Special Report
Mule Cr e e k S tat e Pr i s on M u s t Im p rove I ts
Ov e rs i g h t o f S om e Em pl oyees’ Work H ours
and Ti me k e e p i n g

Office of the
Inspector General

S tat e o f C a l i f o r n i a
A p r i l 2 0 11

Office ofthe inspector General

Bruce Monfross, Inspector General (A)

April 6, 2011

Matthew L. Cate, Secretary
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1515 S Street, Room 502 South
Sacramento, California 98514
Dear Mr. Cate:
Enclosed is the Office of the Inspector General's special report titled Mule Creek State Prison Must Improve
Its Oversight ofSome Employees' Work Hours and Timekeeping. The purpose of this special report was to
evaluate a concern regarding employe~ timekeeping and workload at Mule Creek State Prison.
The report concludes that many of the prison's mental health and educational employees were fully paid, but
did not average working full days inside the prison over a three-month period, ending August 2010. For
example, according to the prison's electronic security system data, 46 of 51 mental health cliniciansconsisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed' clinical social workers-averaged working 8.4 hours of
their scheduled ten-hour days, the equivalent of 33.6 hours per week. The employee with the lowest average
spent only 6.4 hours per day, or the equivalent of 25.6 hours per week, inside the prison. Similarly, the
prison's educators--eonsisting of 12 academic teachers, five vocational instructors, and three educational
supervisors-also averaged working less than full days, ranging between 33 to 39 hours per week. In total,
these employees' unaccounted-for hours-time for which they were paid, but which they did not spend inside
the prison, in training, or in time off-amounted to $272,900 over the three-month period, or, at this rate,
nearly $1.1 million in a year. Moreover, the report concludes that timekeeping mistakes made by employees
and the prison's personnel office on a sample of timesheets over a four-month period resulted in some
employees being ov~rcharged more than $6,500 and other employees being undercharged nearly $102,000 in
leave hours.
We would like to thank you and your staff for the cooperation extended to my staff in completing this special
report. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Bill Shepherd, Deputy Inspector
General, In-charge, Bureau of Audits, at (916) 830-3621.
Sincerely,

cc:

Michael Martel, Warden, Mule Creek State Prison
William Knipp, Warden (A), Mule Creek State Prison
Kim Holt, External Audits Manager, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
P.O. Box 348780,

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor
95834..8780 PHONE (916) 830·3600

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

FAX

(916) 928-4684

Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology .......................................................................................... 9
Finding 1 .................................................................................................................................... 10
Many of Mule Creek State Prison’s Mental Health Employees Received
Full-Time Pay, But Appeared to Work Only Part Time
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 21
Finding 2 .................................................................................................................................... 23
Mule Creek State Prison’s Academic Teachers, Vocational Instructors,
and Educational Supervisors Appeared to Work Less Than Full Days
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 27
Finding 3 .................................................................................................................................... 29
Ineffective Supervisory Oversight and Personnel Practices Concerning
Employee Timesheets at Mule Creek State Prison Have Resulted in
Costly Mistakes
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 36
Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 37
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response ...................................... 40

Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General
initiated a special review regarding
employee timekeeping and workload at
Mule Creek State Prison (Mule Creek).
Mule Creek is currently the only prison
in the state with an electronic security
system that records the identity of each
employee who enters and exits the
prison’s secured perimeter—the area of
the prison within the electrified fence—as
well as the date and time of each entry
and exit. The warden installed this system
for security purposes to determine which
of Mule Creek’s employees are inside the
secured perimeter during an emergency.
We used the system to determine how
long employees who are supposed to work
inside the secured perimeter were actually
present inside the secured perimeter. We
analyzed the system’s records from a
three-month period ending August 2010.

Findings in Brief
The Office of the Inspector General found that many of
Mule Creek State Prison’s (Mule Creek) mental health and
educational employees had large numbers of unaccounted-for
hours primarily because they received full pay; but according to
the prison’s electronic security system data, those employees
appeared to work only part time inside the prison’s secured
perimeter. In total, these employees’ unaccounted-for hours cost
about $272,900 during a three-month period (or, at this rate,
nearly $1.1 million in a year). Our data analysis for the period of
June through August 2010 revealed the following:
•	 Eleven of the 13 psychiatrists averaged working the
equivalent of about 26 to 34 hours per week. On average,
psychiatrists receive an annual salary of $245,000.
•	 Twenty-six of the 31 psychologists averaged working the
equivalent of about 28 to 39 hours per week. On average,
psychologists receive an annual salary of $103,000.
•	 All seven licensed clinical social workers averaged working
the equivalent of about 28 to 38 hours per week. On
average, licensed clinical social workers receive an annual
salary of $80,000.
•	 All 12 academic teachers and five vocational instructors
averaged working the equivalent of about 33 to 39 hours per
week. On average, these educators receive an annual salary
of $77,000.
•	 The principal and the two vice principals averaged working

We compared the number of hours the
the equivalent of about 33 to 35 hours per week. On
average, these three employees receive an annual salary of
employees spent inside the secured
$89,000.
perimeter to hours captured by other
In addition, we found that Mule Creek could increase its
personnel-related data systems, which
clinicians’ available mental health patient hours by 25 percent if
record hours the employees were paid,
it switches their alternative work schedules to traditional eighthours they spent in training, and hours
hour shifts.
they took as time off. We found that a
Finally, we found that timekeeping mistakes on a sample of
wide range of the prison’s employees
employee timesheets resulted in employees being over- or
had unaccounted-for hours: that is, hours
undercharged more than $108,000 in leave hours.
for which they were paid but which
they did not spend inside the secured
perimeter, in training, or in time off. We focused our review on mental health and educational
employees because these two groups had relatively large numbers of unaccounted-for hours at
a high financial cost. The mental health employees, consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists,
and licensed clinical social workers, work under the direction of the prison’s chief executive
officer. The chief executive officer has a dual reporting relationship to the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) chief deputy secretary, Division of Correctional
Health Care Services for mental health and dental program issues, and to the federally appointed
receiver for medical service delivery issues. The educational employees, consisting of academic
teachers, vocational instructors, and their supervisors, work for the prison’s warden and CDCR.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 1

The three-month cost of these two groups’ unaccounted-for hours totaled $272,900; at this rate,
the cost comes to nearly $1.1 million in a year. Based on our discussions with the prison’s chief
executive officer—who alluded to similar problems at another prison—we are concerned that
other prisons may also have employees with large numbers of unaccounted-for hours, but because
the remaining 32 state-run prisons do not have similar electronic time-recording security systems,
it is unknown whether the problems identified at Mule Creek constitute an isolated occurrence at
one prison.
When analyzing the number of hours Mule Creek’s mental health employees worked inside
the secured perimeter, we found that most of their unaccounted-for hours stemmed from their
not averaging a full day’s work within that perimeter, where the clinicians are paid to provide
mental health services to inmates. The cost of these employees’ unaccounted-for hours during
the three-month period was $242,389 of the $272,900. According to the security system’s
electronic data, most of Mule Creek’s psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social
workers regularly arrived to work late and left early, averaging as a group only 8.4 hours
per day of their scheduled ten-hour shifts inside the secured perimeter. We followed up with
several of the employees with unaccounted-for hours to obtain their perspective.
Three of the employees we spoke with admitted to leaving early but offered the justification
that their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the state allows them to leave early
after they have completed their work. Although these salaried employees’ MOU allows for
flexible work hours, it does not grant permission to leave early on a daily basis. In other cases,
employees we spoke with offered additional partial excuses for the hours they spent outside
of the prison’s secured perimeter, explaining that they were working from home or reviewing
inmate files in the administrative building. However, according to Mule Creek’s chief of
mental health, working from home is not permitted. Moreover, our examination of the prison’s
case records filing system demonstrated that the mental health employees in question did not
review enough inmate files in the administrative building for those reviews to make much of
a difference in their shortage of work hours. Employees who leave early on a regular basis—
even if they complete all of their work—get paid for not working and set a poor example to
their coworkers. Supervisors could instead give these employees additional assignments or
responsibilities during the day to keep them fully occupied and productive or could alter their
schedules to make their work time more efficient.
The structure of the work schedules for most of the mental health employees may contribute
to their not working a full day inside the secured perimeter. The current schedule of four tenhour shifts per week leaves most of them with about three hours per day of non-patient or
administrative time. If Mule Creek changes these employees’ work hours to a schedule of
traditional eight-hour shifts, five days per week, the prison could increase its mental health patient
hours by up to 25 percent while decreasing its non-patient time by 58 percent. This change could
potentially limit the clinicians’ primary cause for leaving early: excessive non-patient time.
Our analysis further revealed that academic teachers, vocational instructors, and educational
supervisors also had unaccounted-for hours; they only worked an average of 6.6 to 7.8 hours of
their scheduled eight-hour shifts inside the secured perimeter. Since all of these employees were
Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 2

paid for full-time work, the total cost of their unaccounted-for hours is $30,511 for the threemonth period; if the employees continued to leave the prison during their work time at the same
rate, the total cost of their unaccounted-for hours would come to $122,044 each year. During our
conversations with four academic teachers and two vocational instructors about the number of
hours they typically worked, all six of these employees claimed they worked outside the prison
frequently: teachers called their outside time “off-site preparation time” and instructors said they
sometimes attend meetings outside of the prison. One of the employees explained that he used
his off-site preparation time as part of his daily commute. However, the principal and the two
vice principals at Mule Creek noted specifically that employees must formally request to use
off-site preparation time or have off-site meetings, and that such requests must be approved in
advance; significantly, none of them remembered receiving requests in more than a couple of
instances during the period we reviewed, and none of them granted it for commuting purposes.
Additionally, we noted that the principal and the two vice principals themselves worked inside
the prison’s secured perimeter an average of only 6.6 to 7.0 hours of their scheduled eight-hour
day, or the equivalent of only 33 to 35 hours per week. When supervisors do not hold themselves
accountable, they set a poor example for employees to follow and are themselves less likely to
hold subordinate employees accountable for working a full day.
Finally, we found that timesheet mistakes made by employees, their supervisors, and the
personnel office’s staff contributed to our difficulty in reconciling employee work hours. For
example, our review of 51 employees’ timesheets over a three-month period revealed 14 of
them failing to report a total of 23 full days of time off on their timesheets when they did not
work. No supervisor caught any of these mistakes. At the employees’ compensation rates, this
unreported time off totaled about $16,000. Furthermore, we found that once timesheets reached
the prison’s personnel office, they are subject to further errors when employees who work
in the personnel office tally and enter the employees’ self-reported time off into the prison’s
leave-accounting system. In a sample of 325 timesheets pertaining to 112 employees, we found
73 timesheets with errors. These mistakes resulted in some employees being undercharged
a total of 1,582 hours of time off (worth $86,212) and some employees being overcharged a
total of 90 hours of time off (worth $6,532). In total, these errors resulted in over $108,000 in
unreported time off and other timekeeping mistakes. Had we not brought these errors to Mule
Creek’s attention, the undercharged employees would have been able to use the hours again
or receive the cash value of those hours once they separate from state service. Conversely, the
overcharged employees would not have been able to take the time off that they had earned.
Recommendations:
To ensure that Mule Creek State Prison receives the most productivity and value from its
psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers, the Office of the Inspector
General recommends that the prison’s chief executive officer, in accordance with and to the
extent permissible under his employees’ labor agreements, take the following actions:
•	 Develop a method to hold supervisors and managers in mental health services
accountable for ensuring that their employees complete required daily tasks and
obtain prior permission before the employees leave work early.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 3

•	 Require all supervisors to maintain logs tracking the number of times employees
request to leave early and, when necessary, adjust employees’ workload accordingly.
•	 Investigate and take administrative actions against employees who leave work before
completing their daily tasks or without prior permission from their supervisors.
•	 Train all supervisors and managers on how to initiate progressive discipline on
employees when appropriate.
To ensure that the state receives the most productivity and value from its mental health
clinicians, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Health Care Service (DCHCS), in
accordance with the employees’ labor agreements, take the following action:
•	 Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering mental health services to inmates using
alternative work schedules for mental health clinicians at all state prisons and, in
cases where DCHCS determines that alternative work schedules deliver fewer patient
services or are otherwise less effective than a traditional five-day-per-week schedule,
eliminate their usage.
To ensure that Mule Creek State Prison receives the most productivity and value from
its academic teachers, vocational instructors, and educational supervisors, the Office of
the Inspector General recommends that the warden, in accordance with and to the extent
permissible under his employees’ labor agreements, take the following actions:
•	 Develop a method to hold supervisors in the prison’s education department
accountable for ensuring that their employees complete their required daily tasks and
obtain prior permission before they leave work early.
•	 Require all supervisors to maintain logs tracking the number of times employees
request to leave early and, when necessary, adjust employees’ workloads accordingly.
•	 Investigate and take administrative actions against employees who leave work before
completing their daily tasks or without prior permission from their supervisors.
•	 Train educational supervisors on how to initiate progressive discipline on employees
when appropriate.
To ensure that all employees understand the importance and methods of accurate timekeeping,
the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden take the following actions:
•	 Provide training to all employees on how to properly complete timesheets. This
training should include an emphasis on the importance of totaling the various types
of leave hours charged each month and on writing legibly.
•	 Provide training to all supervisors and managers on how to properly review
completed timesheets. This training should include an emphasis on ensuring that
employee leave hours are accurate and on returning incomplete or inaccurate
timesheets to employees for corrections.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 4

•	 Require all employees to use the prison’s form for requesting and reporting time off
when taking time off from work for any reason.
•	 Study whether Mule Creek has a sufficient number of timekeepers. If the prison lacks
a sufficient number of timekeepers, redirect employees in the Personnel Office to
assist the existing timekeepers.
•	 Instruct timekeepers to reject incomplete or illegible timesheets. Where appropriate,
provide remedial instruction to employees or supervisors who persist in not following
existing policies related to timesheets.
•	 Provide training to timekeepers, payroll specialists, and payroll specialist supervisors
on the correct method of processing and reviewing employees’ monthly leave activity
and leave balances in the California Leave Accounting System.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 5

Introduction
Mule Creek State Prison (Mule Creek) opened in June 1987 and, as of August 2010, employed
approximately 1,300 people. The prison was designed to house 1,700 inmates; yet, during
2010, Mule Creek typically housed between 3,500 and 3,800 inmates. The annual operating
budget for the prison during fiscal year 2009-2010 was approximately $137 million. Mule
Creek houses most of its inmates in three facilities within a perimeter, which is secured by an
electrified fence (commonly referred to as the secured perimeter). Within the secured perimeter,
the prison’s three facilities house inmates classified from Level III (medium-to-high security)
to Level IV (maximum security). Each of these facilities houses inmates with “sensitive needs”
who, because of their crime, notoriety, or gang affiliations, cannot mix with general population
inmates because they may be subject to harm. Mule Creek also houses inmates in a minimumsupport facility located adjacent to the secured perimeter; the Level I (minimum-security)
inmates in this facility work outside of the secured perimeter and participate in the prison’s
community work programs in the city of Ione.
According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR’s)
comparative statistics, Mule Creek housed the largest total number and highest percentage
of inmates with recognized mental health conditions in the state as of June 2010. More than
half of Mule Creek’s inmates participate in its Enhanced Outpatient Program and Correctional
Clinical Case Management System. Mule Creek also has a Mental Health Outpatient Unit and
a Correctional Treatment Center, where employees provide inmates with nursing and mental
health crisis care.
Mule Creek has two distinct hiring authorities: the chief executive officer and the warden
Mule Creek’s chief executive officer (CEO) is responsible for hiring and managing medical,
dental, and mental health employees and services at the prison. The CEO has a dual reporting
relationship to CDCR’s chief deputy secretary, Division of Correctional Health Care Service
for mental health and dental program issues, and to the federally appointed receiver (California
Prison Health Care Services) for issues related to the delivery of medical services. According
to Mule Creek’s August 2010 payroll records, the CEO employed about 290 individuals.
The prison’s warden, who works under the direction of CDCR, is responsible for hiring and
managing all other employees and for ensuring the safety and security of the prison. For the
same time period, Mule Creek’s warden employed about 990 individuals.
Figure 1: Staff Accountability
System Card Reader

Source: Office of the Inspector General.

Staff Accountability System
Mule Creek is currently the only prison in the state to have
an electronic card swiping security system, called the Staff
Accountability System (accountability system), which allows
the prison to track when its employees are inside of the secured
perimeter. Whenever employees enter and exit through either of
the two gates leading into the prison’s secured perimeter (the front
gate and the rear sally port gate), a gate officer is required to swipe
employees’ identification cards through a scanner that records the

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 6

precise times of their entries and exits (see photo in Figure 1 on the previous page). According
to the warden, the prison implemented this system as a safety measure because it provides a
quick and efficient way to account for all employees inside the prison during an emergency. The
accountability system became operational on January 29, 2010, in a trial mode. However, data
from the system was not retained until after May 10, 2010, when all of the prison’s employees
received new identification cards and the system was fully implemented.
Employees represented by various bargaining units have memorandums of understanding
Employees at Mule Creek are represented by a number of collective bargaining units and
Table 1: Comparison of Labor Agreement Provisions Contained in Three Bargaining Units’
Memorandums of Understanding
Represented
Employees
We Discuss

Provisions Referring to
Electronic Monitoring/
Timekeeping

Provisions Referring to Management
Rights to Monitor Work and
Set Work Hours

3

Education
Personnel

If an employee believes that the
State’s use of current or future
technology is being used for the
purpose of harassment he/she
may grieve such action under
Article 6. (21.2)

Management determines … products,
services, and standards which must be
met by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
excluded employees. FLSA exempt/excluded
employees may be required to work specific
hours to provide services when deemed
necessary by management. (19.1.3(F)(1))

16

Psychiatrists

For the purposes of regular pay
(salary), the work of Bargaining
Unit 16 employees cannot be
standardized in relation to a
given period of time. As in the
past, the State reserves the right
to adequately assess the hours
worked by Unit 16 employees.
No time clock or time keeping
device shall be implemented.
(7.6(B))

Management can require Unit 16
employees to work specified hours. Subject
to prior notification and management
concurrence, Unit 16 employees have the
flexibility to alter their daily and weekly
work schedules. Unit 16 employees are
responsible for keeping management
apprised of their schedule and must receive
prior approval from management for the
use of accrued leave for absences of any
duration. (7.6(C)(4))

19

Psychologists
and Licensed
Clinical Social
Workers

Within the parameters established
by management, the employee
shall be given the flexibility in
determining how and when work
is done, provided assigned duties
are performed satisfactorily.
The quality of work performed,
the work product itself, and
the fulfillment of professional
duties should be the focus of
the evaluation. If an employee
fails to fulfill this function, it may
indicate the need for a more
fixed schedule in terms of being
available. No time keeping device
shall be implemented. (6.1(B)(6))

Management determines the products,
services, and standards which must be met
by FLSA-exempt employees. FLSA exempt
employees are expected to work the hours
necessary to accomplish their assignments
or fulfill their responsibility. Their work load
will normally average 40 hours per week
over a 12 month period. However, inherent in their job is the responsibility and
expectation that work weeks of longer duration may be necessary. Management can
require FLSA-exempt employees to work
specified hours. However, subject to prior
notification and approval, FLSA-exempt
employees have the flexibility to alter their
daily and weekly schedules. (6.1(B)(2,5,6))

Unit

Source: Employee Memorandums of Understanding.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 7

have contractual labor agreements with the state. These labor agreements, referred to as
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), are negotiated and agreed to by the employees’
unions and by representatives from the state. The provisions of these labor agreements are
binding. As a general rule, if any of the provisions are in conflict with CDCR’s policies
and internal memorandums, the MOU provisions take precedence. Table 1 on the previous
page presents specific language related to three labor agreements for employees who work
in selected mental health and educational classifications. Two of the three MOUs prohibit
CDCR (and the prison) from using “a time keeping device.” Although Mule Creek uses the
accountability system as a security tool, we used the system’s data to identify the number of
hours employees worked inside the prison’s secured perimeter over a specified time period; we
did not use this data to support administrative actions against or pay deductions from individual
employees.
Timekeeping at Mule Creek State Prison
Employees of Mule Creek are either paid by the hour or are salaried; most employees are
paid monthly, although some are paid twice each month. Hourly employees are required to
account for 40 hours of work each week, whereas salaried employees are paid a predetermined
salary that is not based upon the number of hours worked but assumes that the employee will
average 40 hours per week over a year. State policy requires every state employee to submit
by the close of each pay period an accurate accounting of his or her actual hours worked and
hours of time off; this accounting is normally referred to as a timesheet. If state employees
are to be paid for their hours of time off, they must account for those hours of paid time off by
using accrued personal leave. The timesheet justifies the salary and wages paid to an employee
each month and is signed by both the employee and the employee’s supervisor. The signatures
certify that the information is true and correct.
After receiving a supervisor-approved timesheet, Mule Creek’s timekeepers review the
timesheets for the accuracy of leave time used or earned and then post the leave information
into a statewide system called the California Leave Accounting System (CLAS), which is
maintained by the State Controller’s Office. All prison timesheets should be posted into CLAS
by the tenth workday of every month in order to accurately reflect the employees’ leave hours
on a monthly report generated by the prison. Using the monthly leave report, Mule Creek’s
personnel specialists verify whether the timekeepers posted data from the timesheets accurately
into CLAS. The personnel specialists make any necessary corrections when they find errors.
Because employees are classified into many different types of job categories, monthly payroll and
timesheet reconciliation is highly specialized. Most employees at Mule Creek are grouped among
several different MOUs, which identify various schedules and different rules for accruing or
using time off. Some employees—primarily Mule Creek’s senior managers—are excluded from
collective bargaining and are not covered by an MOU. In addition, state and federal timekeeping
requirements and the unique scheduling of the prison environment—24 hour days, seven days
a week—result in a range of types of scheduling throughout the day. Also, generally speaking,
Mule Creek’s employees work straight shifts, in which they have no official break in the middle
of the shift for a meal.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 8

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
In September 2010, the Office of the Inspector General received information regarding a
concern with employee timekeeping and workload at Mule Creek State Prison. To ascertain the
validity of this concern, we performed the following:
•	 Reviewed laws, rules, regulations, and policies and procedures related to timekeeping
and reporting.
•	 Conducted on-site visits to observe employees at the prison. Spoke with several
managers and employees.
•	 Obtained and analyzed electronic data from several types of prison information
systems, including the California Leave Accounting System, the Management
Information Retrieval System, the In-Service Training Program, the Staff
Accountability System, and the Case Records Automated File Tracking system.
•	 Reviewed timesheets and work schedules for selected employees.
•	 Reviewed Memorandums of Understanding and job duty statements for a range of
employee classifications.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 9

Finding 1
Many of Mule Creek State Prison’s Mental Health Employees Received
Full-Time Pay, But Appeared to Work Only Part Time
Our analysis of several of Mule Creek State Prison’s (Mule Creek) data systems for the
period of June through August 2010 revealed that many of its employees had unaccounted-for
hours: that is, hours for which they were paid but which they did not spend inside the secured
perimeter, in training, or in time off. We focused on certain mental health employees—the
psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers—because the 51 employees in
these three classifications had a relatively large number of unaccounted-for hours at a very high
cost: 3,386 unaccounted-for hours at a cost of $242,389 for just a three-month period. At that
rate the cost would be nearly $1 million in a year. Using the prison’s data systems, we could
not identify how these 51 employees spent 15 percent of their total paid hours (as shown in
Figure 2). However, the data suggests that most of these
employees’ unaccounted-for hours stem from arriving to
Figure 2: Fifteen Percent of the Total
work late and leaving early.
Paid Hours for 51 Mental Health
Employees for a Three-Month Period
Were Unaccounted For

 Hours Inside the Secured

Perimeter: .................. 14,822 (66%)

 Hours of Authorized

Time-off: ....................... 3,882 (17%)

 Training Hours: . .............. 374

(2%)

Unaccounted-for
Hours: .......................... 3,386 (15%)
Total Hours Paid: ........ 22,464

Unaccounted-for
Hours Paid:
3,386 - $242,389
Annualized $969,556

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff
accountability, in-service training, and leave
accounting systems and payroll records
(June through August 2010).

The prison allows mental health clinicians to work four
ten-hour shifts per week, and 46 of the 51 clinicians
have chosen this schedule. However, according to
Mule Creek’s data for the three-month period, the 46
employees who were scheduled to work ten-hour shifts
averaged working inside the secured perimeter only 8.4
hours per day. One of the 46 employees (a psychiatrist)
averaged working inside the secured perimeter only 6.4
hours per day. The remaining five employees averaged
working inside the secured perimeter for 7.8 hours per
day even though they were scheduled to work either
eight- or nine-hour shifts. Of these five, the employee
with the lowest average was a licensed clinical social
worker who averaged only seven hours of an eight-hour
shift. These averages are troubling, especially since we
included the amount of time it took the employees to
walk from the front gate to their clinics after they entered
the secured perimeter and back again (which, generally
speaking, could take about 15 minutes each day).
Some of the employees we spoke with freely admitted to
leaving early, citing their Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the state as permission to leave early after
they have completed their work. However, although
the MOUs allow for flexible work hours with prior
supervisory approval, the MOUs do not grant permission

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 10

to leave early on a daily basis. In other cases, employees we spoke with provided additional
partial excuses for their hours outside of the prison, explaining that they were working from home
or reviewing inmate files in the administrative building. However, according to Mule Creek’s
chief of mental health, working at home is not permitted. Moreover, our examination of the
prison’s case records tracking system demonstrated that the mental health employees in question
did not review enough inmate files in the administrative building to make much of a difference
in their unaccounted-for hours. Salaried employees who leave early on a regular basis—even
if they complete all of their work—essentially get paid for not working and set a poor example
to their coworkers. Supervisors could instead give these employees additional assignments or
responsibilities during the day to keep them fully occupied and productive, or supervisors could
alter their work schedules to make their work time more efficient.
Our analysis of employees’ work hours spent inside Mule Creek’s secured perimeter revealed
many unaccounted-for hours
Our analysis made use of Mule Creek’s electronic Staff Accountability System (accountability
system), which is a card swiping system used to account for an employee’s entrance into and
exit from the secured perimeter. According to the warden, the prison uses this accountability
system as a security tool so that it can quickly identify which employees are located inside the
secured perimeter at any given time. Although we used the system’s data to account for the
number of hours certain employees spent inside the secured perimeter during the period of June
through August 2010, we did not gather data to support administrative actions against or pay
deductions from individual employees. We also did not gather information to measure whether
individual employees completed their assignments.
To draw meaningful conclusions using this data, we first determined which of Mule Creek’s
employees worked inside the prison’s secured perimeter. We did this by analyzing the nature of
various job assignments and their locations, interviewing prison officials, and analyzing several
of the prison’s electronic data systems. The nature of certain job assignments simply did not
lend themselves to our analysis because the employees did not predictably begin and end their
day inside the secured perimeter or they may not have entered the secured perimeter at all. For
example, employees who primarily work in the prison’s administrative building, warehouses,
and minimum support facility (where minimum-security inmates are housed) would not enter
the secured perimeter in any predictable manner. Further, transportation officers, relief officers,
correctional counselors, building maintenance workers, and members of the warden’s and chief
executive officer’s management team would legitimately—and frequently—begin or end their
day outside the secured perimeter. Thus, we excluded employees in these types of positions
from our analysis.
Next, for the employees who we determined work primarily inside the secured perimeter,
we matched names from the accountability system with Mule Creek’s electronic leave
accounting, payroll, and training data. Then we calculated the amount of time the employees
spent inside the secured perimeter. Since many employees are allowed to leave the secured
perimeter during their shifts for various reasons, we calculated an employee’s total working
hours for each day using the electronically documented time the employee first entered the

State of California • April 2011	

Page 11

secured perimeter and the electronically documented time the employee last exited the secured
perimeter. This approach allowed the employees the most generous amount of hours each
day because it included the amount of time it took for them to walk from the front gate of the
secured perimeter to their assigned work area and back again (which, generally speaking, could
take about 15 minutes each day). Our calculations also included the total number of hours the
employees might have spent outside the prison, such as for breaks, meals, or meetings, if they
entered and exited the secured perimeter several times during any particular day.
To that number, we added the employees’ hours spent in training (regardless of whether the
training took place inside or outside the secured perimeter), as well as the hours the prison
charged employees for time off, to arrive at the employees’ total hours for the period. For
some custody employees, we added the hours they were assigned to posts on a temporary
basis that could take them outside of the prison on occasion. We compared the total number
of hours we could account for to the number of regular, overtime, and excess hours for which
the employees were actually paid during the same period. Unaccounted-for hours represent
the difference between the number of hours we could account for and the number of hours the
employee was paid during the three-month period.
Using this approach, we identified all or nearly all of the hours for 692 of the 827 employees
who met our criteria. However, the remaining 135 employees, who worked in a variety of
classifications, had a relatively high number of unaccounted-for hours. After this initial
analysis, we focused on certain mental health
and educational employees, specifically the
Some explanations for employees having
psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed clinical social
unaccounted-for hours:
workers, academic teachers, vocational instructors,
•	 Arriving to work late and/or leaving early.
and educational supervisors, because these
(Collectively, this is the single largest
employee groups stood out as having relatively
component of employees’ unaccounted-for
hours.)
large numbers of employees with unaccounted-for
•	 Failing to report full days of time-off on a
hours at a relatively high financial cost.1 The text
timesheet. (This timekeeping mistake is
box at left identifies some explanations for these
discussed in Finding 3.)
employees having unaccounted-for hours. After
•	 Recording the incorrect number of time-off
factoring the number of hours these employees
hours in the California Leave Accounting
were short each day and the number of days each
System. (This timekeeping mistake is
discussed in Finding 3.)
of them worked inside the secured perimeter, our
•	 Working on tasks outside of the secured
analysis suggests that the single largest cause of
perimeter. (This is not common since the
unaccounted-for hours stemmed from employees
employees we evaluated worked primarily
not averaging a full day of work inside the secured
inside the secured perimeter.)
perimeter. However, combinations of other
•	 Forgetting an identification card for a
factors may also have resulted in unaccountedday. (This rare occurrence explains not
having work hours recorded in the Staff
for hours. For example, some employees also had
Accountability System.)
unaccounted-for hours from data entry mistakes
into the prison’s leave accounting system or from
We discuss academic teachers, vocational instructors, and educational supervisors in Finding 2 of this report,
beginning on page 23.

1

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 12

unpredictably working outside the prison’s secured perimeter (where the accountability system
would not track the employees’ hours).
Nearly all of Mule Creek’s psychiatrists regularly arrived to work late and left early
Mule Creek psychiatrists are salaried employees and exempt from receiving overtime pay.
Figure 3 on the following page shows each of the psychiatrist’s hours inside the secured
perimeter on a typical workday during the period of June though August 2010. Eleven
psychiatrists were scheduled to work ten-hour shifts and two were scheduled to work eighthour shifts. All but one of the psychiatrists’ ten-hour shifts began by 8:00 a.m., yet only one
psychiatrist typically entered the prison by this time. Similarly, although all but one of the
psychiatrists’ shifts ended at 6:00 p.m., most of the psychiatrists regularly left the prison well
before 4:30 p.m. Consequently, 11 psychiatrists who were scheduled to work ten-hour shifts
spent, on average, only 7.5 hours inside the secured perimeter each day (two and a half hours
short of a full shift). These employees’ time spent inside the secured perimeter ranged between
6.4 and 8.4 hours per day. Although these 11 psychiatrist’s daily averages equate to their
working approximately 26 to 34 hours of their 40 full-time hours per week, they were still paid
for working full time.2 In contrast, the two psychiatrists who were scheduled to work eighthour shifts averaged working 40 hours per week. Psychiatrists are among the highest-paid
employees in the prison, with salaries averaging $245,000 per year. Consequently, Mule Creek
must ensure these employees deliver the most effective services to inmates who require their
services as well as administer the most effective use of the state’s resources.
For the period of June through August 2010, Mule Creek scheduled psychiatrists to begin
seeing their first patients by 8:30 a.m. and to complete seeing their last patients by 4:00 p.m.
Psychiatrists typically had a break from seeing patients between 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. each
day, while the prison conducted an inmate count. Generally speaking, this schedule resulted
in only six and a half hours each day of patient appointment time and three and a half hours
each day of non-patient or administrative time. According to Mule Creek’s chief psychiatrist,
the prison’s psychiatrists should be using the time between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to review
charts, perform evaluations, dictate notes, and complete other work assignments. However, in
some cases, our discussions with psychiatrists revealed something else entirely.
To understand the psychiatrists’ work schedules and responsibilities and to ask them about
their work hours during this three-month period, we spoke with six of the 11 psychiatrists who
appeared to work substantially fewer hours than they were scheduled to work. We gave each
of the employees an opportunity to provide a response to our queries, but we did not compel
any of them to speak with us. Three of the six psychiatrists freely admitted to leaving early and
confidently asserted that their MOU allowed them to leave for the day after they had completed
their work. Although the MOU states (in pertinent part) that these employees have flexibility to
alter their daily and weekly work schedules, this flexibility does not allow them to leave early
One of the 11 psychiatrists was scheduled to work ten-hour shifts only two days per week (half time). This person
was still paid a salary during our three-month time period, but did not work all of his or her scheduled hours
inside of the secured perimeter during the period. For comparative purposes, we adjusted this person’s average
workweek to a full-time schedule.

2

State of California • April 2011	

Page 13

Figure 3: Average Daily Hours Mule Creek’s Psychiatrists Worked Inside the Secured Perimeter
(June through August 2010)
	 8:30 A.M.	
8 A.M.	

4:30 P.M.
4 P.M.	 6 P.M.

Ten-hour Shifts
Psychiatrist 1

6.4 hr./day - 25.6 hr./wk.

Psychiatrist 2

7.1 hr./day – 28.4 hr./wk.

Psychiatrist 3
Psychiatrist 4
Psychiatrist 5◊
Psychiatrist 6
Psychiatrist 7
Psychiatrist 8
Psychiatrist 9§
Psychiatrist 10
Psychiatrist 11
Average‡

7.1 hr./day – 28.4 hr./wk.
7.2 hr./day – 28.8 hr./wk.
7.6 hr./day – 30.4 hr./wk.
7.6 hr./day – 30.4 hr./wk.
7.7 hr./day – 30.8 hr./wk.
7.8 hr./day – 31.2 hr./wk.
7.9 hr./day – 31.6 hr./wk.

Psychiatrist 13

This psychiatrist was scheduled to work ten-hour
shifts for only two days per week (half time). For
comparative purposes, we adjusted his or her
average workweek to a full-time schedule.

§

These psychiatrists are supervisors.

‡

The averages are weighted based on the number
of days each employee worked.

†

We calculated an employee’s average daily work
hours on typical work days by taking the number
of hours between the average time of day the
employee first entered the secured perimeter and
the average time of day the employee last exited
the secured perimeter. We calculated the average
workweek by multiplying the average daily work
hours by the number of regularly scheduled
workdays in a week. The actual number of hours
worked might vary due to the amount of training or
time off used by the employee.

8.1 hr./day – 32.4 hr./wk.
8.4 hr./day – 33.6 hr./wk.
7.5 hr./day – 30.0 hr./wk.

Eight-hour Shifts
Psychiatrist 12§

◊

7.9 hr./day – 39.5 hr./wk.
8.3 hr./day – 41.5 hr./wk.

Average‡

8.0 hr./day – 40.0 hr./wk.

Start/End Time —

scheduled work hours
average daily work hours†

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability system for the period of June through August 2010, and employee work
schedules.

on a regular basis without working longer hours at another time to balance their hours. For
example, the agreement establishes an expected 40-hour workweek in the following statement:
While full time [psychiatrists] will be scheduled to work an average of forty (40)
hours per week during 12 consecutive pay periods, the actual daily and weekly work
schedule may vary due to time requirements of specific assignments. Inherent in their
job is the responsibility and expectation that work weeks of longer duration may be
necessary. (7.6(A)) (Emphasis added)
Nonetheless, as Figure 4 on the following page shows, 11 of the psychiatrists collectively worked
inside the secured perimeter a full day of at least ten hours only 4 percent of their work days in
the three-month period ending August 2010. In addition, the psychiatrists who were scheduled
to work 40 hours per week in four ten-hour shifts did not work inside the secured perimeter for
Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 14

that amount of time, but instead worked substantially less, averaging as a group roughly 30 hours
per week. One psychiatrist even commented, “I don’t work a full ten-hour day, but I get paid for
ten hours.” Although their MOU allows longer weeks to make up for shorter weeks, we find it
improbable that the psychiatrists would regularly work more than their scheduled hours per week
just to overcome their deficit hours from earlier weeks,
especially in light of the limited number of daily patient
Figure 4: Eleven Psychiatrists
Collectively Worked a Full Day of Ten
hours available to them.
Hours Only 4 Percent of the Time

During our discussion, one of the psychiatrists accepted
responsibility for being short of hours and asked that the
difference in hours be deducted from his or her annual
leave balance. Another psychiatrist politely argued
that the MOU includes on-call hours as part of his or
her 40-hour workweek; however, based on our review
of the agreement, we find that this reading does not
appear accurate. The MOU provides that an employee’s
average workweek “shall not include any hours of
work performed while on Medical Officer of the Day
assignments…or On-Call/Call Back Assignment.”

Full Working Days of
At Least Ten Hours:
4%
(14 days)

At Least
Eight Hours
But Less Than
Ten Hours:
33%
(115 days)

Moreover, two psychiatrists explained that, on occasion,
Fewer Than
they go to Mule Creek’s administration building to
Eight Hours:
review inmate files for their cases, which may account
63%
(224 days)
for a small portion of their unaccounted-for hours.
However, one of those employees implied that his or
her review of inmate files would typically take place
Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff
during the middle of his shift—which we would have
accountability and in-service training systems
already counted—rather than at the end of his shift.
(June through August 2010).
To understand the frequency of clinicians’ performing
these types of file reviews in the administrative building, we spoke with some of the case records
employees in that building. These employees check inmate files out to clinicians. Generally
speaking, the case records employees told us that mental health employees do not frequently
review files. Two case records employees estimated that individual mental health clinicians may
review a file once or twice a month. To corroborate this, we obtained the case records office’s
electronic data, which is used to track inmate central files checked out to employees of the prison.
Our analysis of this data for the period of June through August 2010 found that none of the files
were specifically checked out by name to any of the psychiatrists, psychologists, or licensed
clinical social workers. Some files were checked out anonymously, using a code that identifies a
file review that takes place at the counter or at a desk in the case records office by any employee.
On average, fewer than four anonymous on-site file reviews took place in the case records office
each day. Even assuming that all anonymous file reviews during this period were only made by
the 51 mental health employees, we find that at the rate of fewer than four reviews per day, these
reviews would not have accounted for a significant part of a mental health clinician’s day. Further,
since the case records office closes at 4:30 p.m., the clinicians could not have reviewed inmate
files in the case records office between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m.
State of California • April 2011	

Page 15

Three psychiatrists claimed to work from home occasionally, performing tasks such as
dictating and researching. However, when we spoke to Mule Creek’s chief of mental health
about this, he indicated that working at home is not permitted, adding, “There is no need
that I am aware of” for psychiatrists and psychologists to work at home. The chief of mental
health said he would be concerned about inmate-patient confidentiality if the clinicians did in
fact work from home. One of the three psychiatrists gave a few examples of outside tasks he
performs but then told us, “I do enough outside activities to make up a 40-hour workweek, but
I will not specify those activities to you.” However, given the chief of mental health’s position
against working at home, we are unsure of what those activities could be, and we are therefore
suspicious of the psychiatrist’s claim.
Managers knew that their subordinates were leaving early, but described difficulties holding
them accountable
We asked the six psychiatrists if their supervisors were aware of their arriving to work late and
leaving work before completing their scheduled work hours. One clinician commented that it is just
“part of the culture” at Mule Creek to leave after patient work is completed. A clinician with a long
commute of approximately three hours explained that his or her supervisor is aware of his or her
special circumstances, and therefore maintains a permissive attitude toward lateness. This person
also stated that there is a feeling among staff that it is permissible for them to leave at 4:15 p.m.
because coverage from the on-call shift for psychiatrists begins at 4:00 p.m. In one case where the
psychiatrist’s supervisor was present for a portion of the discussion, the supervisor acknowledged
that some employees take advantage of the system and do not work their full schedule.
When we brought this matter to the attention of the prison’s chief executive officer, the chief of
mental health services, and the chief psychiatrist, all three of them expressed concern about their
employees’ not working full-time hours inside the prison. Yet each of them also acknowledged
that they were not surprised by our findings. The chief executive officer said that he was aware
that mental health employees in particular have not been held accountable. In addition, the chief
executive officer indicated that not only is there a culture of leaving early among mental health
employees at Mule Creek, but the issue is pervasive at another prison where he is also the chief
executive officer. We are therefore concerned that the problems we found at Mule Creek could
potentially exist at another prison, or even worse, at prisons statewide.
The chief of mental health services explained that he has had difficulties holding employees
accountable for their work hours and added that, short of standing at the gate all the time, “There
is nothing I can do about it.” Shortly after we began our fieldwork, he wrote a letter in October
2010 to mental health staff revising the start times of employees working alternative work
schedules (such as four ten-hour shifts each week totaling 40 hours worked, or 4/10/40) and
acknowledged that “working hours in the past have been very relaxed, but at this time, we need
to adjust to the increasing needs of [mental health] programs.” Ironically, the chief of mental
health himself appears to work fewer than his own scheduled hours inside the secured perimeter.
According to our analysis, he only worked an average of about 7.6 hours of his scheduled ninehour shifts inside the prison. He defended his apparently short hours by explaining that he visited
the administration building often at the end of his day and occasionally watched the front gate to
see if employees were leaving early. When we inquired further about this claim, we learned that
Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 16

the chief did not keep any records of dates when he watched at the front gate or of employees
whom he witnessed leaving early; the lack of documentation, of course, severely limits the
potential effectiveness of his actions. Nevertheless, if the claim is true, we question the need for
the chief of mental health to spend 70 hours (his number of unaccounted-for hours) over a threemonth period in the administrative building or at the front gate when his staff and office space are
located inside the secured perimeter.
The chief psychiatrist also acknowledged having trouble holding employees accountable.
He told us that he has attempted on several occasions to clarify which remedies, if any, are
available to managers to prevent psychiatrists from leaving Mule Creek at their own discretion.
He was told that he could not simply order a psychiatrist to return to the prison on his or her
regular day off to “make up” time lost through leaving early on a previous day. In other words,
if a psychiatrist shows up for any portion of a shift, he or she is credited for having worked the
whole shift. He further described his difficulties in attempting to discipline an employee who
only worked from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on one day, but claimed to have seen ten patients
lasting five hours, which, as the chief pointed out, is not possible in that time period. He said he
was told that he did not have sufficient grounds to pursue adverse action against the employee,
which could have resulted in monetary penalties. Instead, he was told he could issue a letter
of instruction to the employee, which effectively serves as a warning. The chief psychiatrist
concluded that the current progressive discipline process at Mule Creek is not well-suited to
correcting psychiatrists’ performance, productivity, or accountability.
The chief psychiatrist claimed that the progressive discipline process is not well-suited for
addressing employee performance issues. However, we note that, by identifying a behavior
that was not desirable and then counseling the employee, the chief took the first steps of the
progressive discipline process. As a second step, he should continue to monitor the psychiatrist’s
workload and length of time of the clinician’s appointments and immediately correct any
unacceptable behaviors when observed. Although it is true that the chief cannot require a
psychiatrist to come in on a regularly scheduled day off to “make up” time lost through leaving
early on another day, he can require the employee to stay late or come in on his or her day off
to complete assignments that were unfinished or neglected due to leaving early. The chief can
also assign his employees appropriate tasks that require them to work an average of 40 hours per
week. Consistent with the employees’ MOU, the chief psychiatrist can establish the psychiatrists’
work hours and the expectation that arriving on time is essential and leaving early is not permitted
without prior supervisory approval. The MOU presents this provision in the following language:
Management can require [psychiatrists] to work specified hours. Subject to prior
notification and management concurrence, [psychiatrists] have the flexibility to alter
their daily and weekly work schedules. [Psychiatrists] are responsible for keeping
management apprised of their schedule and must receive prior approval from
management for the use of accrued leave for absences of any duration. (7.6(C)(4))
There are other proactive actions the chief psychiatrist can perform to assist his employees
in becoming more efficient and productive. He can monitor employee time by physically
checking in with the employees in the morning and before the end of the day and record any
instances of noncompliance with established work hours. Ultimately, these actions would assist
State of California • April 2011	

Page 17

the chief psychiatrist in holding his employees more accountable for their work hours while
maximizing patient hours.
Psychologists and licensed clinical social workers also worked fewer hours inside the secured
perimeter than they were paid to work
As was true among the psychiatrists, a high percentage of Mule Creek’s psychologists and
licensed clinical social workers also worked fewer hours inside the prison than the number
of hours for which they were paid. Figure 5 shows the collective average number of hours
these two classifications spent inside the secured perimeter by duration of shifts for the threemonth period, ending August 2010. These employees were scheduled to work 40 hours per
week during this period among up to three different shift durations, yet as groups, all but one
(having only one employee) averaged 35 hours or less per week. This includes 26 of the 31
psychologists who individually averaged working inside the secured perimeter the equivalent
of only 28 to 39 hours per week. Further, all seven of the licensed clinical social workers
averaged less than a full day’s work inside the secured perimeter, collectively averaging the
equivalent of 33 hours per week. The range of these employees’ hours inside the secured
perimeter was the equivalent of between 28 and 38 hours per week.
During our review, we attempted to speak with eight psychologists and six licensed clinical social
workers. We gave each of the employees an opportunity to provide a response to our queries,
but we did not compel any of them to speak with us. In fact, two of the psychologists refused to
answer our questions. One psychologist refused to speak with us, stating that he did not want to
answer questions without his attorney present because he did not want to incriminate himself. The
other psychologist who refused to speak with us offered a similar response.
One psychologist and one licensed clinical social worker with whom we spoke explained that, on
occasion, they go to the administration building to review inmate central files for cases; however,
Figure 5: Comparison of Psychologists’ and Licensed Clinical Social Workers’ Average Daily Work
Hours Inside the Secured Perimeter (June through August 2010)
Psychologists
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbb
b
b

8

b

10 hour day

†

This employee was scheduled to work eight
nine-hour shifts and one eight-hour shift every
two weeks (9/8/80).

‡

We calculated a classification’s average daily
work hours on typical work days by taking
the number of hours between the average
time of day the employees first entered the
secured perimeter and the average time of
day the employees last exited the secured
perimeter. The averages are weighted based
on the number of days the employees in each
classification worked.

8.7 hr./day - 34.8 hr./wk.
7.6 hr./day - 34.2 hr./wk.†
8.6 hr./day - 43.0 hr./wk.

Licensed Clinical Social Workers
bbbbbb

9

8.2 hr./day - 32.8 hr./wk.
7.0 hr./day - 35.0 hr./wk.

b = Number of employees scheduled work hours
average daily work hours‡

We calculated the average workweek by
multiplying the average daily work hours by
the number of regularly scheduled workdays
in a week. The actual number of hours worked
might vary due to the amount of training or
time off used by the employees.

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability system for the period of June through August 2010, and employee work schedules.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 18

as previously discussed, based on the low frequency of file reviews, we believe that this would
account for only a small portion of their time at best. One of these clinicians indicated that their
MOU allowed clinicians to leave early after they complete their work; again, however, because
these clinicians’ MOU is similar to the psychiatrists’ MOU, it does not appear to provide such
leniency. Overall, five clinicians told us that their supervisor is aware that they leave early.
By switching to an eight-hour workday, Mule Creek could increase mental health patient
hours by up to 25 percent
Most of Mule Creek’s psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers work
alternative work schedules, which consists mostly of a four-day-per-week schedule of ten-hour
shifts (4/10/40) and, in one case, eight days of nine-hour shifts over two weeks along with one
eight-hour day (9/8/80). Beginning on November 29, 2010, clinicians began scheduling patients’
appointments Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. at the earliest and completing their last
patient appointment by 4:00 p.m. (an increase of 30 minutes per day). Clinicians still typically
take a break from their appointments for approximately one hour from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
each day while the prison conducts an inmate security count. Appointments can also be canceled,
moved, or rescheduled for various reasons. Therefore, clinicians who are scheduled to work four
ten-hour shifts are currently able to see inmates for only about seven hours per day. This leaves
these clinicians with approximately three hours per day of non-patient time, or administrative time.
We recognize that clinicians are supposed to work on file reviews, inmate evaluations, dictations,
and other tasks during their administrative time, but we found that this is not always the case.
As we discussed previously, some clinicians we spoke with told us that they often leave work
after they complete their appointments with patients instead of remaining at the prison until
their scheduled shift ends. These comments are consistent with our data analysis, which also
shows clinicians working fewer hours inside the secured perimeter than they were paid to
work. Therefore, since clinicians who work a four ten-hour shift cannot see patients for a
sizable portion of their day, we question whether clinicians’ having a ten-hour work schedule
provides the most efficient arrangement for maximizing patient care.
Our analysis suggests that clinicians at Mule Creek could meet more frequently with patients
by working a five-day-per-week, eight-hour schedule instead of the current four-day, ten-hour
schedule almost all of them preferred. Using a simple illustration, we demonstrate in Figure 6 on
the following page how this change could result in an increase of up to a 25 percent in available
patient hours. For example, in a four-day workweek (for illustration purposes, we chose Monday
through Thursday), each clinician under his or her current schedule can only meet with patients
for 28 of the 40 weekly hours, or 70 percent of the time. Clinicians are then left with three hours
each day of non-patient time, or administrative time, for a total of 12 hours per week, or 30
percent of their weekly scheduled work hours. However, if the clinicians switched to an eighthour shift five days per week, the more traditional schedule would yield seven hours of additional
patient time per week per employee. According to the prison’s records for June through August
2010, a total of 46 clinicians—29 psychologists, 11 psychiatrists, and 6 licensed clinical social
workers—worked ten-hour shifts.3
Although one psychiatrist was scheduled to work a ten-hour shift, two days per week, we have included that
individual in our analysis as working full time for illustration purposes only.

3

State of California • April 2011	

Page 19

Figure 6: Mental Health Clinicians Could Increase Their Available Patient Hours by 25 Percent by
Switching to an Eight-Hour Day
Current schedule:

Proposed schedule:

Four-day, ten-hour schedule (4/10/40)

10

Five-day, eight-hour schedule (5/8/40)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
	M	

T	

W	

Th	

F

Non-patient hours
Patient hours

	M	

T	

W	

Th	

F

Benefits of changing to 5/8/40 schedule:
• Percentage increase in patient hours
from 4/10/40 .................................................... 25%
• Percentage reduction of non-patient hours
from 4/10/40 .................................................... 58%

4/10/40 schedule:

5/8/40 schedule:

Total weekly patient hours ..................................... 28
Total weekly non-patient hours .............................. 12

Total weekly patient hours ..................................... 35
Total weekly non-patient hours ................................ 5

Total hours per week ............................................. 40

Total hours per week ............................................. 40

Source: Office of the Inspector General’s analysis of Mule Creek State Prison’s work schedules.

As shown in Table 2 on the following page, if all of the 46 clinicians at Mule Creek who
worked a four-day, ten-hour shift changed their schedules to work five-day, eight-hour
shifts, this change would yield approximately 322 more patient hours per week (or 644 more
30-minute appointments). It would also yield 1,288 more patient hours per month (or 2,576
more 30-minute appointments). Furthermore, with only one hour per day of unscheduled
administrative time, the total number of non-patient hours per week would decrease from 12
hours to only five hours (a decrease of 58 percent) per clinician.
The concept of changing the clinicians’ schedule was even brought up by one of the psychiatrists
we spoke with, who noted that the four-day, ten-hour shift is not productive for patient care. He
said, “There is no reason for any of the psychiatrists to be on a 4/10 work schedule. Unless there
is charting to finish, there is nothing productive to do from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.” The psychiatrist’s
comment appears particularly accurate since our data analysis reveals that many of the mental
health employees leave Mule Creek early on a regular basis. In fact, the 46 clinicians who were
scheduled to work ten-hour shifts averaged working inside the secured perimeter as a group
for only 8.4 hours per day. Since these employees are salaried, we recognize that they have the
Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 20

Table 2: Summary of Additional Patient Hours and Appointments With an Extra Seven Hours per Clinician
	
	

Employee	
Classification	

Total	
Employees	

	

Psychologists	

29 	

203 	

812

	

Psychiatrists	

11 	

77 	

308

	

Licensed Clinical Social Workers	

6	

42 	

168

	

Total	

46 	

322 	

1,288

644	

2,576

Additional Patient Appointments per Month (30 minutes per visit)		

Additional Patient Hours
per Week	
per Month

Source: Office of the Inspector General’s analysis of Mule Creek State Prison’s personnel records for the period of June through
August 2010.

flexibility to alter their daily work schedules based on their workload. However, we believe that
a change in their schedule would help maximize their time with patients, reduce administrative
time and perhaps diminish their reasons for leaving early. The five clinicians who were scheduled
to work eight- or nine-hour shifts help illustrate this point because, as a group, they averaged
working a higher percentage of their shifts inside the secured perimeter. These five clinicians
averaged 7.8 hours per day inside the secured perimeter.
When we discussed the idea of changing the clinicians’ schedules with the chief executive
officer, the chief of mental health, and the chief psychiatrist at the prison, all three were
generally supportive. All three agreed that more productive hours would be achieved in five
eight-hour days each week instead of four ten-hour days. The chief executive officer even said,
“The 4/10 schedule needs to go away.” Although the chiefs of mental health and psychiatry
also supported the idea, they expressed some concern that changing work schedules would
not be well received by some employees, and they warned that mental health services at Mule
Creek could lose some employees if the prison implemented a change to employees’ work
schedules. Nevertheless, we believe that such a change is necessary to better align clinicians’
work schedules with delivering optimal patient care. Eight-hour shifts offer more potential to
maximize clinical hours while minimizing administrative time, and potentially, the reasons for
employees to leave work before their shift ends.
Recommendations:
To ensure that Mule Creek State Prison receives the most productivity and value from its
psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers, the Office of the Inspector
General recommends that the prison’s chief executive officer, in accordance with and to the
extent permissible under his employees’ labor agreements, take the following actions:
•	 Develop a method to hold supervisors and managers in mental health services
accountable for ensuring that their employees complete required daily tasks and
obtain prior permission before the employees leave work early.
•	 Require all supervisors to maintain logs tracking the number of times employees
request to leave early and, when necessary, adjust employees’ workload accordingly.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 21

•	 Investigate and take administrative actions against employees who leave work before
completing their daily tasks or without prior permission from their supervisors.
•	 Train all supervisors and managers on how to initiate progressive discipline on
employees when appropriate.
To ensure that the state receives the most productivity and value from its mental health
clinicians, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Health Care Service (DCHCS), in
accordance with the employees’ labor agreements, take the following action:
•	 Evaluate the effectiveness of delivering mental health services to inmates using
alternative work schedules for mental health clinicians at all state prisons and, in
cases where DCHCS determines that alternative work schedules deliver fewer patient
services or are otherwise less effective than a traditional five-day-per-week schedule,
eliminate their usage.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 22

Finding 2
Mule Creek State Prison’s Academic Teachers, Vocational Instructors,
and Educational Supervisors Appeared to Work Less Than Full Days
Our analysis of Mule Creek State Prison’s (Mule Creek) Staff Accountability System
(accountability system) for the three months ending August 2010 revealed that 12 full-time
academic teachers and five full-time vocational instructors averaged working less than a full
eight-hour shift inside the prison’s secured perimeter. For example, the academic teacher with the
lowest average worked inside the secured perimeter for only 6.6 hours per day (or the equivalent
of 33 hours of his or her scheduled 40 hours per week). Also troubling is that their educational
supervisors—including the principal and the two vice principals—also put in less than a full
day’s work, averaging between 6.6 and 7.0 hours per day of their eight-hour shifts (or the
equivalent of 33 to 35 hours of their scheduled 40 hours per week) inside the secured perimeter.
Since all of these employees were paid for working full
time, the total cost of their 793 unaccounted-for hours is
Figure 7: Eight Percent of the
$30,511 for the three-month period, or if this rate were
Total Paid Hours for 20 Education
constant for 12 months, $122,044 for the year (refer to
Employees for a Three-Month Period
Figure 7). During our conversations with several of the
Were Unaccounted For
academic teachers and vocational instructors about the
 Hours Inside the Secured
number of hours they typically worked, some claimed
Perimeter: .................... 6,743 (63%)
that they worked outside the prison for about one hour
Hours
of
Authorized
each day; they called this “off-site preparation time.”

Time-off: ....................... 2,984 (28%)
One of the employees claimed that he used his off-site
 Training Hours: . ................ 40 (<1%) preparation time as part of his daily commute. According
to the principal, off-site preparation time must be formally
Unaccounted-for
requested and approved by the vice principals in advance.
Hours: ............................. 793 (8%)
However, our conversations with the vice principals
Total Hours Paid: ........ 10,560
revealed that teachers and instructors did not frequently
request to work off site. Consequently, Mule Creek must
improve its management of these employees’ work hours.

Unaccounted-for
Hours Paid:
793 - $30,511
Annualized: $122,044

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff
accountability, in-service training, and leave
accounting systems and payroll records
(June through August 2010).

State of California • April 2011	

Academic teachers and vocational instructors claimed to
work off-site, but it appears they did so without permission
We analyzed the average time of day that academic
teachers, vocational instructors, and educational
supervisors entered and exited Mule Creek’s secured
perimeter for the three months ending August 2010.
We spoke to four academic teachers and two vocational
instructors as well as the principal and two vice principals
at the prison. We learned that all teachers and instructors
are scheduled to work an eight-hour shift between the
hours of 6:45 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. Within this period,
teachers have instructional time with inmates between the
Page 23

hours of 7:45 a.m. and 2:15 p.m., including a 30- to 45-minute break between morning sessions
and afternoon sessions. This leaves teachers with about two hours each day to complete noninstructional activities, including preparation tasks that should take place inside the prison. Such
tasks could include planning lessons, grading assignments, or conducting research.
Using data from Mule Creek’s accountability system, Figure 8 displays the average number of
hours that the 12 academic teachers and five vocational instructors worked between June and
August 2010. Using the average time of day that the employees’ first entered and last exited the
Figure 8: Average Daily Hours Mule Creek’s Educators Worked Inside the Secured Perimeter
(June through August 2010)
	

Academic Teachers

7:45 A.M.	
6:45 A.M.	

Teacher 1

6.6 hr./day – 33.0 hr./wk.

Teacher 2

6.7 hr./day – 33.5 hr./wk.

Teacher 3

7.1 hr./day – 35.5 hr./wk.

Teacher 4

7.2 hr./day – 36.0 hr./wk.

Teacher 5

7.3 hr./day – 36.5 hr./wk.

Teacher 6

7.3 hr./day – 36.5 hr./wk.

Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9

7.6 hr./day – 38.0 hr./wk.
7.6 hr./day – 38.0 hr./wk.
7.7 hr./day – 38.5 hr./wk.

Teacher 10

7.8 hr./day – 39.0 hr./wk.

Teacher 11

7.8 hr./day – 39.0 hr./wk.

Teacher 12
Average

‡

2:15 P.M.
2:45 P.M.

7.8 hr./day – 39.0 hr./wk.
7.4 hr./day – 37.0 hr./wk.

Vocational Instructors
Instructor 1
Instructor 2
Instructor 3
Instructor 4
Instructor 5
Average‡
Start/End Time —

6.8 hr./day – 34.0 hr./wk.
6.9 hr./day – 34.5 hr./wk.
7.2 hr./day – 36.0 hr./wk.
7.4 hr./day – 37.0 hr./wk.
7.5 hr./day – 37.5 hr./wk.
7.2 hr./day – 36.0 hr./wk.
scheduled work hours
average daily work hours†

‡

The averages are weighted based on the number of
days each employee worked.

†

We calculated an employee’s average daily work
hours on typical work days by taking the number
of hours between the average time of day the
employee first entered the secured perimeter
and the average time of day the employee last
exited the secured perimeter. We calculated the
average workweek by multiplying the average daily
work hours by the number of regularly scheduled
workdays in a week. The actual number of hours
worked might vary due to the amount of training or
time-off used by the employee.

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability system for the period of June through August 2010, and employee work
schedules.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 24

secured perimeter, we note that these employees typically averaged about 6.6 to 7.8 hours per
day inside the secured perimeter, which is the equivalent of about 33 to 39 hours per week. We
also note that, during the core hours of instruction—between 7:45 a.m. and 2:15 p.m.—only
seven of the 12 academic teachers and one of the five vocational instructors were typically
present inside the secured perimeter for the full duration. The other nine employees typically
exited the secured perimeter before classes were scheduled to end.
To understand the reasons for the apparent shortage in daily work hours, we spoke with four
academic teachers, two vocational instructors, the two vice principals, and the principal at
Mule Creek. We gave each of the employees an opportunity to provide a response to our
queries, but we did not compel any of them to speak with us. The four academic teachers we
spoke with told us that they work one hour outside of the prison each day while they conduct
their preparation activities. Two of these teachers said that they used their hours at home to
conduct research because there is a lack of resources at the prison, including internet access.
However, neither teacher could estimate how frequently they used the internet for research
nor did they keep records of their activity. Without documentation of their activities, the
prison cannot assess the usefulness of this time nor hold the teachers accountable if their
supervisors later determine the time was wasted. Another teacher commented that he uses his
commute time as part of his preparation time. He said, “I travel to work during my commute
and think about work. The idea is I think about work during my commute.” This employee
further explained that his supervisor is aware of his travel preparation time and even allows
the practice. However, when we asked the employee’s supervisor about this, she emphatically
denied having approved this employee’s off-site time. Another academic teacher explained
that he teaches at the minimum support facility for about two to three hours per week, which
could account for a portion of his shortage of hours since the accountability system would not
account for his hours at that location.
The educators’ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allows for off-site preparation time if
management approves of the activity. The MOU also clarifies the use of preparation time in the
following provision:
During a teacher’s workday, there shall be scheduled non-instructional periods for
purposes of teacher preparation and for performance of other job duties. Teacher
preparation is work time to be used for the purpose of supporting classroom
instruction at a level consistent with the diversity of student needs and changing
program demands. (21.14(A))
When we asked the principal about academic teachers and vocational instructors leaving work
early for preparation activities, he responded that the implied statewide standard for preparation
time at all prisons is one hour per day, and added that he was not aware of any employee using
off-site preparation time on a regular basis. When asked if academic teachers and vocational
instructors could use their preparation time off-site, he answered, “No. The one hour of preparation
time has to be completed on institutional grounds.” He offered the following explanation:
There is no need for academic teachers to use off-site preparation time, everything
needed is on grounds. For vocational teachers, some off-site preparation time may
State of California • April 2011	

Page 25

be needed for their Trade Advisory Council (TAC)4 activities in the community,
but would not be needed regularly. Regardless if the teacher is an academic or
vocational teacher, any off-site preparation time must be formally requested by
the teacher to their vice principal, and the vice principal must approve the off-site
preparation time.
The vice principal of the vocational instructors said he was aware that both academic teachers
and vocational instructors leave early. In addition, he only remembered receiving about three to
four off-site preparation requests for TAC meetings during our review period. The vice principal
indicated that he thought academic teachers and vocational instructors leave early because
they are considered “exempt” employees, not because they are conducting off-site preparation
activities. However, he added that he thought academic teachers and vocational instructors
only leave when their work and student contact is complete. He expressed frustration over the
difficulty he experienced in holding employees accountable, saying that he “would try to make
them stay,” but noted that “once the students are released and all required documentation is
completed, there is no defined reason to require staff to remain on-site.”
Similarly, the vice principal of the academic teachers commented that she, too, is unhappy
with academic teachers and vocational instructors leaving early and claiming it as off-site
preparation time. Then she added, “There is nothing I can do about it.” Despite both vice
principals’ lack of confidence in their ability to hold their employees accountable for working a
full shift, the vice principals could establish additional activities for their employees that would
keep them productive rather than allow them to leave early. As the principal said, “There is
plenty of work to keep staff busy.” And as explained in the previous section, managers can take
steps to hold their employees accountable if the employees are not completing assignments. As
long as there are tasks to complete, managers can require employees to work an average of 40
hours per week.
The principal and the two vice principals also worked fewer than eight hours per day
Not only does our data analysis show that academic teachers and vocational instructors at Mule
Creek left the secured perimeter early, but it also reveals that their educational supervisors—the
principal and the two vice principals—left early as well. Figure 9 on the following page shows
that during the three-month period under our review, the principal and the two vice principals
averaged only 6.6 to 7.0 hours inside the secured perimeter during their eight-hour shifts, or the
equivalent of 33 to 35 hours per week. We spoke with the principal and the two vice principals
to understand their perspective of our data analysis.
The principal explained that he frequently visited the administration building in the morning,
sometimes for as long as 20 minutes, but also admitted that he left work early on Mondays when
teachers were furloughed and on Fridays a couple of times each month to travel out of town on
personal business. The vice principal of vocational instructors indicated that he checked his mail
The TAC is intended to provide positive benefits to CDCR in the area of trade and industrial training programs.
The warden, where possible, establishes the TACs for vocational training programs in the area of vocational
education, industries, maintenance, or food service. The TAC provides standards for inmate selection and training
that are relevant to current methods and industry standards.

4

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 26

Figure 9: Average Daily Hours Mule Creek’s Education Supervisors Worked Inside the Secured
Perimeter (June through August 2010)
	

7:30 A.M.	
7 A.M.	

3:30 P.M.
3 P.M.

Principal and
Vice Principals
†

Supervisor 1

6.6 hr./day – 33.0 hr./wk.

Supervisor 2

6.9 hr./day – 34.5 hr./wk.

Supervisor 3

7.0 hr./day – 35.0 hr./wk.

Start/End Time —

scheduled work hours
average daily work hours†

We calculated an employee’s average daily work hours
on typical work days by taking the number of hours
between the average time of day the employee first
entered the secured perimeter and the average time
of day the employee last exited the secured perimeter.
We calculated the average workweek by multiplying the
average daily work hours by the number of regularly
scheduled workdays in a week. The actual number of
hours worked might vary due to the amount of training
or time off used by the employee.

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability system for the period of June through August 2010, and employee work
schedules.

at the administration building and would sometimes exit the secured perimeter early for meetings
in the administrative building, to handle inmate appeals, or to work in the prison’s minimum
security facility, which is outside the secured perimeter. The vice principal of academics indicated
that she did not know how to explain her unaccounted-for hours, and indicated that she attended
some medical appointments and ran errands around the prison’s administrative building and
warehouses. Both vice principals noted that they are salaried employees and that their MOU
with the state allows them to leave the prison after they complete their work. Their MOU allows
them to alter their work hours (with prior management approval), and it also states (in part)
that they “are expected to work, within reason, as many hours as necessary to accomplish their
assignments or fulfill their responsibilities…” However, the MOU clearly points out that their
workweek shall be 40 hours. Therefore, this language does not suggest that these employees
can simply leave early on a regular basis. Nevertheless, when the principal and vice principals
regularly leave early, their actions set a poor example for employees to follow. Furthermore, we
question these supervisors’ ability to hold employees accountable for working a full shift when
they do not even hold themselves to the same standard.
Recommendations:
To ensure that Mule Creek State Prison receives the most productivity and value from
its academic teachers, vocational instructors, and educational supervisors, the Office of
the Inspector General recommends that the warden, in accordance with and to the extent
permissible under his employees’ labor agreements, take the following actions:
•	 Develop a method to hold supervisors in the prison’s education department
accountable for ensuring that their employees complete their required daily tasks and
obtain prior permission before they leave work early.
•	 Require all supervisors to maintain logs tracking the number of times employees
request to leave early and, when necessary, adjust employees’ workloads accordingly.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 27

•	 Investigate and take administrative actions against employees who leave work before
completing their daily tasks or without prior permission from their supervisors.
•	 Train educational supervisors on how to initiate progressive discipline on employees
when appropriate.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 28

Finding 3
Ineffective Supervisory Oversight and Personnel Practices Concerning
Employee Timesheets at Mule Creek State Prison Have Resulted in
Costly Mistakes
Although the state requires employees to report on their timesheets when they take a full day of
time off, we found 14 employees at Mule Creek State Prison (Mule Creek) who failed to claim
a total of 23 full days of time off—worth nearly $16,000—between June and August 2010.
In nearly all of these 23 cases, the employees and their supervisors signed and approved the
timesheets, yet the unreported time off went unnoticed until we brought the errors to the attention
of the employees and their supervisors. Employees who fail to report full days of time off will
be able to use those hours again in the future, or they will be paid in cash for those hours when
they eventually separate from state service. Moreover, during a four-month period between
May and August 2010, we found that Mule Creek’s personnel office made many timekeeping
mistakes, worth the equivalent of $92,744. Specifically, during this four-month period, the prison
either under- or overcharged employees’ leave time on 73 of the 325 timesheets we reviewed (22
percent), belonging to 49 of the 112 employees (44 percent). These errors occurred because the
prison’s personnel office failed to correctly add up or properly record the leave hours claimed
by the employees. With financial consequences similar to employees’ unreported time off, the
personnel office’s non-deducted hours could be used by the employees again or become money
that the state would be obligated to pay to the employees upon separation from state service.
Conversely, the extra hours deducted from employees, resulting from the overcharging of leave
time, essentially cost the employees an extra $6,532. Had we not caught these mistakes, these
overcharged employees would not have been able to take the time off that they had earned.
In all, as shown in Table 3, we found a total of $108,527 in unreported time off and other
timekeeping mistakes. After we brought these errors to Mule Creek’s attention, the personnel
Table 3: Summary of Timekeeping Mistakes
		
		
		
Description of Mistakes	
Unreported Time off
(June through August 2010)	
		

	

Under- and Overcharges to Employee
Leave Balances	
(May through August 2010)

Number of
Timesheets	
with	
Exceptions	

Number of		
Reviewed	
Error	
Timesheets	
Rate	

Number of	
Questioned	
Hours	

Value of
Questioned
Hours*

18	
(23 Days)

115	

16%	

216	

$15,783

73	

325	

22%	

1,672 	

$92,744

1,888	

$108,527

Total				

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability and leave accounting systems, payroll records, and monthly employee
timesheets.
*The value of questioned hours was calculated by multiplying an employee’s questioned hours by their average hourly salary. We
calculated an employee’s average hourly salary by dividing their regular pay for June, July, and August 2010, by the total number
of regular hours they were paid for during the same time period.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 29

office took some initial steps to address some of these issues, including adjusting some of the
employees’ leave balances and providing many supervisors with additional timesheet training.
However, more improvement is required to fully resolve the problems we found.
Several of the prison’s employees failed to report full days of time off on their timesheets,
resulting in nearly $16,000 in overpayments
The state requires its employees—regardless of whether they are paid a salary or paid by the
hour—to report on their timesheet when they take a full day of time off from work. To be
compensated for a day off from work, employees must use the equivalent amount of hours
from a variety of leave balances, such as vacation, sick, or annual leave. We analyzed whether
Mule Creek’s employees neglected to report full days of time off from work for the three
months ending August 2010. Toward that end, we used Mule Creek’s accountability system—
which identifies the time of day employees entered and exited the secured perimeter—along
with other personnel-related data and records. We found that 14 employees failed to report 23
days of time off, at a cost to the prison of nearly $16,000. Four of these 14 employees failed
to report multiple days of time off. When we asked the employees about their timesheets,
most of these 14 employees indicated that they simply forgot to report their time off on their
timesheets. Other employees responded that the questioned days were just regular days off
for them; after reviewing these employees’ schedules, however, that does not appear to be the
case. One employee no longer works at the prison, so we could not follow up on that case. In
13 of the 14 employees’ cases, the employees and their supervisors signed and approved the
timesheets and the unreported time off went unnoticed until we brought it to the employees’
and their supervisor’s attention. The remaining employee’s timesheet was missing the
supervisor’s signature altogether. When employees fail to report full days of time off on their
timesheets, the employees will be able to use those hours again in the future, or they will be
paid in cash for those hours when they eventually separate from state service.
When we reconciled the number of hours that Mule Creek employees were paid with the
number of hours they spent inside the secured perimeter, in training, or as authorized time off,
we found that many employees were paid for hours that we could not account for inside the
secured perimeter. We selected 51 of the employees who had a large number of unaccountedfor hours, tested 115 of those employees’ timesheets from a three-month period (which ended
August 2010), and compared the days the employees claimed on their timesheets to have
worked to the days the employees actually entered the secured perimeter, according to the
prison’s accountability system. In rare cases, employees claimed they forgot their identification
card for a particular day, which would result in having unaccounted-for hours; in those cases,
we used either the prison’s handwritten sign-in roster or other documents instead of the
electronic data to verify whether the employee actually showed up to work.
In total, we found 42 days during which 19 employees reported on their timesheets that they
worked, but the employees never entered the secured perimeter nor attended outside training.
We followed up with these employees to discover whether they did, in fact, work, and we
found that on 19 of those days, the employees simply switched their regular day off with
the day in question but did not indicate the switch on the timesheet. However, we found that
14 employees neglected to report time off on 23 days when they did not show up to work.
Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 30

Most of the employees indicated to us that they simply forgot to report their time off and
acknowledged they should have done so. However, four of these employees failed to report
time off on multiple days. The most egregious case related to an employee who reported on
his August 2010 timesheet that he worked on six days at Mule Creek, but he never entered the
secured perimeter or attended outside training on those six days. As a result of our follow-up,
he indicated to a high-ranking manager that he had inadvertently claimed to work on those
days, and he apologized to his manager for doing so. He also said that he would revise his
timesheet accordingly. However, we discovered that during four of those days, the employee
also reported working at another prison, resulting in his being paid by two prisons for the same
four days. In total, the employee should have had six days of time off deducted from his leave
balances (60 hours, since he was scheduled to work ten-hour days); but since these days went
unnoticed, he was overpaid a total of $7,071 in regular wages for these 60 hours.
Although employees are individually responsible for accurate time reporting, supervisors are
equally responsible for double-checking their employees’ timesheets. In 22 of these 23 cases
of employees taking unreported time off, the supervisors approved and signed the employees’
timesheets while failing to catch the unreported time off; in the remaining case, the employee
submitted the timesheet without his or her supervisor’s signature. The supervisors’ inadequate
oversight may result in part from ineffective practices of reporting time off at Mule Creek.
The prison has a form for employees to fill out when requesting a day off from work and when
reporting an unscheduled day off (such as a sick day). Ideally, at the end of the pay period,
employees and their supervisors use these forms to ensure that employees claim full days of
time off on their timesheets. However, this process can only be effective if employees and
supervisors actually use the forms.
We attempted to follow up with 13 of the 14 employees or with their supervisors to learn
whether any of the employees used the proper form for these 23 unreported days of time off.5
We found that only one employee filled out a form (this accounted for four of the 23 days
in question). Yet even in this case, the supervisor, who provided us with a copy of the form,
apparently did not look at it when approving the employee’s timesheet. We learned that in 14
of the 23 cases, six supervisors used an alternative method of tracking time off by marking
on their calendars or schedules that their employees had taken time off from work; yet again,
each supervisor apparently failed to consult his or her alternative tracking mechanisms when
approving employees’ timesheets. One of these supervisors told us, “I trust that employees
complete their timesheets accurately and I assume my employees have good integrity to complete
their timesheets truthfully.” Another supervisor who said he occasionally signs timesheets
on behalf of his manager explained that he presumes employees are honest and typically just
signs the timesheets. This supervisor also commented that the process is based on the honor
system and that he assumes employees worked the days they claim. However, these supervisors
miss the point: a superior checks timesheets for accuracy because even honest employees can
unintentionally make mistakes. The mistakes we found could have easily been detected if the
supervisors had followed Mule Creek’s processes—or even followed their own processes.
We could not determine whether one employee used a form to request or report time off because the employee
separated from employment at Mule Creek State Prison prior to our fieldwork.

5

State of California • April 2011	

Page 31

Because of the frequent occurrence of unreported days of time off, we question whether
employees and supervisors have been adequately trained to fill out and review timesheets. We
asked Mule Creek’s personnel officer how often the prison provides training to its employees
on timesheet procedures. According to the personnel officer, new employees typically receive
a brief timesheet course as part of the prison’s new employee orientation. However, the
personnel officer noted that, to her knowledge, Mule Creek had not conducted any other formal
courses focusing on timekeeping until we brought several of our concerns about timekeeping to
the prison’s attention. Twice in December 2010, and once in January 2011, the personnel office
provided a total of 54 supervisors with timesheet training, which included handouts of various
rules as well as helpful examples of erroneous timesheets that had been recently completed
and approved. Although this appears to be a good start on addressing the problem, Mule Creek
must continue to emphasize the importance of accurate time reporting and include additional
employees in the training to ensure more accurate reporting. Inaccuracies like the ones reported
here have the potential to be very costly to the prison.
Timekeeping mistakes made by the prison’s personnel office resulted in dozens of employees
receiving extra time-off hours
Employees at Mule Creek’s personnel office often deducted too many or too few leave hours
as they reviewed employee timesheets and posted their leave hours into the state’s leave
accounting system. After we performed our data analysis (as described on page 11), we selected
112 employees primarily from classifications having a large number of unaccounted-for hours
and reviewed 325 of their timesheets (from selected months between May and August 2010).
Table 4 on the following page shows a summary of the classifications of employees and their
timesheets reviewed. We found that Mule Creek either under- or overcharged leave time on 73 of
the 325 timesheets we reviewed (22 percent) belonging to 49 of the 112 employees (44 percent).
These mistakes occurred because the prison’s personnel office failed to add up or properly
record the correct number of claimed leave hours. Of the 73 mistakes, we found 55 instances of
employees being undercharged, at a total of 1,582 leave hours, and 18 instances of employees
being overcharged, at a total of 90 leave hours. At the compensation rates of these employees,
these mistakes equated to $86,212 worth of leave that the employees were undercharged. This
represents hours of time off that could be used again by the employees or that the employees
could receive in cash when they separate from state service. Conversely, the overcharged
employees lost $6,532 in time off because of the processing errors. Combined, these errors cost
the prison and the employees a total of $92,744 as shown in Table 5 on page 34.
Most of the mistakes described above were caused by illegible writing or by common
arithmetic errors; however, some mistakes resulted from Mule Creek’s inconsistent application
of the state’s rules for using or accruing holiday time-off and excess hours.6 The mistakes
attributable to the mismanagement of these rules totaled $2,202.
Excess hours are accrued or taken to balance an employee’s pay period hours when an employee works a schedule
other than Monday through Friday, eight hours a day, to total 40 hours per week. If an employee has worked more
than the number of days or hours required for the pay period, the extra time is credited as “excess hours.” For an
employee who has worked less than the number of days or hours required, the difference would first be deducted
from an employee’s accrued excess hours, then from the employee’s other available leave balances.
6

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 32

Table 4: Summary of the Employees and Timesheets We Reviewed (May through August 2010)
Chief Executive Officer’s	
(CEO) Employees	

Number of Employees	
Reviewed	
With Exceptions	

Number of Timesheets
Reviewed	
With Exceptions

	
Psychologists	

29	 14	86	22

	
Dental Assistants	

13	 1	35	1

	
Psychiatrists	

13	 10	46	18

	

Psychiatric Technicians	

12	

	

8	 5	26	7
Clinical Social Workers 	

11	

33	

16

†

	
Physicians and Assistants	
6	 2	14	2
	
Nursing Staff	

5	 2	13	3

	
Pharmacy Staff	

5	 0	11	0

	
Dentists	

2	 0	6	0

	

2	

CEO’s Administrative Staff	

0	

6	

0

	
Recreational Therapists	
2	 0	6	0
CEO’s Employee Totals	

97	

45	

282	

69

Warden’s Employees
	

Maintenance Support Staff	

5	

1	

15	

1

	

Correctional Officers	

3	

0	

8	

0

	
Correctional Sergeants	
2	 1	6	1
	

Education and Vocation Staff	

2	

1	

5	

1

	
Chaplains	

1	 1	3	1

	

Food Preparation Staff	

1	

0	

3	

0

	

Warden’s Administrative Staff	

1	

0	

3	

0

Warden’s Employee Totals	

15	

4	

43	

4

Totals		

112	 49	325	73

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s monthly employee timesheets.
†

We included one retired annuitant that we did not include in our other analyses.

Mistakes resulted in employees being over- and undercharged for their leave taken
We compared the total number of leave hours reported by the employees on their timesheets
with the total number of leave hours that the timekeeper posted into the California Leave
Accounting System (CLAS), the system that captures state employee leave transactions and
balances. On 55 of the 325 timesheets, Mule Creek’s personnel office failed to record all
of the employees’ claimed leave hours properly, resulting in 1,582 hours undercharged to
employees’ leave balances. On 24 of the 55 timesheets, the prison did not record any leave
hours at all, even though the employees’ timesheets clearly indicated that they did not work on
particular days during the pay period. This is significant because in these instances, employees
attempted to use leave hours, but their timesheet declarations passed unrecorded by the prison’s
timekeeping process. In the most egregious example, our review of an employee’s timesheet
revealed that the employee had declared taking 160 hours of leave time during the June pay
period. However, according to CLAS for the same period, the timekeeper recorded zero hours
of leave time—giving the employee an “extra” 160 hours of leave time in his or her accrued
balances. In response to these mistakes, Mule Creek’s personnel officer is working to correct
State of California • April 2011	

Page 33

Table 5: Summary of Mistakes Made by the Prison’s Personnel Office When Recording Employee
Leave (May through August 2010).
		
		
Description of Mistakes	

Number of		
Timesheets With		
Exceptions	
Error Rate*	

Number of	
Questioned	
Hours	

Value of
Questioned
Hours†

Undercharges to Employee Leave Balances - 	
(where the prison failed to deduct enough
leave hours from the employee)

55	

17%	

1,582	

$86,212

Overcharges to Employee Leave Balances - 	
(where the prison deducted too much leave
from the employee)

18	

5%	

90	

$6,532

Total Mistakes	

73	

22%	

1,672	

$92,744

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s monthly employee timesheets.
* We reviewed a total of 325 timesheets between May and August 2010.
†

The value of questioned hours was calculated by multiplying an employee’s questioned hours by their average hourly salary.
We calculated an employee’s average hourly salary by dividing their regular pay for June, July, and August 2010, by the total
number of regular hours they were paid for during the same time period.

the affected employees’ leave balances. Had we not brought these mistakes to Mule Creek’s
attention, the affected employees would have been able to use the hours again or would have
been paid cash for those hours when they retired or otherwise separated from state service.
In the remaining 31 instances of undercharged employee leave, Mule Creek’s personnel office
recorded some portion of the employees’ claimed time off; however, the prison did not record
the full number of leave hours. For example, one employee’s timesheet for the July 2010 pay
period showed that the employee took 106 hours of time off. However, according to CLAS
records we reviewed, the timekeeper only recorded 42 of those 106 hours—which left the
employee with an “extra” 64 hours of leave time.
Conversely, in 18 instances, Mule Creek’s personnel office incorrectly recorded more leave hours
than employees had declared on their timesheets. For example, in one instance, we found that
an employee’s timesheet reflected 56 leave hours taken for June 2010, yet the prison’s personnel
staff recorded in CLAS a total of 75 leave hours, thereby overcharging the employee 19 leave
hours (or $2,305 at this employee’s compensation rate). In 17 other instances, the prison similarly
took too many leave hours from employees. In total, the prison overcharged employees 90 hours
of leave, worth about $6,532. Had we not brought these mistakes to Mule Creek’s attention, these
overcharged employees would not have been able to take the time off that they had earned.
Mule Creek inconsistently accounts for holiday time and inconsistently balances pay period hours
Contributing to the leave-time mistakes we found, Mule Creek miscalculated holiday time
and other time credits for employees who worked alternative work schedules.7 When a state
holiday is observed, full-time employees are allotted eight hours of paid leave. Generally
speaking, when an employee who is scheduled to work a nine-hour or ten-hour shift takes a
An alternative work schedule is an “alternative” to the traditional schedule of eight-hour workdays, Monday
through Friday, equaling a 40-hour workweek. Alternative work schedules may result in the employee working
more or fewer hours in a pay period.

7

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 34

holiday off, the employee must contribute additional leave hours to make up the difference
between the eight-hour paid holiday leave and his or her nine-hour or ten-hour scheduled day.
In addition, employees on alternative work schedules who work more or fewer than the number
of days or hours required for any pay period must have hours added to or subtracted from an
“excess hour” account or other leave accounts. The mistakes we found mostly benefitted the
employees, but sometimes the prison overcharged hours from employees’ leave or “excess”
hour accounts. Overall, the net effect of these errors was $2,202.
Of the 325 timesheets we reviewed, 37 related to employees who worked nine- or ten-hour
days. Of those 37 timesheets, we found 17 instances (46 percent) in which Mule Creek failed
to take the additional one or two leave hours on the Memorial Day and Independence Day
holidays. Alternatively, we found three instances in which the prison failed to credit holiday
hours to employees working a weekly four-day, ten-hour schedule when their regular day off
fell on a holiday. Instead, Mule Creek mistakenly charged the employees two additional hours
of leave, as if the holiday were observed on the employees’ scheduled workday.
In addition to the errors involving holiday hours, we identified six errors relating to leave
hours that certain employees on alternative work schedules occasionally earned or expended
to balance the pay period. In four instances, we found that Mule Creek failed to charge the
employees leave hours when the employees worked fewer than the required monthly payperiod hours. Conversely, in two separate cases, the prison overcharged leave to employees
who were not supposed to earn excess leave hours. The Memorandum of Understanding for
these employees does not require the documentation of hours worked; therefore, these two
employees should not have been charged leave to balance the pay period.
Several factors contributed to the mistakes
We met with the prison’s warden and personnel officer to discuss the problems we found,
obtain their perspective, and learn of any corrective action they might have already started.
Generally, they speculated that the errors were caused by four factors: poor supervisory
oversight, poor training, heavy workloads for the timekeeper, and poor communication
between the personnel office and the warden.
The warden told us that he became aware of timekeeping mistakes shortly after his
appointment in 2008, and that he has worked to improve the quality of timekeeping at Mule
Creek. He said that he acted initially to eliminate the cause of the mistakes but that his
efforts were unsuccessful. The warden noted that he eventually discovered the problems to
be widespread and that a lack of information hindered his full insight into the timekeeping
matter. Since February 2010, a new personnel officer has overseen the timekeeping function.
The warden has tasked this new person with evaluating and reporting on current timekeeping
deficiencies at Mule Creek.
The personnel officer told us that although supervisors are responsible for reviewing and
approving employee’s timesheets, the supervisors often do not closely track employees’
schedules and, therefore, often lack sufficient information to ensure that the leave time actually
taken is accurately shown on the employee’s timesheet. The personnel officer added that
State of California • April 2011	

Page 35

supervisors also do not enforce a policy from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation that requires employees to add up their various hours on their timesheets, and
that moreover, supervisors are approving timesheets with illegible writing. According to the
personnel officer, these problems place a burden on the already overworked timekeepers as
they try to read illegible writing and total the hours worked and leave taken.
Finally, the personnel officer told us that there is usually only one timekeeper performing data
entry into CLAS for Mule Creek’s approximately 1,300 employees, and that this timekeeper
has about ten working days each month to read and post the timesheet information from those
1,300 timesheets. During that ten-day period, the timekeeper also answers the telephones
and greets employee-visitors at the front counter—added distractions that may contribute to
mistakes. Additionally, the timekeeper was new to the job in May 2010.
Recommendations
To ensure that all employees understand the importance and methods of accurate timekeeping,
the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden take the following actions:
•	 Provide training to all employees on how to properly complete timesheets. This
training should include an emphasis on the importance of totaling the various types
of leave hours charged each month and on writing legibly.
•	 Provide training to all supervisors and managers on how to properly review
completed timesheets. This training should include an emphasis on ensuring that
employee leave hours are accurate and on returning incomplete or inaccurate
timesheets to employees for corrections.
•	 Require all employees to use the prison’s form for requesting and reporting time off
when taking time off from work for any reason.
•	 Study whether Mule Creek has a sufficient number of timekeepers. If the prison lacks
a sufficient number of timekeepers, redirect employees in the Personnel Office to
assist the existing timekeepers.
•	 Instruct timekeepers to reject incomplete or illegible timesheets. Where appropriate,
provide remedial instruction to employees or supervisors who persist in not following
existing policies related to timesheets.
•	 Provide training to timekeepers, payroll specialists, and payroll specialist supervisors
on the correct method of processing and reviewing employees’ monthly leave activity
and leave balances in the California Leave Accounting System.

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 36

Appendix
In the table on the following page, we present the detailed calculations of unaccounted-for
hours—hours for which employees were paid but which we could not reconcile with the
employees’ documented time inside the prison’s secured perimeter, their time off, and their
time spent in training. These are the unaccounted-for hours of Mule Creek State Prison’s
psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, academic teachers, vocational
instructors, and educational supervisors for the period of June through August 2010. For
this period, we computed over 4,000 unaccounted-for hours for these employees at a cost of
$272,900 (or $1,091,600 annualized).
To arrive at an employee’s unaccounted-for hours, we began with the employee’s total number
of paid hours; then we subtracted from that the number the hours the employee spent inside
the secured perimeter, the hours the employee took as time off, and the hours the employee
spent in training. We considered any results greater than zero to be “unaccounted-for” because
the employee was paid for more hours than we could account for using known data fields.
Our analysis suggests that unaccounted-for hours stem mainly from employees’ not averaging
a full day inside the secured perimeter; yet the unaccounted-for hours can also result from a
combination of other causes, including the following: timekeeping mistakes made by Mule
Creek’s personnel office when entering declared time off into the state’s leave accounting
system; employees working a small portion of their day outside of the secured perimeter; and
employees forgetting to report full days of time off on their timesheets. In addition, on rare
occasions, employees’ unaccounted-for hours resulted from their forgetting their identification
cards on a particular day and having to manually sign in and out of the prison. Without an
identification card, an employee would not be able to scan his or her entry and exit into the
prison’s Staff Accountability System.
Six employees in these classifications actually had negative variances because we could
account for more hours than they were paid during the period. However, for the purposes of our
review, Table A on the following page presents these employees as having zero unaccountedfor hours so that their negative variances do not offset other employees’ shortages of hours.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 37

Table A: Summary of Mental Health and Education Employees’ Unaccounted-for Hours
(June through August 2010)

Employee

Mental Health Employees
	
Psychiatrist 1	
	
Psychiatrist 2	
	
Psychiatrist 3	
	
Psychiatrist 4	
	
Psychiatrist 5	
	
Psychiatrist 6	
	
Psychiatrist 7	
	
Psychiatrist 8	
	
Psychiatrist 9§	
	
Psychiatrist 10	
	
Psychiatrist 11	
	
Psychiatrist 12§	
	
Psychiatrist 13	
	
Subtotals	
	
Psychologist 1	
	
Psychologist 2	
	
Psychologist 3	
	
Psychologist 4	
	
Psychologist 5	
	
Psychologist 6	
	
Psychologist 7§	
	
Psychologist 8	
	
Psychologist 9§	
	
Psychologist 10	
	
Psychologist 11	
	
Psychologist 12	
	
Psychologist 13	
	
Psychologist 14	
	
Psychologist 15	
	
Psychologist 16	
	
Psychologist 17	
	
Psychologist 18	
	
Psychologist 19	
	
Psychologist 20	
	
Psychologist 21	
	
Psychologist 22§	
	
Psychologist 23	
	
Psychologist 24	
	
Psychologist 25§	
	
Psychologist 26	
	
Psychologist 27§	
	
Psychologist 28	
	
Psychologist 29	
	
Psychologist 30	
	
Psychologist 31§	
	
Subtotals	

Hours
Paid

-(

528	
528	
528	
112	
264	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
176	
5,656	
240	
528	
528	
448	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
530	
352	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
176	
528	
528	
13,186	

Hours Inside
the Secured
Perimeter

230	
297	
307	
72	
191	
352	
237	
353	
118	
282	
251	
480	
166	
3,170	
24	
243	
384	
315	
384	
309	
363	
364	
415	
397	
337	
409	
73	
359	
331	
447	
347	
341	
318	
413	
404	
443	
399	
451	
421	
418	
481	
442	
150	
453	
537	
9,109	

+

Hours of
Authorized
Time Off

178	
98	
70	
8	
0	
78	
58	
84	
263	
174	
178	
40	
8	
1,229	
146	
180	
88	
10	
70	
132	
150	
80	
108	
78	
132	
68	
250	
40	
68	
0	
112	
80	
126	
20	
40	
8	
31	
50	
40	
70	
96	
110	
48	
100	
89	
2,177	

+ )=
Training
Hours

0	
3	
1	
0	
0	
0	
1	
39	
2	
1	
9	
2	
9	
58	
0	
43	
1	
6	
12	
0	
8	
14	
0	
7	
6	
49	
0	
1	
1	
1	
8	
9	
0	
0	
2	
7	
9	
5	
42	
1	
3	
44	
1	
6	
6	
232	

Cost of
Unaccounted-for
Unaccounted-for
Hours
Hours*

120	
130	
150	
32	
73	
98	
232	
52	
145	
71	
90	
6	
0	
1,199	
70	
62	
55	
117	
62	
87	
7	
70	
5	
46	
53	
4	
29	
128	
128	
80	
61	
98	
84	
95	
82	
70	
89	
22	
25	
39	
0	
0	
0	
0	
0	
1,668	

$14,129
15,201
17,629
3,085
8,869
11,608
27,114
6,297
17,617
8,610
10,564
662
0†
$141,385
$3,502
2,952
2,517
5,873
2,990
4,171
339
3,240
250
2,232
2,520
182
1,344
6,188
6,202
3,860
2,943
4,726
4,070
4,530
3,982
4,269
4,293
985
1,229
1,851
0†
0†
0†
0†
0†
$81,240
Continued

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 38

Table A: Summary of Mental Health and Education Employees’ Unaccounted-for Hours
(June through August 2010) - continued

Hours
Paid

Employee

-(

Hours Inside
the Secured
Perimeter

	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 1	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 2	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 3	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 4	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 5	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 6	
	 Licensed Clinical Social Worker 7	
	
Subtotals	
	Mental Health Totals	

528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
454	
528	
3,622	
22,464	

329	
407	
465	
352	
381	
313	
296	
2,543	
14,822	

Education Employees
	
Teacher 1	
	
Teacher 2	
	
Teacher 3	
	
Teacher 4	
	
Teacher 5	
	
Teacher 6	
	
Teacher 7	
	
Teacher 8	
	
Teacher 9	
	
Teacher 10	
	
Teacher 11	
	
Teacher 12	
	
Subtotals	
	
Vocational Instructor 1	
	
Vocational Instructor 2	
	
Vocational Instructor 3	
	
Vocational Instructor 4	
	
Vocational Instructor 5	
	
Subtotals	
	
Education Supervisor 1§	
	
Education Supervisor 2§	
	
Education Supervisor 3§	
	
Subtotals	
	
Education Totals	

528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
6,336	
528	
528	
528	
528	
528	
2,640	
528	
528	
528	
1,584	
10,560	

277	
193	
342	
324	
349	
336	
378	
348	
341	
352	
383	
376	
3,999	
298	
353	
332	
348	
343	
1,674	
382	
390	
298	
1,070	
6,743	

	

Mule Creek Totals	

33,024	

21,565	

	

+

Hours of
Authorized
Time Off

118	
18	
20	
96	
64	
50	
110	
476	
3,882	

+ )=
Training
Hours

Cost of
Unaccounted-for
Unaccounted-for
Hours
Hours*

1	
52	
13	
7	
0	
1	
10	
84	
374	

80	
51	
30	
73	
83	
90	
112	
519	
3,386	

$2,734
1,995
1,169
2,878
2,876
3,686
4,426
$19,764
$242,389

192	
272	
136	
168	
144	
160	
128	
160	
176	
168	
120	
144	
1,968	
176	
136	
144	
152	
144	
752	
40	
64	
160	
264	
2,984	

0	
2	
3	
3	
3	
0	
3	
2	
0	
3	
3	
3	
25	
0	
3	
3	
0	
3	
9	
3	
2	
1	
6	
40	

59	
61	
47	
33	
32	
32	
19	
18	
11	
5	
22	
5	
344	
54	
36	
49	
28	
38	
205	
103	
72	
69	
244	
793	

$2,218
2,464
1,655
958
1,251
1,134
769
599
433
211
864
162
$12,718
$2,036
1,256
1,770
995
1,433
$7,490
$4,592
2,916
2,795
$10,303
$30,511

6,866	

414	

4,179	

$272,900

Annualized Totals					

16,716	

$1,091,600

Source: Mule Creek State Prison’s staff accountability, in-service training, and leave accounting systems and payroll records
(June through August 2010).
* We calculated the cost of unaccounted-for hours by multiplying an employee’s unaccounted-for hours by their average hourly
salary. We calculated an employee’s average hourly salary by dividing their regular pay for June, July, and August 2010, by the
total number of regular hours they were paid for during the same period.
§

These employees are supervisors.

†

We accounted for all of these employees’ hours. Therefore, we exclude these employees from the totals so that their extra hours
worked would not balance out other employees’ unaccounted-for hours.

State of California • April 2011	

Page 39

California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s response to the special report

.'....._ _......,ot""""',,__ ....-n."""
OfFICE Of TIlE SECRETARY
•.0._.....,
__

(page 1 of 2)

--. _.....

'~C'''''''''\

Mardi 28, 2011

Mr. Btu"" A. Monfross
lnopo;:ror Ga>craI (A}

om"" erthe IlISp«lOr General

r,o. 1l<J. 348780
Sa"nmane, CA 9~l4-1780
Dear Mr. MonliT>M.c

Thi, I..,... i. bci"3 ..,bmin<:<l by ~ CoIif"",i. l.lq>utmenl of C>m>coi<>m and
Rcllobililali"" (CDeR) in """"""""0 Ihe OfT"", of \he IROfXXIOr GcoenI'. (OIG} Il:p(lrt li1l<:<l
Spec/LJI /l.el'O'" /.1.1< Crut Sial< Prison f/.fSCP) /.fUll I"""....,. I~ O;crsig~1 of Some
EmpI~' WMlII""" a..J TI"","""pi"/f. dolOO Mordl 2011.
I' i, ~obl< to CDeR thOl ST.lT or any <I...;CI.OIiono ore "", worlli"ll their r"'luiRd buunI
and ore 1""UlI Ihd, worl<.il" early witbou1 any prio< permi.."", from 'ba, .. pervioor. 1I i. <>Ill'
<xp«L1lior1 thot all ~ and SUpCrVi""" 1Io1~ lbar emploY"<'!' &<co""""'I. to work Ihdr
...itneJ houn in the aI>J<n<e of odvan«ol permission Ii>< the empW,.... Ie do <>tha'wit<. w.
II. ." and will 13k" ac<i0ll tOgAinIl managers and ""l""""i""" ,,'110 r.it to l"'Ol""iy fulCln """"
rcsponoibilliCl<.

<"""",

We h.l\1: <:ondll<:tad 0 ~ revi.... of
pn>«oseII 01 Mcsr and lI. .e 13ken """"""ion
monda1o<y "';';08 for all oupernoon and ~ Ulili>:inglJ<pulmenl of
Adminilllntioo ",1... n:gulali"".. and poIiei.. peotoining to 'imekOOl'ing proood"",,_
We"", wo,l';"3 ,,'i,1I tho r>eW I~ip AI Mcsr to ~ proper accowllabilily.

1ICl~ i""lu.;linl

r.....,...,.,.

We an: 0"0 lakinl ~ .... eo""",j,.. oction to "';n stolT, ~ and managen
Jl.t.... ide regarding tIIei, ...,..,.,...ibilili.. 10 fuJroIl n:quitod W<>It ",hooul.,.. oornpl... «<luisi'.
workJoadJ, and l<> ~ely n:pooI Ihd' wor\: IIoun and lime 01T. CDCR"';11 """'ilOr lhe>e
I...... eloscly and "';11 tal« corT<ctive and'oo odll'liniotmi.e lICli"" as .--led foe foJlul'< 10
"","ply, A<!ditior'l&lly, pn::w:<d""", "'" bring reviood fOf <lorily 10"";" rnanas<" and
.....,......; ...... in <tISUriog ....plor= "","pi<:\< their n:qulml daily worl<loo<b ond I<> odjWl
empl"l""'" W<>ItIood' wl>:n _0SMrY,
Finally, wllil< the m- idmtificd in Ihi' report wen: limited I<> tho mental health and oduco1ion
progn.rn... MCSP.. COCR i, re<p<>n,ibl. Ii>< idenlif)i"ll and impl<m<nling poIioi... prooedures,
and c<>tl """women' measur<I for all diJeipliJld. COCR ro«>gI\i... die need 10 ....... gthcn
in'....1 <:oolrol. ond 10 bell... prt1W'\: .11 i....ilutlOll loadcrohip 10lIIIU I<> "lTc<:Iivcly utili""

Bureau of Audits, Office of the Inspector General	

Page 40

California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s response to the special report

(page 2 of 2)

Ilruce A. Moof""" lnsp<cl<>r GaH:r1lI (A)
,~,

thai rosun: ...If O<C<>WItabilily. As such. training will be providod to all ...tT,
","""gn1 aoing f<J........ to <lorify ""pcclSli..... n:p.n!ing worI:lood,
limcl:<q>ing, ond emploY"" di",ipli"", Finally, COCR's Off"", of [.abo< Rd .. ions is """';ng
with ... ions to di....... Ill. ""ITeJIl ... of declroni. ooeurily .)'01....... In this mmina .... will alto
oddr= .ffOCli"" nunagcmont for hours ofworl:.
raour=I

..P<'f\"i....... ond

""""iol ..",...,

w. would lik. to thonI: tho OIQ fot allowing \IS the ......,.,.,uni'y '" <:om",.,,1 "" tho
ond val"" your oontinlOOd prof... i<>naIitm and guidanco in our <fforu to impro"" <KlI" "l"'f"iIIions.
The COCR·. Off"", of Audi" and Court Comrli..... will monilot ond doournall MCSP'.
progrcu in oddn:osing Ill< rcpnrI" roonmm<ndations. If)"'" .hnWd ",,-,.., lIllY qllC$lions or
«>n<oml, pl ..... call my om.. II (916) 32J-6001.
Sineen:ly,

"'"

Mieh.oel M"".., Wtnlon. MCSP
William Knipp. Wonl,,"(A~ MCSP

State of California • April 2011	

Page 41

SPECIAL REPORT

SPECIAL REPORT

INMATE CELL PHONE USE ENDANGERS PRISON
SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Mule Creek State Prison Must Improve Its Oversight of Some
OFFICE OF THE
Employees’ Work Hours and
Timekeeping
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
DAVID R. SHAW

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MAY 2009

Bruce A. Monfross


INSPECTOR
GENERAL (A)


William Shepherd

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, IN-CHARGE

Bryan Beyer

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, senior

Christina Animo

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

Ryan Baer

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

Kristine Rodrigues

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

Ben Ward

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

Bert Wenzel
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
April 2011
WWW.OIG.CA.GOV