commission’s operations.

•

Reviewed policies and procedures, reports, and other documents used in
administering the commission’s programs.

•

Reviewed and analyzed budget and expenditure data, legislation, contracts, personnel
documents, and other records.

•

Reviewed the commission’s meeting minutes and agendas from January 2002 to the
present.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 5

•

Interviewed representatives from the Board of Corrections; the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations; and the
Corrections Independent Review Panel.

•

Reviewed the report of the Corrections Independent Review Panel, Reforming
Corrections, issued June 2004.

•

Analyzed the information gathered and conducted testing as appropriate to formulate
conclusions.

Throughout the special review, the Office of the Inspector General received excellent
cooperation and assistance from the commission staff.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 6

FINDING 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the executive board of the
Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training has not met for
nearly a year and the commission therefore is not performing its function of
developing and monitoring training and selection standards for correctional peace
officers.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the commission’s executive board has not
met since June 3, 2004 and that the commission chairman has cancelled all future board
meetings because a dispute over an imbalance in board membership has left the board
without the quorum needed to conduct business. As a result, the commission is not
making the policy decisions necessary to carrying out the commission’s business of
developing and monitoring correctional peace officer training and selection standards; the
commission’s advisory committees have stopped meeting because the executive board
cannot act upon the committees’ work; and the commission staff is performing only
limited administrative functions.
Board membership imbalance stems from an unfilled commissioner vacancy. In
November 2002, the former board chairman—a designated labor commissioner—was
appointed as the commission’s interim executive director. Because the commissioner’s
alternate had recently retired and had not been replaced, the appointment left a
commissioner vacancy on the board and a 3-2 imbalance between management and labor
commissioners. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association did not nominate
a replacement until 18 months later, on April 27, 2004, when it submitted a request to the
governor’s office that the position be filled. After that request, on May 4, 2004, the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency submitted a memorandum to the governor asking that the
position not be filled “at this time.” The position remained vacant at the time of the
Office of the Inspector General’s review.
Labor commissioners have subsequently refused to attend board meetings. During the
last board meeting on June 3, 2004, the executive board voted 3-2 to abolish the
Curriculum Review Committee, which was responsible for monitoring compliance with
training standards by reviewing department lesson plans for correctional peace officers.
The vote was split between management and labor, with all three management
commissioners approving the motion and the two labor commissioners voting against it.
On December 8, 2004, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association notified
the commission that the labor commissioners would not participate in meetings until the
management/labor imbalance was rectified. The commission chairman told the Office of
the Inspector General that as a result, future meetings of the executive board have been
cancelled because without the labor commissioners, the board lacks the necessary
quorum to conduct business.
The executive board has not fulfilled meeting requirements for the past two years. Even
before the decision of labor representatives to no longer attend meetings, the executive
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 7

board was not meeting the requirement provided in the commission’s operating
procedures to meet at least six times a year. The Office of the Inspector General found
that the commission met only four times in 2003 and four times in 2004.
The commission cannot fulfill its mission without executive board action. The
executive board is needed to vote on policy issues and to conduct other necessary
business, and without board action the commission’s work is at a standstill. The
commission’s committees are also affected by the lack of board action. For example, the
Appeals and Grievances Committee, which is responsible for reviewing and granting
apprenticeship time credit applications, is no longer meeting, and the Education
Committee is not able to initiate new projects to develop correctional training curricula.
As a result, the commission is limited to performing minor administrative functions that
have minimal impact on training standards. Other problems stemming from the
commission’s membership structure — in particular, the effect on the commission’s
independence—are discussed in Finding 4 of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
abolished —to avoid the structural problems described in Finding 1 and in
Finding 4—the Office of the Inspector General recommends that its
replacement entity either not be made up of equal numbers of
representatives from labor and management or that an alternative
mechanism be established to break voting deadlocks.
If the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
not abolished, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the
following actions be taken:
•

The executive board should comply with the commission’s operating
procedures by meeting at least every other month to conduct business.

•

The governor’s office should review nominations to the commission and
appoint commissioners in a timely manner.

FINDING 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Commission on Correctional
Peace Officer Standards and Training has made minimal progress in developing
training standards and has inadequately monitored compliance with the few general
curriculum standards that already existed.
The commission has developed training standards for only 7 (26 percent) of the 27
correctional peace officer classifications for which it is responsible and has yet to
approve any of the standards that have been developed. The limited progress results
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 8

largely from a lack of funding and personnel in the Department of Corrections and the
Department of the Youth Authority for the development of training standards.
Meanwhile, monitoring of the few general curriculum standards that were already in
existence has been limited to occasional evaluations by outside consultants. The last such
evaluation, completed in September 2004, has not been acted upon because the executive
board has not met since June 3, 2004.
Departments must complete job analyses before training standards can be developed.
Before the commission can develop training standards for correctional peace officer
classifications, the state’s correctional agencies must conduct job analyses, which are the
court- and industry-approved method for establishing appropriate selection and training
standards. The commission reported to the Legislature in September 1999 that it had
adopted as its training model Instructional Systems Design, an extensive five-step process
involving analysis, design, development, implementation, and valuation that is the
accepted protocol for developing training standards. The analysis phase of the protocol
requires a validation study —a job analysis—of the classifications. California Penal Code
section 13601 requires the state’s correctional departments to conduct validation studies
of the classifications to support the development of training standards. The Federal
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, “Review of Validity Studies for
Currency,” notes that changes in the relevant labor market and the job should be
considered in the determination of when a job analysis is outdated (41 CFR Section 603.5K)3.
The departments have not conducted the required job analyses. Despite these
requirements, the Office of the Inspector General found that neither the Department of
Corrections nor the Department of the Youth Authority has committed the resources
needed to conduct the job analyses. When the commission submitted a budget change
proposal in fiscal year 2002-03 for staffing to perform the job analyses, the funding was
denied by the administration. As a result, the commission has contracted with outside
consultants and the State Personnel Board to perform a limited number of analyses.
Departments have not committed the resources to complete the job analyses. The
departments have not provided the State Personnel Board and the commission’s outside
consultants with the subject matter experts and resources needed to complete the job
analyses. Beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2004, the commission contracted
with a consultant to conduct job analyses for six Department of Corrections peace officer
classifications, but the Department of Corrections refused to allow its expert staff to
participate in the analyses without reimbursement for the costs associated with backfilling the positions redirected for the study. Because the commission lacked the
resources to reimburse the department, the six job analyses were not completed.
3

The Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 CFR 1607) require that selection
processes be demonstrably related to the actual job requirements for which the selection procedures are
used. If selection procedures result in adverse impact against any protected group, the employer is required
by the uniform guidelines to show evidence of validity.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 9

Similarly, from 2001 through 2004, a consultant contracted by the commission to conduct
job analyses for six Department of the Youth Authority correctional peace officer
classifications was able to complete only two of the analyses. According to the
commission, the Department of the Youth Authority did not commit expert staff to the
remaining four job analyses because of low employee morale due to facility closures.
Executive board has not approved any of the new training standards. The executive
board is responsible for giving final approval to standards after they have been
developed, but the board has yet to approve any of the seven standards developed to date.
Five of the seven standards were presented to the board for approval, but the board asked
that the departments and the union review the standards first. Although the departments
did review the standards and provide feedback, the responses did not arrive in time to be
acted upon before the board’s last meeting on June 3, 2004. The union had not provided
responses at the time of this review.
At the current pace, it could take the commission 20 years to complete the training
standards for the 27 peace officer classifications for which it is responsible. Without the
standards, the state’s correctional peace officers may not be receiving training consistent
with the current correctional environment and with numerous changes in laws,
regulations, and technology having a significant impact on the profession.
Monitoring of existing training standards is also inadequate. The Office of the
Inspector General also found that the commission’s monitoring of compliance with the
few general curriculum standards that were already in existence has been deficient.
Required of the commission by California Penal Code sections 13601(a) and (d),
monitoring is critical to ensuring that the departments have developed training academy
curricula and lesson plans consistent with the training standards. The Office of the
Inspector General found the following deficiencies in the commission’s monitoring
efforts:
•

The executive board abolished the Curriculum Review Committee. At its last
meeting, on June 3, 2004, the executive board abolished the Curriculum Review
Committee, which had been a key component in the commission’s monitoring of
compliance with training standards. The committee was responsible for reviewing
lesson plans to ensure that the materials complied with the commission’s training
standards. According to a commission spokesperson, the committee was abolished
because of a perception by management commissioners that the committee was
inefficient and ineffective and frequently delayed approval of proposed lesson plans
due to minor technicalities, rather than to substantive issues. The two labor
commissioners voted to retain the committee, but were out-numbered by the three
management commissioners, who voted for abolishment.

•

Training evaluations have had limited effectiveness. The commission has used
outside consultants to monitor compliance with training standards through curriculum
reviews and training evaluations. In recent years, the commission has contracted with

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 10

California State University, Sacramento to assist in evaluating the departments’
training academies for compliance with training standards. California State
University, Sacramento has completed three evaluations since February 2003, but the
Office of the Inspector General found that only one academy has submitted a
corrective action plan to address deficiencies identified by the evaluation. A second
academy failed to submit a corrective action plan despite numerous deficiencies
identified in a June 2003 evaluation report. A third evaluation, completed in
September 2004, was to be presented to the commission’s executive board on
December 9, 2004, but the meeting was cancelled. Because the board has not met
since June 3, 2004, the evaluations have had little impact on the commission’s
monitoring efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
abolished and its functions are assumed by the Corrections Standards
Authority or by another state agency, the Office of the Inspector General
recommends the following:
•

The responsible entity should promptly conduct job analyses on all
correctional peace officer classifications subject to the provisions of the
Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

•

The responsible entity should develop and monitor compliance with
appropriate training standards based on completed job analyses.

If the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
not abolished, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the
following actions be taken:
•

The Department of Corrections and the Department of the Youth
Authority should conduct job analyses for the purpose of developing
training standards as required by state and federal regulations and to
prepare updates when needed by changes affecting job tasks.

•

The commission should promptly develop training standards upon
receiving completed job analyses from the departments.

•

The commission should consider re-establishing the Curriculum Review
Committee and improve its efficiency and effectiveness by modifying its
focus to address significant issues.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 11

FINDING 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that the apprenticeship program
administered by the commission is inadequately monitored and faces possible
decertification because of non-compliance with federal and state apprenticeship
program standards.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Correctional Peace Officer
Apprenticeship Program administered by the commission is out of compliance with
federal and state standards, lacks key elements required for a successful apprenticeship
program, and is under threat of decertification by the Department of Industrial Relations.
Because of severe reductions in its budget in recent years, the commission is providing
minimal oversight and monitoring of apprenticeship programs operating at the
Department of Corrections and the Department of the Youth Authority. According to the
Corrections Independent Review Panel, stakeholders describe the program as a timeconsuming “paper shuffle nightmare.”4
The Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program. The Commission on
Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training was assigned responsibility for the
Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program in 1998 when the commission was
created. The program was originally established as the Department of CorrectionsDepartment of the Youth Authority Joint Apprenticeship Committee in 1988 through a
collective bargaining agreement between the State of California and the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association. The program is included in section 8.03 of the
memorandum of understanding between the State of California and Bargaining Unit 6
employees represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and is
renewed through regular contract negotiations.
The purpose of the apprenticeship program is to provide entry-level correctional peace
officers with on-the-job training and related classroom instruction. In fulfilling an
apprenticeship, participants complete a specified number of on-the-job hours and related
classroom training in a particular occupation. During the apprenticeship period, a
correctional officer, for example, may work in several different areas of a correctional
institution to obtain the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform the functions required of
the position. The functions may include maintaining security, writing reports, and
supervising, escorting and transporting inmates. Participants in the apprenticeship
program are required to record the hours they spend in work or classroom training on
forms developed by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of
Industrial Relations. Supervisors are responsible for reviewing and approving the forms
to verify that the apprentice completed the required hours of training.
The Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations
administers California’s apprenticeship law. The law and related regulations and
standards are intended to ensure that apprenticeship programs provide high training
4

Corrections Independent Review Panel, Reforming Corrections, June 2004, p. 67.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 12

standards, adequate working conditions and wages, and effective program monitoring.
The Division of Apprenticeship Standards is responsible for monitoring compliance with
apprenticeship standards and for providing consultative services to apprenticeship
program sponsors.
The Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program is approved by the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards to provide apprenticeship training for correctional peace
officers, and the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training is
designated by the division as sponsor and administrator of the program. As such, the
commission is responsible for overall program administration; for ensuring that the
program complies with applicable agreements, standards, rules, and regulations; and for
approving indenturing agreements, requests for credit, training amendments, and requests
for completion certificates. The commission’s responsibilities include oversight and
monitoring of apprenticeship programs operating at the Department of Corrections and
the Department of the Youth Authority.
Key elements of an apprenticeship program. Based on state and federal standards, a
senior consultant at the Division of Apprenticeship Standards cited the following as the
key elements of an apprenticeship program:
•

An apprenticeship committee to meet and provide oversight and monitoring of the
program.

•

Arrangement with a local education agency to review training materials for classroom
instruction.

•

An annual evaluation of the program to ensure compliance with apprenticeship
standards.

•

Ensuring that participants in the program rotate through a variety of work
assignments and receive appropriate training in all aspects of the occupation.

•

Systematic discipline of apprentices for failure to fulfill obligations on the job or in
related instruction, including provisions for fair hearings.

•

Systematic recording of each apprentice’s progress in the program, including periodic
review and evaluation of job performance.

•

Progressive increases in wages, employee benefits, and other compensation during
the apprenticeship period.

The commission’s apprenticeship program lacks some of these elements. The
Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship Program does include the last four elements,
but, according to a senior apprenticeship consultant in the Division of Apprenticeship
Standards, the commission’s program lacks some of the other key components. The
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 13

consultant told the Office of the Inspector General that “the program has been out of
compliance for three years” as a result of the deficiencies. The consultant reported and
the Office of the Inspector General confirmed the following areas of non-compliance:
•

Absence of an apprenticeship committee to oversee and monitor the program. The
commission’s Appeals and Grievances Committee, the advisory body responsible for
addressing appeals and grievances submitted by apprentices and for reviewing and
making recommendations concerning time credit applications, has not met in nearly
two years. The Office of the Inspector General found that the advisory committee last
met on November 20, 2003. The chairman of the committee told the Office of the
Inspector General that he has received time credit applications but cannot process
them because the committee is no longer meeting. As a result, apprentices may not be
receiving time credit to which they are entitled.

•

Absence of a local education agency to review training materials. The Office of the
Inspector General found that only the Department of the Youth Authority has an
active agreement with an outside education agency to review training materials, as
required. The Department of Corrections, which encompasses the majority of the
apprenticeship program’s participants, does not have an agreement with an outside
education agency to perform this function.

•

Absence of program evaluation. Consistent with apprenticeship program standards,
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 212 requires apprenticeship programs
to complete and submit annual self-assessment reviews and program improvement
plans to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards annually. The purpose of the
review is to ensure that apprenticeship sponsors remain in compliance with
apprenticeship standards. Although the requirement has been in regulation for several
years, the commission staff informed the Office of the Inspector General that they
were unaware of its existence.

Field audits have been discontinued because of budget cuts. In addition to the problems
described above, the Office of the Inspector General found that the commission no longer
conducts field audits to ensure compliance with apprenticeship program requirements.
Field auditing is especially important to ensure that apprentices complete all required
training and that supervisors monitor their performance. In recent years, the commission
had begun performing field audits to ensure that the local apprenticeship programs were
in compliance and were appropriately assigning apprentices to rotating job assignments.
The commission was also modifying its audit procedures to improve monitoring efforts.
But because of budget cuts, the commission halted all auditing efforts and no longer has
the resources to perform this function.
Following the 50 percent cut in the commission’s budget in fiscal year 2003-04, the
commission proposed eliminating the apprenticeship program, but a writ of mandate filed
by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association forced the commission to
reconsider. Ultimately, the commission compromised by voting to save the program, but
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 14

gave it limited administrative support. Although the program survived, the commission
discontinued services such as field training and audits and delegated those functions to
the local programs at the departments. Instead of five full-time positions dedicated to
support the apprenticeship program, now only two positions provide full-time support
services.
The apprenticeship program may be decertified. According to the senior consultant from
the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, the division may decertify the commission’s
apprenticeship program for failure to meet federal and state apprenticeship standards. The
consultant told the Office of the Inspector General that he plans to meet with the
commission to discuss the seriousness of the compliance issues and possible suspension
of the program. If decertification were to occur, the State would be out of compliance
with the collective bargaining agreement with the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association, which mandates a joint management and labor apprenticeship program.
Therefore, even if the commission is eliminated through legislation, the State would still
be required to either continue with the apprenticeship program or renegotiate the labor
agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Even if the commission is abolished, until the State of California modifies its
agreement with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, it will
still be required to administer and support an apprenticeship program.
Therefore, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the agency
take the following actions:
•

Obtain the required resources to bring the Correctional Peace Officer
Apprenticeship Program into compliance with standards set by the
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship
Standards.

•

Ensure that the commission’s Appeals and Grievances Committee, or a
comparable apprenticeship program oversight body, meets as needed to
address appeals, grievances, and time credit applications.

•

Develop an effective audit function and conduct field audits to ensure
compliance by local apprenticeship programs.

FINDING 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that the commission’s independence has
been undermined by the influence of both the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and that its membership
structure causes organizational paralysis.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 15

The Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training was established
as an independent entity within the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, but in
practice, the agency and the union attempt to influence designated management and labor
commissioners in virtually every important decision. At present, ongoing disagreements
between management and labor have brought the commission’s work to a standstill.
Uncertainty over the commission’s independence also hampers the ability of the
commission to exercise authority over its own executive director.
Commission’s reporting structure is unclear. The fiscal year 2000-01 Governor’s
Budget separated the commission’s funding from that of the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency and described the commission as an “independent entity” reporting
to the agency. The Office of the Inspector General found confusion and conflicting
opinion over the commission’s reporting structure, however. For example, the present
interim executive director reports directly to the commission chair, but one of the
commission’s previous interim executive directors said she reported to the secretary of
the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
Management and labor have influenced commission decisions. The Office of the
Inspector General found that—as one might expect — commissioners have allowed both
management and labor to influence their decisions rather than acting independently.
According to a management commissioner, representatives of the previous administration
contacted commissioners and told them how to vote on certain agenda items based on
agreements made at the main bargaining table between management and labor. The
commissioner said he was not required to follow the recommendations and that he voted
according to his own analysis, but felt pressured to conform to the recommendations. The
present administration has also asserted its influence over the commission. For example:
•

On September 3, 2004, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency submitted a
directive to the commission forbidding any new contracts or personnel hires pending
the outcome of the governor’s proposed reorganization even though the plan had not
been reviewed or approved by the Legislature. Although the directive allowed for
exceptions to meet mandated statutory functions, contract requests submitted by the
commission to the agency for services necessary to meet mandated functions were
ultimately denied.

•

As noted earlier in this report, on May 4, 2004, the Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency submitted a memorandum to the governor’s office requesting a delay in
appointing labor commissioners to the commission, and the governor’s office has not
filled the vacancy.

Similarly, labor commissioners have been subjected to the influence of the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association. For example:
•

As described in Finding 1 of this report, the commission has not met since June 3,
2004 because the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has declared that

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 16

labor commissioners will not attend meetings until the management/labor imbalance
on the commission is rectified.
The commission structure has often led to stalemate on important agenda items. The
structure of the executive board—three management and three labor commissioners—
often results in tie votes, with commissioners nearly always voting along management
and labor lines. As a result, the commission takes little action on important agenda items.
For a motion to be acted upon by the executive board, the commission must cast a
majority vote with a minimum of two management commissioners and two labor
commissioners present. A review by the Office of the Inspector General of eleven
motions between January 2002 and June 2004 that required roll-call votes found that only
3 percent of the votes cast deviated from management and labor lines. Although the
executive board did pass a number of non-roll call motions during the same period, most
of those motions covered minor, routine issues, such as accepting previous meeting
minutes. In contrast, six straight motions that were put to roll-call votes between January
1, 2002 and July 29, 2003 resulted in stalemate along labor-management lines. One of
those motions was a proposal to modify the Curriculum Review Committee. It was not
until March 4, 2004, when management commissioners outnumbered labor
commissioners three to two, that a motion subject to roll-call vote passed.
The commission has never had a permanent executive director. Labor-management
disagreements have prevented the commission from appointing a permanent executive
director. Consequently, the executive director position has been filled by a series of
interim executive directors loaned from other departments. The following chart shows the
history of interim executive director appointments to the commission:
Tenure
July 1998 to
June 1999

Classification
Retired Annuitant

Loaned From
Department of the
Youth Authority

June 1999 to
October 1999

Assistant Executive
Director

October 1999 to
October 2002

Deputy Inspector
General In-Charge

Peace Officer
Standards and
Training
Office of the
Inspector General5

November 2002
to Present

Correctional Officer

California
Department of
Corrections

Comments
According to one commissioner,
the person was fired by the
agency.
Appointed by the agency to
complete a September 1999
report to the Legislature.
Appointment request was
submitted to governor in
December 2000, but the employee
resigned in October 2002 without
receiving the appointment.6
The executive board appointed
former chair as interim executive
director.

5

This person ceased working for the Office of the Inspector General in 2004 before this special review was
initiated.
6
The executive board requested that the position be established as an exempt position. After a lengthy
approval process, the position was established as exempt and as such, appointment to the position required
approval from the governor’s office.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 17

The chair of the commission and other commissioners told the Office of the Inspector
General that the current interim executive director was not selected by the commission,
but rather was appointed as a result of an agreement between the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The
management commissioners said they were informed of the agreement by the agency and
were told to make the interim appointment at the next commission meeting. According to
the commission chair, there have been no efforts by the commission to appoint a
permanent executive director since that agreement. The Office of the Inspector General
found that the commission had attempted only once before to appoint a permanent
executive director, but that the previous governor failed to act upon the recommendation
for nearly two years and the employee eventually resigned. Because those in acting
positions generally do not have the support and confidence that comes with a permanent
appointment, the absence of a permanent executive director has contributed to a lack of
strong, independent leadership on the part of the commission.
Lack of accountability over the executive director. Sound management practice requires
supervision and accountability over all employees, including those in executive positions.
Yet, commissioners are hampered in their ability to enforce accountability over the
present interim executive director because of the circumstances of his appointment. The
Office of the Inspector General found that one management commissioner submitted a
series of memoranda dating back to June 2002 to the management of the Department of
Corrections and the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency concerning accountability
issues involving the executive director, but management has taken no action in response,
and the commission itself has not acted. As a result of its own inquiry, the Office of the
Inspector General found the following deficiencies related to the present interim
executive director.
•

The present interim executive director, who is on loan from the Department of
Corrections, did not submit time sheets for more than three years, including the
period during which he was the commission chair. Because of the executive director’s
acting status, the commissioners and the Department of Corrections personnel office
hold differing opinions about whether the executive director is required to submit
timesheets.

•

The interim executive director has a history of poor attendance at commission
meetings, missing five (50 percent) of the ten meetings over a two-year period.7

•

At the time of the review by the Office of the Inspector General, the interim executive
director was on medical leave without the knowledge of either the commission
chairman or the Department of Corrections personnel office.

7

It should be noted that according to the meeting minutes, the interim executive director was out on
medical leave for two of the five meetings.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 18

California Penal Code section 13600, subdivision (f) clearly assigns the commission
responsibility for appointing the executive director, making the chairman of the
commission the person responsible for supervising and monitoring that position. Yet,
management commissioners told the Office of the Inspector General that because the
interim executive director was actually “placed in the position” through an agreement
between the previous administration and the California Correctional Peace Officer
Association, they believe that any action affecting the interim executive director requires
agency approval.
Nonetheless, the commissioners reported that when the accountability issue was raised
with the present administration, the new agency secretary told them to address the matter
as they saw fit. The commissioners therefore placed the status of the executive director
on the commission’s December 9, 2004 agenda. But commissioners representing the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association failed to attend the meeting, and as a
result the meeting was cancelled. The commission has not attempted to convene a
meeting since that date.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the commission is not abolished, the Office of the Inspector General
recommends that the following actions be taken:
The administration and the Legislature should either amend the California
Penal Code to end the practice of appointing equal numbers of
commissioners from labor and management, which has resulted in a
perpetual stalemate, or establish an alternative mechanism for breaking
voting deadlocks.
•

Require commissioners to adopt a code of conduct that includes the
ability to act independently in making commission decisions.

•

As required by the California Penal Code, recruit and appoint a
permanent executive director who will act independently in serving the
commission.

•

Provide a clear chain of command and hold all employees accountable for
their time.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
PAGE 19