Performance audit, Department of Corrections, oversight of security operations

              A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Performance Audit
Department of Corrections—
Oversight of Security Operations
Performance Audit Division
September • 2011
REPORT NO. 11-07
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five
representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the opera-tions
of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political
subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and
the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Audit Staff
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.azauditor.gov
Senator Rick Murphy, Chair
Senator Andy Biggs
Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford
Senator Rich Crandall
Senator Kyrsten Sinema
Senator Russell Pearce (ex officio)
Representative Carl Seel, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Meyer
Representative Justin Olson
Representative Bob Robson
Representative Anna Tovar
Representative Andy Tobin (ex officio)
Dale Chapman, Director
Jeremy Weber, Manager and Contact Person
David Charbonneau
Kerry Howell
Karl Kulick
Winter Morris
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
MELANIE M. CHESNEY
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 22, 2011
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janice K. Brewer, Governor
Mr. Charles L. Ryan, Director
Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Department of Corrections—Oversight of Security Operations. This report is in response to
a November 3, 2009, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance
audit was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised
Statutes §41-2951 et seq. I am also transmitting within 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 of Corrections agrees with all of the findings
and plans to implement all of the 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 September 23, 2011.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Attachment
Inmate escapes indicated need to
improve oversight—On July 30, 2010,
three inmates escaped from the Kingman
private prison. The Department’s
investigation determined that several
security deficiencies and policy violations
contributed to the escapes. Notably, the
prison’s perimeter alarm system was not
working properly and had not been
serviced in 2 years. In addition, private
prison staff sometimes ignored the alarms
and would reset the alarms without first
checking the perimeter. Although the
Department had oversight procedures in
place, it had not identified the security
issues that contributed to the escapes.
Green Amber Red inspection
program—In January 2011, to better
assess security operations at all prisons,
the Department implemented the Green
Amber Red (GAR) inspection program.
Under the program, various department
security policies are tested monthly using
a checklist. For example, one checklist
question related to key policies asks
whether keys are inventoried at the
beginning and end of each shift.
Under the GAR, green means
compliance, amber means corrective
action is needed for minor issues, and red
means immediate corrective action is
needed to avoid threats to safety. Private
prison wardens are responsible for
developing corrective action plans to
address amber and red findings.
Annual audit procedures—As part of an
effort started prior to the escapes, the
Department has also revised its annual
audit procedures. Prior to the July 2010
escapes, the annual audits did not
adequately assess compliance with
2011
September • Report No. 11-07
Department of
Corrections—
Oversight of Security Operations
Our Conclusion
The July 2010 Kingman
private prison escapes
alerted the Department of
Corrections (Department)
to the need for improved
oversight of its private
prisons. The Department
has implemented a new
inspection program,
revised its annual audit
procedures, revised its
Request for Proposals
(RFP) for additional private
prison beds, and began
developing training for
contract monitoring staff.
The Department should
carry out its plans to
update its policies and
procedures to reflect its
revised annual audit
approach and implement
the contract monitor
training. The Department
should also improve officer
compliance with security
policies and procedures at
state-run prisons. The
Department should
implement its plans to
identify trends and
systemic noncompliance
and take appropriate
system-wide action and
should use this information
to identify correctional
officer training needs.
REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Private prison oversight has improved, but
additional actions needed to strengthen
monitoring
department policies. The new annual audit
tool measures actual performance against
department policies and procedures.
Department contract monitoring staff are
responsible for ensuring that the private
prisons address findings. The Department
plans to update its policies and
procedures to reflect this process in
January 2012.
Other improvements—In January 2011,
the Department revised its RFP for 5,000
additional private prison beds to
strengthen monitoring and security
requirements. New requirements in the
RFP include enhanced internal monitoring,
performance measures, penalties for
noncompliance, and regular testing and
annual certification of security systems.
The Department is also developing
training for contract monitoring staff that is
scheduled to begin in September 2011.
Prison services comparison—The
Department reported that the new GAR
inspections and revised annual audit
procedures will help it to compare private
and state-run prison services every 2
years as required by statute. Although the
Department has not completed this
comparison, it plans to do so by January
2012.
Recommendations:
The Department should implement its
plans to:
• Revise its policies and procedures to
reflect changes to the annual audit.
• Continue developing and implement-ing
training for contract monitors.
• Compare private and state-run prison
services every 2 years as required by
statute.
Department of
Corrections—
Oversight of Security Operations
A copy of the full report is available at:
www.azauditor.gov
Contact person:
Jeremy Weber (602) 553-0333
REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
September 2011 • Report No. 11-07
Policies and procedures help ensure
security—The Department has adopted policies
and procedures related to security operations at
both private and state-run prisons, such as
procedures for conducting inmate counts and
tracking and securing keys and tools.
Compliance with these policies and procedures
is critical for ensuring prison security. Although
written instructions, training, performance reviews,
and inspections, such as the GAR inspection and
annual audits, help to ensure that the
Department’s correctional officers comply with
security policies and procedures, officers do not
always comply. For example:
• Policy requires officers to conduct a daily tool
inventory. However, department reviews have
disclosed instances where tool inventories
were not conducted.
• Personal property of staff and others entering
the prisons must be inspected and cleared
through metal detectors. However, depart-ment
and auditors’ reviews found several
instances of inadequate personal property
searches.
• Inmates are generally required to keep their
identification cards visible on their chests
when outside the housing area. However,
auditors witnessed inmates who did not have
visible identification when moving to meals or
in the yard, and officers did not enforce the
policies.
To further improve compliance, the Department
should:
Implement plans to analyze monitoring data—
The GAR inspections and annual audits provide a
significant amount of information that could be
analyzed to assess noncompliance trends. For
example, department inspectors found that
correctional officers failed to properly search
employees’ personal property, including food, as
they reported to work at 12 of 17 prison units
inspected. This suggests systemic
noncompliance with this policy. By investigating
such trends, the Department may determine the
underlying causes and address those throughout
the prison system. The Department plans to analyze
this data starting in 2012.
Assess training needs better—The Department
can also use its GAR inspections and annual audits
to assess training needs. The Department has a
training bureau that, although informed of annual
audit results through discussions, does not actually
receive copies of the annual audit reports, which it
could use to identify training needs. The training
bureau also uses annual exams to test officers’
knowledge of policies to assess training needs.
However, the exams may not sufficiently cover
areas where department audits have found
systemic noncompliance.
Continue efforts to ensure adequacy and
consistency of post orders—Post orders are
written instructions that should describe the
responsibilities, duties, and functions of a particular
security post or work assignment. However, some
post orders do not include instructions regarding
department requirements. Further, some post
orders are long and provide general instructions,
while other post orders contain clear and concise
instructions regarding duties. Clear and concise
post orders can help officers who are temporarily
assigned to an unfamiliar post to quickly
understand the duties associated with the post.
The Department has begun efforts to streamline
and standardize its post orders.
Recommendations
The Department should:
• Implement its plans to analyze monitoring data
trends and take appropriate action throughout
the prison system.
• Improve assessment of correctional officer train-ing
needs.
• Continue its efforts to improve its post orders.
Additional actions should be taken to improve compliance
with security policies and procedures at state-run prisons
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
Introduction 1
Finding 1: Department has improved oversight of
private prisons, but should take additional actions
to strengthen monitoring 9
Inmate escapes indicated need to improve oversight 9
Department has implemented new monitoring tools 10
Department has strengthened contract requirements for
future private prison beds 15
Department is developing training for contract monitoring staff 17
Department’s restructuring of inspection program will assist
in comparing private and state-run prison services
as required by law 18
Recommendations 19
Finding 2: Department should take additional actions
to improve compliance with security policies and
procedures at state-run prisons 21
Department takes steps to oversee compliance with security policies and
procedures 21
Despite oversight, some noncompliance with security policies
and procedures occurs state-run prisons 22
Department should further improve monitoring practices to
enhance oversight of security operations 28
page i
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
concluded
Department should better assess training needs in
areas of systemic noncompliance 30
Department should continue efforts to ensure adequacy and consistency
of post orders 31
Recommendations 35
Other Pertinent Information 37
Appendix A: Methodology a-i
Agency Response
Tables
1 GAR Findings at the State’s Private Prisons
February and March 2011 13
2 Annual Audit Tool Competencies and Number of Questions
As of July 2011 14
3 Department Capital Improvement Requests and Funding Received
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 37
Figures
1 Arizona Prison Locations and Number of Inmates by Prison
June 30, 2011 2
2 Chain of Command at State-Run Prisons and for the
Private Prison Monitors 6
page ii
State of Arizona
Office of the Auditor General
The Office of the Auditor
General has conducted a
performance audit of the
Department of Corrections
(Department) pursuant to a
November 3, 2009,
resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit
Committee. This audit is
the second in a series of
audits conducted as part of
the sunset review process
prescribed in Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
§41-2951 et seq. This audit
addresses (1) changes the
Department has made to
its processes and practices
for monitoring contracted
private prisons since the
July 2010 escapes from the
Kingman private prison,
and (2) the Department’s
enforcement of security
policies and procedures at
state-run prisons. It also
presents other pertinent
information regarding how
the Department's capital
improvement projects,
including building renewal
projects, are funded. The
first audit presented
legislative and department
options for addressing the
State’s prison population
growth. A third report will
address the statutory
sunset factors.
page 1
Department responsible for securely
incarcerating inmates
Department mission and state prison system
The Department’s mission is “to serve and protect the people of Arizona by
securely incarcerating convicted felons, by providing structured programming
designed to support inmate accountability and successful community
reintegration, and by providing effective supervision for those offenders
conditionally released from prison.” The Department’s goals and objectives
include:
• Maintaining effective custody and control over inmates in an environment
that is safe, secure, and humane.
• Promoting department safety and security by conducting administrative,
civil, criminal, and gang-related investigations; conducting daily, weekly,
monthly, and annual inspections and audits of its prison facilities; and
ensuring agency compliance with fire and life safety codes.
• Developing private prison contracts and providing oversight to monitor
their safe, secure, and cost-effective operation, while imprisoning inmates
according to the Department’s mission.
Arizona’s prison system consists of ten state-run prisons and five private
prisons operated under contract with the Department located throughout the
State (see Figure 1, page 2). All of the state-run prisons and two of the private
prisons consist of multiple units designed to hold inmates assigned to a
specific custody level (see the next section for information on inmate custody
levels). As of June 30, 2011, the Department housed nearly 40,200 inmates,
including 5,915 inmates housed in private prisons.
Inmate classification
The Department’s inmate classification system is one of its most important
tools for managing inmates to help ensure prison safety and security. The
Department uses this system to assess inmates based on their risk of escaping
or committing violence to the public, staff, and other inmates. The assessments
are used to determine appropriate inmate custody levels and to make
decisions regarding inmate housing, programs, and work assignments (see
textbox, page 3, for a description of inmate custody levels). Classification
Scope and Objectives
INTRODUCTION
page 2
State of Arizona
Figure 1: Arizona Prison Locations and Number of Inmates by Prison
June 30, 2011
Source: Auditor General staff depiction of information from the Department’s Web site and analysis of the ADC Institutional
Capacity Committed Population report for June 30, 2011.
Perryville
(3,466)
Phoenix
(529)
Winslow (1,643)
Lewis (4,920)
Yuma (4,478)
Douglas
(2,566)
Tucson
(5,473)
Safford
(1,854)
Eyman (4,826)
Florence (4,511)
Phoenix
West (500)
Florence
West (734)
Central Arizona
Correctional Facility
(1,285)
Marana
(494)
Kingman (2,902)
State-Operated Prisons
Private Prisons
Total Number of Inmates: 40,181
Page
Flagstaff
Window Rock
Prescott
Alpine
Willcox
Benson
Nogales
Gila Bend
Lake Havasu City
Show Low
Grand Canyon
National Park
page 3
Office of the Auditor General
assessments are based on several factors, including an inmate’s most serious current
and prior offense(s), history of escapes and institutional violence, gang affiliation
status, age, and time remaining to serve. Inmates are initially classified and assigned
to a custody level when they are committed to the Department and may not be
reassigned to a lower custody level for at least 6 months. After that, an inmate’s
classification status is reviewed as events occur that would change the inmate’s
custody level, such as completing inmate programs or assaulting other inmates or
prison staff. As of June 30, 2011, approximately 38 percent of inmates were in minimum
custody, 40 percent were in medium custody, 10 percent were in close custody, and 9
percent were in maximum custody; the remaining 3 percent were housed in detention
cells. By law, the State’s private prisons house only minimum- and medium-custody
inmates.
Security policies and procedures
The Department has implemented numerous policies and procedures designed to
ensure operational security at the State’s prisons. These policies and procedures
address several operational areas and apply to both the state-run prisons as well as
the contracted private prisons (see textbox, page 4). For example:
• Inmate accountability—Department policy requires prison staff to count inmates
multiple times each day and compare the inmates’ physical identification cards to
their faces to ensure that all inmates are accounted for.
• Key control—Department policy establishes requirements for ensuring that all
prison keys are controlled and accounted for.
Inmate custody levels
Minimum custody—Inmates who represent a low risk to the public and staff.
They may work outside of prison and do not require controlled movement inside
prison.
Medium custody—Inmates who represent a moderate risk to the public and
staff. They may not work outside of prison and require limited controlled
movement inside prison.
Close custody—Inmates who represent a high risk to the public and staff. They
may not work outside of prison and require controlled movement inside prison.
Maximum custody—Inmates who represent the highest risk to the public and
staff and require housing in a single cell setting or, under certain circumstances
for inmates who pose a lower safety risk, a double cell setting. These inmates
have limited work opportunities within the secure perimeter, require frequent
monitoring, and require escorted movement in full restraints.
Source: Auditor General staff review of department policy.
page 4
State of Arizona
• Security/facility inspections—Department policy requires prison staff to
regularly inspect security devices to ensure they are in good working condition
and requires supervisory and other management personnel to conduct regular
prison inspections and tours. A security device is any apparatus whose function
is to restrict inmate access and includes gates, fences, security doors and
windows, locking mechanisms, alarm systems, and video and communication
systems.
• Inmate regulations—Department policy establishes requirements related to
inmate dress and grooming, inmate identification cards, housing regulations,
and housing inspections. For example, inmates are required to keep their
identification card, which displays the inmate’s current color photograph, name
and number, height and weight, date of birth, and eye and hair color, with them
at all times, except during work or recreational activities where the supervising
staff member holds the identification card. In addition, inmates are prohibited
from various actions such as placing items on cell walls or covering cell
windows; tampering with security devices; doing laundry in the cells and living
areas; and altering appliances such as televisions. Correctional officers are
required to inspect inmate living areas daily.
• Searches—Department policy requires prison staff to conduct searches of
inmates, offenders in community corrections, staff and visitors entering the
prison units, property, inmate living areas, and common areas in order to control
the introduction or possession of prison contraband, such as drugs, weapons,
cell phones, or other prohibited items.
• Tool control—Department policy establishes requirements for the proper
storage, inventory, and supervision of tools and other restricted products to
ensure they are accounted for and safely used. Inmates use a variety of tools,
including files, knives, rakes, and shovels, for work programs and prison jobs
• Inmate accountability
• Key control
• Security/facility inspections
• Inmate regulations
• Inmate transportation
• Inmate escape prevention/response
• Searches
• Substance abuse detection and control
• Execution procedures1
• Notification of inmate hospitalization or
death
• Tool and restricted product control
• Aircraft intrusion
• Armory procedures
• Service dog program
• Stun and stun-lethal electrified fences
Operational security areas addressed by department policies and procedures
1 Department procedures for executions apply only to state-run prisons.
Source: Auditor General staff review of department policies and procedures.
page 5
Office of the Auditor General
such as kitchen and landscaping jobs. Department health services staff also use
medical tools, including syringes, which must be securely maintained.
The Department’s policies and procedures also establish various activities that are
designed to help ensure staff comply with and enforce security requirements. These
activities include staff training and supervision, daily reporting of security incidents to
department officials, routine prison inspections by prison management, and annual
audits of prison operations conducted by the Department’s Office of the Inspector
General staff. See Finding 1 (pages 9 through 19) and Finding 2 (pages 21 though 35)
for additional discussion of these activities.
Security staffing
The Department’s Offender Operations Division oversees prison operations at both the
state-run prisons and the State’s contracted private prisons. As of June 30, 2011, the
Offender Operations Division had 8,717 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. However,
department officials reported that the prisons are understaffed as a result of staff
reductions. Department staff reported that daily staffing levels are also affected by
vacancies, employee leave, and other factors, but the Department has developed
procedures for addressing daily staffing shortages.
Offender Operations Division oversees prison operations—The
Department’s Offender Operations Division oversees prison administration and
security operations and monitors the State’s contracted private prisons. As shown
in Figure 2 (see page 6), the division director of offender operations, who reports
directly to the department director, supervises two regional operations directors who
each oversee the wardens at five prisons. The wardens are responsible for the over-all
management and operations of the prison to which they are assigned. Deputy
wardens are responsible for the management of the units within each prison. Other
security staff assigned to prison units include associate deputy wardens, chiefs of
security (captains), lieutenants, sergeants, and correctional officers.
As shown in Figure 2 as well, the division director of offender operations also
oversees the Contract Beds Bureau, which is responsible for monitoring private
prisons to ensure compliance with all contractual requirements, including applicable
department policies and procedures. The Department assigns a contract monitoring
team to each private prison to provide onsite monitoring of prison operations. These
teams consist of a contract monitor who has overall responsibility for ensuring
contract compliance and supervises other monitoring staff; a security monitor who
monitors security operations and functions at the private prison; and a programs
monitor who monitors inmate program-related operations and functions at the
private prison. Contract Beds Bureau staff are also responsible for several functions
at the private prisons that, according to the Department, cannot be performed by
page 6
State of Arizona
the private prisons. These functions include administering inmate classification
actions, inmate grievances, and inmate disciplinary hearings; approving inmate
releases; performing background checks on private prison staff and potential
visitors of inmates; working with private prisons to develop inmate work contracts
and approving inmates to work on outside work crews; and requesting the
Department Director
Division Director of
Offender Operations
Contract Beds Bureau
Operations Director
Regional Operations
Director
(for each region)1􀀃􀍗
Warden
(for each prison)
Deputy Warden
(for each unit)
Associate Deputy
Warden
Chief of Security
(Captain)
Lieutenants
Sergeants
Correctional Officers
Contract Monitor
Security and Programs
Monitors
Figure 2: Chain of Command at State-Run Prisons and for the
Private Prison Monitors
1 Southern region prisons include Douglas, Perryville, Safford, Tucson, and Yuma. Northern region
prisons include Eyman, Florence, Lewis, Phoenix, and Winslow.
Source: Auditor General staff review of department information.
page 7
Office of the Auditor General
Department’s Office of the Inspector General to conduct criminal investigations,
including alleged sexual assaults.
As of June 30, 2011, the Offender Operations Division had a total of 8,717 FTE
positions, including 7,814 positions in the correctional officer series. This series
includes 6,196 correctional officer II positions, as well as sergeants, lieutenants,
captains, and other positions.1 However, department officials reported that the
prisons remain understaffed, largely due to the elimination of 565 correctional officer
positions in fiscal year 2006 after funding for the positions was reallocated to other
operating needs. The Department requested an additional 306 correctional officer
positions for fiscal year 2012, but did not receive these positions. As of June 30,
2011, approximately 5 percent of the correctional officer series positions were
vacant, including 4 percent of the correctional officer II positions.
Department has procedures for addressing daily staffing
shortages—Department staff also reported that daily staffing levels at the prisons
are affected by vacancies, employee leave, employee absences, and special
assignments such as medical transports—department policy requires one or two
officers to escort inmates to medical facilities depending on the inmates’ custody
levels. The Department has developed procedures for addressing daily staffing
shortages. Specifically, security posts at each prison are prioritized, and lower-prior-ity
posts may be collapsed to ensure higher-priority posts at each prison unit are
filled. For example, according to one prison’s post priority chart, the highest-priority
posts are the main control rooms at each unit, where officers control all movement
in and out of the units and monitor perimeter security alarms. Additionally, assigning
officers to man housing unit control rooms and patrol the housing units is a higher
priority than assigning a second or third officer to patrol the yard. Further, correc-tional
officers normally assigned to one unit may be assigned to work in another unit
for the day to help address staffing shortages, a process referred to as cross-level-ing.
In addition, the Department reported that staff work overtime and accrue com-pensatory
leave to address staffing needs. The Department estimated that it paid
nearly $29 million for overtime, compensatory leave, and associated employee-related
expenses in fiscal year 2011. Lastly, prison units may adjust their operations
based on staffing levels. For example, if staffing levels are critically low, prison offi-cials
may curtail inmate recreation, work detail, programs, and medical/dental
appointments and/or may feed the inmates in their cells rather than in the cafeteria.
1 Correctional officer II positions are responsible for maintaining the security of inmates inside secured perimeters and
supervising inmate workers inside or outside of secured perimeters.
page 8
State of Arizona
page 9
Office of the Auditor General
Inmate escapes indicated need to improve oversight
On July 30, 2010, three inmates escaped from the Kingman private prison. The
Department’s investigation into the escapes and assessment of the prison’s
operations identified several security deficiencies and policy violations that
contributed to the escapes. Notably, the prison’s perimeter alarm system was
not working properly and had not been serviced in 2 years. In addition, the
Department’s investigation found that private prison staff sometimes ignored
the alarms because of the frequency of false alarms and would reset the
alarms without first properly checking the perimeter. The Department’s
investigation also determined that private prison staff were complacent in their
perimeter duties, allowing the inmates to better plan their escape. For example,
perimeter officers did not vary their routine when checking perimeters and did
not use flashlights or spotlights in their vehicles when conducting perimeter
checks. Following the escapes, the Department assessed security operations
at the State’s other four private prisons and found several security deficiencies
and noncompliance with department policies and procedures at those prisons
as well.
Prior to the escapes, the Department reported that it had begun efforts to
improve its monitoring of private prisons. As discussed in the Introduction (see
pages 5 through 7), department staff are responsible for conducting onsite
monitoring of the private prisons. The Department’s Office of the Inspector
General also conducts an annual audit of the private prisons. Further,
department officials reported that the Director had initiated some steps to
enhance monitoring of the private prisons prior to the escapes. For example,
the Department issued deficiency notices to the Kingman private prison for
incidents that occurred in March 2009 and January 2010. The Department
reported that it also stopped inmate movement to the Kingman private prison
for 1 month following another incident that occurred in May 2010. In addition,
the Director repositioned the Office of the Inspector General under the deputy
director to enhance the Office’s independence. The Department had also
begun to develop recommendations for improvements to its annual audit
process, but these improvements were not implemented prior to the escapes
(see pages 14 through 15 for more information on improvements to the annual
audit process).
Department has improved oversight of
private prisons, but should take additional
actions to strengthen monitoring
The Department of
Corrections (Department)
has taken actions to
improve its oversight of the
State’s five contracted
private prisons since the
July 2010 escapes from the
Kingman private prison.
The Department’s
investigation into the
escapes identified a need
to improve its monitoring
practices. As a result, the
Department implemented
a new inspection program,
improved its annual audit
procedures, and revised its
Request for Proposals for
additional private prison
beds to require stronger
monitoring and security at
private prisons. The
Department has also taken
steps to ensure that
department contract
monitoring staff effectively
perform their duties,
including developing a
training program for
monitoring staff that is
scheduled to begin in
September 2011. In
addition to these steps, the
Department should
continue its efforts to
comply with statutory
requirements to compare
the services provided by
private and state-run
prisons.
FINDING 1
page 10
State of Arizona
Despite these efforts, the Department’s monitoring practices prior to the escapes
failed to identify the issues at the Kingman private prison and ensure that they were
corrected. For example, according to the investigation, the Department was unaware
that the Kingman private prison’s perimeter alarm system was not working properly.
The investigation concluded that the Department’s contract monitor assigned to the
Kingman private prison and the Department’s contract beds bureau operations
director at the time both failed to perform their duties as required, and staff in those
two positions were replaced following the escapes. Based on interviews conducted
during the investigation, this failure appeared to result in part from inadequate
training and supervision of department monitoring staff. In addition, the contract
beds bureau operations director had suspended reporting requirements for
monitoring activities, contrary to department policy. Moreover, the Department’s
annual audit of the Kingman private prison conducted in March 2010, 4 months prior
to the escapes, did not report any of the security issues that contributed to the
escapes and were identified during the Department’s subsequent investigation.
Department has implemented new monitoring tools
The Department has implemented a new inspection program and revised its annual
audit procedures, allowing it to better assess security operations at the private
prisons. These new tools are also used at the state-run prisons.
Green Amber Red inspection program—In January 2011, the Department
implemented a new inspection program for assessing security operations called
the Green Amber Red (GAR) inspection. The GAR is essentially a monitoring
checklist that, through June 2011, consisted of 220 performance measures
grouped under 16 operational areas called “competencies” (see textbox, page
11). Through June 2011, department monitoring staff were required to assess
compliance with each performance measure at least once per month (see pages
5 through 7 for information on department monitoring staff). In July 2011, the
Department expanded the GAR tool by adding another 19 competencies, each
containing 4 to 5 performance measures. These additional competencies include
areas related to security and safety such as security staffing, inmate classification,
inmate behavior control, security incident reporting, and additional performance
measures related to inmate regulations. With the addition of these 19 competen-cies
to the original 16 competencies, the Department reported that instead of
reviewing private prison compliance with the performance measures in each com-petency
monthly, as had been done previously, competency areas and their asso-ciated
performance measures will be rotated for review. Specifically, according to
the Department, the division director of offender operations will select approxi-mately
15 competencies each month for review, with the goal of assessing
approximately 230 performance measures monthly.
The Department has
implemented the GAR
inspection program, which
assesses private prison
compliance with various
department security
requirements on a monthly
basis.
page 11
Office of the Auditor General
Department monitoring staff complete the GAR assessments through multiple
inspections over the course of the month and submit their findings electronically to
a department reporting system. The GAR uses a color-coded reporting system
designed to ensure that findings result in corrective action and are reported to
appropriate prison and department executive staff as follows:
Competencies (number of
performance measures)
Example performance measures
Administrative (11) Are required posts and positions filled/posted with appropriately qualified
personnel?
Counts/Inmate Movement (6) Are formal counts of inmates conducted on each shift? At what times?
Detention (8) Did correctional officers conduct a general sanitation/security inspection of the
detention unit during each shift?
Ingress/Egress (6) Is assigned staff maintaining a log of every person entering/exiting the secure
perimeter of the unit?
Inmate Regulations/Inmate
Discipline (2)
Are security officer posts located in or immediately adjacent to inmate living areas
to permit officers to see or hear and respond promptly to emergency situations?
Key Control (18) Are keys/key rings inventoried at the beginning and ending of each shift and
documented on the appropriate logs by assigned staff?
Have keys been inspected for proper function, and repairs and replacement
made as needed?
Mail/Property (7) Are staff scanning or reading 10 percent or more of outgoing inmate mail?
Perimeter (43) Does the perimeter have an electronic sensing system? Is it tested at the
beginning of each shift? At the end of each shift? At other fixed times? At other
random times?
Is the electronic system covered under a service/repair/maintenance contract?
Are nonstaff vehicles permitted on the perimeter?
Radios (6) Are staff monitoring and appropriately responding to radio transmissions?
Searches (12) Are housing searches conducted according to policy? Are they conducted at
irregular times and logged?
Security Devices (33) Are security device inspections and deficiencies noted in permanent logs and
journals?
Are deputy wardens, associate deputy wardens, and chiefs of security spending a
minimum of 10 hours per week touring their unit, including inmate living quarters
and activity areas?
Is the exterior/interior perimeter checked at the beginning of each shift? At the end
of each shift? At other fixed times? At other random times?
Tool Control (19) Does the tool control officer conduct a daily tool inventory?
Is the process of tool issuance and return in accordance with policy
requirements?
Towers (4) Do staff follow written instructions for tower operations?
Transportation (9) Do staff perform strip searches of all inmates prior to and after transport?
Visitation (12) Are staff requiring and checking identification?
Weapons (24) Is firearm training and qualification conducted in compliance with policy?
Are only authorized persons admitted into the armory?
GAR competencies and example performance measures
As of June 2011
Source: Auditor General staff review of the GAR inspection tool as of June 2011.
page 12
State of Arizona
• Green indicates compliance and does not require corrective action.
• Amber indicates minor issues that require corrective action. Amber findings
result in notification to the prison warden and deputy warden.
• Red indicates significant threats to life and safety that require immediate
corrective action. Red findings result in notification to the prison warden and
deputy warden, and to the Department’s regional operations director, offender
operations division director, and/or director depending on the performance
measure.
According to department policy and staff, private prison wardens are responsible
for developing corrective action plans to address amber and red findings, which
are reviewed by department contract monitors.1 The Department uses its GAR
reporting system to monitor open findings to ensure that corrective action plans
are approved and completed.
The GAR inspection tool provides department staff with a systematic approach for
assessing compliance with security requirements the Department deems to be
critical. This approach is consistent with private prison monitoring practices
recommended by the Association of State Correctional Administrators. In a 2000
publication, the Association of State Correctional Administrators recommended
that monitoring significant operational areas be given the highest priority and
suggested that checklists were the most useful monitoring method.2 Further, the
GAR program is consistent with monitoring standards promulgated by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, which states that findings should be reported
and resolved through corrective action.3 In addition, the GAR helps department
monitoring staff monitor areas where the Kingman private prison investigation
identified deficiencies. For example, the competency areas with the most
performance measures address perimeter operations and security devices—
areas where security deficiencies contributed to the Kingman private prison
escapes. The GAR also focuses on other critical areas such as the proper control
and storage of keys, tools, and weapons.
The GAR inspections are identifying deficiencies, although more time will be
needed to assess their effectiveness in bringing about greater compliance. As
illustrated in Table 1 (see page 13), for the 2 months of GAR inspection results
reviewed for this audit, February and March 2011, the inspections resulted in a
total of 157 findings. These findings included the failure to properly search the
personal property or verify the identity of persons entering the prison unit, to store
1 In state-run prisons, unit deputy wardens are responsible for developing corrective action plans, and wardens are
responsible for ensuring corrective action has been taken.
2 Crane, R. (n.d.). Monitoring correctional services provided by private firms. Middleton, CT: Association of State
Correctional Administrators.
3 United States General Accounting Office. (1999). Standards for internal control in the federal government [GAO/AIMD-
00-21.3.1]. Washington, DC: Author.
The GAR inspection
focuses on critical areas
such as perimeter
operations, security
devices, and proper
control of keys, tools, and
weapons.
page 13
Office of the Auditor General
tools, to inventory keys, to document security device inspections, and to ensure
inoperative security devices are repaired in a timely manner. For example, at one
private prison, contract monitoring staff reported that the control room panel
indicator lights, which indicate whether inmate doors leading to the recreation yard
are unsecure or ajar, had been nonfunctional for several months. At another private
prison, contract monitoring staff reported that work crew supervisors coming to pick
up inmates routinely gained access through gates prior to any staff member
checking the identity of the drivers or searching their vehicles. At a third private
prison, contract monitoring staff reported that private prison staff were not thoroughly
pat searching inmates, a procedure used to detect hidden contraband.
The private prisons appear to have improved in some competencies between the 2
months, while their collective performance remained about the same or grew worse
in other competency areas. For example, the total number of findings in the ingress/
egress and perimeter competency areas decreased, but remained about the same
for the security devices and tool control competency areas and increased for the key
control competency area. Further, although some of the private prisons had repeat
or similar findings between the 2 months, auditors’ review of the reports indicated
that department contract monitoring staff were working with private prison staff to
resolve these findings through their corrective action plans. (See Finding 2, pages
21 through 35, for additional discussion on the use of GAR inspection data.)
Table 1: GAR Findings at the State's Private Prisons
February and March 2011
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of February and March 2011 GAR inspection reports provided by department staff.
Competency (Number of
Performance Measures)
Number of Findings Reported for All 5 Private Prisons
February 2011 March 2011 Total
Administrative (11) 3 3 6
Counts/Inmate Movement (6) 3 0 3
Detention (8) 2 5 7
Ingress/Egress (6) 11 5 16
Inmate Regulations/Inmate
Discipline (2) 0 0 0
Key Control (18) 14 19 33
Mail/Property (7) 1 1 2
Perimeter (43) 11 4 15
Radios (6) 2 1 3
Searches (12) 4 4 8
Security Devices (33) 10 9 19
Tool Control (19) 16 15 31
Towers (4) 0 0 0
Transportation (9) 2 0 2
Visitation (12) 3 2 5
Weapons (24) 3 4 7
Total (220) 85 72 157
page 14
State of Arizona
Revised annual audit procedures—The Department has
also revised its annual audit procedures. According to department
staff, audits conducted prior to the Kingman private prison escapes
did not adequately assess compliance with policy, and issues were
corrected during the audit rather than reported as findings. In addi-tion,
although coordinated by the Department’s Office of the Inspector
General (see textbox), these audits were performed by correctional
officers assigned to other state prisons, referred to as peer reviewers.
According to department staff, this led to a “quid pro quo” culture with
regard to audit findings, as officers knew they would be reviewed in
turn by those they were reviewing. To strengthen the independence of
the audits and the staff who perform them, the Department now uses staff from its
Office of the Inspector General and Central Office Classification rather than peer
reviewers from the state prisons.
The Department has also developed a new audit tool that measures actual
performance against department policies and procedures. The tool is similar in
design to the GAR, except it does not use color-coded findings. The tool includes
more questions than the GAR, although it includes many of the same performance
questions. Additionally, the Department has revised the tool since
piloting it at the Kingman private prison in November 2010.
As of July 2011, the annual audit tool included 857 questions
in 13 competencies (see Table 2). Department officials
reported that they plan to rotate some of the competencies
included for review in the audit each year based on the audit
results from the previous year. For example, if there were few
or no findings in a particular competency, the Department
may not review the questions in that competency area again
the next year, but review the competency area again in a later
year. However, the Department indicated that nine core
competencies would be reviewed every year, including tools,
keys, security devices, ingress/egress, and inmate
classification. In addition to the November 2010 pilot audit at
the Kingman private prison, the Department has used the
revised audit tool for the March 2011 Marana private prison
audit and again to audit the Kingman private prison in
August 2011. The audits for the other three private prisons
are scheduled for December 2011.
The revised annual audit procedures initiated under the
Director are an improvement over the Department’s previous
audit approach. For example, the March 2010 audit of the
Kingman private prison, which occurred 4 months prior to the
escapes and was conducted under the Department’s previous audit approach,
evaluated the prison’s compliance with 1,954 requirements listed in the contract
Office of the Inspector General—The
Department’s Office of the Inspector
General (Office) is responsible for policing
the prison system through criminal,
administrative, and background
investigations; intelligence gathering; and
prison audits and policy. The Office reports
directly to the Department’s deputy director.
Source: Department’s Web site.
Table 2: Annual Audit Tool Competencies
and Number of Questions
As of July 2011
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the July 2011
annual audit tool.
Competency
Number
of Audit
Questions
Classification 67
Counts and Inmate
Movement 25
Detention Services 102
Food Service 40
Ingress/Egress 17
Inmate Management 135
Inmate Services 86
Keys and Radios 40
Perimeter and Towers 10
Required Services 133
Security Devices 37
Tools 62
Weapons 103
Total 857
page 15
Office of the Auditor General
and department policies and procedures, but resulted in only 24 findings. Few of the
findings identified problems related to the prison’s security operations, and none of
the findings addressed the deficiencies the Department’s investigation of the
escapes later identified. Although the audit recommended some security
improvements based on peer reviewers’ observations, these recommendations
were included for management’s information rather than reported as findings. By
contrast, the November 2010 pilot annual audit, which used the revised annual audit
tool, reported 135 findings based on an assessment of 1,271 performance
questions.1 Many of these findings related to security operations, such as some
officers’ failure to properly search personal items as staff reported for work, ensure
perimeter systems were functioning properly, and account for missing tools. The
March 2011 annual audit at the Marana private prison also resulted in several
findings, including failure to report rusted and eroding doors and windows in inmate
living areas, inoperative security devices that had not been repaired for several
months, and improperly stored ammunition. (See Finding 2, pages 21 through 35,
for additional discussion on the use of annual audit data.)
Additionally, the Department has revised its procedures for following up on audit
findings. According to department officials, prison wardens are still responsible for
developing corrective action plans to address findings within 30 days of receiving
the audit report under the revised audit procedures. However, although the
Department’s Office of the Inspector General was responsible for conducting follow-up
inspections under the previous audit system, department officials reported that
followup responsibility has been shifted to the Department’s contract monitoring
staff and contract beds bureau operations director for the private prisons and to the
Department’s regional operations directors for the state-run prisons. The Department
has not yet revised its written policies and procedures to reflect all of the changes to
its annual audit process, but reported that it plans to do so in January 2012 at the
end of its first year of using the revised audit procedures. To ensure prompt
resolution of audit findings, the Department should ensure the revised policies and
procedures describe when follow-up actions should occur, who should perform the
follow-up activities, and how the results of these follow-up activities should be
reported.
Department has strengthened contract requirements for
future private prison beds
In response to the July 2010 Kingman private prison escapes, the Department
canceled its Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 5,000 new private prison beds that
was required by Laws 2009, 3rd S.S., Ch. 6. The Department had issued the RFP prior
1 The Department has revised the audit tool since piloting it at the Kingman private prison in November 2010, and the tool
had 857 questions as of July 2011.
The revised annual audits
have reported several
findings, including failure
to properly search
personal items as staff
reported for work and
inoperative security
devices.
page 16
State of Arizona
to the escapes, but decided to cancel it in order to reevaluate the RFP’s contractual
terms and conditions, including revising and strengthening the RFP’s monitoring and
security requirements. The Department issued a revised RFP in January 2011 with
proposals due in February 2011. The Department anticipates that the contract will be
awarded after September 16, 2011.
The revised RFP included several additional requirements that will strengthen the
Department’s oversight of the selected contractor(s). For example:
• Internal monitoring requirements—Both the original and revised RFPs
required the contractor to monitor its delivery of all services—including
subcontracted services—and to document deficiencies and require corrective
action to ensure that contract requirements are met. However, the Department
included additional requirements in the revised RFP that will strengthen its
oversight of the contractor’s internal monitoring activities. Specifically, the
revised RFP requires the following:
° RFP respondents are required to include internal monitoring plans with
their proposals;
° The contractor awarded the contract is required to submit monthly
documentation to department contract monitoring staff showing completion
of the contractor’s internal monitoring activities and their results; and
° The contractor is required to report immediately to the Department any
serious deficiencies identified through its internal monitoring activities.
• Financial penalties for contract noncompliance—The Department revised
the RFP to expand the financial penalties it could impose for the contractor’s
failure to comply with contract terms or conditions. The original RFP allowed the
Department to impose financial penalties on the contractor for failure to staff
mandatory security positions. The revised RFP includes this penalty and
provides for additional penalties under the following circumstances:
° The contractor’s failure to submit timely, accurate, and complete reports,
such as required monthly inspection reports, security device deficiency
reports, tool inventory reports, and significant incident reports;
° The contractor’s failure to meet corrective action plan requirements; and
° Noncompliance where corrective action does not mitigate the gravity or
severity of the noncompliance, poses a real or potential risk to the public,
and represents a blatant disregard for contract requirements or a pattern
of noncompliance.
The revised RFP for new
private prison beds
includes additional
monitoring requirements,
financial penalties, and
performance measures.
page 17
Office of the Auditor General
• Performance measures—The Department added specific performance
measures to the RFP that department officials deemed crucial for measuring
compliance with its service delivery expectations and that must be met 100
percent of the time. These performance measures are included in the original
performance measures that the Department assessed monthly through the GAR,
as well as performance measures related to health, dental, and mental health
services. The revised RFP stipulates that the contractor’s failure to comply with
these measures will result in written deficiency notices and require corrective
action plans. As described in the preceding bullet, the contractor’s failure to
comply with corrective actions plans may result in financial penalties.
• Procedures for reporting problems—The Department added a requirement to
the RFP that the contractor establish an anonymous reporting system for prison
employees to report security and safety problems to facility management, facility
owners, and the Department. This system is required to include employee
suggestion boxes, of which at least one is key-controlled by department contract
monitoring staff. This will allow private prison staff to anonymously report security
and safety concerns to the Department.
• Certification of security systems—The Department added a requirement to the
RFP that the contractor annually certify all security systems. In particular, perimeter
security—such as perimeter detection systems, fencing, and cameras—must be
tested regularly and recertified annually. This will help ensure that these devices
function properly.
The Department has implemented one of the additional requirements included in the
revised RFP at all five of its existing private prisons and plans to implement other
requirements as existing contracts come up for renewal or are rebid. Specifically, the
new performance measures included in the revised RFP have been implemented
through the GAR inspection at the existing private prisons. However, department
officials reported that they have not implemented other revisions, such as the additional
financial penalties and reporting requirements, because they could not be enforced
under the existing private prison contracts. The Department reported that it intends to
review the existing contracts as they come up for renewal to determine whether similar
revisions can be incorporated. In addition, department officials indicated that they
would include similar revisions in future RFPs when the existing contracts are rebid.
Department is developing training for contract monitoring
staff
The Department has taken steps to ensure that department contract monitoring staff
effectively perform their duties, including development of a training program scheduled
to begin in September 2011. The Department’s investigation into the Kingman private
page 18
State of Arizona
prison escapes indicated that department contract monitoring staff received little if
any training regarding their specific job duties. Following the escapes, the Department
has taken steps to ensure that monitoring staff have adequate experience and
understand their job duties. For example, the Department now requires the
supervising contract monitors to be deputy wardens—whereas they were formerly
associate deputy wardens—in order to increase the experience level of staff in those
positions. Deputy wardens have experience running prison units while associate
deputy wardens do not. In addition, the Department now ensures that contract
monitoring staff have copies of applicable private prison contracts and department
policies and procedures, and requires these staff to sign forms indicating they have
received these documents and are responsible for reviewing them. These documents
are important for contract monitors because they identify the contract requirements
and describe the monitors’ job duties. Further, as described previously, the GAR
inspection program provides contract monitoring staff with specific guidance on
security operations they must monitor monthly.
In addition to these actions, the Department reported during the audit that it was
developing a 32-hour training program for contract monitoring staff. The 2000
Association of State Correctional Administrators publication on monitoring private
prisons identified training contract monitors as an essential practice.1 Further, as
mentioned earlier, the Department’s investigation into the Kingman private prison
escapes indicated that a lack of training contributed to the contract monitor’s failure
to perform his duties as required. As of July 2011, the Department had developed an
overview of its contract-monitoring training program. According to the overview, the
program will include courses on the role of the monitor, how to read the private prison
contract, monitoring tasks, effective communication with contractors, reviewing
required reports, and conducting inspections using the GAR inspection program.
The Department has scheduled this training to begin in September 2011. The
Department should continue to develop and implement this training program as
scheduled.
Department’s restructuring of inspection program will
assist in comparing private and state-run prison services
as required by law
The Department’s efforts to restructure its inspection program will help to provide the
information needed to compare private prison and state-run prison services as
required by statute. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-1609.01 requires the
Department to compare private prison and state-run prison services every 2 years
and submit the comparison to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for its
1 Crane, R. (n.d.). Monitoring correctional services provided by private firms. Middleton, CT: Association of State
Correctional Administrators.
The Department’s
contract monitoring staff
training program is
scheduled to begin in
September 2011.
page 19
Office of the Auditor General
review. The comparison is to be used
for the purpose of determining whether
contractors are providing the same
quality of services at a lower cost or
superior quality services at the same
cost as state-run prisons. In comparing
services, statute requires the
Department to consider several areas
including security, inmate management,
and personnel training (see textbox).
Although the Department has not yet
completed or submitted such a
comparison to the JLBC, department
officials indicated that one reason they
implemented the new GAR inspection
and revised annual audit procedures
was to enable the Department to
compare private prison and state-run prison services. The GAR inspections and
revised annual audits cover several of the service areas that statute requires the
Department to consider in its comparison, including security, inmate management and
control, and food services. The Department reported that it plans to incorporate the
remaining service areas—inmate programs, administration, and inmate health
services—into its inspection program and issue the first comparison report by January
2012.
Recommendations:
1.1 The Department should carry out its plans to revise its written policies and
procedures in January 2012 to reflect changes to the annual audit process. In
doing so, the Department should ensure the revised policies and procedures
describe when follow-up actions should occur, who should perform follow-up
activities, and how the results of these follow-up activities should be reported.
1.2 The Department should continue developing and implementing formal training
for contract monitoring staff as scheduled for September 2011.
1.3 The Department should continue its efforts to compare private and state-run
prison services every 2 years and submit the comparisons to the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee as required by statute.
Areas required by statute for consideration in comparing
private prison and state-run prison services
• Security
• Inmate management and control
• Inmate programs and services
• Facility safety and sanitation
• Administration
• Food service
• Personnel practices and training
• Inmate health services
• Inmate discipline
• Other services as determined by the department director
Source: Auditor General staff review of A.R.S. §41-1609.01.
page 20
State of Arizona
page 21
Office of the Auditor General
Department takes steps to oversee compliance with
security polices and procedures
As discussed in the Introduction (see pages 1 through 7), the Department has
implemented policies and procedures related to security operations at the
State’s prisons, such as procedures for conducting inmate counts and
tracking and securing tools and keys. Compliance with these policies and
procedures is critical for ensuring operational security. As part of its oversight
of prison operations, the Department has also implemented policies and
procedures that are designed to ensure that correctional officers comply with
the operational policies and procedures. Many of these policies and
procedures are consistent with operational standards for adult correctional
institutions promulgated by the American Correctional Association.1 Examples
of the Department’s oversight policies and procedures include the following:
• Training—The Department provides initial training to correctional officer
cadets at its Correctional Officer Training Academy and requires
correctional officers to take 40 hours of annual training. The Department
assesses officer training needs through annual core competency exams
(see page 30 for further discussion of these exams).
• Written instructions—The Department relies extensively on written
policies and procedures to manage prison operations. These include
written instructions called post orders that describe the duties and
responsibilities of each security post or work assignment (see pages 31
through 34 for additional discussion of post orders). Correctional officers
are required to document completion of their duties and other events that
occur at their posts, which supervisors are required to review.
• Performance reviews—The Department has written expectations of
employee professionalism, ethics, and conduct. Additionally, it requires
regular performance evaluations and has established employee
disciplinary procedures that include administrative investigations into
employee misconduct or failure to perform duties. These investigations
1 American Correctional Association. (2003). Standards for adult correctional institutions (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Author. American Correctional Association. (2010). 2010 Standards supplement. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Department should take additional actions
to improve compliance with security policies
and procedures at state-run prisons
The Department of
Corrections (Department)
should continue to improve
its processes to strengthen
compliance with security
policies and procedures at
state-run prisons.
Department oversight of
correctional officer
compliance with security
policies and procedures
helps ensure compliance,
but some noncompliance
still occurs. Specifically,
department and auditors’
reviews identified instances
of noncompliance ranging
from less-than-thorough
searches of incoming
personal property to failure
to follow tool and key
procedures. Non-compliance
with security
policies and procedures,
regardless of its extent,
may increase the potential
for security incidents. To
strengthen compliance, the
Department should
improve:
Monitoring—Implement its
plans to analyze data from
monitoring activities to
identify systemic
noncompliance, and further
investigate causes of
noncompliance to ensure
appropriate corrective
action is taken.
Training—Provide its training
staff with monitoring results
to better assess officer
training needs and provide
additional leadership
training for supervisors.
Post orders—Continue its
efforts to ensure that post
orders clearly and concisely
convey critical duties and
that completion of these
duties is documented.
FINDING 2
page 22
State of Arizona
are conducted by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General, which also
investigates alleged criminal activity that occurs in the prisons and conducts
annual audits of the prisons using a new audit tool that is discussed in Finding
1 (see pages 14 through 15).
• Inspections—Supervisors and other prison officials are required to conduct
tours and inspections, including the Green Amber Red (GAR) inspections
described in Finding 1 (see pages 10 through 13), and report the results of
these activities in monthly reports to department management. In addition,
correctional officers are required to inspect security devices, such as alarm
systems and locking mechanisms, during their shifts and report deficiencies.
Policy requires a comprehensive review of security devices to be conducted
weekly.
• Incident reports—Correctional officers are required to report significant
incidents regarding prison safety or security as they occur. According to the
Department, wardens, deputy wardens, and other supervisory staff review this
information on a daily and weekly basis. The Department also uses this
information to prepare a daily incident report for department officials to review.
In addition, the Department analyzes trends in the significant incident data.
Despite oversight, some noncompliance with security
policies and procedures occurs at state-run prisons
Despite the Department’s oversight procedures, reviews of state-run prisons show
correctional officers do not always comply with policies and procedures.
Noncompliance identified by both the Department and auditors in various areas
indicates that the Department should take additional actions to improve compliance.
Both Department and auditors identified noncompliance with secu-rity
policies and procedures—Despite the Department’s oversight proce-dures,
department and auditors’ reviews show correctional officers do not always
comply with policies and procedures. The Department has identified instances of
noncompliance through its own monitoring practices, some of which may increase
the potential for security incidents. For example, although annual audits of the
state-run Eyman, Lewis, and Yuma prisons conducted between January and
March 2011 found that these prisons largely complied with the department poli-cies
and procedures reviewed in these audits, the audits also reported several
findings of noncompliance. Auditor General staff noted other instances of non-compliance
when they visited state-run facilities and reviewed department records.
Specifically:
page 23
Office of the Auditor General
• Personal property not properly searched upon entry to prison units—
Department policies and procedures require that the personal property,
including food items, of all employees, contractors, and visitors be cleared
through the metal detector and be inspected prior to the person being permitted
entry into the prison unit. This policy is intended to stop the introduction of
cellphones, drugs, and other contraband. According to one department official,
the introduction of cellphones into prisons is the most prevalent threat to safety
and security. For example, according to a March 2010 department investigation,
an inmate used a cell phone that had been successfully smuggled in by a
correctional officer to make harassing phone calls. Additionally, in an October
2009 investigation, a correctional officer was caught trying to smuggle in two cell
phones, a cell phone charger, and drugs that were hidden inside his food when
reporting for duty. Further, contraband cell phones could be used to help plan
escapes, as happened in the July 2010 escapes of three inmates from the
Kingman private prison discussed in Finding 1 (see pages 9 through 10).
Auditors noted poorly conducted searches of incoming correctional officers at
one state-run prison unit as they reported for their shift. Although screening
officers patted employees’ jackets, they did not inspect officers’ utility belts. In
addition, employees’ food items were generally not passed through the metal
detector. Department inspectors found similar noncompliance with these
requirements at 12 of the 17 units inspected during the January through March
2011 annual audits of the Eyman, Lewis, and Yuma prisons, indicating this is a
pervasive issue in the prison system and that the risk for undetected contraband
may be significant.
However, subsequent observations by auditors indicated that at least one state-run
prison had taken steps to improve these searches. Auditors returned to the
same prison less than 2 months after their initial visit and made an unannounced
observation of screening practices at a different unit. Auditors found that the
warden had implemented new, rigorous screening procedures in line with
department policy that included passing food items through the metal detector,
emptying contents of officers’ bags and backpacks for visual inspection, and
passing officers’ possessions through the metal detector.
• Tool policies and procedures not followed—Department policy establishes
requirements for the proper storage, inventory, use, and supervision of tools.
Certain tools such as files, knives, saw blades, and grinders present an inherent
safety or security risk as they could be used in an escape attempt, as a weapon,
or to manufacture a weapon. Officers must directly supervise inmates using
these tools. Other tools such as rakes, hoes, and shovels are considered less
hazardous, but officers still must maintain accountability for these tools. Policies
require that tools, when not in use, be stored in a secured tool room or storage
area that is inaccessible to inmates. Tools must be signed out using the
appropriate form, and tool officers are required to conduct a daily tool inventory
and document the results of the inventory. The chief of security over assigned
Both auditors and
department inspectors
found that incoming
correctional officers were
not adequately searched.
page 24
State of Arizona
tool areas must ensure daily inventories are completed and documented.
Finally, missing tools must be immediately reported in writing to the shift
commander.
Department reviews have documented examples in which these policies and
procedures were not followed. For example, auditors reviewed a June 2010
department investigation into a metal file—a high-risk tool—that went missing
and was not found. The investigation could not determine when the file went
missing because a tool inventory had not been done in some time, clearly
indicating that the tool officer had failed to conduct daily inventories and that
the supervisor had failed to ensure they were being done. In addition, when
the loss was discovered, officers did not immediately report it to the shift
commander as required. Further, the Department reported several findings
related to tools that resulted from the three January through March 2011
annual audits. These findings included the following:
° Beginning and ending tool inventories not performed;
° Inmates in tool rooms without direct supervision and, in one case, with
high-risk tools unsecured;
° A tool room officer using an inmate to help account for the tools, including
conducting the initial count of all tools;
° A unit chief of security who did not have a complete written list of assigned
tool areas, and who was unaware of tools in two locations that were in his
area of responsibility;
° A master tool inventory at one prison unit that was not correct for
approximately 3 months, indicating that the chief of security was not
reconciling the master tool inventory on a monthly basis; and
° Tools that were not properly signed out.
• Key policies and procedures not followed—Department policies and
procedures require that correctional officers conduct inventories of all keys
and key rings at the beginning and ending of each shift and document the
results in the appropriate logs. Supervisors are required to regularly inspect
and initial these logs to provide evidence of their review. Correctional officers
must keep strict control because keys in inmates’ hands increase the risk of
escape or can give inmates access to officers, staff, and other inmates for
possible assaults. Department policies designate key control violations as
major security breaches. According to one prison warden, oversight of keys,
as well as tools, is a continual challenge to the prison system.
Department reviews have
identified examples where
policies and procedures
designed to safeguard
and account for tools have
not been followed.
page 25
Office of the Auditor General
Department reviews have documented examples in which these policies and
procedures were not followed. For example, auditors’ review of an April 2010
department administrative investigation disclosed that a correctional officer took
a set of prison unit keys home after working the afternoon shift. Officers did not
complete an inventory of keys at the end of that shift. This action would have
alerted officers that not all keys were accounted for prior to releasing the
afternoon shift officers. The night shift officers did not complete a beginning or
ending inventory of keys, permitting 8 hours to pass without officers knowing
that keys were missing. The supervisors did not ensure that officers maintained
control of keys by completing required key inventories and did not sign the
service journal that indicated the inventories were conducted. The day shift
discovered that keys were missing and a search finally began.
The three January through March 2011 annual audits also reported several key
control findings, including:
° Inaccurate master key inventory records and records that did not list the
location of the matching locking devices;
° Missing checkout and return information in key control records; and
° Inmates in possession of keys without written approval from authorized
officials.
• Poorly executed pat searches during inmate movement—To help control the
spread of contraband and maintain a safe and secure environment, correctional
officers perform pat searches (i.e., physically search, or pat down, the exterior
of an inmate’s body) to locate any contraband that inmates may be hiding in
their clothing or on their body. According to the Department, tens of thousands
of pat searches are performed daily. For example, officers are required to pat
search inmates before they enter visitation areas. Higher-custody-level inmates
are pat searched whenever they leave or enter their housing units, such as to go
to and from meals. At one close custody state-run prison unit, auditors
conducted two separate observations of correctional officers performing
approximately 200 to 300 pat searches of inmates going to and from meals.
Auditors noted that many of the pat searches conducted by the officers were not
as thorough as required by department procedures. For example, officers did
not pat all parts of the body required in the procedures, such as the groin area.
During the first observation, auditors asked a supervising officer to assess the
pat searches conducted by one of the officers, which appeared inadequate. The
supervisor described the officer’s technique as “weak,” explained that the officer
was new, and proceeded to instruct the officer on how to do a better pat search.
During the second observation, auditors asked a different supervisor to assess
the pat searches conducted by another new officer, which also appeared
inadequate. This supervisor observed the officer perform a few pat searches
and then demonstrated for the officer how to perform more effective pat
Auditors’ observations of
pat searches found that
many were not thoroughly
conducted.
page 26
State of Arizona
searches of the groin area. Another supervising officer auditors spoke with
indicated that officers often do not thoroughly pat inmates’ groin areas, and
inmates will hide contraband in that area.
• Some inmate regulations not consistently enforced—Department policy
establishes requirements related to inmate dress and grooming, inmate
identification cards, housing regulations, and housing inspections. For
example, inmates are required to keep their identification card—which
displays the inmate’s current color photograph, name and number, height and
weight, date of birth, and eye and hair color—with them at all times, including
recreation, except during work or recreational activities where supervising
officers hold the identification card. When outside of their housing units,
inmates must prominently display their identification cards on the upper chest
area. Regarding housing regulations, inmates are prohibited from placing any
item on a cell wall or covering cell windows; tampering with security devices;
using clotheslines of any type; possessing homemade weights or exercise
equipment; doing laundry in the cells and living areas; and altering appliances
such as televisions.
Department officials explained that compliance with these basic regulations is
important because it accustoms inmates to comply with other, perhaps more
critical, officer instructions such as those that might be given during an inmate
fight or other disturbance. Additionally, as indicated by one captain auditors
spoke with, in cases of assault, officers need to quickly identify the victim.
However, auditors observed instances where correctional officers did not
consistently enforce some of these requirements. For example:
° During observation visits to one state-run prison, auditors noted many
inmates outside their housing units who were not wearing their identification
cards as required by department policy. For example, during observations
at a minimum-custody unit, auditors observed many inmates who were not
wearing their identification cards as they milled about the yard preparing
for an inmate count. These inmates were not engaged in exercise. At a
close-custody unit, auditors observed many inmates who were going from
their housing units to meals and were not wearing their identification cards.
Additionally, auditors did not observe any attempts to enforce this
regulation. During a separate visit to this close-custody unit, auditors
observed many inmates walking around or talking in groups on the yard
who were not wearing their identification cards. Regarding this observation,
one supervisor expressed frustration with officers not enforcing this
requirement. Auditors also observed inmates outside their housing units
wearing pants well below their waists and untucked shirts, which is contrary
to dress requirements.
Auditors’ observations
noted inmates who were
not wearing their
identification cards as
required.
page 27
Office of the Auditor General
During visits to another state-run prison, auditors noted that officers at one
unit strictly enforced identification card and dress requirements, but still
observed that at least one correctional officer failed to do so as he was
escorting a group of inmates to a building. The inmates only put on their
identification cards after a supervisor asked the correctional officer and
the inmates about their identification cards.
° During auditors’ observation tour at one state-run prison unit, the escorting
officer pointed out that several inmates had covered their exterior cell
windows and indicated that correctional officers did not consistently enforce
this policy. Auditors also observed covered exterior cell windows at a
subsequent visit to this prison unit. In addition, auditors toured a cell with the
captain while the inmates were out of the housing unit. The captain quickly
identified several violations, suggesting that officers were not properly
enforcing regulations. For example, in the cell were an inmate’s identification
badge propped in the cell window, homemade weights, a plastic spork from
the cafeteria, unmarked medication, paper fitted to cover the cell window,
and a hanging clothesline.
° While touring another state-run prison unit, auditors observed laundry
hanging over a bathroom stall, suggesting inmates had been doing laundry
in the bathroom contrary to policy. When questioned as to whether inmates
were allowed to do laundry in the units, the control room officer was not sure
and had to check policy.
Noncompliance indicates further improvement needed—Noncompliance
in these various areas indicates that the Department should take additional actions
to improve compliance because noncompliance, however limited, may create
opportunities for security incidents to occur. For example, failure to properly search
the personal property of persons entering the prison units could provide opportunity
for these persons to introduce contraband into the prisons. One possible factor
contributing to noncompliance—a factor also suggested by some department offi-cials—
is insufficient enforcement of policies and procedures by supervisors. The
Department has mechanisms in place designed to hold staff accountable for com-pliance
with policies and procedures, starting with an official policy stating that all
employees and supervisors shall be held accountable and responsible for compli-ance
with department policies and procedures. According to department officials,
one of the Director’s priorities is strict and uniform compliance with department
policy. Further, department policy requires regular performance evaluations and has
established employee disciplinary procedures that include investigations into
employee misconduct, failure to perform duties, and alleged criminal activity.
Disciplinary actions the Department may take include written reprimands, suspen-sion
without pay, and dismissal.
Although ensuring the appropriate use of these accountability mechanisms may
help address noncompliance issues, a more systemic view includes examining
According to department
officials, one of the
Director’s priorities is the
strict and uniform
compliance with
department policy.
page 28
State of Arizona
whether other weaknesses contribute to the problem. Auditors identified three
areas in which the Department should take additional steps to improve compliance.
The sections that follow discuss each one in turn.
Department should further improve monitoring practices
to enhance oversight of security operations
One area in which oversight improvements can be made is using the information that
is gathered to monitor compliance trends. As discussed in Finding 1 (see pages 9
through 19), the GAR inspection and revised annual audit tool appear to be an
improvement to the Department’s monitoring procedures. However, to further
enhance its oversight of security operations, the Department should implement its
plan to analyze monitoring data collected through these tools for compliance trends
and investigate causes of noncompliance to help ensure they are addressed through
corrective action. The Department should also periodically assess correctional
officers’ enforcement of inmate regulations through its annual audit.
Department should implement its plan to analyze monitoring data
for compliance trends and identify and address causes of non-compliance—
The Department collects a significant amount of information on
compliance with security policies and procedures through the GAR inspection and
revised annual audit tool. Department officials reported that this information could
be useful for identifying potential training needs or potential revisions to policies
and procedures. Although the Department has not yet begun to formally analyze
the data, department officials reported that they plan to do so in 2012, after col-lecting
data from the GAR inspections and revised audit tool for a year. Doing so
would help the Department identify systemic or repeat noncompliance issues. For
example, as mentioned previously (see page 23), department inspectors found
that correctional officers failed to comply with department policies related to prop-erly
searching/scanning staff’s or others’ personal property, including food, at 12
of the 17 units inspected during the 2011 annual audits of the Eyman, Lewis, and
Yuma prisons. This suggests systemic noncompliance with this department policy.
Additionally, analyzing monitoring data would help the Department identify
compliance trends that it should further investigate to determine underlying causes
for noncompliance. Although noncompliance may result from isolated incidents of
human error or negligence, systemic or repeated noncompliance may indicate
underlying issues that should be further investigated. One of the limitations of both
the GAR inspection and the annual audit tool is that, although they find and report
instances of noncompliance, they generally do not assess the underlying causes
for noncompliance. Consequently, corrective action taken to address findings may
not address those causes. For example, corrective action reported by various
prison units to address the annual audit findings related to employees’ or others’
The Department reported
that it plans to begin
formally analyzing data
from its GAR inspections
and annual audits in 2012.
page 29
Office of the Auditor General
personal property not being properly searched or scanned included redirecting
officers, developing written instructions for officers assigned to those posts,
providing formal training, and increasing supervision. Although these actions may
be appropriate, because the annual audits did not determine why officers failed to
comply, they may not address underlying issues. Consequently, noncompliance
with this policy may continue. The Department reported that the results of its data
analysis will be used to direct action to enhance compliance.
Analyzing monitoring data would also be helpful in making corrective action more
consistent across prison units. Prison units develop their own corrective actions to
address findings, which may lead to inconsistencies in how issues are addressed.
For example, corrective action reported by units at one prison to address the food-search
findings generally included developing written instructions and increasing
supervision. Units at another prison reported similar actions, but also reported that
the prison had formed a committee to better address training for these officers. If
training deficiencies is indeed one of the underlying causes for noncompliance with
this policy and given the prevalence of noncompliance across several prison units,
then revised training may need to be provided to correctional officers across the
prison system. Without further investigating why officers in 12 units across three
state-run prisons failed to comply with this policy, actions taken by individual units or
prisons may not adequately ensure that noncompliance with the policy is consistently
addressed throughout the entire prison system.
Therefore, to better address noncompliance with security policies and procedures,
the Department should implement its plan to analyze its data for repeat or systemic
noncompliance trends and investigate those trends to determine the underlying
causes for noncompliance. It should then take appropriate action to ensure that
those causes are consistently addressed throughout the prison system.
Department should implement its plan to periodically assess compli-ance
with inmate regulations through its annual audit—As discussed
earlier, auditors observed several instances of officers not consistently enforcing
some inmate regulations, particularly the wearing of identification cards. Although
department officials indicated that compliance with these regulations is important,
supervisors at one prison expressed frustration about getting officers to enforce
them. According to department officials, consistency of compliance with these
regulations is indicative of whether officers are maintaining effective control of
inmates. However, as of July 2011, the annual audit did not include a review of the
inmate regulations for which auditors observed noncompliance.
As discussed in Finding 1 (see page 10), the Department expanded the scope of
the GAR inspection in July 2011 to include additional performance measures for
inmate regulations. Department officials also reported that they plan to assess
inmate regulations in the 2012 annual audit cycle based on auditors’ observations
of noncompliance with these policies. Although several competencies included in
the annual audit will be reviewed each year, the Department plans to rotate some of
Department officials
reported that they plan to
assess inmate regulations
in the 2012 annual audit
cycle.
page 30
State of Arizona
the competencies included in a given year’s annual audits based on the previous
year’s audit results, such as inmate regulations (see Finding 1, page 14).
Assessing compliance with these regulations, even periodically, may hold staff
more accountable for enforcing them.
Department should better assess training needs in areas
of systemic noncompliance
A second area in which oversight improvements can be made is using monitoring
data to assess training needs. In investigating underlying causes of noncompliance
identified during monitoring activities, the Department should assess whether
additional or improved officer training could improve compliance with security
policies and procedures. For example, as noted earlier, the Department reported
several findings related to tools that resulted from the three January through March
2011 annual audits conducted at the Eyman, Lewis, and Yuma prisons, suggesting
additional training in this area may be needed. In assessing training needs, the
Department should provide its Staff Development and Training Bureau (Bureau) with
the results of its monitoring activities. This Bureau is responsible for developing
officer training, and department policy requires that audit data be reported to the
Bureau for use in determining training needs. However, although the bureau
administrator indicated that she receives annual audit finding information through
discussions with prison management, the Bureau does not receive actual copies of
the annual audit reports.
Additionally, the Department should revise the core competency exams administered
by the Bureau to include additional questions for areas of systemic noncompliance
(see textbox). The Department uses annual core competency exams to test officers’
knowledge of policies and procedures and assess training needs. However, the
current correctional officer exam may not sufficiently assess officers’ knowledge of
policies and procedures in areas where the Department’s 2011 annual audits have
found systemic noncompliance. For example, the annual audits had numerous
findings in the areas of keys, radios, and tools; however, at
least one of the fiscal year 2011 correctional officer exams
included only one question regarding keys, two questions
regarding tools, and no questions on radios. Modifying the
exams to include additional questions in these or others
areas of systemic noncompliance would help the Department
better assess officer training needs and could lead to
improved compliance.
Finally, providing annual leadership training for supervisors
may also help reinforce accountability for compliance. The
Department provides leadership training for newly promoted supervisors, which
Core competency exams—Annual exams that test
officers’ knowledge of department policies and
procedures. The Department has different exams for
the different staff positions, such as correctional
officers, sergeants, lieutenants, etc. The fiscal year
2011 correctional officer exam included 50 multiple
choice questions on various policies and procedures.
Source: Auditor General staff review of department information.
page 31
Office of the Auditor General
includes a course on leading, motivating, coaching, and guiding staff. However, at
least in fiscal year 2011, it did not provide any leadership classes in its annual training
for supervisors. Reinforcing leadership training for supervisors through their annual
training requirements could help supervisors more effectively achieve compliance from
correctional officers. Additionally, according to department staff, one prison requested
refresher leadership training after its 2011 annual audit, which had reported numerous
findings.
Department should continue efforts to ensure adequacy
and consistency of post orders
The third area in which oversight improvements can be made is in the quality of written
instructions that correctional officers are expected to follow. Specifically, the Department
should continue its efforts to improve the adequacy and consistency of its post orders,
which are written instructions that describe the responsibilities, duties, and functions of
a particular security post or work assignment, to include specific procedures for
carrying out activities. Some post orders do not adequately address department
policies and procedures correctional officers are expected to enforce, which may
contribute to officers’ noncompliance with department policy. In addition, some post
orders could more clearly and concisely communicate critical post instructions. Finally,
the Department should continue its efforts to ensure that correctional officers and
supervisors document completion of their duties in correctional service journals as
required.
Post orders communicate correctional officers’ duties and responsi-bilities—
Post orders are a primary way in which specific job duties are communi-cated
to correctional officers. The division director of offender operations maintains
a list of authorized posts for which post orders can be written. Deputy wardens are
responsible for the development of post orders for their units, and department poli-cy
requires post orders to be reviewed at least annually. Officers are responsible for
reading and understanding post orders, and some post orders auditors reviewed
required officers to periodically read them and sign an acknowledgement sheet that
they have done so. The Department’s use of post orders is consistent with stan-dards
for adult correctional institutions promulgated by the American Correctional
Association.
Post orders do not consistently address department policies and pro-cedures—
Auditors found that post orders do not consistently address depart-ment
policies and procedures that correctional officers are expected to enforce. This
may contribute to some officers not complying with department policy. For example,
in one state-run prison’s annual audit, department inspectors reported that the post
orders at all five of the prison’s units did not provide any guidelines for the inspection
of food items or their need to be carried through the metal detector. Department
Reinforcing leadership
training for supervisors
could help them more
effectively achieve
compliance from
correctional officers.
page 32
State of Arizona
inspectors found that food items were not required to be carried through the metal
detector at three of the prison’s five units, contrary to department policy. Further,
auditors found similar issues with post order content in their review of eight post
orders for the posts of housing unit security officers at six medium-custody prison
units across five state-run prisons. These post orders had effective dates between
November 2010 and April 2011. Specifically, auditors found that the reviewed post
orders did not consistently include department policy and procedure require-ments.
For example:
• Although department policy requires officers to conduct an inventory of keys
at the beginning and end of each shift, five of the eight post orders required
beginning and ending inventories of keys. One post order required only a
beginning key inventory. Another post order required a security device
inspection that included keys. The last post order required the arriving security
officer to ask the departing officer, “Have you turned in your keys and radios?”
No other reference to key inventories is made in this post order.
• Although department policy requires inmates to wear their identification cards
on the upper chest when outside the housing unit, only one unit’s post order
specifically mentioned this requirement. Another post order required officers
to ensure inmates were in grooming/dress compliance and also properly
wearing inmate identification cards, but did not specifically state that
identification cards should be worn on the upper chest. A third post order
requires inmates to possess an identification card. Three post orders discuss
inmate regulation compliance, but make no mention of wearing photo
identification cards. The last two post orders made no mention of inmate
regulation compliance requirements at all.
Some post orders are clear and concise; others are not—Auditors
found that some post orders reviewed clearly and concisely communicated
instructions specific to their posts. For example, these post orders were relatively
short, had important duties placed up front, and contained clear instructions for
required entries in the correctional service journals (see page 34 for additional
information on correctional service journals). However, other post orders were
lengthy and included general instructions applicable to multiple posts, such as
how to do a pat search and how to handle requests for protective segregation.
This may obscure important information unique to a post. Auditors’ findings were
similar to statements made by some correctional officers that post orders were
lengthy and that it was cumbersome to identify the post-specific duties in them or
changes when they are revised.
Further, clear and concise post orders could help officers temporarily assigned to
unfamiliar posts properly follow security policies and procedures. As discussed in
the Introduction (see page 7), the Department addresses daily staffing shortages
by assigning staff from one unit to temporarily work in another unit, a process
called cross-leveling. According to one warden, cross-leveled officers are
Post orders did not
consistently include
department policy and
procedure requirements.
page 33
Office of the Auditor General
expected to become familiar with the orders for the posts they are temporarily
assigned to. Clear and concise post orders would help cross-leveled officers quickly
understand these duties, especially if the cross-leveled officer is assigned to a post
with higher-custody inmates than the officer is accustomed to staffing as these
posts have more stringent security procedures. Failure to comply with the post
orders for unfamiliar posts could affect security. For example, in one monthly security
report from October 2010, a deputy warden stated that cross-leveled officers
assigned to her unit were not familiar with her unit’s policies and procedures, which
caused issues related to opening and closing inmate housing unit doors. Although
this security report did not clarify what those issues were, auditors’ review of a
January 2010 department investigation illustrated the importance of properly moving
inmates in and out of cells. Specifically, according to this investigation, and contrary
to department policy, an officer failed to restrain an inmate already in a cell when
placing another inmate back into the same cell. As a result the unrestrained inmate
assaulted the officer, causing extreme injuries that eventually led to the officer’s
leaving the Department.
Department should continue with its efforts to improve post orders—
To improve their effectiveness, the Department should continue with its efforts to
ensure that all post orders clearly and concisely convey the critical duties and
responsibilities required by department policy for each authorized post. Specifically:
• The Department has implemented a general post order, effective September 1,
2011, that defines general duties and responsibilities applicable to all posts. This
will allow the Department to remove content that is covered by the general post
order from the existing post orders, which will help ensure that post orders are
concise. This could also help ensure that post orders clearly convey required
post-specific duties to new and cross-leveled correctional officers who may be
unfamiliar with the posts. According to the Department, wardens are responsible
for removing general post order content from the existing post orders by
November 2011.
• The Department next plans to review and standardize post orders for similar
posts throughout the prison system. This should ensure greater uniformity in
post orders for similar positions. The Department plans to establish one or more
working committees to accomplish this task. According to the Department, the
committee(s) will include correctional officers as well as supervisory and
management staff. Once standardized post order language is developed,
wardens will have the flexibility to include additional duties in the post orders
according to the needs of their specific facilities or units. The Department
estimates that this effort will take approximately 6 months to complete. In
implementing this phase, the Department should ensure that the standardized
content for each post order addresses the applicable department policy and
procedure requirements that correctional officers are expected to enforce.
The Department
implemented a general
post order, effective
September 2011, that
defines general duties and
responsibilities for all
posts.
page 34
State of Arizona
Department should ensure correctional service journals appropri-ately
used—Post orders not only describe specific procedures for carrying out
activities, they also define the activities and events that officers are to record in
correctional service journals (see textbox). These journals are an important
accountability mechanism for officers and supervisors to document completion of
their required duties. As described in one post order, the correctional service jour-nal
“is a legal document/record and must contain an accurate record and account
of all activities.” However, in the three January through March 2011 annual audits
auditors reviewed, department inspectors reported several findings related to cor-rectional
service journal entries, including:
• Failure to document required key and tool inventories;
• Inconsistent or incomplete entries for security device problems;
• Failure to document searches of interior and exterior common areas;
• Failure to document the reason for an inmate’s absence during the
search of his living area;
• No entries documenting that the shift commander or on-site duty
officer toured the visitation area; and
• Failure to document the opening of emergency key boxes or that
two officers were present when the box seal was broken.
The Department reported that it has taken action to ensure compliance with
correctional service journal requirements. Specifically, the Department revised the
correctional service journal form in late August 2011 to improve supervisory review
of journal entries. According to the Department, the revised form will require
supervisory reviews by the shift commander, chief of security, and deputy warden,
and completed service journal forms will be discussed at each prison unit’s
morning meetings. The Department should continue its efforts to ensure that
correctional officers and supervisors record entries in correctional service journals
as required and that these journals undergo supervisory review.
Correctional service journal—A journal used by correctional officers to document completion
of their duties and other events that occur during a shift for a particular post. Entries are
required for inmate movement or passes issued, yard closures and emergency announcements,
orders and directives, shift activities, events and routine actions such as inmate security and fire
checks, beginning and ending inventories of keys or tools, formal and informal inmate counts,
identification of cells searched, medical service visits, special observations, security incidents,
and other activities. The entries include a brief description of the activity, the time of occurrence,
and the officer’s initials. Supervisors are required to regularly inspect and initial service journals
and make an entry in the journal to record their post inspections.
Source: Auditor General staff review of department policies and procedures, post orders, and correctional service journals.
page 35
Office of the Auditor General
Recommendations:
2.1 The Department should enhance its monitoring of officer compliance with
policies and procedures by:
a. Implementing its plan to analyze the GAR inspection and annual audit data
to identify trends and patterns in noncompliance to identify systemic or
repeat compliance issues.
b. Further investigating underlying causes of noncompliance trends identified
through its analysis and taking appropriate actions to consistently address
those causes throughout the prison system.
c. Assessing correctional officers’ enforcement of inmate regulations through
its annual audit as planned for the 2012 audit cycle and periodically
thereafter.
2.2 The Department should improve its assessment of officer training needs by:
a. Providing the Staff Development and Training Bureau with the results of its
monitoring activities, including the annual audits, to help determine training
needs.
b. Revising its core competency exams to include additional questions for
areas of systemic noncompliance identified through department monitoring
activities.
2.3 The Department should develop and implement additional leadership training for
supervisors as part of their required annual training.
2.4 The Department should implement its plans to revise its post orders by removing
content included in the new general post order from the existing post orders and
standardizing post order content as appropriate for similar posts across the
prison system. In doing so, the Department should ensure that the standardized
content for each post order addresses the applicable department policy and
procedure requirements that correctional officers are expected to enforce.
2.5 The Department should continue its efforts to ensure that correctional officers
and supervisors record entries in correctional service journals as required and
that these journals undergo required supervisory review.
page 36
State of Arizona
APPENDIX A
page 37
Office of the Auditor General
How department capital improvement
projects are funded
As part of the audit,
auditors gathered other
pertinent information
regarding how the
Department of Corrections’
(Department) capital
improvement projects,
including building renewal
projects, are funded.
Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) §41-790 defines
building renewal as “major
activities that involve the
repair or reworking of a
building and the supporting
infrastructure that will result
in maintaining a building’s
expected useful life.” The
Department identifies its
capital improvement needs
and requests funding to
address those needs as
part of the annual
budgeting process through
its capital improvement
plan. Although the
Department has received
some capital improvement
monies, department
officials reported that
unmet physical facility
needs jeopardize its
mission to safely and
securely incarcerate
inmates and protect the
public.
Legislature established dedicated department building renew-al
fund in 2011—Although the Department received some monies for
capital improvement through the Department of Administration, in 2011, the
Legislature created a building renewal fund through which it appropriates
monies directly to the Department. Specifically, A.R.S. §41-797 establishes
a Department of Corrections building renewal fund that consists of monies
received from various corrections revenue streams, such as inmate store
proceeds and fees for conducting background checks on visitors, and is
subject to legislative appropriation. The fund is to be used for projects that
repair or rework buildings and supporting infrastructure under the
Department’s control that maintain a building’s expected useful life. The
fund may not be used for new building or infrastructure additions, landscap-ing
and area beautification, building demolition and removal, or routine
preventative maintenance, but the Department may use up to 8 percent of
annual fund expenditures for routine preventative maintenance. Laws 2011,
Ch. 25, appropriated about $4.63 million to the fund for fiscal year 2012.
Department received little capital improvement funding in fiscal
years 2008 through 2012—As shown in Table 3, the Department
received a small percentage of its capital improvement requests in each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012. To offset this shortfall, the Department
reported that it has reallocated general operating funds and delayed gen-eral
physical plant maintenance, repair, and improvement needs. For
example, according to department staff, the Department spent approxi-mately
$290,000 on department-funded capital improvement projects in
fiscal year 2011, which included replacing carpet at its central office, replac-
Fiscal
Year
Amount
Requested
Amount
Received
Percent
Received
2008 $186,926,645 $6,831,859 3.7%
2009 277,452,579 46,321 0.0
2010 233,809,487 108,503 0.0
2011 253,220,272 480,516 0.2
2012 164,946,218 4,630,500 2.8
Table 3: Department Capital Improvement Requests and
Funding Received
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Department’s fiscal years 2008 through
2012 capital improvement plan transmittal letters, information provided by the
Department of Administration, and Laws 2011, Ch. 25.
OTHER
PERTINENT
INFORMATION
page 38
State of Arizona
ing a generator at the Globe unit of the Florence prison, and converting some cells
to detention beds at the Cimarron unit of the Tucson prison.
Unmet physical plant needs pose security risks—Department officials
reported that ongoing unmet physical plant needs have become a major issue
throughout the agency and jeopardize the Department’s mission. For example, in
its fiscal year 2012 capital improvement plan, dated June 23, 2010, the Department
requested $37.5 million to repair or replace security doors, locking systems, and
control systems in all ten state-run prisons. This request included more than $3.2
million for replacements at one prison where a January 2010 department investiga-tion
found that inmates at one unit were able to open their cell doors despite the
door control system showing the doors were secured. In its fiscal year 2012 capital
improvement plan, the Department also requested $5.3 million to replace nine
electronic perimeter security systems at six state-run prisons because these sys-tems
required significant maintenance to keep operational and experienced fre-quent
false alarms. Malfunctioning perimeter security systems not only pose secu-rity
risks, but place additional burdens on department staff as additional correc-tional
officers are posted at the perimeter until the system is repaired.
page a-i
Office of the Auditor General
This appendix provides
information on the methods
auditors used to meet the
audit objectives.
This performance audit was
conducted in accordance
with generally accepted
government auditing
standards. Those
standards require that we
plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis
for our findings and
conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence
obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions
based on our audit
objectives.
The Auditor General and
staff express appreciation
to the Department of
Corrections' (Department)
Director and his staff for
their cooperation and
assistance throughout the
audit.
Methodology
Auditors used the following specific methods to meet their objectives:
• To review changes the Department has made to its processes and
practices for monitoring contracted private prisons since the July 2010
escapes from the Kingman private prison, auditors interviewed department
officials and contract monitoring staff and reviewed various department
reports and other documents, including the Department’s August 2010
investigation report on the escapes and its August 2010 security
assessments of the contracted private prisons following the escapes;
department policies and procedures related to private prison oversight;
the Department’s Green Amber Red (GAR) inspection tool and the
February and March 2011 GAR inspection reports for the private prisons;
the Department’s new annual audit tool, the March and November 2010
department audits of the Kingman private prison, and the March 2011
department audit of the Marana private prison; the Department’s original
and revised Requests for Proposals for the 5,000 additional private prison
beds required by Laws 2009, 3rd S.S., Ch. 6; and the position description
for the department contract monitor position. Auditors also reviewed
Arizona statutes regarding the use of private prison contracts, private
prison monitoring practices recommended by the Association of State
Correctional Administrators, and monitoring standards published by the
U.S. Government Accountability Office.1,2 Finally, auditors toured the
Florence West private prison in December 2010 with department contract
monitoring staff.
• To assess the Department’s enforcement of security policies and
procedures at state-run prisons, auditors reviewed applicable department
policies and procedures; information provided by department staff on
reported significant incidents, including assaults that occurred between
December 2009 and December 2010 and contraband detected between
July 2009 and January 2011; and other documents related to officer
training curricula and officer training needs assessments. Additionally,
auditors reviewed:
° Case files for 17 administrative and 9 criminal investigations
conducted by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General in
calendar years 2009 and 2010 that related to safety or security
incidents.
1 Crane, R. (n.d.). Monitoring correctional services provided by private firms. Middleton, CT: Association of State
Correctional Administrators.
2 United States General Accounting Office. (1999). Standards for internal control in the federal government [GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1]. Washington, DC: Author.
APPENDIX A
page a-ii
State of Arizona
° Audit reports and other documentation related to three department annual
audits conducted at the Lewis state prison in January 2011, the Yuma state
prison in February 2011, and the Eyman state prison in March 2011.
° A sample of eight post orders for the posts of housing unit security officers
at six medium-custody prison units at five state-run prisons.
In addition, auditors also toured Lewis prison in December 2010; conducted
observations with department inspectors during their annual audits of Lewis
prison in January 2011 and Eyman prison in March 2011; and conducted
additional observations at Lewis prison in March 2011 and at Eyman prison in
March and May 2011 to assess compliance with selected policies and
procedures. Auditors also interviewed department officials, as well as correctional
officers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, deputy wardens, and wardens at
Lewis and Eyman prisons. Finally, auditors reviewed management oversight
standards published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and prison
operation standards published by the American Correctional Association.1,2,
• To obtain additional information used in the Other Pertinent Information section
of the report on how department capital improvement projects are funded,
including building renewal projects, auditors reviewed information from the
Department’s capital improvement plans for fiscal years 2008 through 2012,
and information provided by department staff regarding department-funded
capital improvement projects. Auditors also reviewed information provided by
Department of Administration staff regarding capital improvement monies
allocated to the Department for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and Laws 2011,
Ch. 25 and Ch. 33, which established a Department of Corrections building
renewal fund.
• To obtain additional information used in the Introduction section, auditors
reviewed the Department’s 5-year strategic plan for fiscal years 2012 through
2016; the ADC Institutional Capacity Committed Population report for June 30,
2011; department policies and procedures related to inmate classification,
prison security operations, and procedures for addressing daily staffing
shortages; information provided by department staff regarding the number of
full-time equivalent positions, staff vacancies, and fiscal year 2011 overtime
expenditures; and other information from the Department’s Web site.
• Auditors’ work on internal controls focused on the Department’s policies and
procedures related to enforcement of prison security operations and the
Department’s monitoring of contracted private prisons. Auditors also evaluated
1 United States General Accounting Office. (1999). Standards for internal control in the federal government [GAO/AIMD-
00-21.3.1]. Washington, DC: Author.
2 American Correctional Association. (2003). Standards for adult correctional institutions (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Correctional Association. (2010). 2010 Standards supplement. Alexandria, VA: Author.
page a-iii
Office of the Auditor General
the Department’s implementation of two new controls—the GAR inspections and
revised annual audit procedures. Auditors’ conclusions on these internal controls
are reported in Findings 1 and 2 of this report.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
10-08 Department of Corrections—
Prison Population Growth
10-L1 Office of Pest Management—
Regulation
10-09 Arizona Sports and Tourism
Authority
11-01 Department of Public Safety—
Followup on Specific
Recommendations from
Previous Audits and Sunset
Factors
11-02 Arizona State Board of Nursing
11-03 Arizona Department of Veterans’
Services—Fiduciary Program
11-04 Arizona Medical Board
11-05 Pinal County Transportation
Excise Tax
11-06 Arizona Department of Veterans’
Services—Veteran Home
09-09 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Suicide Prevention
and Violence and Abuse
Reduction Efforts
09-10 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Sunset Factors
09-11 Department of Health Services—
Sunset Factors
10-01 Office of Pest Management—
Restructuring
10-02 Department of Public Safety—
Photo Enforcement Program
10-03 Arizona State Lottery
Commission and Arizona State
Lottery
10-04 Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality
Assurance Inspection Programs
10-05 Arizona Department of Housing
10-06 Board of Chiropractic Examiners
10-07 Arizona Department of
Agriculture—Sunset Factors
Future Performance Audit Division reports
Department of Corrections—Sunset Factors
Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services—Veterans’ Donations and Military Family Relief Funds
Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services and Arizona Veterans’ Service Advisory Commission—Sunset
Factors