Skip navigation
CLN bookstore

Association of State Correctional Agencies - Independent Assessment of the High Desert State Prison, CDCR, 2016

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Independent Assessment of
The High Desert State Prison
Submitted to the:

California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
Prepared by the:

Association of State Correctional Administrators
Hagerstown, Maryland

September 23, 2016

Table of Contents
A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
B. Assessment Team Activities ......................................................................................... 3
1. Preparatory Contacts ................................................................................................... 3
2. Stakeholder Meetings .................................................................................................. 4
3. Site Visit Activities........................................................................................................ 5
C. The Institution: High Desert State Prison .................................................................... 5
1. Description of Institution .............................................................................................. 5
D. Assessment of the Current Culture .............................................................................. 6
E. Assessment of the Preferred Culture .......................................................................... 33
F. Specific Areas of Inquiry .............................................................................................. 42
1: Facility Mission and Operations .................................................................................. 43
2: Policy and Procedure.................................................................................................. 45
3: Facility Management................................................................................................... 46
4: Use of Force ............................................................................................................... 48
5: Staff Training .............................................................................................................. 51
6: Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process ...................................................................... 52
7: Inmate Discipline Process .......................................................................................... 54
8: Staff Complaint Process ............................................................................................. 56
9: Investigations and Staff Discipline .............................................................................. 57
10: Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation ................................................. 58
G. Recommendations for Improving HDSP’s Culture .................................................... 62
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 68
1: Definition of Culture .................................................................................................... 69
2: The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) ............................................... 71
3: Operational Areas Assessed at High Desert .............................................................. 72
4: Letter to Warden Spearman ....................................................................................... 77
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 1 of 115

September 23, 2016

5: Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings ............................................................................. 85
6: Schedule of Onsite Activities at High Desert .............................................................. 87
7: High Desert Assessment Team Members .................................................................. 97
8: The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument - Prisons (OCAI-P) ................. 104
9: Organizational Culture Types ................................................................................... 106
10: High Desert Focus Group and Staff Scores ........................................................... 107

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 2 of 115

September 23, 2016

A. Introduction
This report provides a summary of an independent assessment conducted by the Association of
State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in Susanville,
California. The assessment was conducted during a site visit by an eight-person team trained in
the use of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP), a standardized process and
instrumentation designed specifically for use in assessing a prison’s culture.1 The report details
the assessment team’s activities while on site from July 15, 2016 through July 28, 2016.
The primary goal of the assessment was to gain a thorough understanding of the unique culture
of HDSP and how that culture impacts prison operations and the environment for both staff and
inmates. The assessment followed two integrated inquiry tracks: (1) an assessment of both the
formal and informal cultures at HDSP through a process of interviews, focus groups, direct
observation and assessment of facility operations, management, policy and procedure using the
ICAP protocol; 2 and (2) an operational assessment of practices and procedures through
observation, document review, and discussions with staff.3 The findings from both inquiry tracks
are presented in this report.
In March of 2016, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary
Scott Kernan requested that ASCA conduct an independent assessment of HDSP. The request
was based in part on conflicting reports Secretary Kernan had received from his agency and
stakeholder groups. Reports from several Wardens’ Peer Audit Team reviews were consistently
positive with only minor issues being noted. Likewise, COMPSTAT data collected from HDSP
did not reflect any areas of concern and was consistent with other CDCR Level 4 prisons. In
contrast with the information contained in those CDCR generated documents were reports
produced by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Prison Law Office (PLO) alleging
numerous instances of egregious behavior by staff towards the inmate population.

B. Assessment Team Activities
Preparatory Contacts
Initial conversations between Secretary Kernan and ASCA occurred in early March 2016 to
discuss the potential scope of the independent assessment. A proposal was submitted by ASCA
to CDCR on March 18, 2016. Approval to begin the project was received in early June 2016.
ASCA Co-Executive Director and Project Director George Camp met with HDSP Warden
Marion Spearman on June 15, 2016, to discuss plans for conducting the independent
assessment. Following that meeting, a letter was forwarded to Warden Spearman detailing the
assessment process and requesting materials essential to the document review portion of the
assessment.4
1

The ICAP was developed by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. through a cooperative agreement with the National
See Appendix for a description of the ICAP protocol	
  
3
	
  See Appendix for a list and description of the operational areas assessed
4
See Appendix for a copy of the letter sent to Warden Spearman
2

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 3 of 115

September 23, 2016

The information requested in the letter included:
• narrative addressing the mission of the institution and specific performance objectives
for senior managers;
• current capacity and recent capacity changes;
• current population and any recent changes in size or demographics;
• physical plant description;
• discussion of strengths and limitations;
• staffing and recruitment issues,
• nature of workforce in terms of experience;
• recent relevant events;
• present concerns or issues;
• weaknesses and strengths of institution and personnel;
• staff turnover and reasons for leaving the institution;
• significant incidents;
• assaults on staff with injury:
• assaults on inmates with injury;
• number of incidents involving staff use of force;
• nature of uses of force;
• injuries to staff or inmates as a result of use of force;
• findings, including determinations whether excessive force was used;
• list of programs offered by the institution by the name of program and the number of
participants;
• number and breakdown of inmates employed in institutional job assignments;
• the number of lawsuits filed, the number pending and disposed of and the number found
in the inmate’s favor;
• number and type of inmate disciplinary reports, including dispositions;
• facility mission statement; organizational charts and rosters; policy manuals; staff
training plans and curriculum;
• inmate appeals data;
• inmate discipline data;
• staff complaint data; and
• investigation and staff discipline data.
A teleconference call between HDSP administrators and ASCA staff took place on June 28,
2016. During this call, questions pertaining to the document request were answered and final
logistical details for the site visit were discussed.
Documents provided by HDSP were shared with all assessment team members who
independently conducted in-depth reviews and analyses of these documents prior to conducting
the on site work.
Stakeholder Meetings
Early on in developing the project scope of work, Secretary Kernan and ASCA Co-Executive
Director, George Camp agreed that meeting with CDCR officials and other stakeholders prior to
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 4 of 115

September 23, 2016

conducting the site visit at HDSP would provide the assessment team with a clearer
understanding of concerns noted in stakeholder reports regarding HDSP. Five of the
assessment team members met with CDCR officials and other stakeholders in a series of
scheduled meetings over a three-day period from July 11 – 13, 2016. Meetings were held with:
Secretary Kernan; California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA); Prison Law
Office (PLO) and CDCR Legal Representation; CDCR Operations; Ombudsman’s Office; OIG;
Executive Branch; Correctional Healthcare Services; and, Legislative Representation.5
Site Visit Activities
A team of eight assessors conducted the site visit over a 14-day period from July 15 – 28,
2016. 6 During the visit, the team toured the facility, observed daily operations and
conducted interviews on all three shifts. All housing and operational units were visited
where routine staff-staff and staff-inmate interactions were observed.
Individual interviews were conducted with the Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, five Associate
Wardens, department heads, union representatives and various security officers. Assessment
team members attended numerous institutional meetings including; Warden’s Morning Staff
Meetings, Use of Force Review, Disciplinary Hearings, COMPSTAT Reviews, Emergency
Medical Response Review, ADA Appeals Review, Appeals Review, and Inmate Classification.
Team members conducted sixteen focus groups including: 1) management staff; 2)
correctional officers from 2nd and 3rd watch in all four facility yards; 3 ) correctional officers
assigned to health services; 4) sergeants from 2nd and 3rd watch from all facilities; 5 )
lieutenants from 2nd and 3rd watch from all facilities; 4) mixed support/line staff; and 6)
healthcare staff. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons (OCAI-P)7 was
administered during each of the focus groups and many of the interviews. In addition, the team
conducted seven inmate discussion groups and numerous informal interviews with both staff
and inmates. The Assessment Team’s schedule of activities while on site at HDSP is included
in the Appendix.

C. The Institution: High Desert State Prison
Description of the Institution
High Desert State Prison (HDSP) is located in Susanville, California, in Lassen County.
Susanville is a small, relatively remote community approximately 190 miles from Sacramento,
CA and approximately 90 miles from Reno, NV.
HDSP was activated in September 1995, and covers 364 acres. The institution has a design
capacity of approximately 1,900 and currently houses an inmate population of approximately
3,500. It is comprised of four facilities (A, B, C, D), a Correctional Treatment Center (Medical
Unit), a short-term restrictive housing unit (Z Unit) and a Level 1 minimum security facility (E
5	
  See

Appendix for schedule of stakeholder meetings	
  
Appendix for assessment team member bios	
  
7	
  See Appendix for a description of the OCAI-P	
  
6	
  See

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 5 of 115

September 23, 2016

Unit). There are 16 inmate housing units designated as 180 degree design which make up the
buildings in C & D Facilities, 10 inmate housing units designated as 270 degree design which
make up the buildings in A & B Facilities, 2 dormitory type Level 1 inmate housing units located
on E Unit and 1 high-security stand-alone building, Z-Unit. Along with the inmate housing units
there are approximately 87 program support buildings located throughout the institution.
The HDSP perimeter consists of three fences with a lethal electrified fence located between
outer and inner perimeter fences. Two of the prisons thirteen towers are staffed on a reguar
basis to provide armed coverage of pedestrians and vehicles entering and exiting the prison.
The remaining eleven towers are staffed only during emergencies.
The primary mission of HDSP is to provide for the confinement of general population and
sensitive needs high security (Level IV) and medium security (Level III) inmates. There is a 32bed Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) to provide for the health care needs of the inmates.
Additionally, HDSP is designed to house inmates with disabilities who require specialized
placement to accommodate accessibility issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
There are approximatley 1,260 staff assigned to HDSP. Of that number, approximately 750 are
custody staff. The majority of custody staff work one of three 8-hour watches. Approximately 77
percent of all staff are white and approximately 74 percent of custody staff are white. The
majority of non-white staff are hispanic.

D. Assessment of the Current Culture
The culture of an organization is a product of its mission or function, its history, and the
everyday interactions among its staff. Organizational culture may be examined in terms of six
major components: (1) its dominant characteristics; (2) organizational leadership; (3)
management of employees; (4) organizational glue; (5) strategic emphasis; and (6) criteria of
success. Each of these six aspects of High Desert State Prison’s (HDSP) culture are examined
and discussed in this section of the report (see Appendix 1).
A. Dominant Characteristics of High Desert State Prison’s Culture
This cultural characteristic refers to those aspects of the culture that are most pervasive,
and may be described in terms of how the workplace is generally defined by those who work
in it. Given the functions of prisons, especially high security prisons such as High Desert, it
is to be expected that the formal culture will be one that is highly structured, having a clear
chain-of-command and with everyday actions guided by formal policies, directives and
orders designed to ensure a safe and secure environment.
1. Formal Culture. As is displayed in Figure 1, the staff at HDSP perceives its culture as largely
focused on the internal operations of the institution as opposed to its environment. The
culture emphasizes the maintenance of stability and control through adherence to formal
policies and procedures. The value given to the “consensus” component indicates that the
staff sees themselves as a team and as having developed a strong sense of camaraderie
through working together. Staff also perceives that the culture of HDSP is, to a significant
degree, influenced by external agencies, as indicated by the weight give to the “prescriptive”
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 6 of 115

September 23, 2016

component; this is undoubtedly related to directives and orders from the legislature,
headquarters and the courts. Finally, as to be expected in a prison, the staff does not view
HDSP’s culture as valuing innovation and risk-taking.

Figure 1 – Current Dominant Characteristics by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Dominant#Characteris3cs#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

This view of HDSP’s culture is widely shared among the staff, as shown in Table 1. There
are, nonetheless, some observable differences. Civilian supervisors and service providers
see HDSP as a much more structured and less personal place than do others, quite likely
because their functions, though undeniably vital, are peripheral to the core functions of
custody and control. Moreover, they are perhaps less likely to work as a team and their work
in a prison environment is subject to regulations not present in the community.
Interestingly, as can be seen in Table 1 sergeants view HDSP as valuing innovation more
so than do others, and possibly at the expense of structure and control. This is perhaps
because as first line supervisors they are charged with implementing on the ground
directives that come from above, directives that may be confusing or even inconsistent or
contradictory.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 7 of 115

September 23, 2016

Table 1
Current Dominant Characteristics by Staff Group

All Staff
Prison Management
Warden
Chief Deputy
Health Care Management
CEO
Lieutenants
Sergeants
Yard COs
Escort COs
Health Care & Program
Providers
Service Providers

Consensus

Innovative

Prescriptive

Structured

28
29
75
50
16
10
32
30
31
24
24

16
11
0
0
13
15
12
25
16
24
18

23
26
0
0
33
25
25
25
21
23
17

33
34
25
25
38
50
31
20
33
29
41

N of
Cases
191
14
1
1
11
1
11
16
99
11
14

16

11

27

46

12

2. Informal Culture. People interact in carrying out their roles within any organization, over time
there develop patterns of behavior, shared attitudes and understandings, and even values
that are not formally prescribed but which coexist and interact with the formal culture. This
informal culture may enhance or impede the effective and efficient functioning of the
organization (see Appendix 1). Some of the dominant themes in HDSP’s informal culture
are described below.
3. Uncertainty. HDSP has had 15 wardens in the 21 years of its operation and has had five
wardens in the last 18 months. This turnover at the top has left the staff without a clear
sense of direction, and in particular unaware of the change toward rehabilitation in the
department’s mission. In the absence of stable leadership, the rank and file staff still clings
to the notion that HDSP is a Level IV prison that “manages the worst of the worst” who
deserve only to be housed and fed, provided adequate medical care and some out-cell-time.
In their view, efforts to rehabilitate inmates of the type housed at HDSP, who they view as
little more than wild animals, are both futile and dangerous. The creation of SNY yards, the
re-entry hub and the recent introduction of self-help programs has thus created uncertainty
and not a little anxiety over the direction in which the institution is headed. When asked
about mission and direction, lower level staff members often respond with a variation of “I
don’t know any more. Every day we’re marching in a different direction.”
Indignation. Officers at HDSP see the institution as the “protector for other prisons” in the
state; they believe that the institution was created for that purpose, and that other prisons
use the threat of a transfer to HDSP as a way to control difficult inmates. As a result, the
inmates at HDSP are, in their view, all “disciplinary problems that the other places can’t
handle,” and the HDSP staff takes enormous pride in the fact that they do handle them.
HDSP is able to accomplish this because, unlike staff at other institutions, the HDSP staff
enforces the DOM; “it’s all black and white here; there is no gray.” Because of their ability to

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 8 of 115

September 23, 2016

manage the most difficult prisoners and of having developed policy and procedures for
doing so, such as the alarm response protocol, they believe HDSP to be the flagship prison
of the system.
The OIG and PLO reports might have been a nuclear blast, the shock waves of which still
ripple throughout the institution, and unite the staff in indignation. Staff members are
outraged by the allegations of racism. To a person, regardless of race or ethnicity, they deny
using or having heard another use offensive language to any minority, staff or inmate. Nor
do they believe minorities are treated differently. They claim the OIG cherry-picked their
information, talking only to minority staff and inmates who told them what they wanted to
hear and ignoring those who did not. In their defense, they point to other institutions where,
according to those with experience elsewhere, there are informal policies that designate
parking areas by race/ethnicity and where those who violate the policy, intentionally or not,
may find their tires slashed. Why, then, they ask was the target pasted on our backs, and
why has no one defended us?
The allegations of excessive force were also a slap in the face to HDSP staff, though they
seemingly excite less umbrage than do the charges of racism. A few deny the incidents
happened; others claim “there must have been a reason for it;” and most believe the
punishments were disproportionately harsh. Even senior members of the management team
who acknowledge that the incidents happened and believe the punishments were fair are
angered by the reports. In their opinion the charges of excessive force were a “bum rap”
because the report made it seem as if the OIG investigators had uncovered the misconduct
when, in fact, it had been uncovered by HDSP investigators and the officers involved had
been punished before the OIG investigation began.
Fear. “There are lifers and murderers here who’ll stick a knife in you faster than you can
blink an eye.” Every so often at HDSP, there is an incident that validates this belief that
death could be imminent. In the month before the assessment, for instance, an officer was
brutally assaulted and nearly killed by an enraged inmate.
The knowledge that they work in a hostile, dangerous and violent environment has a
profound effect on how the officers at HDSP go about their jobs. Despite the assertion that
they strictly enforce all the rules, they in fact do not. The modus operandi of HDSP
correctional officers is “observe and react,” by which they seemingly mean they watch out
for violence and then react in force. Yard officers, for example, typically sit in the shade
watching some 200 or more inmates engaged in various activities. For example, a team
member sitting with several yard officers observed some commotion among a group of
about 20, and asked what was going. One of the officers replied that they were probably
gambling, but if he were to start over there, they would stop and conceal the evidence. He
did nothing.
Similarly in another yard, team members were surprised to learn that the floor officers did
not enter the day rooms while inmates were out of their cells. Rather, they observed the
inmates through the windows in the gates and noted rule violations such as violation of
dress code regulations or crossing over yellow lines within which inmates are supposed to
stay, but took no action. They explained that, as they understood it, their job was to observe

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 9 of 115

September 23, 2016

and report violations and summon assistance if violence should erupt. Later they were quite
comfortable sitting with the team members in an office from which they had no view of the
dayrooms.
In virtually every housing unit, visibility into cells was obscured by pictures posted on cell
windows and makeshift curtains draped around the toilet. Officers appeared to be oblivious
to these rule violations. It was as if the officers and the inmates had reached an agreement.
“You can do your thing, and we’ll do ours, so long as you don’t get violent. If you do, we’ll
come at you in force.”
Fear for one’s personal safety is only one of several factors behind the “observe and react”
modus operandi. Another is a fear that doing your job will result in losing your job. The PLO
and OIG reports have engendered such a fear among the HDSP officers. Time and again,
team members heard some variant of the following comments:
The OIG report empowered the inmates. They don’t want to be here
and now they’re making allegations to get out of here and closer to home.
It’s not worth the fight now to make an inmate obey the rules.
They’ll just file a staff complaint.
Cops are flying under the radar so as to avoid getting 602s and getting fired.

	
  
Adding further to the officers’ fears are the programs that “are being shoved down our
throat.” The programs themselves increase security concerns and the time devoted to them
cuts into the time they have available for pat-downs, cell searches and the like. Thus, in their
minds, introducing programs without changing staffing levels and deployment jeopardizes
their safety, and they are resistant to it. As one put it, “This madness has to stop.”
Family. Part of the focus group protocol is to ask participants to come up with a slogan or
logo for a Tee shirt that expresses their view of the institution. Groups such as correctional
officers, who daily face danger in their work, are usually characterized by a strong sense of
solidarity. Among the most common creations produced by the HDSP staff were designs
that in some way expressed the notion that “We Are Family.” As evidence of this, some staff
pointed to the fund they have established for members of the family who are faced with
tragedy or particularly difficult circumstances, and that recently provided a large sum to the
family of a young and relatively unknown officer who was killed in a motorcycle accident.
One effect of the OIG report has been to strengthen this sense of solidarity. “Us versus
them” no longer refers to just the officers v. inmates; for many, the departmental
administration and institutional management seem also to be among “them.” This issue and
more about who are “family” and who are not is discussed further in the sections on
leadership, management and organizational glue.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 10 of 115

September 23, 2016

B. Organizational Leadership
The leadership component of the culture refers to how staff members perceive the
leadership style and approach that permeates the prison. As noted above, there has been a
high rate of turnover among wardens since High Desert opened in 1995, and the current
warden had been in office for only six months at the time of this assessment. Further, the
CEO for healthcare and the chief deputy warden were also both new to their positions, the
former having been at HDSP for only six months and the latter for only two months. This
continual turnover in wardens has, as mentioned previously, contributed to a great deal of
uncertainty at HDSP, and the recency of the current appointments provides staff with only a
short time in which to observe the style of their new leaders.

1. Formal Culture. Figure 2 graphically portrays how those who work at HDSP see the
institution’s leadership at present. The weighting of the graph toward the right indicates that
staff members perceive leadership as coming primarily from outside the institution. The
highest value is accorded to the “prescriptive” dimension, meaning that leadership is seen
as being aggressive and results-oriented. The other dimensions are accorded equal weight,
which is actually rather unusual for prisons where leadership is generally perceived to be
more organized and coordinated and averse to innovation and risk-taking.

Figure 2 - Current Leadership As Seen By All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Leadership#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

In more substantive terms, the HDSP staff view the institution’s leadership as coming
primarily from the courts and headquarters rather than from the warden’s office. These
commands or directives most probably concern those related to providing inmates more outof-cell time and programs, on the one hand, and more and better health and mental health
care on the other.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 11 of 115

September 23, 2016

As is clear from the data presented in Table 2, this perception of leadership is widely shared
among the staff. One notable exception, however, is the view of the warden who, far more
than others, sees leadership as emphasizing coaching, supporting and helping people to
grow, and as only marginally focused on innovation.

Table 2
Current Organizational Leadership by Staff Group
Consensus

Innovative

Prescriptive

Structured

N of Cases

All Staff

22

23

32

23

191

Prison Management

26

19

31

24

14

Warden

60

10

0

30

1

Chief Deputy

50

0

0

50

1

Health Care Management

22

13

34

31

11

Health Care CEO

30

10

30

30

1

Lieutenants

24

20

40

16

11

Sergeants

17

29

36

18

16

Yard COs

22

24

30

24

99

Escort COs

22

30

30

18

11

Health Care & Program
Providers

24

14

31

31

14

Service Providers

17

23

40

20

12

In interviews with team members, the warden stated that his leadership style was to effect
change by introducing new ideas to his managers, explaining why they are necessary and
leaving them to work out how to implement them at HDSP. Observations of the warden’s
conduct of executive staff meetings confirmed this description. For example at one
executive team meeting, the warden opined that something he had learned about – an
Integrated Behavioral Treatment Module – might be useful at HDSP, gave examples of
other institutions where it is in use, and suggested bringing in the people who had
developed it to meet with the executive team.
Several senior staff commented that they like the warden’s style much more than that of his
predecessors. At this point, however, it is not clear that this change in style is having the
desired effect or is even noticed by staff further down the chain of command. Just prior to
the team’s arrival, the warden had worked with the executive team to craft a new mission
and vision statement that emphasizes humane and safe supervision while providing the
inmates with meaningful access to quality health care and treatment programming. At a
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 12 of 115

September 23, 2016

meeting on July 15 attended by the assessment team, the warden distributed the final draft
of the two statements and asked for comments. There were none and the statements were
published on July 18. However, in conversations and focus groups with staff conducted over
the following week, it was clear that the vast majority of staff was not aware of the new
mission and vision statements or even that they were being developed. And questions
about his style typically elicited responses such as the following: “Don’t know the warden.
He writes memos but is not out and about.”
The warden’s teacher-coach style contrasts with the rather no-nonsense style of the health
care CEO. Arriving at about the same time as the warden, the CEO has never worked in a
prison environment and is quite clear that he sees HDSP as a health care facility not as a
prison. Charged with bringing the prison into compliance with the orders of several courts,
he translated these orders into a number of broad categories, each of which has a set of
metrics. Primary responsibility for each category is assigned to a manager, assisted by
several others. Staff meetings take the form of COMPSTAT meetings in which managers
are quizzed about where they stand with respect to the metrics, and what they plan to do,
and solutions for identified problems are developed by brain-storming with the entire team.
Both the warden and the CEO agree that they are on the same page with respect to the
management of HDSP. However, their differing objectives and styles appear already to be
causing some confusion among the staff, and giving rise to the feeling among the uniformed
staff that “medical is running the place.”
2. Informal Culture. With respect to leadership, the informal culture is characterized by feelings
of betrayal, on the one hand, and distrust and suspicion on the other.
Betrayal. As noted, the staff at HDSP perceives institutional leadership as coming primarily
from headquarters. The majority expresses intensely negative attitudes toward that
leadership, seeing it as consisting largely of “knee-jerk reactions to courts and outside
critics.” In particular, the staff feels betrayed because headquarters did not respond to the
OIG report. Comments such as the following are typical of those made in focus groups and
casual conversations:
	
  

“Shame on HQ for not defending us. We do our best to maintain the line
between order and anarchy and are criticized for it.”
“We’re seen as evil and are being attacked and our leaders aren’t defending us.
Need to get rid of all those bureaucrats and politicians.”
“I took the OIG report personally both as a community member and an HDSP
officer, and I’m really pissed that there was no public response from HQ.”

	
  
While the team was on site, a rumor was circulating that rekindled the anger directed at
headquarters. According to those who shared the story with the team, at a statewide
meeting of captains, the department secretary had the HDSP captains stand up, and in
effect, announced to the others that HDSP is broken and that they do not want to be like
these guys.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 13 of 115

September 23, 2016

Distrust and Suspicion. It is widely believed among HDSP staff that the warden was sent to
HDSP to fire people. That belief was reinforced when he terminated several officers shortly
after he arrived, despite the fact that he was merely carrying out decisions that had been
made well before he came on the scene. Many staff expressed belief in a rumor that the
warden, dressed in a jump suit and duty belt, sneaks around the institution trying to find
people not doing their job and that he goes up into the towers to find people who are leaving
work early.
Yet another reason staff finds to distrust the warden is his lack of experience in a Level IV
institution. They believe that this lack of experience is leading him to make some decisions
that endanger them. One such instance occurred while the team was on site. Notes found in
a housing unit warned that there was a plot to assault a staff member. The warden ordered
that unit to be locked down while officers searched the unit and interviewed inmates to
discover if the plot was real and who was involved. Staff in that yard were incensed that the
whole yard was not locked down because, as they see it, (1) the potential assailant may be
from a unit other than that in which the note was found and (2) because searching and
interviewing the unit will require extra staff leaving the rest of the yard with fewer officers to
cover it.
C. Institutional Management
This component of organizational culture generally refers to how employees are managed
and how their supervisors relate to them. In prisons, however, even the lowest level
employees, correctional officers, are managers and supervisors. For this reason, and
especially because of the public allegations of racism at HDSP, we discuss that issue in this
section as well.
1. Formal Culture. As displayed in Figure 3, HDSP staff members view management in much
the same way as they perceive leadership. Management, however, is seen as somewhat
more internally directed, as one would expect, and a bit more oriented to teamwork.
This perspective on management is widely shared among the staff, although there a few
significant differences as can be seen in Table 3. Both the warden and the health care CEO
see management as more of a team effort, and correlatively much less “prescriptive” or topdown, than do the rest of the staff including their own management teams. This could be the
result of managers not feeling comfortable with expressing alternative viewpoints in
discussions with these new leaders who then take their silence as agreement. There was, in
fact, relatively little discussion at the executive and health care management meetings
attended by the assessment team even when, as noted, there was an opportunity to discuss
the new mission and vision statements.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 14 of 115

September 23, 2016

Figure 3 - Current Management of Employees by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Management#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

Lieutenants and sergeants also view management somewhat differently than do most staff
members. Both groups see management as being much less concerned with stability and
predictability than do other groups. Lieutenants, on the one hand, view management as
more as a team effort while sergeants, on the other hand, see it as more innovative and risktaking. These differences are quite likely because of their responsibilities for implementing
on the yards decisions made by management, lieutenants perhaps having more input into
those decisions and sergeants having greater responsibility for ensuring they are carried
out.
Finally, we note that health care and program providers perceive management as much
more concerned with stability and control than do other groups. Quite probably this
difference is also a product of their positions within the organization. For the most part, they
work alone providing their services to inmates in a clinic or a classroom. They are greatly
dependent upon the uniformed staff to ensure their clients arrive, and there are frequently
delays and sometimes even lockdowns that interrupt their work schedules.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 15 of 115

September 23, 2016

Table 3
Current Management Style by Staff Group
Consensus

Innovative

Prescriptive

Structured

N of Cases

All Staff

30

16

28

26

191

Prison Management

23

12

37

28

14

Warden

60

10

0

30

1

Chief Deputy

25

0

25

50

1

30

14

26

30

11

50

10

10

30

1

Lieutenants

38

14

34

14

11

Sergeants

23

25

36

16

16

Yard COs

31

16

26

27

99

Escort COs

36

14

28

22

11

Health Care Providers

28

12

19

41

14

Service Providers

22

19

28

31

12

Health Care Management
Health Care CEO

Communication. In focus groups and conversations with staff, the team frequently heard
comments such as the following.
“There is no communication; it’s just not there.”
	
  

	
  

“Communication is poor.”
“I hear from a secretary that the captain has moved.”
“Communication from the warden gets to inmates before it comes to the officers.” 	
  

	
  
At HDSP, there appears to be an assumption that after a meeting, the necessary
communication will flow down to staff. Moreover, much of the top to bottom communication
occurs through memos and e-mail, and memos deemed important may be enlarged and
posted. As noted above in regard to the new vision and mission statements, these
mechanisms may be efficient for managers but may not be effective in getting the
information to the intended targets.
A serious breakdown in communication occurred just a month prior to the assessment. On
May 31, 2016, the warden issued a memo to all custody staff notifying them that Ramadan
would begin on June 7th or 8th and informing them of what accommodations should be
made for Muslim inmates. That memo was amended by the warden to allow the Imam to
announce the beginning of the feast over the PA system, something that had not been
done before. That amendment was e-mailed to the AOD and the watch commander,
among others, late on Friday night, June 3.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 16 of 115

September 23, 2016

On Sunday night, June 5th, the Imam arrived at HDSP to announce the beginning of
Ramadan, which actually began on June 6th. The central PA system, however, was
broken – and apparently had been for some time – so the watch commander instructed a
sergeant to make the announcement over the institutional radio, which is broadcast only to
staff. So at about 2100 hours that night, the staff was startled to hear an announcement
over their radios that began with the words “As-salamu alaykum.” The next day, the
operations captain was met with a number of officers expressing outrage that this had been
allowed to happen.
Clearly the watch commander bears the primary responsibility for making the decision to
use the institutional radio for the announcement. However, this incident might have been
avoided altogether if there had been better communication. Why, for example, was the
warden not informed that the central PA system was broken? Why did the officers not
expect an announcement about Ramadan, or did they expect it but thought it would be the
next night because the dates in the memo were incorrect?
As best we can determine, the major gap in communication appears to be between the
yard captains and their staff. Officers complain that the “captains are tied up in meetings all
day and we can go 2, 3 or 4 days without seeing our captain.” Moreover, staff meetings that
are scheduled for each watch are either not held or held infrequently. The team discovered
this one day when we planned to attend the 0830 meetings on each yard only to be told on
arrival that “we’re too busy to do those anymore.” That change in practice was news to one
associate warden, who when informed of it said that if he had known that, he would have
been asking them for the minutes of each meeting.
When directives do reach the lieutenants and sergeants, they often do not know where they
came from or the reason for them, and thus, they seem arbitrary to the line staff, what
some refer to as “the mythical order.” What they seem to mean by this is that because the
order makes no sense to them, it may well have been made up by that person and can
probably be ignored when she or he is not present. This accentuates inconsistency among
officers, from day to day, and from watch to watch, thereby increasing the likelihood of
confrontations between officers and inmates.
Even when it is clear that the directive is real, the absence of explanation may confuse
officers about what is expected of them. This is the case with the boxes of condoms that
were placed in each housing unit during the assessment. Seeing this, many officers
remarked to us, in effect, “This makes no sense. These guys are not supposed to have sex.
Now we’re telling them it’s okay. What are we supposed to do, not write them up for having
sex anymore?” Others saw it as a danger in that the condoms could be used to conceal
drugs or even fashion weapons.
2. Informal Culture. The gap between the yard captains and the yard supervisors leaves the
yards with considerable autonomy. A member of the Resource Team who has been at
HDSP for several months characterized the institution as “being run from the bottom up.” In
this person’s view, “nothing changes” because there is no accountability: supervisors
interpret directives in ways that are the most convenient for them or may choose to ignore
them altogether. Moreover, the supervisors themselves are not comfortable with holding
others accountable because of their personal relationships. Most have worked together at
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 17 of 115

September 23, 2016

HDSP for 10 years or more and are friends off the job. Calling somebody to task may risk
breaking up a friendship or end with a retort such as “Who are you to tell me to not do that?
That’s what you did when we were working together.”
The lack of accountability may be being aggravated by recent changes in policy and
procedure. According to supervisors, changes in the investigation and disciplinary
processes are overwhelming them with paperwork and tying them to their offices to the
extent that they can’t tour the yard as much as they should. This was confirmed by the
team’s first-hand observations. Reviews of a limited number of logbooks showed that
sergeants’ signatures in red ink on most days and most shifts; however, because the times
noted in the logbooks were close together, it is unlikely that complete unit tours are being
conducted. No signatures of captains and lieutenant signatures were found.
3. Racism. Allegations of racism were among the most prominent of the criticisms leveled at
HDSP in the OIG report. Staff members of all races and ethnicities vehemently deny these
allegations, and minority staff members say they are welcomed and supported both at work
and in the community. Observations of employees, uniformed and civilian, coming to or
leaving work showed no evidence of the segregation seen in many other prisons, and
interaction on the job appeared comfortable and even amiable. Moving about the institution,
team members came upon scenes such as the following:
White officers joking with an African American officer as they waited in
the interlock to be let behind the fence.
Three escort officers, two males (one an African-American) and a
female, chatting about this and that and occasionally bursting into
laughter while seated in a hallway waiting for inmates to be escorted
back to their units.
An African American officer who had been blinded by exposure to
pepper spray being led by the arm to the nurses’ station by a white
officer who then stayed with him while the nurse cleaned his eyes.
In private interviews, African-American and Latino officers denied experiencing any racism
at HDSP; to the contrary all said they felt welcomed and supported. Indeed, one young
officer related how they had come to HDSP braced expecting to encounter racial animus
because of what they had been told at the academy. To this officer’s surprise, the
experience had been quite the reverse, and this officer has decided to stay at HDSP
because of the acceptance and support received.
Minority inmates to whom we talked in private deny being addressed with language they
find offensive. However, some who work in close proximity to staff claim that they at times
overhear conversations among staff that they find offensive, and all believe they are the
victims of discrimination.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 18 of 115

September 23, 2016

The ASCA team reviewed data on work assignments, disciplinary violation reports and
uses of force and found significant racial and ethnic disparity. The data in Table 4 is based
on the distribution of program and work assignments on July 8, 2016.8 As can be seen
there, White inmates held a much larger proportion of the skilled jobs than expected based
on their representation in the prisoner population, and they were somewhat less likely to be
unassigned. Hispanic inmates, in contrast to Whites, were much less likely to be in skilled
positions than would be expected on the basis of their numbers, and they were also
underrepresented among those in programs and somewhat over represented among those
who were unassigned. African-American inmates were slightly over-represented among
those in programs but otherwise assigned in proportion to their numbers.

Table 4
Inmate Work Assignments

In Program
Skilled Job
Unskilled Job
Unassigned
% of Population
N of Cases

AfricanAmerican
33.1%
25.3%
28.1%
26.2%
27.7%
974

Hispanic

White

Total

N

44.9%
31.6%
50.5%
58.7%
53.0%
1857

22.0%
43.1%
21.4%
15.1%
19.3%
681

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

574
206
867
1865
•
2512

Data on Rules Violation Reports (RVRs) and Uses of Force by race/ethnicity are presented
in Table 5. From March 1 through July 22nd, HDSP staff filed 876 RVRs. Compared to the
racial/ethnic composition of the population, it appears that a considerably larger percentage
of these reports were filed against Black inmates than is to be expected by chance and a
much smaller percentage than expected are filed against Hispanic inmates and those of
other races/ethnicities.
	
  
COMPSTAT statistics reviewed by ASCA team show that HDSP averages about 43.15 use
of force incidents per month. The data in Table 5 also break down the incidents that
occurred from January 1st through June 2016 by the race and ethnicity of the inmates
involved.9 As can be seen, a disproportionately large number of incidents in which force
was used involved African-American inmates and disproportionately fewer incidents
involved Hispanic inmates and those of other races or ethnicities. Incidents involving White
inmates were about what would be expected by chance given their numbers.

8	
  These	
  data	
  exclude	
  inmates	
  of	
  other	
  races	
  and/or	
  ethnicities.	
  Jobs	
  considered	
  skilled	
  include	
  those	
  such	
  as	
  

baker,	
  carpenter,	
  cook,	
  clerk,	
  electrician,	
  plumber,	
  mechanic,	
  tutors	
  and	
  teachers’	
  aide.	
  	
  
	
  
9	
  	
  Incidents	
  involving	
  inmates	
  of	
  different	
  races/ethnicities	
  were	
  counted	
  in	
  each	
  race/ethnic	
  category.	
  Thus,	
  
the	
  total	
  exceeds	
  the	
  total	
  number	
  of	
  incidents	
  that	
  occurred	
  during	
  this	
  period.	
  	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 19 of 115

September 23, 2016

Table 5
Reports of Rules Violations and Uses of Force by Race/ Ethnicity
% of Population
% of Rules Violation Reports
% of Incidents Involving Uses of Force

Black
26.0%
37.4%
42.8%

Hispanic
49.7%
36.5%
32.9%

White
18.4%
19.4%
21.1%

Other
5.9%
0.7%
3.2%

Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

N
3680
876
348

	
  
The existence of disparities such as the above does not prove discrimination, as there may
be legitimate explanations for the differences. However, these processes and others should
be closely examined to learn why the disparities exist in order to detect and correct any
unjustified treatment and/or to be able to explain why they exist in the absence of
discrimination, should such allegations be made.
In an emotionally charged environment such as a prison, even innocent or well-intentioned
actions, may be interpreted as racist. Managers and staff at all levels must be highly
sensitive to the possible unintended symbolic consequences of their actions so as not to
give rise to rumors such as the following, and to have the necessary information to counter
them when they do.
The incident with the Imam was a set up to try to get rid of him.10
Requiring Muslims to pray in Odin’s cage11 is an insult and a way
to stop them from praying in the yard.
Officers wearing red tee shirts are members a KKK-type group.12
Observation of the extreme self-segregation by race/ethnicity in the yard suggests a great
deal of racial/ethnic tension among the inmates. This high degree of segregation is
reinforced by permitting inmates to choose their cellmates, a practice managers believe
keeps the prison safer. However, the nearly complete racial/ethnic segregation within the
housing units perpetuates the tension that occasionally bursts into violence. Perhaps in
recognition of this effect, HDSP now requires SNY inmates to agree to being assigned to
cell with anyone in an effort to promote integration. This directive, however, is apparently
one of those that either never reached the housing units or that has been ignored. One team
member brought up this issue in an interview with an associate warden who assured him
that the cells in SNY yards were integrated. He invited the team member to tour with him;
the tour showed the cells to be nearly as segregated as those in the other yards.

10	
  The	
  Imam	
  left	
  HDSP	
  shortly	
  after	
  the	
  incident	
  to	
  enroll	
  in	
  a	
  graduate	
  divinity	
  program	
  at	
  a	
  school	
  that	
  is	
  at	
  

a	
  considerable	
  distance	
  from	
  HDSP.	
  His	
  departure	
  had	
  been	
  planned	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  incident.	
  
11	
  Odinists	
  are	
  a	
  religious	
  group	
  seen	
  by	
  many	
  as	
  associated	
  with	
  white	
  supremacy.	
  The	
  space	
  in	
  the	
  yards	
  

established	
  for	
  outdoor	
  religious	
  worship	
  has	
  been	
  used	
  only	
  by	
  Odinists,	
  and	
  African-­‐American	
  Muslims	
  
took	
  offense	
  when	
  told	
  they	
  had	
  to	
  use	
  that	
  space	
  for	
  outdoor	
  prayer.	
  
12	
  The	
  officers	
  had	
  been	
  given	
  permission	
  to	
  wear	
  these	
  shirts	
  to	
  honor	
  veterans.	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 20 of 115

September 23, 2016

Reducing racial and ethnic tension among the inmates is key to reducing the level of
violence. The best way of doing this is to maximize racial/ethnic integration in the cells and
participation in programs. Interacting on an equal basis with people of a different
race/ethnicity over a period of time is a proven method of reducing hostility and tension, and
there is evidence that integrating cells can be done in prisons without increasing violence.13
As programming is expanded at HDSP, careful attention ought to be given to integrating
cells as well.
D. Organizational Glue
This dimension of culture refers to what holds the organization together. Is it pay and
benefits, for example, or commitment, or formal policies and procedures, or excitement at
being on the cutting edge, or some combination of factors?
1. Formal Culture. When this question was put to HDSP staff, the most frequent response, as
noted previously, was some variant of family. The data in Figure 4 confirm this view. HDSP
staff see the prison as held together equally by formal policies and procedures and mutual
loyalty and trust.

Figure 4 - Current Organizational Glue by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Organiza.onal#Glue#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

The sense of being bonded together by mutual commitment is not evenly shared among all
staff, however, as can be seen in Table 6. Correctional officers, especially lieutenants, place
a much higher value on loyalty and trust than do those who occupy other positions.
Workers, like correctional officers, who face danger together every day, whose very survival
13	
  Reference	
  Chad	
  R.	
  Trulson	
  and	
  James	
  W.	
  Marquart,	
  First	
  Available	
  Cell:	
  Desegregation	
  of	
  the	
  Texas	
  Prison	
  

System.	
  	
  Austin:	
  	
  University	
  of	
  Texas	
  Press,	
  2009.	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 21 of 115

September 23, 2016

could depend on the person next to him “having his back,” naturally form strong bonds with
each other. It is no surprise then that the officers at HDSP value commitment, trust and
loyalty so highly.
What is somewhat surprising is the much higher value placed on loyalty and trust by the
lieutenants. As they are in charge of yard operations on a day-to-day basis, this suggests
that lieutenants are strongly bonded to those they supervise. And lieutenants, in particular,
were singled out for praise in focus groups with officers where comments such as “we have
really good lieutenants” and “we are tight with our lieutenants” were common.

Table 6
Current Organizational Glue by Staff Position

Sergeants, however, are seen less favorably than lieutenants. Some officers referred to
sergeants as “two year wonders” explaining that many of the more experienced officers do
not want to promote, and that the sergeants have to ask these more senior officers what to
do. One officer told of how sergeants sometimes disavow giving an order if there is a bad
result, and the group estimated that only 10 percent of the sergeants could be trusted to
back you.
In contrast to the correctional officers, health care, program and service personnel view the
institution as held together more by formal policies and procedures than by mutual trust and
loyalty. Not exposed to the same degree of threat as the officers and not expected to
respond to critical incidents, these staff members do not experience the camaraderie that

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 22 of 115

September 23, 2016

grows out of the shared experience of facing danger together. Moreover, they are daily
subjected to frustrating practices necessary to ensure safety, some of which hamper the
performance of their jobs.
Despite frustrations associated with logistical problems such as getting inmates to classes or
appointments on time, non-uniformed staff generally agreed that relations between officers
and civilian staff were cordial and cooperative, and expressed appreciation for the work that
the officers do in keeping them safe. Some even cited instances where officers extended
themselves to be helpful, for example a social worker told of an officer taking the initiative to
find space where inmates waiting for an appointment could sit rather than stand in the
hallway.
The sense of being bonded together by commitment, trust and loyalty that is felt by the
officers toward each other and other staff does not extend to the leadership, however. The
failure of headquarters to defend HDSP against the allegations made in in the OIG report is
seen as a betrayal to which line officers have had a very visceral response. Many are
distrustful and suspicious of the warden who, they believe, is bent on firing people, and who,
they believe, sneaks about the institution trying to find reasons to do so. In the same breath,
they complain that they never see the warden, and resent that he stays in his office
communicating with them by memos and e-mails. And on occasion he has violated “family
etiquette.” When he does come onto a yard, according to the officers, he greets inmates
before officers and shows more concern for the welfare of the inmates than he does of the
staff. He has also declined invitations to attend potluck dinners and barbeques, which are
key rituals in the HDSP culture.
2. Informal Culture. At HDSP, more so perhaps than at other prisons, staff solidarity is
buttressed by cohesive relationships. Living in a small and remote community, HDSP staff
members frequently socialize with each other off the job, are actively involved in community
activities, and commute together to and from work. These friendships – for better or worse -carry over onto the job. In both the focus groups and casual conversations with staff, for
example, the team frequently heard statements such as the following:
I may not be happy about going to work every day but I do enjoy being
with my co-workers. It’s like hanging out with friends all day.
Feeling as if you are hanging out with friends may make work more enjoyable and less
stressful by providing a sense of support, but it is scarcely an attitude appropriate for officers
in a Level IV institution. It bespeaks of comfort rather than vigilance, inattention rather than
watchfulness. Moreover, lieutenants and sergeants may find it difficult to correct
inappropriate behavior when the subordinate is their next-door neighbor with whom they
commute every day, especially if that supervisor behaved in the same way before being
promoted.
Civilian staff members, although part of the extended family, are not as involved as the
officers in these more intimate networks off the job. Several treatment providers, for
instance, observed that neither the treatment providers nor the officers extend themselves to
form friendships, and remarked that while “I sometimes get invited to a potluck or barbeque,
but I usually find some excuse not to go.”
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 23 of 115

September 23, 2016

E. Strategic Emphasis
This cultural characteristic refers to what the staff perceives to be the mission and purpose
of the organization. For instance, does the organization emphasize keeping operations
simple, or meeting human needs, or achieving goals that stretch its capacities?
1. Formal Culture. The perceptions of HDSP staff concerning what is emphasized by the
organization are portrayed in Figure 5. As befits a high security institution, the staff, as a
whole, see the greatest emphasis as being placed on maintaining safety and security by
keeping operations simple, reliable and dependable. Conversely, staff view relatively little
emphasis placed on a concern for people and meeting their needs.

Figure 5 - Current Strategic Emphasis by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Strategic#Emphasis#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

These mean values mask significant differences among the staff, however. As shown in
Table 7, both the warden and the health care CEO, the top two managers, believe the
strategic emphasis is on meeting people’s needs and helping them develop and grow,
emphases that presumably reflect their commitment to greater programming and more
accessible high quality health care for inmates.
The weights accorded to the four dimensions by the prison’s middle management suggest
that they do not see a concern for human needs as high on HDSP’s priorities. Rather, they
perceive the institution as being driven by dictates that emanate from outside the institution.
These dictates are seen as innovative and risk-taking, on the one hand, and as interrupting
the controlled operations, on the other. Lieutenants and sergeants agree with the managers
with respect to the relative lack of emphasis placed on smooth, dependable operations, and
the sergeants in particular appear to view the organization as emphasizing doing things in
new ways that may be risky.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 24 of 115

September 23, 2016

By contrast, treatment and service providers perceive HDSP as emphasizing stability and
control and as not placing much emphasis on innovation. Interestingly, treatment providers
do not share the health care CEO’s perception that the organization’s emphasis is on
meeting human need.

Table 7
Current Strategic Emphasis by Staff Group
	
  

In sum, HDSP staff differs sharply on what they perceive to be the prison’s purpose and
missions. These differences are clearly related to the roles and functions staff members
play, and not the result of demographic differences14. Rather, it seems that each division
sees its goal as primary and there is little sense of an inclusive message that unifies all.
While the top two managers have a common belief that the organization emphasizes a
concern for people and meeting their needs, they are in this regard out-of-step with the
majority of the staff.
2. Informal Culture. Although staff had presumably been made known that a new mission and
vision statement was being prepared, virtually no one outside of management seemed to be
aware of it, and the fragmentation among staff was evident in both focus groups and
conversations.
When the mission or purpose of HDSP was raised with uniformed staff, the response
typically was to maintain custody and control. Not infrequently, this was presented in words
that expressed the extreme negativity felt by many officers.

14	
  Differences	
  in	
  perceptions	
  of	
  these	
  culture	
  components	
  by	
  sex,	
  race/ethnicity,	
  years	
  in	
  CDCR	
  and	
  years	
  at	
  

HDSP	
  were	
  also	
  analyzed.	
  As	
  no	
  substantive	
  differences	
  were	
  found,	
  these	
  data	
  are	
  not	
  presented	
  as	
  tables	
  in	
  
the	
  main	
  body	
  of	
  text.	
  They	
  are	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  summary	
  statistics	
  in	
  the	
  Appendix,	
  however.	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 25 of 115

September 23, 2016

“To protect society by taking animals off the street.”
“To wear out the worst scum in the state.”
The recent increases in programming and access to health care were viewed by officers as
undeserved, burdensome and a threat as revealed by these typical comments.
“Get programming done at all costs including officer safety.”
“Programming, programming. They’re constantly expecting us
to do more with less.”
“They’re trying to run a Level IV prison like it was a Level II.”
“Why should they get better health care than my grandmother?”
Treatment and service providers, in contrast to officers, shared their CEO’s commitment to
quality health care, but nonetheless view the prison’s concern with security an impediment
that at times interferes with the provision of that care, and that is responsible for a high rate
of turnover among health care personnel. They also express concern that the CEO’s
concern with metrics may come at the expense of quality. In a focus group of providers, the
following comments met with wide approval.
“Meeting the metric goals sometimes comes into conflict
with providing good treatment- the real clinical work gets
squashed.”
“Our mission is to make sure to check all the boxes.”
F. Criteria of Success
This aspect of an organization’s culture refers to how it defines success and what gets
rewarded. Does it define success and reward employees for developing new and unique
ways of doing things? Or is success seen as maintaining smooth and low-cost operations,
or helping people develop and grow, or being the best organization of its kind?
1. Formal Culture. As is clear in Figure 6, the staff at HDSP believes that the organization
defines success largely in terms of maintaining stability and control through dependable
operations. All point to HDSP’s high scores on the recent ACA Accreditation audit as a mark
of their success. Managers note the declining number of critical incidents and appeals,
health care managers track the number of metrics moved from red to green, and
correctional officers measure it by going home safely at the end of their watch.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 26 of 115

September 23, 2016

Figure 6 - Current Criteria of Success by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Criteria#of#Success#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

However, there are precious few means by which staff are recognized and rewarded for
good work. Each month one person is selected as the Employee of the Month and their
picture is posted on a board in the main entrance to the prison. This award has become a
bone of contention recently, as there had been three such awards – custody, treatment and
support – in the past. Despite the resentment at having the number of awards reduced, most
staff members claim to regard the award as meaningless anyway.
Performance reviews are seen by officers as a waste of time. When they are in fact done,
they are often completed by a sergeant for whom the officer has never worked but who has
the time to complete the process.
The most common and appreciated indicators of having done a good job are the “atta boys”
and “atta girls” officers sometimes receive from supervisors and peers. These seldom come
from any one above the rank of captain, however, and this is at times painful for staff as the
following incident related by an officer suggests.
One time we had an outside youth offender program running in
one of the yards. An incident took place in a nearby yard and we
were told not to respond and keep running the program. Our staff
handled the incident and kept the program running. No one told
us “good job”. The youth offender group told Sacramento how
good we handled the incident, but no one said anything to us
The data in Table 8 confirm that nearly all staff views the current culture as defining success
primarily in terms of dependable and efficient service. The one exception is the warden who
sees success as defined in terms of a concern for people, helping staff grow and promoting
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 27 of 115

September 23, 2016

teamwork. Those working in the yards, however, do not feel that concern. Some officers, for
instance, complained that, unlike past wardens, the warden does not come out to a yard
after a critical incident to show his support and appreciation for their effort.

Table 8
Current Criteria of Success by Staff Groups
Consensus

Innovative

All Staff

22

19

20

39

191

Prison Management

21

23

25

36

14

Warden

90

0

0

10

1

Chief Deputy

25

0

0

75

1

27

10

23

40

11

30

30

10

30

1

Lieutenants

19

16

25

41

11

Sergeants

13

31

18

37

16

Yard COs

23

20

19

39

99

Escort COs

21

16

19

45

11

Health Care Providers

20

12

18

51

14

Service Providers

21

17

23

39

12

Health Care
Management
Health Care CEO

2.

Prescriptive Structured

N of Cases

Informal Culture. When asked how they know they are doing a good job, some of the
responses from officers reflected their widely shared disdain for inmates, their concern for
their safety and job security. The following are remarks that typify these concerns.
“Knowing the inmates don’t like me.”
“Doing my job means the inmates hate me.”
“When you see that sea of green coming in response to an incident.”
“Staying out of the spotlight by avoiding 602’s.”
Burdened with paperwork, mid-level managers and supervisors are prone to measure
success by how much paper remains on their desk at the end of the day or a task is
completed. As one health care provider remarked, it’s a good day “when the paper doesn’t
come back because I’ve checked all the right boxes.”

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 28 of 115

September 23, 2016

Some recognition of success occasionally comes from inmates. Walking out of a yard with
a teacher, one member of the team witnessed an inmate running across the yard to tell her
that he had gotten a “B” on a college test. On another occasion, a staff sponsor of an
inmate self-help group told two team members of the pride she felt in a formerly hostile
inmate who has progressed in the group to the point where is now a co-facilitator.
G. The Overall Culture
The profile of HDSP’s culture, taking into account each of the six components discussed
above, is presented in Figure 7. As perceived by staff, HDSP’s culture, as one would expect
in a high security prison, is weighted toward maintaining custody and control through formal
procedures that govern every-day practices. This, as we have seen, is largely the result of
what staff sees as holding the organization together and what is defined as success. The
weight placed on the “prescriptive” dimension reflects the staff view that leadership is largely
from outside the institution and is tough, demanding, and results-oriented. However,
achieving success and meeting the demands of leadership, especially in a hostile and
violent environment, requires a great amount of teamwork and creates a strong sense of
camaraderie.

Figure 7 - Current Overall Culture by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Culture#Profile#(Current)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

This view of HDSP’s culture is widely shared among the staff, but there are some significant
differences as seen in Table 9. Custody staff, particularly lieutenants and sergeants, view
the current culture as less oriented toward stability and control and correspondingly more
focused on teamwork and innovation than do the heath care and treatment providers. The
largest difference, however, is between the warden and everybody else including the other
two top managers, the health care CEO and the chief deputy warden. These differences
signal fault lines that fragment the prison’s culture.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 29 of 115

September 23, 2016

Due to rapid turnover in the top managerial positions, HDSP has lacked a consistent
direction and its mission has not been redefined to align with changes in the department’s
priorities. As a result the staff has clung to the prison’s original mission, which they define as
being a Level IV facility that protects the entire system by managing the “worst of the worst,”
those that other institutions cannot manage. Officers regard working at HDSP as a badge of
honor and take great pride in operating the prison the “High Desert Way,” policies and
procedures developed to handle dangerous inmates that they believe were developed at
HDSP and have been adopted at other Level IV institutions, earning HDSP the reputation of
being a “flagship prison.”
The core of the HDSP culture is the operation of the four yards. Officers generally view
inmates as akin to dangerous animals that deserve to be caged and provided no more than
the basic necessities. There are few programs for inmates who spend as much as 18 hours
per day in their cells, depending upon the yard. Lockdowns are frequent. Unlike the situation
at other prisons in the state, which HDSP officers see as lax, they claim that the rules are
strictly enforced at HDSP.

Table 9
Current Overall Culture by Staff Groups

When officers describe what their role is, however, they use terms such as “observe and
react,” and observations of their behavior confirm this description. Officers on yard posts sit
passively on benches while inmates gamble at tables nearby; those in the housing units
observe inmates taking recreation in the dayrooms from behind the protection of thick steel
gates. Viewing inmates as dangerous animals, the officers do little to prevent violence but
rather keep their distance waiting for it to occur. When it does occur, which it does almost
daily, they react quickly en mass to suppress it with force.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 30 of 115

September 23, 2016

Managers and supervisors know that policy prescribes that officers be more proactive,
claiming not to have noticed its absence because they are tied to their desk. Many have
been at High Desert for years; some for virtually their entire careers, and it is at least equally
plausible that they have developed a sort of “house blindness,” not seeing the discrepancy
between policy and practice because that is the way it has always been.
Through working together in a hostile and dangerous environment, being part of the “sea of
green” responding to an alarm code, the officers develop a strong sense of solidarity and
feelings of camaraderie. Despite the stress, coming to work, as some describe it, is like
“hanging out with friends.” At HDSP, as is common at other prisons located in remote areas,
solidarity among the officers is buttressed by family and friendship networks rooted in the
community. These networks, as well as “house blindness,” make it uncomfortable for
managers and supervisors to hold their subordinates accountable.
The charges of racism made public in the OIG report in December 2015 produced a very
visceral reaction from the officers who adamantly deny the charge and accuse the OIG of
having a political agenda and “cherry picking” for the evidence. Observations and interviews
by the assessment team produced no evidence to support the OIG allegation. Officers
interact on the job seemingly without regard to race or ethnicity, and minority staff,
interviewed in private, say they feel included and supported, and deny experiencing any
differential treatment.
The OIG report has caused the officers to circle the wagons so to speak. Before the report,
their solidarity was rooted in the danger posed by inmates; now it has been reinforced by the
fact that the department’s leadership did not defend them. Incensed by the OIG’s charges
they are enraged by what they see as a betrayal by those who are supposed to support
them.
The new management team, particularly the warden, is viewed with suspicion and distrust
by the uniformed staff. In their minds, the warden has been sent to HDSP to terminate staff
and rumors abound about how he sneaks about the prison trying to find reasons to fire
people. Moreover, by virtue of the fact that he did not come up through the ranks and came
from a Level II institution, in their opinion he is not qualified to be the warden of HDSP. His
decisions regarding custody are openly criticized by supervisors in the yards, and the
emphasis on expanding programs and out-of-cell time, though supported by most of those
on his executive team, are seen as jeopardizing safety and security by the custody staff:
“madness that has to be stopped.”
Communication between management and line staff is largely by memo and e-mail and
woefully inadequate as evidenced by serious breakdown that occurred with respect to the
commencement of the Muslim month of Ramadan. Even memos that are enlarged and
posted in places of high visibility seem seldom to be read. Managers assume that
information put out in meetings will be passed onto line staff. This frequently does not occur,
however, because scheduled staff meetings for each watch seldom occur. Captains are tied
up in meetings on three days a week and buried in their office catching up on paperwork on
the other two. Required tours of the yards by lieutenants and sergeants are either not made

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 31 of 115

September 23, 2016

or done in a perfunctory fashion because, they complain, changes in the investigatory and
appeals processes have them tied to their desks as well. Increasingly, it seems, day-to-day
operations on the yards are left to young and relatively inexperienced officers who make it
up as they go along.
The renewed emphasis on increasing inmate access to medical care and improving its
quality adds to the confusion. Although claiming to be on the same page as the warden, the
health care CEO sees the prison solely as a health care facility and his role as ensuring that
standards set by the courts are met in a timely fashion. These differing conceptions,
together with their contrasting leadership styles, could lead to conflict over priorities in the
future.
To date, relations between custody and treatment providers on the yards appear to be
cordial and cooperative, but signs of strain are emerging. Clinicians express frustration at
the interruptions and delays caused by security concerns. Officers are angered by their
perception that undeserving inmates are receiving better care than members of their family,
and are bewildered at the provision of condoms to inmates. They also resent a recent
directive that requires them to give a direct order to inmates who refuse to go to a scheduled
appointment and to submit an RVR on those who persist in their refusal. Comments such as
“custody always wins,” and “medical is running the place” are common.
In sum, HDSP’s culture appears to be composed of at least three, and maybe more, distinct
subcultures. At the core of the institution, is an officer culture that takes pride in managing
dangerous inmates that other institutions cannot handle, and that feels betrayed by the
department’s leadership and distrustful of the new management.
A second subculture is that found among the new management team. Having only recently
arrived at HDSP, the team seems not as yet to have reached a shared view of HDSP, but
does envision a future state in which there will be ample programming, trust in management,
and in which the “wall between green and blue” will be lower. Joining the three top
managers in this vision are several other managers who have experience in other
institutions.
The third subculture is one shared by treatment and program providers and centered in
health care. At the moment, this subculture is aligned with both the management subculture
and the officer subculture, but there are signs of strain emerging between this group and the
officers. Moreover, the different conceptions of HDSP held by the health care CEO and the
warden, along with their contrasting styles, could develop into conflict in the future.
At present, HDSP’s culture has begun to move slowly and gradually toward the future state
envisioned by management. However, intense resistance to further change is likely.
Overcoming resistance and securing “buy in” from staff will require skillful management
grounded in an understanding of the type of culture staff prefer and why. This is discussed
in the next section.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 32 of 115

September 23, 2016

E. Assessment of the Preferred Culture
1. High Desert’s Preferred Culture
As noted earlier in the report, a questionnaire was administered in each focus group to
gather standardized to use in comparing the perceptions of different groups of staff. That
questionnaire, the OCAP-I, consists of two parts: perceptions of the current culture and
preferences for a future culture. Comparisons of the staff preferences for a future desired
culture to current perceptions of the culture, along with material from the focus group
discussions, can provide insight into the direction that change might proceed, aspects of
culture and particular groups requiring the most attention, and where obstacles to change
may be encountered to moving closer to the desired culture.
A. Top Management and Staff
Figure 8 compares staff members’ perceptions of the current culture with the profile of a
culture they would prefer. As is evident there, staff would favor a change toward a more
‘consensus’ type culture that is one that is internally focused, involves participation and
teamwork and is based on loyalty and trust. Conversely, the preferred culture would be less
‘prescriptive,’ one that is less influenced by external agencies and concerned with meeting
goals set by them. As indicated by the degree of concurrence, however, the extent of
change desired is relatively modest.15

Figure 8 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred by All Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

67%#Concurrence

Structured

Prescrip,ve

All#Staff#Culture#Profile#(Current#&#Preferred)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

15	
  The	
  degree	
  of	
  difference	
  is	
  a	
  measure	
  of	
  the	
  difference	
  between	
  two	
  distributions.	
  It	
  is	
  calculated	
  by	
  

summing	
  the	
  absolute	
  differences	
  between	
  the	
  categories	
  in	
  each	
  distribution.	
  	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 33 of 115

September 23, 2016

Success in culture change is greatly dependent upon having top management in agreement
upon the direction in which the organization should be going. The profiles of the preferred
composite cultures of HDSP’s top three managers are presented in Figure 9. Although all
three prefer change to about the same degree, there is considerable difference among them
with respect to the direction that change should take. Both the warden and the health care
CEO want to see an emergent culture that is more encouraging of innovation and less
concerned with smooth operations. The warden, however, wants to maintain the focus on
teamwork and meeting human needs while the CEO places much less value on this
dimension and considerably more meeting goals and getting results. Whereas both the
warden and the CEO prefer that HDSP be less concerned with predictability and stability,
the chief deputy warden thinks the current weight placed on stability is about right and
prefers a culture that is less oriented to innovation.

Figure 9 – Comparison of the Preferred Culture for HDSP Three Top Managers
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

Administra*on,Culture,Profile,Preferred,(Warden,,Chief,Deputy,
Warden,,Healthcare,CEO)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

This lack of agreement among the top managers may result from the fact that all three are
new to HDSP and to the different functions they perform. That said, it is clear that they need
to spend time having frank discussions about the direction in which they want HDSP to
change, how they plan to get there, and the role each will play in the change process.
A comparison of Figures 8 and 9 reveals that the preferences the three top managers and
those of the staff are quite similar in some ways but quite different in others. Along with the
managers, staff members would like to see a culture that emphasizes commitment,
participation and teamwork. Unlike the warden and the CEO, however, they do not want to
sacrifice control to achieve a greater orientation to human needs. Rather, like the chief
deputy, most staff members would prefer a culture that is less, not more, committed to trying
to do things in new ways.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 34 of 115

September 23, 2016

HDSP has a new mission and vision statement that emphasizes treatment and preparation
for re-entry along with security, and the institution is under court order to meet specified
standards in health care. Thus, the warden and the CEO have mandates to introduce
substantial changes in the way HDSP operates and, as discussed above, have begun to do
so. Resistance to these changes was noted in the profile of the current culture, and the data
in Figures 8 and 9 suggest that resistance may increase as more changes are introduced.
Understanding which staff are on board with the changes and which are not, and why they
are not, will help management to overcome resistance. This issue is addressed in the next
section.
B. Components and Dimensions of the Preferred Composite Culture
The data presented in Table 10 compares the current and preferred profiles for each
component of the composite culture for all staff. The comparatively low degree of difference
for the ‘dominant characteristics’ and other components, suggest that the staff appears
rather satisfied with things as they are. However, there are two components in which there is
a rather strong preference for change on the part of all staff, including top management:
‘leadership’ and the ‘criteria for success.’

Table 10
Comparison of Profiles of the Current and Preferred Composite HDSP Culture
Component, All Staff
Current Culture

Preferred Culture

Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured
Dominant Character.
Leadership
Management
Org. Glue
Strategic Emphasis
Criteria of Success

28
22
30
33
20
22

16
23
16
14
23
19

23
32
28
18
24
20

33
23
26
35
33
39

Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured

39
43
43
47
36
46

17
14
14
15
14
14

18
13
15
14
19
14

26
30
28
24
21
26

Degree of
Difference

23
57
29
30
32
49

1. Leadership. Given the sense of lack of support felt by HDSP staff toward headquarters and
their questioning of the warden’s actions, it is scarcely surprising that their greatest desire
for change is with respect to leadership. Apart from expressions of outrage and wanting
leaders who would stand up for them, staff members in focus groups did make some
comments that are substantively relevant to the changes in leadership that they would like to
see. As indicated by the comments below, HDSP staff wants leadership to set more realistic
goals and expectations that take into account the unique characteristics of the prison and
the obstacles that staff faces in doing their jobs. This can be better accomplished, they
believe, if decisions are made locally and they participate in the process.
Sacramento does not take our unique needs into consideration
when making decisions that impact us.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 35 of 115

September 23, 2016

They dictate policy with no clue about what it takes to get the job done.
Set realistic goals and expectations.
2. Criteria of Success. Where in the past HDSP staff felt they were the flagship prison in the
system, they now feel like the “step-child that nobody likes.” They yearn for signs that they
are valued and appreciated. They are not looking for awards and certificates, but rather
sincere and personal expressions of thanks for a job well done. They do, as has been noted,
receive such reinforcement from their immediate supervisors and peers, but as the vignette
about the youth program previously related suggests, they seldom receive personal
expressions of appreciation from leaders. Several suggestions about what may make staff
feel more appreciated were made in the focus groups.
The warden needs to get out in yards more and get to know us and see
what we do.
Once a week the warden or the chief deputy ought to stand at the gate
and shake hands as cops are going out.
We used to have Warden’s Forums every month or so. He should do that
again.
3. Differences Among Staff Groups. Most HDSP staff prefer a culture in which decisions
affecting how the prison operates are made by those in charge of the institution rather than
emanating from headquarters and a culture in which their work receives greater
acknowledgement and appreciation from its leaders. As shown in Table 11, however, there
are considerable differences among staff groups in their desire for change and in what
components of the culture they wish to see change.

Table 11
Degrees of Difference Among Components of HDSP’s Current and
Preferred Composite Culture of Staff Groups
Dominant
Organizational Strategic Criteria of
Composite Characteristi Leadership Management
Glue
Emphasis Success
cs
All Staff
33
23
57
29
30
22
49
Prison Managers
29
38
39
49
22
23
35
Health Care Mgrs
31
26
49
20
50
31
34
Lieutenants
44
39
81
47
21
34
67
Sergeants
44
37
72
62
31
41
63
Yard Officers
29
14
57
29
22
35
46
Escort Officers
60
70
82
44
62
42
73
Line Program Staff
56
40
56
51
78
55
57
Line Service Staff
38
23
54
55
44
29
59

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 36 of 115

September 23, 2016

a. Prison and Health Care Managers. As can be seen in Table 11, middle managers evidence
only a modest desire for change, as indicated by the degree of difference for their preferred
composite culture. Prison managers, many of who have come up through the uniform ranks
and/or have been at HDSP for a long period of time, feel strongly bonded to the institution
and to each other and express little preference for change in that aspect of culture. They
also seem on board with the new vision and mission statement, although they expect
considerable resistance from their subordinates, and appear more open to changing ways of
doing things. In fact, the profile of their preferred culture closely resembles that of the
warden and CEO, and they adamantly prefer a culture that is less focused on meeting goals
set from outside the institution. The following is typical of remarks made in a focus group.
We’re not allowed to fix things ourselves. Let us lead. We didn’t
just fall off the turnip truck.
As can be seen in Figure 10, Health care managers and supervisors also express only a
modest desire for change in the overall culture. However, and somewhat surprisingly, their
preference is to decrease the emphasis on change and to increase the orientation toward
smooth operations and stability. As comments made in the focus group suggest this is
undoubtedly related to the great emphasis placed on bringing health care into line with court
imposed standards. Although appreciative of the work the new CEO has done in organizing
their efforts and developing the means by which to track their progress, they also feel “he
has a lot to learn about prison,” and are concerned that the emphasis on metrics may
sacrifice quality.

Figure 10 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred for
Prison Managers and Health Care Managers
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

Managers(Culture(Profile(Preferred((Prison(&(Health(Care)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 37 of 115

September 23, 2016

It is also to be noted, that an area in which the health care managers express a strong
desire for change is that of organizational glue. Working in a separate facility apart from both
the prison managers and their own staff, they lack the sense of inclusion and teamwork that
is felt so strongly by the prison managers.
b. Lieutenants and Sergeants. As indicated by their respective degrees of difference (cf. Table
11), these two groups express a much greater preference for change than do the managers,
and as shown in Figure 11 the profile of their preferred culture is very similar to their
assessment of the current culture. Caught between the managers and the officers and
charged with implementing directives on the yards, these two groups express the most
desire for change in leadership and the criteria of success.
Comments made in both the focus groups and casual conversations clearly indicate that
they many of the directives they receive do not take into consideration the obstacles to
implementing them on the ground and that the pace of change is much too fast. In particular
they find themselves so burdened with paper work associated with investigations and
appeals, that they cannot properly supervise and train younger officers. They are greatly
concerned this is happening at a time when security is jeopardized by increased levels of
programming.

Figure 11 – Comparison of the Current Culture with the Preferred for
Lieutenants and Sergeants
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

Sergeants)Vs.)Lieutenants)Culture)Profile)Preferred)(Sgts)&)Lts)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

The dimension on which they express the greatest desire for change is consensus, by which
they mean they want to be heard. Questions about what the warden should do to improve
HDSP are usually met with replies such as the following:

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 38 of 115

September 23, 2016

Be more visible on the yards and talk to the guys in green.
Get input from us before making decisions.
c. Correctional Officers. Somewhat surprisingly, correctional officers assigned to the yards are
among the staff groups expressing less desire for change in the current composite culture
(cf. Table 11). Overall, as shown in Figure 12, yard officers and healthcare escort officers
would prefer the culture to be more participative and concerned with their needs as
compared to those of the inmates.
However, there is great variation among yards and watches in preference for change. In
some yards, as can be seen in Table 12, the officers like things pretty much the way they
are while in others they express a strong desire for change.

Figure 12 – Preferred Culture of Yard Officers and Escort Officers
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

CO#(Escort#&#Yards)#Culture#Profile#Preferred#(Escort#&#Yards)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

Although expressing a desire for more participative culture, officers on the 2nd and 3rd
watches on B Yard expressed little desire for change in other aspects of culture and the
least overall among the yard officers. Third watch officers of C and A Yards, in contrast,
expressed the most desire for change. More specifically, they would prefer a substantial
increase in the ‘consensus’ dimension of the culture and substantially less emphasis on
results. Their desire for change, while evident on all components, is most intense with
regard to leadership and the criteria of success. As the following comments suggest, the
change desired seems more directed at leadership on the yard than at Sacramento or the
warden.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 39 of 115

September 23, 2016

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
When we ask our supervisors about an order, we’re just told that’s
the way it’s going to be.
One of the supervisors hides out and tries to sneak up on staff.
The officers in B yard, on the other hand, while airing the same complaints as those in the
other yards, generally find their supervisors supportive: “the sergeant talks to us and lets us
know us when we’re doing a good job.” Although they find increased programming
burdensome, most of those in one focus group agreed with a remark to the effect that
“inmates in programs make life easier.”

Table 12
Current and Preferred Composite Cultures of Yard and Watch and Ranked by
Degree of Difference

B Yard, 3 rd Watch
B Yard, 2 nd Watch
C Yard, 2nd Watch
D Yard, 2nd Watch
D Yard, 3rd Watch
A Yard, 2 nd Watch
C Yard, 3rd Watch
A Yard, 3 rd Watch

Current Culture

Preferred Culture

Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured

Consensus Innovative Prescriptive Structured Degree of Difference

31
29
29
27
27
24
24
20

17
18
20
24
20
17
15
19

21
22
21
23
21
24
27
23

31
31
30
26
32
35
34
38

36
40
40
38
41
43
45
48

12
15
13
14
12
14
14
12

23
16
16
16
12
11
15
12

29
29
31
32
35
32
26
28

13
22
23
32
34
36
42
56

In contrast to the yard officers, those assigned as clinic escort officers expressed a stronger
wish for change than did any other staff group. These officers are, on average, older than
most, and all have been at HDSP for twenty years. Having been at HDSP since it’s
opening, and with roots in the community, they were particularly incensed by the OIG report
and the lack of a response by headquarters. Their very strong desire for a more ‘consensus’
type culture, as evident in Figure 12, reflects what they feel is a loss of trust.
We’re not trusted anymore—not by the administration, not by the public,
and not by Sacramento. We used to be trusted. Now we’re the evil
guards.
Caught in the intersection of custody and treatment, they identify with custody but
increasingly find their duties defined by directives from the medical side, many of which they
find inconsistent or confusing. Their comments in the focus group expressed deep
frustration with their position.
Medical tells custody what to do.
No one on our side will stand up to medical.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 40 of 115

September 23, 2016

Who’s driving the car? Medical or custody?
Medical needs to be put in check.
d. Line Program and Service Staff. The preferred cultures of line program and service staff are
displayed in Figure 13. As is true with all other staff groups, these two groups would like to
see a culture that is more oriented to consensus building and team work and less focused
on control by formal policy and procedure than they perceive it to be at present. Also, like
most groups, the program and service staff wants greater control over their agendas. This
feeling is especially strong among clinicians who are frustrated and angry that “Sacramento
tells us how to deliver services without prior consultation with us.”

Figure 13 – Preferred Culture of Line Program and Service Staff
Consensus(

Innova,ve

Structured

Prescrip,ve

Line%Staff%Culture%Profile%Preferred%(Service%&%Program)
Criminal(Jus,ce(Ins,tute,(Inc.(

The clinicians and teachers, not surprisingly, wish to see more programs for inmates. They
overwhelmingly agree, however, that their relations with custody staff are good, that the OIG
report greatly exaggerated the problems in getting inmates to classes and appointments,
and that such delays as occur are not intentional but the result of short staffing.
Of particular concern to service staff is inadequate training. Most of their training focuses on
safety and security, and has little to do with what they do day-to-day on the job where they
work in close contact with inmate helpers. They would like to see less training on
compliance with court orders, PREA and the like and more issues regarding staff-inmate
issues such as conflict resolution. In addition, they also express need for more mentoring by
supervisors on how being an electrician or plumber in prison differs from the same work in
the community.
Whether it be in a classroom, a clinic or a utilities tunnel, most program and service staff
work in relative isolation from other staff. Many at times, in the words of one, “feel like a

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 41 of 115

September 23, 2016

number that can easily be replaced.” As a remedy to this feeling of estrangement, one
suggested that they be included in unit meetings and that there be regular team meetings of
service providers from all over the institution.
C. Conclusion
Although fragmented into three or more subcultures at present, the profile of the culture
preferred by HDSP staff evidences strong agreement among them in what they would like to
see emerge. Although there are differences among staff groups in the strength of their
desire for change and in the cultural components in which they would most like to see
change, all prefer a culture that is more internally focused, more oriented to meeting human
needs, and grounded in mutual trust and support. All would prefer less direction from
external agencies, especially what they perceive as micro-managing by headquarters, and
more personalized recognition and appreciation from leaders for the work they do.
In large measure, these preferences are the same as those of the top management, but
where nearly all staff outside of management desire less emphasis on changing operational
practices, particularly with respect to programming, the warden and the CEO desire more.
Moreover, these two managers also differ from each other, and with the chief deputy, in the
relative emphases they would place on building consensus compared to getting results. An
important prerequisite to changing the culture will be for these top managers to agree on the
direction in which change is to proceed and the style of leadership and management most
likely to be successful in bringing it about.

F. Specific Areas of Inquiry
As noted in the introduction to this report, our assessment followed two integrated inquiry tracks,
one being an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation,
document review, and discussions with staff. Specifically, the operational assessment focused
on ten major operational areas that had been subject to considerable public attention.
The team at HDSP visited all operational areas and all yards on each of the three watches
including weekends. In all of these areas of the prison, and on different watches, Wayne Scott,
Wayne Choinski, Calvin Brown and Gary Maynard paid particular attention to the ten major
operational areas that covered specific functions and operations of the facility. Questions were
prepared in advance to address each of the ten areas. Those questions were answered and
are reported on here.
The ten major operational areas that were assessed are:
Operational Areas

Lead Team Member

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Wayne Scott
Gary Maynard
Wayne Choinski
Wayne Scott
Gary Maynard

Facility Mission and Operations
Policy and Procedure
Facility Management
Use of Force
Staff Training

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 42 of 115

September 23, 2016

6. Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process
7. Inmate Discipline Process
8. Inmate Complaints of Staff Process
9. Investigations and Staff Discipline
10. Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation

Wayne Choinski
Wayne Choinski
Wayne Scott
Gary Maynard
Calvin Brown

1. Facility Mission and Operations
High Desert State Prison is a facility in transition. A new warden, a new chief deputy warden, a
new mission statement, and a new vision statement that emphasizes programming and
rehabilitation efforts are a clear signal that HDSP is changing. It is evident from employee focus
group dialog and direct one-on-one conversations with the staff that they are not aware of the
new mission or vision statements. The challenge for the warden and the chief deputy is to
effectively communicate their vision to the staff and get the employees to buy into these
changes. Once the warden and chief deputy convince the staff to embrace the new mission
and vision the changes will occur more rapidly because the line staff will feel invested in the
process and work to make it successful.
Warden Marion Spearman and Chief Deputy Warden Tammy Foss developed a new mission
and vision statement for the High Desert State Prison with the collaboration of the senior
management team and the Office of Public and Employee Communications (OPEC). These
two new statements first appeared on the HDSP website on July 18, 2016. The new mission
statement emphasizes humane and safe supervision while providing the inmates meaningful
access to quality health care and treatment programming. The new mission and vision
statements are provided below.
Mission Statement
High Desert State Prison protects the public by providing humane and safe supervision of
offenders. We give offenders quality health care through meaningful encounters with licensed
medical, dental, and mental health practitioners, and aspire to improve patient satisfaction. We
offer our offender’s tools to effect change of culture, and inspire them to self-rehabilitate by
facilitating educational opportunities, re-entry services, recreational activities, and leisure time
activity group programs to reduce recidivism.
Vision Statement
Create a smart and healthy atmosphere for employees to work in, for offenders to safely serve
their sentences as they gain a skill-set to reintegrate successfully back into society, and
promote positive change in behavior while incarcerated. We commit to provide employees with
proper training, tools, and equipment; develop ideas and collaboration between all High Desert
State Prison departments and outside stakeholders. Our goal is to expose our offenders to as
many rehabilitative services they want to avail themselves to; as we recognize many of today’s
offenders will be tomorrow’s neighbor. Affect communities across the State of California
through progressive thinking from within our secured perimeter.
The CDCR provided numerous outside resources to assist Warden Spearman and his staff in
supporting the mission and operation of HDSP. In December 2015 a Wardens Peer Audit Team
was sent to HDSP to review adherence to agency policy and procedure and to make

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 43 of 115

September 23, 2016

recommendations to Warden Spearman in all areas found out of compliance. The team
included experienced corrections officials from all the major disciplines within the Department.
Warden David Long heads the team. The team consists of the following members.
David Long, Warden CAC
Jenna Castro, Associate Warden - COR
Robert Davis, Associate Warden - Mental Health Compliance Team
John Hunter, Associate Warden — SCC
Marcus Pollard, Associate Warden - CAL
Edward Vasconcellos, Associate Warden - HSM
Jim Robertson, Chief - Classification Services Unit
Minh Voong, Chief - Inmate Appeals
Gabe Vela, CEA - Office of the Ombudsman
Joe Stewart, Captain - SAC
Jeanne Nichols, ERO - SATF
Dianna Snow, IJOF Coordinator – NKSP
The team has made on site visits to HDSP in December 2015, January 2016, and May 2016.
The team is scheduled to make another on site visit to HDSP in August 2016. The team
developed a corrective action plan for all non-compliant operational areas that the
administration of HDSP has successfully completed and implemented.
In addition to the Wardens Peer Audit Team, the CDCR executive administration deployed a
Resource Team consisting of an associate warden, a captain, and a lieutenant to HDSP to
assist the warden in implementing the corrective action plan and other duties as assigned by
the warden. The Resource Team is still on site and actively working under the direction of
Warden Spearman providing coaching and mentoring to the supervisory staff.
An additional corrective action plan was developed based on issues raised in the December
2015 OIG report. The warden, chief deputy, and senior staff are working to implement those
corrective action items that are within their purview. Fifty-two specific recommendations were
developed for implementation in the OIG Corrective Action Plan. A review of the status of these
corrective action items revealed that seven recommendations are fully implemented, six
recommendations are partially implemented, thirty recommendations are listed as pending, six
recommendations are shown as not implemented, and three recommendations have no status
designation.
The OIG Corrective Action Plan provided to the ASCA assessment team for review was dated
December 16, 2015. The status designations for each of the recommendations in the CAP were
valid up to mid-April 2016 when the report was furnished to ASCA for review prior to the cultural
assessment examination in July 2016. Both the warden and chief deputy indicated to the
assessment team that continuing progress toward full implementation of the recommendations
was ongoing and a high priority for them.
The executive administration of the CDCR also temporarily reassigned three experienced
lieutenants to investigate the allegations in the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report. They
arrived in mid-May 2016 and finished their assignment in mid-June.
Cultural sensitivity trainers were also dispatched to HDSP by the CDCR executive
administration to train all employees. This training was scheduled and conducted at HDSP as a
direct result of the allegations in the OIG report.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 44 of 115

September 23, 2016

A $1,050,000 camera project is also underway at HDSP. The cameras will provide visual
coverage of all the common areas in B Yard and other locations within the facility that are
lacking visual coverage now. The cameras will record video and audio and store the images
with the audio for 90 days. This is a significant security enhancement that will assist in
providing a safe and secure environment for the staff and the inmates.
It is clear that the CDCR executive administration is providing whatever additional resources
Warden Spearman requires to carry out his new mission and vision statements to the fullest
extent possible.
Warden Spearman and Chief Deputy Foss are committed to operating a safe and secure
institution. That commitment came through loud and clear through conversations with the
warden and chief deputy and from direct observations of the ASCA assessment team.
2. Policy and Procedure
The assigned task in reference to the Policy and Procedure questions about the High Desert
State Prison (HDSP) was to determine the extent to which facility policy and procedure comply
with California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy and the extent to
which staff follow those policies and procedures. Kimberly Jennings is the Analyst for DOM/OP
and ACA, and provided the following items and documents for review:
-Department Operations Manual (DOM)
-HDSP Policy and Procedures Manual
-Sampling of Post Orders
In summary, the Department Operations Manual (DOM) and the Local Operational Procedures
(OPs) are written consistent with California Code of Regulations, and are consistent with
national standards for correctional policy. The CDCR and the HDSP prison subscribe to the
Standards of the American Corrections Association, and follow the audit standards of the
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. As a result, they HDSP policies and Institution
Supplements are written in very good form. The Department establishes the schedule for
review, and the HDSP follows that schedule. The Policy Manager, Ms. Jennings is well
organized and knowledgeable in the area of policy. She works with the staff and leadership to
continually review, update, train and distribute information about policy changes. There were no
problems noted in this area of independent assessment.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been involved with the
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections for many years, and as a result the CDCR policies
are written in compliance with the ACA Standards, which is consistent with the national
standards. The Commission currently accredits the HDSP and it’s policies and procedures are
well organized, and there is a solid system of review and revision throughout the year. Different
staff has responsibility for a number of policies and Local Operational Procedures (OPs), and
Ms. Jennings schedules each one individually so that each manager’s list of policies/procedures
to review are reviewed throughout the year. The CDCR has the Department Operations Manual
(DOM), which is the guidance for all policies. The DOM is consistent with the California Code of
Regulations.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 45 of 115

September 23, 2016

The Institution Supplements, or OPs are for the facilities, and they are written consistent with
the DOM. In some cases the Department directs the institution to draft a local procedure for a
program, and other times they are sent the policy to implement. Other guidance is given
through Warden’s Directives and Memos.
The operational procedures are written in compliance with the facility policies and are reviewed
on an annual basis, or more often if needed. The review of the OPs is during the same time
frame as the review of the Department’s policies.
A check was made to determine if the practice of the employees was always consistent with the
written OPs or Policy. In the majority of cases the practice was consistent with the procedures
at HDSP. However, in a couple of cases there were exceptions. For example, there was some
confusion on different watches regarding the items the ASCA team members were allowed to
bring into the facility, and where they would sign.
There are a few exceptional cases that have been recognized by the administration where a
practice is being conducted without basis in policy. One case is the Alert Response to Code 1’s
either at HDSP or at its neighboring facility, CCC. If a Code 1 is called at CCC, the typical
response from HDSP is to send many officers from several HDSP yards to CCC. We learned
that this practice is under review. The same is true for the response from one HDSP yard to
another, where for example we observed two sergeants deciding among themselves, which one
would respond. We understand that when officers sign for their post orders, it specifies whether
they are a first responder or not.
Other examples occurred at the facility entrance, both at the front gate, and the traffic gate that
allows entrance into the facility. In some cases, on different watches, the officer may not have
been clear on which pass needed to be issued. In some cases at the front gate, people by
name are logged in, and at other times they are not.
All CDCR DOM’s are reviewed on an annual basis as are the facility OPs and Institution
Supplements. The facility OPs review is scheduled throughout the year, and there are seven
managers at HDSP who manage all the OPs. The Analyst tracks the OPs and they are all
reviewed and updated each year.
Post orders are written in accordance with the procedures, and are reviewed by the Analyst.
3. Facility Management
HDSP is comprised of two Complexes each of which contains two Facilities / Yards (Complex 1
contains A and B Facilities, while Complex 2 contains C and D Facilities), a Correctional
Treatment Center (Medical Unit), Z Unit (Short-term restrictive housing) and E Yard (Level 1
facility). The chain of command for security staff is: Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, Associate
Warden (Complex 1, Complex 2, Operations), Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, and Correction
Officer.
Three associate wardens oversee all security operations. One oversees Complex 1, another
oversees Complex 2 and one oversees Operations. Each of the four facilities, Operations, and
Health Care are assigned a captain. The Facility D Captain also oversees Z Unit. Lieutenants
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 46 of 115

September 23, 2016

are assigned as shift supervisors in each facility, Z Unit, Operations, and Health Care.
Sergeants are assigned as first line supervisors in each facility, Z Unit, Health Care, and
Operations areas such as the Central Kitchen, R&R, Visiting, Security & Escort, and Unit
Control Booths. E Unit falls under the supervision of the Operations Captain and Lieutenants,
with a sergeant providing onsite supervisory coverage.
While the number of supervisors and overall span of control structure at HDSP is certainly
adequate and comparable to what is found in other jurisdictions, the actual supervision of staff is
inadequate. HDSP appears to have a sufficient number of appropriately assigned supervisors;
however, there appears to be very little management by walking around at HDSP.
Direct observation of and communication with line staff by supervisory staff is significantly
lacking. Supervisors are required to conduct regular facility tours and document those tours in
the unit logbook using red ink. Captains are required to tour monthly, lieutenants are required to
tour weekly, and sergeants are required to tour daily. Facility tours by supervisors were found to
be inconsistent. In reviewing a limited number of logbooks, sergeant signatures were observed
in red ink on most days and most shifts; however, because the times noted in the logbooks were
fairly close together, it is unlikely that thorough and complete unit tours are being conducted.
It appears that captains and lieutenant rarely conduct tours. In the small number of logbooks
reviewed, signatures of captains and lieutenants were not observed. This was communicated by
staff during interviews and focus groups and observed first hand by team members. This may
be due, at least in part, to the fact that captains attend a large number of meetings, which
significantly reduces the amount of time they are in their facilities. Lieutenants and sergeants
reportedly have a large volume of paperwork to complete on a daily basis including Level 1
appeals and incident report packages. Lieutenants are required to conduct disciplinary hearings
for less serious rules violations committed in their facilities.
Officers are not being supervised sufficiently to ensure that they are consistently following policy
and procedures. Lieutenants and sergeants were rarely observed out of their offices. As an
example: Officers assigned to supervise inmates in the recreation yard were observed
congregating away from the inmates. Policy requires officers to walk the yard in pairs and
conduct random pat downs. This was not observed. Sergeants were rarely observed in the
yards and therefore not available to ensure that policy and procedures are being implemented
properly.
While supervisor offices are located within each facility, allowing for a quick response when
necessary, supervisors do little proactive supervision of officers or inmates. They mainly react to
incidents.
There appears to be very little effective communication between supervisors and subordinates
at HDSP. The Warden conducts a morning meeting each weekday with associate wardens,
captains and other management staff. Associate wardens and captains are required to pass on
pertinent information from these meetings to lieutenants and sergeants that report to them.
Lieutenants and sergeants are required to conduct daily staff meetings each day with officers in
their chain of command. While these daily staff meetings were noted on facility activity
schedules, they rarely occur and were not observed during the assessment by any team
member.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 47 of 115

September 23, 2016

Lack of verbal communication was a major complaint made by line supervisors and officers.
Lieutenants stated that captains are rarely in their facilities on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Thursdays due to meetings. Lieutenants and sergeants were rarely observed outside of the
program offices. Supervisors appear to be “desk bound” and complain that they have too much
daily paperwork to complete.
The primary method for staff communication at HDSP is email. New and revised polices, as
well as other pertinent facility information is sent to all staff via email. The majority of staff
indicated that they rarely check their email.
All supervisors, and most importantly lieutenants and sergeants, need to be more visible to staff
and inmates. They should conduct tours as prescribed by existing policy and be present in
housing units and recreation areas monitoring facility climate and supervising officers.
Communication between line staff and supervisors could be improved significantly through more
regular and frequent tours of housing units and recreation/programming areas by supervisors.
The amount of meetings and time spent in meetings by supervisors should be reduced. It
appears that captains spend an inordinate amount of time in meetings away from their facilities.
Captains should be in their facilities ensuring that lieutenants and sergeants are getting out of
their offices to supervise staff and monitor the facility climate.
All supervisors could benefit from time management training. This is something that, if not
already part of new supervisor training, should be included. The fact that new supervisors do
not attend new supervisor training immediately upon promotion exacerbates their lack of ability
to manage time. Lieutenants and sergeants appear to have a large volume of paperwork to
complete on a daily basis. This is magnified in facilities with a higher incident rate, as incident
report packages and use of force packages are extensive.
HDSP should enforce the existing policy of daily staff meetings in facilities. These meetings do
not appear to take place on any watch. Enforcing this policy would go a long way in ensuring
good communication up and down the chain of command.
4. Use of Force
The ASCA assessment team reviewed the CDCR Use of Force policy found in Chapter 5,
Article 2 of the Department Operations Manual. It was noted by the assessment team that the
latest revisions to the policy were made in January 2016. The revisions were made to conform
with recent changes to the Department’s regulations (Title 15) regarding Use of Force. These
revisions further the efforts of the Department to comply with the Madrid court rulings regarding
the Statewide Use of Force plan, and also provide further compliance with the Coleman court
rulings for mental health considerations.
The Department’s Use of Force policy is comprehensive, well conceived and written, and
definitely in line with contemporary national standards. The policy is regularly reviewed and
changes to the policy are made in accordance to the Department’s policy governing policy
changes. It should be noted that HDSP recently underwent an American Correctional

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 48 of 115

September 23, 2016

Association (ACA) reaccreditation review and the Use of Force policy was reviewed as part of
that process. The ACA reaccreditation team found no issues with the Department’s Use of
Force policy.
The Department’s Training Academy provides more than adequate use of force training for its’
cadets. An outline of the academy curriculum either directly or indirectly related to use of force
is as follows:
Application of Restraint Gear
Cell Extraction
Chemical Agents
Emergency Operations Plan/Alarm Response
Expandable Baton
Firearms Familiarization/Qualification
Impact Munitions/Assuming an Armed Post
Use of Force Policy

6 Hours
7 Hours
10 Hours
30 Hours
20 Hours
60 Hours
16 Hours
8 Hours

The training academy devotes 157 hours to the courses listed above. That calculates to 24% of
the 640-hour coursework on use of force related topics.
Additionally, experienced officers that are required to receive annual training get the following
courses:
Communication/De-escalation Techniques
Use of Force/Forum
Baton
Annual Impact
Annual Mini 14
Annual .38
Impact Munitions/Armed Post
Chemical Agents
Controlled UOF
Alarm Response

2 Hours
3 Hours
2 Hours
1 Hour
1 Hour
1 Hour
1 Hour
1 Hour
1 Hour
1 Hour

These courses total fourteen hours of use of force training that is given to experienced
correctional officers as part of their required in-service training.
The latest COMPSTAT statistics reviewed by the ASCA assessment team on use of force by
the ten Level IV facilities shows that HDSP use of incidents fall within the mid or lower-range of
these facilities. HDSP averaged 43.15 use of force incidents per month compared to the
average of 52.48 for all ten Level IV institutions. That statistic places them fourth lowest in use
of force incidents out of the ten facilities in this comparison group. When you compare HDSP
with the other Level IV institutions in use of force incidents per 100 inmates, HDSP is rated at
1.24 versus the group average of 1.60. Once again this analytic puts HDSP fourth out of ten
similar facilities. The COMPSTAT numbers show HDSP to be below average in use of force
incidents as well as use of force incidents per 100 inmates.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 49 of 115

September 23, 2016

Once a use of force incident has occurred, the participating correctional officers and witnesses
to the incident must fill out UOF statements before the end of their watch and present them to
their sergeant or the designated Response Supervisor. It is the Response Supervisor’s
responsibility to check and verify that the packet is complete. If further clarification is needed,
the Response Supervisor sends the author a Clarification Request form for the additional
information. The completed UOF packet is then forwarded to the yard lieutenant for review.
The lieutenant performs an Incident Commander’s Review that is an abridged version of the
complete UOF packet.
Once the lieutenant completes his review it goes to the yard captain for the Manager’s First
Level Review. The yard captain then forwards the packet to the Associate Warden of the two
yards who does the next review called the Manager’s Review-Second Level. After the Second
Level Review the incident/use of force packet is sent to the UOF Coordinators Office. The UOF
Coordinator’s Office reviews the packet for completeness and sends it forward to the
Institutional Executive Review Committee (IREC). Packets must be reviewed by the IERC no
more than 30 days after the date of the incident. The warden or chief deputy chairs the IERC
with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) representative present along with an UOF
Coordinator. These meetings occur every Friday.
The reviewing lieutenant, captain, and associate warden will make a written recommendation on
the legitimacy of the UOF in question as part of the packet going forward. The UOF Coordinator
will then review the completed UOF packet and also make a recommendation on the validity of
the force utilized. The reviewing lieutenant, captain, or associate warden also has the option of
sending the packet for further review to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) or the Investigative
Services Units (ISU). If the warden has a question about an individual use of force incident, he
can refer the case for further investigation to the OIA or ISU. All UOF cases are considered
closed once the warden signs off at the weekly meeting.
The ASCA assessment team sat in on the weekly IERC meeting and directly observed the
warden ask pertinent questions about each case before him. The warden also watched all Use
of Force videos for each case as well as video interviews with inmates involved in each use of
force action being reviewed. The review process was thorough and held in accordance with the
UOF policy. If a UOF case needs further review from outside the facility, it is referred to the
Departmental Executive Review Committee (DERC) for their consideration.
If an officer is found by the warden to have violated the use of force policy, the warden will
sanction the officer. The sanction is determined by the officer discipline matrix that gives a
range of punishments for the offense, the seriousness of the violation, and the number of times
the individual officer has been sanctioned in the past. The Employee Relations Officer will call
the individual officer to her office and inform him/her of the warden’s finding.
The ASCA assessment team found that the use of force policy and review process is being
carried out in accordance with the controlling policy.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 50 of 115

September 23, 2016

5. Staff Training
The task in the independent assessment of staff training was to determine if the In Service
Training (IST) at the High Desert State Prison was meeting national standards and if the training
was delivered according to prescribed lesson plans. Records of the staff that were required to
attend were reviewed to determine if they attended. In particular the training was assessed
relative to use of force, management of special populations, diversity and PREA. The following
documents were reviewed with the Training Officer, Lt James Crandall:
-CDCR Annual Training Plan (ATP)
-HDSP Training schedule
-Lesson plan files
-Instructor qualifications and certifications
-Attendance rosters and verifications of each employees training
The High Desert State Prison (HDSP) meets the national standards
profession. The CDCR produces an Annual Training Plan (ATP), which
facilities with instructions to plan their training accordingly. The times and
within the purview of the facility; however, the topics that the facilities are
and the hours for each topic are mandatory.

recognized by
is distributed to
places to attend
required to train

the
the
are
on,

Lt Crandall is well established as the Training Officer, and meets all the qualifications to be the
Trainer. He is a Master Trainer, and as such, can oversee the critical topics such as Use of
Force, PREA, and Defensive Tactics. His training as a Master Trainer qualifies him to certify
other instructors that meet the Department’s standards. All instructors giving instruction at
HDSP are certified.
The training schedule for the HDSP is consistent with the CDCR’s ATP. All topics required on
the ATP are covered by the facility’s training schedule. Schedules were reviewed for
correctional staff and support staff, and it was apparent that every one received the required
training, and if for some reason they missed a class, records indicated that they attended a
make-up class with the next cycle. Attendance is taken for all employees attending the training.
Correctional officers sign in on a payroll form, and the support and administrative staff sign in on
the Form 844. If an officer misses a class, the Training Officer redirects that individual to
another training forum, and his days off are adjusted, if necessary.
Diversity training with the inmate population was provided for HDSP as a pilot several months
ago. It was in response to the OIG report and is being considered to start again in 2017 for all
facilities. Initially, the Department scheduled a training program for employees at HDSP and
sent trainers from Sacramento for a three-week period. HDSP was to get as many people
trained as possible in the period. There were a total of 961 employees trained, with over 600 of
those being custody staff. After the three week training, there was no more training on Diversity
in the Department. Lt Crandall felt the training was received with some reluctance. Lt Crandall
thinks that the training may pick up for all institutions next year.
The Use of Force training at HDSP is consistent with the CDCR’s Operations Manual (DOM)
and consistent with the national standards for prisons and jails. There are four certified Use of

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 51 of 115

September 23, 2016

Force Instructors at HDSP. All employees at HDSP, with the exception of a few managers, are
given the Use of Force training annually.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) training is a part of the On-the-Job-Training (OJT) and
is given on-line. It is a one-hour class and is required training for all employees, and a passing
score is required. Next year it will become a two-hour class.
Several employees’ training records were reviewed that indicated that on-line classes require
that they be taken until passed. PREA, Use of Force, Lethal Force, Alarm Response, and CPR
are all on-line classes. Other In Service Training (IST) is tested periodically to insure retention
is adequate.
A well-administered training program in a prison facility is key to long term success, as well as
employee satisfaction and safety. The training program at the High Desert State Prison is a
well-administered training program. Lt Crandall is alert to the needs and schedules of the
employees and insures that if training is missed, that make-up is coordinated with the watch
supervisor and the correctional staff are redirected to accomplish the training, adjusting days off,
if necessary.
Lt Crandall is a Master Trainer, and certified by the CDCR as such. He takes his job very
seriously and has a very good program that serves the High Desert State Prison and it’s
employees very well. It should be noted that conversations with the staff about the training and
it’s quality seemed to vary from officer to officer depending on the amount of time they had been
working at the HDSP. The ones who were new to the facility were very pleased with the
manner in which they had been accepted into the work force, and commented about the good
training they had received. Other officers of longer tenure felt the training was repetitive and not
of value, especially the training regarding PREA, and other mandated training blocks.
6. Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process
The HDSP appeals process is consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Article 8,
Appeals, and CDCR Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Article 53, Inmate/Parolee
Appeals. HDSP does not have a separate facility specific policy for inmate appeals; however,
HDSP does have a Department Operations Manual Supplement #54100 that provides specific
direction regarding the inmate appeals process at HDSP.
The inmate appeal process at HDSP is comparable to those found in other jurisdictions that
have good inmate appeals processes. The process provides for accountability in the
submission, collection and resolution of appeals and inmates are provided written notification of
submitted appeals and the resolution of those appeals. A number of other jurisdictions require
an inmate to attempt to resolve their issue through an informal process prior to submitting a
formal appeal. CDCR had such an informal process in place until approximately four years ago.
Upon admission to HDSP, inmates are provided a copy of the HDSP Inmate Orientation Manual
and CCR Title 15. The Inmate Orientation Manual contains a section entitled, Appeal
Procedures (DOM Section 54100, and CCR, Title 15 Section 3084 through 3085), which clearly
outlines the appeal process.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 52 of 115

September 23, 2016

The process for inmates to submit appeals at HDSP is consistent with the policy. Inmate appeal
forms (CDCR Form 602) are readily accessible to inmates in all housing units. Inmates in locked
units can request a From 602 from line staff. Once Form 602 is completed, inmates that have
access to the dayroom can deposit the form in the locked Inmate Appeal boxes. Inmates that
are housed in locked units can hand the Form 602 to the Appeals Office staff person during
their daily (M-F) unit tour. Additionally, inmates can submit the Form 602 via inter-facility mail.
All appeal forms (602) that are placed in the locked Inmate Appeal boxes located in each
housing unit are collected daily (M-F) by an Appeals Office staff member. That staff member
records the number of appeals collected in each unit in the unit’s logbook, along with the time
and their signature. The keys to the locks on the Inmate Appeal boxes are included on the
Appeals Office staff restricted keysets, which are drawn daily from a secure control center. No
other staff is authorized to draw these keys.
All submitted and collected appeals are brought to the Appeals Office where staff date stamp
each appeal and record them in an electronic log. Each Form 602 is assigned a sequential
number. The date stamp and sequential number are used to track the appeal through the
appeal process in order to ensure time frames are met in accordance policy. For appeals that
are accepted, the inmate submitting the appeal is sent, via inter-facility mail, an assignment
notice that includes the appeal number. For appeals that are rejected (screened out), the inmate
is sent, via inter-facility mail, an Appeal Screen-Out Form 695.
Inmates receive notice of disposition for appeals filed at Level 1 and Level 2 directly from the
Inmate Appeals Office. Notice of disposition for appeals filed at Level 3 are mailed to inmates
directly from the CDCR Office of Appeals.
Inmates that wish to make a staff complaint can submit the complaint using an appeal form
(602). Appeals Office staff meets weekly with the Warden and Chief Deputy Warden to review
all appeals submitted as staff complaints to determine if they are in fact staff complaints. Those
that are determined to be staff complaints are routed for investigation. Those that are not
determined to be staff complaints are routed through the regular appeal process.
Inmates that were interviewed either during recreation periods or as part of the IAC believe the
process to be fair. In fact, the inmate appeal process at HDSP appears to be extremely fair.
HDSP exceeds the requirements of the CDCR policy for inmate appeals with regards to
adherence to submission timeframes and limiting inmate abuse of the process.
Appeals Office staff at HDSP screen out fewer appeals than any other CDCR Level 4 facility.
Appeals that, by CDCR policy, could be screened out due to being filed outside of time frame
limitations are almost always accepted and processed at HDSP. In conversations with Appeals
Office staff, they indicated that this liberal approach to enforcing time frame limitations is in part
due to the criticism and scrutiny that the prison had been the subject.
Additionally, the CDCR policy allows for those inmates that submit appeals in excess of what
the policy allows (1 every 14 days) to be considered for having restrictions imposed (1 every 30
days). HDSP Appeals Office staff stated they have several inmates who submit multiple
appeals each week; however, for a facility with an inmate census of approximately 3,800, there
were no inmates on appeal restrictions during the assessment.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 53 of 115

September 23, 2016

With regards to the inmate appeal process in general, staff believe the process is fair. However,
where staff feels the process is not fair to them is in regard to the staff complaint process. The
general consensus among staff is that they believe investigations regarding complaints lodged
by inmates against staff are initiated far too often based solely on an inmate’s allegation absent
any corroborating evidence.
There appears to be too much redundant review in the appeal process at HDSP. As an
example, approximately 40 Level 2 appeal packages are sent daily to the CDW for review and
sign off. Once the CDW signs off on these packages, they are then returned to one of the two
the CCII’s in the Appeals Office for another review. With the volume of work that the CDW has
in addition to reviewing Level 2 appeal packages, the review is cursory at best. Occasional
errors have been found by the CCII’s.
According to the COMPSTAT Statistical Report provided by HDSP staff, the prison received an
average of 450 inmate appeals per month during the 13-month period ending April 2016 with an
average of 2 appeals being overdue in any one month (less than one-half of 1%).
As far as recommendations, with regards to the review of appeals at HDSP, they may want to
consider using a similar process that they currently use for staff complaint reviews. This process
would involve the CCIIs being present when the CDW reviews the Level 2 appeals, providing a
brief oral summary of the issue and it’s proposed resolution, followed by the CDW signing off on
the agreed upon resolution. This process would eliminate some of the redundancy that the
facility currently has built into the process.
A number of other jurisdictions require an inmate to attempt to resolve their issue through an
informal process prior to submitting a formal appeal. CDCR had such an informal process in
place until approximately four years ago. An informal process can generally resolve many less
significant issues, such as those related to property, without the involvement of the Appeals
Office.
HDSP should work toward adhering to the letter of the CDCR inmate appeal policy. There are a
large number of appeals that are accepted at HDSP that would most likely be screened out at
other Level 4 prisons. By not screening out these appeals, the HDSP Appeals Office is straining
their resources and the resources of other staff that are involved in the processing of Level 1
and 2 appeals.
7. Inmate Discipline Process
The HDSP inmate discipline process is consistent with California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 15, Article 5, Inmate Discipline, and CDCR Department Operations Manual Chapter 5,
Article 23, Inmate Discipline. HDSP does not have a separate facility specific policy for inmate
discipline; however, HDSP does have a Department Operations Manual Supplement #52080
that provides specific direction regarding the inmate discipline process at HDSP. The inmate
discipline process at HDSP is consistent with the discipline process found in comparable
jurisdictions

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 54 of 115

September 23, 2016

Upon admission to HDSP, inmates are provided a copy of the HDSP Inmate Orientation Manual
and CCR Title 15. The Inmate Orientation Manual directs inmates to familiarize themselves with
Title 15, Article 5, Inmate Discipline.
The disciplinary process at HDSP affords inmates due process. It provides inmates the
opportunity to attend a hearing, provides them documentation of the charges against them and
the findings subsequent to a hearing. It provides inmates an opportunity to provide a defense, to
call witnesses and have an employee assist them in their defense. The inmate disciplinary
process at HDSP further ensures that inmates subject to disciplinary action are screened for
mental health issues and the ability to understand the charges against them. In cases where a
mental health clinician determines the inmate’s mental health status played a role in the rules
violation, the rules violation report is dismissed.
Each step of the inmate discipline process at HDSP is well documented with written notifications
of charges, hearing dates, and adjudicated findings provided to the inmate and maintained in a
disciplinary file. Several inmate disciplinary files were reviewed and documents inspected to
confirm inmate notifications were made in accordance with disciplinary guidelines. Additionally,
inmate disciplinary hearings were attended and the involved inmates acknowledged they had
received written documentation of their charges and hearing dates.
Disciplinary hearings are conducted by HDSP Lieutenants. One Senior Hearing Officer (SHO)
at the rank of lieutenant adjudicates disciplinary infractions for the most serious rules violations.
Facility lieutenants adjudicate disciplinary infractions for less serious rules violations committed
within their facility.
A senior lieutenant trained in the disciplinary hearings process provides initial disciplinary
hearing training for newly appointed lieutenants. The training involves the newly appointed
lieutenant observing several disciplinary hearings being conducted. The newly appointed
lieutenant then conducts several disciplinary hearings under the observation of the lieutenant
providing the training. The lieutenant providing the training then signs off on a document
certifying the training was completed.
The inmate discipline process at HDSP appears to be fair. Data collected regarding inmate
discipline at HDSP does not include the inmate’s race. Data provided through CDCR
Headquarters for a period of approximately five months shows that black inmates are 1.4 times
more likely to receive a disciplinary rules infraction than inmates of other races as shown in the
table below:
Inmate
#
Of %
Of
Race
Inmates*
Census
Hispanic
1,830
50%
Black
956
26%
White
676
18%
Other
218
6%
*Census of 3,680 inmates on 7/25/16
**From 3/1 – 7/22/16
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 55 of 115

#
Of % Of
RVRs**
RVRs
319
37%
326
37%
170
19%
57
7%

Total

September 23, 2016

Based on the limited data in the above table, it would appear that the discipline process at
HDSP is not consistently applied in terms of race. However, both staff and inmates interviewed
either through one-on-one interviews or in groups believed the inmate discipline process to be
fair and consistently applied without any racial bias.
It is recommended that HDSP consider including inmate race in the disciplinary data that they
collect, and monitor that data over time to determine if race is a factor in the application of the
disciplinary process.
8. Staff Complaint Process
The inmate staff complaint process is covered in Chapter 5/Article 53 of the CDCR Department
of Operations Manual entitled Inmate/Parolee Appeals. The inmate staff complaint process is
specifically located in Section 54100.25 of the above referenced policy. HDSP recently
underwent an ACA reaccreditation review and this policy was reviewed under the Inmate Rights
section of the ACA standards that apply to this facility. The ACA reviewers found that the policy
was in compliance with the ACA standard and thus met contemporary national standards.
The ASCA assessment team looked at the inmate staff complaint review process to see if a
cultural bias could be determined. The ASCA assessors could not make this determination
because the facility does not track the race of the inmate complainant or the officer who is the
subject of the complaint.
High Desert State Prison does not compare very favorably with the other nine Level IV facilities
in regards to the number of inmate staff complaints filed beginning in May 2015. Below listed
are the monthly totals of staff complaints filed at HDSP. The average number of inmate staff
complaints for HDSP per month from May 2015 through May 2016 is 36 as compared to an
average of 20 for the other Level IV facilities during the same time period. These figures were
obtained from the latest COMPSTAT report provided to the ASCA assessment team for our
review.
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016

20
21
30
28
35
21
29
46
49
46
59
42
38

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 56 of 115

September 23, 2016

The Appeals coordinating staff believes the spike that began in December 2015 is directly
attributable to the issuance of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report. The Appeals
staff reported that many of the inmate staff complaints contained language direct from that
report.
The hiring authority or warden at HDSP reviews all inmate staff complaints weekly. The warden
makes a determination whether the complaint should be processed as a staff complaint or
reclassified to another category such as a property complaint for example. A reclassification is
routine if no evidence is presented in the complaint to suggest staff misconduct. The ASCA
assessment team sat in on the weekly staff complaint appeals meeting and directly observed
the warden in consultation with the chief deputy and the Appeals coordinator as they reviewed
eleven inmate staff complaints. Of the eleven staff complaints considered, the warden classified
four as staff complaints and forwarded them to the OIA for further investigation. The other
seven complaints were reclassified to other categories more appropriate to the stated complaint.
The warden asked thoughtful questions about each complaint and deliberated with the chief
deputy before making a final determination. The ASCA assessment team found the review
process to be very thorough and in accordance with the aforementioned controlling policy.
If the complaint is referred to the OIA for further investigation, the Appeals coordinator will notify
the complainant of the referral. The Appeals coordinator will handle the transfer of the
complaint with all relevant documentation with the request for investigation to the OIA. Once
the investigation is completed by the OIA, the complainant will be notified of the outcome.
9. Investigations and Staff Discipline
As part of the Independent Assessment of the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) requested by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), this evaluation of the Staff
Discipline procedures at the HDSP was conducted to determine the quality and effectiveness of
the staff discipline process.
The following items and documents were requested and received prior to the evaluation
discussion and review.
-CDCR policy on investigations and staff discipline
-HDSP policy and procedure on staff investigations
-Training records and certifications of investigators
-Actions taken on employees as a result of investigation
Ramona Schlauch, Staff Services Manager is the facility Employee Relations Officer (ERO) and
manages the process of staff discipline.
The process at High Desert State Prison follows the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Department Operations Manual (DOM) and is consistent with California Code of
Regulations.
Events that occur in the facility are initially investigated at the Unit level, and may be resolved
there. Or, they may be appealed, if it is an inmate complaint. In that case, they are referred to

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 57 of 115

September 23, 2016

the weekly Appeals meeting. As a result of the Appeals meeting, the complaint, if for officer
misconduct, may be handled directly by the Warden, or referred to the Institution Security Unit
(ISU) or directly to the Department’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA).
If referred to the ISU, a packet will be prepared by them for the Warden’s signature, and then
sent to the OIA. The OIA will investigate and when concluded, refer the information to the ERO
for disposition. The ERO will conduct a “402/403” conference and the Warden will determine
guilt or innocence. If guilty, the warden will determine the correct level of punishment. The
employee may appeal and have a Skelly hearing. If not satisfied, the employee may appeal to
the State Personnel Board.
If found guilty of the charges filed against the employee, the hiring authority, or the High Desert
State Prison Warden in this case, will make the determination of sanctions against the
employee. The sanctions are prescribed according to the level of malfeasance, and the Warden
uses the Employee Discipline Matrix to determine the correct level of punishment.
Investigators at the HDSP conduct investigations on employees; however, their investigations
do not result in findings or recommendations. Other investigations on employees are by
conducted by the Department’s Office of Internal Affairs. And similarly, they also only present
facts to the hiring authority, not conclusions or recommendations.
The facility investigators are CDCR employees and office at the facility. The Department’s OIA
investigators do not have an office at High Desert State Prison.
California law requires that subjects of investigations be notified periodically as to the status of
the investigation. CDCR and HDSP follow the law in this respect. However, it was noted that in
some of the high profile cases in the last year or so, the employees were notified one day prior
to the one-year limit. As in most cases of investigations, there are delays and employees are
not always notified at the earliest time.
In summary, the investigations that are conducted on employees at the High Desert State
Prison are done within the guidelines of the CDCR, and are consistent with California law. In all
of the conversations with employees during the two weeks we were visiting the prison, there
was not one complaint or issue regarding the process of investigations and staff discipline.
Although Ms. Schlauch was fairly new in her position, she was well read on the procedures, and
followed the policy and procedure very well.
10. Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation
Inmate Job Assignments
The task assigned to the ASCA assessment team was to determine the availability and types,
and the process for assignment and diversity in assignments. The following items were
reviewed to aid in making this determination:
-Wait List for Job Assignment
-Observe inmates at work assignment

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 58 of 115

September 23, 2016

The process by which inmates at the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) are assigned to a job is
one that requires that within 14 days of arrival at HDSP, inmates be processed through an Initial
Unit Classification Committee (IUCC).
The function of this committee is for custody
classification and program/work assignment. Upon review of inmates’ record, risk needs
assessments, TABE scores and release date, inmates are placed on a wait list for work
assignment. Once the inmate is placed on the list, the assignment officer will assign inmates to
jobs according to their relative position on the wait list.
There are several job assignments available to inmates on each facility / yard, and several more
in areas such as maintenance, food service, and institution grounds. For a detailed list of all job
types see Work Assignment by Race.
For each job assignment, there are a several slots, ranging from one to 15 on the three
watches. For a detailed list of number of slots for each job, see Work Assignment by Race.
The HDSP employs a lieutenant who has the responsibility of assigning inmates to available
jobs. During the interview with the assignment officer, he revealed that he makes a valiant effort
to maintain an ethnic balance to achieve diversity in assignments.
All assignments show the percentage filled by each ethnic group. For a detailed list see Work
Assignment by Race.
Inmate Program Participation
The ASCA team was also asked to determine the availability and types as well as the process
for assignment and diversity in assignments. The below listed items were reviewed to assist in
making this determination:
-Program Rosters
-Wait List for Program
-Program Completion Rosters
The process for assigning inmates to programs is very similar to the job assignment process.
Within 14 days of arrival at HDSP, inmates go through an Initial Unit Classification Committee
(IUCC) for custody, work/program assignment. Upon review of inmates’ record, risk needs
assessments, TABE scores, and release date, inmates are placed on a wait list for program
assignment. Once on the list, then the assignment officer will assign the inmate based on his
priority release date and his custody level.
There are five (5) broad program categories: ILTAGS (self-help) operated by volunteers;
education, vocational tech (auto body, auto painting, and building maintenance), re-entry hub,
and Cal-PIA, the California Prison Industry program.
The core of the re-entry hub programming is Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT)
programming, an evidenced-based program designed for inmates who have a moderate-to-high
risk to reoffend as assessed by the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), and who have
an assessed criminogenic need, as identified by the Correctional Offender Management
Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). The following groups are offered in the re-entry
hub programs: Anger Management, Criminal Thinking, Family Relations, and Substance Abuse.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 59 of 115

September 23, 2016

There are a number of slots available for the CBT programs:
Anger Management-48 slots (24am/24pm)
Criminal Thinking-48 slots (24am/24pm)
Family Relations-48 slots (24am/24pm)
Substance Abuse-96 slots (48am only—one counselor position is vacant - for pm class)
Program Directors/Coordinators report that efforts are made to ensure that diversity in
assignments will occur. However, the data suggests that there is some degree of racial
disparity in program assignment. See the following Inmate Work Assignment Chart.

The Inmate Work Assignment Chart shows the overall percentage of program assignment by
ethnic group. The Re-entry Hub programs, education, vocational tech, and CAL-PIA programs
provided data that shows programs filled by race.
There was not sufficient data available on all the completions for all programs. The only
program that provided program completion by race was the Re-entry Hub Program. The data
provided was for July 1, 2015. See Table Program Completions From July 1, 2015.
Program Completions From July 1, 2015
Substance Abuse
Criminal Thinking

Anger Management

Black 4
Hispanic 17
White 12

Black 4
Hispanic 26
White 21

Black 7
Hispanic 33
White 12

Family
Relationships
Black 3
Hispanic 7
White 9

There were a number of days that inmates were precluded from attending programs due to
institutional lockdowns, or inmate unavailability. “Modified program” is when programs are not
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 60 of 115

September 23, 2016

running on their regular schedule due to some incident, as determined by HDSP leadership.
Data from the last seven-month period (Jan 1- July 19) indicate that part of HDSP was on a
modified program schedule for 154 days. This is a significant amount of time, and prevents
inmates from being involved in programs that would be valuable in their institutional adjustment
and release planning. See Table HDSP MODIFIED PROGRAMS 2016:
HDSP MODIFIED PROGRAMS 2016
PSR NUMBER
HDP-B-16-001
HDP-B-16-002
HDP-C-16-003
HDP-D-16-004
HDP-C-16-005
HDP-B-16-006
HDP-D-16-007
HDP-B-16-008
HDP-D-16-009
HDP-B-16-010
HDP-D-16-011

PSR
START
1/2/2016
2/12/2016
2/12/2016
3/20/2016
3/20/2016
4/24/2016
5/6/2016
5/16/2016
5/27/2016
6/3/2016
6/10/2016

PSR END
1/27/2016
2/18/2016
2/22/2016
4/1/2016
4/4/2016
4/29/2016
5/26/2016
5/24/2016
6/23/2016
6/23/16
6/20/2016

LENGTH IN
DAYS
15
6
10
12
10
5
20
6
23
20
10

HDP-D-16-012
HDP-D-16-013
HDP-B-16-014
HDP-A-16-015

6/27/2016
7/1/2016
7/8/2016
7/19/16

7/5/2016
7/7/2016
7/8/2016
7/22/16

8
6
0
3

REASON
RIOT
RIOT
MISSING METAL
MISSING METAL
MISSING METAL
RIOT
BATTERY
LOST BADGE
RIOT
RIOT
ATTEMPTED MURDER
OF A PO
STAFF THREAT
STAFF THREAT
STAFF THREAT
STAFF THREAT

The two major reasons for inmates being removed from a program are Rule Violation Reports
and inmate disruption.
There is overall consistency in the process whereby inmates are placed in programs and on job
assignments. HDSP has a process that ensures that all inmates will go through the initial
classification process within 14 days of arrival. The correctional counselors on each yard
ensure that all inmates go through this process. HDSP has far more inmates than they have job
opportunities.
The process of all inmates going through Classification for job/program assignment is effective.
Additionally inmates are assessed on Risk-Needs Assessments (CSRA and COMPUS) are
appropriate for program assignment.
Risk Assessments are the standard bearer in getting inmates involved in programs; however,
HDSP simply does not have enough program slots for inmates who measure as most in need.
All of the inmates interviewed individually or those who were in discussion groups expressed
overwhelmingly they would like to have more programs. Staff who run programs agree that they
would like to offer more. HDSP is constrained from offering more programs due partly to space
limitations.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 61 of 115

September 23, 2016

On the day that the assignment lieutenant was interviewed, there were 1,766 inmates on the
wait list for a work/program assignment. With such a lengthy list of inmates waiting, it is
conceivable that the majority of inmates will never be assigned to work or program.
Inmates complained that although they were assigned to a particular job, i.e. adult care-giver
(those who assist inmates with disabilities), they were rarely called out to work. Some of the
minority inmates complained that they never got assigned to the “good” jobs, such as clerks and
canteen workers. The assignment lieutenant stated that he often had a 602 filed against him,
(inmate complaint) by minority inmates because of what they perceived to be racial disparity in
work assignments.
While staff make attempts at achieving diversity in inmate assignments, the preliminary
examination of the data suggest that there may be racial disparity in work and program
assignment. See Work Assignment by Race. HDSP also experiences frequent loss days due
to “modified programming. This occurs when programs are not running on their usual program
schedule. Data from the last seven-month (Jan 1- July 19) indicate that HDSP was on a
modified program schedule for 154 days.
“Inmates got nothing coming” is the initial impression one gets when it comes to more programs
offerings. However when the programs were fully operative, the education/vocational tech,
CAL-PIA, and Re-Entry Programs were at capacity. Inmates and providers were fully engaged.
The ILTAGS programs that take place in the day rooms on facility yards are inmate led and lack
sponsors and experienced difficulty in meeting consistently. Because the wait list so extensive,
it is this assessor’s impression the wait list is often “cherry picked” instead of assigning the next
eligible inmate on the list.

G. Recommendations for Improving HDSP’s Culture
An organization’s culture is the product of events, processes and everyday interactions that
have occurred over the course of its history. Just as a culture has emerged gradually over time
so too changes in culture, even directed changes, are incremental. Those wanting to see
cultural change, thus, must be patient and the effort to produce change must be persistent.
In moving HDSP closer to its desired culture, the facility’s readiness for change should be
examined. Readiness for change encompasses two elements: a commitment to change,
and the capacity for change. The commitment to change refers to the organization’s
investment in the process of change; whether or not they have the human capital to
participate in the process as well as to see the change through to the desired end and to
maintain it into the future. The organization’s capacity for change refers to the actual ability the
institution and staff have to produce change. That said, efforts that produce sustainable
changes should be made collaboratively with the Central Office.
1. Commitment to Change
Based on the assessment findings, HDSP staff desire culture change. This is evident by the
facility’s preferred organizational culture profiles and supported by the focus groups as well
as from formal and informal interviews. There is a desire for a culture shift to an internal
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 62 of 115

September 23, 2016

focus that emphasizes increased teamwork, staff recognition and camaraderie, as evidenced
by the strong weighting towards the consensus culture component. There is a remarkable
amount of overlap among all of the culture profiles indicating agreement regarding the
desired culture change. There is a clear desire to focus on the internal environment. The
facility wants to be more focused on the individual needs of the staff producing an
environment that is supportive and team-oriented.
2. Capacity for Change
Based on the assessment findings, HDSP also has the capacity to engage in
organizational culture change. The leadership and staff desires to move towards a more
consensus-based culture are indicators that they are prepared to engage in culture
change. The following issues should be addressed in the process ensuring that culture
change produces positive results.
3. Stability and Trust
One of the factors affecting HDSP’s culture has been instability in its leadership. Transient
leadership has left the prison without clear direction and led to the present situation in which
most staff cling to the notion that it is a Level IV prison in which inmates should be provided
with only the bare necessities and in which there is little, if any, programming. A prerequisite
for successful change is that the leadership at HDSP remains intact for a sufficient time to
plan and execute a change effort, at a minimum that should probably be three years.
The OIG report and the lack of any response from headquarters have deeply embittered the
HDSP staff members at all levels. Change effort must begin with repairing the chasm that
exists between Sacramento and Susanville. These changes need to be a collaborative effort
between the facility, the regional director and the Secretary and his staff. A first step in that
reconciliation process might be to use this report to respond to some of the allegations made
by the OIG. If that is not feasible, or even if it is, meeting with the staff at HDSP in conjunction
with the publication of this report to listen to their concerns and respond to them is essential.
There is widespread suspicion and distrust of the warden, and a major complaint of staff is that
he is not visible and they do not know him. As one member of the team put it, “the warden has
to learn that he is running for office.” The warden has good intentions, but his leadership and
management skills must be focused on better communications with his staff. He has to find
time to get out of his office and onto the yards, and when on the yards he must show as much,
if not more, concern for his staff as for the inmates. Doing so will not only allow staff to get to
know him better, but will permit him to dispel rumors such as those that now circulate among
the staff, and will also provide him opportunities to “inspect what he expects,” such as whether
his communications are reaching and being correctly interpreted by staff.
Staff recognition at HDSP is limited to certificates for good attendance and naming an
employee of the month. Staff does not feel supported or recognized for the good work they do.
Consideration should be given to forming a committee consisting of staff from all disciplines to
develop staff recognition programs that have real meaning to them.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 63 of 115

September 23, 2016

4. Improve Communication
Good communication at HDSP, as in almost any complex organization, is difficult but not
impossible to achieve. Memos are issued, e-mails sent and information distributed by word of
mouth at meetings but much of it does not reach those for whom it is intended. One major gap
in the communications network noted during the assessment is the failure of staff to hold the
scheduled meetings at the beginning of each watch. Such meetings are a key link between
management and the uniformed staff running the yards and the failure to hold them means that
important information may not being passed down to those who need it or is transmitted via the
grapevine on which it is quite likely distorted or misconstrued in some way. The warden can
help in the communications if he walks through the facility more often and visits with staff about
their jobs, and at the same time communicates with them about his vision and what he would
like to see in the facility. He should also require the chief deputy and other department heads
to communicate the same message in a similar manner. “Management by walking around”
needs to be incorporated into how the HDSP administration communicates with staff and
assesses institutional climate.
Staff at HDSP should map the key communications channels to identify bottlenecks and
formulate plans to make the processes more efficient by eliminating them. Similar mapping
may also be undertaken to identify redundancies and duplications in reporting and so reduce
the paperwork that supervisors complain overwhelms them.
5. Balance Change with Staff Concerns
Both the warden and the health care CEO have mandates to introduce changes that realign
HDSP with the department’s mission, on the one hand, and court–ordered standards of health
care, on the other. The CEO is new to corrections and avowedly sees HDSP as a health care
facility. With clear standards to be met and the authority of the court behind him, he appears
much more concerned with getting results than with the concerns of his staff. By comparison,
the warden’s mandate is less clear than the CEO’s and his management style is to be more of
a mentor or coach than a commander. These differing mandates and styles are beginning to
cause concern among clinicians about the quality of care and anger among officers assigned
to the clinics who feel that “medical is running the place.” There needs to be more coordination
between the warden and the CEO about changes that are to be made and how they are to be
introduced.
The warden needs to realize that he is not the only one who has a desire to move the facility
forward. He needs to listen to staff and engage them in the implementation of new
programming as well as new procedures that cause them concerns. Custody staff members
below the rank of captain are nearly unanimous in the opposition to increased programming
and out-of-cell time for inmates. Part of the opposition to more programming is that it increases
the amount of work for officers and decreases the time available for security measures. At root,
however, is a realistic concern for their personal safety in a sometimes hostile and violent
environment. Not introducing more programs is not an option yet pushing programs “down the
throats” of the officers may well generate resistance and incidents that may doom the effort.
The introduction of more programs and out-of-cell time must be carefully planned and balanced
with the officers’ concerns with security and safety.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 64 of 115

September 23, 2016

One way to decrease staff concerns is to demonstrate to them that it can be done. This
process has already begun. B Yard has long been the facility at HDSP with the most problems.
In attempt to reduce the amount of violence, the warden approved the transfer of select
personnel from other yards to B Yard. As noted, these transfers are apparently producing
positive results: officers in B yard are the most cohesive, feel supported by their supervisors,
and seem to agree that more programming makes for better security.
Assuming that the apparent success continues, using B Yard as a demonstration project and
as a training facility for supervisors could reduce resistance and facilitate the introduction of
greater programming on the other yards.
6. More Proactivity, Less Reactivity
Uniformed staff at HDSP is proud of the “High Desert Way,” by which they mean their ability to
respond to and quickly suppress violence. That pride in professionally handling violence is wellfounded, but the practice of “observe and react” is not in line with departmental policy and has
its limitations. Measures to prevent violence such as removing obstructions to visibility into
cells, prohibiting gambling on the yard, or conducting random pat-downs are left undone while
officers stand at gates or sit on benches waiting to respond to outbreaks of violence.
There are, undoubtedly, many reasons for this reactive practice, all of which will make it difficult
to change: personal safety, large yards, extreme climatic conditions, staff shortages, custom,
etc. However, the many alarm codes and lockdowns disrupt operations while more proactive
measures to prevent violence may better ensure safety and security.
A success on one yard may reduce resistance on others. If increasing programming on B Yard,
for instance is accompanied by decreases in violence and alarm codes, it may be possible to
convince the officers to be more proactive. Adding responsible programming to other Yards
may increase stability and ease tensions within the inmate population. Programming must be
well organized, supervised and strategically implemented.
Currently, the amount of
programming and jobs available for inmates appears quite low. The reason for this may partly
be due to funding, and partly due to resistance from the line staff. Increasing programming in B
Yard and elsewhere, however, will probably also require additional staffing to provide the
coverage officers need to feel safe.
The current experiment of adding programming to B Yard needs to include the collection of
data regarding incidents and violence in all yards so the impact of the programming can be
assessed. Collection of incident data, and sharing that with line staff may go a long way in
making them feel more comfortable about increasing programming elsewhere.
It was also noted that there was some disparity in job and program assignments based on
race. The facility was provided ASCA’s Racial Disparity Survey Instrument and the Warden
indicated that he would complete the survey and utilize it to help make racial/ethnic parity in job
and program assignments a reality.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 65 of 115

September 23, 2016

7. Decentralize Decision-making
Decision-making at HDSP, indeed in all of CDCR, is highly centralized resulting in HDSP staff
members feeling that their voices are not heard. As we have seen, the dominant concern of the
staff is to be a trusted member of a team whose concerns are considered in decisions that
have an impact on them. In an organization as large as HDSP, it is simply not possible for the
warden, or even an associate warden, to consult with every person affected prior to making a
decision.
Decisions should be pushed down to the lowest level possible to ensure inclusiveness in the
decision making process. Planning how to introduce new programs, for example, could be
delegated to the yards and left to the program and custody staff on each yard to work out.
Similarly, ways to decrease delays in getting inmates to class or appointments might be worked
out on each yard. Doing this may delay decisions but will increase the likelihood that staff
members will take ownership of them and enhance the sense of being part of a team on the
part of line program and service staff.
8. Accountability
Decentralizing decision-making risks losing control, something that is threatening to
organizations in the spotlight such as HDSP and CDCR. However, advanced management
information systems and the considered development of metrics should allow managers to
continually monitor their areas of responsibility, to spot emerging problems, and to take action
to prevent or reduce them.16 Meetings of those having management responsibilities for activity
on the yards should be held weekly or bi-weekly. At these meetings, managers should report
on what they have done with respect to problems previously noted and with what effect, what
problems they see emerging and what they plan to do about them, and to respond to questions
put to them by top management. Regular meetings of this sort will counter the dangers posed
by decentralizing decision-making and increase cooperation and coordination among the
managers.
Inspections are another means to improve accountability of all staff, at all levels. Areas that
are not functioning well should be targeted for inspections by the leadership. If unit meetings
are required to be held, and are not, it is an easy step for the warden to have his staff attend
those meetings and provide him feedback. In time, the meetings will be a matter of routine and
will provide a greater level of accountability.
Summary Conclusions
Bringing about change, even desired change, in a setting where a significant number of
individuals and/or subcultures are strongly vested in maintaining the status quo can be a difficult
and frustrating experience, particularly when the setting is a prison where strong reactions can
occur even when change is well intended. Maintaining a stable and orderly environment in
which institutional security as well as staff and inmate safety is not compromised, while
simultaneously changing the culture of the prison, is no easy task and certainly not without risk.
16	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  issues	
  that	
  should	
  be	
  monitored	
  but	
  is	
  not,	
  at	
  least	
  at	
  the	
  institution	
  level,	
  is	
  racial	
  disparity	
  such	
  

as	
  those	
  noted	
  in	
  this	
  report:	
  RVRs,	
  uses	
  of	
  force,	
  and	
  work	
  assignments.	
  
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 66 of 115

September 23, 2016

Prisons thrive on stability. Change is often resisted even when the results to be realized are
desired by staff. Historically, wardens, supervisors and managers have been praised and
rewarded for their ability to maintain order, consistency and stability. A “good” day for many
prison administrators is one during which “nothing happened.”
For institutions that are running well, in which there is widespread acceptance of mission and
purpose, and where the values and beliefs of staff are consistent with those of the Department,
stability is a far more desirable outcome than one in which institutional operations are
problematic and where the current culture in the prison is unsatisfactory to those who are part of
it. Leading and sustaining change in a prison with longstanding and significant conflicting
values is no easy task and certainly not one to be undertaken without recognizing and preparing
to manage risk.
The first step towards achieving culture change requires an understanding of how “ready for
change” the prison is. Readiness for change involves two types of readiness. The first
addresses commitment to change, and the second involves capacity for change. The prison’s
commitment to change refers to the degree to which the staff are invested in the process of
change, which can be lengthy and intensive. The prison’s capacity for change refers to the
actual ability of the staff at the prison to change and whether they have the resources required
to launch and sustain a culture change initiative.
For instance, as eager and enthusiastic as a prison might be for change, if the capacity for
leading and engaging in change activities, while simultaneously managing ongoing prison
operation is limited, then the risk/reward quotient might tilt toward a decision that the prison is
not yet ready for change. Based on HDSP’s capacity for change and its commitment to change,
we think HDSP is ready for change. Staff clearly desire a change in the institutional culture, and
seem open to the possibilities for change to actually occur. Staff genuinely felt that change
could occur if they were part of the process of planning and developing the changes. While
there were a few exceptions in a few areas of the prison, the similarities in the desire for change
are apparent throughout the entire prison. This agreement on the desire not only for a change
but also for very similar types of change forms a very positive foundation upon which to base
culture change planning and action at HDSP.
The process of culture change takes time and an equally strong commitment from the prison’s
leadership and staff. Change does not happen because someone from the outside says it
should; change happens because the staff within the prison buy into the process of change and
recognize the inherent benefits it will produce for them, their fellow workers, the inmates, the
community, and the public at large.

	
  

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 67 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendices

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 68 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 1:
Definition of Culture
Culture is herein defined as a system of values, beliefs and norms held in common by a
group of people and by which they interpret and give meaning to their experience. In
the course of adapting to problems inherent in any physical or social environment, culture
is reflected in the “persistent and patterned way of thinking about the central tasks of,
and human relationships within, an organization.”17 As such, culture serves as a set of rules
that guide prescriptively and proscriptively the behavior of members of the organization.
Organizations have a formal culture that is codified in their mission statements, policies
and procedures and embodied in the rules, roles, and operational routines of the
institutions. New staff members in correctional institutions begin to be acculturated into the
formal system at the training academy. This process continues as they learn the specifics of
their jobs, attend training programs, and read policy materials and orders. Formally, cultural
values are frequently communicated and affirmed through symbols and ceremonies. An
example of such a ceremony would be a retirement party for a well-respected long-term
employee, where all levels of staff are invited. Such a ceremony would reinforce the values
of long-term service and an environment of inclusiveness while concurrently demonstrating
that a job well done is recognized and celebrated.
In addition to the formal culture that is explicitly stated, informal cultures also develop that
stand beside and are juxtaposed to the formal cultural system. Staff must adapt and devise
ways to respond to the realities of the physical and social environments of the institution.
Over time, informal ideas, notions, and mutated values come to be persistent and
patterned from these adaptive practices. These ideals are transmitted among
organizational members and to new members through informal communication and
relationships. Cultural elements, such as cohesion, trust, stress, support, and pride, are
defined and embodied within the informal culture. Informally, cultural values are reflected in
the stories that staff members tell.
Operational practices are accomplished within the domains of both the formal and
informal cultures that define the “texture” of institutional life and depend on the unique
interpersonal styles that members come to use in relating to one another. When the
formal and informal cultures are aligned, they support accomplishment of the organization's
mission. However, when the two are not aligned, staff solidarity declines and performance
suffers. Staff may experience anxiety and alienation. Trust may be lacking. Important
information may not be shared. Fragmentation is likely. Such disconnection may occur
between management and line staff, among functional disciplines, between labor and
management or among specific individuals or groups.

17	
  E.O.

Wilson (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, New York: Basic Books,	
  

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 69 of 115

September 23, 2016

Organizational culture alerts us to the fact that within rationally designed organizations
there may exist a variety of unplanned, organically developed and shared designs for
living. These elements may facilitate or impede the attainment of organizational goals. In
prisons, the capacity for sub-cultural development is perhaps greater than in other
organizations of comparable size and complexity.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 70 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 2:
The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP)
The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP) was developed by the Criminal
Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) under a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC) to guide the assessment of institutional culture in correctional
organizations. More specifically, the instrument is designed to address operational problems,
chronic concerns, and/or critical incidents that negatively impact on institutional performance
or that creates high liability risk for both the correctional facility and jurisdiction. Implicit in
the use of the ICAP is the assumption that such issues frequently arise from a
misalignment or incongruence among elements of the organization’s culture.
The ICAP includes a standardized set of evaluative activities that allows for the
identification and portrayal of the idiosyncratic sets of values that the organization and its
members hold, the characteristic ways of thinking among them, and the attitudes and
behaviors that ensue from those values and beliefs. The ICAP is designed to be
administered through reviews of official records and documents, both formal and informal
individual and group interviews, the administration of a standardized questionnaire
(Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument- Prisons (OCAI-P)), and observation of
prison operations on all three shifts during a three-day site visit by a team of 3-5
experienced correctional practitioners and evaluators. The team triangulates observations
and information gathered throughout the site visit and reconciles differences and
inconsistencies in order to reach consensus on findings and conclusions.
The products of the ICAP include both descriptive and quantitative information that can be
used to design a strategy for implementing organizational culture change aimed toward
improving operations, addressing specific problems, and improving the quality of life for
both staff and inmates.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 71 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 3:
Operational Areas Assessed by ASCA at High Desert
Facility Management: Span of control; Extent to which staff are appropriately
supervised; Communication with staff.
1. What is the span of control for security staff at HDSP?
2. Is supervisory staff at HDSP required to conduct facility tours on a regular basis
(weekly or daily depending on rank)? Are those tours documented?
3. What methods of communication does supervisory staff use to communicate with
subordinates? Is that communication effective in achieving it’s desired intent?
4. To what extent does supervisory staff verbally communicate with and observe
security staff while on post at HDSP? Is the extent of direct communication and
observation adequate and appropriate?
5. Does the existing span of control at HDSP provide for adequate, appropriate staff
supervision?
6. How does the existing span of control for security staff at HDSP compare to the
span of control for security staff at other facilities of similar size and mission in
other jurisdictions?
7. Is staff being supervised to ensure that policy and procedures are followed?
8. To what extent is the span of control too broad to permit effective supervision of
staff?
9. What measures can be taken to improve the span of control?
10. What measures can be taken to improve communications between line staff and
supervisors?
Facility Mission and Operations: Facility mission(s) and its impact on operations.
1. Does the executive administration of the CDCR provide the appropriate level of
resources, training, and oversight to ensure that the facility can fulfill its’ mission?
2. Is the facility administration and staff committed to operating a safe and secure
institution in accordance with all applicable laws, executive directives, and facility
policies and procedures?
3. How does the mission and operation of the facility impact the culture of the
institution?
4. How many internal and external reviews of the facility’s operations have been
conducted in the last five years? Who performed the reviews? What were the
results?
5. Has the facility put into place any corrective actions as a result of the findings of
these reviews?

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 72 of 115

September 23, 2016

Inmate Discipline Process: Documentation; Adjudication; Recordkeeping; Outcomes.
1. Does HDSP have a policy that governs the inmate discipline process? Is that
policy consistent with the CDCR policy that governs inmate discipline?
2. How are inmates at HDSP informed of facility rules and regulations, prohibited acts,
disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, their rights in the disciplinary system and the
procedure for appealing disciplinary findings?

3. Is each step of the inmate discipline process at HDSP documented? Are inmates
provided documentation advising them of the charges against them, hearing
dates, and disciplinary findings?
4. As part of the inmate discipline process, does HDSP have a disciplinary hearing
committee that meets regularly to adjudicated inmate infractions?
5. Does the inmate discipline process at HDSP provide for due process?
6. How does the inmate discipline process at HDSP compare with inmate discipline
processes in other jurisdictions?
7. Does the inmate discipline process at HDSP appear to be fair and consistently
applied?
8. How do the inmates view the inmate discipline process?
9. What measures could be implemented to improve the inmate discipline process?
Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process: Assess the inmate appeal process relative to
the number and categories of appeals, recordkeeping, and outcomes.
1. Does HDSP have a policy that governs the inmate appeal process? Is that policy
consistent with the CDCR policy that governs inmate appeals?
2. What is the process at HDSP for an inmate to submit an appeal? Is that process
consistent with the policy?
3. Does that process provide for accountability regarding the submission, collection,
and resolution of appeals?
4. How are inmates at HDSP informed of the appeal process, types of appeals and what
decisions they may appeal?
5. Is there a formal process for inmates to file a complaint regarding staff misconduct?

6. Is each step of the inmate appeal process at HDSP documented? Are inmates
provided documentation advising them of receipt of their appeal and notice of
disposition?
7. How does the inmate appeal process at HDSP compare with inmate
grievance/appeal processes in other jurisdictions?
8. Is the Grievance and Appeal Process fair?
9. Do inmates view the Grievance and Appeal Process as being fair?
10. Does staff view the Grievance and Appeal Process as being fair?
11. What, if any, changes should be made to improve the Grievance and Appeal
Process?
Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation: Determine the availability and
types, the process for assignment and diversity in assignments.
1. What is the process by which HDSP’s inmates are assigned to a job?
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 73 of 115

September 23, 2016

2. What type jobs are available to HDSP’s inmates?
3. How many slots are available for each job assignment?
4. Does HDSP use a process to ensure that there is diversity in assignments?
5. What percent of jobs filled by each ethnic group at HDSP?
6. What is the process by which HDSP’s inmates are assigned to a program?
7. What type programs are available to HDSP’s inmates?
8. Are the programs evidenced based?
9. How many slots are available for each program assignment?
10. Does HDSP use a process to ensure that there is diversity in assignments?
11. What percent of programs filled by each ethnic group at HDSP?
12. What is the number of program completion by each ethnic group?
13. What percent of time are programs not offered due to lock-ins inmate
unavailability?
14. Under what circumstances are inmates are removed from a program
Investigations and Staff Discipline: Determine how investigations are generated. Are
the individuals who conduct the investigations trained? Do the investigations adhere to
CDCR policy?
1. What is the process for determining if an investigation is warranted, and who
makes that decision?
2. Who determines sanctions against staff that are found to have violated the use of
force policy? Are sanctions prescribed according the level of malfeasance?
3. Does the facility have its own investigators who conduct investigations of
employees at HDSP?
4. If the investigators are CDCR employees, do they office at the HDSP?
5. Who has the final decision on investigations conducted on HDSP employees,
and the outcomes?
6. Is the CCPOA involved in the discipline process, and to what extent is the CDCR
Personnel staff involved?
7. Are investigations of alleged inappropriate staff behavior taken seriously by staff?
8. Are investigations of alleged inappropriate staff behavior taken seriously by
management?
9. Are the individuals who conduct the investigations properly trained?
10. Do the investigations adhere to CDCR policy?
11. Are sanctions applied consistently?
12. Are sanctions applied in keeping with CDCR guidelines?
Policy and Procedure: Determine the extent to which facility policy and procedure
comply with CDCR policy and the extent to which staff follow those policies and
procedures.
1. Are the HDSP policies written in compliance with the CDCR policies?
2. Are the operational procedures written in compliance with the facility policies?
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 74 of 115

September 23, 2016

3. Does the inspection of practice indicate the employees are following their own
procedures?
Staff Complaint Process: Process for submission and resolution.
1. Is the staff complaint process effective and does it comply with contemporary
national standards?
2. Does the nature of staff complaints indicate that a cultural bias exists?
3. What subjects rank as the top five areas for staff complaints?
4. How are staff complaints reviewed and resolved?
5. How does the number of staff complaints compare to other facilities with a similar
size and mission?
Staff Training: Assess staff training relative to use of force, management of special
populations, diversity and PREA.
1. Does the CDCR require the facility training operate consistent with an Annual
Training Plan (ATP)?
2. Does the HDSP have a training schedule for all employees consistent with the
CDCR ATP?
3. Is the curriculum developed for HDSP consistent with the CDCR ATP?
4. Is the attendance at the training events/classes maintained and insures all
employees attend required training?
5. Is makeup training available for training missed by employees?
6. Are instructors certified to conduct training?
7. Is there training on working with a diverse inmate population?
8. Does the curriculum include training on Use of Force and is it consistent with
national standards?
9. Is adequate use of force training instruction being provided on a regular schedule
for all facility employees? If not, why?
10. Does training give adequate direction to employees about PREA and it’s
compliance.
11. Does post training testing indicate that the subject matter is delivered effectively
and that students take it seriously?
Use of Force: Determine whether or not facility procedures related to the use of force
are in line with the Department’ policies; Assess the effectiveness of those policies and
determine whether or not they are being adhered to by staff.
1. Is adequate use of force training instruction being provided on a regular schedule
for all facility employees? If not, why?
2. Is the use of force policy current and in compliance with applicable laws and
contemporary national standards?
3. How does the number of uses of force at the facility compare to other facilities
with a similar size and mission?
4. Is the use of force review process effective?
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 75 of 115

September 23, 2016

5. Are there administrative reviews of use of force incidents at the regional or
executive level?
6. Who is the final authority for determining whether a use of force event was or
was not in compliance with the policy?
7. Who determines sanctions against staff that are found to have violated the use of
force policy? Are sanctions prescribed according the level of malfeasance?

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 76 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 4:
Letter to Warden Spearman

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 77 of 115

September 23, 2016

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
Executive Officers

Regional Representatives

President

Vice President

Midwest

Northeast

Leann Bertsch

Brad Livingston

Heidi Washington

Rob Coupe

Treasurer

Past President

Southern

Western

John Wetzel

Ashbel T. Wall, II

TBD

Colette S. Peters

June 17, 2016
Marion Spearman, Warden
High Desert State Prison
475-750 Rice Canyon Road
Susanville, CA 96127
Re: High Desert State Prison Independent
Assessment
Dear Warden Spearman:
As you are aware, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has selected
your institution – High Desert State Prison (HDSP) – to participate in an independent
assessment from July 15 – 28, 2016. The primary goal of this assessment is to gain a deep
understanding of the unique culture of HDSP and how that culture impacts prison operations
and the environment for both staff and inmates. Institutional culture often impacts adherence to
policy and practice.
This assessment will follow two integrated inquiry tracks. They include: (1) an assessment of
both the formal and informal cultures at HDSP through a process of interviews, focus groups,
direct observation and assessment of facility operations, management, policy and procedure;
and (2) an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation, document
review, and discussions with staff. The findings from both areas of inquiry will be integrated into
a set of conclusions and recommendations.
This letter is intended to familiarize you with the assessment process and anticipated outcomes,
as well as provide you with a list of specific information and documentation regarding your facility
that we will need in advance to prepare for our assessment of HDSP.
While on site at HDSP, ASCA assessors will follow the well-developed Institutional Culture
Assessment Protocol (ICAP) which includes a range of tools and processes to assess and
analyze institutional culture specifically in prisons. The ICAP is designed to enable the
assessment team to understand and assess the more subtle aspects of institutional culture and
to determine whether the facility’s mission, core values and principles are consistent with the
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 78 of 115

September 23, 2016

belief structures and practices of the workforce. We will also aim towards determining the
degree to which the vision, values and expectations of the organization’s leadership are shared
and enacted throughout the institution.
We anticipate deploying a team of eight assessors to conduct the intensive on-site work and to
assist in the preparation of a written report. We expect that the culture assessment at your
institution will allow us to (1) provide you and the Department with feedback and information
regarding the unique institutional culture of the facility, and (2) enable you and your staff to utilize
proven methodologies for facilitating positive culture change.
We have tentatively scheduled the site visit from July 15 – 28, 2016. In a separate letter I will
send a proposed schedule of our activities while on site.
In preparation for the assessment, we will require some specific information and documentation
regarding your facility. It is important for this information to be available prior to our site visit, in
order for us to develop a clear understanding about the operation of the facility. Although the
request is somewhat lengthy, please be assured that the information is critical to the
assessment process. To the extent possible, please provide the requested information in
electronic format.
The documents specified in the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol are as follows:
1. A narrative, drafted at your direction, which addresses the following items. If the
narrative can be arranged in categorical format as indicated below, it will be most
helpful to us:
a. Mission of the institution and specific performance objectives that have been
set by the you and your senior managers;
b. Current capacity and recent capacity changes;
c. Current population and any recent changes in size or demographics;
d. Physical plant, description and discussion of strengths and limitations;
e. Staffing and recruitment issues, nature of workforce in terms of experience;
f.

Recent relevant events;

g. Present concerns or issues (both culture-related and operational);
h. Weaknesses and strengths of institution and personnel; and
i.

Anticipated outcomes of the independent assessment process (e.g., what you
would like to get out of the assessment).

2. A report from your institution, which contains the following inmate and staff
demographic information as of the date of this letter:
a. Inmate demographics:
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 79 of 115

September 23, 2016

i. Mean age;
ii. Race/ethnicity (numerical and percent of total population);
iii. Mean length of sentence; and
iv. Any other relevant information available;
b. Staff demographics:
i. Mean age;
ii. Race/ethnicity (numerical and percent of total workforce);
iii. Total number of full-time (FTE) uniformed and non-uniformed staff;
and
iv. Total number of full-time (FTE) contractual employees, including the
department(s) to which they are assigned; and
v. Any other relevant information available.
3. A report from your institution, which contains the following information by month from
January 2016 through June 2016:
a. Staff turnover and reasons for leaving the institution/workers compensation:
i. Retirements;
ii. Resignations;
iii. Terminations;
iv. Lateral transfers;
v. Number of staff out of work due to industrial accident and type of
accident by category; and
vi. Promotions.
b. Significant incidents including:
i. Disturbances;
ii. Food or work strikes;
iii. Lockdowns;
iv. Assaults on staff with injury;
v. Assaults on inmates with injury; and
vi. Other.
c. Incidents involving staff use of force:
i. Number;
ii. Nature of use of force (e.g., brief incident description);
iii. Injuries to staff or inmates; and

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 80 of 115

September 23, 2016

iv. Findings (please include determinations that excessive force was
used).
d. Programs and participation levels:
i. Name of program;
ii. Description of program; and
iii. Number of participants.
e. Estimated inmate idleness:
i. Idleness in terms of unemployment;
ii. Idleness in terms of lack of program involvement; and
iii. Number of inmates employed in institutional job assignments.
f.

Inmate grievances:
i. Total and breakdown by category of grievances;
ii. Number approved and type of grievances; and
iii. Number denied.

g. Staff grievances:
i. Number and type of grievances;
ii. Number of grievances brought to arbitration; and
iii. Percentage of grievances filed per employee.
h. Lawsuits:
i. Number of lawsuits filed;
ii. Number pending and disposed; and
iii. Lawsuits decided, found in inmate’s favor and type.
i.

Number and type of inmate disciplinary reports, to include dispositions.

j.

An organizational chart and staff roster including all staff members. The staff
roster should be broken down by shift and include staff members who are
scheduled to work during the timeframe of the assessment. (Attached is a
sample of the type of staff assignment information that we are seeking.)
Please submit these documents as both electronic format as well as in hard
copy. The staff roster should include the following categorical breakdowns:
i. Name;
ii. Rank/Title;
iii. Assignment;
iv. Gender;
v. Race/ethnicity; and

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 81 of 115

September 23, 2016

vi. Years at the facility.
The highest priority information is the staff roster that will enable us to randomly select, and your
office to schedule, staff focus groups well in advance of the on-site work. The site visit includes
a minimum of ten focus groups with specific groups of staff, and includes the administration of a
standardized instrument – the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons (OCAI-P).
In addition to the items previously listed that relate specifically to the assessment of HDSP’s
culture, we are requesting several more items that relate specifically to the ten agreed to areas
of inquiry. It would be helpful if you could assign a person on your staff with whom we could use
as our contact for each of these areas. We have noted below the member of our team who will
be responsible for working on each of these areas. (I realize that there is some overlap on the
requests listed here with those previously listed in this letter.)
Please provide requested items as attachments to emails.
•

•

Facility Mission and Operations (Wayne Scott): Facility mission(s) and its impact on
operations. Requested items are:
o HDSP Mission Statement
o HDSP Vision, Goals, Objectives Statements
o HDSP Staff Orientation Document
o HDSP Inmate Orientation Handbook
o HDSP Visitor Orientation Document
o
Policy and Procedure (Gary Maynard): Extent to which facility policy and procedure
complies with CDCR policy; Extent to which staff follow policy and procedure.
Requested items are:
o CDCR Policy and Procedure Manual (DOM?) (No need to send electronically,
please just provide a printed copy for us in the conference room.)
o HDSP Policy and Procedures Manual (No need to send electronically, please just
provide a printed copy for us in the conference room.)
o Any ACA Accreditation Audit Reports and CDCR/HDSP responses to them from
1-1-2005 to the present.

•

Facility Management (Wayne Choinski): Span of control; Extent to which staff are
appropriately supervised; Communication with staff. Requested items are:
o Current HDSP Table of Organization (Previously requested.)
o Current schedule of all HDSP staff meetings
o Minutes of all staff meetings from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16
o Monthly reports from Warden to Central Office from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16

•

Use of Force (Wayne Scott): Determine whether or not facility procedures related to the
use of force are in line with the Department’ policies; Assess the effectiveness of those
policies and determine whether or not they are being adhered to by staff. Requested
items are:

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 82 of 115

September 23, 2016

o
o

Use of Force reports/packets from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16
After action outcome reports regarding staff involved in Use of Force incidents
from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16

•

Staff Training (Gary Maynard): Assess staff training relative to use of force, management
of special populations, diversity and PREA. Requested items are:
o CDCR 2016 Annual Staff Training Plan
o HDSP 2016 Annual Staff Training Plan
o HDSP 2015 Report on Training Completed by HDSP Staff
o Current Training Curriculum for HDSP staff for the following areas
! Managing Special Populations;
! Diversity;
! Use of Force; and
! PREA

•

Inmate Grievance and Appeal Process (Wayne Choinski): Assess the inmate appeal
process relative to the number and categories of appeals; Recordkeeping; Outcomes.
Requested items are:
o Please refer to the items listed on page 4.

•

Inmate Discipline Process (Wayne Choinski): Documentation; Adjudication;
Recordkeeping; Outcomes. Requested items are:
o Monthly summary reports on infractions/disciplinary reports by type and
outcomes from January 2016 through June 2016
o HDSP and CDCR current Inmate Discipline Process policies and procedures

•

Staff Complaint Process (Wayne Scott): Process for submission and resolution.
Requested items are:
o Number and type of formal staff complaints from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16
o Appeal process guidelines/rules (policies and procedures)

•

Investigations and Staff Discipline (Gary Maynard): Determine how investigations are
generated and who conducts them; Adherence to policy. Requested items are:
o Number and type of investigation by month from 1-1-16 through 6-30-16
o Number and type of disciplinary action taken by month from 1-1-16 through 6-3016

•

Inmate Job Assignment and Program Participation (Calvin Brown): Availability and
types; Process for assignment; Diversity in assignment. Requested items are:
o Current number and types of Job and Program Assignments
o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity assigned to each job type and program on
or about July 1, 2016
o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity waiting to be assigned to each job type and
program on or about July 1, 2016
o Number of inmates by race/ethnicity who successfully completed a program each
month from January 201 through June 2016.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 83 of 115

September 23, 2016

The Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol relies on the assessment team’s review of these
documents and records in conjunction with their on-site work in order to fully assess the
institutional culture. Whenever possible, those documents and reports that are available in
electronic form should be sent as both electronic files. We will be conducting our review of
these documents during the weeks prior to the visit. If these materials could be forwarded to me
by June 30, we will have sufficient time to conduct our analysis and provide you with a much
more thorough assessment
We realize that this process may be somewhat cumbersome for you and your staff, but we have
found each bit of information necessary to conduct a high quality assessment that will be of most
use to both the Department and the facility. Please feel free to call me should you have any
questions about either the assessment process or the preparation leading up to it.

Sincerely,

George M. Camp
Co-Executive Director
Attachment – SVSP Sample Roster Format

cc: Scott Kernan, Secretary CDCR

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 84 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 5
Schedule of Stakeholder Meetings
Monday July 11, 2016 – Suite 502S
• 10:30	
  AM	
  –	
  11:30AM	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
  

Scott	
  Kernan	
  

•

12:00	
  PM	
  –	
  1:00PM	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
CCPOA	
  
o Chuck	
  Alexander,	
  President	
  
o Suanne	
  Jimenez,	
  General	
  Counsel	
  
o Bridget	
  Hanson,	
  CDCR	
  Assistant	
  Secretary	
  of	
  Labor	
  Relations	
  
o Scott	
  Kernan,	
  CDCR	
  Secretary	
  

•

1:00	
  PM	
  -­‐	
  	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Legal	
  Representation	
  
o PLO	
  –	
  Sara	
  Norman	
  
o Attorney	
  General’s	
  Office	
  –	
  Van	
  Kamcerian	
  (on	
  the	
  speaker	
  phone)	
  
o CDCR	
  –	
  Alan	
  Sobel	
  
o CDCR	
  –	
  Michael	
  Minor	
  

•

3:00	
  PM	
  -­‐	
  	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
CDCR	
  Operations	
  
o Ralph	
  Diaz	
  (Undersecretary,	
  Ops),	
  
o Kathy	
  Allison	
  (Director	
  DAI),	
  on	
  the	
  speaker	
  phone,	
  
o Connie	
  Gipson	
  (Deputy	
  Director	
  DAI),	
  	
  
o Jeff	
  Macomber	
  (Deputy	
  Director	
  DAI)	
  

6:30	
  PM	
  –	
  Team	
  Conference	
  Call	
   	
  
Ombudsman	
  Office	
  
o Sara	
  Malone,	
  Chief	
  	
   	
  
	
  
Tuesday	
  July	
  12,	
  2016	
  –	
  
o 1:00	
  PM	
  –	
  10111	
  Old	
  Placerville	
  Road,	
  Suite	
  110	
   	
  
OIG	
  
o Roy	
  Wesley,	
  Deputy	
  IG	
  
o Shaun	
  Spillane,	
  PIO	
  
o Suzann	
  Gostovich,	
  Northern	
  Region	
  
	
  
• 4:00	
  PM	
  -­‐	
  State	
  Capitol,	
  Room	
  1145	
  
	
  
Executive	
  Branch	
  	
  
o Diane	
  Cummins	
  (Dept.	
  of	
  Finance),	
  	
  
o Nettie	
  Sabelhaus	
  (Special	
  Advisor	
  to	
  the	
  Governor),	
  and	
  
o Gabe	
  Sanchez	
  (Legal,	
  Governor’s	
  Office)	
  
o Scott	
  Kernan	
  (CDCR)	
  
•

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 85 of 115

September 23, 2016

Wednesday July 13, 2016
• 10:00	
  AM,	
  Suite	
  502S-­‐	
  	
  
	
  
California	
  Correctional	
  Healthcare	
  Services	
  
o Clark	
  Kelso	
  (Receiver),	
  	
  
o Rich	
  Kirkland	
  (Chief	
  Deputy	
  Receiver),	
  and	
  	
  
o Diana	
  Toche	
  (Undersecretary,	
  Health	
  Care	
  Services)	
  	
  
	
  
• 11:30	
  AM	
  Room	
  502S	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Ombudsman	
  Office	
  
o Sonya	
  Valle,	
  HDSP	
  Ombudsman	
  
•

3:00	
  PM,	
  State	
  Capitol	
  –	
  Room	
  2082	
  
	
  
	
  
Legislature	
  	
  
o Senator	
  Hancock	
  (Chair,	
  Senate	
  Committee	
  on	
  Public	
  Safety)	
  and	
  
o Senator	
  Hancock’s	
  Staffer	
  ______________	
  	
  
o Scott	
  Kernan,	
  CDCR	
  Secretary	
  
o Kristoffer	
  Applegate,	
  Asst.	
  Secretary,	
  CDCR	
  Office	
  of	
  Legislation	
  

•

5:30	
  PM	
  Team	
  Dinner	
  	
  
o John	
  Dovey,	
  CCHS	
  

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 86 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 6
Schedule of Onsite Activities at High Desert
Please Note: During the course of the assessment, team members will be touring the institution,
observing prison operations, and conducting both formal and informal interviews with staff and
inmates over all three watches.
Friday, July 15
7:15 AM

Arrive HDSP, set up work area (Warden’s Conference Room)

7:45 AM

Attend Morning Meeting (All team members)

8:15 AM

Meet with Warden and Executive Staff (All Team Members)

9:00 AM

Use of Force Review Meeting (Wayne Scott and Gary Maynard)

9:30 AM

Andy Beck, Community Resource Manager (Leo and Calvin)

10:30 AM

Don Clark and Richard Dreith, Appeals Office (Wayne C.)

10:30 AM

Diana Fleetwood, Classification Chief (Margaret and Ruben)

11:00 AM

Captain Lewis, Rosters (George, Wayne C.)

11:00 AM

Interview Tammy Foss, Chief Deputy Warden (Margaret and Ruben)

12:00 PM

Lunch with CCPOA representatives – Chris Gallyer, Bryan Vonrader
(VP), Anthony Pickens, Sgt. Travis Kissinger, and Nick Guzman (All
Team members)

1:00 PM

Emergency Medical Response Review Committee (Margaret and Gary)

1:00 PM

COMPSTAT - Total Bed Capacity / Use of Force / Inmate Disciplinary
Meeting (Wayne and Wayne)

1:00 PM

Meeting with Jason Pickett, AW (George Camp and Ruben Cedeno,
Calvin Brown, Leo Carroll, and later rest of the team.)

2:30PM

Interview Marion Spearman, Warden (Calvin Brown and Leo Carroll)

3:00PM

Reconvene in Conference Room

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 87 of 115

September 23, 2016

5:00 PM

Depart HDSP

Saturday, July 16
9:00 AM

Arrive HDSP

9:30 AM

Depart for A/B Yards and C/D Yards

9:45 AM

Tour All Four Yards / Facilities and Conduct Interviews with Sgts. and
Lts. on each Yard / Facility
•

A-Yard/Facility Gary and Ruben
o Met with:

•

B-Yard/Facility Wayne S. and Margaret
o Met with:

•

C-Yard/Facility Wayne C. and Leo
o Met with:
D-Yard/Facility George and Calvin
o Met with:

•
12:00 PM

Lunch with CCSO representative-Lt. Chris Fackrell (All Team Members)

1:15 PM

Conduct four small group discussions with inmates on each Yard / Facility
•
•
•
•

2:30 PM

A-Yard/Facility
B-Yard/Facility
C-Yard/Facility
D-Yard/Facility

Wayne C. and Leo
George and Calvin
Gary and Ruben
Wayne S. and Margaret

Tour All Four Yards / Facilities and Conduct Interviews with Sgts. and
Lts. on each Yard / Facility
•
•
•
•

A-Yard/Facility
o
B-Yard/Facility
o
C-Yard/Facility
o
D-Yard/Facility
o

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Wayne C. and Leo
George and Calvin
Gary and Ruben
Wayne S. and Margaret

Page 88 of 115

September 23, 2016

4:15 PM

Reconvene in Warden’s Conference Room

4:30 PM

Depart HDSP

Sunday, July 17
10:00AM

Team meeting (Room 143)

Monday, July 18
7:30AM

Arrive HDSP

All Day

Interviews and Meetings
•
•
•
•

8:30 AM

Healthcare Staff Meeting (Leo)
Interview healthcare CEO (Leo)
Informal interviews with A-Yard Officers (Leo)
Interview Social Worker on A-Yard (Leo)

CO Focus Group #1 (A Yard, 2nd Watch)
Facilitator: Calvin

8:30AM

Scribe: Gary with Wayne Scott

CO Focus Group #2 (C Yard, 2nd Watch)
Facilitator: Margaret

Scribe: George

9:00 AM

Interview healthcare CEO (Leo and Ruben)

11:00AM

Meeting with Lt Crowe, PIO (Ruben)

12:00PM

Lunch with SCIU Bargaining group representatives (George, Margaret,
Gary, and Ruben)

12:00 PM

COMPSTAT, Appeals Meeting (Wayne C. and Wayne Scott)

1:00 PM

Inmate Discipline Meeting with AW (Wayne C.)

1:00 PM

ED / VT Programs Mtg. B-Yard (Calvin)

2:00PM

Warden’s Appeal Review Comm. Mtg. (Wayne Scott)

2:30PM

CO Focus Group #3 (A Yard, 3rd Watch)
Facilitator: Leo

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 89 of 115

Scribe: Gary

September 23, 2016

2:30PM

CO Focus Group #4 (C Yard, 3rd Watch)
Facilitator: Ruben

Scribe: Wayne C.

3:00 PM

Meeting with Warden, CDW, and Lt. (Wayne Scott)

4:30PM

Reconvene in Conference Room

5:30PM

Depart HDSP

Tuesday, July 19
7:15 AM

Arrive HDSP

7:45 AM

Attend Morning Meeting

8:15 AM

ISU met with Lt. Davage, Investigation Unit / Gangs

8:30 AM

Resource Team (Leo)

8:30 AM

CO Focus Group #5 (B Yard, 2nd Watch)
Facilitator: Calvin

8:30AM

Scribe: Wayne Scott

CO Focus Group #6 (D Yard, 2nd Watch)
Facilitator: Ruben

Scribe: George

10:30 AM

A-Yard Captain Zumpano (Leo)

12:00PM

Lunch

12:00 PM

Classification Meeting (Calvin and Ruben)

12:30 PM

Gate Officer (Ruben)

1:00 PM

Appeals Coordinators Meeting (Wayne and Wayne)

1:00 PM

CO’s in D-Yard Infirmary (Leo)

2:00 PM

Linda Branch, Use of Force Coord. (Wayne Scott)

2:00PM

Dental Office (Calvin and Ruben)

2:30PM

CO Focus Group #7 (B Yard, 3rd Watch)
Facilitator: Margaret

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 90 of 115

Scribe: Wayne C.

September 23, 2016

2:30PM

CO Focus Group #8 (D Yard, 3rd Watch)
Facilitator: Leo

Scribe: Gary

3:00 PM

Warden (Ruben)

4:30PM

Reconvene in Conference Room

5:00 PM

Observation of GOGI Program (Calvin and Leo)

5:30PM

Depart HDSP

Wednesday, July 20
7:15 AM

Arrive HDSP

7:45 AM

Attend Morning Meeting

8:30 AM

Sgt. Focus Group #9 (2nd Watch All Yard Sgts) in B-Yard Visiting
Facilitator: Ruben

8:30AM

Healthcare CO Focus Group #10 (Escort & Clinic Officers) in C-Yard
Visiting
Facilitator: Leo

9:00 AM

Scribe: Wayne C.

Scribe: George

Observed Disc. Hearing / Met with disc. Lt. (Wayne Scott)
correctiona; Counselors working in Classification (Calvin)

9:45 AM

Met with Linda Branch in UoF Office (Wayne Scott)

10:00AM

Travis Roberston, Reentry Hub Adm. (Calvin

10:00 AM

Diana Hansen, Staff Services Manager for Personnel (Margaret

10:15 AM

Met with In-Service training about UoF training requirements (Wayne
Scott)

10:30 AM

CTC talked with and CO’s and Sgt.

11:00 AM

Peer Support Team with Lt. Matthews (Leo)

11:00 AM

Z Building toured with the Lt.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 91 of 115

September 23, 2016

11:30 AM

IMAN / Chaplain (Ruben)

12:00 PM

Lunch

12:30 PM

Focus Group #11 (Line Service Staff) in A-Yard Visiting
Facilitator: Margaret

12:30PM

Scribe: Gary

Focus Group #12 (Line Program Staff) in D-Yard Visiting
Facilitator: Calvin

Scribe: Wayne Scott

1:30 PM

Tammy Foss, CDW (Ruben)

3:00 PM

Romona Schlaugue, ERO officer (Wayne)

3:00 PM

Interviewed and administered the Instrument CEO Raul ________
(George and Wayne C.)

3:00 PM

Use of Force Coordinator (Leo)

4:00PM

Reconvene in Conference Room

5:00PM

Depart HDSP

Thursday, July 21
7:15 AM

Arrive HDSP

7:45 AM

Attend Morning Meeting

All Day

Interviews and Meetings

8:30 AM

Sergeants Focus Group #13 (Central Adm. Sgts.) in B-Yard Visiting
Facilitator: Wayne S.

8:30 AM

Scribe: Calvin

Lt. Focus Group #14 (All 2nd Watch Lts.) in C-Yard Visiting
Facilitator: Wayne C.

Scribe: Ruben

11:00 AM

ADA Appeals meeting (Wayne Scott)

12:00PM

Lunch

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 92 of 115

September 23, 2016

1:00PM

Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and
inmates

12:30PM

Managers Focus Group #15 (AW’s, Captains, Department Heads)
Facilitator: George

12:30PM

Scribe: Margaret

Healthcare Focus Group #16 (Provider Staff)
Facilitator: Gary

Scribe: Leo

2:30PM

Meeting with Captain McVay (Wayne Scott)

4:00PM

Reconvene in Conference Room

5:00PM

Depart HDSP

Friday, July 22

12:00 PM

Arrive CCC

12:15 PM

Meet with CCC Warden and Managers

2:00 PM

Depart CCC

2:15 PM

Arrive HDSP

2:45 PM

E-Yard (Leo and Ruben)

3:00 PM

Conduct OCPAI Interview with Warden (George, Calvin and Gary)

3:00 PM

Conduct OCPAI Interview with CDW (Margaret, Wayne S, and
Wayne C.)

4:00 PM

Observe Feeding on all Yards and Buildings; and observe activities on all
Yards facility and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates
• Facility A (George and Ruben)
• Facility B (Gary and Margaret)
• Facility C (Wayne C. and Leo)
• Facility D (Wayne S. and Calvin)

8:00 PM

Depart HDSP

Saturday, July 23
11:00 AM

Team Meeting (Off-site)

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 93 of 115

September 23, 2016

5:30 PM

Dinner Team Meeting with Mike Picket

Sunday, July 24

12:00PM

Arrive HDSP

1:00PM

Conduct four small group discussions with inmates (One group on each
Yard)
•

A-Yard/Facility Gary and Calvin with 9 inmates

•

B-Yard/Facility Wayne S. and Margaret with 8 inmates

•

C-Yard/Facility Wayne C. and Leo with no inmates –all declined

•

D-Yard/Facility George with 6 inmates

2:00 PM

D & C Visiting Rooms observation and discussion with officers (George)

3:00 PM

Informal staff interviews (Team)

3:30 PM

reconvene in Conference Room

4:00 PM

Depart HDSP

Monday, July 25
7:30 AM

Arrive HDSP

All Day

Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and
inmates

8:00 AM

Capt. Grether C-Yard (Wayne Scott)

8:00 AM

Dr. Krause D-Yard (Calvin)

9:00 AM

Ed Bertrand, Food Service Manager (Wayne C.)

9:00 AM

Capt. Hale, Medical (Wayne S)

9:00AM

Lt. Crandle, Staff training (Gary)
Lt Harrington (Acting Capt. in D-Yard (Leo)

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 94 of 115

September 23, 2016

D’Andres CO B-Yard (Leo)
Inv. And Staff Disc. Roman Schlauch (Gary and Wayne S.)
Kimberly Jennings P&P (Gary)
Kimberly Jennings (Margaret)
Joe Shelton, Business (Margaret)
9:30 AM

CEO / Warden Meeting (Calvin and George)

10:00 AM

Morning Meeting

11:00 AM

AW Hunter Anglea (Wayne /Wayne)

11:00AM

Call Judith (George)

12:00PM

Lunch
Donnie Arminas, Office Tech. (Margaret)
Audriana Wanamaker, Exec. Asst. to Warden (Margaret)

1:00 PM

ISU Lt. DeForest (Wayne S and Gary)

1:00 PM

AW Peery Complex 2 (George)

2:00 PM

AW Rob St Andrea Central Operations (George)

5:00 PM

Depart HDSP

Tuesday, July 26
4:30 AM

Arrive HDSP

4:45 AM

Observe activities and conduct informal interviews with staff and inmates
• Facility A (Gary and Margaret)
• Facility B (George)
• Facility C (Wayne S. and Calvin)
• Facility D (Wayne C. and Leo)

7:00 AM

Reconvene in Conference Room

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 95 of 115

September 23, 2016

	
  
	
  

7:45 AM

Attend Morning Meeting (George)

Morning

Interviews/Meetings with staff

Morning

Observe facility operations and conduct informal interviews with staff and
inmates

12:00PM

Depart HDSP

1:00 PM

CCC Warden Peery (George and Gary)

3:30 PM

Call (916)	
  324-­‐8035. Sandra	
  Alfaro,	
  ADA	
  

5:30	
  PM	
  

Dinner	
  Meeting

Wednesday, July 27
9:00AM

Team meeting in Room 143

12:00PM

Lunch

1:00PM

Team meeting in Room 143

5:00PM

Dinner

Thursday, July 28
8:00 AM

Arrive HDSP

9:00AM

Pre-Closeout Meeting with Warden, CDW and CEO

10:00AM

Full Closeout Meeting with HDSP Staff

12:00PM

Depart HDSP

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 96 of 115

September 23, 2016

Appendix 7:
High Desert Assessment Team Members

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 97 of 115

September 23, 2016

Outlined below are brief summaries of the proposed ASCA team members’ qualifications
and experience:
George M. Camp, Project Director
George M. Camp has more than 40 years experience in correctional management and
consulting. He served the public sector for fifteen years in a variety of positions that
included Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections; First Deputy Commissioner of
the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; Assistant Commissioner of the
New York City Department of Correction; and Associate Warden of the Federal Prison in
Lompoc, California and the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.
In his role as Co-Executive Director of the Association of State Correctional
Administrators, he is engaged in several projects and initiatives including the expansion of
the Performance-Based Management System (PBMS); Reducing Racial Disparity within
Corrections; Contracting with the Private Sector; Providing Training and Professional
Development Opportunities for Correctional Administrators; and Developing Guidelines for
the Operation of Long-Term Restrictive Populations.
He has conducted and directed independent operational audits, performance reviews and
culture assessments in prisons throughout the country including California, Connecticut,
North Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Delaware,
Maryland, Missouri, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and many others. He just completed
leading an independent performance review of staff safety, on behalf of the State Auditor,
in all 12 of Washington’s state prisons.
Prison work within CDC and CDCR dates back to the mid-1990’s while conducting a
national study of strategies to manage prison gangs. That work included site visits to
Soledad, DVI, Folsom and San Quentin. More recently he led the independent
assessment of San Quentin’s CIC, directed the prison culture assessments at COR,
SVSP, and CCWF, and served on a three-person Independent Performance Review team
that completed a review of the entire correctional systems, resulting in a report entitled,
Reforming Corrections.
He is the author or co-author of several publications including The Resolution of
Riots, published by Oxford University Press; Management of Crowded Prisons;
Employees: Corrections Most Valuable Resource; Correctional Contracting:
Staffing Analysis – A Training Manual; A Guide to Successful Experiences; Private
Involvement in Prison Services and Operations; and the Corrections Yearbook.

Prison
Prison
Prison
Sector

He has a Bachelor’s degree in American Literature from Middlebury College, a Master’s
degree in Criminology and Corrections from Florida State University, and a Doctorate in
Sociology from Yale University.
Gary D. Maynard, Project Manager
Gary Maynard will serve as Team Manager for this project at the High Desert State Prison.
He will provide guidance to the Team Leader and the team of consultants. He will be
responsible for working with the Team Leader to develop the final report and
recommendations.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 98 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

Gary Maynard has served as Associate Director of ASCA since 2013. He has more than
35 years of experience in prison and jail operations at the state level. His experience at
the facility level includes institutional parole officer, case manager, case manager
supervisor, and deputy warden. He has served as warden at both medium and maximumsecurity institutions. He was a psychologist for the Bureau of Prisons. He has served as
Director/Secretary for four state correctional systems, including the states of Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Iowa and most recently, Maryland.
He has significant experience in tackling tough issues. In Oklahoma he was involved in
several hostage situations and prison disturbances and riots, and dramatically increased
the professional expertise of both the negotiation and assault teams. In Maryland, when he
became aware of the excessive force of officers, terminated 25 correctional officers against
the protests of the Union and legislators. In time, 22 of the 25 were convicted or pled guilty,
and Union and Legislative support returned to him even stronger. He conducted research
and site visits to facilities in California CDCR regarding staff assaults, resulting in training
and assistance to wardens to reduce the assaults. He has served as the Team Leader on
several projects across the country, including a thorough review of staff safety initiatives in
all 12 of the Washington State Corrections facilities, requiring his team to conduct 2-4 day
site visits at each facility. Last year, with the Florida Department of Corrections, he served
as the ASCA Project Manager to review Use of Force issues with that department,
conducting site visits and interviews, and issued a final report with recommendations for
corrective action. This past year he served as an Expert Witness for the NYC Department
of Correction in their Use of Force litigation, and later served as Leader of a consultant
team that provided Coaching and Mentoring to Jail Wardens and Deputy Wardens on NYC
DOC’s Riker’s Island-a network of 11 jails that house extremely violent and disruptive
detainees from the NYC court system.
As a member of the Association of State Correctional Administrators since 1987, he has
chaired the Information Sharing Committee, as well as served on the Executive Committee
and as the Southern Directors President. He has been a member of the American
Correctional Association since 1974, and is a Past President of ACA. He chaired ACA’s
Staff Safety Committee. He has been active with ACA’s Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections and their Standards Committee. He received the Courage and Valor Award
from the Oklahoma DOC.
Harold Clarke, Project Advisor
Harold Clarke grew up in the Canal Zone in Panama. After college in Nebraska, he
joined the Nebraska Department of Corrections in 1974 as a Counselor. He rose through
the department, becoming Warden at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in 1987 and the
Director of Corrections in 1990.
In August of 1990, he was appointed Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services, a position he held until 2005, when he began his role as Secretary of the

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 99 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

Washington State Department of Corrections. In 2007, he took on a new role, this time on
the east coast as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
On November 15, 2010, he was named the Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections. Harold was appointed by Governor Robert F. McDonnell as Director of the
Virginia Department of Corrections effective November 15, 2010, and reappointed by
Governor Terry McAuliffe in 2014. Harold is a Past President of the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA).
Harold believes that the culture of a correctional facility largely determines the degree to
which progress can be realized. A failure to strategically address cultural issues could
lead to a troubled correctional system. Harold has focused on cultural transformation in
the four correctional systems that he has had the privilege of leading. Most recently in
Virginia, the efforts of Harold and his colleagues to change the culture of Red Onion State
Penitentiary, a super-maximum facility, was recognized by the Southern Legislative
Conference by providing Harold and the Virginia Department of Corrections with the
STAR Award for Innovation in Government. Additionally, under his leadership, the
VADOC has successfully implemented Step Down Programs for offenders in special
management populations who for many years have refused to leave such units.
Harold is the 1997 recipient of the Association of State Correctional Administrators
Michael Francke Award and the 2014 recipient of the American Correctional Association’s
E.R. Cass Award.
Wayne Scott, Team Leader
Wayne Scott will participate as the lead member of the on-site team and will play a primary
role in formulating recommendations and drafting reports.
Mr. Scott served over 30 years with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. He began his career in corrections in 1972 as a
correctional officer and progressed through the ranks to serve as Executive Director of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). While serving with the TDCJ, Mr. Scott
headed up a team of experts that examined the staffing at every Texas prison and
established the base staffing requirements that are used by the agency today.
Mr. Scott’s correctional consulting experience includes: Consultant on a comprehensive
assessment of staffing needs for the Florida Department of Corrections; Consultant on a
comprehensive review of all the policies, procedures, and processes relating to use-offorce within the Florida Department of Corrections; Consultant on a four-man team of
security experts to review all agency policies and security procedures in the aftermath of a
high profile escape; Consultant on a comprehensive assessment of staffing needs for the
Detention Command of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Texas; Consultant on an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement contract to provide support in administering and
conducting the Detention Compliance Management Plan; Consultant on a comprehensive
assessment of the administration and operations of the Massachusetts Department of
Correction; Consultant on a justice system review for Tyler County, Texas; Consultant on a
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 100 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

comprehensive performance review of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and its
related programs; Consultant on a criminal justice system and jail population study for
Bexar County, Texas; Consultant on an agency wide operational analysis for the Florida
Department of Corrections; Consultant on an assessment of the New Mexico Department
of Correction's policies, procedures, and practices as they relate to the deployment of its
correctional staff; Consultant on a project for the Cook County Judicial Advisory Council to
develop an approach to assessing security staffing needs at the Cook County (Chicago,
Illinois) Jail.
Calvin Brown, Team Member
Calvin Brown is currently a criminal justice consultant and has been involved in many
projects involving culture and prison operations. In this proposal relating to the High Desert
State Prison, Calvin’s expertise in minority relations and prison culture will be most
beneficial.
He has served as the Deputy Director of Facility Operations at the Georgia Department of
Corrections, and was responsible for the overall direction and management of the
Department’s daily operations at both the central office and facility levels. He began his
career in corrections over twenty-seven years ago as a mental health counselor in a
therapeutic community setting. Over the course of his tenure with the Georgia Department
of Corrections, he has directed statewide programs in Counseling, Mental Health,
Mediation/Conflict Resolution, and Inmate Administration.
In 2015, he was involved as a consultant involving the New York City Department of
Correction. He was part of a team of four consultants providing coaching and mentoring to
the leadership of two of the Jails on Riker’s Island. In this capacity, he was teamed with
the warden and deputy wardens of one facility and assisted them in scheduling,
inspections, staff accountability and personnel actions. This coaching involved regular
meetings with the warden and his staff, as well as weekly meetings with the Commissioner
of the Department of Corrections and his Deputy Commissioners, Chief of the Department
and Deputy Chiefs.
Mr. Brown has considerable experience in organizational culture assessment, having
participated in eight organizational culture assessments in prisons in seven states
(California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Connecticut, Missouri, and Maryland). He
has been trained in the application of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP)
and has successfully applied it in a variety of correctional settings. His extensive
knowledge of correctional organizations, programs, and operations at the local, state and
national levels all add value to this current project.
Mr. Brown graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from Albany
State University in Albany, Georgia. He received a Master of Education degree in
Community Counseling from Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 101 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

Leo Carroll, Ph.D., Team Member
Leo Carroll is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Rhode Island. His work in
corrections dates back to 1968 when he was assigned to the U.S. Army/Air Force
Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His doctoral dissertation, “Hacks,
Blacks and Cons: Race Relations in a Maximum Security Prison,” was published in 1974
and updated and republished in 1988. As one of only a handful of in-depth studies of race
relations in prison, it continues to be widely cited. Research for his most recent book-length
publication, “Lawful Order: A Case Study of Correctional Crisis and Reform,” an institutional
history of judicial intervention into Rhode Island‚s prisons, provided him rare insight into the
complexities of correctional management and the processes of organizational change. In
2000, the book received the Outstanding Book Award from the Academy of Criminal Justice
Sciences, an award given annually to a book by an Academy member that is judged to
make an extraordinary contribution to knowledge and understanding of criminal justice.
Professor Carroll has also published numerous articles in professional journals.
Margaret McMullian Pugh, Team Member
In 1994, Margaret Pugh was appointed as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Corrections by Governor Tony Knowles. She served as Commissioner until November
2002 administering a 180 million dollar operating budget, 1,400 staff in five labor unions
and 4,200 offenders. During her tenure, she established a new female facility, built a new
jail in Anchorage, established victims programs, upgraded and updated computerized
information systems and increased treatment programs specifically for mental health and
alcohol issues. Ms. Pugh began her career in the field of corrections as a Youth
Counselor at the McLaughlin Youth Center and worked up to the position of Psychological
Counselor at that facility. She has held positions as Probation Officer, Program
Coordinator, Correctional Superintendent, Director and finally Commissioner. She also
served as Legislative Assistant and as a member of the campaign staff of Fran Ulmer who
was successfully elected as Lieutenant Governor. Ms. Pugh received a B.S. in Social
Work from Florida State University. She continues her contributions to the field of
corrections through her participation in both the American Correctional Association and
the Association of State Correctional Administrators including working as an ICE inspector
and assisting with other projects with state correctional agencies.
Ruben L. Cedeño, Team Member
Dr. Ruben Cedeño retired as the Deputy Secretary of the Washington State Department of
Corrections’ Prison Division. After eighteen years of service in the state of Washington
community college and public school systems, he entered the field of corrections in 1989
when he was appointed as the Superintendent for a female correctional institution in the
state. He also held a number of other positions within the Washington State Department of
Corrections, including Community Corrections Manager, Director of the Division of
Offender Programs, and Superintendent of a male correctional institution. Just prior to his
appointment as Deputy Secretary, Dr. Cedeño served as a Regional Director overseeing

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 102 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

the prisons and community corrections offices and work release centers operating in the
southwest region of the state.
Dr. Cedeño has considerable experience in organizational culture assessments. He has
participated in nine organizational culture assessments in jails and prisons across the
country. He has been trained in the application of the Institutional Culture Assessment
Protocol (ICAP) and has successfully applied it in a variety of correctional settings. He has
also worked with institutional staff and leadership to develop and support successful
organizational change strategies.
Wayne Choinski, Team Member
Wayne Choinski brings over 30 years of experience in the field of corrections. His extensive
correctional experience includes having served as a senior administrator at several large
correctional institutions, the senior administrator for community corrections, and a regional
administrator responsible for the oversight of nine correctional facilities including jails. In his
role as a regional administrator, he served as a member of a state legislative committee on
correctional staff safety.
As a senior associate with ASCA since 2010, Wayne has consulted on collaborative
projects with RAND Corporation, The Council of State Governments and The Pew
Research Center in addition to assisting with a number of ASCA training programs.
Recent work includes: Project Manager for CT DOC York CI Culture Assessment; An
independent review of staff safety initiatives within the Washington State Department of
Corrections; Operational staffing assessments for Florida Department of Corrections, New
Mexico Corrections Department, Vermont Department of Corrections, Oregon Department
of Corrections, and Nevada Department of Corrections; RAND Corporation Prison
Closings Study; Independent assessment of a staff homicide at CO DOC; Technical
assistance for HI DPS regarding use of disciplinary and administrative segregation in their
prisons and jails; Master plan development for the relocation of the Draper, UT prison
complex; Master plan development for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; Master
plan development for the Philadelphia Prison System; and Detention standards
compliance audits for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 103 of 115

	
  	
  

September 8, 2016

Appendix 8:
The Organizational Culture Assessment InstrumentPrisons (OCAI-P)
The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument-Prisons was adapted with approval
from Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). The
original instrument has been used in more than one thousand organizations and has been
found to predict organizational performance.
The instrument is broken down into two sections: the first section examining staff
member’s impressions of the current organizational culture, and the second section
examining the same staff member’s opinions about how they would prefer the organization
to function.
There are a total of six questions in each of the two sections of the instrument. Each question
has four statements that try to describe how a staff person might feel about their correctional
working environment. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, with participants encouraged
to determine the degree to which they agree with each of the four statements. They are
asked to weight each answer numerically, assigning them a number from zero to one
hundred. The total score for the four parts of each category should equal one hundred
(see below for an example question and weighted answers).

What makes a good correctional officer?

Now

A.

A good CO is a team player who interacts well with fellow staff
and cooperates with others.

25

B.

A good CO is flexible - s/he can adjust to circumstances that are
changing all the time.

10

C.

A good CO tries to be the best officer around.

15

D.

A good CO is very disciplined - follows direction and gets the job
done correctly and on time.

50
Total

100

In the first section, employees assigned to a particular focus group are required to
provide a picture of how they perceive their organization to work and the values that

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 104 of 115

September 8, 2016

characterize it. After a brief group discussion of individual answers, the focus group
members then proceed onto the second section of the instrument and score the same
questions but from the perspective of how they would like their organization to function
in five years. A second, more lengthy and introspective discussion ensues, with focus
group members sharing their rationale for their individual responses.
After the focus group session concludes, an analysis of the responses is conducted, and a
‘picture’ of both the current and preferred organizational cultures may be drawn (e.g.,
the ‘culture profile’ diagrams seen throughout this document). These diagrams are effective
visual representations of the organizational culture, and are valuable tools for organizational
leadership when determining long-range goals and future action in relation to
implementing plans for culture change.

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 105 of 115

September 8, 2016

Appendix 9
Organizational Culture Types

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 106 of 115

September 8, 2016

Appendix 10:
High Desert Focus Group & Staff Scores

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 107 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Overall Culture
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

25.6

18.5

24.3

31.7

42.3

14.9

15.5

27.3

66.5

191

All Staff Without Warden

25.3

18.5

24.4

31.7

42.2

14.8

15.5

27.4

66.2

190

Warden

65.8

14.2

0.0

20.0

58.3

25.8

3.3

12.5

70.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

24.5

16.8

23.7

35.0

42.5

13.8

11.4

32.3

63.9

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

29.2

19.8

20.8

30.3

39.4

12.9

16.3

31.4

77.4

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

20.0

19.0

22.8

38.3

47.8

12.5

12.1

27.6

44.3

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

23.7

14.7

27.4

34.2

44.9

14.6

14.7

25.7

57.5

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

28.6

18.4

21.9

31.1

39.7

15.4

16.4

28.5

77.8

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

27.4

24.2

22.6

25.8

37.5

14.4

16.4

31.7

68.0

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

30.9

16.6

21.4

31.1

36.1

12.3

22.6

29.0

87.2

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

26.8

19.5

21.4

32.4

41.4

11.6

12.2

34.8

66.0

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

22.9

30.9

25.4

20.7

53.3

9.1

14.6

23.0

34.6

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)

24.9

21.3

23.1

30.7

55.2

10.0

12.2

22.7

39.6

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

18.5

16.2

28.4

36.9

37.3

16.7

19.2

26.9

61.5

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

22.4

13.4

20.8

43.4

44.7

19.3

10.3

25.7

43.6

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

23.8

23.0

27.9

25.3

36.7

19.2

20.2

24.0

74.2

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

31.4

16.0

27.8

24.8

53.3

12.9

15.5

18.3

56.4

11

(#15) Managers

23.9

19.2

30.9

26.0

34.7

23.1

20.6

21.6

70.8

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors

24.1

13.0

27.7

35.3

37.2

15.5

14.8

32.4

68.7

11

Healthcare CEO

33.3

16.7

16.7

33.3

30.0

29.2

20.8

20.0

66.7

1

Chief Deputy Warden

33.3

12.5

16.7

37.5

45.8

8.3

12.5

33.3

75.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)

44.2

14.4

11.1

30.3

44.7

21.1

12.2

21.9

83.3

3

Age: 35 or Younger

28.5

19.5

22.4

29.6

43.9

13.2

14.5

28.3

69.2

48

Age: 36-49

24.1

18.8

25.9

31.2

42.4

14.9

16.1

26.6

63.5

90

Age: 50 or Older

25.2

15.9

24.0

34.9

41.9

15.7

15.0

27.4

66.6

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers

24.5

17.1

25.4

33.0

46.2

12.8

13.5

27.5

56.7

22

CO 2nd Watch

27.5

20.0

22.2

30.3

39.7

14.1

15.2

31.0

74.3

52

CO 3rd Watch

25.3

17.4

23.4

34.0

42.7

12.8

15.3

29.2

65.3

47

CO A Yard

22.3

17.9

23.2

36.6

45.1

13.2

11.8

30.0

54.5

23

CO B Yard

29.7

17.5

21.6

31.1

38.0

13.9

19.3

28.7

83.4

23

CO C Yard

26.5

17.3

24.0

32.2

42.1

13.7

15.6

28.6

68.9

27

CO D Yard

27.1

22.0

22.0

28.8

39.3

13.1

14.4

33.1

67.1

26

CO All Yards

26.5

18.7

22.7

32.1

41.1

13.5

15.3

30.2

70.7

99

All Males

25.8

19.3

23.6

31.3

42.7

14.6

15.9

26.7

66.1

158

All Females

24.0

14.3

27.4

34.3

41.1

15.7

12.7

30.5

63.0

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

20.6

14.7

24.3

40.4

41.3

18.1

14.4

26.3

51.9

26

Race: Caucasian

24.6

18.5

24.8

32.1

42.7

14.8

15.3

27.2

63.8

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

27.5

19.2

21.3

32.1

41.2

16.0

16.0

26.7

72.5

43

Race: African America

45.8

19.8

8.8

25.6

47.3

14.0

7.9

30.8

86.7

4

Race: Hispanic

26.5

19.6

21.0

32.9

38.9

17.1

16.1

27.9

75.1

26

Race: Asian

23.1

18.9

28.9

29.2

43.6

21.4

14.2

20.8

53.9

3

Race: Other

24.0

17.9

24.6

33.5

44.0

12.3

19.8

23.9

60.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined

26.6

22.5

27.1

23.7

48.4

13.6

16.6

21.4

56.5

27

All Sergeants

23.3

27.0

26.7

23.0

45.0

14.1

17.4

23.5

55.7

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

27.3

16.9

22.0

33.8

41.8

14.5

13.8

30.0

71.0

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

24.8

16.7

27.4

31.1

43.2

15.2

15.9

25.7

63.3

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

23.6

22.4

24.5

29.5

42.3

14.9

16.9

25.8

62.7

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

24.3

18.7

23.4

31.1

40.6

14.1

15.2

27.3

65.0

12.0

Group Mean

25.2

18.9

24.6

31.3

42.6

14.6

15.6

27.2

62.0

11.8

Group High

31.4

30.9

30.9

43.4

55.2

23.1

22.6

34.8

87.2

14.0

Group Low

18.5

13.0

20.8

20.7

34.7

9.1

10.3

18.3

34.6

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 108 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Dominant Characteristics
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

27.9

16.0

22.8

33.3

38.6

16.8

18.0

26.6

77.0

191

All Staff Without Warden

27.6

16.1

22.9

33.4

38.2

16.9

18.1

26.8

77.1

190

Warden

75.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

35.8

12.5

26.3

25.4

35.0

19.6

14.6

30.8

75.0

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

38.6

11.4

16.8

33.2

37.1

13.2

17.1

32.5

95.7

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

25.0

14.5

21.8

38.6

43.2

19.5

9.1

28.2

53.6

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

23.5

15.8

23.5

37.3

38.5

18.8

18.5

24.2

63.8

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

32.5

14.6

17.1

35.8

45.4

14.2

12.9

27.5

74.2

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

29.6

24.3

20.0

26.1

38.6

13.6

18.6

29.3

75.7

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

26.4

17.5

22.1

34.1

29.5

14.1

25.0

31.4

87.8

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

32.5

14.3

18.5

34.7

40.4

16.3

14.2

29.2

80.3

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)28.1

26.9

25.6

19.4

51.9

9.4

15.0

23.8

43.8

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)23.6

24.1

22.7

29.5

58.6

10.5

15.5

15.5

30.0

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

15.8

11.3

26.7

46.3

23.3

15.4

22.5

38.8

76.7

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

23.8

17.7

17.4

41.1

36.4

25.0

14.6

23.9

60.1

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

32.5

22.5

25.0

20.0

39.4

22.5

15.6

22.5

81.3

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

32.3

11.4

25.0

31.4

50.0

13.2

18.6

18.2

60.9

11

(#15) Managers

25.7

12.1

28.6

33.6

32.9

23.9

23.6

19.6

62.1

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
15.9

13.2

33.2

37.7

22.3

20.0

26.4

31.4

73.6

11

Healthcare CEO

10.0

15.0

25.0

50.0

10.0

20.0

50.0

20.0

40.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

50.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

50.0

25.0

50.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
45.0

5.0

16.7

33.3

45.0

6.7

33.3

15.0

63.3

3

Age: 35 or Younger

33.4

16.4

22.6

27.6

43.0

17.1

13.5

26.4

79.5

48

Age: 36-49

25.9

16.7

23.7

33.7

36.7

16.4

19.3

27.6

78.4

90

Age: 50 or Older

27.1

13.0

21.5

38.4

37.6

17.3

20.0

25.1

70.4

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
19.8

18.6

28.0

33.6

40.5

15.2

20.9

23.4

58.6

22

CO 2nd Watch

34.1

15.9

19.9

30.1

38.9

15.0

16.0

30.1

90.4

52

CO 3rd Watch

26.8

15.5

21.5

36.2

38.0

17.2

16.7

28.1

74.2

47

CO A Yard

30.7

13.5

24.1

31.7

38.9

19.6

12.0

29.6

71.3

23

CO B Yard

29.6

16.0

19.5

35.0

37.8

14.1

18.7

29.3

83.5

23

CO C Yard

31.3

13.5

20.0

35.2

37.8

15.9

17.8

28.5

82.2

27

CO D Yard

31.0

19.7

19.3

30.0

39.4

14.8

16.5

29.2

83.1

26

CO All Yards

30.7

15.7

20.7

33.0

38.5

16.1

16.3

29.1

83.6

99

All Males

28.0

16.7

22.4

32.8

39.5

16.6

17.9

25.9

77.0

158

All Females

24.9

11.9

25.5

37.7

34.0

16.5

17.7

31.8

72.7

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

20.1

14.7

21.7

43.5

30.4

20.6

18.3

30.8

67.8

26

Race: Caucasian

27.8

15.7

22.9

33.6

39.0

16.6

17.8

26.6

75.9

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

26.6

17.1

22.9

33.4

36.3

20.0

18.0

25.7

74.9

43

Race: African America

42.5

16.3

13.8

27.5

63.8

6.3

3.8

26.3

57.5

4

Race: Hispanic

23.8

18.3

22.3

35.6

32.9

24.0

16.3

26.7

70.4

26

Race: Asian

25.0

50.0

25.0

30.0

33.3

30.0

13.3

23.3

63.3

3

Race: Other

28.0

13.5

27.5

31.0

35.0

12.0

29.5

23.5

82.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
31.1

19.3

25.2

24.4

47.4

14.8

16.7

21.1

67.4

27

All Sergeants

30.3

24.7

25.3

19.7

45.6

15.9

15.3

23.1

62.5

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

29.1

15.1

23.1

32.7

39.3

16.3

16.3

28.0

77.1

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

31.0

14.0

23.1

31.9

38.6

16.9

18.3

26.2

79.0

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

23.2

19.1

22.1

35.6

37.9

17.7

18.9

25.4

70.5

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

27.3

14.6

23.1

33.9

38.6

15.9

16.4

27.9

73.9

12.0

Group Mean

27.6

16.5

23.1

32.8

38.9

16.8

17.6

26.7

68.4

11.8

Group High

38.6

26.9

33.2

46.3

58.6

25.0

26.4

38.8

95.7

14.0

Group Low

15.8

11.3

16.8

19.4

22.3

9.4

9.1

15.5

30.0

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 109 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Leadership Culture

Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

21.7

22.9

32.2

23.1

43.0

13.8

13.1

30.1

43.5

191

All Staff Without Warden

21.5

23.0

32.4

23.1

43.0

13.7

13.2

30.1

43.1

190

Warden

60.0

10.0

0.0

30.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

25.0

70.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

18.8

19.6

38.8

22.9

42.9

10.8

2.5

43.8

10.0

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

21.1

27.1

32.9

18.9

34.3

13.6

20.0

32.1

47.1

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

15.0

25.0

35.9

24.1

45.5

13.6

6.8

34.1

19.1

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

23.8

21.2

33.5

21.5

44.2

12.7

13.5

29.6

43.1

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

28.3

30.0

22.5

19.2

36.3

12.9

13.3

37.5

47.5

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

23.2

27.1

27.5

22.1

41.8

12.5

15.0

30.7

45.7

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

28.6

21.8

25.5

24.1

35.5

11.8

27.3

25.5

80.0

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

15.9

23.5

24.3

36.3

32.3

8.7

14.0

45.1

49.7

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)15.0

33.1

38.8

13.1

53.1

13.1

8.1

25.6

-1.3

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)21.8

30.5

29.5

18.2

61.8

7.7

11.4

19.1

18.2

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

16.8

22.8

40.0

20.5

39.6

19.6

16.3

24.6

46.2

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

23.6

14.6

30.9

30.9

50.7

15.7

7.9

25.7

43.6

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

18.8

24.4

33.8

23.1

32.5

19.4

16.9

31.3

56.3

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

23.6

19.5

40.5

16.4

64.1

10.5

11.4

14.1

19.1

11

(#15) Managers

21.8

21.4

35.7

21.1

36.8

22.9

16.4

23.9

61.4

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
21.8

12.9

34.5

30.7

40.0

11.8

10.9

37.3

50.5

11

Healthcare CEO

30.0

10.0

30.0

30.0

40.0

15.0

5.0

40.0

50.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

50.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
46.7

6.7

10.0

36.7

46.7

21.7

1.7

30.0

70.0

3

Age: 35 or Younger

21.8

24.0

32.3

22.0

41.3

12.7

12.2

33.9

37.3

48

Age: 36-49

22.1

21.4

32.9

32.6

44.6

13.5

13.9

28.0

46.2

90

Age: 50 or Older

21.8

23.5

31.8

23.0

43.2

14.0

12.4

30.4

42.3

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
21.8

21.7

32.0

24.5

50.9

9.8

11.1

28.2

34.4

22

CO 2nd Watch

22.8

26.1

30.4

20.8

38.8

12.5

13.1

35.7

38.3

52

CO 3rd Watch

20.9

22.8

29.8

26.5

39.4

11.7

15.3

33.6

48.6

47

CO A Yard

17.0

22.2

37.4

23.5

44.1

12.2

4.6

39.1

14.3

23

CO B Yard

28.5

26.1

23.9

21.5

35.9

12.4

20.0

31.7

64.8

65

CO C Yard

22.4

24.3

33.1

20.2

39.1

13.1

16.9

30.9

45.2

27

CO D Yard

19.8

25.5

26.0

28.7

37.4

10.7

14.5

37.3

47.5

26

CO All Yards

21.9

24.5

30.1

23.5

39.1

12.1

14.1

34.7

43.2

99

All Males

21.3

24.1

31.8

22.7

42.8

13.8

14.0

29.4

43.7

158

All Females

24.7

16.2

35.8

23.3

46.8

13.0

8.3

31.8

38.7

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

20.4

18.4

35.1

26.1

45.6

17.5

11.7

25.2

49.7

26

Race: Caucasian

20.4

23.7

32.9

23.0

43.6

13.7

12.5

30.3

39.1

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

25.7

22.6

29.3

22.3

43.0

14.4

13.6

29.0

52.2

43

Race: African America

38.8

32.5

8.8

20.0

50.0

12.5

5.0

32.5

52.5

4

Race: Hispanic

27.2

20.3

31.7

20.8

41.0

14.8

13.5

30.8

52.5

26

Race: Asian

13.3

23.3

38.3

25.0

43.3

23.3

15.0

18.3

40.0

3

Race: Other

20.5

24.5

28.5

26.5

45.5

11.5

17.0

26.0

50.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
19.6

25.0

38.0

17.4

51.5

13.9

12.0

22.6

25.9

27

All Sergeants

16.9

28.8

36.3

18.1

42.8

16.3

12.5

28.4

27.5

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

25.5

18.6

29.0

26.9

40.6

12.9

10.9

35.6

52.4

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

19.0

20.8

38.1

22.2

43.5

14.2

14.4

27.9

39.7

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

20.6

30.4

29.8

19.1

45.7

13.9

14.2

26.2

35.7

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

21.8

23.2

33.7

21.8

40.9

12.8

13.4

30.2

46.0

12.0

Group Mean

21.1

23.4

32.8

22.7

43.2

13.6

13.2

30.0

39.8

11.8

Group High

28.6

33.1

40.5

36.3

64.1

22.9

27.3

45.1

80.0

14.0

Group Low

15.0

12.9

22.5

13.1

32.3

7.7

2.5

14.1

-1.3

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 110 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Management Culture
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

29.7

15.8

28.2

26.3

43.3

14.3

15.0

27.4

70.7

191

All Staff Without Warden

29.6

15.7

28.3

26.4

43.3

14.2

15.0

27.5

70.4

190

Warden

60.0

10.0

0.0

30.0

50.0

30.0

10.0

10.0

80.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

27.5

15.0

25.0

32.5

34.6

13.8

18.3

33.3

84.2

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

26.4

12.9

33.2

27.5

40.7

12.9

15.0

31.4

63.6

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

24.1

20.0

26.8

29.1

50.0

7.7

9.5

32.7

40.9

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

33.5

11.2

30.0

25.4

48.5

15.0

11.9

24.6

62.3

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

31.3

12.5

27.5

28.8

40.0

13.3

17.1

29.6

79.2

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

34.3

23.2

23.6

18.9

42.9

14.6

14.6

27.9

65.0

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

29.5

12.5

28.0

30.0

33.6

12.7

23.6

30.0

91.3

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

38.8

16.3

23.0

21.8

41.8

10.5

12.6

35.1

67.5

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)19.4

30.6

35.6

14.4

53.1

5.6

17.5

23.8

13.8

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)35.9

14.5

27.7

21.8

52.3

10.0

9.1

28.6

53.6

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

21.9

18.8

28.3

30.9

49.6

13.8

17.5

19.2

44.7

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

28.4

12.3

18.6

40.7

47.1

19.3

8.9

24.6

48.6

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

27.5

18.8

35.6

18.1

42.5

16.3

18.8

22.5

61.3

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

37.7

14.1

34.1

14.1

49.5

15.9

13.2

21.4

58.2

11

(#15) Managers

23.2

12.5

36.8

27.5

36.4

23.9

16.8

22.9

50.7

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
30.0

14.1

26.4

29.5

37.7

12.7

17.7

31.8

80.0

11

Healthcare CEO

50.0

10.0

10.0

30.0

20.0

50.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

50.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
45.0

13.3

11.7

30.0

31.7

35.0

18.3

15.0

43.3

3

Age: 35 or Younger

31.0

15.5

24.8

28.8

45.4

10.7

13.6

30.2

68.3

48

Age: 36-49

28.8

15.7

30.8

24.7

43.0

15.5

16.5

25.1

70.9

90

Age: 50 or Older

30.5

16.0

27.2

26.3

44.0

15.5

12.1

28.4

68.9

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
33.0

14.3

27.0

25.7

45.0

11.4

13.4

30.2

66.8

22

CO 2nd Watch

29.9

16.1

27.4

26.6

39.7

13.7

16.2

30.5

72.7

52

CO 3rd Watch

31.7

14.9

27.0

26.4

43.7

11.6

14.3

30.4

68.1

47

CO A Yard

25.9

17.4

25.9

30.9

42.0

10.9

14.1

33.0

63.5

23

CO B Yard

30.4

12.5

37.7

29.3

37.0

13.0

20.2

29.8

85.0

23

CO C Yard

29.8

12.0

31.7

26.5

44.4

13.9

13.5

28.1

63.7

27

CO D Yard

36.4

20.0

23.3

20.3

42.4

12.7

13.7

31.2

66.2

26

CO All Yards

30.8

15.5

27.2

26.5

41.6

12.7

15.3

30.5

70.5

99

All Males

30.6

15.9

26.9

26.6

43.1

14.3

14.9

27.8

72.7

158

All Females

26.3

15.6

32.2

26.0

44.7

14.5

15.0

25.8

63.2

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

25.4

15.3

32.1

36.2

48.3

16.7

12.9

22.1

51.5

26

Race: Caucasian

29.6

15.7

28.4

26.3

44.7

14.1

14.0

27.2

68.0

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

30.5

18.7

22.0

28.7

40.1

15.8

16.9

27.2

80.8

43

Race: African America

47.5

18.8

10.0

23.8

52.5

15.0

11.3

21.3

87.5

4

Race: Hispanic

30.5

20.0

20.8

28.7

37.7

15.4

19.0

27.9

85.6

26

Race: Asian

18.3

15.0

28.3

38.3

38.3

25.0

11.7

25.0

40.0

3

Race: Other

27.5

16.5

28.0

28.0

42.0

14.5

15.0

28.5

70.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
29.3

20.4

35.0

15.4

48.5

13.0

16.1

22.4

47.4

27

All Sergeants

23.4

24.7

35.6

16.3

47.8

10.9

18.1

23.1

37.5

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

32.7

13.5

23.3

30.5

43.0

14.4

13.5

29.1

77.6

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

28.5

14.7

32.9

23.9

45.3

14.7

15.4

24.6

64.9

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

27.7

20.4

29.8

22.1

42.1

14.5

15.7

27.8

59.8

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

29.0

14.3

27.9

27.5

42.7

13.6

15.9

28.3

61.8

12.0

Group Mean

29.3

16.2

28.8

25.7

43.8

13.6

15.1

27.5

60.3

11.8

Group High

38.8

30.6

36.8

40.7

53.1

23.9

23.6

35.1

91.3

14.0

Group Low

19.4

11.2

18.6

14.1

33.6

5.6

8.9

19.2

13.8

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 111 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Organizational Glue
Characteristics
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

32.5

14.2

18.5

34.8

46.8

14.8

13.6

24.7

70.1

191

All Staff Without Warden

32.4

14.2

18.6

34.9

46.9

14.7

13.6

24.8

70.0

190

Warden

50.0

25.0

0.0

25.0

40.0

40.0

10.0

10.0

50.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

31.7

12.5

15.4

40.4

54.4

10.6

11.0

24.0

54.5

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

48.9

16.4

8.2

26.4

45.4

12.9

11.4

30.4

85.7

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

24.1

12.7

15.9

47.3

53.2

13.2

9.5

24.1

40.9

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

29.2

9.6

19.2

41.9

47.3

13.5

14.6

24.6

56.2

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

32.1

16.3

20.0

31.7

37.5

17.9

17.1

27.5

85.8

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

32.1

18.6

20.4

28.9

36.1

14.6

17.9

31.4

87.1

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

47.7

10.9

14.5

26.8

50.9

7.7

17.7

23.6

87.3

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

31.7

13.8

19.2

35.4

47.1

11.3

10.1

31.5

69.2

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)44.4

13.8

16.9

25.0

67.5

7.5

7.5

17.5

53.8

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)29.1

15.0

16.8

39.1

60.0

9.5

10.5

20.0

38.2

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

19.2

13.3

27.1

40.4

36.3

18.3

15.0

30.4

55.8

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

18.6

11.4

22.9

47.1

47.4

21.6

10.4

20.6

21.9

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

31.9

21.9

19.4

26.9

40.0

17.5

18.1

24.4

83.8

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

49.5

11.4

13.6

25.5

60.0

10.9

10.9

18.2

79.1

11

(#15) Managers

30.4

17.1

24.6

27.9

35.4

23.6

20.7

20.4

77.1

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
23.6

12.7

21.4

42.3

43.6

17.7

13.6

25.0

50.0

11

Healthcare CEO

30.0

10.0

10.0

50.0

10.0

50.0

30.0

10.0

-20.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

75.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

0.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
35.0

20.0

11.7

33.3

41.7

30.0

13.3

15.0

63.3

3

Age: 35 or Younger

39.4

15.2

14.9

30.5

50.2

13.6

13.1

23.0

78.3

48

Age: 36-49

29.4

14.3

20.4

35.9

45.9

14.3

13.5

26.3

67.1

90

Age: 50 or Older

29.2

13.2

19.1

38.5

47.1

16.5

14.1

22.3

57.5

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
26.4

13.9

19.1

40.7

51.8

13.6

12.0

22.5

49.1

22

CO 2nd Watch

36.5

16.1

15.9

31.5

43.1

14.0

14.4

28.5

86.8

52

CO 3rd Watch

33.0

11.7

17.3

38.0

49.5

11.5

13.0

26.0

67.0

47

CO A Yard

28.0

12.6

15.7

43.7

53.8

11.8

10.3

24.0

48.4

23

CO B Yard

39.6

13.7

17.4

29.3

43.9

13.0

17.4

25.7

91.3

23

CO C Yard

39.4

13.1

13.5

33.9

46.3

13.1

13.0

27.6

86.3

27

CO D Yard

31.9

16.3

19.8

31.9

41.2

13.1

14.3

31.5

81.5

26

CO All Yards

34.8

14.0

16.6

34.6

46.1

12.8

13.7

27.3

77.4

99

All Males

33.6

14.6

17.4

34.4

47.9

14.2

13.9

24.0

71.4

158

All Females

25.8

12.5

23.5

38.2

42.5

17.9

12.0

27.6

55.9

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

18.8

12.3

24.8

44.0

42.3

20.1

12.5

25.1

37.5

26

Race: Caucasian

30.8

14.2

18.5

36.5

46.6

15.2

13.6

24.6

66.6

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

31.7

15.9

18.4

34.0

47.9

15.0

14.7

22.4

67.7

43

Race: African America

57.5

17.5

6.3

18.8

38.8

20.0

10.0

31.3

62.5

4

Race: Hispanic

31.0

16.2

17.9

35.0

46.3

15.2

13.5

25.0

69.2

26

Race: Asian

23.3

15.0

31.7

30.0

43.3

16.7

20.0

20.0

56.7

3

Race: Other

26.0

15.0

20.5

38.5

57.0

15.0

18.0

13.0

38.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
42.8

15.2

16.3

25.7

56.3

11.9

12.0

19.8

73.0

27

All Sergeants

38.1

17.8

18.1

25.9

53.9

12.5

12.8

20.9

68.8

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

30.6

14.6

17.9

36.9

45.4

15.0

12.5

27.1

69.6

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

34.8

12.8

17.9

34.5

48.0

15.6

14.0

22.5

68.1

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

30.4

16.3

20.4

32.9

48.1

13.9

14.4

23.6

64.5

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

31.7

13.6

19.2

33.6

47.2

13.4

12.5

24.3

62.7

12.0

Group Mean

32.8

14.2

18.5

34.6

47.6

14.3

13.5

24.6

64.2

11.8

Group High

49.5

21.9

27.1

47.3

67.5

23.6

20.7

31.5

87.3

14.0

Group Low

18.6

9.6

8.2

25.0

35.4

7.5

7.5

17.5

21.9

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 112 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Strategic Emphasis
Characteristics
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

19.7

23.2

24.1

33.0

35.8

15.3

19.2

29.7

67.9

191

All Staff Without Warden

19.5

23.2

24.3

33.0

35.6

15.2

19.3

29.8

67.7

190

Warden

60.0

20.0

0.0

20.0

60.0

30.0

0.0

10.0

80.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

9.6

25.8

18.3

46.3

39.6

14.6

12.9

32.9

40.0

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

14.3

24.3

16.4

45.0

37.5

11.8

18.2

32.5

50.0

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

18.0

18.5

14.0

49.5

45.0

12.7

17.7

24.5

38.5

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

17.0

19.7

34.2

29.1

37.7

14.6

17.7

30.0

56.8

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

20.8

21.3

22.5

35.4

30.8

17.5

21.3

30.4

80.0

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

21.4

28.6

24.6

25.4

27.5

15.0

18.2

39.3

60.0

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

25.9

19.5

24.1

30.5

29.5

12.7

26.4

31.4

86.4

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

16.8

25.9

27.7

29.7

36.4

10.5

11.8

41.3

37.3

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch)21.3

41.9

22.5

14.4

43.1

7.5

26.3

23.1

31.3

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)18.6

27.2

23.3

30.9

39.1

11.4

15.0

34.5

51.8

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

16.7

14.2

25.0

44.2

24.6

16.7

29.2

29.6

70.8

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

19.9

12.7

17.4

50.0

40.6

19.5

12.9

27.1

45.0

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

15.0

27.5

30.0

27.5

26.9

20.6

28.8

23.8

76.3

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

26.8

23.6

28.6

20.9

43.6

14.5

20.5

21.4

65.5

11

(#15) Managers

21.4

29.3

34.3

15.0

28.4

24.1

28.2

19.4

77.4

14

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
26.6

15.2

26.8

31.4

40.0

16.8

11.4

31.8

69.1

11

Healthcare CEO

50.0

25.0

15.0

10.0

50.0

30.0

10.0

10.0

90.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

25.0

50.0

25.0

0.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

-50.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
45.0

31.7

13.3

10.0

53.3

20.0

3.3

23.3

56.7

3

Age: 35 or Younger

21.6

25.5

21.3

31.6

35.2

12.5

18.3

34.0

68.1

48

Age: 36-49

19.0

25.6

26.2

29.1

37.7

15.5

19.4

27.5

62.8

90

Age: 50 or Older

18.8

15.0

24.5

41.6

33.2

16.9

20.2

29.7

67.4

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
22.6

21.2

25.0

31.1

39.5

14.1

13.2

33.2

62.1

22

CO 2nd Watch

16.6

25.1

20.5

37.8

33.8

14.6

17.7

33.9

65.8

52

CO 3rd Watch

19.3

21.0

25.4

34.3

37.2

12.7

18.2

31.9

64.2

47

CO A Yard

13.6

22.3

16.3

47.8

42.2

13.7

15.2

28.9

42.9

23

CO B Yard

23.3

20.4

23.3

33.0

30.2

15.2

23.7

30.9

85.2

23

CO C Yard

15.6

22.1

25.0

37.3

37.6

13.1

18.0

31.3

56.0

27

CO D Yard

19.3

27.3

26.0

27.3

31.6

12.9

15.2

40.2

49.5

26

CO All Yards

17.9

23.1

22.8

36.1

35.4

13.7

17.9

33.0

65.0

99

All Males

19.8

24.4

23.9

31.8

35.9

14.9

20.3

28.9

67.8

158

All Females

18.8

17.1

23.3

40.8

33.6

17.4

13.3

35.6

69.8

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

18.4

13.4

20.9

47.3

33.2

18.2

20.4

28.2

60.8

26

Race: Caucasian

18.3

23.0

25.9

32.8

34.6

15.3

20.1

30.0

67.5

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

23.7

23.6

18.4

34.3

36.3

15.1

17.4

31.2

74.9

43

Race: African America

36.6

22.5

12.5

28.8

38.8

13.8

7.5

40.0

72.5

4

Race: Hispanic

21.7

22.7

17.5

38.1

33.7

16.5

17.9

31.9

75.5

26

Race: Asian

28.3

25.0

26.7

20.0

56.7

15.0

13.3

15.0

43.3

3

Race: Other

22.6

26.1

20.5

30.8

36.0

12.0

21.5

30.5

71.2

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
21.7

30.2

27.2

20.9

38.5

14.3

24.6

22.6

63.0

27

All Sergeants

18.1

34.7

26.3

20.9

35.0

14.1

27.5

23.4

58.8

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

21.8

21.7

23.2

33.3

35.9

15.0

16.1

33.0

71.9

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

17.5

21.4

26.0

35.2

37.7

15.3

20.1

26.9

59.5

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

18.4

26.6

24.9

30.2

33.1

15.3

22.9

28.8

70.6

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

19.3

24.0

24.4

30.7

37.6

14.6

18.2

30.2

58.4

12.0

Group Mean

19.4

23.5

24.4

32.8

35.6

15.0

19.8

29.6

58.5

11.8

Group High

26.8

41.9

34.3

50.0

45.0

24.1

29.2

41.3

86.4

14.0

Group Low

9.6

12.7

14.0

14.4

24.6

7.5

11.4

19.4

31.3

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 113 of 115

September 8, 2016

Focus Group & Staff Scores – Current and Preferred Views of Success Criteria
Characteristics
Group Name

Now Overall

Preferred Overall

Degree of
Difference

N

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Composite Staff Results

21.7

18.9

20.0

39.4

46.4

14.2

14.0

25.5

50.7

191

All Staff Without Warden

21.4

19.0

20.1

39.5

46.4

14.1

14.0

25.5

50.0

190

Warden

90.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

50.0

30.0

0.0

20.0

20.0

1

(#1) CO (A Yard, 2nd Watch)

23.6

15.7

18.3

42.4

48.8

13.3

9.2

28.8

49.7

12

(#2) CO (C Yard, 2nd Watch)

25.7

26.4

17.1

30.7

41.4

13.2

16.1

29.3

68.6

14

(#3) CO (A Yard, 3rd Watch)

13.5

23.3

22.2

41.0

50.0

8.2

20.0

21.8

27.1

11

(#4) CO (C Yard, 3rd Watch)

15.2

11.0

23.8

50.0

53.5

13.1

12.3

21.2

19.2

13

(#5) CO (B Yard, 2nd Watch)

26.7

15.8

21.7

35.8

48.3

16.7

16.7

18.3

55.0

12

(#6) CO (D Yard, 2nd Watch)

23.9

23.2

19.6

33.2

38.2

16.1

13.9

31.8

71.4

14

(#7) CO (B Yard, 3rd Watch)

27.3

17.3

14.1

41.4

37.7

14.5

15.5

32.3

76.4

11

(#8) CO (D Yard, 3rd Watch)

25.1

23.0

15.5

36.4

50.6

12.6

10.5

26.3

49.0

12

(#9) Sergeants (B Yard, 2nd Watch) 9.4

39.4

13.1

38.1

51.3

11.3

13.1

24.4

16.3

8

(#10) Healthcare CO (Escort, Clinic)20.5

16.3

18.6

44.5

59.1

10.9

11.8

18.2

22.9

11

(#11) Line Service Staff

20.8

16.7

23.3

39.2

50.4

16.3

14.6

18.8

40.8

12

(#12) Line Program Staff

20.0

11.8

17.5

50.7

45.6

14.9

7.1

32.4

42.6

14

(#13) Central Admin. Sergeants

16.9

23.1

23.8

36.3

38.8

18.8

23.1

19.4

56.3

8

(#14) Lieutenants (2nd Watch)

18.6

15.9

25.0

40.5

52.3

12.3

18.6

16.8

32.7

11

(#15) Managers

21.1

22.9

25.4

30.7

38.4

20.0

17.9

23.7

65.4

14

9.7

23.6

40.0

39.5

14.1

9.1

37.3

65.5

11

(#16) Healthcare Managers & Supervisors
26.6
Healthcare CEO

30.0

30.0

10.0

30.0

50.0

10.0

10.0

30.0

60.0

1

Chief Deputy Warden

25.0

0.0

0.0

75.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

1

Administrators* (Warden, DCW, CEO)
48.3

10.0

3.3

38.3

50.0

13.3

3.3

33.3

90.0

3

Age: 35 or Younger

24.0

20.4

18.7

37.0

48.5

12.8

16.0

22.6

50.8

48

Age: 36-49

19.5

19.1

21.3

40.1

46.5

14.3

13.8

25.4

46.1

90

Age: 50 or Older

23.5

14.8

19.9

41.7

46.1

13.9

11.4

28.7

54.9

46

Healthcare Staff & Healthcare Officers
23.6

13.0

21.1

42.3

49.3

12.5

10.5

27.7

48.5

22

CO 2nd Watch

25.0

20.6

19.1

35.3

43.8

14.8

14.0

27.3

62.2

52

CO 3rd Watch

20.1

18.4

19.0

42.4

48.2

12.1

14.4

25.2

43.8

47

CO A Yard

18.8

19.3

20.2

41.7

49.3

10.9

14.3

25.4

38.9

23

CO B Yard

27.0

16.5

18.0

38.5

43.3

15.7

16.1

25.0

67.4

23

CO C Yard

20.6

19.0

20.4

40.0

47.2

13.1

14.3

25.4

46.8

27

CO D Yard

24.5

23.1

17.7

34.7

43.9

14.5

12.3

29.3

61.1

26

CO All Yards

22.7

19.6

19.1

38.7

45.9

13.5

14.2

26.3

53.5

99

All Males

21.3

20.2

19.3

39.2

47.2

14.1

14.7

24.1

48.2

158

All Females

23.4

12.5

24.4

39.7

45.1

14.6

9.8

30.4

52.3

30

All Non-Uniform Line Staff

20.4

14.0

20.2

45.4

47.8

15.5

10.6

26.1

42.2

26

Race: Caucasian

20.5

18.7

20.2

40.6

47.5

13.9

13.9

24.8

46.0

130

Race: All Non-Caucasian

26.5

17.0

16.7

39.8

43.7

15.7

15.6

25.0

65.6

43

Race: African America

52.5

11.3

1.3

25.0

40.0

16.3

10.0

33.8

72.5

4

Race: Hispanic

24.8

20.1

16.0

39.0

42.1

16.7

16.2

25.0

25.0

26

Race: Asian

30.0

15.0

23.3

31.7

46.7

18.3

11.7

23.3

60.0

3

Race: Other

19.5

12.0

22.5

46.0

48.5

12.0

17.5

22.0

42.0

10

All Sergeants & Lieutenants Combined
15.4

25.0

21.1

38.5

48.0

13.9

18.3

19.8

34.8

27

All Sergeants

13.1

31.3

18.4

37.2

45.0

15.0

18.1

21.9

36.3

16

Years at HDSP: 4 or Less

23.9

18.0

15.3

42.8

46.4

13.2

13.5

26.8

54.9

68

Years at HDSP: 5-14

18.2

16.5

26.5

28.8

46.0

14.4

13.4

26.2

44.3

59

Years at HDSP: 15 or More

21.7

21.4

19.9

37.1

47.0

14.4

15.4

23.3

49.3

56

Focus Group Summaries
TOTAL GROUPS
Group Median

21.0

17.0

20.7

39.6

48.6

13.7

14.3

24.1

49.4

12.0

Group Mean

20.9

19.5

20.2

39.4

46.5

14.1

14.3

25.1

47.4

11.8

Group High

27.3

39.4

25.4

50.7

59.1

20.0

23.1

37.3

76.4

14.0

Group Low

9.4

9.7

13.1

30.7

37.7

8.2

7.1

16.8

16.3

8.0

Institutional Culture Assessment
High Desert State Prison

Page 114 of 115

September 8, 2016

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
Federal Prison Handbook - Side