Sunset review, Arizona Department of juvenile corrections, sunset factors

              Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Sunset Review
Arizona Department of
Juvenile Corrections—
Sunset Factors
Performance Audit Division
September • 2009
REPORT NO. 09-10
A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
The 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 operations 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
Melanie M. Chesney, Director
Dale Chapman, Manager and Contact Person
Michael Nickelsburg, Team Leader
Pamela Niesl
Shannon Strumpfer
Senator Thayer Verschoor, Chair Representative Judy Burges, Vice-Chair
Senator Pamela Gorman Representative Tom Boone
Senator John Huppenthal Representative Cloves Campbell, Jr.
Senator Richard Miranda Representative Rich Crandall
Senator Rebecca Rios Representative Kyrsten Sinema
Senator Bob Burns (ex-officio) Representative Kirk Adams (ex-officio)
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 28, 2009
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janice K. Brewer, Governor
Michael Branham, Director
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Sunset Review of the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections (Department). This report is in response to an October
5, 2006, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and was conducted as part of
the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes §41-2951 et seq.
Included with this report is a written response from the Department.
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 29, 2009.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Attachment
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page i
Introduction & Background 1
Sunset Factors 7
Table:
1 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
(Unaudited) 5
Agency Response
State of Arizona
page ii
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a review of the Arizona Department
of Juvenile Corrections (Department) using the 12 criteria in Arizona’s sunset law. The
analysis of the 12 sunset factors was conducted pursuant to an October 5, 2006,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and prepared as part of the sunset
review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq.
This sunset review is the last in a series of three reports on the Department. The other
two reports were performance audits of the Department’s Rehabilitation and
Community Re-entry Programs and the Department’s Suicide Prevention and
Violence and Abuse Reduction Efforts.
Department’s purpose is juvenile rehabilitation
The Department’s mission is to enhance public protection by changing the
delinquent thinking and behaviors of juvenile offenders under its jurisdiction. To help
accomplish this mission, the Department operates four correctional facilities (also
called secure care facilities) and supervises juveniles on parole in the community.
The Department’s secure care facilities are located in Phoenix, Tucson, and Buckeye
and as of July 30, 2009, the Department reported housing 506 juveniles. The
Department provides various services to juveniles in these facilities, including
rehabilitation and treatment programming, education and vocational rehabilitation,
and medical care.
The Department’s services to juveniles who are on parole include assistance with
education, jobs, out-of-home placement, and counseling. As of July 30, 2009, the
Department reported supervising 488 juveniles on parole and 138 juveniles from
other states in Arizona under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles.1 The Department
operates three parole offices in Maricopa County, including a Day and Evening
Support Center where it provides services to juveniles, and one parole office in Pima
County. The Department also employs parole officers located throughout the State to
cover the remaining 13 counties.
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
page 1
1 A.R.S. §8-363 requires the Department to supervise juveniles who have been placed on probation or parole by another
state, but who reside in Arizona, according to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles. Likewise, other states supervise
Arizona juveniles who have been placed on probation or parole, but do not reside in the State. According to the
Department, most of the out-of-state juveniles it supervises are on probation.
Under Arizona’s juvenile court process, a relatively small portion of juveniles who are
found delinquent are actually placed under the Department’s jurisdiction. In fact,
most juveniles who are 8 years old and older who have not reached their 18th
birthday and are found to be delinquent by the juvenile court are placed on probation.
According to department data for juveniles committed to the Department for the first
time in fiscal year 2008, over half of these juveniles had been adjudicated as
delinquent four or more times. The most common offenses committed by these
juveniles were class six felonies (34.1 percent) or misdemeanors (22.9 percent).
Class six felonies include indecent exposure to a person under 15 and possession
of less than 2 pounds of marijuana not intended for sale. Misdemeanors include
offenses such as criminal trespass in the second degree and shoplifting property
with a value less than $1,000. Some juveniles are committed to the Department for
more serious offenses such as homicide, robbery, and motor vehicle theft.
Organization
The Department is divided into five units and reported 1,050.7 authorized FTE (full-time
equivalent) positions as of August 21, 2009, including 23.5 vacancies. The
Department is organized as follows:
 Executive Staff (14 FTE, 0 vacancies)—Provides leadership to the Department
through the Director’s Office and daily operations oversight through the Deputy
Director’s Office, creates and communicates to the public the annual legislative
agenda through the Communications and Legislative Policy Division, and
conducts research and development.
 Inspections and Investigations (19 FTE, 0 vacancies)—Uses both law
enforcement and administrative authority to conduct investigations of
department staff or juveniles concerning any allegation of criminal action,
misconduct, and noncompliance with state and department rules and
regulations.
 Operations—Conducts the Department’s day-to-day functions within the
following five areas:
• Safe Schools (683 FTE, 9.5 vacancies)—Manages the day-to-day
operations at each of the Department’s four correctional facilities (also
called secure care facilities), including the juveniles who are housed in, and
the staff who work in, these facilities. At these facilities, the Department
provides supervised, secure housing that includes management of the
juveniles’ behavior, secured building perimeters, and the safe and secure
transportation of juveniles to appointments outside of the facilities.
Additionally, the Department provides rehabilitation programming to all
State of Arizona
page 2
juveniles at its secure care facilities to try to change their delinquent thinking
and actions. Further, the Department has specialty treatment units that
provide mental health, chemical dependency, and sex offender treatment.
• Medical Services (62.5 FTE, 5 vacancies)—Provides medical and mental
health services, nursing, pharmacy, and dental services; and refers
committed juveniles to off-site hospitals and specialty healthcare providers
when necessary.
• Behavioral Health (10 FTE, 2 vacancies)—Provides treatment services and
mental health services to juveniles in secure care.
• Education (96 FTE, 6 vacancies)—Operates schools at each of the four
secure care facilities. These schools are accredited through the North
Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School
Improvement (NCA CASI). The accreditation allows credits earned while
attending one of the secure care schools to be transferred to other schools
upon a juvenile’s release from secure care, and juveniles can earn an
eighth-grade certificate or a high school diploma from the Department’s
schools. The Department is also a designated GED test site, providing GED
testing to juveniles throughout the year. Additionally, it provides special
education services in accordance with federal requirements. Juveniles can
also enroll in community college and earn credit online. Finally, the
Department offers vocational services to juveniles to teach them practical
job skills such as building trades, automotive, cosmetology, medical
transcription, computer-aided drafting, fire science, and culinary arts.
• Community Corrections (67.5 FTE, 1 vacancy)—Operates a system of
community-based programs to supervise and rehabilitate juveniles in the
least restrictive environment once released from secure care on parole,
consistent with public safety and the juvenile’s needs. The Department also
operates a Day and Evening Support Center in Phoenix where it provides
services to juveniles in the community and reported that it is planning to
open additional centers around the State. Services provided to juveniles
while on parole through the Department’s contracts with community
providers include individual and family counseling, residential services, and
drug testing.
 Quality Assurance (10 FTE, 0 vacancies)—Conducts inspections and audits
(including formal comprehensive audits at each secure care facility every 6
months, as well as follow-up audits), performs data analysis, develops policy
recommendations, and conducts training evaluations. Quality Assurance
reports directly to the Department’s Director.
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
 Support Services (88.7 FTE, 0 vacancies)—Oversees fiscal management,
procurement, human resources, information systems, staff development, and
facilities administration. Support Services also includes the Legal Systems
Division, which provides legal expertise to the Department, including a liaison to
the Attorney General’s Office; due process hearing officers; policy and
procedure specialists; victim’s rights advocates; and four juvenile
ombudsmen—one at each secure care facility.
Budget
As illustrated in Table 1 (see page 5), the Department relies largely on State General
Fund appropriations to pay for its operations, but these appropriations decreased
significantly in fiscal year 2009. Specifically, department revenues totaled nearly
$89.5 million in fiscal year 2007, more than $87.6 million in fiscal year 2008 and more
than $81.5 million in fiscal year 2009. State General Fund appropriations accounted
for 89 to 91 percent of these revenues annually. However, the Department’s State
General Fund appropriation decreased from more than $80 million in fiscal year 2008
to approximately $72.4 million in fiscal year 2009, a decrease of 9.5 percent.
Additionally, the Department receives other revenues. These include a share of
earnings from the sale or lease of state trust lands and interest earned on these
monies as required by A.R.S. §37-525, state and federal monies for education, and
federal grants. In fiscal year 2009, these revenues totaled more than $2.5 million,
nearly $4.9 million, and nearly $300,000, respectively. Finally, in accordance with
A.R.S. §§41-2812 and 41-2826, the Department receives limited monies collected
from parents for the maintenance of juveniles committed to the Department, which
the Department uses to pay juveniles for community work, and which the juveniles
then use for victim restitution. According to a department official, the Department
receives an average of $51.75 a month from those parents who are ordered by the
court to pay and actually do so.
For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, department expenditures totaled more than $87.9
million and $87.65 million, respectively, and its fiscal year 2009 expenditures
decreased to nearly $82.1 million. The majority of the expenditures were for salaries
and employee-related expenditures, which totaled more than $66 million in fiscal year
2007, $68.8 million in fiscal year 2008, and $66.1 million in fiscal year 2009. The
Department also had other operating expenditures of more than $9.6 million in fiscal
year 2007 and more than $9.5 million in both fiscal years 2008 and 2009, which
consisted of operating costs associated with its secure care facilities, such as
utilities, maintenance and repair, and supplies.
The Legislature has appropriated nearly $70.8 million to the Department for fiscal
year 2010. This appropriation consists of more than $66.6 million in State General
Fund monies as well as appropriations of education and state trust land monies.
State of Arizona
page 4
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
2007 2008 2009
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $79,923,370 $80,019,516 $72,403,682
Intergovernmental 6,420,748 5,173,384 5,684,770
Land earnings1 2,221,724 1,498,728 2,531,939
Fines, forfeits, and penalties 739,318 765,562 770,929
Other 166,499 161,161 136,805
Total revenues 89,471,659 87,618,351 81,528,125
Expenditures:2
Personal services and related benefits 66,047,986 68,823,023 66,144,217
Professional and outside services 6,031,461 4,380,358 3,365,806
Travel 1,008,690 915,707 801,493
Food 1,041,135 1,184,921 1,284,764
Other operating 9,653,739 9,547,772 9,529,111
Equipment 4,148,455 2,798,261 964,639
Total expenditures 87,931,466 87,650,042 82,090,030
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures 1,540,193 (31,691) (561,905)
Other financing uses:
Remittances to the State General Fund 126,754 135,432 95,973
Net operating transfers out3 175,034 300,257 612,464
Total other financing uses 301,788 435,689 708,437
Net change in fund balances 1,238,405 (467,380) (1,270,342)
Fund balance, beginning of year 2,620,772 3,859,177 3,391,797
Fund balance, end of year $ 3,859,177 $ 3,391,797 $ 2,121,455
Table 1: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
(Unaudited)
1 Consists of the Department’s share of revenues from certain state lands, including the sale and lease of state trust
lands and interest earned on these monies, as established by A.R.S. §37-525.
2 Includes administrative adjustments from the prior year.
3 Operating transfers out for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 include $300,000 and $365,000, respectively, transferred to
the State General Fund as required by Laws 2008, Ch. 53, §2; Laws 2008, Ch. 285, §24; and Laws 2009, 1st S.
S., Ch. 1, §§4, 5, and 7.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS) Accounting Event
Transaction File for fiscal years 2007 through 2009; and for fund balances, the AFIS Management Information
System Status of General Ledger-—Trial Balance screen for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
However, the $70.8 million appropriation represents nearly an $11.6 million decrease
from its original $82.4 million appropriation for fiscal year 2009. According to a
department official, the Department has taken various actions to respond to this
reduced funding. These steps include the following:
 Closing 5 of its 25 housing units at its secure care facilities;
 Eliminating 150 positions by not filling some vacant positions and laying off
employees;
 Eliminating all employee stipends, including stipends for special education
teachers, uniform allowances, and travel costs for department staff who work at
the Eagle Point facility located in Buckeye;
 Reducing pay for uncovered employees grade 21 and above by 5 percent;
 Reducing monies budgeted for overtime; and
 Reducing operating expenses in connection with the reduced number of
juveniles in secure care.
Scope and methodology
The Department’s performance was analyzed in accordance with the 12 statutory
sunset factors. Audit work in the following areas provided a basis for response to the
sunset factors:
 Rehabilitation and Community Re-entry Programs (Auditor General Report No.
09-02).
 Suicide Prevention and Violence and Abuse Reduction Efforts (Auditor General
Report No. 09-09).
Auditors also relied on information obtained from department officials, reports, and
policies and procedures; Arizona statutes; the Governor’s Office; the Department’s
Web site; the AFIS Accounting Event Transaction File for fiscal years 2007 through
2009; and the AFIS Management Information System Status of General Ledger—Trial
Balance screen for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
This 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 their appreciation to the Department’s Director
and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the review.
State of Arizona
page 6
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2954, the Legislature
should consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections (Department) should be continued or terminated.
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the Department.
A.R.S. §41-2802 established the Department in 1990 by separating it from the
Department of Corrections after a lawsuit was filed over the treatment of
juveniles. A.R.S. §41-2802 charges the Department with “the supervision,
rehabilitation, treatment, and education of all committed youth,” and A.R.S. §41-
2831 also requires the Department to establish a state education system for
committed youth. The Department characterizes its education system as similar
to a school district and, in accordance with statute, receives equalization
assistance to help cover the costs of providing education to committed
juveniles.
In 1986, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of Corrections alleging
various civil rights violations, including lack of rehabilitative treatment,
confinement of juveniles in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and not providing special education according to state and
federal requirements.1 Following its separation from the Department of
Corrections, the Department entered into a consent decree with the plaintiffs in
1993 in which it agreed to: develop programs to address juveniles’ individual
treatment needs, assess juveniles’ special education needs, maintain
appropriate services for special education students, and meet several other
programmatic requirements. The lawsuit was dismissed in 1998 based on the
Department’s compliance with the decree.
The Department defines its role as promoting public safety through managing
juvenile correctional facilities, and by developing and providing a continuum of
services to juvenile offenders, including rehabilitation, treatment, and education.
Its mission is to enhance public protection by changing the delinquent thinking
and behaviors of juvenile offenders committed to the Department.
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
SUNSET FACTORS
1 Johnson v. Upchurch, CIV-86-195, U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Ariz.
State of Arizona
page 8
2. The effectiveness with which the Department has met its objective and purpose
and the efficiency with which it has operated.
A basic measure of the Department’s effectiveness in meeting its mission to
change the delinquent thinking and behavior of juveniles committed to its care
is the rate at which these juveniles re-offend or the rate of recidivism. The
Department defines recidivism as a juvenile’s return to custody with either the
Department or the Department of Corrections and measures it at two points—
return to custody within 12 months and within 36 months of release. Between
2002 and 2005, approximately 33 percent of juveniles released from the
Department had returned to custody within 12 months of their release.1 Further,
for juveniles released in 2004, 54 percent of them had returned to custody within
36 months of their release. For those juveniles released in 2005 who returned to
secure care, according to department data, 59 percent returned because they
committed a new delinquent offense and 41 percent returned for violating the
terms of their parole.
The Department also uses various other measures to determine its
effectiveness. For example, the Department measures educational success
through the number of high school diplomas, GEDs, eighth-grade certificates,
and other certificates, such as culinary or cosmetology, earned by juveniles, and
through improvements in educational assessment test scores. For example, in
the 2008 academic year, the Department issued 40 high school diplomas. The
Department also tracks measures of the safety at its facilities by tracking the
number of juvenile-on-juvenile assaults, fights, and the number of self-injurious
behaviors and suicide attempts. The number of department-reported juvenile-on-
juvenile fights and assaults declined in 2008 (See Sunset Factor No. 3, page
14 for more information).
One factor that potentially affects the Department’s ability to effectively
rehabilitate the juveniles committed to its care is that it must discharge juveniles
when they turn 18 in accordance with A.R.S. §8-246(B). In fact, the majority of
juveniles committed to the Department are discharged from its jurisdiction not
because they complete rehabilitative treatment, but because they turn 18 and
must be discharged. According to department data, 86 percent of its juvenile
population was released from 2002 through 2005 because they turned 18. Only
4.6 percent of its juvenile population earned an absolute discharge during this
time, meaning the juvenile completed his/her treatment and rehabilitation and
showed a reasonable probability that he/she would obey the law. Department
data shows that juveniles who complete their treatment and receive an absolute
discharge from the Department are less likely to re-offend than those who “age
out” of the Department’s jurisdiction.
1 Although it is difficult to compare the Department’s recidivism rates with those reported by other states because of state
differences in determining these rates, the Department compares its recidivism rate to the rates reported by five other
states that measure recidivism in a similar way: Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Virginia. These states reported
12-month recidivism rates ranging from 23 to 45 percent.
Office of the Auditor General
page 9
One contributing factor to the high percentage of age-related discharges is that
the Department receives many adjudicated juveniles 2 years or less before their
18th birthday. In fiscal year 2008, 64 percent of juveniles were 16 or older when
committed to the Department for the first time. In some cases, this does not
provide sufficient time for these juveniles to complete treatment programming.
Although many factors outside of the Department’s control can influence
recidivism, the Department attempts to address those factors it can potentially
affect by assessing the rehabilitative treatment and educational needs of its
juveniles and providing education. Specifically:
 Department assessments determine juvenile treatment and educational
needs—The Department has instituted an intensive initial assessment
process to determine a juvenile’s treatment and educational needs and
then place juveniles in appropriate treatment programs and school classes.
For example, the Department uses the Criminogenic and Protective Factors
Assessment (CAPFA), a tool to assess and classify juveniles for treatment.
Using the CAPFA, the Department assesses juveniles in 12 areas that
research has shown to be effective in reducing recidivism, such as
aggression; alcohol and drug use; social influences; behavioral and mental
health; skills, attitudes and behaviors; family; risk of re-offense; and sexual
offending. The CAPFA is also designed to assess a juvenile’s progress
toward reaching specific goals and as such, requires department
personnel to update specific domains at specified times to track a juvenile’s
progress. Based on the CAPFA’s results, the Department then develops a
juvenile’s individual case plan, which specifies necessary treatment. The
juvenile’s case plan allows staff to track a juvenile’s treatment progress and
readiness for release. The Department also uses a statistically validated risk
assessment to identify a juvenile’s risk to re-offend. This risk assessment
can change as the juvenile progresses through treatment and is
reassessed.
Additionally, juveniles attend a 10-day Reception, Assessment and
Classification (RAC) education program upon commitment to the
Department. The Department assesses juveniles for academic and
vocational skills, and they complete a career exploration and development
portfolio identifying needs, interests, and skill requirements for identified
career fields. In addition, juveniles complete the Test for Adult Basic
Education for class placement purposes. The Department uses this
information to develop educational plans that outline the educational and
vocational training the juveniles receive.
 Department operates schools at all four secure care facilities—Through
schools at each of its secure care facilities, the Department provides a core
educational curriculum that allows juveniles to continue and, in some
cases, complete their primary education. Since the Department’s
academic programs are accredited through the North Central Association
The Department’s
assessment process
determines juveniles’
treatment and
educational needs and
where they will be
placed.
State of Arizona
page 10
Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement, department
classes apply toward a regular high school diploma or eighth-grade
certificate. According to the Department’s 2008 Annual Report, juveniles
committed to the Department typically achieve more than a year’s worth of
education in a single year. In the 2007-2008 academic year, 72 percent of
juveniles made gains in reading and 78 percent made gains in math. The
average gain in these subjects was approximately 1½ years. In addition,
the Department offers youth an opportunity to obtain a General Education
Diploma (GED). The Department reported that during the 2007-2008
school year, 325 juveniles tested for the GED, 283 juveniles completed all
five GED testing areas, and 203 juveniles passed the GED. This 72 percent
passing rate exceeded the State’s passing rate of 67 percent.
In fiscal year 2008, the Department’s Special Education unit was
recognized as the best program for the Transition of Students with
Disabilities in Special Education by the Arizona Department of Education.
According to the Department, approximately one-third of all juveniles
committed to the Department qualify as special education students. As
such, the Department has established processes for identifying juveniles
with special education needs and developing required Individual Education
Plans. Additionally, according to a department official, the Department does
not isolate special education students. Instead, it provides specialized
instruction in class and has a special education teacher work directly with
these students.
Finally, juveniles can also enroll in community college courses online and
earn credit, and the Department offers vocational services to juveniles to
teach them practical job skills. This includes training in building trades,
automotive, cosmetology, medical transcription, computer-aided drafting,
fire science, and culinary arts.
Additionally, the Office of the Auditor General’s March 2009 performance audit
of the Department’s Rehabilitation and Community Re-entry Programs (see
Auditor General Report No. 09-02) found that although the Department has
developed some well-designed treatment programs and various processes to
help juveniles prepare for reintroduction into the community, it can improve in
some critical areas that could potentially impact recidivism rates. The
Department reported that it has addressed each of the recommendations from
the March 2009 report, and the Office of the Auditor General will be conducting
follow-up work in September and October 2009 to verify these efforts. The
March 2009 report noted:
 Department has framework for effective treatment programs, but treatment
delivery needs improvement—The Department provides a core treatment
program and a behavioral management program to all juveniles in its
During the 2007-2008
school year, the
Department reported a
72 percent GED
passing rate, which
exceeded the State’s
passing rate of 67
percent.
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
housing units, and also provides specialized sex offender, mental health,
and chemical dependence treatment programs in special housing units.
Although the Department modeled its treatment programs after methods
that research indicates can be effective, it is not implementing these
programs as designed. Specifically:
• Based on auditors’ review of 9 of the Department’s 25 housing units,
some program sessions are not offered frequently enough, the
sessions are too short in length, and many of the department staff
need additional training in how to conduct them.
• According to department officials and the treatment program manual,
juveniles should receive a customized core treatment program based
upon individual diagnoses, risk factors, and problem areas such as
anger, depression, and self-injury. However, according to housing unit
staff, none of the housing units auditors visited provided the
customized core treatment as required. Also, inconsistent behavior
management in many housing units undermines the therapeutic
environment needed for effective treatment.
• The Department did not provide chemical dependence and sex
offender treatment to all juveniles who should be receiving it. Generally,
only juveniles housed in specialty units received this treatment.
However, many juveniles housed in other units have also been
identified as having chemical dependency diagnoses or needing sex
offender treatment. Although the Department’s core treatment
program, which should be provided to all juveniles, includes
substance abuse treatment, the Department’s chemical dependency
treatment program manual indicates that juveniles with a diagnosed
chemical dependency should receive additional treatment through the
chemical dependency treatment program.
The Department reported that it has taken steps to ensure that all treatment
programs are implemented as designed, including developing and revising
treatment program procedures, providing additional training to staff, and
designating a new sex offender treatment unit to provide sex offender
treatment to a greater number of juveniles.
 Decision-making process for juveniles’ treatment and release needs
improvement—The Department should improve the process it uses to plan
a juvenile’s treatment program and make recommendations about a
juvenile’s release into the community. The Department has established
multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), which develop treatment plans, review
progress, and make recommendations about release. Auditors identified
several issues that impede the effectiveness of the MDTs:
The Department
reported that it has
taken steps to ensure
that all treatment
programs are
implemented as
designed.
• The MDTs rely on an assessment instrument that contains unreliable
information, mainly because data controls are weak. For example, 76
of 90 juvenile records auditors examined contained contradictory
information related to alcohol and drug use. Contradictory information
could lead to faulty decisions about treatment plans and juveniles’
readiness for release.
• MDT meetings observed by auditors were often characterized by
distractions, interruptions, and limited attendance. In some cases, staff
acted unprofessionally and/or the surrounding environment was
extremely disruptive.
Steps needed to address these issues include improving data controls,
improving oversight and monitoring of juveniles’ assessments, enhancing
the monitoring of MDT meetings, clarifying procedures, and providing
ongoing training.
 Transitioning to the community—Planning for and supporting a juvenile’s
transition into the community is important because it may reduce the
likelihood of a juvenile re-offending. Although the Department cannot
eliminate the chance that a juvenile may violate parole, connecting juveniles
to education, jobs, or needed services is one way to reduce the risk of re-offending.
However, when auditors reviewed a random sample of 58 case
records of male juveniles released to parole in 2007, they found that 9
juveniles did not receive any of the support services specified in their parole
plans, and another 33 juveniles received only some of these services.
However, for 32 of the 58 juveniles who made a connection to a job,
auditors found that they were significantly less likely to violate their parole.
The Department can improve how effectively it transitions juveniles to the
community by further developing its relationships with schools and
agencies involved in serving youth, by implementing certain procedures
(such as ensuring juveniles have transcripts, proof of citizenship, and other
important documents when they return to the community), and by
improving how it tracks its success in helping juveniles.
3. The extent to which the Department has operated within the public interest.
The Department has operated in the public interest by better safeguarding the
health and safety of juveniles committed to its care and ultimately the public
since a 2004 federal report noting serious deficiencies was issued, but it can still
make some minor improvements. Between April 2002 and March 2003, three
juveniles committed suicide at the Department’s Adobe Mountain secure care
facility. In June 2002, the United States Department of Justice notified the State
State of Arizona
page 12
For 32 of the 58
juveniles who found a
job during parole, they
were significantly less
likely to violate parole.
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
of its intent to begin an investigation under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (CRIPA) into whether the constitutional and federal statutory rights
of juveniles in the Department’s custody were being violated. In January 2004,
the Department of Justice issued a report noting serious deficiencies, including
inadequate suicide prevention policies and practices, failure to protect juveniles
from physical and sexual abuse, inadequate medical and mental healthcare
services, and a failure to provide special education. In September 2004, the U.S.
Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court, which resulted in a
memorandum of agreement between the State and the U.S. Department of
Justice to address the deficiencies. In September 2007, the Department had
substantially complied with all of the more than 120 mandatory provisions in the
memorandum of agreement and was released from federal monitoring.
Additionally, the lawsuit was dismissed.
The Office of the Auditor General’s September 2009 performance audit (see
Auditor General Report No. 09-09) follows up on the Department’s continued
efforts to improve suicide prevention and reduce violence and abuse at its
secure care facilities and found that, overall, the Department is performing well
in these areas. Specifically:
 Suicide prevention—The Department has instituted suicide prevention
policies and procedures that are consistent with national standards and
identified best practices. These improvements include training staff to
identify and respond to suicidal behavior, appropriately monitoring juveniles
with suicidal behaviors, improving communication among staff regarding
juveniles with suicidal behaviors, and modifying its physical facilities to be
suicide resistant. These revised policies and practices better safeguard the
health and well-being of juveniles who are at risk for suicide and/or self-injurious
behavior. Since 2003, no suicide attempt has resulted in death,
and since January 2007, the number of serious suicide attempts has
averaged less than one per month.
During the audit, the Department made some further improvements. For
example, it revised its suicide prevention procedures to help ensure that
treatment plans for suicidal and self-injurious juveniles specify the treatment
that will be provided to address the suicidal behavior. Further, department
officials met with facility mental health staff to reinforce appropriate
practices for using suicide-proof smocks and preparing incident reports for
all juveniles who exhibit suicidal and/or self-injurious behavior.
Additionally, the Department should expand its assessments of its
separation practices to include a review of unnecessary and/or
inappropriate referrals for juveniles exhibiting suicidal and/or self-injurious
behavior. Because of staff shortages and the unavailability of mental health
staff who were either with other juveniles or not scheduled to be physically
present at a secure care facility, some juveniles who have exhibited suicidal
The Department has
instituted suicide
prevention policies and
procedures that are
consistent with national
standards and best
practices.
State of Arizona
page 14
or self-injurious behavior have been immediately sent to separation prior to
an assessment by a mental health staff member. Department officials also
reported that they have trained staff to err on the side of caution when
preventing suicide. Although these practices help to ensure these juveniles’
safety, they are inconsistent with department procedures and contrary to
best practices for referring juveniles to separation.
 Reducing juvenile violence—The Department has taken several steps to
improve the safety of juveniles entrusted to its care, and beginning in 2008,
the Department reported a decrease in violence at its secure care facilities.
In particular, department data shows that the number of juvenile-on-juvenile
assaults decreased from 152 to 71 (approximately 53 percent) between the
second and fourth quarters of 2008, and the number of juvenile-on-juvenile
fights decreased from 339 to 116 (approximately 66 percent) during 2008.1
Steps the Department took include using a community policing model to
help it better identify and address violent activity at its secure care facilities,
increased staffing, increased gang intelligence efforts, and implementation
of treatment programming designed to help juveniles address anger and
violence issues. To help guide staff actions when assaults and fights occur,
the Department has developed policies and procedures modeled after
national standards. The Department also provides training on crisis
intervention, behavior management, and restraint techniques to provide staff
with the necessary skills to successfully restore order and keep juveniles
safe. Auditors’ analysis of seven incidents involving juvenile assaults and
fights at the Department’s four secure care facilities between February and
April 2009 found that staff and supervisors reported responding properly.
Finally, although the Department has greatly improved its staff-to-juvenile
ratios, it should review whether it has sufficient staff to meet staffing
standards agreed to during CRIPA monitoring.
 Addressing abuse—The Department has taken action to address the
abuses resulting from staff-juvenile boundary violations identified in the 2004
CRIPA investigation, but opportunities exist to further strengthen staff
awareness of appropriate boundaries. In response to abuses identified
during the CRIPA investigation, the Department has revised its juvenile
grievance process, enhanced its investigation of these types of abuses, and
disciplined and/or taken action against department staff and juveniles for
misconduct or misbehavior, including staff-juvenile boundary violations. The
Department also initiated a change in its organizational culture that includes
zero tolerance for abuse of any kind, conducted vulnerability assessments
of its secure care facilities, and assesses all juveniles for potential
victimization when they are committed to a secure care facility. Despite
these actions, subtle, less obvious staff-juvenile boundary issues continue
1 For department data cited in this report, auditors reviewed the Department’s internal controls over data collection and
management review and concluded that the Department has sufficient controls to ensure the data’s reliability. Auditors
did not assess the Department’s data processing and reporting internal controls.
Department data shows
that juvenile assaults
decreased by
approximately 53
percent between the
second and fourth
quarters of 2008 and
fights decreased by
approximately 66
percent during 2008.
to pose challenges. Inappropriate staff-juvenile interactions, such as the use
of pet names, verbal sparring and joking, and undue familiarity, still take
place, potentially unnoticed by department supervisors and management,
creating the potential for more serious abuses. However, as previously
mentioned, the Department has taken action to address boundary violations
when it is aware of these violations.
As a result, the Department should launch an awareness campaign that
continually reinforces appropriate staff-juvenile boundaries and use
information provided by new staff as they receive on-the-job training to
identify and respond to potential staff-juvenile boundary issues.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the Department are consistent with the
legislative mandate.
Statutes require the Department to adopt rules in some instances. For example,
A.R.S. §41-2804(A)(3) requires the Department to adopt rules regarding
conditional liberty (parole) services for juveniles. According to the Department, it
has established various policies and procedures that address the statutory
requirements for adopting rules. Although A.R.S. §41-1005(A)(7) exempts the
Department from rulemaking procedures, A.R.S. §41-1005(C) requires that an
agency file the rules, created pursuant to the exemption, with the Secretary of
State. Although the Department could classify its policies and procedures as
rules by filing them with the Secretary of State, according to the Department, the
Attorney General’s Office has advised that this is not necessary under the
exemption.
5. The extent to which the Department has encouraged input from the public
before adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to
its actions and their expected impact on the public.
Although the Department is exempt from rulemaking procedures, it establishes
policies and procedures and publishes them on its Web site. Additionally,
department policy allows any employee or interested person to forward policy
and/or procedural requests or modification suggestions to its Policy and
Procedure Unit for consideration in policy and procedure development and
revision. According to the Department, various stakeholders, including families
of committed juveniles, victims of juvenile crime, contract service providers, the
Governor’s Office, and various state agencies have provided input and
feedback on numerous department policies. Policy and procedure drafts are
then distributed through the Department’s intranet and/or the Internet for
employee and stakeholder review and comment. Finally, the Department uses
its Web site to inform the public of its actions by posting its quarterly newsletters
and other department documents, including annual reports, audit results, fact
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
State of Arizona
page 16
sheets containing the demographics and number of juveniles committed to the
Department, and handbooks for juveniles and their parents.
6. The extent to which the Department has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction.
Although the Department does not receive and process complaints, it has
established a grievance system whereby juveniles can file grievances against
any inappropriate or infringing conditions, behavior, or action by department
employees, volunteers, or other juveniles. A 2004 CRIPA investigation report
noted that the Department failed to protect juveniles from physical and sexual
abuse and that the Department’s juvenile grievance and abuse investigation
processes did not adequately address such abuse.
In response, the Department revised its juvenile grievance process, enhanced
its investigation of these types of abuses, and initiated a change in its
organizational culture that includes zero tolerance for abuse of any kind.
Specifically, department policy requires that juveniles have access to a system
for identifying and promptly resolving grievances. Department staff are required
to inform juveniles of their right to grieve any condition, circumstance, or action
they deem unjust. Juveniles may obtain a grievance form from the Juvenile
Grievance Coordinator in his/her housing unit and submit it to the Juvenile
Ombudsman or place it in one of the secure “Grievance Boxes.”
The Department processes multiple types of grievances and has different
procedures for resolving them depending on the nature of the grievance.
Grievances may involve: (1) basic issues regarding clothing or grooming; (2)
general issues related to treatment, programming, and living conditions; (3)
violations of basic rights, which include issues of discrimination, due process
and searches; and (4) abuse, including physical, sexual, mental, and verbal. In
cases where a juvenile has been a victim of neglect, abuse, physical injury, or
serious physical injury, the grievance is immediately forwarded to the
Department’s Investigation and Inspections Division. In 2009 a department
administrator reported that the Department had substantially reduced the
number of grievances that were overdue for resolution and reported a 98
percent satisfaction rate for department actions in response to grievances.
In addition, through its Project Zero Tolerance program, the Department publicly
declares that sexual, physical, and verbal abuse is inappropriate and
unacceptable. Further, the Department has provided the Director’s cell phone
number and established an e-mail address where reports of suspected abuse
can be made by department staff, families and guardians of committed
juveniles, and members of the public. These reports go directly to the
Department’s Director for review and then to the Inspections and Investigations
Division for investigation.
The Department’s
Project Zero Tolerance
declares sexual,
physical, and verbal
abuse inappropriate and
unacceptable.
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
Finally, new department staff and juveniles receive training on the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, a federal law aimed at addressing the problem of sexual abuse
of incarcerated persons through prevention and detection. In particular, this
training teaches juveniles how to recognize sexual abuse and their rights not to
be victims of it. The Department also hangs posters throughout its facilities to
reinforce this message.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state
government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling
legislation.
The Department is not a regulatory agency and does not have authority to
prosecute actions. However, the Department does refer some legal matters to
the Attorney General. For example, the Attorney General has represented the
Department when juveniles have suffered an injury and filed complaints against
the Department.
The Department also refers alleged criminal acts that are committed by juveniles
or its staff to the appropriate county attorney for prosecution. These cases
include offenses that juveniles commit while in the Department’s custody and
offenses committed in the secure care facilities by staff and volunteers. The
Department’s Criminal Investigations Unit investigates all allegations of criminal
activity by juveniles and staff and determines whether to submit allegations for
prosecution. Department procedure requires a criminal investigation in
response to allegations of criminal misconduct. In 2008, of the 1,450 criminal
investigations that were completed by the unit, 260 were submitted to the county
attorney for prosecution, 104 were closed because of arrest, 543 were closed
without the suspect being charged (which may happen when a victim does not
desire prosecution, when the case does not meet the filing criteria for the county
attorney, or when the case involves a misdemeanor offense), and another 543
were closed as informational only.
8. The extent to which the Department has addressed deficiencies in its enabling
statutes, which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
The Department has supported various law changes affecting some of its
programs. Examples of these changes include:
 A 2006 amendment to A.R.S. §41-2812—Authorizes the court to deposit
monies collected from parents for the maintenance of juveniles committed
to the Department into the Department’s Restitution Fund. The Department
uses monies from the Restitution Fund to pay juveniles for community
work, which the juveniles then use to pay restitution to victims.
 A 2007 amendment to A.R.S. §§8-341 and 41-2804—Authorizes the
department director to approve the temporary escort of a juvenile by
The Department’s
Criminal Investigations
Unit completed 1,450
criminal investigations in
2008, including 260 that
were submitted to the
county attorney for
prosecution.
State of Arizona
page 18
department staff for compassionate leave (to attend a funeral, for
example), treatment, education, and rehabilitation purposes.
 A 2007 amendment adding A.R.S. §§41-2827 and 41-2828—Establishes
the Department’s Career Technical Education Fund to pay for the
Department’s educational, vocational, treatment, training, or work program
expenses. These laws also establish that all products made by juveniles in
the Department’s custody are the Department’s property and requires that
the monies from selling those products are deposited into the Career
Technical Education Fund, which can be used to pay expenses for any
department educational, vocational, treatment, training, or work program.
However, according to a department official, juveniles committed to the
Department do not produce products for sale.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the Department to
adequately comply with the factors in the sunset law.
The performance audits did not identify any needed changes to department
statutes.
10. The extent to which the termination of the Department would significantly harm
the public’s health, safety, or welfare.
Terminating the Department and not transferring its responsibilities to another
agency could harm the public health, safety, or welfare because it is the
Department’s responsibility to incarcerate and provide oversight and treatment
services to delinquent juveniles committed to its jurisdiction by the county
courts. All 50 states have facilities to house delinquent juveniles. As of July 30,
2009, the Department reported that its four secure care facilities held 506
juveniles, and that it supervised 488 juveniles on parole and another 138
juveniles from other states in Arizona under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles.
If the Legislature were to terminate the Department, appropriate jurisdictional
authority would have to be established with another agency, which would then
be required to provide rehabilitation and treatment, education and vocational
rehabilitation, and medical care to committed juveniles.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Department is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be
appropriate.
Because the Department is not a regulatory agency, this factor does not apply.
Terminating the
Department and not
transferring its
responsibilities to
another agency could
harm the public health,
safety, and welfare.
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
12. The extent to which the Department has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accomplished.
The Department uses private contractors to assist in performing some of its
duties. For example, the Department primarily uses private contractors for
community-based treatment services that are provided to juveniles on parole in
the community, but also uses a private contractor for some other services.
Specifically, the Department uses contracts executed by other agencies such as
the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Economic Security
for treatment services such as therapeutic group homes and residential
treatment centers. Although it operates its own secure juvenile corrections
facilities, the Department uses a private contractor under contract with the
Department of Corrections to provide food services at its Eagle Point secure
care facility. The Department reports that it has found little research comparing
the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of privately operated secure juvenile
corrections facilities over publically operated facilities, and that it has focused
instead on privatization of community-based services, as this has been found to
be cost-effective. Finally, the Department has also used private contractors to
help develop treatment programs used for juveniles in secure care.
Audit work did not identify any additional opportunities for the Department to
contract for services.
State of Arizona
page 20
AGENCY RESPONSE
Office of the Auditor General
AGENCY RESPONSE
Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
Future Performance Audit Division reports
Department of Health Services—Sunset Factors
09-01 Department of Health Services,
Division of Licensing Services—
Healthcare and Child Care
Facility Licensing Fees
09-02 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Rehabilitation and
Community Re-entry Programs
09-03 Maricopa County Special Health
Care District
09-04 Arizona Sports and Tourism
Authority
09-05 State Compensation Fund
09-06 Gila County Transportation
Excise Tax
09-07 Department of Health Services,
Division of Behavioral Health
Services—Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs
09-08 Arizona Department of Liquor
Licenses and Control
09-09 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Suicide Prevention
and Violence and Abuse
Reduction Efforts
07-10 Department of Economic
Security—Division of Child
Support Enforcement
07-11 Arizona Supreme Court,
Administrative Office of the
Courts—Juvenile Detention
Centers
07-12 Department of Environmental
Quality—Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Programs
07-13 Arizona Supreme Court,
Administrative Office of the
Courts—Juvenile Treatment
Programs
08-01 Electric Competition
08-02 Arizona’s Universities—
Technology Transfer Programs
08-03 Arizona’s Universities—Capital
Project Financing
08-04 Arizona’s Universities—
Information Technology Security
08-05 Arizona Biomedical Research
Commission
08-06 Board of Podiatry Examiners