HUNDREDS OF INCARCERATED PEOPLE at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center are bracing themselves for unexpected transfers to other facilities and many are asking why.
On April 30, warden Chance Andes sent out an email to San Quentin’s incarcerated people, or IPs, over their Viapath tablets.
“This memorandum is being generated to formally canvas for IPs interested in voluntarily transferring to an alternate institution,” the memo reads. “A signup sheet will be located in your assigned unit with the desk officer.”
This move is supposedly to reduce the population at San Quentin and allow incarcerated people the option to live in their own individual cell rather than the current setup of two people per cell.
In March 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would be transforming San Quentin into a rehabilitation center. The prison is getting a new complex with a price tag of $239 million that is currently under construction.
The governor also introduced the “California model” of reform, which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation describes on its website as a Scandinavian-inspired “approach to normalcy in corrections and rehabilitation” practices and policies with the aim of “lowering recidivism and expanding employee wellness.”
The governor handpicked an advisory council who wrote recommendations in a report titled “Reimagining San Quentin” released in January 2024. A couple of the 44 recommendations put forth included lowering the population at the prison and to make it more available for people to live in cells by themselves.
Population control
The cell living space at San Quentin has long been the subject of controversy. It has been described as no bigger than a parking space. Cells measure 46 square feet. However, according to the American Correctional Association, a body of experts that makes recommendations for correctional facilities, a double occupancy cell should be at least 92 square feet.
While CDCR said it is not opposed to single cells, the state agency said it plans to continue operating the prison at its design capacity of 3,084, according to a March 6 report from a state Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee.
“For San Quentin, this means largely single-cell occupancy,” the report said, noting that CDCR officials said “this is reflective of current population levels, and they do not intend to move people to accomplish this.”
Newsom’s advisory council also recommended that CDCR maintain the population of incarcerated people serving life sentences at San Quentin at about 25-35 percent of the population. It was about 36 percent of the population at the time of the 2024 report.
The People In Blue, a diverse group of incarcerated people with decades of lived carceral experience, sat in on meetings with some high-ranking advisory council members and warned that this recommendation could be a recipe for failure.
Arthur Jackson is the group’s president and is serving a life sentence.
“The lifer population is the foundation for all successful rehabilitative programming,” said Jackson. “Gov. Newsom’s plan wouldn’t be possible but for the success of programs created and facilitated by lifers.”
The People In Blue believes incarcerated people serving life sentences with the possibility of parole should make up half the San Quentin population.
Lifers have recidivism rates of less than 4%, unlike determinately sentenced individuals whose recidivism rate is 42%, according to CDCR.
Losing the lifers?
During his March 2023 announcement, Newsom praised the award-winning San Quentin News newspaper, Ear Hustle podcast, and The Last Mile, a computer coding program at San Quentin.
Former lead editor Michael Harris resurrected San Quentin News in 2008 after a 25-year hiatus while he was serving a life sentence. When Arnulfo T. Garcia took over as editor, he carried on the legacy of the award-winning publication while serving life. Earlonne Woods was serving a life sentence under California’s Three Strikes law when with Nigel Poor he created Ear Hustle, another award-winning media platform. All three were later released from the prison.
The list of lifers who contributed to the success of programs at San Quentin is voluminous. But some incarcerated people now believe that all lifers will eventually be transferred from San Quentin, just like most who were living in the condemned unit otherwise known as death row.
“They’re phasing us out. Hopefully, they parole us, but who knows what’s going to happen.” Sherman K. Newman, San Quentin “lifer” since 1996
“Those buildings are not for us,” said Sherman K. Newman, a lifer incarcerated since 1996 and graduate of The Last Mile, referring to the new $239 million complex under construction.
“They’re phasing us out,” Newman said. “Hopefully, they parole us, but who knows what’s going to happen.”
Before the warden Andes requested volunteers to transfer from San Quentin, another strategy was brewing. Incarcerated individuals were allegedly being targeted for adverse transfers.
Adverse transfers are normally reserved for those considered to be “program failures” with two or more serious rule violations within a six-month period, according to state law. Getting an adverse transfer can hinder earning early release credits, maintaining access to jobs and programs at the prison, and can hinder people from being found suitable at a parole hearing.
‘An unwillingness to comply with expectations’
James E. Bryant is one of those allegedly targeted. He received a classification committee chrono, a document that goes into an incarcerated person’s file, that read:
“You have been identified as an IP who has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with expectations that align with the values of SQRC and the California model. As such you will be transferred to an alternate institution in hopes to continue your rehabilitative efforts.”
Another incarcerated person, who lives in a privileged unit with single cells and a canine companion program, received a similar classification notice. He wishes to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal. His chrono, which refers to rule violation reports, or RVRs, read:
“After an extensive file review and case conferences with institutional staff, it has been determined subject’s behavior is not favorable to the mission of SQRC. Although subject has not received any RVRs for his behavior, staff have consistently attempted to use dynamic security techniques in order to change his behavior with no avail. As such subject will be transferred to an alternate institution in hopes to continue his rehabilitative efforts in an environment that best suits his needs.”
On a recent episode of the correctional agency’s podcast “CDCR Unlocked,” agency Secretary Jeff Macomber talked about the California model and mentioned that he hoped to start training on the California model and dynamic security in January of this year.
Dynamic security is described as a foundational pillar of the California model and is a concept that focuses on positive relationship-building between correctional officers and the incarcerated population.
The incarcerated people facing transfers expressed serious concern about the punitive language being used against them and placed in their central file records without warning. Neither wants to transfer or be removed from their current programs.
William Harris is a member of an inmate advisory council who represents the general population. He sits in meetings with warden Andes and his staff for discussions about issues affecting the incarcerated population.
“The warden said they made a mistake in how the chronos are worded,” said Harris.
“The warden said he understands people have to go before a parole board and they don’t need this information hindering them. That’s why he is opting to do voluntary transfers first,” said Harris.
Disrupting the program
California penal code requires CDCR to “minimize transfers from institutions, facilities, or sections of the institutions or facilities from disrupting an incarcerated person’s programming.”
The penal code specifically advises CDCR not to transfer incarcerated people unless it is for adverse reasons. Any transfer for non-adverse reasons requires CDCR to prioritize people for similar programming opportunities at the next institution.
But most California prisons don’t have as many available programs as San Quentin. An incarcerated person with a job or school assignment at San Quentin may be unemployed and unable to find schooling or other programs for years at their next institution.
Another problem with these transfers is that, according to a 2025-26 budget analysis from the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, San Quentin hasn’t presented a clear plan on how the prison will move forward with the California model.
“There are still open questions on how the California model will progress throughout the system,” LAO’s analysis said.
San Quentin is considered the flagship prison for the California model. But seven other prisons have also been designated by CDCR as California model facilities, including Valley State Prison; California State Prison, Sacramento in Folsom; California State Prison, Cocoran; the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility; Central California Women’s Facility; Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; and Salinas Valley State Prison.
In fact, Macomber said the California model will be a systemwide change within CDCR. Therefore, many incarcerated people are questioning why the prison is transferring hundreds of people out.
“The prison is now closed to intake,” said Jackson, the president of The People in Blue who also works in San Quentin’s Receiving and Release Department, which oversees inmates transferring in and out of the prison as well as handling their personal property items. “For now, it is expected that the only buses coming in will be picking people up to take them to other prisons.”
Steve Brooks is a California Local News Fellow with Bay City News Foundation, reporting from inside San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. His perspective gives readers insight into issues and news from inside the prison. See more of his work at Inside/Out on Local News Matters.