California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin
May Cost More Than Expected
June 2008 Letter Report 2007-120.1

CALIFORNIA
S TAT E A U D I T O R

The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by
check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033
OR
This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For
information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov.
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report,
please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

Doug Cordiner
Chief Deputy

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4

916.445.0255

916.327.0019 fax

June 10, 2008	

w w w. b s a . c a . g o v

2007-120.1

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
This letter report presents the first portion of the analysis conducted by the Bureau of State
Audits (bureau) concerning the costs for the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) to build a new condemned inmate complex (CIC) at San Quentin
State Prison (San Quentin). Understanding that Corrections’ capital outlay budget change
proposal for the new CIC is being discussed during the budget hearings for fiscal year 2008–09,
we are focusing this letter report on the cost to build the CIC at San Quentin. Our second report,
scheduled for public release in July 2008, will include cost estimates to build a CIC at alternate
locations in California.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) asked the bureau to review the
original plans and costs for the CIC project and compare them with the current plans and
projected costs through the end of construction. To address this request, we obtained
the services of a consultant specializing in estimating the cost of prison construction and
operations—Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.—and conducted the following analyses:
•	 Reviewed the original project cost plan and compared it to the current project cost plan to
determine the cause of the increase.
•	 Determined whether the estimated costs of the current project are reasonable.
•	 Determined whether the size of the proposed CIC would meet Corrections’ needs 20 years
into the future.
•	 Assessed the financial impact of further delays on the cost of the CIC project.
In 2003 the Legislature approved Corrections’ request for $220 million to build a new CIC at
San Quentin. According to Corrections, however, before construction could begin, the cost of
the project increased significantly due to increases in the cost of construction materials, design
changes, the need to address environmental concerns, and unforeseen costs, such as those
to mitigate soil problems. To minimize these increases, Corrections modified its plan several
times and eventually reduced the size of the complex from eight housing units to six and from
1,024 cells to 768 cells. Despite the 25 percent reduction in the size of the CIC, Corrections now
estimates the cost of the project at $356 million, an increase of $136 million, or 62 percent.

2

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Analyses by our consultant suggest that the cost to construct
the CIC will exceed Corrections’ recent estimate. Although
Corrections reasonably estimated construction costs, it was
precluded from applying realistic escalation rates, and delays from
the anticipated start date will add to project costs. Additionally,
Corrections did not include the costs to activate and operate the
CIC in its estimated costs. Our consultant estimates that
the cost to construct the CIC will exceed Corrections’ estimate
of $356 million by $39.3 million and that the cost to activate the
new CIC will reach $7.3 million. Furthermore, our consultant
estimates that the average new staffing costs to operate the new
CIC will average $58.8 million per year, for a total of approximately
$1.2 billion over the next 20 years.
Corrections currently plans to double-cell (placing two inmates
in one cell) certain condemned inmates to maximize the CIC’s
capacity; however, our consultant and other experts we spoke
with raised concerns with this proposal. Specifically, the experts
stated that capital cases often contain very personal, private, and
sensitive materials and that double‑celling raises serious concerns
about maintaining confidentiality during the preparation to defend
a condemned inmate during the appeal process. In addition, our
consultant expressed concern that double‑celling increases the risk
of harm to the inmates who are housed together, particularly for
long periods of time. If double‑celling condemned inmates occurs
as planned, we estimate that the CIC’s 1,152-inmate capacity will be
reached in 2035; however, if the plan to double-cell inmates is not
a feasible approach, the CIC will reach capacity in 2014, less than
three years after it is expected to open.
The audit committee also asked us to review the alternative
sites considered by Corrections and determine whether the
cost/benefit analysis for each site considered all relevant
factors. In our report 2003-130, titled California Department of
Corrections: Its Plans to Build a New Condemned-Inmate Complex
at San Quentin Are Proceeding, but Its Analysis of Alternative
Locations and Costs Was Incomplete, issued in March 2004, we
concluded that Corrections did not consider all feasible locations
and relevant costs in making its decision to build the CIC at
San Quentin. Our follow‑up review found that Corrections has
not performed any additional analyses of alternatives since we
published the previous report.
We were also asked to address other issues that we intend to include
in our second report, scheduled for public release in July 2008.
Specifically, the audit committee asked us to identify and analyze
alternative sites, including assessing the relative benefits and costs
associated with constructing a CIC at San Quentin compared
with the benefits and costs of constructing it elsewhere, as well as

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

evaluating the possibility of using the currently proposed CIC site
at San Quentin for other purposes. We were asked to consider
factors such as the alternate sites’ capital outlay costs; projected
expenditures for ongoing maintenance and operations; and access
and proximity to state and federal courts, legal counsel, medical
care, and condemned inmates’ families. Our analysis will also
include, for locations where doing so would be feasible, the cost of
constructing six two-story buildings to house condemned inmates in
a CIC at each location, including San Quentin, versus constructing
three four-story “stacked” buildings to house condemned inmates,
as currently proposed by Corrections. Finally, we were asked to
compare the cost of constructing a CIC in California with other
states’ costs to construct the same type of facility.

3

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Introduction
Background
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections) operates California’s state prison system, which
housed more than 171,000 inmates as of December 2007.
Corrections was formed in 2005, when the California Department
of Corrections and the California Youth Authority were reorganized
under one agency with the goal of managing the State’s prison
system more efficiently. The newly reorganized agency incarcerates
youth and adult offenders.
With an annual budget of about $9.7 billion, Corrections’ mission
is to control, care for, and treat men and women convicted of
serious crimes or admitted to the State’s civil narcotics program.
Within Corrections, the Division of Adult Institutions operates
33 correctional institutions (prisons).
Corrections assigns different custody levels to inmates within
its prisons, based on its assessment of the inmates’ behavior and
other factors, and it houses inmates in facilities designed for their
respective custody levels. Corrections classifies all inmates who
have been sentenced to death as condemned inmates and houses
them separately from non-condemned inmates. Male condemned
inmates are housed at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin), and
female condemned inmates are housed at the Central California
Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. As of April 2008 San Quentin
housed 635 male condemned inmates, and the Central California
Women’s Facility housed 15 female condemned inmates.1
Current Housing of Condemned Inmates at San Quentin
Per the California Penal Code, with very few exceptions, men
sentenced to death in California are sent to San Quentin to fulfill
their sentence.2 Corrections currently uses three different housing
units at San Quentin to house the male condemned inmates in its
custody. Every condemned inmate is assigned to a cell by himself.
1	

Although the total male condemned inmate population as of May 1, 2008 was 656, only 635 were
housed at San Quentin, according to the San Quentin warden. The other 21 inmates were out of
the institution for a variety of reasons, including 14 out for court dates and hearings, three out for
medical care, and four serving sentences in other states. Because this report deals only with
housing for male condemned inmates, any reference to “condemned inmates” refers to male
condemned inmates.
2	 There are two exceptions to this law. As many as 15 condemned inmates who commit certain
crimes while in prison may be transferred to California State Prison, Sacramento, although
as of May 2008 no condemned inmates were housed at this prison. Additionally, inmates
whose medical or mental health needs endanger themselves or others may be housed at the
California Medical Facility or another appropriate facility.

5

6

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has held that prison officials
may house two inmates in one cell in a maximum‑security prison,
Corrections does not currently double‑cell condemned inmates.
Corrections’ Attempts to Build Condemned Inmate Housing
In 1992, due to the growth in the condemned inmate population
at San Quentin, as well as safety and security concerns inherent
in managing condemned inmates in the antiquated housing units
at the prison, Corrections began discussing the need for a new
condemned inmate complex (CIC). More recently, in 2003, after
failing to gain approval from the Legislature to house condemned
inmates at other locations, Corrections requested $220 million
to build a new CIC at San Quentin. The Legislature approved
this request. However, as the contemplated project moved from
conceptual design to one that was more detailed and refined, the
anticipated cost increased. As a result, Corrections has requested
additional funds on two occasions since 2003, in proposals that
reflected the increased cost of the CIC project and at the same time
reduced the number of cells from 1,024 to 768. The Legislature did
not act upon the first proposal for additional funding, presented
as part of Corrections’ fiscal year 2007–08 budget plan. In its
fiscal year 2008–09 budget, Corrections has again requested
additional funding so that it can begin construction of the CIC
at San Quentin. This most recent proposal is now before the
Legislature. Thus, while Corrections has indicated that it is ready
to begin construction of the CIC, as of May 2008, it had not
yet begun.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Audit Results
The Cost of Constructing the New Condemned Inmate Complex Has
Increased Significantly Since 2003
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections) currently estimates that the cost of constructing a
new condemned inmate complex (CIC) at San Quentin State Prison
(San Quentin) will be $356 million, an increase of $136 million,
or 62 percent, since the Legislature initially approved funding
for a CIC in fiscal year 2003–04. This increase comes despite the
fact that, among other modifications to its original CIC design,
Corrections has lowered the number of inmate housing units
from eight to six, reducing the total number of cells by 25 percent.
According to the director of project management at Corrections,
the cost increase is due mainly to delay in construction start,
increases in construction costs, and design changes as well as the
need to mitigate poor soil conditions at the San Quentin site that
were unknown at the time of the original estimate. Because of the
significant cost escalations, the project has temporarily been put
on hold.
Corrections Estimated a CIC Would Cost $220 Million
In fiscal year 2003–04 Corrections requested and received an
appropriation for $220 million for the construction of a new
CIC. A key assumption made by Corrections when developing its
cost model, which estimated the costs of various components of
the proposed CIC, was that it could estimate the cost to build the
housing units at San Quentin based on the cost incurred to build
similarly constructed housing units at other Corrections’ facilities in
California. Corrections planned to build the CIC on approximately
40 acres at the San Quentin site, and inmate housing in the complex
was to consist of what are known as 180‑degree housing units due
to their design, which gives the control booth officer in the center a
180‑degree view of all the cells. This prototype design has been used
at other typical Level IV (maximum‑security) prisons in California.
According to our consultant, while other designs might work as
well or even better, Corrections’ staff are extremely comfortable
with the 180‑degree design for housing high‑risk inmates, and
they feel safe working in it. In addition, because architectural
drawings already exist, using the 180‑degree design avoids the
cost of designing a different type of facility. For these reasons, our
consultant has concluded that, overall, it makes sense to use the
180‑degree design for the CIC.

7

8

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

To determine how much it would cost to build the CIC’s eight housing
units, Corrections, together with a consultant specializing in prison
construction, developed a cost per gross square foot, using the bids
it received when it built a 180‑degree housing unit at the California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, which opened in 1997. At the
time that Corrections completed its cost estimate for the CIC in 2002,
this facility was the most recently constructed maximum‑security
prison in California. It was therefore necessary to adjust these costs for
inflation and for Bay Area market conditions. However, as we discuss
in the following section, even with these adjustments, subsequent cost
estimates prepared by Corrections and its consultant project that
the CIC will cost much more than originally anticipated.
Corrections’ Most Recent Estimate for a CIC Is $356 Million, a Significant
Increase Over Its Previous Estimate
Corrections’ most recent estimate of the cost to construct the
CIC revealed that the project will require significantly more
funding than that approved by the Legislature in fiscal year
2003–04. Specifically, the estimate prepared by Corrections in
November 2007 showed that the new CIC will cost $356 million, an
increase of 62 percent over its original estimate. Because of these
escalating costs, construction of the new CIC was put on hold. In
its fiscal year 2008–09 budget, Corrections has again requested
additional funding so that it can begin construction of the CIC at
San Quentin. Table 1 on the following page shows the change in
costs for each component of the proposed CIC.
According to the condemned
inmate complex project director,
the significant increase in the
project’s costs was the result of an
unprecedented rise in construction
costs. Additionally, various
modifications made to the original
design of the condemned inmate
complex also increased the costs.

According to the CIC project director, the significant increase
in the project’s costs was the result of an unprecedented rise in
construction costs during the five years between the development
of the original cost model and the most recent estimate. The
CIC project director noted that various modifications made
to the original design of the CIC also increased the costs. The
original cost estimate was based on construction bids received
for a prior prison construction project and adjusted for inflation,
whereas Corrections’ most recent cost estimate is based on final
construction documents specific to the San Quentin site.
Final construction documents provide a much more accurate
representation of the true cost of a project because they contain
details regarding variables and contingencies specific to building at
a particular site. For instance, the following items included in the
final construction documents have contributed to increased costs:
•	 The original cost model assumed that Corrections would use its
standard 180‑degree housing unit for the condemned inmate
population, which is a two‑story building with a total of

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Table 1
Cost Comparison of the Original Budget for the Condemned Inmate Complex
to the Proposed Condemned Inmate Complex Budget

Cost Component

Original
Condemned
Inmate complex
Budget*

Proposed
Condemned
Inmate complex
Budget†

Site demolition and grading‡

$32,156,544

$29,050,571

($3,105,973)

9,006,401

34,286,761

25,280,360

280.7

Housing and guard towers

81,749,624

134,758,964

53,009,340

64.8

Secure support buildings

26,909,888

51,301,759

24,391,871

90.6

Correctional treatment center

18,627,961

27,082,592

8,454,631

45.4

Nonsecure support buildings

11,590,189

22,158,089

10,567,900

91.2

Professional fees

28,923,983

39,820,000

10,896,017

37.7

Other

11,035,410

17,815,631

6,780,221

61.4

$220,000,000

$356,274,367

$136,274,367

Site utilities

Totals

Difference

Percentage
Change

(9.7%)

61.9%

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) original and revised cost estimates.
*	 Corrections prepared this estimate for a two-level 1,024‑cell condemned inmate complex (CIC)
on November 1, 2002.
†	 Corrections prepared this estimate for a four‑level stacked 768-cell CIC on November 13, 2007.
‡	 This component consists of 12 different subcomponents. Although the overall costs declined,
due largely to a reduction in costs for demolition and hazardous materials cleanup, other
subcomponent costs increased. For example, site grading and soil stabilization costs increased
by $14.1 million.

	 128 ground‑floor and mezzanine cells. According to officials
from Corrections’ facilities management division, the design of
this housing unit provides both a higher level of security and
operational flexibility for the condemned inmate population.
Due to constraints specific to the San Quentin site, however,
Corrections decided to stack the 180-degree housing units on
top of one another, resulting in three four‑story buildings, each
containing two housing units. Although stacked, each housing
unit is designed to operate totally independently, for security
reasons. This security requirement resulted in the need for
elevators, dumbwaiters, and additional access and stairways
that were not in the original 180‑degree housing design or in
the budget.
•	 Because of the size, configuration, and weight of the stacked
structures, the structural engineer of record reported that the
concrete could not be precast but would have to be cast in place,
resulting in a significant increase in the cost.

9

10

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

•	 The original cost model assumed that average soil conditions
existed on the site. Following completion of a detailed
geotechnical investigation, however, it was determined that
the soil conditions would require extensive mitigation before
construction could begin.
•	 The soil conditions at the San Quentin site require that the
foundations for the housing units be constructed in a much
more substantial manner, further adding to the cost. Specifically,
Corrections determined that the housing units will require pile
foundations instead of a conventional spread footing, due to
the weight of the stacked configuration, soil conditions, and
seismic requirements.
•	 Additional site costs that were not in the original budget include
the removal of Dairy Hill, a 30‑ to 40‑foot‑high sandstone hill
located on about one‑third of the proposed CIC site. Material
from Dairy Hill will be removed, crushed, and reused as general
site fill or in excavations where poor soils exist. Soil piers spaced
approximately 8 to 10 feet apart must also be installed in selected
areas throughout the site to keep sidewalks and roads from
settling. Further, the soils in the middle of the asphalt‑paved
recreation yards will undergo deep dynamic compaction to
prevent settling.
•	 The original cost model budgeted approximately $18.7 million
for a correctional treatment center (treatment center) and
central health services totaling 48,993 square feet. However,
based on input from the San Quentin medical staff and revised
operational requirements, it was determined that many of
the medical functions (such as pharmacy and dialysis) that
were provided at other on‑site facilities would be relocated
to the new treatment center. These new functions added
approximately 8,400 square feet to the size of the structure,
increasing the cost of the building. Corrections also decided not
to construct the central health services building, reducing costs
by $5.1 million. However, the increase in the size of the treatment
center increased its costs by $13.5 million, for a net increase of
$8.4 million.
•	 A warehouse was not included in the original cost model, based
on initial planning information received from the San Quentin
staff. It was later determined that the existing warehouse space
was at capacity and that a new warehouse would be required to
store goods and materials to support the new CIC.
•	 The original budget was based on the standard amount of asphalt
paving required for a maximum‑security prison. The biggest
increase in this category was for additional work and materials

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

related to paving four recreational yards, which constitute
approximately 75 percent of the 14.5 acres of paving to be
installed on the project. Because of the poor soil conditions, the
geotechnical engineer recommended that from 12 to 16.5 inches
of aggregate base topped by up to 3.5 inches of asphalt be placed
on all areas to be paved.
Because of these and other factors identified in the Appendix,
Corrections now estimates that the new CIC will cost
approximately $356 million.
Several Factors Contributed to the Decision to Stack the Housing Units
One of the critical decisions leading to the increased costs was
the decision to stack the standard 180‑degree housing units
one on top of the other. This decision resulted in increased area
related to vertical movement, increased foundation costs, and
a requirement to change from precast modular construction to
cast‑in‑place concrete construction. Additionally, the greater height
of the facilities contributed to community concerns during the
environmental impact report (EIR) process, resulting in the need
to develop a more sensitive approach to the exterior facade, again
resulting in increased costs.
According to the CIC project director, because of site constraints
and the desire to maintain the existing staff housing adjacent to the
CIC site, Corrections decided to stack the housing units on top of
one another. Under its original proposal, Corrections would have
had to demolish 57 homes to make room for the eight two‑story
housing units. These are among the 86 homes located on the
San Quentin property for prison employees and their families.
According to the CIC project director, allowing prison employees
to reside on the grounds enables them to respond to emergencies
more quickly. Specifically, the project director told us that staff
housing is deemed very important to San Quentin because it allows
operations and maintenance staff essential to the operation of the
prison to be housed on prison grounds should an emergency such
as an earthquake occur in the San Francisco Bay Area. The project
director further stated that these homes are important because
most of San Quentin’s staff commute from outside the area due
to the high cost of living in Marin County, where San Quentin
is located.
Additionally, according to the September 2004 EIR, Corrections’
original proposal would have resulted in the demolition of a
schoolhouse building. The EIR stated that demolition of the
building would be a significant impact, because the schoolhouse
could be listed as a historical resource. The project director also

One of the critical decisions
leading to increased costs was the
decision to stack the housing units
one on top of the other.

11

12

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Corrections did not perform a
comparative cost analysis to
determine whether moving the
houses and schoolhouse to other
locations and continuing its plan
for a two-story condemned inmate
complex would result in lower
overall costs.

noted that public input during the EIR process indicated a strong
desire to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the view from
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, a main access road running parallel to
the San Quentin site.
Although these appear to be reasonable explanations for
Corrections’ decision to stack the housing units, Corrections
did not perform a comparative cost analysis to determine
whether moving the houses and schoolhouse to other locations
on the San Quentin site or elsewhere and continuing its plan
for a two‑story CIC would result in lower overall costs to build
the complex.
The Cost of the New CIC at San Quentin May Exceed Corrections’
Current Estimates
Analyses performed by our consultant found that, with
one exception, Corrections correctly estimated construction
cost, was precluded from applying realistic escalation rates, and
omitted estimating the cost to activate the CIC. However, our
consultant believes that Corrections inappropriately reduced the
cost of constructing the CIC because it believed that economies
of scale realized in building multiple, similarly, designed buildings
would reduce construction costs. Our consultant estimates that the
cost to construct the CIC at San Quentin will exceed Corrections’
most recent estimate by $39.3 million. Additionally, Corrections did
not estimate all of the costs associated with activating the new
CIC until very recently at our request. Our consultant estimates
that these costs will total approximately $7.3 million. Finally, at our
request Corrections provided salary information for the staff it
anticipated needing to operate the CIC.3 Our consultant’s analysis
of Corrections’ estimated staffing needs found that San Quentin
will spend $39.5 million more in staffing costs in the first full year
after the facility opens than it would spend if the new CIC were
not built. Overall, our consultant estimates that San Quentin will
incur additional staffing costs of approximately $1.2 billion during
the first 20 years the facility is in operation. Table 2 compares
Corrections’ estimated costs with those developed by our
consultant, including the net new costs to complete anticipated
major repairs to the CIC.

3	

We confirmed a sample of salaries used in the computation of staff costs by tracing to the fiscal
year 2008–09 Governor’s Budget.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Table 2
Comparison of Estimated Costs to Construct, Activate, and Operate
the 768‑Cell Condemned Inmate Complex

Nature of Costs 

Capital Construction Costs

Corrections’
Estimated Costs
(November 2007)

Bureau of State
Audits’ Consultant’s
Estimated Costs
(May 2008)

 

 

Variance

 

Site work

$63,337,332

$67,536,412

$4,199,080

Construction

246,309,035

278,140,663

31,831,628

Equipment
Professional fees
Subtotals

6,808,000

7,944,910

1,136,910

39,820,000

41,926,556

2,106,556

$356,274,367

$395,548,541

$39,274,174

Activation Costs*
Staff

$7,403,992

$6,786,332

($617,660)

Escalation

604,166 

553,765

(50,401)

Subtotals

$8,008,158

$7,340,097

($668,061)

Staff

 

$1,176,150,497

 

Major repairs/replacements

 

22,500,000

 

Subtotal

 

$1,198,650,497

 

Total

 

$1,601,539,134

20‑Year Operating Costs† 

 

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections).
*	 Activation costs are certain types of nonconstruction costs associated with opening any new
prison and include recruiting, hiring, and training of new staff and moving inmates from their
current location to the new facility. Unlike its construction costs, Corrections estimated these
costs in May 2008, at our request.
†	 These amounts represent costs that are specifically related to the new condemned inmate
complex or net new operating costs. Corrections has not estimated these costs as of May 2008.

Our Consultant’s Projected Capital Construction Costs for the
San Quentin CIC Are Higher Than Corrections Estimated
Capital construction (construction) costs for the new CIC
at San Quentin may be as much as $39.3 million higher than
Corrections’ most recent estimate. As shown in Table 2, Corrections
estimates that construction costs for the CIC will total
$356.3 million. However, our consultant estimates that these costs
will total $395.5 million, 11 percent more than Corrections’ estimate.
Table 3 on the following page shows the factors contributing to the
differences between Corrections’ estimates of the construction costs
and those developed by our consultant.

13

14

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Table 3
Reasons for the Differences Between Corrections’ Estimated Capital Construction Costs and the
Bureau of State Audits’ Consultant’s Estimates
Variance Attributable tO

 

Corrections’
Estimated Costs
(November 2007)

Bureau of
State Audits’
Consultant’s
Estimated Costs
(May 2008)

Application of
Higher Escalation
Rates and Delays
in Starting
the Project

Adjustment to
Cost of Items

Total
Variance

Site work

$63,337,332

$67,536,412

$4,199,080 

$0

$4,199,080

Construction

246,309,035

278,140,663

26,759,363 

5,072,265

31,831,628

Equipment
Professional fees
Totals

6,808,000

7,944,910

1,136,910 

0

1,136,910

39,820,000

41,926,556

2,106,556 

0

2,106,556

$356,274,367

$395,548,541

$34,201,909 

$5,072,265

$39,274,174

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

An escalation factor is applied to construction estimates to
account for the price of construction materials and services
at a future point in time. In California state departments are
required to use the projected California Construction Cost Index
(cost index), published monthly by the Department of General
Services, in their estimates for capital outlay projects, as a way
to escalate construction costs. The cost index is an average
of the Building Construction Cost Indices for Los Angeles and
the Bay Area, as published in the Engineering News Record.
Departments must apply the most recently published cost index
when preparing budget packages, preliminary plans, or working
drawings estimates for a given project.
According to our consultant, the cost differential between the
two estimates is due primarily to the fact that the escalation
factor Corrections was mandated to use was too low and not
reflective of market conditions. In August 2007 the Department
of Finance (Finance) issued a budget letter stating that to help
ensure adequate funding for projects, costs for construction
projects are to be escalated on a monthly basis, starting from the
date the cost index for the project was last updated to the estimated
start and midpoint of construction, at an uncompounded annual
rate of 5 percent, or 0.42 percent per month. Our consultant
determined that this escalation rate does not accurately reflect
the current or future rate. Prior to 2008 our consultant believes
that the average escalation factor was in excess of 8.7 percent due
to factors in both the domestic and international markets. Going
forward, our consultant believes that an escalation rate of 8 percent
for 2008, slowing to 6 percent in 2009 and beyond, is more
reflective of the current market conditions. Consequently, because
Corrections’ project cost estimates were based on price increases

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

for purchasing construction materials and paying for services and
work at a future point in time using the rate mandated by Finance,
its cost estimates were understated. Additionally, our consultant
recommends that escalation be compounded annually.
Furthermore, Corrections estimated site preparation work would
begin in August 2008, and any delays will increase project costs.
Specifically, unaccounted for delays in starting the project extends
the project’s completion date further into the future, and requires
taking into consideration the additional costs associated with
paying for goods and services during that unanticipated period
of time. Although Corrections estimated site preparation work
would begin in August 2008, funding has been delayed pending
further analysis of the project and, therefore, escalation costs
will increase. Our consultant believes that the earliest feasible
start date will be November 2008, assuming the state budget is
enacted by August 1, 2008, and the expectation that it could take
approximately three months to complete the necessary bidding
and contracting process before work on the project will actually
begin. In the case of the proposed CIC, our consultant estimates
that for every month the start of the project is delayed from when
it was expected to begin, the cost of the project will increase by
one‑half percent per month, based on an annual escalation rate of
6 percent for 2009 and subsequent years. Assuming a currently
estimated cost of $395.5 million for a 24‑month project with a start
date of November 1, 2008, the cost of the project would increase by
approximately $2 million for every month the project’s start date is
delayed beyond November 1, 2008.
Finally, Corrections reduced the cost of constructing the
three buildings in which inmates would be housed because it
believed that the economies of scale realized in building multiple
similarly designed buildings would reduce the overall costs of
constructing them. However, our consultant believes that the
anticipated 4 percent cost reduction is not likely to be realized
given the current market conditions. Therefore, he eliminated
the discount in his calculation, increasing the cost of building the
housing units by $5 million.
As shown in Table 4 on the following page, because of the
higher construction costs estimated by our consultant, as well
as Corrections’ proposed design modifications, the cost per cell
and per bed has risen significantly from Corrections’ initial fiscal
year 2003–04 estimate. Specifically, as shown in the table, the
cost per cell has increased by 140 percent and the cost per bed has
increased by 120 percent.

The cost per cell and per bed has
risen significantly from Corrections’
initial fiscal year 2003–04 estimate;
the cost per cell has increased by
140 percent, and the cost per bed
has increased by 120 percent.

15

16

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Table 4
Unit Cost Comparison for Corrections’ Condemned Inmate Complex,
Using the Original and Modified Designs and Cost Estimates
Modified Design:
Original Design:
$395 Million
$220 Million Cost
Cost Estimate*
Estimate
(Fiscal year 2003–04) (Fiscal year 2008–09)

Housing units

8

Percentage
Change

Difference

6

2

(25%)

Cells

1,024

768

256

(25)

Beds

1,408

1,152

256

(18)

Square footage

609,957

541,061

68,896

(11)

$220,000,000

$395,548,541

$175,548,541

80

Total Cost Per Cell

$214,844

$515,037

$300,193

140%

Total Cost Per Bed

$156,250

$343,358

$187,108

120%

$361

$731

$370

102%

Cost

Total Cost Per Square Foot

Source:  Our consultant’s analysis of documented estimates prepared by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
*	 This amount represents the total estimated construction costs as calculated by our consultant.

Corrections’ Current Cost Estimates Do Not Include $7.3 Million to Open
the CIC and Move the Condemned Inmates Into the Complex
Before opening the new CIC and moving all of the condemned
inmates into the complex, Corrections will incur certain start‑up
costs unrelated to constructing and operating the facility. These
one‑time costs are referred to as activation costs and generally
include costs associated with recruiting and hiring new staff and
costs for training and orienting staff to the new facility. Additional
activities include testing the CIC’s operational plans, procedures,
and systems prior to the arrival of condemned inmates and
transporting them from their current housing units to the new CIC.
In the capital outlay budget change proposal submitted to
Finance for fiscal year 2008–09, Corrections indicated that it
would need a total of 505 staff to operate the CIC, consisting
of 158 existing San Quentin employees and 347 new staff.
According to Corrections’ associate director of reception centers,
167 of the new staff would be correctional officers. However, due
to an expected increase in population, Corrections expects to
hire 11 new correctional officers before the CIC is opened, and
therefore the number of new correctional officers that must be
hired to operate the new CIC is 156 (167‑11=156).4 After it hires the
11 correctional officers, the total number of existing San Quentin
4	

Corrections would hire any mix of staff they deem appropriate, not just correctional officers.
However, for the purpose of estimating costs, it is assumed that Corrections would hire
correctional officers only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

staff available for assignment to the CIC will be 169. Therefore,
to fully staff the CIC, Corrections will need to hire 336 additional
employees (505‑169=336).
As shown in Table 5, our consultant, working with Corrections,
estimated the total activation costs for the new CIC as
approximately $7.3 million.
Table 5
Estimated Costs to Activate the Condemned Inmate Complex
Estimated Cost 

Preservice training for 156 new correctional officers

$4,002,804

San Quentin classroom training for 336 new staff

560,179

Training for 54 health care staff

130,290

Orientation for all 169 condemned inmate complex (CIC) staff
Total Training and Orientation
CIC activation staffing
Moving condemned inmates to the CIC
Subtotal
Two‑year estimated increase in salary and benefit costs
(4% per year for 2 years, compounded)
Total

152,614
$4,845,887
1,125,000
815,445
$6,786,332
553,765
$7,340,097

Source:  Information obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in
memos, emails, and meetings.

Our consultant concluded that recruitment and hiring costs are
likely to be substantially absorbed within Corrections’ operations
budget. The incremental costs associated with recruiting and
hiring new staff for the CIC are likely to be minimal compared
to Corrections’ ongoing expenditures for these activities, as
Corrections already hires hundreds of employees each year.
Therefore, we have not included any additional costs for recruiting
and hiring the 336 new staff.
Training and orienting staff to the new CIC is estimated to
cost $4.9 million. The 156 new correctional officers will attend
Corrections’ 16‑week preservice training program, during which
time they will be paid as correctional officer cadets at an estimated
cost of $25,659 per cadet, for a total of $4 million. In addition,
all 336 new employees will receive 40 hours of formal classroom
orientation upon arrival at San Quentin. The estimated cost of
this training is $560,179, based on an average of $41.68 per hour
for salary and benefits. Additional institutional‑level training will
be provided for the estimated 54 new health care staff, including
medical, mental health, and dental employees who will be assigned
to the CIC. Assuming that such classroom training will be 40 hours

17

18

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

in duration, another $130,290 in additional costs will be incurred,
based on an average rate for all of the health care positions.
Follow‑up mentoring and orientation by more experienced
institution health care staff is anticipated in the week(s) following
the formal training as the new employees make the transition into
their new jobs.
Further, all 505 staff assigned to the CIC will require an average
of 16 hours of orientation and training specific to the new CIC’s
systems and procedures, prior to the activation of the CIC. However,
additional costs are likely to be incurred only for training the
existing San Quentin staff, who will have to be relieved from their
current assignments to attend the training. Applying an average
hourly overtime rate of $56.44 for 16 hours for these 169 employees
produces a cost of $152,614 for this training.
In addition to training and orientation costs, prior to the arrival
of any of the condemned inmates, considerable nonconstruction
work is required to ensure that the CIC is in proper working order.
According to Corrections, as part of its general protocol, tasks to
be accomplished prior to moving condemned inmates into the CIC
would include, among other tasks, developing institutional policies
and procedures, practicing operational responses, conducting
inspections and searches, and securing areas. To accomplish this
work, staff will need to be assigned to the CIC on a phased‑in
schedule well in advance of the arrival of the first condemned
inmate. A few experienced staff will begin work at the CIC as much
as a year in advance, with more coming on board as the opening
approaches. Based on discussions with Corrections, our consultant
estimates that 50 staff will be assigned to the CIC in this capacity
for an average of three months prior to its opening, at an average
monthly rate for salary and benefits of $7,500, resulting in a cost
of $1.1 million.

Our consultant estimates that the
process of moving the inmates
will require some staff to work
additional hours on an overtime
basis, incurring up to an additional
$815,445 in costs.

Finally, it is neither practical nor desirable to move all of the
condemned inmates at one time from the cell blocks in which
they are currently housed to the CIC. Thus, a phased‑in approach
is anticipated, resulting in some additional one‑time costs.
Assuming that about 125 inmates per week are transferred to
the CIC, it will be necessary to operate both the CIC and the old
condemned inmate facilities for about six weeks. This transition
time will provide CIC staff the opportunity to make sure that the
CIC, its systems, and its procedures are working properly prior to
moving all of the condemned inmates to the new facility. Based
on conversations with Corrections, our consultant estimates that
the process of moving the inmates will require some staff to work
additional hours on an overtime basis, incurring up to an additional
$815,445 in costs. This estimate is based on filling 43 security posts
for an average of eight hours a day for 42 days at $56.44 per hour.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Corrections’ Current Cost Estimates Do Not Include Additional Costs to
Operate the New CIC
In addition to the one‑time costs for construction and activation,
there will be significant additional ongoing costs to operate the
new CIC. In order to provide a thorough analysis of the additional
cost of the CIC, our consultant estimated the additional (net new)
staffing costs over a 20‑year period, from fiscal year 2011–12, the
first full year the CIC is expected to be operational if construction
begins as anticipated, to fiscal year 2030–31. Furthermore, this
information is necessary to compare the net new costs of staffing
the CIC for 20 years at San Quentin with the net new staffing costs
at other potential sites for the CIC. This comparison will be
included in our second report scheduled for public release in July.
Based on the analysis prepared by our consultant, we estimate
that San Quentin will incur approximately $39.5 million in net
new staffing costs during the first full year of the CIC’s operation.
Net new staffing costs are estimated to average $58.8 million per
year, for a total of about $1.2 billion over the 20‑year span, with
the assumption that the cost of salaries and benefits will increase
at 4 percent per year, compounded annually. According to our
consultant, these are costs that San Quentin will incur only if
the new CIC is built, and they include the cost of paying salaries,
benefits, and overtime for 336 new CIC staff. Furthermore, during
the first 20 years the CIC is in operation, our consultant estimated
that there will be an additional $22.5 million needed for major
building repairs.
The total cost to operate the CIC will also include the cost of the
existing 169 employees as well as the cost of nonpersonnel services
at the CIC, which include the costs of providing food, clothing,
and medical care for inmates, among other things. Our consultant
estimated that the nonpersonnel cost would average approximately
$17 million per year during the first 20 years the new CIC is in
operation. However, we did not include these in our calculations
because they are expenditures that Corrections would incur
whether or not the new CIC is in operation. For the same reason,
we did not include the cost of adding staff in future years to keep
pace with the projected increase in the number of condemned
inmates, because those costs would be incurred to operate the
existing facilities that house condemned inmates.

Net new staffing costs are estimated
at about $1.2 billion over the first
20 years the condemned inmate
complex is in operation.

19

20

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Although the Proposed CIC May Provide Adequate Capacity to House
Condemned Inmates in Future Years, There are Concerns About
Corrections’ Plans to Double‑Cell Condemned Inmates
Corrections’ current plan for the CIC includes double‑celling up to
two‑thirds of the condemned inmates, meaning that half of the cells
would house two inmates.5 Given a projected growth of 18 inmates
per year and 768 cells in the new CIC, Corrections would need
to begin double‑celling inmates in calendar year 2014, less than
three years after the CIC is scheduled to open, and the CIC would
reach its inmate bed capacity during calendar year 2035.
Our consultant expressed concerns about staff safety, inmate safety,
and the protection of confidential legal papers if condemned inmates
are double‑celled. The Office of the State Public Defender concurs
with our expert regarding the protection of confidential legal
documents. Corrections believes it has procedures in place to address
these concerns. Nevertheless, representatives from 11 of 12 other states
who responded to our request for information indicated that they do
not double‑cell condemned inmates. Notwithstanding Corrections’
position that many condemned inmates can be double‑celled, our
consultant believes that a more realistic alternative is to add another
housing unit to the CIC, which he estimated would cost $64.1 million
if constructed concurrently with the proposed CIC project.
Corrections’ Plans Include Double‑Celling Inmates to Meet Future Needs
As currently envisioned, the new CIC would house condemned
inmates in three buildings, each containing 256 cells, for a total of
768 cells. Half of the cells would be configured with a second bed to
accommodate two inmates per cell. Thus, according to Corrections’
plan, the total capacity of the CIC would be 1,152 inmates. Although
Corrections’ policy is to double‑cell inmates, the memorandum
outlining the policy states that it will be adhered to for inmates in
the general population, administrative segregation and security
housing units. However, it does not address whether condemned
inmates can be double‑celled. Nevertheless, according to the chief
deputy secretary of adult institutions (chief deputy), this policy
would also apply to condemned inmates confined at the CIC.
Corrections’ decision to double‑cell certain inmates is based on
an evaluation of their characteristics and history, which includes
assessing the inmates’ compatibility and disciplinary history.

5	

Current condemned inmate cells are approximately 42 square feet, whereas under the proposed
design the cells would be approximately 80 square feet.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Although it does not currently double‑cell any of its condemned
inmates, as the condemned inmate population increases,
Corrections has indicated it will begin doing so in the new CIC.
If double‑celling of the condemned inmates occurs as planned,
we estimate that the CIC’s 1,152‑inmate bed capacity will be
reached in 2035. If double‑celling does not turn out to be a
feasible approach, the CIC will reach its cell capacity in 2014. As
of April 2008 Corrections was housing 635 condemned inmates
at San Quentin.6 In designing the new CIC, Corrections estimated
that the condemned inmate population would grow by 24 male
condemned inmates per year, which would result in the new CIC
reaching its inmate bed capacity in 2028. However, our consultant
believes that Corrections may have overestimated the population
growth, because its estimate did not take into account that in
recent years fewer people have been sentenced to death. This
change has resulted in an average annual increase of 12 condemned
inmates rather than 24. Recognizing that this downturn could be
short‑lived, but that the annual increase might not soon return to
the earlier level, our consultant estimated that the male condemned
inmate population will grow by 18 inmates per year. This is the net
population growth, accounting for factors such as executions, deaths
due to other causes, and inmates that are removed from death row
because their sentences are changed. Our consultant’s estimated
population growth rate of 18 condemned inmates per year results
in the facility reaching its full bed capacity in 2035 if Corrections
implements its plan to double‑cell some condemned inmates.
According to the chief deputy, Corrections intends to double‑cell
those condemned inmates that it determines pose the least
threat to one another and staff. Corrections currently classifies
its condemned inmates into two levels, grade A and grade B.
As of May 2008, 474 of the condemned inmates were classified
as grade A. Corrections views the inmates classified as grade A as
having a low propensity for violence or escape. According to
Corrections, these inmates have demonstrated good behavior and
an ability to cooperate safely and peaceably with other inmates
and staff. Conversely, condemned inmates currently classified as
grade B have a high potential for escape or violence or are serious
disciplinary management cases.
Corrections intends to update and expand this classification system
by placing condemned inmates into one of five different grades.
Under the new system, the condemned inmates currently classified
6	

Although the total male condemned population as of May 1, 2008 was 656, according to the
San Quentin warden only 635 were housed at San Quentin. The other 21 inmates were out of the
institution for a variety of reasons, including 14 out for court dates and hearings, three out for
medical care, and four serving sentences in other states.

If double-celling does not turn
out to be a feasible approach, the
condemned inmate complex will
reach its cell capacity in 2014.

21

22

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Anticipated New
Condemned Inmate Grades
Grade A:  These inmates have demonstrated a low
propensity for violence or escape. These inmates have
demonstrated good behavior and an ability to cooperate
safely and peaceably with other inmates and staff, and
they are provided work assignments and other privileges.
According to the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (Corrections), these inmates can be
double‑celled.
Grade B:  These inmates have also demonstrated a low
propensity for violence. However, they are not provided
with work assignments. According to Corrections, most of
these inmates can be double-celled.
Grade C:  These inmates have special needs and are
in protective custody due to the nature of their crimes.
Their custody requirements are similar to those of
grade B inmates. According to Corrections, some of
these inmates can be double-celled, but only with other
grade C inmates.
Grade D:  These inmates are management cases who will
have no contact with inmates of other grades. According to
Corrections, these inmates cannot be double-celled.
Grade E:  These inmates are serious management cases
and/or validated gang members who will have no contact
with inmates of other grades. According to Corrections,
these inmates cannot be double-celled.

as grade A will be reclassified to grades A through C,
and the current grade B inmates will be reclassified
to grades D and E. (Refer to the text box for a brief
description of these anticipated grades.)
Corrections’ architectural program report for the
CIC specifies a level of double‑celling for inmates
classified as grades A, B, or C and states that
inmates classified as grades D and E will be
single‑celled. Additionally, the chief deputy stated
that Corrections has not yet implemented the new
grading system, and while court approval for the
system is not required, he believes Corrections
would engage the courts and others before making
the change.
According to the chief deputy, under the new
grading system it would be reasonable to assume
that Corrections will first evaluate inmates
classified as grade A for potential double‑celling.
Corrections would likely evaluate inmates
classified as grade B next, and so on. The chief
deputy stated these evaluations would be
performed on an individual basis, and therefore it
may not be the case that all inmates classified as
grade A will be double‑celled but would depend on
Corrections’ evaluation of each individual.

Based on our consultant’s projected population
growth, placing two condemned inmates in
some cells will be necessary beginning in 2014,
Sources:  Corrections’ chief deputy secretary of adult
three years after the CIC is expected to open. As
institutions and the Condemned Inmate Complex Architectural
the Figure indicates, in that year the condemned
Program Report.
inmate population is expected to exceed the
768 cells available in the CIC. By the end of
calendar year 2016, all of the grade A condemned
inmates would be double‑celled, assuming that double‑celling
is appropriate for all of these inmates, and Corrections would
need to begin double‑celling its grade B condemned inmates.
Continuing this process, by 2035, when the CIC has reached
its capacity, 1,152 condemned inmates would be housed in the
CIC, and two‑thirds of these, a total of 768 inmates, would be
sharing cells. In this hypothetical scenario, all grade A condemned
inmates would be double‑celled, all but one of the grade B inmates
would be double‑celled, and 16 of the grade C inmates would
be double‑celled.7
7	

The condemned inmate population is projected to reach 1,152 during calendar 2035. At this point,
there is projected to be an odd number of grade B inmates, requiring one of these inmates to be
single‑celled since grade B inmates cannot be double‑celled with grade C inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Figure
Projected Growth in Condemned Inmate Population by Grade and Condemned Inmate Complex Capacity
2008 Through 2035

1,200

“A” inmates
“B” inmates
“C” inmates
“D” inmates
“E” inmates
Inmates
double-celled

Inmate Capacity 1,152

1,000

Number of Inmates

800

Number of Cells

768 inmates
double-celled*

600

400

384 inmates
single-celled*

200

35 †

34

20

33

20

32

20

31

20

30

20

29

20

28

20

27

20

26

20

25

20

24

20

23

20

22

20

21

20

20

20

19

20

18

20

17

20

16

20

15

20

14

20

13

20

12

20

11

20

10

20

09

20

20

20

08

0

Calendar Year

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ consultant’s condemned inmate population projections using the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) condemned inmate counts for 1978 through 2007 and its anticipated reclassification of existing condemned inmates. We
did not verify inmate counts to source documentation such as inmate files.
*  Estimate based on Corrections’ current projections of the number of inmates in each grade level.
†  Represents only nine months of 2035, at which point the condemned inmate complex would be at capacity.

23

24

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Some Experts Have Expressed Concerns About Double‑Celling
Condemned Inmates

Although the chief assistant
state public defender cannot say
whether his office would challenge
the legality of double-celling,
in his professional opinion a
legal challenge would certainly
be brought by others who have
standing to do so.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that placing two inmates
per cell in a relatively modern prison facility does not violate the
constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
However, some experts we spoke to raised concerns about
double‑celling condemned inmates. Because condemned inmates
typically have appeal matters pending throughout their time on
death row, the chief assistant state public defender (chief public
defender) stated that inmates often review legal papers related to
their cases while in their cells, and housing two inmates in a cell
may compromise the confidentiality of an inmate’s legal papers.
Further, according to the chief public defender and the executive
directors of the California Appellate Project and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center, capital cases often contain very personal, private,
and sensitive materials. They added that double‑celling raises serious
concerns about maintaining confidentiality during the preparation
to defend a condemned inmate. Additionally, although the chief
public defender cannot say at this point whether his office would
challenge the legality of double‑celling, in his professional opinion, a
legal challenge would certainly be brought to such a plan by others
who have standing to do so. The executive director of the California
Appellate Project agrees, stating that it is likely that double‑celling
condemned inmates in California would be legally challenged.
In our discussions with Corrections’ chief deputy on this point,
he stated that there are ways to address concerns regarding
confidentiality. Specifically, he stated that storage exists in which
condemned inmates are currently permitted to store legal documents
outside of their cells. When necessary, a condemned inmate can
request legal papers from this storage area, and the correctional
officers at San Quentin then retrieve the documents. However,
according to the captain who oversees the inmates currently
on death row at San Quentin, condemned inmates are allowed
to have 1 cubic foot of legal paperwork in their cells. Thus, to
address the risk that another inmate will access confidential legal
materials in a shared cell, Corrections would need to change its
current practices.
Our consultant believes double‑celling the new grade A inmates
is worth exploring. However, he expressed concern that
double‑celling any of the other inmates increases the risk of
harm to the inmates who are housed together, especially for long
periods of time. He added that health and mental issues may
preclude double‑celling a portion of the condemned inmates.
Additionally, he said that condemned inmates are more likely
to resist double‑celling than other difficult‑to‑manage inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Consequently, they may do whatever it takes in terms of acting out
to remain in a single cell, unless significantly greater privileges are
afforded to them when they are assigned to a two‑person cell.
The chief deputy stated that it is Corrections’ current policy to
double‑cell inmates whenever it is safe to do so, given space
limitations and overcrowding, and that condemned inmates would
not be an exception to this policy. He stated that the architectural
design for the CIC assumed a certain level of double‑celling.
According to the chief deputy, the purpose of Corrections’ process
for evaluating whether inmates would be suitable to share a cell is to
minimize the risk of harm to the inmates who are celled together,
and part of the evaluation of inmates for double‑celling would
include consultation with medical and mental health staff. He
further noted that the heightened risk of harm is not unique to the
condemned inmate population. This concern also applies to inmates
serving life without parole and to those that are housed in
segregated housing units. Currently, some of these prisoners are
double‑celled in cells that are similar in size to those planned for the
CIC. Additionally, he stated that it is likely that some condemned
inmates would not be opposed to sharing a cell and that existing
incentives would be sufficient motivation for these inmates.
To provide some context regarding the
double‑celling of condemned inmates, we surveyed
13 states that had populations of 50 or more
condemned inmates as of April 2008. Of the 12 that
responded, only one, Oklahoma, stated that it
currently double‑cells around 80 percent of its
condemned inmates. The assistant deputy director
of Oklahoma’s Department of Corrections stated
that inmates are double‑celled after the department
has determined that they are not an imminent
threat to others. The remaining 11 states said that
they do not double‑cell condemned inmates.
Representatives from the corrections departments
of the other 11 states cited security as the main
reason for not double‑celling condemned inmates,
stating that they believe condemned inmates would
be more prone to violence against correctional
officers and fellow inmates if they were
double‑celled. (See the text box for a listing of
the states.)
According to our consultant, California’s reasons
for pursuing double‑celling are not compelling.
Our consultant does not believe Corrections
can sufficiently mitigate the difficulties and risks
inherent in double‑celling condemned inmates,

Most States We Surveyed
Do Not Double‑Cell Condemned Inmates
Eleven states do not double-cell condemned inmates:
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
One state double-cells condemned inmates:
Oklahoma
One state did not respond:
Texas
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ survey of states with 50 or more
condemned inmates as of April 2008.

25

26

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

who, more than any other inmate group, have nothing to lose.
Although he agrees that some condemned inmates could be
double‑celled, our consultant believes it would be prudent for
Corrections to consider double‑celling only the condemned inmates
classified as grade A under the new classification system.
A More Practical Solution for Housing the Growing Number of
Condemned Inmates Would Be to Add a 256‑Cell Housing Unit
Our consultant indicated that, rather than double‑celling
a large proportion of its condemned inmates, Corrections
should build a fourth housing unit, which the existing land can
accommodate. Based on an estimated increase in the condemned
inmate population of 18 inmates per year, adding an additional
256‑cell housing unit would allow Corrections to single‑cell the
condemned inmates until 2028. At that time, if Corrections began
double‑celling its grade A condemned inmates, total capacity would
be reached during 2030. The additional housing unit would increase
the total number of cells in the CIC to 1,024, and bed capacity
would increase to 1,408.
Adding a housing unit would also be consistent with Corrections’
original plan for the CIC, which included eight housing units
containing 128 cells each, for a total of 1,024 cells. Its modified
plan to construct the stacked housing units, each containing
256 cells, initially would have resulted in the same number of cells.
However, due primarily to cost considerations, Corrections reduced
the capacity of the proposed CIC by 25 percent, or 256 cells, by
eliminating one of the four stacked housing units.

Although our consultant believes
that the addition of a fourth
housing unit is preferable to
double-celling, it would come at a
substantial cost.

Although our consultant believes that the addition of a
fourth stacked housing unit is preferable to double‑celling, it
would come at a substantial cost. Our consultant estimated that
constructing a fourth stacked housing unit would add $64.1 million
to Corrections’ currently planned CIC if it were constructed
concurrently with the proposed CIC. With the addition of the
fourth stacked housing unit, the CIC would have a total of
1,024 cells and 1,408 beds. This would lower the total cost per cell
and cost per bed to $448,876 and $326,445, respectively. Thus,
when compared to the per cell and bed cost shown in Table 4 on
page 16, the additional housing unit would decrease the cost per cell
and per bed because the fixed cost of the correctional treatment
center and other CIC facility support functions are spread over a
greater number of cells and beds.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

However, if construction of the fourth stacked housing unit was
delayed, our consultant estimated that the construction costs would
rise significantly. For example, if construction was delayed five years
until 2013, our consultant estimates that the construction costs
would be $92.6 million, due to $19.2 million in costs associated
with delaying the project and $9.3 million in additional costs due
to construction inefficiencies created by doing the work after
construction of the other structures and while the CIC was in
full operation.
We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543
et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing
standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date:	

June 10, 2008

Staff:	

Steven A. Cummins, CPA, Audit Principal
David J. Edwards, MPPA
Brooke Ling Blanchard
Vern Hines, MBA

Consultant: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at (916) 445-0255.

27

28

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Appendix
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Explanation for Changes in
Condemned Inmate Complex Costs
Table A shows the material changes in costs for various
components of the proposed condemned inmate complex (CIC) at
San Quentin State Prison. Specifically, the table shows the material
differences between the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s (Corrections) original $220 million budget and
the current $356 million proposal. We defined as material any
change—increase or decrease—that totaled $5 million or more.
As a result, these numbers do not correspond with the numbers
in Table 1 of the report, which identifies all changes. We asked
Corrections’ officials to identify the reasons for each of these
changes. Their explanations are provided in the following table.
Table A
Corrections’ Reasons for Material Changes in Cost Estimates to Construct a New
Condemned Inmate Complex
Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

Site Demolition and Grading
Site grading and soil
stabilization

$14,123,855

The original cost model assumed that average soil conditions existed on the site, requiring
general site grading with soils under building pads overexcavated/recompacted to a
depth of about 3 feet below finish grade. Following completion of a detailed geotechnical
investigation, it was determined that unclassified soils and bay muds existed under
most of the site. Because of the depth of these poor soils below existing grade, the
geotechnical consultant recommended that the most economical method to deal with these
unstable soils is to remove them and replace them with material excavated from Dairy Hill,
a 30‑ to 40 foot-high sandstone rock hill located on about one-third of the proposed site.
Under some building pads, excavations to depths of 15 to 20 feet are planned, with extensive
dewatering measures in place to prevent migration of sea water into the excavation.
Additional site costs that will be incurred but were not in the original budget include removal
of Dairy Hill. Material from Dairy Hill will be removed, crushed, and reused as general site
fill or in excavations where poor soils existed. Excess Dairy Hill material will be hauled into
an abandoned rock quarry located on the San Quentin site. To prevent settlement in the
recreation yards and under roadways because of poor soil conditions, soil piers spaced at
approximately 8 to 10 feet on center will be installed in selected areas to prevent settlement
of sidewalks and roads throughout the site. In the middle of the asphalt paved recreation
yards, the soils will undergo deep dynamic compaction to prevent settling.

Utility demolition

(6,451,527)

The estimated cost to demolish existing above- and below-ground utilities was less
than budgeted.

Building demolition

(6,482,757)

The estimated cost to demolish the existing buildings and other site improvements was less
than budgeted.

Hazardous material cleanup

(8,986,158)

When the original budget was prepared, it was assumed that there would be a substantial
amount of hazardous material cleanup due to the existence of an abandoned wastewater
treatment plant, very old buildings that would need to be demolished, and a recycling center
and several old maintenance buildings. After a thorough hazardous materials investigation,
it was found that very little hazardous material existed.
continued on next page . . .

29

30

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

$8,352,378

The electrical system consists of tapping into an existing electrical supply to the prison and
extending a 12-kilovolt distribution system to area transformers that service one or more
buildings. The original budget was not sufficient to cover the distance from the power
supply to the condemned inmate complex (CIC) and assumed that emergency power would
be supplied from the existing generation system and that a new generator would not be
required. Based on the final building loads and capacity of the existing generation system,
Corrections determined that a new standalone electrical generator would be required.

5,126,494

The original budget was based on a standard amount of asphalt paving that would be
required for a typical Level IV (maximum-security) prison. The biggest increase in this
category was for paving of the 4 recreational yards which encompassed approximately
75 percent of the 14.5 acres of asphalt paving that will be installed on this project. The entire
recreation yards were paved based on the yard layout, activities that occur in the yards,
weather, and cleanliness. Because of the poor soil conditions, the geotechnical engineer
recommended from 12 to 16.5 inches of aggregate base topped by up to 3.5 inches of
asphalt should be placed on all areas to be paved.

48,541,333

The original cost model assumed that Corrections would utilize its standard 180-degree
housing unit, which is a two-story building with a total of 128 ground-floor and mezzanine
cells. The standard 180-degree housing unit is approximately 52,000 square feet and
constructed of precast interior and exterior walls, slab on grade floor with conventional
spread footing foundation. Due to site constraints specific to the San Quentin site,
Corrections decided to utilize the 180-degree housing design but to stack one housing unit
on top of another. Although stacked, each housing unit is designed to operate completely
independently for security reasons. This security requirement resulted in the need for
elevators, dumbwaiters, and additional access and egress stairways that were not in the
original 180-degree housing design or in the budget. Because of the size, configuration, and
weight of this structure, the structural engineer of record reported that this housing could
not be of precast construction but would have to be poured in place, resulting in a significant
increase in the cost of the structure.

Site Utilities
Electrical supply
and distribution

Roads, paving, and parking

Housing and Guard Towers
180-degree stacked
housing units

In addition, the soil conditions at San Quentin required that 3 of the 4 housing units be
constructed on a pile foundation instead of a conventional spread footing. The structure
needed to be completely redesigned because of the stacked configuration, method of
construction, weight, soil conditions, and seismic requirements that added substantial
cost to the building beyond what was originally budgeted. In addition, the entire building,
including individual housing pods and subpods, was heated/ventilated using one large
air‑handling unit requiring multiple dampers and associated controls for temperature control
and smoke/gas evacuation.
Because of community concerns identified during the environmental impact phase, the
exterior of the housing units were redesigned to give the structure a more aesthetically
pleasing appearance from both from Sir Frances Drake Blvd. and the Commuter Ferry.
Outside the traditional concrete exterior wall, an entirely new facade was designed
consisting of fretted glazing, stucco, and metal siding. This new exterior was never included
in the original budget.
Secure Support Buildings
Yard walls, catwalks, and small
management yards

9,647,290

Security and operational requirements and procedures for a condemned inmate complex
are based on how Corrections and the correctional staff at San Quentin plan to operate the
facility. This category increased in cost due to the extensive number of yard gun posts around
the recreation yards, elevated catwalk/gun runs for emergency response, and the total
number of small management yards. No small management yards (which are high‑security
wire mesh enclosures with plumbing fixtures) were included in the original budget. Because
of Corrections’ new classification system for the condemned inmates (grades A through E),
it was determined that up to 70 small management yards would be required to provide the
mandated daily exercise time for the inmates.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Component and Item Description

Difference in Cost

Agency Response

$5,576,255

The original budget for the program facility support services (PFSS) buildings (one in each
yard) was based on constructing a total of 32,492 square feet. In the final architectural
program and building design, the size of the building increased by approximately
5,200 square feet. The added space included inmate records in one of the PFSS buildings and
enlarged health service satellites in both PFSS buildings.

Correctional treatment center

13,117,890

The original cost model budgeted a Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) with 33,373 square
feet at a cost of approximately $12,675,055. Based on requirements from the San Quentin
medical staff and revised operational requirements, it was determined that many of
the medical functions (pharmacy, dialysis, etc.) that were provided at other on‑site
facilities would be relocated to the new CTC. This new requirement added approximately
8,400 square feet to the size of the structure, which increased the cost of the building.

Central health services

(5,065,860)

When the original cost model and budget were developed, it was unknown what medical
facilities would be required. Following programming, it was determined that a 24-bed CTC
would be constructed. The central health services building that was included in the cost
model was not required.

Warehouse

7,888,090

A warehouse was not included in the original cost model, based on initial planning
information received from the San Quentin staff. It was later determined that the existing
warehouse space was at capacity and that a new warehouse would be required to store
goods and materials to support the new CIC.

Inmate programs building

(7,841,450)

Based on the type and classification of condemned inmates, it was determined by
Corrections during the programming phase that an inmate programs building was
not required.

Program facility
support services

Correctional Treatment Center

Non-secure Support Buildings

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ review of Corrections’ original and revised cost estimates and information provided by Corrections explaining
the reasons for the cost increases/decreases.

31

32

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

33

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

(Agency response provided as text only.)
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Memorandum
Date: 	

June 2, 2008

To:	
	
	
	

Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor*
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject:	

RESPONSE TO THE BUREAU OF STATE AUDIT’S DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION: BUILDING A CONDEMNED INMATE COMPLEX AT SAN QUENTIN MAY COST MORE THAN EXPECTED

This memorandum is prepared as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR)
response to the Bureau of State Audits’ (BSA) draft report entitled California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation: Building a Condemned Inmate Complex at San Quentin May Cost More Than Expected.
The report evaluates the project plan and estimated costs associated with the construction and activation of
a new condemned inmate housing complex at California State Prison, San Quentin (SQ). CDCR believes the
construction cost analysis conducted by the consultant for BSA was thorough and reasonable. CDCR also
appreciates the recognition that the cost differential is due in large part to CDCR’s adherence to escalation
protocols established annually for all State agencies.
Other construction cost-estimate differences from the original design, as the draft report points out, are
the result of necessary design modifications to the project and related infrastructure of SQ in order to more
accurately reflect the needs of CDCR’s inmate population. For instance, the original cost model assumed
a correction treatment center (CTC) would be constructed to service SQ’s population, including the
condemned. At the time the cost model was developed, it was unknown what other medical functions
would be required and what additional population would be served. Based on the medical Receiver’s
construction efforts at SQ, the amount of medical space planned within the CTC has since been reduced.
However, the costs remain about a third higher as construction costs have continued to escalate.
In addition to fiscal issues, one programmatic concern raised by BSA is CDCR’s decision to double-cell
certain condemned inmates and the risks associated to cohabit this population. The condemned inmate
complex (CIC) project was programmed to double-cell certain inmates who are deemed “low risk.”
A segment of the CDCR condemned population, the Grade A inmates, have been co-mingling with other
condemned inmates for years on the exercise yards. While incidents of violence between inmates do occur
on these exercise yards, these incidents are no different than incidents that occur in facilities housing lower
level offenders. In addition, certain condemned inmates have been assigned to assist with janitorial duties
and participate in contact-visiting. These inmates have unrestrained contact with staff, inmates, and visitors
which presents the same risks as double-celling the population.

*	 California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 37.

1

34

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Elaine M. Howle
Page 2

2

1

3

BSA correctly points out that CDCR is not the only state to have found that its condemned population may
be safely double-celled. BSA’s report mentions the Oklahoma Department of Corrections has successfully
double-celled their condemned population. CDCR notes while Missouri and Ohio do not double-cell their
population, their nonviolent condemned populations are housed in a general population environment,
rather than an administrative segregation setting, which means the condemned inmates have routine
nonrestrained access to staff and inmates. States such as Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana,
North Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington also allow unrestrained access between staff and nonproblematic
condemned inmates. At least ten states allow the inmates to exercise in groups as does CDCR. While these
states may elect not to double-cell, they afford their condemned inmates much of the same access to staff
and one another as would CDCR.

As mentioned, CDCR’s housing policies do not prohibit double-celling inmates who have been sentenced
to life without possibility of parole (LWOP). These inmates pose many of the same risks as the condemned
population, but CDCR has been successful in managing those risks. Additionally, these inmates have court
documents in their cells that may be as sensitive as inmates in the condemned population. Yet there is
scant evidence in the recent past to suggest any of the CDCR LWOP inmates are more prone to harm their
cell mates or have been harmed due to an inmate learning of the circumstances of their crime. CDCR has
policies for separating predatory inmates from those who may require protective separation for reasons such
as their commitment offense; those same practices are employed with the condemned population.
CDCR has considerable expertise in corrections and decades of experience in managing the largest
condemned population in the United States. Based on this expertise, CDCR knows there is a population
of condemned inmates who demonstrate little or no problematic behavior while in custody. These inmates
are awaiting their appeal process and are focused on remaining disciplinary free as any incidents of violence
would impact their appeal process. In managing this population, CDCR has existing procedures related
to the programming restrictions based on inmate behavior, which is the Grade A and Grade B system
mentioned in the report. The proposal by CDCR to further define the grading system and permit double-cell
housing would further refine that policy.

4

5
6

CDCR’s population management strategies, including overcrowding protocols, are routinely reevaluated
for appropriateness, and the State must balance the risks of safety and security against the costs and other
impacts associated with those decisions. The construction of this new complex will add much-needed
capacity to CDCR’s housing capacity at a time when it is facing significant scrutiny by the federal courts.
Also, while the BSA review reflects there is a one-time cost of constructing additional beds to single-cell
all condemned inmates to mitigate risk, the audit does not account for the ongoing costs for staffing,
maintenance, and utilities for additional beds and buildings should CDCR not double-cell the population.
Another area of concern noted by BSA was the potential to exceed the capacity of the new complex within
a relatively short time frame if CDCR were to single-cell the condemned population. The growth rate used of
18 inmates per year far exceeds actual historical growth figures. Additionally, in the event CDCR determines
it cannot either double-cell as many inmates as projected or experiences excessive population growth
of condemned inmates, the parcel where the complex is to be built has been sized for future expansion,
including providing utility infrastructure capacity for a fourth unit as may be necessary.

35

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Elaine M. Howle
Page 3

CDCR understands a secondary report in connection with the CIC project is scheduled for release by BSA
in July 2008 and will provide supplemental information to this assessment, including another analysis of
alternative sites which presumably will be similar to one conducted by BSA in 2004. CDCR would like to
point out as it progresses with its construction plans authorized pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 900, and
as the federal Receiver progresses with planned expansion and renovation of its medical care facilities to
include the construction of 10,000 medical care beds at up to 7 existing facilities, the availability of land,
and remaining infrastructure capacity, is extremely scarce. Any consideration of alternative sites must be
cognizant of these increasing limitations. CDCR also respectfully points out a considerable amount of time
and money has been spent designing a facility at the SQ location and any alternative site would require a
complete redesign of the facility, with a new environmental study and the delay of several more years to get
to the point CDCR is currently at with the proposed SQ CIC project. Construction delays of that magnitude
will most certainly result in increased costs associated with the construction of a new condemned complex.

In anticipation this supplemental report may materially impact the responses to the BSA report, and risk
further delays and increased costs to this project, CDCR respectfully requests the right to add additional
commentary as it deems appropriate. In the interim, CDCR would like to thank BSA for its continued
professionalism and guidance with CDCR’s goal of meeting the housing needs for condemned inmates.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 323-6001.
(Signed by: Matthew L. Cate)
MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary

7

36

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE
RESPONSE FROM THE California Department of
Corrections and rehabilitation
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the
response to our audit report from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections). The numbers
below correspond with the numbers we placed in the margins of
Corrections’ response.
We believe Corrections’ discussion of the interaction among
condemned inmates on the exercise yard and between condemned
inmates and staff is not a valid representation of the risks involved
with double‑celling two inmates in a confined space for extended
periods of time. As indicated on pages 25 and 26 of the report,
our consultant stated that he does not believe that Corrections
can sufficiently mitigate the difficulties and risks inherent in
double‑celling condemned inmates, who, more than any other
inmate group, have nothing to lose.

1

Corrections is correct that we note in the report that the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections double-cells condemned
inmates. However, as we state on page 25 of the report, of the
12 state departments of corrections that responded to our
survey, 11 stated that they do not double-cell inmates because of
concerns that these condemned inmates would be more prone to
violence against correctional officers and fellow inmates. Also, while
we did not survey these states, we appreciate Corrections pointing
out that Missouri, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana,
North Carolina, Nebraska, and Washington all chose not to
double‑cell their condemned inmates.

2

As we state on page 24 of the report, the experts we spoke
with—the chief assistant state public defender and the executive
directors of the California Appellate Project and the Habeas Corpus
Resource Center—stated that double-celling condemned inmates
raises serious concerns about maintaining confidentiality during
the preparations to defend them. As an example, our legal counsel
pointed out that a condemned inmate’s cellmate may be motivated
to read the sensitive court documents of the other condemned
inmate in hopes of learning something about the case that he
can potentially use in an attempt to improve the conditions of
his incarceration.

3

While Corrections states that construction of the new condemned
inmate complex (CIC) will add much needed housing capacity,
much of that capacity will depend on double-celling. As we state

4

37

38

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

on page 21 of the report, based on our consultant’s projected
population growth, placing two condemned inmates in some cells
will be necessary beginning in 2014, three years after the CIC
is expected to open. Should Corrections’ plan to double‑cell its
condemned inmates fail, we recognize that there will be ongoing
staffing, maintenance, and utility costs if an additional housing
unit is built. Therefore, if Corrections decides to go forward with
building a fourth housing unit, it will need to develop a staffing plan
and determine the ongoing costs for operating the additional unit,
as this data was not made available for us to review.
5

We are curious as to why Corrections would criticize the growth
rate we used of 18 condemned inmates per year since, as we state
on page 21 of the report, Corrections estimated that the condemned
inmate population would grow by 24 per year. On this same
page, we state that our consultant believes that Corrections may
have overestimated the population growth because its estimate
did not take into account that in recent years fewer people have
been sentenced to death. This change resulted in an average
annual increase of 12 condemned inmates per year rather than
the 24 estimated by Corrections. However, recognizing that
this downturn could be short-lived, but that the annual average
increase might not soon return to the earlier level, our consultant
estimated that the male condemned inmate population would
grow by 18 inmates per year, an amount significantly below
Corrections’ estimate.

6

We are pleased that the parcel Corrections has chosen as the site
where the new CIC is to be built has been designed for future
expansion. However, as we point out on page 27 of the report, the
longer Corrections waits to build the fourth housing unit, the more
expensive it will become.

7

We appreciate Corrections pointing out what it believes are the
various factors that need to be taken into consideration in our
analysis of the cost to build a CIC at alternative locations. Based
on conversations with our consultant, each of these factors is being
carefully considered in his analysis and cost projections.

California State Auditor Report 2007-120.1

June 2008

cc:	

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press

39