Performance audit, Department of Corrections, Human Resources Management: 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
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
March 2001
Report No. 01-04
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 Andy Nichols Representative Barbara Leff
Senator Tom Smith Representative James Sedillo
Senator Randall Gnant Representative James Weiers
(ex-officio) (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Shan Hays—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Monique Cordova—Team Leader
Susan Brichler—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
March 12, 2001
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. Terry L. Stewart, Director
Arizona Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Department of Corrections—Human Resources Management. This report is in
response to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The
performance audit was conducted 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.
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 March 13, 2001.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Services: Human Resources Management is one of four subprograms under the Administra-tion
program in the Department of Corrections. Its mission is to ensure that the Department
can attract, develop, and maintain qualified and informed professional staff. Human Re-sources
performs several services for the Department including: 1) Personnel services and
employee recruitment; 2) Policy development and research; 3) Staff development and training;
and 4) Management of the Correctional Officer Training Academy.
Revenue: Approximately $18.2 million
(fiscal year 2000)
$17,500,000
$17,700,000
$17,900,000
$18,100,000
$18,300,000
1999 2000
General Fund Federal Grant Other
Facilities:
The Correctional Officer Training Academy
(COTA), located on approximately 40 acres
of land in the western foothills of Tucson, is
leased from the Department of Public Safety.
It includes administrative offices, classrooms,
and dormitories.
The Recruitment Unit for Selection and Hir-ing
in the Personnel Services Bureau oper-ates
out of the Department’s building at 1645
W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ.
Personnel: 137 (fiscal year 2000)
Program Goals and Performance Meas-ures:
The Human Resources Management subpro-gram
has two goals and nine performance
measures:
Ø To increase the recruitment of Correctional
Officers; and
Ø To provide quality mandatory training pro-grams
and professional development pro-grams
to meet the Department’s increasing
requirements.
Staff Training and
Development Unit
(33)
COTA (29)
Personnel Service Bureau (52)
Policy and
Research
Unit (12)
Assistant Director’s
Office (8)
Other
(3)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Equipment:
The Human Resources and Development
Division has over $2.4 million in fixed assets.
In addition to basic office equipment such as
computers and printers, the Division uses
the following equipment to carry out re-cruitment
activities and employee training.
Arms and Weapons:
n 33 Remington Shotguns
n 5 12-Gauge Shotguns
n 2 Target Rangers
n 1 Colt AR-15 Rifle
n 8 Gas Guns
n 105 Glock Handguns
Audiovisual Equipment:
n 7 Camcorders
n 8 Digital Cameras
n 2 Editing Recorders
n 1 Editing System
n 30 Media Projectors
n 1 Teleprompter
n 15 Televisions
n 7 VCRs
n 11 TV/VCR Combinations
n 1 Video Production System
Communication Devices:
n 71 Portable Radios
n 6 HT1000 Radios
n 6 Cellular Phones
Gym Equipment:
n 2 Treadmills
n 2 Step Exercise Machines
Vehicles:
n 18 Sedans
n 22 Minivans/Vans
n 2 Trucks
n 1 Trailer
n 1 Rider-Lawnmower
Adequacy of Goals and
Performance Measures:
The goals and performance measures for the
Human Resources Management program
appear appropriate for its mission. However,
they should be expanded to include addi-tional
input, output, and outcome measures,
and new efficiency and quality measures.
For example, the current performance meas-ures
regarding correctional officer recruit-ment
should be expanded to include:
n Input Measures: The number of people
who enroll at COTA.
n Output Measures: The number of people
who graduate from COTA.
n Outcome Measures: The percentage of
applicants who pass all tests compared to
number tested.
n Efficiency Measures: 1) the percentage of
applications processed compared to contacts
made; 2) the percentage of job offers made
compared to applications processed; 3) the
percentage of applicants who fail to show up
at COTA compared to the number of job of-fers
accepted; 4) the percentage of cadets who
graduate from COTA compared to the num-ber
of people who accepted job offers; and 5)
the percentage of cadets who graduate from
COTA compared to number of cadets who
enrolled at COTA.
The performance measures associated with
providing quality mandatory training pro-grams
should be expanded to include more
detail on the types of programs staff have
attended, and include a quality measure that
assesses staff satisfaction with programs
offered. The two output measures currently
reported are not very meaningful as they
only report the number of employees in
professional development programs and the
number of new programs.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of Human Resources Management at the Arizona Depart-ment
of Corrections, in response to a June 16, 1999, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Although the Human
Resources Management subprogram manages personnel con-cerns
for the entire Department, this audit focuses on the De-partment’s
efforts to hire and retain sufficient numbers of correc-tional
officers. This 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.
This audit is the second in a series of six audits of the Depart-ment
of Corrections. The first audit focused on Security Opera-tions.
The remaining audits will focus on Support Services,
Agency Infrastructure, Private Prisons, and Arizona Correctional
Industries.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs the second
largest number of employees in Arizona state government, with
10,780 full-time staff in fiscal year 2000. Security staff, such as
correctional officers, make up 7,200 of these positions.
Correctional Officer
Vacancies Create Problems
for the Department
(See pages 9 through 18)
The Department has a high number of vacancies in correctional
officer positions. As a result it cannot open new prison beds and
spends millions of dollars a year on recruiting, training, and
overtime. Systemwide vacancies have approached 20 percent for
several years. Vacancy rates are especially high at the Depart-ment’s
newest prison complex, Lewis, which has vacancies of
nearly 45 percent, and has never had less than about 34 percent
of its positions vacant since its construction.
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Growth in the prison system and turnover among correctional
officers contribute substantially to the number of vacancies. Be-tween
January 6, 1997 and November 27, 2000, the number of
authorized positions increased by 1,375, and during the same
period, 3,533 correctional officers left their positions. Between
this system growth and turnover, the Department needed to fill
nearly 5,000 positions to reach full staffing.
Vacancies have a substantial impact on Department operations.
At the new Lewis prison, the Department cannot use 1,271 state-of-
the-art beds because it lacks adequate staff, so inmates remain
in inadequate temporary housing in other prisons. Other prisons
frequently operate under minimum activity conditions, where
inmates remain in their cells instead of participating in work and
education programs. For example, between January 1 and Sep-tember
20, 2000, prison units at the Florence complex reported
operating at minimal staffing levels 298 times. In addition, de-spite
the importance of having experienced staff to supervise
inmates, more than one-third of the Department’s correctional
officers have less than a year’s experience.
Financial costs of these vacancies are also high. Advertising,
recruiting, and training new officers cost over $15.4 million in
fiscal year 2000, or more than $9,600 per training academy
graduate. Additionally, the Department must often require offi-cers
to work overtime, at a cost of over $10 million in overtime
expenses in fiscal year 2000.
Department Has Made Progress
in Recruiting Although Results
Still Fall Short
(See pages 19 through 24)
The Department has taken aggressive measures to expand re-cruitment
of correctional officers in recent years. Since 1985, the
Department has had an agreement with the Department of Ad-ministration
that allows it to conduct its own recruitment, selec-tion,
and hiring. In addition, the Department began an aggres-sive
advertising campaign in fiscal year 1998, operates satellite
recruitment centers, recruits out-of-state, and has implemented
an employee referral program. Under this program, officers can
earn incentives, such as transfers to a unit of choice, selecting a
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
shift of choice, or deferring mandatory rotation, by recruiting
two new correctional officers. Finally, as a participant in a new
Department of Administration pilot project, the Department
now has greater flexibility to make certain personnel decisions,
including providing incentives to attract recruits to difficult-to-fill
positions. For example, starting in December 2000, new hires
and officers, sergeants, and lieutenants who transfer to the Lewis
complex receive a $5,160 signing bonus. This bonus is paid out in
a lump sum, and must be repaid on a pro rata basis if the em-ployee
does not remain at Lewis for two years. Existing officers
will receive $100 per pay period between December 2000 and
December 2002; this bonus also ceases if the employee leaves
during this time period.
The Department’s efforts have led to a 61 percent increase in
accepted job offers between fiscal years 1998 and 2000. Still, not
all persons offered jobs enroll at the training academy, and train-ing
academy dropouts and failures further reduce the number of
officers who can fill vacant positions. In total, about 27 percent of
people who accepted job offers, after passing all the Depart-ment’s
tests and the background check, did not complete the 7-
week training academy in fiscal year 2000. Failure to enroll at the
academy, resignations, disciplinary problems, and inability to
meet physical performance requirements account for most of
these non-completions.
To improve the success of its recruiting efforts, the Department
should redesign its Internet recruiting materials to make apply-ing
for positions easier, consider expanding the employee refer-ral
program to all staff, and research ways to reduce the number
of cadets who resign from or fail the training academy and ways
to improve the graduation rates.
Faced with Low Salaries, the
Department Has Made Several
Attempts to Address Turnover
(See pages 25 through 34)
Several important factors contribute to correctional officer turn-over,
and the Department should continue and expand its efforts
to address them. Low pay is the number one reason officers
leave the Department, according to exit surveys. Arizona’s start-
Summary
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ing salary for correctional officers, $23,504, is lower than other
comparable or closely related positions in Arizona. In a survey of
17 other Arizona law enforcement and corrections agencies, only
the 3 private prisons under contract with the Department had
lower starting salaries for officers. Correctional officers’ retire-ment
benefits also do not match those of other law enforcement
officers, most of whom can retire after 20 years instead of the 25
years required for correctional officers.
Although the Department’s salaries are low, it has made sub-stantial
efforts to improve retention. For example, it uses vacancy
savings to pay higher salaries at some harder-to-staff prisons,
such as Winslow, where officers receive a 15 percent stipend;
and Lewis, Florence, and Eyman, where officers receive 10 per-cent
more than they would at other prisons. The Department
also operates a van pool that uses 57 vans to serve 785 officers at
Florence, Eyman, Lewis, and Winslow. In addition, the Depart-ment
studies retention issues by conducting exit interviews and
other research, and has also undertaken efforts in areas where
prisons are located to foster development of community ameni-ties
that would make them more attractive places for officers to
live.
In addition to pay and benefits, Department research has identi-fied
several other sources of dissatisfaction. These include over-time,
a perceived lack of Department support, and perceived
inconsistencies in applying Department rules. Poor job fit may
also play a role in turnover, since in the past three fiscal years,
over 30 percent of officers who resigned had stayed less than one
year, and 8 percent of total officer losses came from the Depart-ment
terminating officers during their probationary period.
Finally, the Department should ensure that applicants have a
realistic understanding of the job, re-examine its current exit
interview tool, and address sources of dissatisfaction identified
in research findings. In particular, Department management
should continue their efforts to reach out and listen to staff, and
show tangible evidence of their concern for Department employ-ees.
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background.......................... 1
Finding I: Correctional Officer
Vacancies Create Problems
for the Department ....................................... 9
Department Has
Many Vacancies .............................................................. 9
Increased Size of Prison System and
High Turnover Rate Contribute
to Vacancy Problems....................................................... 9
Vacancies Cause Multiple Problems
for Department Operations ............................................ 14
Serious Problem Will Require
Combination of Solutions ............................................... 18
Finding II: Department Has Made
Progress in Recruiting
Although Results Still
Fall Short....................................................... 19
Department Has Taken
Aggressive Measures to
Expand Recruitment....................................................... 19
Job Offers Have Increased,
but Many Cadets Leave
or Fail Training Academy............................................... 22
Department Should
Consider Additional Ideas.............................................. 23
Recommendations .......................................................... 24
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
Finding III: Faced with Low Salaries, the
Department Has Made Several
Attempts to Address Turnover.................... 25
Many Factors Contribute
to Difficulties in Retaining
Corrections Officers ........................................................ 25
Department Could Improve
Retention Strategies......................................................... 28
Recommendations .......................................................... 34
Tables
Table 1 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 1999,
2000, and 2001 (Unaudited)................................ 4
Table 2 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Authorized Positions,
Vacancies, and Vacancy Rate by Facility
As of November 27, 2000.................................... 10
Table 3 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Losses and
Turnover Rates by Facility
For Year Ended June 30, 2000............................. 10
Table 4 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Number of Times Facilities Reported Operating
at Minimal Activity Staffing Levels
January 1, 2000 through September 20, 2000
(Unaudited)......................................................... 15
Table of Contents
vii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concl’d)
Page
Tables (Cont’d)
Table 5 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Recruitment Performance
Measures Number of Correctional Officer
Applicant Contacts, Applications Processed,
Applicants Tested, and Job Offers Accepted
Years Ended June 30, 1998 through 2000
(Unaudited)......................................................... 23
Table 6 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Starting Salaries for Correctional Officers
in 11 Western States ............................................ 26
Table 7 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Starting Salaries for Police and Correctional
Officers................................................................. 27
Figures
Figure 1 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Changes in Authorized and Filled Correctional
Officer Positions
January 6, 1997 through November 27, 2000 .... 12
Figure 2 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Losses
Years Ended June 30, 1998 through 2000........... 13
Figure 3 Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Length of Service for Active
Correctional Officers
As of November 30, 2000
(Unaudited)......................................................... 16
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 Human Resources Management at the Arizona Depart-ment
of Corrections, in response to a June 16, 1999, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Although the Human
Resources Management subprogram manages personnel con-cerns
for the entire Department, this audit focuses on the De-partment’s
efforts to hire and retain sufficient numbers of correc-tional
officers. This 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.
This audit is the second in a series of six audits of the Depart-ment
of Corrections. The first audit focused on Security Opera-tions.
The remaining audits will focus on Support Services,
Agency Infrastructure, Private Prisons, and Arizona Correctional
Industries.
Correctional Officers Are
the Department’s Largest
Human Resource
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs the second
largest number of employees in Arizona state government (the
universities employ the most). In fiscal year 2000, the Depart-ment
had 10,780 full-time staff, including security, medical, and
administrative employees. Of this total, 7,200 are security staff
positions, which consist of correctional officers, sergeants, lieu-tenants,
and other higher-level officers who oversee the prison
population. Historically, the Department has experienced great
difficulty attracting and retaining adequate numbers of correc-tional
officers to meet its authorized staffing levels, and contin-ues
to have problems with correctional officer vacancies and
turnover. As of November 27, 2000, 18 percent of correctional
officer positions were vacant. In fiscal year 2000, the Department
experienced a 25.2 percent average monthly loss rate (turnover).
Eighteen percent of cor-rectional
officer positions
were vacant in November
2000.
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Prison System’s Rapid
Growth Increases Demand
for Correctional Officers
The State’s growing prison population has greatly increased
Arizona’s need for correctional officers. As reported in the De-cember
2000 Security Operations report, growth in Arizona’s
prison population is a challenge for the Department. According
to Department statistics, the correctional system’s inmate popu-lation
has grown by almost 76 percent since the last Auditor
General audit in 1991, from almost 15,000 inmates to more than
26,000 as of July 2000. Since 1991, the Department has opened
two new prison complexes, raising the number of state-operated
facilities to ten, and has entered into contracts to incarcerate in-mates
in three privately operated prisons. Correspondingly, the
number of correctional officer positions that the Department has
to oversee the prison population has grown. According to the
Department’s budget office, the Department had approximately
3,400 correctional officer positions on June 30, 1990, and ap-proximately
6,400 positions on June 30, 2000, which corresponds
to an increase of about 88 percent in the number of positions
since the end of fiscal year 1990.
Nationwide, the prison inmate population has expanded, and so
has demand for correctional officers. According to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, between 1990 and 1999, the nation’s prison
population expanded by more than 600,000 inmates, an increase
of 79 percent. The United States Department of Labor expects
employment growth for correctional officers to increase much
faster than the average for all occupations through 2008. The
Department of Labor also predicts that local and state govern-ments
will experience difficulty attracting and retaining qualified
applicants, mainly because salaries are low and the jobs are con-centrated
in rural locations.
Human Resources Management:
Overview of Staffing and Budget
The Department’s Deputy Director of Administration oversees
Human Resources Management, a subprogram of Administra-tion.
The Department’s Human Resources and Development
Division had 137 full-time staff as of January 10, 2001, to carry
The Department has 88
percent more correctional
officer positions than it
had in 1990.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
out its duties, which include recruiting and screening job appli-cants,
developing the Department’s annual training program,
overseeing a training program for correctional officers, policy
development and research, and other activities. Although the
Human Resources Division recruits and screens correctional
officer candidates, actual hiring authority rests with the Deputy
Director of Prison Operations.1 Prison Operations staff are also
responsible for managing and supervising correctional officers,
and overseeing work conditions at the prisons, which, together
with factors such as pay and benefits, influence loss and reten-tion
of correctional officers.
For fiscal year 2000, the Human Resources Management Sub-program,
as illustrated in Table 1 (see page 4), received approxi-mately
$18.1 million in State General Fund appropriations, ac-counting
for approximately 3.2 percent of the Department’s total
General Fund appropriations. Over $14 million is for employee
salaries and employee-related costs, including salaries for cadets
attending the Correctional Officer Training Academy. In 2000,
the Department spent approximately $864,000 on advertising
related to employee recruitment.
Previous Audits Identified
Problems and Progress
The Auditor General’s Office reviewed security staffing issues in
1986 and 1991. The 1986 audit found serious problems in the
recruitment area, but the 1991 audit determined that the De-partment
had substantially addressed its recruiting problems.
n 1986 Report—This audit found that the hiring process was
inadequate to meet correctional officer staffing needs. At that
time, it took the Department close to 11 weeks to fill a va-cancy—
4 1/2 weeks to hire a new officer, and 6 weeks to
train him or her. The audit found that background checks
could be improved and recommended centralizing the entire
process. Finally, the audit found that correctional officers
were not receiving the required amount of in-service training
that it required.
1 The Deputy Director of Prison Operations is also responsible for evaluat-ing
the adequacy of prison staffing levels, and projecting staffing needs.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management Program 1
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 1999, 2000, and 2001
(Unaudited)
1999 2000 2001
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimated)
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $17,849,600 $18,122,200 $18,527,200
Federal grants 47,400
Other 2,528 2,324      
Total revenues 17,852,128 18,171,924 18,527,200
Expenditures:
Personal services 11,337,858 12,072,701 12,007,700
Employee related 2,367,131 2,481,755 2,684,600
Professional and outside services 1,045,822 1,225,336 681,500
Travel, in-state 77,792 61,176 95,500
Travel, out-of-state 22,329 20,122 2,200
Other operating 2 2,373,301 2,388,553 3,775,800
Equipment 628,358 704,057 102,400
Total expenditures 17,852,591 18,953,700 19,349,700
Excess of revenues over/(under) expenditures 463 (781,776) (822,500)
Other financing sources (uses):
Operating transfers 3 847,500 822,500
Remittances to the State General Fund (2,464) (1,774)      
Total oth er financing sources (uses) (2,464) 845,726 822,500
Excess of revenues over expenditures and remit-tances
to the State General Fund $ (2,927) $ 63,950 $ 0
1 Includes the Correctional Officers’ Training Academy financial activity. The Department reclassified the Academy to the Prison
Operations Program beginning in 2001.
2 Includes recruiting advertisement expenditures of approximately $737,000, $864,000, and $900,000 for 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively.
3 Consists of allowable indirect costs that were recovered under the State Criminal Alien Protection Program federal grant beginning in
2000.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS) Accounting Event Extract File for the years
ended June 30, 1999 and 2000. The Department of Corrections provided estimates for the year ending June 30, 2001.
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n 1991 Report—This audit found that the Department had
significantly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of cor-rectional
officer recruitment. Centralizing the Department’s
hiring unit through the creation of the Recruitment Unit for
Selection and Hiring (RUSH) had resulted in many efficien-cies.
However, the audit reported that it still took approxi-mately
11 weeks to hire and train a new officer, with 7 weeks
of that time set aside for pre-service training at the Correc-tional
Officer Training Academy. The report stated that
without advance hiring authority to hire and train correc-tional
officers before vacancies occurred, the Department
could do little to reduce that time further. The report noted
that the Department had lowered its annual correctional offi-cer
turnover rates from approximately 31 percent in 1985 for
all correctional service officers (CSOs) to 20 percent for CSO
Is and 8 percent for CSO IIs in 1991. The audit noted the De-partment’s
concerns regarding the potential effects that sal-ary,
transportation, and housing problems could have on its
ability to lower turnover further, and recommended that the
Legislature consider increasing the starting salaries for cor-rectional
officers to allow the Department to be more com-petitive.
The current audit found that the Department continues to have
difficulty filling all of its correctional officer positions. Much of
this problem is related to tremendous growth in the prison sys-tem,
but turnover also contributes to the problem. Although
turnover rates are not as high as in 1985, the Department still
loses many correctional officers every year.
Scope and Methodology
This audit focused on the Department’s ability to recruit and
retain sufficient correctional officers to staff the State’s ten prison
complexes. Auditors used a variety of methods to conduct this
audit and document evidence, including:
n Examining Department reports including weekly correc-tional
officer hiring and status reports, weekly vacancy re-ports,
monthly correctional officer loss reports, and fiscal
year-end loss reports.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Reviewing 30 studies and reports conducted by the Depart-ment
or Department consultants, including a 1999 study of
correctional officer turnover, and an April 2000 Quality-of-
Worklife study, and examining financial and other cost-related
data supporting Department reports on the costs as-sociated
with correctional officer vacancies and losses.
n Reviewing human resources and correctional literature re-garding
best practices in staff recruitment, retention, and
staffing needs analysis for correctional institutions. For ex-ample,
auditors reviewed materials developed by the Ameri-can
Management Association and the National Institute of
Corrections in the Department of Justice.
n Reviewing Department documents describing programs the
Department has developed to improve recruitment and re-tention
of correctional officers, and interviewing Department
officials charged with managing such programs.
n Surveying 27 different correctional and law enforcement
agencies regarding salaries. These agencies included the Ari-zona
Department of Public Safety, municipal police agencies,
county jails, ten Western states, the Federal Bureau of Pris-ons,
and private prison facilities.1
n Interviewing Department officials in Human Resources and
Prison Operations, as well as corrections officers, to under-stand
their perspective regarding the Department’s staffing
issues. Auditors visited the Perryville, Florence, and Phoenix
prison sites, and interviewed wardens, deputy wardens, cap-tains,
and lieutenants in charge of supervising correctional of-
1 Municipal police departments and county jails, selected based on their size
and proximity to Department prisons, consisted of the cities of Avondale,
Buckeye, Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix, Tempe, Tolleson, and Tucson, and
Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties. The states surveyed were California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
and Washington. Since federal prison salaries are set nationally, auditors
obtained information from the Bureau of Prisons. Private prisons consisted
of Florence West and Phoenix West prisons, and Marana Community Cor-rectional
Treatment Facility, which operate under contract with the Ari-zona
Department of Corrections, and the Eloy Detention Center, which the
Corrections Corporation of America operates under a contract with the
federal government.
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ficers. In addition, auditors interviewed correctional officer
union representatives from the Arizona Correctional Peace
Officers Association.
This audit was conducted between May 2000 and November
2000.
This audit includes findings and recommendations in the follow-ing
areas:
n The Department currently has many vacancies in the prison
system, and some prisons have more extensive vacancy
problems than others;
n The Department has made progress in recruiting, although
results still fall short; and
n Faced with low salaries, the Department has undertaken
numerous initiatives to improve retention.
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.
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
VACANCIES CREATE PROBLEMS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT
The Arizona Department of Corrections continues to be plagued
with a high number of vacancies in correctional officer positions.
Rapid expansion of the system, together with high turnover, has
kept vacancies at nearly 20 percent for several years. The De-partment’s
inability to fill these vacancies has led to multiple
problems, ranging from it being unable to open substantial parts
of the State’s newest prison to paying millions of dollars a year in
overtime costs.
Department Has
Many Vacancies
On November 27, 2000, the Department had 1,154 vacant correc-tional
officer positions system-wide, representing 18 percent of
such positions. The extent of vacancies varies greatly from prison
to prison. As shown in Table 2 (see page 10), vacancies ranged
from nearly 45 percent of all correctional officer positions at the
new Lewis complex to 4 percent at the Tucson complex.
The three complexes with the highest vacancy rates have been
Lewis, Florence, and Eyman. Since the Department began to
occupy the facility in October 1998, the lowest vacancy rate that
Lewis has ever attained was about 34 percent. During the 47
months between January 6, 1997 and November 27, 2000, Flor-ence’s
lowest vacancy rate was approximately 13 percent, and
Eyman’s was approximately 15 percent.
Increased Size of Prison System and
High Turnover Rate Contribute
to Vacancy Problems
Two key factors contribute to the large number of vacancies: the
need to fill thousands of new positions in Arizona’s growing
The Lewis, Florence, and
Eyman complexes have
the highest vacancy rates.
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 2
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Authorized Positions, Vacancies,
and Vacancy Rate by Facility
As of November 27, 2000
Facility
Authorized
Positions Vacancies
Vacancy
Rate
Eyman 1,172 240 20.5%
Lewis 1,109 491 44.3
Tucson 907 29 3.2
Florence/Picacho 819 152 18.6
Perryville 527 79 15.0
Yuma 487 54 11.1
Douglas 433 32 7.4
Winslow/Apache 396 24 6.1
Phoenix/Globe 281 42 14.9
Safford/Ft. Grant 277 11 4.0
Central office 9   0 0.0
Totals 6,417 1,154
Correctional Officer vacancy rate 18.0%
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data in Department of Corrections Correctional Officer Status/
Hiring Report, November 27, 2000.
Table 3
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Losses and
Turnover Rates by Facility
For Year Ended June 30, 2000
Facility Losses
Turnover
Rate
Eyman 303 31.9%
Lewis 139 32.6
Tucson 137 15.8
Florence/Picacho 191 28.3
Perryville 153 33.5
Yuma 113 25.6
Douglas 70 16.8
Winslow/Apache 71 18.7
Phoenix/Globe 70 26.2
Safford/Ft. Grant 50 18.7
Total 1,297
Correctional Officer turnover rate 25.2%
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data in Department of Corrections Correctional Officer Loss
Report for year ending June 30, 2000.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
prison system, and the need to replenish losses caused by sub-stantial
turnover in correctional officer positions. Other factors,
such as low unemployment rates and long commuting distances
to some prisons, also play a role.
More officers needed to staff additional prison facilities—
Growth in Arizona’s prison system has contributed substantially
to the number of vacancies. Figure 1 (see page 12) shows the
changes in authorized positions between January 6, 1997 and
November 27, 2000, compared to the changes in filled positions
during the same time period. During that 47-month period, the
number of authorized positions increased by 1,375 positions, but
the number of filled positions increased by only 833 positions.
The primary event leading to the increase in authorized staff was
the construction of the Lewis prison complex in Buckeye, which
was fully completed in January 2000.
Many officers do not stay—Compounding the vacancy problem
created by growth in the prison system, the Department loses
hundreds of correctional officers every year. In fiscal year 2000,
the Department’s correctional officer turnover rate was 25.2 per-cent.
In the past three fiscal years, the Department lost 3,533 cor-rectional
officers to resignations, dismissals, promotions, and
other loss categories. When combined with the gain of 1,375 new
positions over about the same period, the Department needed to
fill nearly 5,000 correctional officer positions between 1998 and
2000 to reach full staffing. By comparison, the Department’s
current complement of correctional officer positions is 6,417.
Some prisons have more significant correctional officer turnover
than others. The three prisons with the highest vacancy rates,
Lewis, Eyman, and Florence, also have high turnover rates. As
shown in Table 3 (see page 10), Lewis lost 139 officers (32.6 per-cent),
Eyman lost 303 (31.9 percent), and Florence lost 191 (28.3
percent) in fiscal year 2000. However, the turnover rate was
highest at Perryville, which has been transitioning to an all-women’s
facility.
As shown in Figure 2 (see page 13), the largest contributor to the
losses system-wide was voluntary resignations. Altogether, ap-proximately
70 percent of the officers who left resigned voluntar-ily.
Promotions above correctional officer account for about 15
The Department lost
3,533 correctional officers
in 3 years.
Figure 1
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Changes in Authorized and Filled Correctional Officer Positions
January 6, 1997 through November 27, 2000
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
5600
5800
6000
6200
6400
6600
1/1/1997
3/1/1997
5/1/1997
7/1/1997
9/1/1997
11/1/1997
1/1/1998
3/1/1998
5/1/1998
7/1/1998
9/1/1998
11/1/1998
1/1/1999
3/1/1999
5/1/1999
7/1/1999
9/1/1999
11/1/1999
1/1/2000
3/1/2000
5/1/2000
7/1/2000
9/1/2000
11/1/2000
Number of Correctional Officers
Authorized Positions Filled Positions
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Department of Corrections Correctional Officer Status/Hiring Report, January 6, 1997 through November 27, 2000.
Finding I
12 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
percent of losses, and another 11 percent came from dismissals,
usually during an officer’s original probationary period.
Job market, commuting distances, and other factors also con-tribute—
Other factors also contribute to the high vacancy rates,
particularly at prisons such as Lewis, which draws its employees
from Phoenix and Western Maricopa County; and Florence and
Eyman, which draw their employees from the Phoenix and Tuc-son
metropolitan areas. The current strong economy and low
unemployment rate in Maricopa County provide many alterna-tives
for job seekers. Further, these prisons require long com-mutes
for officers who live in the metropolitan area. A Depart-ment
study conducted in 1998 revealed that the average com-muting
distance for correctional officers participating in a Flor-ence
and Eyman vanpool was 52.6 miles each way. The lack of
amenities such as housing and stores in towns nearer the prisons
makes moving closer to the prisons unattractive, according to
Department officials.
Figure 2
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Losses
Years Ended June 30, 1998 through 2000
Dismissals
11%
Other
Retirement 2%
2%
Resignations
70%
Promotion
15%
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data in Department of Corrections Correctional
Officer Loss Reports for fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Vacancies Cause Multiple Problems
for Department Operations
The Department’s vacancies and high turnover have caused
problems within the prison system. The large number of vacan-cies
at the new Lewis prison has meant that 1,271 beds at the
prison cannot be filled, and vacancies at some other prisons are
high enough to curtail inmate activities and services. Further,
many officers have low experience levels, which means that
many of them have not yet gained a well-grounded understand-ing
of inmate relations and prison policies. Vacancies also create
additional costs for the Department, both for recruiting and
training and for overtime and compensatory time that must be
paid to correctional officers who work extended shifts.
Department cannot open beds at newest prison—Due to high
vacancies, the Department has not been able to open 1,271 beds
in its state-of-the-art Lewis complex in Buckeye. Although some
units have been ready for use since October 1998, and the entire
prison was fully operational in January 2000, the Department
was using only 2,879 of the prison’s 4,150 beds in February 2001.
Because it has been unable to fully staff the Lewis prison, the
Department continues to house inmates in less than optimal
facilities, such as tents, at other prison complexes. The inability to
use all the beds in the Lewis complex is particularly troublesome
in view of the cost of constructing those beds, which was $38,769
per bed, or over $49 million for the 1,271 beds currently un-opened.
Some prison complexes operate at restricted levels—In addition
to being unable to use some high-quality beds, some prison
complexes frequently operate at “minimal activity” staffing lev-els.
The Department defines four staffing levels ranging from full
operations to minimal activity staffing, providing progressively
reduced operations at each staffing level. As shown in Table 4
(see page 15), some prisons often operate at the lowest level. For
example, according to Department reports, between January 1
and September 20, 2000, prison units at the eight-unit Florence
complex reported operating at minimal activity staffing levels
298 times during several day, swing, and graveyard shifts. At
this level, the Central Unit at Florence would have only 36 offi-cers
during the day and swing shifts to supervise 922 inmates,
compared to 47 officers when fully staffed.
1,271 state-of-the-art beds
at Lewis cannot be used
due to staff vacancies.
The Florence complex
operated at the minimum
activity level during 38
percent of its shifts.
Finding I
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 4
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Number of Times Facilities Reported Operating
at Minimal Activity Staffing Levels
January 1 through September 20, 2000
(Unaudited)
Facility Number
Eyman 43
Lewis 33
Tucson 240
Florence 298
Perryville 5
Yuma 14
Douglas -
Winslow 1
Phoenix 57
Safford -
Total 691
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data in Department of Corrections D Level Opera-tions,
January 1-September 20, 2000.
At the minimal activity staffing level of operations, a prison unit
may be “locked down,” with inmates confined to their cells or
dormitories. Visits from family and friends, educational and
vocational programs, and other inmate activities can be sus-pended
or curtailed. Inmates are provided with only essential
services, such as meals and health care, as mandated by state law
and the federal constitution. While operating at this restricted
level is intended to preserve security during shifts with insuffi-cient
staff, it is not an optimal way to operate, as indicated by the
Department’s policies on staffing levels.
Many officers on duty have limited experience—Although hav-ing
experienced officers on a unit is essential for effective prison
operations, more than one-third of its officers have less than a
year’s experience. As shown in Figure 3 (see page 16), 64 percent
of correctional officers who were working on November 30,
2000, had less than two years’ experience. While its extensive
training program may provide a solid grounding in policies and
practices, Department consultants contend it can take a mini-mum
of two to three years for an officer to gain the training,
Finding I
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
experience, and maturity necessary to become competent. Offi-cers
who acquire more years of experience in inmate supervision
positions gain a greater understanding of inmate behavior and
Department policies.
Officers who lack adequate experience on the job may place
other officers and staff at risk. For example, one officer told audi-tors
about an occasion when a new officer did not remove her
gun and hand it to another officer before accompanying a loosely
restrained inmate into a hospital restroom. He believed that new
officers did not always know how to protect themselves. He said
this behavior put other officers at risk, as well as medical staff at
the hospital.
Department incurs high recruitment and training costs—The
cost of filling new positions and replacing lost officers is high.
The combined cost of advertising, recruiting unit operations, and
academy training exceeded $9,600 per academy graduate in
fiscal year 2000, according to Department records.
Figure 3
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Length of Service for
Active Correctional Officers
As of November 30, 2000
(Unaudited)
1 to 2 years
27%
Less than 1 year
37%
More than 10
years
1%
5 to 10 years
5%
2 to 5 years
30%
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information received from the Department
of Corrections Policy and Research Bureau on February 21, 2001.
Cost of filling positions
exceeds $9,600 per acad-emy
graduate.
Finding I
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Advertising costs—The Department’s advertising cam-paign
resulted in advertising costs of $864,000 in fiscal year
2000, or about $540 for each of the 1,601 new officers who
graduated from the Correctional Officer Training Academy
that year. A private advertising firm coordinates the cam-paign
that includes billboard, radio advertising, and news-paper
ads. The Department hired this firm in June 1997 as
part of a strategy to recruit correctional officers for the new
Lewis facility.
n Recruiting costs—In addition to advertising for recruits, the
Department spent approximately $2 million in fiscal year
2000 for its Recruiting Unit for Selection and Hiring, plus
$359,000 to staff Satellite Recruitment Centers, totaling about
$1,473 per academy graduate. The RUSH unit, staffed by 12
FTEs, assesses applications and coordinates a variety of re-cruiting
tasks, including physical and psychological exams
and background checks. Ten other full-time staff assigned to
prison institutions also work as recruiters for their facilities.
n Academy training costs—The Department reports that it
cost $7,627 to train each academy graduate in fiscal year 2000,
or more than $12.2 million for all graduates. Every new offi-cer
attends a 7-week training course, usually at the Correc-tional
Officer Training Academy (COTA) in Tucson, al-though
the Department also occasionally offers the course at
other prisons. In addition to the cost of maintaining and staff-ing
the academy, the Department incurs costs for housing
and outfitting the cadets, providing training materials, and
paying the cadet’s salary during the course.
Department must pay millions for overtime and compensatory
time earned—The Department’s overtime costs for prison opera-tions
in fiscal year 2000 totaled more than $10 million. In addition
to paid overtime, correctional officers earned more than 168,000
hours of compensatory time that same year. The Department has
paid officers for part of this compensatory time, paying out
nearly $1.4 million in fiscal year 2000 for about 98,500 hours.
Because sufficient officers must be on-site to supervise inmates
and deliver essential services, prison officials must frequently
demand that correctional officers stay beyond their shift.
Overtime costs totaled
over $10 million in fiscal
year 2000.
Finding I
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
In addition to the Department’s financial costs, overtime can
result in fatigue and lead to family-related problems. It can also
lead to morale problems, cause employees to become disgrun-tled,
and lead to disciplinary actions. For example, according to
Department officials, 22 officers have been disciplined since the
end of 1997 to February 2001 for refusing to work mandatory
overtime, and another employee was dismissed. Complaints
about overtime are not new. A 1999 turnover study conducted
by private consultants identified overtime as a factor contribut-ing
to correctional officer turnover.
Serious Problem Will Require
Combination of Solutions
Because the Department’s Director regards staff vacancies as the
most important problem facing the prison system, the Depart-ment
has made several efforts to address the problem, but more
can be done. The Department cannot change some of the factors
that contribute to its vacancies, such as growth in the prison sys-tem
and the locations of some of its prisons. However, it can use
more aggressive recruiting strategies to fill vacant positions and
change some factors that contribute to staff resignations. The
remainder of this report addresses the Department’s efforts re-garding
recruiting and retention, and makes suggestions for
further action.
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II DEPARTMENT HAS MADE
PROGRESS IN RECRUITING
ALTHOUGH RESULTS STILL
FALL SHORT
The Department has taken aggressive measures to expand re-cruitment
of correctional officers in recent years. Although job
offers and correctional officer academy enrollments have in-creased
during this time, many officers fail to complete academy
training, resulting in overall hiring gains that are far less than
those necessary to fully staff the prisons. The Department should
adopt a few additional measures to improve recruitment, such as
improving its Internet recruiting, and it should also study
whether it can improve training academy graduation rates.
Department Has Taken
Aggressive Measures to
Expand Recruitment
The Department has the authority to conduct its own recruit-ment
activities, and was recently approved to participate in a
decentralization pilot program sponsored by the State Depart-ment
of Administration that gives it even greater authority to
make certain personnel decisions. Besides decentralization, the
Department has also pursued aggressive recruitment measures
to meet the higher demand for correctional officer recruits cre-ated
by Department growth and high annual turnover.
Department has greater authority to recruit and hire person-nel—
The Arizona Department of Administration recently se-lected
the Department of Corrections for participation in a hu-man
resources decentralization pilot program that allows state
Finding II
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
agencies to tailor human resources functions to the agency’s
needs.1 This one-year pilot program grants the Department of
Corrections greater flexibility to make certain personnel deci-sions.
The Department already had the authority to conduct its
own recruiting and staffing activities prior to program imple-mentation.
For example, since 1985, the Department has con-ducted
recruitment and selection through its RUSH unit under
an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department
of Administration, which had previously controlled correctional
officer recruitment, selection, and hiring. Under the new pro-gram,
the Department now has greater flexibility to conduct
human resources activities in areas such as employee relations,
including some leave policies; special compensation plans, for
example, special pay adjustments like counteroffers; signing
bonuses to recruit staff for difficult-to-fill positions; special en-trance
rates; shift differentials; and compensatory time payoffs.
The Department of Corrections has used its additional authority
to approve additional incentive pay plans to attract recruits to
the Lewis facility. On December 22, 2000, the Department ap-proved
a $5,160 assignment bonus and retention stipend for new
hires and lateral transfers. Correctional officers, sergeants, and
lieutenants assigned to Lewis are eligible for the bonus, which is
paid in a lump sum for a commitment of two years to the institu-tion.
If anyone receiving the bonus leaves prior to the end of the
two-year period, he or she must reimburse the state on a pro rata
basis. To prevent salary inequities, existing officers, sergeants,
and lieutenants will receive a $100 increase per pay period be-tween
December 2000 and December 2002. Officers, sergeants,
and lieutenants who leave prior to December 2002 will cease to
receive the additional $100 per pay period. The estimated cost of
the program is $6.5 million. According to the pilot program
guidelines, incentive pay plans must be funded without an in-crease
in budget appropriations.
1 This pilot program is being conducted pursuant to state rule R2-5-103.B.,
which states that the Director of Administration may “implement temp o-rary
pilot projects to improve personnel management in the state services.”
The rule further states that “the projects may include activities or proce-dures
that are not in accordance with these rules, for the purpose of de-termining
the feasibility or effectiveness of such activities or procedures.”
Department pays $5,160
signing bonus at Lewis.
Finding II
21
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Department aggressively markets job opportunities—
Besides obtaining greater authority to conduct its own hiring
activities, the Department has pursued aggressive recruitment
measures to attract correctional officers to work for the Depart-ment.
In addition to its advertising campaign that it began in
fiscal year 1998, the Department implemented recruiting initia-tives
and programs such as:
n Satellite recruitment centers—The Department operates
eight satellite recruitment centers that allow it to recruit near
the prison sites, and in the East Valley of Maricopa County.
The centers handle applications and testing for potential cor-rectional
officers, and are connected to a computerized appli-cant
processing computer system based at the Department’s
central office. This setup allows the Department to recruit
close to the prisons, and still maintain applicant contact in-formation
in a centralized location. Seven centers are based at
prison sites, and another in Mesa, Arizona.
n Out-of-state recruiting—The Department also uses out-of-state
recruiting. According to the Operations Manager in
RUSH, the Department‘s out-of-state recruiting includes
states such as California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
According to this official, the Department also enters into
agreements with nearby medical clinics so that applicants can
complete medical exams in their local communities, instead
of traveling to Arizona.
n Employee referral programs—The Department has im-plemented
an employee referral program known as the 2-for-
1 Recruitment Drive. This program offers rewards to correc-tional
officers who recruit two new correctional officers. The
Department tracks the referrals and notifies the officer mak-ing
the referrals of the applicant or applicants’ progress. Offi-cers
can choose from a list of incentives when two of their re-ferrals
graduate from the training academy. For example, he
or she can transfer to a unit of choice, select a shift of choice
within the same unit, or defer mandatory unit rotation for up
to one year. As of October 13, 2000, over 250 Department
employees had referred 289 correctional officer candidates,
116 of whom have graduated from the Correctional Officer
Training Academy. Human resources literature supports the
use of employee referrals. According to The American Man-
2-for-1 Recruitment
Drive rewards officers
who recruit two new
officers.
Finding II
22
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
agement Association’s Handbook for Employee Recruitment and
Retention, employee referrals are often the best hires, and
have higher performance ratings and lower turnover rates.
Job Offers Have Increased,
but Many Cadets Leave
or Fail Training Academy
Although the Department’s aggressive recruiting efforts have led
to increased job offers, dropouts and failures from the training
academy reduce the number of new officers available to fill va-cant
positions. As Table 5 (see page 23) shows, the Department
reported increased numbers of contacts and job offers accepted
after the fiscal year 1998 marketing campaign began. The num-bers
fell off somewhat in fiscal year 2000, but remain substan-tially
above the 1998 levels.
Twenty-seven percent of the individuals who accepted job offers
in fiscal year 2000 either failed to enroll, resigned, or failed the
Correctional Officer Training Academy, thus reducing the im-pact
of increases in job offers. Applicants who accept job offers
are immediately scheduled to attend seven weeks of training at
the Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA). Although
the Department reports making 2,180 job offers, the Human
Resources and Development Division reports that only 1,892
individuals enrolled at COTA in fiscal year 2000 and only 1,601
graduated. At the academy, cadets must pass additional re-quirements,
including academic, physical fitness, and weapons-handling
tests. In addition, cadets can choose to resign, or may
be asked to leave because of disciplinary issues.
Department records for 293 cadets who left COTA in fiscal year
2000 revealed that resignations accounted for the majority of
losses (57 percent), followed by physical performance (13 per-cent)
and disciplinary issues (13 percent). The other 17 percent
left due to other performance problems or for reasons the De-partment
could not determine. Corrections officials in six West-ern
states all claimed to have academy resignation/failure rates
Finding II
23
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
below 10 percent, although some states do not require physical
fitness tests.1
Department Should
Consider Additional Ideas
Although the Department has initiated a number of programs to
improve correctional officer recruitment, the addition of new
programs or revisions to existing programs may positively im-pact
recruitment. In addition to its aggressive advertising cam-paign,
and employee referral program, the Department should
consider doing the following:
n Redesign Internet recruiting materials—The current lay-out
of the Department’s Web site makes it difficult for poten-tial
recruits to find out about the availability of correctional
officer positions. Corrections literature that discusses recruit-ing
via the Internet recommends designing a central point of
communication for the position involved and expanding
linkages to other public and private sector job posting sites.
In May 2000, the Department hired a personnel analyst to fo-cus
mainly on Internet recruiting and expanding linkages
1 Officials from California, Idaho, Neva da, Oregon, Texas, and Utah were
contacted. California, Idaho, and Texas officials stated that they did not
have physical fitness requirements.
Table 5
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Correctional Officer Recruitment Performance Measures
Years Ended June 30, 1998 through 2000
(Unaudited)
Performance Measure 1998 1999 2000
Number of applicant contacts 7,180 15,159 11,051
Number of applications received and processed 3,821 7,147 6,559
Number of applicants tested 3,533 6,099 5,485
Number of candidates who accepted a job offer 1,354 2,404 2,180
Source: 1998 and 1999 performance measures for Arizona Department of Corrections Human Resources Man-agement
Subprogram in State of Arizona 2000 Master List of State Government Programs; 2000 performance
measures from Human Resources Management Subprogram, Program/Subprogram Strategic Plans Tracking
System, Fourth Quarter FY2000 Objective Status report.
Finding II
24
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
across the Web. However, the Department of Correction’s
home page does not currently have a central point of com-munication
for correctional officers. The Department should
add a direct link from its home page to the RUSH unit and
add a more detailed job description and links to benefits in-formation
in the position description.
n Expand employee referral program—The Department
should consider expanding the employee referral program to
include all Department staff, and modify the incentives to en-courage
all staff to participate. The already established 2-for-1
referral program is limited to correctional officers and does
not provide incentives for other Department staff to partici-pate.
n Research failure rates at COTA—The Department does not
research trends in academy attrition. Since so many people
resign or fail academy training, the Department should regu-larly
research the reasons, and determine whether it can do
anything to improve graduation rates.
Recommendations
1. The Department should redesign the Department’s Internet
home page to more easily attract potential recruits and can-didates,
and inform them of job opportunities. The Depart-ment
should add a direct link from its home page to the Re-cruitment
Unit for Selection and Hiring (RUSH) and add a
more detailed job description and links to benefits informa-tion
in the position description.
2. The Department should expand the current 2-for-1 Recruit-ment
Drive program to include other Department employees
in addition to correctional officers, and modify the incentives
offered to encourage referrals from other employees.
3. The Department should conduct regular research into the
reasons people resign from or fail the Correctional Officer
Training Academy, and determine whether anything can be
done to improve graduation rates.
Department should add a
direct link from its inter-net
home page to the
RUSH unit information.
25
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING III FACED WITH LOW SALARIES,
THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE
SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO
ADDRESS TURNOVER
The Department can take additional steps to augment its actions
to address problems with turnover in the ranks of correctional
officers. Turnover occurs for a variety of reasons, including low
pay and job dissatisfaction. The Department has instituted a
number of efforts to address many of these factors. These efforts
should be maintained. Additional steps that can also be taken
range from improving pre-screening practices to improving
ways to identify and address reasons for employee dissatisfac-tion.
Many Factors Contribute
to Difficulties in Retaining
Corrections Officers
The Department’s exit survey research and other studies have
identified several important factors contributing to correctional
officer turnover. These include low pay or low benefits relative to
similar law enforcement positions, as well as dissatisfaction with
such things as the length of commutes to some prisons. Finally,
some new hires may be unsuited for the work, either because
they do not like it or because some aspect of their performance is
inadequate.
Low pay compared to other law enforcement jobs—Department
correctional officers consistently report dissatisfaction with sala-ries.
In a 1998 analysis of exit surveys filled out by departing
officers, a 1999 study on turnover, and a 2000 study on the qual-ity
of worklife, the Department found salaries to be the number
one reason for leaving or for job dissatisfaction. Exit survey re-search
indicates that many officers who leave the Department
remain in law enforcement but take higher-paying jobs in other
law enforcement agencies, such as county jails, other states’ cor-
Starting salaries for
correctional officers lower
than most Arizona law
enforcement and correc-tions
agencies surveyed.
Finding III
26
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
rections systems, federal prisons, and police departments. As
shown in Table 6, Arizona’s starting salaries for correctional
officers are lower than those in 7 of 10 other Western states. Fur-ther,
as shown in Table 7 (see page 27), in a survey of 17 other
Arizona law enforcement and corrections agencies, auditors
found higher starting salaries in all the agencies except the three
private prisons under contract with the Department. The De-partment’s
1999 turnover study found that 37 percent of correc-tional
officers surveyed held second jobs, another indicator of
salary inadequacy.
Retirement benefits do not match those of other public safety
employees—Police officers, state highway patrol, county sheriffs,
and other public safety employees, such as firefighters, have a
more attractive benefit package than correctional officers. Public
safety employees other than correctional officers participate in a
20-year retirement program. In contrast, correctional officers and
county detention officers participate in a 25-year retirement pro-gram.
Department officials and correctional officer union repre-sentatives
consider the lack of parity between correctional offi-cers
and other law enforcement employees to be a liability in
recruitment and retention efforts.
Table 6
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Starting Salaries for Correctional Officers
in 11 Western States
Department of Corrections Starting Salary
California $33,708
Colorado $30,216
Oregon $27,960
Nevada $27,954
Washington $27,924
Idaho $23,982
Utah $23,733
Arizona $23,504
Montana $19,215
Texas $18,924
New Mexico $16,118
Source: Salary survey conducted by Auditor General staff, July through October 2000.
Finding III
27
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 7
Arizona Department of Corrections
Human Resources Management
Starting Salaries for Police and Correctional Officers
Agency Starting Salary
Tempe Police Department $38,599
Chandler Police Department 36,983
Eloy Federal Detention Center—Corrections Corporation of America 36,171
Mesa Police Department 35,048
Arizona Department of Public Safety 34,646
Phoenix Police Department 34,195
Avondale Police Department 34,185
Tucson Police Department 33,914
Tolleson Police Department 33,862
Buckeye Police Department 32,510
Federal Bureau of Prisons 28,141
Maricopa County Jail—Detention Officer 27,206
Pima County Jail—Detention Officer 27,032
Pinal County Jail—Detention Officer 26,541
Arizona Department of Corrections 23,504
Florence West—Correctional Services Corporation 19,240
Phoenix West—Correctional Services Corporation 16,640
Marana Prison—Management Training Corporation 16,640
Source: Salary survey conducted by Auditor General staff, July through October 2000.
Dissatisfaction with other aspects of job—In addition to com-pensation,
correctional officers report other sources of dissatisfac-tion.
For example, exit surveys and the Department’s 1999 turn-over
study found that many officers believed commuting costs
were excessive. Other sources of dissatisfaction included manda-tory
overtime, performance appraisals, and a variety of work-related
considerations.1 The Department’s 2000 quality of work-life
study found high levels of dissatisfaction at several of the
prisons with the highest turnover. For example, Perryville had
high turnover and high dissatisfaction, as did Eyman and Flor-ence.
Although the quality-of-worklife study found that over 80
percent of employees enjoyed their work and felt it was impor-tant,
it also identified several major areas of dissatisfaction. Aside
from compensation, the worst dissatisfaction appeared in survey
1 The top three work-related reasons identified in 1998 exit surveys were job
did not meet expectations, personality conflicts with supervisors, and feel-ing
unfairly disciplined.
Quality-of-worklife
study found high levels
of dissatisfaction at
prisons with highest
turnover.
Finding III
28
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
questions about support from the organization. Nearly three-fourths
of survey respondents responded unfavorably to one or
more questions about whether the Department valued their
input, noticed when they did a good job, took pride in their ac-complishments,
or would understand if they were unable to
finish a task on time. Further, although most respondents re-ported
satisfaction with their knowledge of supervisors’ expecta-tions
and freedom to consult with supervisors, over 70 percent of
correctional officer respondents disagreed with the statement,
“The rules here are usually consistent.” Finally, many respon-dents
said their jobs left them feeling fatigued, emotionally
drained, irritable, or angry.
Poor job “fit”—Poor job fit may also play a role in turnover. For
example, more than 30 percent of officers who resigned in the
last three fiscal years had worked less than one year for the De-partment.
Human resources literature indicates that employees
who resign within the first year of employment usually leave
because the employer fails to meet their expectations, or they are
unsuited for corrections work. In addition, almost 8 percent of
the Department’s losses in the last three fiscal years were due to
officers being terminated during the original probationary pe-riod.
In these cases, the Department determined that the officers
were a poor fit for the job.
Department Could Improve
Retention Strategies
Human resources and corrections management literature identi-fies
several best practices in employee retention. Although the
Department has implemented many programs that are in line
with such practices, it could adopt additional measures.
Human resources literature identifies best practices in reten-tion—
According to correctional and human resources literature,
corrections departments should adopt the following practices in
order to minimize correctional officer losses:
n Screen and select—Screen out unsuitable candidates and
potential leavers during the hiring and selection process. For
example, screen out people who are psychologically unfit,
Finding III
29
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
and provide candidates with accurate and realistic job pre-views.
n Salaries and benefits—Offer competitive wages and bene-fits.
n Research—Conduct regular research on vacancy and turn-over
trends, identify issues that are important to employees,
and adopt intervention programs based on the results of
regular research. For example, agencies should conduct exit
surveys to understand the reasons people leave.
n Value staff and show management concern—Value and
support employees and provide tangible evidence of man-agement
concern. For example, offer employee recognition
programs and visit institutions on a regular basis to listen to
staff.
n Train supervisors—Train supervisors and managers in
supervisory and management skills, and promote career de-velopment,
which provides incentives for experienced peo-ple
to stay.
Department has made efforts to improve retention—The De-partment
Director regards staffing as the single most important
problem facing the prison system, and the Department has initi-ated
a number of efforts intended to improve retention. For ex-ample:
n Extensive prescreening practices—The Department has
extensive pre-screening practices that involve medical and
psychological checks, and an extensive background check. In
addition, state correctional officers must meet certification re-quirements
for correctional peace officers established by the
Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST).
This certification requires officers to have training in nine
functional areas, and meet rigorous background require-ments.
n Improving salaries—The Department has requested fund-ing
to increase correctional officer salaries. For example, in
1999, the Legislature authorized a new Correctional Officer
Finding III
30
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Pay Plan, providing more opportunities for officers to earn
pay increases if they remain with the Department.
In addition to efforts to increase salaries for all correctional of-ficers,
the Department uses vacancy savings to pay officers
higher salaries at certain hard-to-staff prisons. Correctional
officers at Eyman, Florence, and Lewis earn 10 percent more
than they would at other prisons, and those at Winslow earn
15 percent above the standard amount. Since introducing the
stipends, Winslow’s vacancy rate has dropped substantially,
although vacancies remain high at Eyman, Florence, and
Lewis.
n Requesting competitive retirement benefits—The De-partment
has also asked the Legislature to more closely align
correctional officer retirement benefits with those of police
and other public safety officials. In 2000, Department officials
proposed changes that would lower the period of service
from 25 to 20 years, and reduce the employee contribution
from 8.5 to 7.65 percent. The 1999 turnover study found that
improving the retirement plan was a top concern for correc-tional
officers. In addition, representatives from the Executive
Board of the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association
confirmed it was a top priority for union members.1 How-ever,
the Department could not provide convincing evidence
to legislative budget staff that the cost of the retirement plan
change would be offset by reduced turnover costs.
n Providing other benefits—The Department provides higher
education benefits to all employees, operates a van pool for
correctional officers at four prisons, and is currently consider-ing
developing a child care program. The Tuition Assistance
Policy provides 80 percent tuition assistance to full-time em-ployees.
According to the Department’s Higher Education
Administrator, the program helped 218 correctional officers
to further their education in fiscal year 2000. The van pools,
which started as a pilot program in 1996, now operate at
Florence, Eyman, Lewis, and Winslow and use 57 vans to
1 The 2000 quality-of-worklife study identified increased pay and ben efits as
the most important priority of correctional officers.
Department uses vacancy
savings to pay more at
hard-to-staff prisons.
Finding III
31
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
serve a combined total of 785 officers.1 Van pool participants
report satisfaction with the program, and a 1998 evaluation of
the pilot program found that participants had a lower resig-nation
rate than other officers at their prisons (15 percent
compared to 24 percent).
A child care program, if developed, could perhaps provide
similar retention benefits. In 1999, a Department survey cited
that 42 percent of the staff surveyed needed or used child
care and 66 percent ranked financial assistance for child care
as very important or important. Options being considered in-clude
developing child care centers near Florence and Lewis,
developing a program to care for sick children, and establish-ing
a child care information service that allows employees to
receive the latest information on child care programs avail-able
to state employees. For example, state employees can
withhold (pre-tax) up to $5,000 annually for child care pay-ments
with a Dependent Care Reserve Account. Once ser-vices
are paid for, employees can seek reimbursement.
n Exit interviews and employee research—Since 1993, the
Department has conducted exit interviews with departing
staff to understand the reasons why they choose to leave the
Department. More recently, the Department has hired pro-fessional
consultants and contracted with researchers at Ari-zona
State University to understand correctional officer turn-over
and employee perceptions regarding the quality of
worklife.
n Community development efforts—The Department has
recently become more involved in community development
in areas where prisons are located. Besides long commutes,
Department officials believe that they have difficulty attract-ing
staff to remote prison locations because the towns and
communities surrounding the prisons lack housing, grocery
stores, and other amenities, and there are few job opportuni-ties
for spouses. The Department has developed a commu-nity
development liaison position to respond to these issues,
1 Florence and Eyman staff reported serving 611 officers in van pools as of
August 24, 2000. On October 20, 2000, Lewis staff reported 120 participants
and Winslow staff reported 54 participants in van pools.
Child care program could
provide retention benefits.
Communities surround-ing
prisons lack housing,
grocery stores, and jobs
for spouses.
Finding III
32
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
and to work with towns such as Florence and Buckeye on
housing and economic development concerns.
n Sergeants’ Leadership Academy—The Department re-quires
new sergeants (one year or less) and correctional offi-cers
who are on a promotion track to attend a one-time-only,
40-hour Sergeants’ Leadership Academy conducted at the
Correctional Officer Training Academy. The Department
considers it an important program directed at preparing
Correctional Sergeants to be more effective first-line
supervisors. In 2000, the Department also implemented a
new four-week instructional training program called the
Sergeant On the Job Training Program. The Department
implemented the program partly in response to exit survey
research that revealed that staff did not feel they were
receiving proper support and supervision.
The Department should continue current activities and consider
additional measures—To maximize the benefit from its retention
efforts, the Department should continue the activities it has
started, and consider a few additional measures. For example,
n Examine pre-screening practices to ensure they offer a
realistic job preview—Although the Department already
has an extensive screening process, recruiting officials should
examine current recruiting processes to ensure that all appli-cants
are obtaining a realistic understanding of the work that
will be required of them as correctional officers.
n Continue to address pay and salary concerns—The De-partment
should continue to research pay and salary issues,
and compare how state correctional officers compare to their
counterparts in other corrections and law enforcement agen-cies.
Human resources literature identifies competitive sala-ries
as an important retention tool.
n Continue working to improve childcare and retirement
benefits—The Department should also continue working to
improve employee benefits for correctional officers, such as
child care and retirement benefits. More analysis may be
needed, however, to understand the costs of changing to a
20-year retirement system, and the effects such a change
would have on improving correctional officer retention.
Finding III
33
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Improve exit survey research—The Department may also
want to examine the current exit interview instruments to en-sure
that they collect the information most needed by the
Department to develop strategies to reduce turnover and
improve workplace environment. The Department most re-cently
revised its exit survey tool in 1998. The Department
should also produce a regular annual report that analyzes
and summarizes the data collected in correctional officer exit
survey data. Although the Department collects detailed
information in the exit surveys, it does not produce a regular
annual report that summarizes the data collected. The Re-search
Bureau’s most recent annual report is dated October
1998.
n Address employee dissatisfaction issues identified in
quality-of-worklife study—The Department should follow
up on the major findings of the quality-of-worklife study.
This study identified several prison complexes as having
very high levels of staff dissatisfaction (Perryville, Florence,
Eyman, and Phoenix). As noted earlier, the institutions that
have higher levels of dissatisfaction also have higher annual
loss and resignation rates. As recommended in the study re-port,
the Department has begun to look further into the is-sues
raised, and develop intervention strategies. For example,
the Department hired a consultant in October 2000 to con-duct
employee focus groups1 at all the prisons to gather addi-tional
employee input, verify important quality-of-worklife
survey results, and obtain ideas for positive change. The con-sultant
completed his evaluation in February 2001, and has
since released his finding to the Department. The report iden-tifies
ten strategies to guide the Department’s efforts to im-plement
a more positive work culture. In response, the De-partment
has developed an action plan to implement 21 spe-cific
action items aimed at addressing staff concerns. For ex-ample,
four actions involve creating a major shift in work cul-ture.
The Director plans to enhance these efforts by institu-tional
visits, where he will meet directly with line correctional
officers to exchange information and provide direct feedback
on issues of concern.
1 The consultant conducted 30 focus groups with involvement of over 320
employees; 20 focus groups involved front-line staff of correctional officers
and sergeants.
Department should follow
up on quality of-worklife
study findings.
Finding III
34
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. The Department should examine its current pre-screening
practices to ensure that all applicants possess a realistic un-derstanding
of the nature of correctional officer work.
2. The Department should continue to research how state cor-rectional
officer salaries compare to salaries in other correc-tional
and law enforcement agencies to ensure that the state
salaries are competitive with the marketplace.
3. The Department should continue its efforts to improve bene-fits
for correctional officers so that officers will have greater
incentive to remain with the Department.
4. The Department should examine current exit interview in-struments
to ensure it is collecting the information it needs
most to identify problems and reduce turnover, and produce
an annual report based on exit survey results.
5. The Department should continue its efforts to follow up on
findings regarding high levels of employee dissatisfaction at
specific prison complexes, such as Perryville, Florence, and
Eyman, that were identified in the 2000 Quality-of-Worklife
Study. In particular, Department management should con-tinue
their efforts to reach out and listen to staff, and show
tangible evidence of their concern for Department employ-ees.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
March 5, 2001
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
RE: Response to Human Resources Management Audit
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Human Resources Management 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 area of recruitment and retention,
they have also provided valuable assistance in these areas through their insights and thoughtful
recommendations.
Enclosed you will find our responses to the eight formal recommendations in the report. We
concur with all eight recommendations, and will take appropriate steps to implement each of them.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and respond to the report.
Sincerely,
Terry L. Stewart
Director
TLS/WSE/s
Enclosure
RESPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENTAUDIT
FINDING I: Correctional Officer Vacancies Create Problems for the Department.
No Recommendations.
Although there were no formal recommendations attached to this section, we appreciate
the work of the audit team in documenting the challenges faced by the Department in
dealing with the large number of correctional officer vacancies. Your excellent
evaluation of the difficulties we face in recruiting these officers supports our ongoing
position that additional pay and benefits are needed to attract sufficient numbers of
officers to our agency.
FINDING II: Department Has Made Progress in Recruiting Although Results Still
Fall Short.
Recommendation 1. The Department should redesign the Department’s Internet home page
to more easily attract potential recruits and candidates, and inform them of job opportunities.
The Department should add a direct link from its home page to the Recruitment Unit for
Selection and Hiring (RUSH) and add a more detailed job description and links to benefits
information in the same position description.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
This is an excellent suggestion. In fact, we have already begun a dialogue with our
contracted advertising agency to develop web based strategies to enhance our
recruitment efforts. All of the actions suggested here will be incorporated as part of this
effort.
Recommendation 2. The Department should expand the current 2-for-1 Recruitment Drive
program to include other Department employees in addition to correctional officers, and modify
the incentives offered to encourage referrals from other employees.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
We are evaluating several incentive options that will allow us to offer this program to all
Department employees. Among the incentives currently under consideration are
awards, special recognition, time off, reserved parking, and financial incentives.
Recommendation 3. The Department should conduct regular research into the reasons people
resign from or fail the Correctional Officer Training Academy, and determine whether anything
can be done to improve graduation rates.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
We have informally collected information on why cadets do not complete training at our
Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA). However, we have not formally
researched what can be done to improve graduation rates. I will task our COTA staff
to provide the Research Unit with current and historical documentation on this issue to
allow a complete review of the reasons for cadet resignations and failures. Further, we
will continue to track trends in this information and respond by addressing specific
problem areas as they are identified.
FINDING III: Faced With Low Salaries, the Department Has Made Several Attempts
to Address Turnover
Recommendation 1. The Department should examine its current pre-screening process
practices to ensure that all applicants possess a realistic understanding of the nature of
correctional officer work.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
I want to identify this as an area of “qualified” concurrence. We will certainly review
and evaluate our pre-screening practices to determine how we can provide interested
individuals with information that will enhance our recruiting results. Having said that, let
us point out that part of the recruiting process involves putting our best foot forward to
attract enthusiastic, well qualified candidates to our agency. We want to portray to
recruits a realistic view of life as a correctional officer. However, we also do not want
to focus so intently on our unique challenges that we deny these candidates an
opportunity to discover for themselves if this career field is suitable for them.
Recommendation 2. The Department should continue to research how state correctional
officer salaries compare to salaries in other correctional and law enforcement agencies to ensure
that the state salaries are competitive with the marketplace.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
We wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation. We have been diligently tracking
this information for some time, and will continue to provide it during all appropriate
forums, discussions and opportunities. However, we obviously do not write our own
paychecks, and can only offer comparative salary information as supporting evidence in
our efforts to acquire additional salary increases and benefits for our correctional staff.
Recommendation 3. The Department should continue its efforts to improve benefits for
correctional officers so that officers will have greater incentives to remain with the Department.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Again, we wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation and will continue all efforts
to identify and implement any and all reasonable benefit programs that will help retain
our officers. Most notably, the Department has been working tirelessly to encourage
the passage of a 20-year retirement bill this legislative session, and we are optimistic that
it will pass. Among several other initiatives, we are evaluating our highly successful
vanpool program for possible expansion to non-correctional staff, and we will complete
the analysis of our childcare options this Spring.
Recommendation 4. The Department should examine current exit interview instruments to
ensure it is collecting the information it needs most to identify problems and reduce turnover,
and produce an annual report based on exit survey results.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Exit survey information has proven to be a valuable tool in verifying the impact of our
recruitment efforts, and I will ask my Human Resources Assistant Director to oversee a
review of the entire exit survey process to ensure that the information we are capturing
is pertinent to our needs and aligned with our strategic goals. I will also ask the
Research Unit to consolidate their monthly analysis of the exit survey results into an
annual report.
Recommendation 5. The Department should continue its efforts to follow up on findings
regarding high levels of employee dissatisfaction at specific prison complexes, such as Perryville,
Florence and Eyman, that were identified in the 2000 Quality-of-Worklife Study.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Efforts to do just what you describe have been underway for several months. As
mentioned in your report, we have contracted with Mr. Henry Cano of the Tesoro
Group to gather more detailed feedback from staff on their issues of concern. He has
already conducted focus group interviews with various staff groups to begin determining
what particular issues are at the heart of the dissatisfaction. Following completion of his
initial series of interviews, he produced an excellent report identifying the primary list of
staff concerns. We subsequently developed an action plan based on his findings, and
have begun implementing 21 specific actions aimed at addressing the staff concerns.
This is an ongoing effort that will be implemented as rapidly as is reasonably possible.
These efforts will be further enhanced by institutional visits, which began last year,
where the Director meets directly with line correctional officers to exchange information,
answer questions and provide direct feedback on issues of concern.
The Human Resources Division is also in the process of developing a more compact
version of the Quality of Work Life Survey instrument that will allow the Department to
periodically draw feedback from the staff. This updated information can then be
compared to the baseline data from the original study to indicate how successful the
response strategies have been in meeting the needs of the Department. The ongoing
survey process will also allow us to continue to “take the pulse” of Department staff and
respond in the future to any new concerns as they arise.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
00-5 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Licensing Functions
00-6 Board of Medical Student Loans
00-7 Department of Public Safety—
Aviation Section
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—
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 Department of Public Safety—
Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.) Program
Commodity Development Program
Future Performance Audit Reports
Department of Public Safety—Telecommunications
Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery