Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Staff Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Correctional officer describes safety strains; CDCR and OIG outline revised misconduct intake and investigation processes
Summary
A long‑serving correctional officer testified about staffing cuts, rising violence and training needs inside California prisons; CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs and the Inspector General outlined new centralized screening, an allegation investigations unit and OIG intake volumes. No disciplinary decisions resulted from the hearing.
Joseph Cisneros, a correctional officer with 23 years’ experience and member of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, told the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 that staffing reductions, rising assaults and limits on disciplinary authority have left officers and incarcerated people less safe.
"Staff reductions are not just budgetary line items. They are lives," Cisneros told the committee, adding that officers often work alone in areas that formerly had partners, that assaults on staff have increased and that training delivered in person is needed over online modules.
CDCR described reforms to the staff‑complaint and misconduct review process
After Cisneros’s testimony the committee heard from CDCR and the Office of Inspector General about changes to how allegations of staff misconduct are received, screened and investigated.
- Office of Internal Affairs (CDCR): Deputy Director David Chris described a centralized screening team that triages complaints received from incarcerated people and third parties. Under the updated process, routine matters are returned to institutions for local supervisor review; cases meeting an allegation threshold—excessive force, sexual misconduct, discrimination, retaliation—are routed to an Allegation Investigations Unit (AIU) within the Office of Internal Affairs.
- Volume and capacity: Chris said CDCR processed roughly 650,000 complaints since activating the updated process, of which about 34,500 were referred to the AIU for investigation. The AIU is budgeted for 109 investigators but is receiving nearly three times the number of investigations it can complete. CDCR reported approximately 4.29% of investigated cases resulted in sustained findings and disciplinary action.
- Recent regulatory adjustments: CDCR enacted emergency regulations (effective Jan. 1, 2025) that adjusted routine review, closed locally‑designated investigator processes and added special‑circumstance closures where clear video proves or refutes claims. CDCR also established a centralized allegation resolution unit to help ensure consistent decisions across hiring authorities.
Inspector General intake and oversight
Inspector General Amariq Singh told the committee the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) operates an independent statewide intake that screened 6,591 complaints in 2024 (a 26% increase from 2023) and processed 10,428 claims. Singh said about 75% of OIG complaints came from incarcerated or supervised people and 25% from other sources (family members, CDCR employees, advocacy groups, private citizens). The OIG said it aims to screen all complaints within one business day when they indicate safety, serious medical/mental health concerns or PREA allegations.
Committee concerns and follow‑up
Members questioned whether CDCR staff feel comfortable using existing reporting channels and asked both CDCR and the OIG to explain outreach and confidentiality protections for employees and incarcerated people. CDCR said investigators must recuse for conflicts, the department is contracting for investigator training, and the new centralized units aim to speed and standardize reviews. The OIG described multiple intake avenues (phone, tablet, mail, web), anonymity protections and its practice of referring issues back to CDCR with requests for corrective action when appropriate.
What the hearing did not produce
No disciplinary outcomes were announced during the hearing; CDCR emphasized the reforms are intended to improve timeliness, independence and consistency of investigations. The committee asked for additional data by institution and on employee complaints and said it may revisit oversight and audit recommendations in future hearings.
