Prisons Promise a New Code for Guards

Facing unprecedented warnings from a federal judge, managers of California’s teeming prisons are overhauling an internal disciplinary system that consistently fails to curb corruption and rein in rogue guards.

For years, experts have pounded the Department of Corrections for operating a chaotic system that is unfair to employees while allowing abuse of convicts and other crimes to go unpunished.

Now, with U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson threatening to place the prisons into receivership, department officials are unveiling a new strategy for policing their own. Over the last seven months, prison leaders have rebuilt their disciplinary system from the ground up, creating a model they hope will ensure that official wrongdoing is swiftly and justly punished.

“We are committed to creating a disciplinary system that treats people fairly but also holds them accountable,” said Youth and Adult Corrections Secretary Roderick Q. Hickman.

Anchoring the system is a thick manual that, for the first time, will spell out for wardens what sort of punishment to dispense for lapses such as abuse of sick leave and unreasonable use of force.

In addition, investigators preparing disciplinary cases will from now on be teamed with lawyers to ensure their work is free of errors that can cause a case to collapse on appeal.

Overseeing it all will be a new team of watchdogs -- an independent Bureau of Review -- charged with ensuring that discipline is meted out free of the cronyism and improper influence that have tainted the process in the past.

Hickman, who has made cleaning up the culture of corrections a priority since his appointment late last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the new approach will bring uniformity to a disciplinary process that has been dysfunctional at best.

“It’s spelled out, it’s written down, it’s clear,” he said in an interview. “There’s no more negotiation. We’ll have the same penalties for the same misconduct across the board.”

Skeptics note that this is not the first time the state has pledged to become more aggressive in tackling misbehavior among the 50,000 guards and other workers in California’s $6-billion prison system.

In the late 1990s, after tales of officers at Corcoran State Prison setting up inmates in human cockfights and then shooting them dead, the Department of Corrections vowed to change. Among other things, officials promised to expand its internal affairs unit and keep investigations free of interference from guard-union bosses.

Although some changes were made, the culture inside the nation’s largest prison system -- with 164,000 inmates -- has proved resistant to reform.

Last year, whistle-blowers alleged new cover-ups at the state prison in Chino, saying that top department officials had blocked an investigation of beatings of inmates by guards.

And earlier this year, a report by a federal court investigator hammered the department for a “code of silence” that protects rogue officers and is condoned by leaders who “neither understand nor care about the need for fair investigations.” The report called the department’s failure to clean up such corruption a “deliberate disregard” of a “serious, security-related problem.”

Despite the discouraging track record, the system’s toughest critics believe the foundation is being laid for real reform. Among them is Donald Specter, director of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit group that frequently sues the state over conditions behind bars.

“This time,” Specter said, “they really seem to get it.”

Several factors combine to give hope to Specter and other longtime observers of the department. The first is the looming presence of Henderson. Earlier this summer, the San Francisco judge threatened to place the prisons in receivership because he believed the Schwarzenegger administration had a “business as usual” attitude toward reforming the system.

In addition, Specter said, the new manual -- or “matrix” -- that spells out every imaginable sort of misconduct and the penalty expected for it, provides a clear standard that wardens would be obligated to follow.

“If they don’t follow the matrix, it will be very easy to tell,” Specter said. “I think this approach stands the best chance yet of bringing fair and consistent discipline to the department.”

Officials hope to begin using the new disciplinary standards by early November. In the last few weeks, they have been meeting informally with the leaders of unions representing prison employees, seeking input.

Mike Jimenez, president of the union representing correctional officers, said he would like to support some sort of reform, but viewed this model as a disappointing, one-size-fits-all approach.

“We look forward to a cleaned-up disciplinary process, but we want just-cause discipline,” Jimenez said. “We think each case should be evaluated on its merits, and the penalty weighed against factors like your tenure, your previous behavior patterns, any commendations you received. But what that would require is an employer that gives a damn about you.”

Disciplinary cases against prison employees run the gamut, including over-familiarity with an inmate and drug use on duty. In 2003, there were 1,000 investigations. Nearly a quarter -- 241 -- were declared to be instances of inexcusable neglect of duty, such as sleeping on the job or being evasive or misleading during an interrogation.

There were 128 cases alleging mistreatment of employees or members of the public, and 115 investigations for allegedly driving while intoxicated.

In 19 cases, the charge was excessive use of force on the job, and there were 36 disciplinary investigations centering on drug use.

Prison officials say that under the old system of discipline, wardens had wide latitude in deciding penalties for misconduct, and no training in how best to assess what sort of sanctions to impose.

As a result, a guard who improperly used pepper spray on an inmate at a prison in Imperial County might get a letter of reprimand, while an officer who committed the same offense at a lock-up in Vacaville might be suspended without pay for several days.

An old joke among guards sums up the chaotic system: Beat up an inmate, and nothing happens. Kiss an inmate, and you’re fired.

“It was hit and miss and ... we were all over the board,” said Joe McGrath, a deputy director for the department who was in charge of writing the new standards.

One veteran internal affairs agent, who asked not to be identified for reasons of job security, agreed, but put it more bluntly: “Wardens like to be in charge of their own little empire. Hopefully, this matrix will take some of that power away and tie their hands in terms of favoritism.”

McGrath, a former warden at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, said he borrowed from numerous other systems in designing the matrix, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

His goal was to set a range of possible penalties for each offense, allowing wardens to adjust up or down slightly if aggravating or mitigating circumstances applied.

One category, centering on honesty and the code of silence, receives strong attention. For employees who mislead or lie during an investigation, the recommended penalty is dismissal. The same is true for officers who prevent or interfere with the reporting of misconduct.

“We have always expected our officers to be honest and forthright, but that issue has really been brought to the forefront this year,” McGrath said. “We are making our expectations, and the consequences, very clear, and that’s something the department didn’t do well in the past. A lot of it went unspoken.”

Other offenses that can make a prison employee subject to dismissal are sexual misconduct with an inmate; the unreasonable use of force likely to cause serious injury; and criminal acts such as the use or sale of narcotics.

Among those applauding the department’s progress on employee discipline is state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), who has joined Democratic Sen. Gloria Romero of Los Angeles in conducting numerous hearings on the troubled corrections department.

One hearing in March showed that 60% of the disciplinary actions appealed by employees to the state personnel board were revoked or modified, a dismal track record for the department.

“I’m delighted with this, because it’s critical that people who are guilty of the same misconduct receive the same penalty,” Speier said. “Hopefully, this will help restore confidence in a system that was just not doing the job.”

The internal affairs agent predicted that it would take several years -- and some high-profile penalties -- for the new standards to have a measurable effect.

“There is a small minority of officers who think they’re untouchable and can beat up inmates and do whatever else they want to do without getting disciplined,” the agent said. “So until someone gets fired for that kind of conduct -- and stays fired -- they won’t change their behavior.

“But we’re definitely heading in the right direction.”