Performance audit, Department of Corrections, Support Services: report to the Arizona Legislature

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
SUPPORT SERVICES
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS
April 2001
Report No. 01-07
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee
composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Ken Bennett, Chairman
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Vice-Chairman
Senator Herb Guenther Representative Robert Blendu
Senator Dean Martin Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Senator Tom Smith Representative Barbara Leff
Senator Randall Gnant (ex-officio) Representative James Sedillo
Representative James Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Shan Hays—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Lisa Eddy—Team Leader
Pam Eck—Team Member
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
April 30, 2001
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. Terry Stewart, Director
Arizona Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Department of Corrections—Support Services. This report is in response to a
June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance
audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General by A.R.S. §41-
1279 and as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a
quick summary for your convenience.
This is the third in a series of reports to be issued on the Arizona Department of
Corrections.
As outlined in its response, the Department agrees with all of the findings and
recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on May 1, 2001.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Corrections
Support Services
Services: Support Services is one of five subprograms under the Prison Operations program
in the Department of Corrections. Its mission is to provide administrative and technical sup-port
for functions associated with inmate incarceration. Support Services includes a wide
range of program functions, some directly affecting inmates or families, such as classifying
inmates’ custody levels, calculating sentence lengths, or placing inmates in protective segrega-tion.
Other functions support fiscal or administrative activities such as inmate stores, mainte-nance,
and warehouse management.
Revenues: $128.6 million (estimated)
(fiscal year 2001)
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
$110,000,000
$120,000,000
$130,000,000
1999 2000 2001 (Est.)
State General Fund Corrections Fund Other
Equipment: 1,979 vehicles at an original
purchase cost of over $35 million
Program Goals (Fiscal Years 2001-03):
Although the Support Services area covers
12 functions, the Department has established
only 2 goals:
1. To reduce costs in the prisons; and
2. To process requests for Protective Segre-gation
consistent with the parameters
outlined in Department policy.
The Department should consider establish-ing
additional goals for Support Services.
Currently, there are no goals for important
functions, such as inmate classification and
time computation for inmates’ sentence
lengths.
Further, the first goal, reducing prison costs,
is overly broad and does not provide suffi-cient
guidance on specific program costs to
be included. For example, the Department
has not identified specific areas to reduce
prison costs.
91 buses
539 cars
470 vans
879 trucks
Personnel: 1,177.5 full-time equivalents
90 at the Department’s central office
1,087.5 at the various prison facilities
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Adequacy of Performance Measures:
The Department has developed two per-formance
measures for the first goal, which
is to lower costs at the prisons. Specifically,
the Department has developed an input and
output measure, but has not developed out-come,
efficiency, and quality measures for
this goal. The input measure tracks the
amount of operating costs at the prisons, and
the output measure tracks the percent reduc-tion
in costs at the prisons. The performance
measures for this goal could also be more
specific. For example, the output measure
refers to “percent of reduction in costs”
without reference to specific areas where cost
reductions could be realized.
The Department has also developed two
performance measures for the second goal,
which is to properly process inmates’ re-quests
for Protective Segregation. Similar to
the first goal, the Department has developed
an input and an output measure, but has not
developed outcome, efficiency, and quality
measures for this goal. The input measure
tracks the average number of days needed to
review an inmate’s Protective Segregation
request. The output measure tracks the re-duction
in the number of days to process an
inmate’s Protective Segregation request.
While both of these measures track the proc-ess
for requesting Protective Segregation,
they do not examine outcomes of the pro-gram.
Potential outcomes could include such
things as reductions in inmate assaults or
homicides.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit and Sunset review of Support Services at the Arizona De-partment
of Corrections, in response to a June 16, 1999, resolu-tion
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This performance
audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor
General by Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279 and as part of the
Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. The audit is the
third in a series of six audits of the Department of Corrections.
Audit reports on Security Operations and Human Resources
Management have already been issued (Auditor General Re-ports
No. 00-20 and 01-04). The remaining areas to be audited are
Agency Infrastructure, Private Prisons, and Arizona Correctional
Industries.
Support Services, a subprogram of the Department’s Prison Op-erations
program, provides administrative and technical support
for prison operations activities. Support Services functions in-clude
a variety of administrative and inmate-related services,
including calculating inmate release dates, overseeing financial
transactions and operations of inmate stores, and assigning in-mates
to protective segregation.
The Department Can Further
Ensure That Inmate Release
Dates Are Calculated Accurately
(See pages 7 through 14)
Although the Department generally calculates inmates’ sen-tences
correctly, a small number of inmates continue to be re-leased
earlier or later than their correct release dates, increasing
the Department’s financial liability. When the Auditor General
examined sentence length calculations in 1990, the Department
had released 64 inmates, or 1 percent, either too late or too early
in 1988. In 1999, the error rate was .28 percent. Errors have been
reduced partly because the Department has improved its auto-mation
practices and because new state statutes effective in
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1994 have made it easier for the Department’s Time Computa-tion
and Records Unit to calculate release dates. Generally, all
inmates sentenced under the 1994 Truth in Sentencing statute
must serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
Although errors occur for only a small percentage of total re-leases,
they can create a financial liability for the State. Not only
may the Department be liable for harm done by an inmate re-leased
early, but since 1995, the Department has paid $124,500 in
lawsuits brought by four inmates who were released late.
Errors stem from several sources, requiring action on several
fronts. To reduce errors made by employees who do the compu-tations,
the Department should develop a technical manual and
a checklist or some other means to review new staff’s work. The
Department should also improve communication between
prison offices and other administrative units. Additionally, the
Department is also scheduling a replacement for the computer
program that calculates sentences. Finally, it should also work
with Arizona courts to reduce errors in transferring sentencing
documents between the courts and the Department.
Department Needs to Improve the
Business Offices and Inmate Stores
(See pages 15 through 20)
The Department generally has appropriate procedures for finan-cial
and related transactions at its prisons, but recent experience
shows that it needs to ensure that employees adhere more care-fully
to these procedures. For example, one employee was con-victed
of stealing about $118,000 between 1992 and 1995 when
the business office did not ensure that cash-handling duties were
adequately segregated among the business office’s staff. Addi-tionally,
another employee at this same prison complex has been
charged with stealing about $72,000 from 1998 through 2000. The
Department should require prison business managers to ensure
that staff at business offices adequately follow Department poli-cies
and that duties involving cash and other assets are ade-quately
segregated among staff.
The Department also needs to improve its management of the
inmate stores, which sell snacks and other items to inmates at
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
each prison. These stores generated over $18 million in sales in
fiscal year 2000. In 1999, a Department task force issued a report
on these stores and identified many ways in which operations
could be improved. For example, the Department had no sys-temwide
approach to tracking inventory and inmate purchases.
The task force recommended a variety of immediate to long-term
strategies to improve store operations, such as implementing a
training program for officers and inmates working in the stores,
developing a statewide computerized store system requiring
perpetual inventories, and establishing store space based on in-mate
population and security level. However, the Department
has not established a plan to implement these recommendations.
Other Pertinent Information
(See pages 21 through 25)
The audit also presents information about the Department’s
protective segregation program. Protective segregation is a cor-rectional
management tool that separates inmates who face
threats of violence from other inmates in the general population.
Inmates may apply for protective segregation or be placed in-voluntarily,
based on staff assessment and the inmate’s history.
Although many inmates request placement in protective segre-gation,
few are approved. However, the Department places
many inmates at alternative housing units.
The Department has recently revised its protective segregation
policies to respond to a lawsuit filed by many inmates who dis-agreed
with its management of the program. The new policies,
first revised in March 1998 and finalized in January 2000, include
changes for increasing inmate safety while applying for protec-tive
segregation, such as requiring the Department to immedi-ately
move inmates requesting protection to secure cells segre-gated
from other inmates. Additionally, the policies require each
prison to have one officer designated as a specialist for all protec-tive
segregation issues. As of July 2000 the lawsuit has been con-ditionally
dismissed, with the agreement that an independent
monitor will review the program periodically for at least 12
months.
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background........................... 1
Finding I: The Department Can Further
Ensure Inmate Release Dates Are
Calculated Accurately ................................... 7
Time Computation and Records Unit
Calculates Inmate Release Dates Based
on Various Factors.................................................................. 7
Improvements Since Last
Audit Have Reduced
Incorrect Calculations............................................................ 8
Department Can Take Action to
Continue to Reduce Errors................................................... 10
Recommendations.................................................................. 14
Finding II: Improvements Needed
in Operations of
Business Offices
and Inmate Stores.......................................... 15
Business Offices and
Inmate Stores Conduct
Many Transactions................................................................. 15
Stronger Adherence to Procedures
Needed for
Financial Transactions........................................................... 16
Operations at Inmate Stores
Can Be Made More Efficient................................................ 18
Recommendations.................................................................. 20
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
Other Pertinent Information............................... 21
Protective Segregation
Intended to Protect Inmates................................................. 21
Process Used to
Determine Placement
in Protective Segregation...................................................... 21
Most Requests for
Protective Segregation
Denied ....................................................................................... 24
Lawsuit Affects
Department’s Ability
to Involuntarily Transfer
Protective Segregation Inmates........................................... 24
Photos
Photo 1: Cell block 2 at the Central Unit at
ASPC—Florence................................................. 9
Photo 2: View of the Yard at the Stiner Unit
at ASPC—Lewis ................................................. 23
Table of Contents
vii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concl’d)
Page
Tables
Table 1 Arizona Department of Corrections—
SupportServices
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Other Financing Uses
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001 (Unaudited)............................. 3
Table 2 Arizona Department of Corrections—
Support Services
Inmate Release Errors
Years Ended December 31, 1996
through 1999........................................................ 10
Table 3 Arizona Department of Corrections—
Support Services
Number of Inmates in Protective Segregation
by Prison Complex
As of August 2000............................................. 22
Figure
Figure 1 Arizona Department of Corrections—
Support Services
Sequence of Steps Impacting Inmate
ReleaseDates
As of December 2000........................................ 12
viii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of Support Services at the Arizona Department of Correc-tions,
in response to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legis-lative
Audit Committee. This performance audit was conducted
under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona
Revised Statutes §41-1279 and as part of the Sunset review set
forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. The audit is the third in a series of
six audits of the Department of Corrections. Audit reports on
Security Operations and Human Resources have already been
issued (Auditor General Reports No. 00-20 and 01-04). The re-maining
areas to be audited are Agency Infrastructure, Private
Prisons, and Arizona Correctional Industries.
Support Services Functions
Support Services, a subprogram of the Department’s Prison Op-erations
program, provides administrative and technical support
for prison operations activities. Support Services functions can be
grouped under inmate-related services and administrative ser-vices.
Inmate-related functions include services such as calculat-ing
inmate release dates, inmate classification, and assigning
inmates to protective segregation. Administrative functions in-clude
inmate stores, maintenance, and fiscal management.
Staffing and Budget
Support Services has 1,177.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) employ-ees.
Because Support Services administers a variety of areas,
some staff work at the central office in Phoenix while others are
stationed at the ten prison complexes. For example, some of the
90 central office staff under Support Services maintain master
inmate record files, oversee Department budgets, or calculate
inmate sentences. In contrast, the 1,087.5 Support Services staff at
prisons have responsibilities such as classifying inmates, con-ducting
protective segregation reviews, keeping fiscal records up
to date, or maintaining Department vehicles. As shown in Table
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 (see page 3), for fiscal year 2001 the Department is estimated to
receive approximately $129 million in revenues for Support Ser-vices,
of which about $126 million were General Fund appropria-tions.
Department Has Improved
Since Previous Audits
The Auditor General’s Office has conducted four previous audits
that included functions of Support Services in the Department of
Corrections. These audits identified a number of problems, most
of which have been substantially corrected since the audits were
issued.
The Department has improved its classification system—The
Department has made changes in its classification system to
improve how inmates are assessed for security risks to the public
and to other inmates and staff. After a 1985 report (Auditor Gen-eral
Report No. 85-12) had found that the classification process
misclassified inmates and increased security risks, the Depart-ment
adopted a new classification model that is more objective
and appears to be used appropriately. A 1991 audit (Auditor
General Report No. 91-4) first reported on the new system, and
the current audit did not identify any issues with classification.
Additionally, consultants hired by the Auditor General’s Office
to assist with the Security Operations audit (Auditor General
Report No. 00-20) stated that they believed the classification pol-icy
conformed to sound correctional practices, although they did
not review the process in depth.
The Department has made several improvements to its fleet
management—The Department has improved practices for
managing its vehicle fleet since an earlier audit. A report in 1986
(Auditor General Report No. 86-3) found that the Department’s
vehicle fleet was poorly maintained and that many vehicles were
old and had high mileage, resulting in high operating costs. The
current audit found that the Department had improved its fleet
The Department has
improved inmate classi-fication
and fleet man-agement,
although it
still needs to make some
improvements to the
time computation
process.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Arizona Department of Corrections—
Support Services
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Other Financing Uses
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
(Unaudited)
1999 2000 2001
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimated)
Revenues:
Appropriations:
State General Fund 1 $84,893,200 $83,911,800 $126,279,900 2
Corrections Fund 3 13,496,000 1,074,100 1,083,500
Sales and charges for goods and services 568,267 702,237 702,200
Interest 371,209 27
Intergovernmental 257,426 125,164 125,200
Fines and forfeits 18,061 28,137 28,100
Private gifts, grants, and donations 16,061 66,788 66,800
Other 362,026 284,937 284,900
Total revenues 99,982,250 86,193,190 128,570,600
Expenditures:
Personal services 21,850,890 25,277,839 56,529,800 2
Employee related 3,420,429 3,744,469 16,769,100 2
Professional and outside services 78,336 24,898 1,259,000 2
Travel, in-state 431,205 443,100 451,000
Travel, out-of-state 34,038 30,896
Food 31,317,758 30,796,631 37,454,500 2
Aid to individuals and organizations 375,073 288,230 430,600
Other operating 33,693,392 21,222,531 14,351,700 2
Buildings and equipment 8,530,425 3,471,684 573,900
Total expenditures 99,731,546 85,300,278 127,819,600
Excess of revenues over expenditures 250,704 892,912 751,000
Other financing sources (uses):
Net operating transfers in (out) (9,721) 351,724 (18,900)
Remittances to the State General Fund (675,174) (795,119) (732,100)
Total other financing sources (uses) (684,895) (443,395) (751,000)
Excess of revenues and other sources over expenditures
and other uses $ (434,191) $ 449,517 $ 0
1 The actual State General Fund appropriation includes amounts appropriated as special line items for food and discharge costs and shown
net of reversions to the State General Fund.
2 These amounts are significantly different for 2001 because the Department is realigning costs and their related funding sources. In addition,
the 2001 amounts for personal services and employee-related expenditures do not include a reduction for estimated vacancies.
3 The appropriation, supported by alcohol and tobacco taxes, is primarily for the construction, purchase or lease, and maintenance of
correctional and state-operated juvenile facilities. The final $12.4 million payment on a contract for additional prison capacity was made in
1999; consequently, the Correctional Fund Appropriation decreased significantly in 2000.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS) Accounting Event Extract File for the year ended
June 30, 1999 and 2000, and estimates for the year ended June 30, 2001, provided by the Department of Corrections.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
maintenance program. For example, the Department now has a
central office fleet administrator who tracks operating costs, pur-chases,
and repairs at all prisons. Additionally, the Department
purchased a software program to manage its fleet more effi-ciently.
The program, currently used at three of the prisons, in-cludes
a vehicle inventory and schedules each vehicle’s mainte-nance.
Although the Department has improved its time computation
process, some problems remain—The Auditor General’s Office
reviewed the time computation process as part of a 1990 audit
(Auditor General Report No. 90-12) and found several problems.
The current audit found that the Department has made im-provements
to the process of calculating inmates’ sentences but
needs to make further changes to correct problems. See Finding I
(pages 7 through 14) for issues and recommendations in this
area.
Scope and Methodology
In addition to following up on inmate classification and fleet
management problems reported in previous audits, this audit
focused on two main areas where issues were identified during
preliminary audit work: the time computation process, and
business management practices at two prison complexes’ busi-ness
offices and inmate stores. The report contains findings and
recommendations as follows:
  Improvements are needed to ensure accuracy in calculating
the lengths of inmate sentences and;
  Improvements are needed in business management practices
at prison business offices and inmate stores.
The audit also provides other pertinent information concerning
the status of the Department’s protective segregation program.
Auditors used several approaches in reviewing time computa-tion.
These approaches included:
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
  Reviewing documents such as Department policies, training
materials, procedures for sentence calculations, and Time
Computation and Records Unit logs of phone calls to the unit
and letters from inmates;
  Observing the Time Computation and Records Unit’s proce-dures
for manually verifying information on sentence calcu-lations;
  Analyzing sources of errors in inmate releases, based on the
Department’s release error reports for calendar years 1996
through 1999;
  Interviewing Corrections staff and court staff who prepare
sentencing documents;
  Interviewing staff from the American Correctional Associa-tion;
and
  Interviewing staff from five state Departments of Correc-tions.
1
Similarly, auditors used several methods to examine business
management practices, including
  Reviewing Department reports and documents such as in-ternal
audits, business management policies, the prison ac-tivities
and recreation fund report, and Department financial
statements on inmate stores;
  Observing or examining internal controls relating to purchas-ing
products and managing cash for inmate stores at seven
prisons (Douglas, Florence, Perryville, Safford, Tucson, Wins-low,
and Yuma) and inventory for six prisons (Douglas, Per-ryville,
Safford, Tucson, Winslow, and Yuma) and conduct-
1 The five states contacted were California, Colorado, Florida, Texas, and
Washington. Colorado, Washington, and Florida have achieved profi-ciency
in automating their correctional systems, according to a national
survey. Additionally, Texas and California were interviewed to learn how
the time computation function is managed in states with large inmate
populations and the responsibility for calculating a high volume of inmate
releases each year.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ing tests of individual transactions for inmate banking and
inmate stores at four prisons (Douglas, Florence, Perryville,
and Yuma); and
  Interviewing central office and prison business managers and
inmate store staff.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government audit-ing
standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Direc-tor
of the Department of Corrections and his staff for their coop-eration
and assistance throughout the audit.
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I THE DEPARTMENT CAN
FURTHER ENSURE INMATE
RELEASE DATES ARE
CALCULATED ACCURATELY
The Department makes errors that, although infrequent, cause
inmates to be released from prison late or early. These errors
stem both from mistakes by Department staff and from defects
in the computer program that calculates sentence lengths. Since
these errors lead to potential liability for the Department, pre-venting
them is an important function of the corrections system.
Further, although the Department has improved its procedures
to minimize errors, there are further steps the Department can
take.
Time Computation and Records
Unit Calculates Inmates
Release Dates Based
on Various Factors
The Department’s Time Computation and Records Unit uses
several factors to calculate release dates. An inmate’s release date
depends on such aspects as court sentencing decisions, statutory
requirements in effect at the time of the offense, and disciplinary
sanctions the inmate may receive during incarceration. The unit
calculates an inmate’s release date at least twice, once upon arri-val
at the Department and again shortly before the inmate is
scheduled to be released. Nearly all inmate sentences, including
sentences under the 1994 Truth in Sentencing statutes, provide
some flexibility in release date so that an inmate who displays
good behavior may be released into community supervision or
paroled near the end of his or her sentence, while an inmate who
behaves disruptively or violently must remain in prison until the
end of the sentence.
Finding I
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Improvements Since Last
Audit Have Reduced
Incorrect Calculations
The Department has improved its sentence calculation function
since a 1990 audit. However, a few inmates continue to be re-leased
early or late each year. The Department faces potential
financial liability when such release errors occur.
Prior audit identified time computation deficiencies—The Audi-tor
General’s Office audited time computation as part of a report
on Bed Space Impacts (Auditor General Report No. 90-12) in
1990 and found that 64 inmates, or about 1 percent of 5,300 re-leases
in 1988, were released either early or late. The report iden-tified
several factors contributing to errors in the calculation of
release dates. First, Arizona had a complex release system with
nine release types based on statutes applicable on the date of
offense. In addition, the Department’s computer system could
not reliably calculate release dates, and the Department also
lacked a procedures manual to assist technicians in calculating
dates manually.
Action taken to simplify and improve calculation process—
Since the 1990 audit, the Department has improved its automa-tion
practices and legislative changes have simplified release
codes. For example, the Department has increased the reliability
of its computer calculation program. Additionally, all staff
within the Department’s time computation area now have access
to computer terminal work stations. Further, the Legislature
passed the Truth in Sentencing statute, effective January 1, 1994,
which made it easier for the Time Computation and Records
Unit to calculate sentences for inmates convicted since 1994.
Generally, all inmates sentenced under Truth in Sentencing must
serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. 1
Some incorrect calculations still occur—Although the Depart-ment
has reduced sentence calculation problems, it continues to
make a few release errors. Inmates released in error represent a
1 The Director can authorize certain inmates for supervised release up to 90
days early. This option is not available for inmates convicted of some vio-lent
crimes.
Finding I
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
very small percentage of total inmates released. For example, the
Department released 31 inmates in error during calendar year
1999, which accounted for only .28 percent of the total number of
inmates released that year. Table 2 (see page 10) shows the num-ber
of inmates released either late or early in calendar years 1996
through 1999.
Examples of release errors in 1999 included the following:
  An inmate at the Perryville prison was released 77 days after
the end of her sentence because the number of jail credits, or
days, was entered as 83 rather than 353 into the computer
system by an intake staff member. Although court docu-ments
showed the right number of credits, Time Computa-tion
and Records Unit staff did not discover and correct the
mistake in the review of the inmate’s information. The in-mate
tried unsuccessfully to have the sentence calculation re-examined
through letters to the Time Computation and Re-cords
Unit and wardens at Perryville. The mistake was de-tected
when a Perryville records supervisor reviewed the file
and alerted the Time Computation and Records Unit.
  An inmate was released from the Florence prison 83 days
early because staff at the prison’s records office failed to seek
a confirmation of the correct release date from the Time
Computation and Records Unit. Department policy requires
confirmation of inmate release dates from the Time Compu-
Photo 1: Cell block 2 at the Central Unit at ASPC—Florence.
The Department releases
a very small number of
inmates either too early or
too late.
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
tation and Records Unit. The inmate was returned to custody
13 days later.
  An inmate was released 743 days early from the Tucson
prison because a Yuma County superior court forwarded
copies of only one of two sentences to the Department.
Therefore, the Department was unaware of one of the in-mate’s
sentences. The inmate was out of custody for six days.
Errors place the Department at financial risk—Such errors,
while a small portion of total releases, place the Department at
financial risk. From calendar years 1995 to 2000, the Department
has paid $124,500 in lawsuits brought by four inmates who were
released late, including one inmate released 777 days late. Addi-tionally,
although most inmates released early are returned
quickly to custody, some inmates may remain out of custody for
several days. For example, in 1999 two inmates were out of cus-tody
31 days each. According to Department management, the
Department may be liable for harm done by an inmate released
too early, although no records to date show damage or harm.
Department Can Take Action to
Continue to Reduce Errors
Although the Department has succeeded in reducing release
errors since the last audit, it can take action to reduce errors fur-
Table 2
Arizona Department of Corrections—Support Services
Inmate Release Errors
Years Ended December 31, 1996 through 1999
1996 1997 1998 1999
Inmates released late 27 15 22 18
Inmates released early 4 8 3 13
Total release errors 31 23 25 31
Total releases 14,418 11,967 12,576 10,924
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Time Computation and Records Unit’s reports for years ended De-cember
31,1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ther. As Figure 1 shows (see page 12), several areas—the Time
Computation and Records Unit, prison records offices, courts,
and the Department’s computer system—impact the inmate
release process. The Department should therefore consider mul-tiple
strategies to minimize problems in each area.
Implement more technical guidance for staff who perform time
computation duties—To continue to reduce errors made by the
Time Computation and Records Unit, the Department should
improve its guidance for staff. The Department’s records show
that Time Computation and Records Unit staff were solely re-sponsible
for eight release errors in calendar year 1999. No pro-cedures
manual has been available to guide staff in calculating
release dates, although the previous audit in 1990 had recom-mended
that the Department develop a manual. Additionally,
supervisors were not using a consistent method to review new
employees’ work. In order to reduce potential for error, the De-partment
should provide staff a technical procedures manual
regarding release date calculation and consider implementing
checklists for supervisors and other trainers to follow in review-ing
new staff’s work.
Ensure records and intake staff know procedures—The Depart-ment
needs to improve technical assistance and resources for
prison records offices in order to ensure that staff follow proce-dures
and avoid errors. Staff performing intake or release con-firmation
procedures in records offices accounted for five release
errors in 1999. However, records office staff have not had a tech-nical
procedures manual to guide their work, and supervisors
have cited a lack of sufficient training opportunities. Addition-ally,
records offices may experience problems in communicating
in a timely manner with the Time Computation and Records
Unit regarding questions because this unit receives over 500 to
600 calls each week from prison offices, courts, inmate families,
and others. However, e-mail, which could be an effective alterna-tive,
was available for only three records offices at the time of the
audit. To continue to reduce errors, the Department should de-velop
a procedures manual for prison records offices, provide
more training on procedures, and also consider building in e-mail
capacity for all prison offices in future upgrades of its in-formation
technology resources.
The Department should
provide a technical man-ual
for staff who calculate
inmates’ release dates.
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Figure 1
Arizona Department of Corrections—Support Services
Sequence of Steps Impacting Inmate Release Dates
As of December 2000
Step 1: State courts
  Sentence inmate and send documents to
Department of Corrections intake center.
Step 2: Department intake staff
  Enter data from court documents to AIMS
(Adult Inmate Management System)
computer program.
Step 3: AIMS computer program
  Calculates inmate release date.
Step 4: Time Computation and Records Unit
  Verifies data entry of department intake staff
against court documents.
  Manually verifies all AIMS calculations.
Step 6: Time Computation and Records Unit
  Sends verification of inmate release date to
prison records offices.
Step 5: Prison disciplinary offices and records
offices
  Records disciplinary penalties that may affect
release dates.
  Requests verification of release date prior to
inmate release.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of Department policies and procedures for inmate releases.
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Build in upgrades to computer program as part of future system
improvements—Because the Department’s computer program
has continued to make some errors even after a major update,
the Department needs to ensure that these problems are ad-dressed
in any future repair or upgrade of its computer system.
From 1998 to 2000 the Department paid a consultant $127,898 to
update the calculation program, enabling Time Computation
and Records Unit staff to more accurately calculate release dates
for inmates convicted under the 1994 Truth in Sentencing Stat-ute.
As a result, error rates for computer calculations of Truth in
Sentencing release dates are now estimated as approximately 1
percent. However, older statutory codes continue to have com-puter
calculation error rates ranging from 3 percent for codes
between 1978 and 1993 to 16 percent for codes prior to 1978, and
random errors also continue to occur.1 To remedy these ongoing
problems, the Department’s strategic plan includes a new com-puter
calculation system to be implemented in June 2003.
Continue to work with courts in reducing errors—The Depart-ment
should continue to explore methods of reducing errors that
result from missing or erroneous information from the courts.
One way to help do so may be to transfer sentencing documents
electronically between the courts and the Department. Currently,
when courts omit information or include erroneous information
in sentencing documents, the Department’s Time Computation
and Records Unit staff writes or makes phone calls to the court to
request changes or corrections. For example, staff make about 60
to 70 queries per month asking judges to clarify sentencing in-structions.
In contrast, electronic data transfer, recently imple-mented
in Colorado and being tested in other states, allows cor-rections
agencies to receive court documents electronically and
return them if information needs to be changed.
1 Computer calculation error rates were based on Auditor General staff
analysis of data on sentencing structures for 26,287 active inmates as of
June 1, 2000.
The Department’s com-puter
occasionally makes
errors in calculating
inmates’ release dates.
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. The Department should develop a technical procedures
manual for Time Computation and Records Unit staff who
perform inmate sentence calculations.
2. The Department should consider implementing checklists for
Time Computation and Records Unit supervisors to follow in
checking new staff’s work.
3. The Department should develop a technical procedures
manual for prison records office staff who perform inmate in-take
or release confirmation procedures.
4. The Department should provide additional training for
prison records office staff.
5. As part of its overall plan for information technology, the
Department should consider building in e-mail capacity for
all prison offices to quickly communicate questions and in-formation
to its Time Computation and Records Unit.
6. As part of its overall plan for information technology, the
Department should consider correcting problems associated
with its computer calculation program.
7. The Department should explore with state courts the feasibil-ity
of transferring sentencing documents electronically.
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
IN OPERATIONS OF
BUSINESS OFFICES
AND INMATE STORES
The Department can make improvements to operations within
its business offices and its inmate stores. Although these offices
and stores have an adequate set of procedures in place for con-trolling
financial transactions, employees occasionally circum-vent
these procedures. At one of the prison’s business offices,
staff stole significant amounts of cash. In addition, an internal
Department task force reviewing inmate stores also identified a
number of other ways to make store operations more efficient.
The Department should develop a plan for addressing the task
force’s findings and recommendations.
Business Offices and
Inmate Stores Conduct
Many Transactions
Within the Department, financial transactions occur both in
business offices and inmate stores. The Department divides
oversight for financial activities between a central business office,
which allocates and monitors the prisons’ budgets, and prison-level
business offices, whose staff conduct and record transac-tions
such as equipment purchases. The Department also oper-ates
at least one inmate store at each prison unit. The stores sell
snacks and other items at a markup of 10 percent. For fiscal year
2000, the stores generated over $18 million in sales. Profits gener-ated
by the stores are deposited in the Department’s Activities
and Recreation Fund and are used for items and services to bene-fit
inmates. Inmates are allowed to purchase items from the store
once a week by filling out an order form, and the funds are de-ducted
from their inmate bank accounts.
Finding II
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Stronger Adherence to
Procedures Needed for
Financial Transactions
The procedures that the Department has established for transac-tions
within its business offices and inmate stores are generally
sound. However, the Department needs to do more to ensure
that these procedures are followed. In recent years, staff have
stolen significant amounts of money from one of the prison’s
business offices. The Department should ensure that business
office staff duties involving cash and other assets are appropri-ately
segregated and that staff adequately follow policies.
Internal control procedures established by the Department are
generally adequate—The Department’s procedures and practices
for conducting financial transactions at two business offices and
seven inmate stores are generally adequate. As part of an inter-nal
control review, auditors reviewed internal controls at busi-ness
offices in two prisons, inventory procedures at inmate stores
at six prisons, and cash and purchasing procedures at inmate
stores in seven prisons. Auditors identified no significant weak-nesses
in the procedures the Department and the prisons had
established.
Procedures have been circumvented in the past—Although the
Department has acceptable procedures for managing cash and
other assets, it needs to do more to ensure that these procedures
are followed. The need for close adherence to procedures is best
seen at the Tucson prison, where in two separate incidents, em-ployees
stole and allegedly stole thousands of dollars:
  A staff member in the Tucson prison’s business office was
convicted of stealing approximately $118,000 between 1992
and 1995. This staff member was responsible for preparing
deposits of cash and checks received by the Department. She
stole cash and substituted checks received at a later date that
matched the amount of cash that should have been deposited
into the bank.
  From 1998 through 2000, another business office staff mem-ber
from the Tucson prison business office allegedly stole ap-proximately
$72,000. She has been charged with stealing cash
The business offices and
inmate stores we reviewed
had adequate practices.
In two separate incidents,
employees stole and alleg-edly
stole thousands of
dollars.
Finding II
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
received from the inmate stores and parole violators by sub-stituting
it with checks generated from the inmate banking
system payable to the Department. She also allegedly wrote
herself checks from abandoned accounts in the inmate bank-ing
system.
Although the Department’s central business office ultimately
discovered these thefts, a lack of adherence to procedures first
allowed these thefts to occur. More specifically,
  Contrary to Department policy, some of the business office’s
duties, including receiving the monies and preparing deposit
slips, were not adequately segregated among the business of-fice’s
staff.
  Business office staff did not make prompt deposits to the
bank, even though Department policy requires deposits to be
made “as soon as possible after receipt.”
  The staff member who allegedly stole money from 1998
through 2000 lacked adequate supervision, which contrib-uted
to her ability to write checks to herself.
Department needs to ensure procedures are followed—To reduce
the likelihood that theft could occur in the future, the Depart-ment
should require business managers to ensure that staff at the
prisons’ business offices adequately follow Department policies.
Additionally, the Department should require duties involving
cash and other assets to be adequately segregated among staff.
Auditors found evidence that some procedures had been
strengthened since the more recent theft at Tucson. For example,
the Department developed technical manuals to assist prison
business managers, and at the Tucson prison, the business man-ager
created new financial reports designed to help discover
discrepancies. In addition, duties involving cash handling at the
Tucson prison business office have been segregated among the
business office staff.
Finding II
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Operations at Inmate Stores
Can Be Made More Efficient
An internal Department task force, called the Venture Team,
issued a report on inmate store operations in 1999 and found
many inefficiencies. The Department has not developed a plan
for implementing the team’s recommendations.
Venture Team identified problems at inmate stores—The Ven-ture
Team identified several types of problems or inefficiencies:
  No systemwide computerized system was in place for main-taining
and tracking inventory and purchases from the
stores. For example, only one unit used a Universal Product
Code (UPC) scanner to record sales and produce some store
records. Moreover, there was no computer system to auto-matically
deduct inmates’ store purchases from their Inmate
Banking System accounts. Currently, most store managers
use hard copy computer printouts to determine whether in-mates
have enough money to cover their purchases.
  The types of sales equipment used also vary among stores.
Many stores use 10-key adding machines to add up pur-chases,
while others use non-networked computers and/or
cash registers.
Department should develop a plan to implement Venture Team
recommendations for inmate stores—The Department should
develop a plan to implement the Venture Team’s recommenda-tions
for the inmate stores, which included near-term, intermedi-ate-
term, and long-term recommendations. Near-term recom-mendations
included developing an inmate store training pro-gram
for officers and inmates working in the stores, developing a
technical manual for store operations systemwide, and standard-izing
inmate store processes, recordkeeping, and reporting. Mid-term
recommendations included developing a statewide
computerized store system with bar-coded inmate identification
cards, merchandise scanners, and the ability to interface with the
inmate banking system; requiring perpetual inventories and
conducting random inventories for comparison against the per-petual
inventory; and others. Long-term recommendations in-cluded
establishing store space based on inmate population,
The Department task
force identified many
improvements for the
inmate stores.
Finding II
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
security level, and other requirements; installing video monitors
in the stores; and, where practical, purchasing store product on a
statewide basis to realize quantity discounts.
Although the Department has not developed a plan for imple-menting
the Venture Team’s recommendations, it has taken
steps to improve operations at the inmate stores. For example,
the Tucson prison is piloting a software program that uses point-of-
sale information to control inmate store inventory. Addition-ally,
the program tracks inmates’ Inmate Banking System ac-counts,
spending, and the types of products they are allowed to
purchase, depending on their custody level.
Finding II
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. The Department should require prison business office man-agers
to ensure that duties involving cash and other assets
are adequately segregated among staff.
2. The Department should ensure that each prison’s business
office staff adequately follow Department polices for han-dling
cash and other assets.
3. The Department should develop an inmate store training
program for officers and inmates who work in the stores.
4. The Department should develop a technical manual for store
operations systemwide.
5. The Department should standardize inmate store processes,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
6. The Department should develop a plan for reviewing, and
where feasible, implementing the Venture Team’s remaining
recommendations for the inmate stores.
21
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit, auditors developed other pertinent informa-tion
about the Department’s policies and practices for managing
inmates in protective segregation. The Department has recently
revised its protective segregation policies in response to a lawsuit
filed by inmates who disagreed with the Department’s man-agement
of the program.
Protective Segregation
Intended to Protect Inmates
Protective Segregation (PS) is a correctional management tool
that separates inmates who face threats of violence from other
inmates in the general population. Placement in PS can either be
voluntary, based on the inmate’s request, or involuntary, based
on staff judgment and the inmate’s prior PS history. Inmates may
require protection for a variety of reasons, including problems
former gang members have with current gang members, out-standing
gambling or drug debts owed to other inmates, or be-cause
they have a particularly vulnerable appearance or attitude.
The Department houses inmates in PS at several units through-out
the prison system. As of August 30, 2000, 693 inmates, or
about 2.6 percent of the total inmate population, were in the PS
Program. As illustrated in Table 3 (see page 22), the majority of
the PS inmates are housed at the Lewis prison complex.
Process Used to
Determine Placement
in Protective Segregation
The Department has implemented a policy and practices de-signed
to identify and safeguard inmates with legitimate protec-tion
needs. The Department’s policy describes the following
process:
Protective segregation
separates inmates who
are in danger from
other inmates in the
general population.
Other Pertinent Information
22
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
  Inmate or staff initiates process—Either an inmate or a
staff member can request initiation of the PS process. In either
case, staff from the unit are required to immediately secure
the inmate in a detention cell away from other inmates. An
officer then documents information regarding the reasons
why protection may be necessary for the inmate. For exam-ple,
the officer asks the inmate for the names of any inmates
who may have assaulted or threatened this inmate. This in-formation
is given to the prison’s designated PS Specialist,
who also interviews the inmate.
  Investigation conducted—The unit deputy warden reviews
the preliminary information gathered by the PS officer. If an
investigation appears to be necessary, he/she initiates a for-mal
investigation. For example, officers interview the inmate
regarding his or her reasons for requesting protection, and
compile a report.
Table 3
Arizona Department of Corrections—
Support Services
Number of Inmates in Protective Segregation
by Prison Complex
As of August 2000
Prison Complex Number
Lewis—Stiner 318
Lewis—Morey 252
Eyman SMU—I 102
Eyman SMU—II 9
Tucson—Rincon 6
Perryville—Lumley 3
Phoenix���Flamenco 2
Tucson Health Unit 1
693
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Deparment’s Approved Protective Segrega-tion
Report for August 30, 2000.
Other Pertinent Information
23
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
■  Prison complex officials make recommendations—The
unit’s deputy warden reviews the investigation results and
recommends returning the inmate to his or her general
population unit, housing the inmate at another unit, or con-tinuing
the PS process. The prison complex warden reviews
the deputy warden’s report and makes his or her own rec-ommendation
to the Central Office. The warden may also re-quest
additional investigation of the case.
  Central office committee decides outcome—The Depart-ment’s
Protective Segregation Committee, composed of the
PS administrator and two central office staff, reviews the
prison’s recommendations and determines whether the in-mate
will be allowed into PS.
If inmates do not agree with the Department’s decision, they
may appeal it. The final decision to uphold or deny the inmate’s
appeal is made by the deputy director for Prison Operations.
Photo 2: View of the yard at the Stiner Unit at
ASPC—Lewis.
Other Pertinent Information
24
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Most Requests for
Protective Segregation
Denied
Although many inmates request placement in the Department’s
protective segregation program, few are approved. For example,
from March 1998 through March 2000, 4,082 inmates requested
placement in PS. Of these, the Department made decisions re-garding
3,713 and approved only 438. However, the Department
placed about half of the inmates (2,086) at alternative housing
units. In addition to the inmates who requested PS, Department
staff identified 1,145 inmates for possible placement in the PS
program. Of these, the Department approved 165 for PS, and
placed 636 in an alternative housing unit.
Lawsuit Affects
Department’s Ability
to Involuntarily Transfer
Protective Segregation Inmates
A 1996 lawsuit led to changes in Department policy regarding
the transfer of inmates out of protective segregation. In 1995,
Department management was planning to transfer approxi-mately
300 PS inmates into general population units. As a result,
approximately 170 inmates filed lawsuits, claiming that they
would be in danger in general population units. In late 1995, the
court stayed and consolidated all of the individual lawsuits and
appointed attorneys for the inmates. In early 1996, the inmates’
attorneys filed a class action lawsuit against the Department on
behalf of all inmates in PS, and requested that the court direct the
Department to implement policies and procedures to safeguard
these inmates.
The court has ruled on the Department’s ability to transfer in-mates
out of PS into general population units. In 1997, the court
ruled that the Department could transfer PS inmates to general
population units as long as the Department submitted a plan
describing how it could ensure the inmates’ safety. In July 1997,
the Department submitted the required plan and the court held a
hearing in early 1998. The inmates’ attorneys and the Depart-ment
entered into a stipulation that the court later approved.
Inmates filed lawsuits
preventing the Depart-ment
from transferring
them to the general popu-lation.
Other Pertinent Information
25
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
This stipulation provided the Department with two years to
develop a more comprehensive plan and required the Depart-ment
to not involuntarily transfer any PS inmate to a general
population unit during the two-year period.
In response to the lawsuit, the Department has made changes to
its PS policies and procedures and in February 2000, submitted a
plan to the court that outlines its changes. The new policies, first
revised by the Department in March 1998, and finalized in Janu-ary
2000, require the Department to immediately move inmates
requesting protection to secure cells segregated from other in-mates.
Additionally, the policies require each prison warden to
designate one correctional officer to serve as the prison’s coordi-nator
and specialist for all PS issues. Further, the Department
now houses most PS inmates at its newest prison, the Lewis
complex. Finally, the Department’s plan provides some im-provements
to PS inmates’ conditions of confinement. For ex-ample,
according to the Department, services such as medical
and mental health are now comparable to those provided to
general population inmates of the same classification levels.
As of July 28, 2000, the lawsuit has been conditionally dismissed.
The inmates’ attorneys and the Department have agreed to have
an independent monitor assess the Department’s PS program for
a minimum of 12 months and produce quarterly progress re-ports.
The Department modified
its protective segregation
policies in response to a
lawsuit.
26
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
April 19, 2001
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Re: Auditor General’s Performance Audit
Support Services Final Report Response
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised preliminary draft of the Support Services Audit report.
I believe the report accurately reflects the performance level of this function, and it also identifies
appropriate areas for continued development and improvement.
As with previously completed portions of our agency audit, I wish to extend my personal thanks to your
staff for their professional work on this evaluation. Your staff has not only been genuinely interested in
conducting a thorough review of our efforts in the areas of programs and services, they have also provided
valuable assistance through their insights and recommendations.
Enclosed you will find our responses to the recommendations given in the report, along with clarification of
three issues to assure complete and accurate understanding. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can
provide further documentation or answer any questions to assist in completing your report.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and respond to your preliminary report.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Stewart
Director
TLS/CLR/ve
Enclosures
AUDITOR GENERAL'S PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Support Services Final Report Response
Arizona Department of Corrections
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Auditor General’s staff request, the revised preliminary report of the Arizona Department
of Corrections’ Support Services area has been reviewed. Based upon that review a response to the
revised preliminary draft has been developed and is presented herein.
In making that presentation, it is noted that the Auditor General’s staff have demonstrated a high
level of thoroughness and professionalism in conducting the audit. Issues presented in the response
in relationship to the overall report are in fact relatively minor. Clarifications and responses are
presented in the Department’s continuing willingness and desire to make optimal all operations and
support components that contribute to furthering the efficiency of Arizona’s state correctional
function and enhancement of the public safety of Arizona’s citizens.
3
Recommendations
Finding I
(Pages 7 - 14)
1. The Department should develop a technical procedures manual for Time
Computation and Records Unit staff who perform inmate sentence calculations.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
Although the technical manual in Department Order (DO) 101 format for DO 1001 and
1002 is not complete, to state that there has been no procedures manual available to guide
staff is inaccurate. Staff have been working on converting the current technical users
material/manuals for Time Computation and the inmate release system to DO 101
technical manual format.
The Inmate Records Tech Manual, 901, was in place effective February 1, 2000.
All Time Computation Unit Correctional Records Technicians (CRTs) must complete a
certified, 160-hour classroom training program. Staff must pass a written test with an
85% or above to remain in a CRT position. During the training, staff are provided with
numerous written materials that become their user/tech manual along with Department
Orders 1001 and 1002. In addition to this written material, technical procedures are
available for specific assignments such as audit release, parole, and violators. Further
technical procedures are available at the supervisor level.
2. The Department should consider implementing checklists for Time Computation
and Records Unit supervisors to follow in checking new staff's work.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
The Department agrees that checklists should be implemented for Time Computation and
Records Unit supervisors to follow in checking the work of new staff. Currently new
staff, during on-the-job training, have their work checked by the assigned supervisor.
Once the supervisor determines that the staff member is properly trained, the new staff is
teamed with a peer mentor for monitoring and/or assistance for a period of three to six
months. A checklist system is under development and targeted for implementation by the
start of the 2002 fiscal year.
3. The Department should develop a technical procedures manual for prison records
office staff who perform inmate intake or release confirmation procedures.
4
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
As previously stated, Technical Manual 901, Inmate Records, has been in place since
February 2000. The technical manual for DO 1001, Inmate Release System, which
contains procedures for records staff, is in progress. It should be noted that DO 1001 is
written much
like a technical manual and contains specific procedures to be followed.
4. The Department should provide additional training for prison records office staff.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
Currently, training is provided as requested or when deemed necessary by administrative
staff. A formal certification training will be developed and implemented for all current
records office staff and new hires.
5. As part of its overall plan for information technology, the Department should
consider building in e-mail capacity for all prison offices to quickly communicate
questions and information to its Time Computation and Records Unit.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
E-mail capacity is available at sites connected through the Arizona Department of
Corrections Wide Area Network (WAN). As the Department continues to expand the
WAN, those additional sites will have E-mail capability added. The sites not connected
are: Florence, Phoenix, Eyman, Safford and Douglas. The expansion of the WAN is
dependent on the availability of additional funding.
6. As part of its overall plan for information technology, the Department should
consider correcting problems associated with its computer calculation program.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
The Department’s IT Bureau will initiate a detailed review and subsequent modifications
as required of the Time Computation program logic to help eliminate any possible
program errors.
No program can cover 100% of all possible legal, legislative, and sentencing options that
can exist both in today’s environment and over the last 50 years.
7. The Department should explore with state courts, the feasibility of transferring
5
sentencing documents electronically.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
The Department’s IT Bureau will explore the feasibility of transferring sentencing
documents electronically.
Recommendations
Finding II
(Pages 15-20)
1. The Department should require prison business office managers to ensure that duties
involving cash and other assets are adequately segregated among staff.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
The Department has initiated an effort to establish business office manager performance
objectives to address the segregation of staff functions relative to the handling of cash and
other assets. Upon implementation of the performance objectives, this management
approach will involve inclusion of monitoring and evaluation related to annual PACE
reviews.
2. The Department should ensure that each prison’s business office staff adequately follow
Department policies for handling cash and other assets.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
Considerable attention and effort are being put forth by the Department to address this
important issue. Training for managers and line staff is considered to be an important
component of a strategic initiative to improve policy compliance in business functions and
other areas. Internal inspections encompassing evaluation of performance in this area are
ongoing. During recent visits by the Director to all prison complexes statewide, special
mention of the need to improve policy compliance was covered at every site.
3. The Department should develop an inmate store training program for officers and inmates
who work in the stores.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
6
The task group mentioned above will be developing a technical manual and training plan for
implementation. Training for staff associated with inmate
stores will be included. Inmates will be trained by those staff.
4. The Department should develop a technical manual for store operations system wide.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will
be implemented.
A task group has been formed and charged with the development of a technical manual. The
manual is intended to make available a complete set of standardized practices and
procedures.
5. The Department should standardize inmate store processes, record keeping and reporting.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
The task group will develop the technical manual with completion and implementation
targeted for Fiscal year 2002. Prison Operations is currently piloting a software program at
the Tucson facility which utilizes point-of-sale and bar coding information to control inmate
store inventory, record keeping and reporting. This pilot is scheduled to be completed by
June 30, 2001.
Depending on the results of the pilot and the availability of additional funding, the program
can be expanded and utilized at other prisons, thereby standardizing inmate store processes,
record keeping and inventories.
6. The Department should develop a plan for reviewing and where feasible, implementing
the Venture Team’s remaining recommendations for inmate stores.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be
implemented.
Prison Operations is currently piloting a software program at the Tucson prison utilizing
point-of-sale and bar coding information to control inmate store inventory, record keeping
and reporting. This pilot is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2001.
Depending on the results of the pilot and the availability of additional funding, the program
can be expanded and utilized at other prisons.
7
Other Pertinent Information
(Pages 21-25)
Whereas this section of the draft report contains no specific recommendations, the Department can
only express that the descriptive information concerning Inmate Protective Segregation and the
administrative processes involved, is accurate. The processes involved continue to be monitored and
developed to ensure efficiency of processing and safety of inmates within Arizona Department of
Corrections institutions.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
00-8 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Animal Disease, Ownership and
Welfare Protection Program
00-9 Arizona Naturopathic Physicians
Board of Medical Examiners
00-10 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality Assurance
Program and Non-Food Product
Quality Assurance Program
00-11 Arizona Office of Tourism
00-12 Department of Public Safety—
Scientific Analysis Bureau
00-13 Arizona Department of Agriculture
Pest Exclusion and Management
Program
00-14 Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
00-15 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Commodity Development
00-16 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Pesticide Compliance and Worker
Safety Program
00-17 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Sunset Factors
00-18 Arizona State Boxing Commission
00-19 Department of Economic Security—
Division of Developmental
Disabilities
00-20 Department of Corrections—
Security Operations
00-21 Universities—Funding Study
00-22 Annual Evaluation—Arizona’s Family
Literacy Program
01-01 Department of Economic Security—
Child Support Enforcement
01-02 Department of Economic Security—
Healthy Families Program
01-03 Arizona Department of Public Safety—
Drug Abuse resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.) Program
01-04 Department of Corrections—Human
Resources Management
01-05 Arizona Department of Public Safety—
Telecommunications Bureau
01-06 Board of Osteopathic Examiners in
Medicine and Surgery
Future Performance Audit Reports
Arizona Game and Fish Department—Wildlife Management
Arizona Game and Fish Department—Heritage Fund
Department of Public Safety’s Licensing Bureau