Manufactured Violence: How NDPF Policies Are Driving Inmate Fights in CDCR

“When violence becomes predictable, it becomes preventable—and refusal to act becomes policy.”

Introduction

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is tasked with a dual mission: ensuring institutional safety while promoting rehabilitation. In recent years, however, internal policy shifts—particularly the expansion of Non-Designated Programming Facilities (NDPF)—have raised serious concerns among custody staff regarding unintended consequences, including predictable acts of inmate-on-inmate violence.

While CDCR leadership has framed these reforms as part of a broader rehabilitative strategy aligned with the “California Model,” reports from line staff and independent corrections-focused outlets such as The Toughest Beat suggest a more complicated reality: a system in which policy decisions may be inadvertently fostering predictable and preventable violence.

Evolution of Housing Models in CDCR

To understand the current issue, it is necessary to examine inmate housing classifications within CDCR.

Reception Centers

Reception Centers serve as intake facilities where incarcerated individuals undergo classification assessments. These evaluations determine long-term placement based on custody level, medical needs, and program eligibility.

General Population (GP)

General Population facilities house the majority of incarcerated individuals, including those with established gang affiliations. Historically, GP yards have operated under structured but often rigid inmate social hierarchies influenced by gang politics.

Sensitive Needs Yards (SNY)

Sensitive Needs Yards were developed to protect individuals at risk in GP settings, including gang dropouts, informants, and those convicted of certain crimes. Over time, SNY populations expanded significantly, eventually rivaling or exceeding GP populations in some institutions.

Non-Designated Programming Facilities (NDPF)

NDPFs represent CDCR’s most recent housing model. Governed by Title 15, Section 3269.4, these facilities are intended for inmates who demonstrate:

• Willingness to program
• Commitment to pro-social behavior
• Freedom from active gang influence

In theory, NDPFs are designed to break down traditional barriers between GP and SNY populations and foster a safer, rehabilitation-focused environment.

Policy vs. Practice: The Core Problem

While the regulatory intent behind NDPF is clear, the implementation has diverged significantly from policy.

Reports from custody staff indicate that inmates who explicitly refuse to program—or who maintain active gang affiliations—are nevertheless being placed into NDPF environments. This directly contradicts the regulatory framework requiring voluntary participation and pro-social conduct.

This disconnect between policy and practice has created a volatile environment in which violence becomes not incidental—but predictable.

The “Forced Integration” Cycle of Violence

A recurring pattern described by custody staff across multiple institutions illustrates how these policies may unintentionally generate violence:

1. Initial Classification
   At Reception Centers, inmates are asked whether they are willing to program on an NDPF. Some refuse, citing gang affiliation or unwillingness to integrate.
2. Override of Refusal
   Despite documented refusal, inmates are transferred to NDPF facilities.
3. Arrival and Immediate Tension
   Upon arrival, these individuals—often influenced by gang expectations—seek to establish status or comply with gang mandates.
4. Assault as a Mechanism of Transfer
   CDCR established the fastest way off an NDPF yard is to commit an act of violence, triggering removal and reclassification. Inmates have an understanding that CDCR will not remove them from the NDPF until they attack and batter a NDPF inmate.
5. Institutional Response
   Staff respond to these incidents using force, generating use-of-force reports, medical responses, and prison program delays.
6. Cycle Repeats
   The process continues with new arrivals, creating a recurring cycle of predictable violence.

Impact on Institutional Safety

Inmate Safety

NDPF inmates who are compliant and engaged in programming become unintended targets. Assaults often occur shortly after new arrivals enter a yard, creating an atmosphere of instability and fear.

Staff Safety

Custody staff are placed in increasingly dangerous situations, responding to avoidable incidents. Use-of-force encounters carry inherent risks, including injury and long-term liability.

Additionally, and to add to the issue, recent reporting trends highlighted by The Toughest Beat indicate that staff assaults have risen in facilities undergoing aggressive policy transitions tied to the California Model.

Operational Disruption

Each violent incident results in:

• Rehabilitative program delays
• Medical responses
• Administrative workload
• Often these predictable fights require officer use of force

This undermines the very rehabilitative goals NDPF facilities are intended to support.

The Role of Prison Culture and Gang Influence

It is critical to acknowledge that inmate behavior is not shaped solely by CDCR policy. Prison culture—particularly gang structure—plays a dominant role.

In many cases:

• Refusal to comply with gang expectations can result in retaliation
• New arrivals are expected to “prove” themselves
• Violence becomes a form of communication and status enforcement

However, effective correctional policy must account for these realities—not ignore them. By placing known non-compliant or gang-affiliated inmates into integrated environments, CDCR may be amplifying the very dynamics it seeks to eliminate.

Staff Perspective: Predictability Without Prevention

One of the most concerning elements described by custody staff is the predictability of these incidents.

Staff often:

• Know in advance which inmates refused to program often making a “list of fighters”
• Anticipate violence upon arrival, sometimes staff warn the inmate population of the expected fight
• Prepare documentation before incidents occur to save administrative time

This raises a critical question: if violence is foreseeable, why is it not being prevented?

From a correctional management standpoint, knowingly placing individuals into environments where violence is likely to occur exposes the department to operational, ethical, and legal risks.

Policy Implications

The current trajectory of NDPF implementation presents several key policy concerns:

• Regulatory Noncompliance
  Placement of unwilling participants contradicts Title 15 requirements.
• Increased Liability
  Predictable violence creates exposure to litigation.
• Erosion of Staff Confidence
  Frontline personnel may lose trust in leadership decisions perceived as unsafe.
• Undermining Rehabilitation Goals
  Frequent violence disrupts programming and reduces inmate participation.

Recommendations

To address these issues, several policy adjustments should be considered:

1. Strict Adherence to Voluntary Placement Criteria
   Only inmates who demonstrate a genuine willingness to program should be assigned to NDPF facilities.
2. Enhanced Classification Integrity
   Documented refusals should carry binding weight in housing decisions.
3. Segregation of Active Gang Affiliates
   Individuals with ongoing gang involvement should not be placed in integrated programming environments (NDPF).
4. Data Transparency
   CDCR should publish facility-level data on assaults, use-of-force incidents, and staff injuries tied to housing changes.
5. Staff Input in Policy Development
   Custody staff perspectives should be incorporated into future reforms to ensure operational feasibility.

Conclusion

The vision behind NDPF and the broader California Model is rooted in rehabilitation and normalization. However, when implementation departs from policy—and fails to account for the realities of prison culture—the result can be the opposite of what was intended.

The pattern of inmate fights associated with NDPF placements is not random. It is structured, predictable, and, in many cases, preventable.

If CDCR is to achieve its rehabilitative goals, it must reconcile policy with practice—ensuring that safety, not ideology, remains the foundation of institutional operations.