CDCR says it cannot reach earlier $392 million savings target; lawmakers press for detail on service impacts

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 that the department cannot meet the $392 million in additional savings assumed in the 2024 budget agreement and outlined reductions they have identified; the Legislative Analyst’s Office and members asked for more detail on service impacts and the department’s plan for reaching ongoing savings targets.

Orlando Sanchez of the Legislative Analyst’s Office reminded the committee that the 2024–25 budget assumed savings roughly equivalent to 10 percent of statewide general fund state operations originally, but that by the Jan. 10 reporting date the statewide expected savings were lower (about 2.4 percent of general fund state operations). The 2024 budget instructed CDCR to identify roughly $392 million in savings; Sanchez said the administration and Department of Finance were given authority to determine how to achieve those reductions across departments. The LAO noted CDCR’s identified savings are smaller as a share of its budget and that some details remain missing, such as the specific classifications that would be eliminated.

Cynthia Mendonza, deputy director of the CDCR Office of Fiscal Services, described the department’s efforts and the limits on additional reductions. Mendonza said the 2024 enacted budget already included $358 million in identified reductions across the three‑year window and that the governor’s budget proposed further state operations reductions totaling about $267.6 million in 2024–25, $185.8 million in 2025–26 and $193.6 million ongoing. She said CDCR has taken major reductions in past years — including closing four prisons, the Division of Juvenile Justice and several facilities — accounting for significant ongoing savings, and that many remaining costs are fixed or tied to healthcare and labor agreements.

The LAO and members identified specific proposed reductions that could affect services, including standardizing “third watch” and eliminating a Golden State legacy contract that would reduce placements in community nursing facilities. The LAO recommended legislators press the administration on how savings were chosen, service level impacts, and what it would take to meet the prior $392 million target.

Department of Finance representatives said they continue to seek efficiencies and will work with CDCR and the Legislature ahead of the May revise; CDCR officials said they will continue looking for efficiencies but that labor and healthcare costs — and some court oversight areas — constrain near‑term options. Members pressed CDCR for future reporting that shows how remaining reductions would affect program classifications and service levels and for proposals that emphasize bringing services in‑house where feasible.

Why it matters: The size and placement of CDCR reductions affect custody operations, rehabilitative programs, medical care and possible litigation risk; legislators signaled they want more granular information about service impacts before approving further baseline reductions.