Performance audit, Department of Corrections, Facilities Mainenance

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
November 1985
85- 13
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
November 26, 1985
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Samuel A. Lewis, Director
Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Corrections, Facil i ties Maintenance. This
report i s i n response to the January 30, 1985 resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee.
The report addresses the seriously deteriorated conditions of Arizona's
correctional f a c i l i t i e s and provides cost estimates for repairing some of
the most critical problems. Also addressed are some of the contributing
causes of the deterioration, including inadequacies of the budget
development process, inaccurate information on maintenance expenditures
and possibly inadequate staffing for the maintenance function.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items i n the report.
Respectfully submitted,
~ o u g a sR . Norton
Auditor General
Staff: William Thomson
D Mark Fleming
Ronald E. Ludders
Jayne M. Hewitt
Kurt L. Schulte
Clichael J. Friedman
Enclosure
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC) facil i t i e s maintenance
function. This audit was conducted i n response to a Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee resolution of January 30, 1985, which requires a
performance audit of the Department of Corrections, and is one of a
series of audits of the Department.
DOC i s responsible for maintaining more than 435 structures housing over
8,400 inmates. DOC f a c i l i t i e s range from minimum to maximum security and
contain structures ranging in age from less than one year old to more
than 100 years old. DOC had 71 maintenance employees as of August 2, 1985.
Arizona Correctional F a c i l i t i e s Are Seriously
Deteriorated ( see pages 5 through 21 )
Correctional f a c i l i t i e s i n Arizona are i n very poor condition. For
example, cracked and chipping security walls and tunnels a t Florence pose
serious safety hazards t o s t a f f and inmates. Some electrical systems have
been installed w i t h incorrect materials that can easily cause short
circuits when wet. Because of this, electronic security systems and
1 ighting can become inoperable. Additional ly, 01 d electrical systems are
corroded to the point that they pose the danger of electrocution. Locking
systems a t some facil i t i e s have defective control mechanisms which open
several cell s a t once rather than individual cell s, a1 1 owing numerous
inmates to leave their cell s a t one time.
A 1 imi ted review of six DOC institutions by an archi tectural/ engineering
firm identified major problems and estimated the cost of repairs i n the
following six areas.
Maintenance Approximate Cost
Structural $ 2,750,000 - $ 3,887,000
E l e c t r i c a l 772,000 - 1 , I 57,000
Locking 395,000 - 2,132,000
Pl umbing 671,000 - 1,014,000
Waste Water Treatment 575,000 - 825,000
Heating , Venti 1 a t i on,
A i r Conditioning 65,000 - 65,000
The poor condition o f Arizona's prisons r e s u l t s from a lack o f a t t e n t i o n
i n the past. DOC should: 1 ) undertake a comprehensive study t o develop a
1 ong- range f a c i l i ty maintenance plan based on a p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f
i d e n t i f i e d needs, and 2) prepare a maintenance budget request t h a t
provides adequate funding f o r the r e p a i r s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s report.
The Budget Development Process I s Not Designed To
Provide Adeauate Information For Eva1 u a t i na F a c i l i t v 4 - "
Maintenance Needs ( see Daces 23 throuah 36 1
The budget development process c u r r e n t l y does not provide s u f f i c i e n t
information f o r Departmental or L e g i s l a t i v e evaluation of f a c i l i ty
maintenance needs. Therefore, DOC has not received adequate operating
maintenance funds or Land, Building and Improvement ( LB& I) funds t o
e f f e c t i v e l y maintain prison f a c i l i t i e s . host DOC f a c i l i t i e s have received
less than the minimal amount considered necessary f o r maintenance i n
p r i v a t e industry, and only 12 percent o f the Department's LBiiI requests
were funded over the l a s t f i v e f i s c a l years. Maintenance costs increase
as a f a c i l i t y ages and usase increases. However, DOC budgeting assumes
t h a t maintenance costs remain constant. Additional ly, maintenance
funding needs are n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y addressea d u r i n g t h e buciyet revieu by
executive and L e g i s l a t i v e budget analysts. Departmental a1 locations o f
, appropriated funds do not consider a f a c i l i t y ' s maintenance needs, and
allow each i n s t i t u t i o n t o determine the extent o f maintenance funding,
which resul t s i n i n s u f f i c i e n t funding f o r maintenance a t some
i n s t i t u t i o n s .
The Legislature shoul d consider funding maintenance needs on a regular
and c o n s i s t e n t b a s i s using a predetermined formula such as 1 percent of a
b u i l d i n g ' s rep1 acement val ue. DOC should: 1 ) develop maintenance pol i c y
issues t o address higher maintenance costs t h a t r e s u l t from a f a c i l i t y ' s
increased age and use, and p a r t i c u l a r construction type; 2) provide
mandatory maintenance budget development t r a i n i n g to the i n s t i t u t i o n s '
administrators; and 3) consider each i n s t i t u t i o n ' s pt~ ysical plant
condition when allocating appropriated funds.
The Department O f Corrections Has Overstated
Maintenance Expenditures ( see pages 37 through 48)
Maintenance expenditures reported by DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s are incorrect. Some
i n s t i t u t i o n s have completed both approved and unauthorized LB& I projects
with operating funds, and recorded the expendi tures as maintenance. The
use o f general appropriation funds f o r LB& I projects, unless the projects
are approved i n the general appropriations b i l l , i s p r o l ~ i btei d.
Additionally, some i n s t i t u t i o n s ' capital equipment purchases have been
improperly recorded as maintenance expenditures. These improper
expenditures have reduced funds actually available f o r maintenance and
overstated the base used i n developing budget requests. Inappropriate
expenditures are possible because the Arizona Financial Information
System ( AFIS) does not provide DCC w i t h s u f f i c i e n t maintenance
expenditure data. AFIS does not provide enough specific maintenance codes
t o properly account f o r a l l expenses. Consequently, DOC spent more than
$ 1.3 m i l 1 ion on u n i d e n t i f i a b l e maintenance i tems between f i s c a l years
1982- 83 and 1984- 85.
The Legislature should consider: 1 ) directing DOC t. o el iminate improper
expenditures from i t s budget base, and 2 ) appropriating DOC maintenance
funds as a separate l i n e item.
The Department O f Corrections Needs To Review
Maintenance S t a f f i n g ( see pages 49 through 58)
DOC'S i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance s t a f f may be inadequate. Routine repairs
have been poorly performed a t some i n s t i t u t i o n s . DOC has not implemented
a comprehensive preventive maintenance program which could reduce the
need for major repairs. These problems may be due, i n part, t o
i n s u f f i c i e n t maintenance s t a f f and a shortage o f s t a f f q u a l i f i e d t o
r e p a i r c r i t i c a l systems. This scarcity o f q u a l i f i e d s t a f f may be caused
by low pay and undesirable working conditions. DOC should examine
s p e c i f i c tasks and s k i l l s required t o perform f a c i l i t y maintenance, and
review s t a f f i n g patterns and sal aries accordingly.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FINDING I: ARIZONA CORRECTION FACILITIES
ARE SERIOUSLY DETERIORATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
DOC'S Facil i t i e s Are I n Very Poor Condition. . . . . . . . . 5
Timely Maintenance I s Especial ly C r i t i c a l
I n A Correctional Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DOC Needs To Develop F a c i l i t y Maintenance Plans. . . . . . . 20
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FINDING 11: THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS
NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFORbNTION
FOR EVALUATING FACILITY MAINTENANCE NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . 23
DOC Has Not Received S u f f i c i e n t Maintenance Funds. . . . . . 23
DOC ' s Maintenance Budget Requests
Lack Essential Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Budget Review And Appropriation Process Limits
Maintenance Budget Decision- Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Maintenance I s Not A P r i o r i t y In A1 locating
And Expending Appropriated Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
FINDING 111: THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HAS
OVERSTATED MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
I n s t i t u t i o n s ' Maintenance
Expenditure Data I s Inaccurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Improper Expenditures Possible Due
To Inadequate Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Legisl ature May Want To Appropriate
Maintenance Funds Separately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Page
FINDING I VTO: RTEHVEIE WD EMPAARINTTMEENNATN COEF CSOTARFRFEICNTGIO N. S . NE. ED. S . . . . . . . . . . . 49
DOC F a c i l i t i e s Lack Proper Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Maintenance Staff May Be Inadequate. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendation 57
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
LIST OF TABLES
. Page
TABLE 1 . DOC Maintenance Personnel
And F a c i l i t i e s Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TABLE 2 . Summary of Identified Maintenance
Repair Or Replacement Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE 3 . Selected Structural Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TABLE 4 . E lectrical Problems A t Selected Prisons . . . . . . . . . . 12
TABLE 5 . S elected Plumbing Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLE 6 . Maintenance Funding As A Percentage Of Replacement Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TABLE 7 . Trends In DOC'S LB& I Funding Requests And Legislative Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TABLE 8 . Comparison of DOC Maintenance Staff Levels To Federal Prison Formula A t Selected F a c i l i t i e s . . . . . . . 55
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ILLUSTRATION 1 . Central U n i t Tunnel Deterioration . . . . . . . . . . 9
ILLUSTRATION 2 . Central U n i t Wall . Catwalk Deterioration . . . . . . 10
ILLUSTRATION 3 . Central U n i t Wall . Buttress Deterioration . . . . . 11
ILLUSTRATION 4 . W omen's Center Plumbing Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ILLUSTRATION 5 . Leaking Sewer Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 m ILLUSTRATION 6 . D estroyed Electrical Junction Box . . . . . . . . . . 51
ILLUSTRATION 7 . Repaired Electrical Junction Box . . . . . . . . . . 51
ILLUSTRATION 8 . Water Leak . Deteriorating Conduit . . . . . . . . . 52
1) 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f
the Arizona Department o f Corrections' ( DOC ) f a c i l i t i e s maintenance
function. This audit was conducted i n response to a J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e
Oversight Committee resolution o f January 30, 1985, which requires a
performance audit of the Department o f Corrections, and i s one o f a
series o f audits of the Department.
The Department of Corrections maintains more than 435 builaings and
structures with a t o t a l o f more than 2.3 m i l l ion square feet, housing
more than 8,400 inmates. The replacement value o f these f a c i l i t i e s
exceeds $ 1 66 m i 1 1 ion.
Security c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of f a c i l i t i e s ranges from minimum to maximum
i n c l u d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e segregation ( extra maximum security). Housing
u n i t s w i t h i n these f a c i l i t i e s include c e l l blocks, dormitories, t r a i l e r s ,
quonset huts and tents. Security systems vary widely, with some
f a c i l i t i e s surrounded by concrete walls and gun towers, and others with
chain 1 ink fences topped with razor wire. The minimum security f a c i l i t i e s
have few perimeter security systems. Because of these differences i n
b u i l dings and security systems, maintenance a c t i v i t i e s vary substantial ly
among f a c i l i t i e s . Other factors, such as the age o f the buildings
( ranging from more than 100 years to less than one year 01 d) and
overcrowded conditions increase d a i l y maintenance needs. I n addition,
inmates frequently abuse the f a c i l i t i e s , which increases the need f o r
maintenance.
Organization
Each i n s t i t u t i o n organizes and manages i t s own maintenance program. These
separate management structures pl ace the maintenance function under the
business manager a t some i n s t i t u t i o n s , whi 1 e a t others maintenance
personnel may report t o an assistant warden, superintendent or c h i e f o f
security. The Central Office has a f a c i l i t i e s maintenance and planning
admini strator, however, the position does not have d i r e c t authority over
the maintenance functions a t each i n s t i t u t i o n . I n addition, the
responsibil i ty f o r major maintenance projects and programs was
transferred t o the Department o f Administration on A p r i l 1, 1985.
However, DOC personnel w i l l continue t o perform minor maintenance.
Fundi na And S t a f f i nq
The funding f o r DOC ' s f a c i 1 i t y mai ntenance prograrils comes from several
sources, i n c l uding Land, Buil ding and Improvement ( LB& I ) monies, the
Endowment Earnings Fund* and f a c i l i t y operating budgets. From f i s c a l year
1981 - 82 through fi scal year 1985- 86 the Department was appropriated more
than $ 10 m i l 1 ion f o r capital projects through LB& I funding, i n c l uding
more than $ 3,300,000 f o r physical pl ant improvement. Additional ly , since
f i s c a l year 1983- 84 the Department has committed more than $ 1 m i l l ion of
i t s Endowment Earnings Fund monies f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l improvement
projects. Furthermore, DOC expended more than $ 3 m i l l ion from the
operating budget f o r maintenance between f i s c a l year 1982- 83 and f i s c a l
year 1984- 85.
As of August 2, 1985, DOC had 90 available maintenance positions o f which
71 were f i l l e d . The DOC maintenance program i s supplemented d a i l y by 174
to 306 inmates a t a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Maintenance o f ARCOR f a c i l i t i e s i s
performed by ARCOR employees not DOC maintenance personnel.
* tarnings on State lands and i n t e r e s t on the investment of the
permanent land funds are appropriated i n compliance with $ 25 o f the
enabling act and the Constitution to be used for the support o f
State penal i n s t i t u t i o n s and reformatories.
Table 1 shows the square footage and replacement value o f DOC f a c i l i t i e s
as o f July 1984, current maintenance s t a f f allocations and inmate
capacity f o r each f a c i l i ty.
TABLE 1
DOC MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
AND FACILITIES CHARACTERISTICS
Number
Maintenance Area o f Rep1 acemen t
Adul t I n s t i t u t i o n s FTE Sq. Ft. Inmates Value ( m i l l ions)
ASPC- Fl orence 25
ASPC- Perryvi 11 e 10
ASPC- Tucson 9
ASP- Fort Grant 6
ASPC- Phoenix- Alhambra 1
ASPC- Phoenix- Women ' s Center 3
ASP- Safford 5
ASPC- Phoenix- Flamenco 1
ASP- Doug1 as 14
Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n s
Adobe Mountain 8 126,431 41 4 $ 11.5
Catal i na Mountain 5 80,226 174 5.0
A1 amo 1 14,541 25 1.3
New Dawn 1 15,036 50 .6
( 1 ) The ASP- Douglas f a c i l i ty i s currently under construction, therefore
costs, capacity and area are not available.
Source: Department o f Administration- Facil i t i e s Planning ana
Construction, and the Department o f Corrections- Offender
Services Bureau
Audit Scooe And Puroose
The purpose o f t h i s audit i s t o evaluate the Department o f Corrections'
maintenance function. The a u d i t r e p o r t presents findings and
recommendations i n four areas:
0 the c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n o f selected major DOC f a c i l i t i e s and
p o t e n t i a l costs t o r e p a i r or replace s p e c i f i c systems,
0 the ability of DOC to adequately evaluate and budget for
maintenance needs,
@ the a b i l i t y of DOC to oversee and control maintenance funds, and
e the adequacy of DOC maintenance staffing.
Due to the time constraints, all potential issues identified during the
audit work have not been addressed. The section Areas For Further Audit
Work describes these issues.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to Department of
Corrections and Department of Admini stration staff for their cooperation
and assistance during the audit.
FINDING I
ARIZONA CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ARE SERIOUSLY DETERIORATED
Correctional f a c i l i t i e s i n Arizona are i n very poor physical condition.
Many prison b u i l d i n g s and support systems may not be adequate f o r
maintaining needed l e v e l s o f security, and may pose serious threats t o
the safety of staff and inmates. A l i m i t e d review o f several of the most
serious problems indicates t h a t the Department of Corrections ( DOC ) w i 11
need s i g n i f i c a n t funds j u s t t o maintain i t s e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n usable
condition. The poor condition of Arizona's prisons has resulted from a
lack of attention to maintenance i n the past. DOC needs to
systematically evaluate i t s f a c i l i t i e s and develop a maintenance program
t o prevent further deterioration.
DOC'S F a c i l i t i e s Are
I n Very Poor Condition
Prisons i n Arizona suffer from a wide range of physical plant problems.
An Auditor General review of maintenance reports, and v i s i t s to DOC
f a c i l i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d almost 700 individual repair i tems. The problems
general ly fa1 1 i n t o one o f the f o l l owing s i x categories: 1 s t r u c t u r a l
systems, 2) e l e c t r i c a l systems, 3) locking systems, 4) plumbing, 5)
wastewater treatment plants, and 6) heating/ ventil a t i o n / a i r conditioning
systems. A more in- depth evaluation of several of these problems by an
architectural / engineering f i r m indicates t h a t DOC may have t o spend we1 1
over $ 5 m i l l i o n to ensure continued, safe functioning of the prisons
reviewed. The following Table summarizes these costs.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED MAINTENANCE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT COSTS
Maintenance Approximate Cost
Structural $ 2,750,000 - $ 3,887,000
El e c t r i c a l 772,000 - 1,157,000
Locking 395,000 - 2,132,000
Pl umbi ng 671,000 - 1,014,000
Waste Water Treatment 575,000 - 825,000
Heating, Ventilation, A i r
Conditioning 65,000 - 65,000
TOTAL
Limited Audit Scope - We d i d not have enough a u d i t resources to evaluate
a l l o f the maintenance problems w i t h i n the Department o f Corrections.
Auditor General s t a f f compiled an extensive 1 i s t o f rnai ntenance probl ems
from DOC i n t e r n a l maintenance reports and requests f o r new major
projects, Department o f Administration Reports, Department of Heal t h
Services Reports, and State F i r e Marshal Reports. Audit s t a f f also
v i s i t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s t o v e r i f y the existence of the problems and to
i denti fy any additional probl ems. The probl ems ranged i n importance from
missing window glass and smoke detectors to s t r u c t u r a l deficiencies and
ma1 functions i n v i t a l support systems. A1 together, almost 700 i n d i v i d u a l
r e p a i r items were i d e n t i f i e d and some 289 were v e r i f i e d during s i t e
v i s i t s .
Because of the technical nature o f the problems, the Auditor General
retained the archi tectural/ engineering f i r m o f Black and Veatch t o a s s i s t
i n the evaluation. The f i r m and audit s t a f f further reduced and
p r i o r i t i z e d the v e r i f i e d problems to produce a l i s t o f the 27 most
serious problems. The problems were p r i o r i t i z e d on the basis o f f a c i l i t y
age, security l e v e l , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f inmates and potential safety
hazard. Black and Veatch v i s i t e d s i x i n s t i t u t i o n s and reviewed 19 of the
27 most serious problem areas.
A1 though these problems represent the most sigrii f i c a n t deficiencies
w i t h i n DOC f a c i l i t i e s , the recommendations and cost estimates are f a r
from comprehensive. Only s i x i n s t i t u t i o n s were v i s i t e d by Black and
Veatch, and the time available l i m i t e d the f i r m ' s a b i l i t y t o f u l l y
estimate the costs of needed repairs. Thus, the figures presented i n
t h i s report should be regarded onl) as an i n d i c a t o r o f the physical p l a n t
problems and costs facing DOC.
The following sections high1 i g h t some o f the major problems i n each o f
the s i x major maintenance areas. The e n t i r e magnitude o f the
deficiencies eval uated i s a1 so summarized, and estimated r e p a i r costs are
given.
Structural - There i s s t r u c t u r a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n three o f the s i x
f a c i l i t i e s inspected, but i s most prevalent a t Arizona State Prison
Complex ( AsPC)- Florence. Due t o the age o f the structures and years o f
neglect, some are 1 i t e r a l ly fa1 1 ing apart. Consequently, the p o t e n t i a l
threat to l i f e and safety o f those who use the f a c i l i t i e s i s
substantial. While many buildings inspected by the consultant need t o be
demolished and r e b u i l t , others j u s t need t o be renovated with e x i s t i n g
walls and foundations i n t a c t . Needed repairs w i l l cost from $ 2.8 m i l l i o n
$ 3.9 m i l l i o n , as shown i n Table 3.
TABLE 3
SELECTED STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS
Facil i ty Problem
Estimated Repair or
Rep1 acement Cost
ASPC- Fl orence Walls are severely cracked and
Central Unit deteriorated. Tunnel coul d
Tunnel col 1 apse. P o t e n t i a l f o r
electrocution from broken
conduit and frayed wires.
Standing sewage i n south tunnel
i s a heal th hazard. $ 445,000-$ 570,000
( Continued)
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
Wall And Ca twal k
ASP- Saf ford
New Gym
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
Tower 13
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
Maintenance Shop
ASPC- Fl orence
Wall Of Sally
Gate 5
ASP- Saf ford
Ed. Building
ASP- Safford
Dorm 3
ASP- Safford
Hobby Bl dg.
TOTAL
Walls and catwalk are cracked
and deteriorated. There is a
potential 1 i fe- safety threat
to those who use the catwalk.
Anchor bol ts are missing.
Foundation is deficient, coul d
collapse i n a strong wind.
Needs to be disassembled
and rebui 1 t.
Foundation is cracking,
s t a i r s are unsafe, rebar is
exposed and guard station is
a f i r e hazard.
Beams and columns are cracked,
roof and exterior are
dilapidated. Building is
structurally unsound and a
1 i fe- safety threat.
Wall is cracked, lacks
reinforcement, is l a t e r a l l y
unstable and could
coll apse.
Building is aged and
deteriorated. Structure is
water damaged, roof improperly
constructed. No f i r e alarm or
emergency 1 ighting.
Foundation is settled and
cracked, roof is deteriorated,
walls are out of plumb.
Dividers between 1 i v i n g areas
are wood instead of concrete,
which is a f i r e hazard.
Numerous code violations and
overall structural deterior-ation.
Needs to be renovated
using existing walls and
foundation.
The following are two examples of the various structural problems present
a t ASPC- Fl orence.
The concrete walls and ceiling of the Central Unit tunnel are
cracked and chipping ( I l l u s t r a t i o n 1 ) . T h i s tunnel i s the only
access to Tower 13. A t least one correctional service officer
must use this tunnel each s h i f t . Water was two to three inches
deep in the south tunnel from leaking water and sewer pipes.
Rebar i s exposed, rusted and corroded. The structural
deterioration poses a severe threat to people using the tunnel.
A collapse would cause a security breach, and standing sewage i s
a health hazard. Exposed wiring and wet conditions create the
potential for electrocution. After i n i t i a l inspection, the
Black and Veatch project manager refused to allow his staff back
into the tunnel as he f e l t i t was too great a safety hazard.
The estimated cost to demo1 ish and reconstruct the tunnel is
$ 445,000 to $ 570,000.
ILLUSTRATION 1
CENTRAL UNIT TUNNEL DETERIORATION
a Condition o f the catwalk along the top o f the Central Unit wall
ranges from apparently sound t o seriously s t r u c t u r a l ly
deteriorated ( I 1 1 ustration 2). Cracking affects 20 to 30
percent o f the catwalk. The condition o f the catwalk i s a
potential l i f e and safety threat t o people using it. Some
deteriorated sections coul d c o l l apse under abnormal weight. A
section of the catwalk did collapse during an inspection when
one o f the consultants stomped on an area where the concrete was
cracked and loose. The top o f the parapet wall i s cracked, and
concrete i s chipped and fa1 1 ing away, steel handrai 1 s are
unsound, and guard stations are aged and dilapidated.
ILLUSTRATION 2
CENTRAL UNIT WALL - CATWALK DETERIORATION
e Severe buttress deterioration exists a1 ong the south \ vall, and
rebar is exposed, rusted and corroded ( see arrow - Illustration
3). The top of the wall needs to be removed and replaced w i t h
high strength concrete bonding systems. The estimated cost for
this repair is $ 350,000 to $ 400,000.
ILLUSTRATION 3
CENTRAL UNIT WALL - BUTTRESS DETERIORATION
Structural ly unsound faci 1 i ti es are a serious 1 i fe and safety hazard to
both staff and inmates. Crumb1 ing concrete walls and ceilings were
observed during inspecti on, hi gh1 i ghti ng the severity of the
deterioration.
Electrical Systems - The electrical systems i n DOC prison f a c i l i t i e s
contain safety hazards that pose a serious danger to s t a f f and inmates.
Inadequacies i n electrical service are not only unsafe, but can
compromi se security when electrical power is not avail able for security
systems. Black and Veatch found major electrical system shortcomings a t
the Central and East Units of ASPC-~ lorence, and a t ASP- Safford that
could cost approximately $ 772,000 to $ 1.2 million to repair, as shown i n
Table 4.
TABLE 4
ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS AT SELECTED PRISONS
Faci 1 i ty
ASPC- Fl orence
Central Unit
ASPC- Fl orence
East U n i t
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
ASPC- Fl orence
Central Unit
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
Cel lblock 5
Problem
Estimated Repair or
Rep1 acemen t Cost
Conduit and equipment i n
cel lblocks 3 and 4 severely
corroded from dripping water.
Potenti a1 for el ectrocution
exists. $ 400,000-$ 500,000
Underground system not
waterproof. Potential for
short c i r c u i t which could leave
housing and security systems
without power. Possibil i ty
for electrocution exists. $ 50,000-$ 60,000
Switchgear needs to
be rebuilt. Sections of a
facil i ty coul d be without
e l e c t r i c i t y during power outage. fJ0,000-$ 50,000
Automatic switching needed
for tel ephone sys tem. Faci 1 i ty
coul d be unable to use phones
during outage until emergency
generator is manual ly started. $ 45,000-$ 55,000
Electrical system shows rust
and corrosion, conduits are
01 d and unsafe. Utility passage
houses both water and
electrical systems. Electric
shoul d be made watertight or
power 1 oss coul d resul t. $ 50,000-$ 150,000
( Continued)
ASPC- Fl orence
East Unit
ASPC- Fl orence
East Unit
ASPC- Fl orence
East Unit
ASP- Saf ford
ASP- Safford
Upper Pump House
ASP- Safford
Dormitory
ASP- Saf ford
Garage Area
Emergency generators do not
have enough capacity .
I n s u f f i c i e n t power coul d mean
no cool ing f o r inmate housing. $ 30,000-$ 40,000
Need back- up power supply
t o keep security computer
energized. Inoperable
computer irnpai r s uni t
security. $ 30 , OCO-$ 40,000
F i r e a1 arm sys tern
ma1 functions.
Construction o f 13KV 3- phase
l i n e needs t o be completed. $ 1 00,000-$ 200,000
Panels are o l d and need to
be rewired. $ 1 0,000-$ 20,000
Disconnect switches are
improperly housed and
inadequate.
Wiring i s inadequate and load
requirements are unknown. $ 20,000-$ 30,000
TOTAL
Several problems i 1 1 ustrate the dangers o f inadequate e l e c t r i c a l systems.
a E l e c t r i c a l conduit and equipment i n cellblocks 3 and 4 o f the
Central Unit are severely corroded. Water i s dripping onto
breaker panels and 1 i g h t switches, and has corroded the conduit
t o the point t h a t there i s no longer an e f f e c t i v e system
ground. Standing water on the f l o o r of the u t i l i t y tunnels
poses the danger of electrocution to anyone operating the
switches or breakers. The estimated cost t o replace the
e l e c t r i c a l system using outdoor switches and PVC conduit i s
$ 400,000 t o $ 500,000.
m The East U n i t e l e c t r i c a l system i s routed e n t i r e l y through
underground conduit with access only through manholes. Spl ices
are made with material designed for dry locations. Water gets
i n t o the manholes and causes short c i r c u i t s , c u t t i n g off a l l
power t o huts and security 1 ighting. An electrocution hazard i s
also created. The e n t i r e system needs t o be waterproofed, a t an
estimated cost o f $ 50,000 t o $ 60,000.
The preceding examples show the potential dangers of deteriorated and
ma1 functioning e l e c t r i c a l sys terns. I n addition, a deteriorated
e l e c t r i c a l system can also be detrimental to security. An emergency
generator ma1 functioned during a recent power outage a t ASP- Fort Grant.
Tlie generator overheated because it was too small to meet i n s t i t u t i o n a l
demands, leaving the f a c i l i t y without power f o r emergency l i g h t i n g .
Locking Systems - The cellblocks o f the Central Unit o f ASPC- Florence and
a1 1 u n i t s a t ASPC- Perryvi 11 e have severe 1 ocki ng system problems. These
problems range from burned- out indicator l i g h t s on some of the security
control panels, t o c e l l doors t h a t cannot be opened i n d i v i d u a l l y which
requires several doors t o be opened a t a time. Several o f the systems a t
ASPC- Florence are more than 20 years old, and have had no improvements or
adjustments made since i n s t a l 1 ation. Those a t ASPC- Perryvill e suffer
from poor design and excessive inmate abuse. Black and Veatch estimates
t h a t needed repairs woul d cost from $ 395,000 t o $ 2.1 m i 11 ion.
e A l l c e l l blocks i n ASPC- Florence Central Unit have major problems
with locking systems.* The cellblock 2 system can only open an
e n t i r e run o f 26 c e l l s instead of individual doors. This
problem also exists on certain runs i n cellblock 4. Mu1 t i p l e
c e l l s can also be opened i n cellblock 3. Thus, numerous inmates
can leave t h e i r c e l l s a t once, creating a severe security r i s k .
I n addition, cellblocks 2, 3 and 4 have locking control panels
t h a t are accessible to inmates due to broken control panel
doors. Although the control panels are i n a secured cage,
unsupervised inmates could reach i n t o the cage to activate the
locking controls. Cellblocks 5, 6 and 7 a l l have malfunctioning
electronic control panel s and inadequate communication systems.
To replace the systems i n cellblocks 2, 3 and 4 would cost from
$ 1.5 m i l 1 ion to $ 1.65 m i l 1 ion. Minimum maintenance required
would cost $ 30,000 to $ 45,000. To renovate and repair the
systerils i n cellblocks 5 , 6 and 7 would cost from $ 65,000 to
$ 82,000.
* Cellblock 1 was not evaluated by Black and Veatch. However,
maintenance problems i n t h i s cellblock were i d e n t i f i e d by the
consul t a n t for the DOC security audit team. Water from showers has
leaked i n t o the locking mechanism, causing short c i r c u i t s and r u s t
so the system does not work properly.
A l l u n i t s a t ASPC- Perryville have problems with t h e i r locking
system control panels and the dead b o l t locking function.
Lights on the panels frequently burn out and therefore, do not
display the lock status of the rooms. According t o the
consul tants, t h i s indicates t h a t an e l e c t r i c a l problem exists
w i t h i n the system. The inmates can jam the dead b o l t open,
rendering the system inoperative and giving the inmates control
over the lock status of t h e i r doors.* Proper r e p a i r o f locking
devices, e l e c t r i c a l control units and indicators woul d cost
$ 300,000 t o $ 400,000.
Malfunctioning locking systems jeopardize the correctional service
o f f i c e r s ' control over the inmates i n the housing units. An even greater
security threat exists when the inmates have access t o locking system
controls and can override locking functions, rendering the locking system
i n e f f e c t i v e .
Plumbing - Plumbing systems a t several i n s t i t u t i o n s show signs of serious
deterioration. The majority o f the problems are a t ASPC- Fl orence, and
r e s u l t from years o f inadequate maintenance and poor water quality.
* The security audit consultant indicated that worn room keys may
serve as semi- master keys, permitting inmates t o gain access to
other rooms.
ASPC- Phoenix- Women ' s Center a1 so has major pl umbing probl ems. Black and
Veatch estimates needed repairs t o cost $ 741,000 t o $ 1.1 m i l l i o n , as
shown i n Table 5.
TABLE 5
SELECTED PLUMBING PROBLEMS
F a c i l i t y
ASPC- Fl orence
Central Unit
ASPC- Fl orence
Central U n i t
ASPC- Phoenix-
Women ' s Center
En ti re Compl ex
ASPC- Phoenix-
Women ' s Center
North Compl ex
ASPC- Phoeni x-
Women ' s Center
Administrative
Mechanical Room
ASPC- Phoenix-
Women ' s Center
Main Boi 1 er Room
Problem Estimated Repair Cost
Underground piping generally
i n poor condition. Pipes
leak profusely and layout
i s unknown. Piping needs t o
be replaced and drawings
made showing route o f pipes. $ 200,000-$ 400,000
Severe d e t e r i o r a t i o n of
systems i n cel l b l ocks
1, 2, 3 and 4.
Pipes leak and are uninsulated.
Fixtures are inadequate.
$ 1 00,000-$ 130,000
Heat and c h i l l e d water d i s t r i -
bution l i n e s are o l d and leak,
1 ack adequate insul ation,
and have i n e f f e c t i v e is01 ation
valves. Some fan c o i l s need t o
be replaced.
B o i l e r and stack needs t o be
rep1 aced. Asbestos shoul d
be removed from piping, and
r e f r i g e r a t i o n compressor
needs repai r.
B o i l e r needs t o be replaced,
piping should be insulated,
and a new c h i l l e d water control
system shoul d be i n s t a l 1 ed. $ 23,000-$ 61,000
( Continued)
Catal ina Mountain Chilled water d i s t r i b u t i o n
Juvenile system inadequate.
I n s t i t u t i o n $ 75,000-$ 150,000
TOTAL $ 671,000-$ 1,014,000
The f o l l owing examples ill ustrate several pl umbing deficiencies.
The extremely poor domestic water q u a l i t y a t ASPC- Florence has
caused numerous 1 eaks, i noperabl e is01 ation val ves, 1 eaky vacuum
breakers, and inoperable f i x t u r e val ves i n the pl umbing systems
of cellblocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. Malfunctioning valves make it
d i f f i c u l t t o shut o f f the water t o do repair work. The water
for a whole b u i l d i n g may have to be shut o f f , causing inmate
unrest. The hot and cold water l i n e s are uninsulated, which
reduces temperature efficiency. Condensation b u i l ds up on the
walls i n cellblocks 3 and 4 and the surrounding area, causing
b u i l d i n g deterioration. Valves and f i x t u r e s need to be
replaced. The approximate cost t o replace i s o l a t i o n valves i s
$ 8,000, and t o replace f i x t u r e and flush valves i s $ 50,000. The
approximate cost to repl ace the deteriorated, 1 ess durabl e
a1 umi\ um fixtures with new stainless steel f i x t u r e s i s $ 75,000
per year over a ten- year period.*
ASPC- Phoenix- Women ' s Center a1 so has major pl un~ bing problems.
The hot and cold water piping i s i n poor condition with numerous
leaks. ( The arrows i n I l l u s t r a t i o n 4, page 18, point t o one
l i n e t h a t has been patched four times i n a span o f about three
feet. ) Leaking has caused severe c e i l ing deterioration t h a t
could lead to collapse, and leaking hot water pipes can cause
i n j u r y . The hot and cold water piping needs to be insulated f o r
temperature efficiency. Many of the f i x t u r e s are i n poor
condition and may need t o be replaced. The approximate cost t o
replace a l l domestic water piping i s $ 70,000 t o $ 100,000. The
approximate cost t o i n s t a l 1 f i t t i n g s f o r new f i x t u r e s i s $ 30,000.
* Black and Veatch recommends t h i s rep1 acement because stain1 ess
steel f i x t u r e s are more durable and r e q u i r e l e s s maintenance. The
f i r m estimates t h a t 10 percent w i l l need replacing each year.
ILLUSTRATION 4
WOMEN ' S CENTER PLUMBING REPAIRS
The plumbing problems throughout the f a c i l i t i e s pose p o t e n t i a l threats to
health and safety, and can jeopardize s e c u r i t y when inmates cannot yet
adequate water o f the r i g h t temperature ( i. e. hot water t o shower, cold
water t o drink, and chi1 l e d o r hot w a t e r . f o r cooling and heating. )
Faulty plumbing has also prevented adequate cooling o f f a c i l i t i e s a t
Catal ina Mountain Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n ( CF4JI ).
Wastewater Treatrnent - Wastewater treatment pl ants a t ASPC- Perryvi 11 e and
a t CtdI were found t o be seriously inadequate, w i t h a l l equipment running
constantly. Any breakdown coul d cause serious probl ems because there i s
no back- up equipment. Also, it i s d i f f i c u l t t o perform maintenance on
equipment t h a t i s i n constant operation. The major problem a t each
f a c i l i t y i s a lack o f s u f f i c i e n t capacity t o process the d a i l y wastewater
i n f l u x . While both f a c i l i t i e s have been able t o handle t h i s overload, an
ever increasing i n f l u x prevents adequate treatment of the water. This
could pose a serious health hazard. Also, fines and sanctions could be
imposed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Black and Veatch
recommends p l a n t expansion a t CblJI, from a capacity o f 20,000 gallons per
day t o 40,000 gallons, a t a cost o f approximately $ 75,000 t o $ 125,000.
The f i r m recommends an expansion a t ASPC- Perryville from a capacity o f
150,000 gallons per day t o 300,000 gallons, a t a cost o f approximately
$ 500,000 to $ 700,000.
Heating, V e n t i l a t i o n And A i r Conditioning ( HVAC) - According to the
maintenance supervisor, a i r f l o w through housing units a t
ASPC- Phoenix- A1 hambra i s very inadequate f o r the number o f inmates i n
each room. The t i g h t l y enclosed manner i n which these u n i t s were
constructed ( only two small a i r vents i n sealed rooms) f u r t h e r compounds
the problem of a i r c i r c u l ation. After inspection and evaluation, Bl ack
and Veatch found only minor problems with the HVAC system. They f e l t
t h a t a i r f l o w could be s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved i f g r i l les were cleaned,
damaged ductwork repaired, new a i r f l o w control s i n s t a l led and the e n t i r e
system balanced. The estimated cost f o r these repairs i s $ 65,000.
Timely Maintenance I s Especial ly
C r i t i c a l I n A Correctional Environment
The environment of p r i son f a c i 1 i t i e s i s p a r t i cul a r l y conducive to
s t r u c t u r a l deterioration. Many o f these f a c i l i t i e s are old, and t h e i r
age combined w i t k years o f inadequate maintenance have l e f t the buildings
i n a poor state of repair. I n t e n t i o n a l destruction by the inmates and
overcrowding have further accelerated deterioration.
DOC has many o l d buildings t h a t are s t i l l i n use. I n fact, ASP- Fort
Grant uses two buildings t h a t are more than 100 years 01 d. Many o f the
buildings a t ASP- Safford are more than 20 years old, while many a t
ASPC- Florence are more than 30 years old. The age o f a b u i l d i n g and the
amount of maintenance work requi red are d i r e c t l y re1 ated. However, DOC
has not provided the needed maintenance. S i g n i f i c a n t problems with major
systems ( p l umbing, e l e c t r i c a l , HVAC) have existed f o r years and 1 i ttl e
B has been done t o correct them.
Plany maintenance problems are the r e s u l t o f inmate abuse. Inmates tend
t o be destructive, and DOC f a c i l i t i e s have suffered from years of
i n t e n t i o n a l abuse. I has gone t o great expense to i n s t a l l special
windows and c e i l i n g s t o cut back on resident destruction. Many o f the
problems with the locking systems a t ASPC- Perryville are the r e s u l t of
inmate abuse.
A1 1 DOC f a c i l i t i e s currently operate above t h e i r designed population
capacity, which puts a s t r a i n on many v i t a l support systems. The sewage
treatment pl ants a t ASPC- Perryvil l e y ASPC- Tucson and a t CMI function a t
almost double t h e i r designed capacity. I n addition, the emergency
e l e c t r i c a l generator a t ASP- Fort Grant i s inadequate f o r f a c i l i ty needs
because it was intended f o r a f a c i l i t y with 300 juveniles instead o f 800
adul ts. I n s t i t u t i o n a l populations are steadily increasing, while some
u t i l i t y system capacities are kept a t t h e i r designed levels.
Consi s ten tly taxing these sys tenis beyond t h e i r desi gneci capacity 1 eve1 s
shortens the equipment l i f e and greatly increases maintenance needs.
DOC Needs To Develop
Faci 1 i t y Maintenance P l ans
Extensive maintenance problems i n Arizona prisons raise serious questions
about whether the f a c i l i t i e s provide secure confinement f o r DOC inmates
and a safe working environment f o r employees. Due to deterioration o f
e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , the new prison construction program i s adding new
f a c i l i t i e s w h i l e c u r r e n t ones become less and less usable. DOC needs t o
conduct a thorough engineering evaluation o f i t s current f a c i l i t i e s and
develop a master plan t h a t ensures continued use o f a l l prisons, new and
01 d.
DOC needs t o better plan f o r i t s future maintenance needs. Currently,
the main p r i o r i t y i s obtaining necessary bed space f o r the increasing
population, r e s u l t i n g i n 1 i t t l e attention being given to e x i s t i n g
f a c i l i t i e s . This i s demonstrated by the 1983- 84 appropriation of $ 88
m i 11 ion for new construction. I n contrast, approximately $ 1.4 m i 11 ion
was spent on maintenance during t h i s time. ASPC- Perryvi 1 l e y a re1 a t i v e l y
new f a c i l i t y , i s already showing signs of deterioration. A
malfunctioning locking system, inadequate s i t e drainage, and an
undercapaci ty wastewater treatment pl ant are i n d i c a t i v e of inadequate
design and have increased maintenance needs sooner than expected.
DOC needs to plan f o r maintenance by accurately assessing the current
condition o f a l l f a c i l i t i e s so f a c i l i t y l i f e s p a n w i l l be prolonged. This
assessment i s v i t a l t o DOC because it enables the Department t o i d e n t i f y
and evaluate i t s maintenance needs i n d e t a i l . The obtained data can then
be used t o determine which f a c i l i t i e s t o keep and which t o phase out, the
cost t o maintain these f a c i l i t i e s , and whether new ones need t o be b u i l t .
DOC compl eted a comprehensive p l an f o r ASPC- Fl orence i n October of 1980,
and an overall Departmental plan i n July o f 1982. However, both o f these
plans are now out o f date and do not address the drastic changes t h a t
have occurred i n inmate population and f a c i l i ty construction over the
1 ast three years.
A comprehensive study t o assess DOC'S current needs would take eight t o
ten months and cost $ 400,000 t o $ 500,000. The evaluation of needs
undertaken i n t h i s report was greatly l i m i t e d i n scope, and s t i l l
approximately $ 5 m i l l i o n i n repairs were i d e n t i f i e d as shown i n Table 2,
page 6. A complete study i s necessary f o r both DOC and the Legislature
t o have detailed and accurate data t o resolve current and future f a c i l i t y
maintenance needs.
CONCLUSION
DOC f a c i l i t i e s are i n very poor physical condition. A very l i m i t e d study
of maintenance needs found t h a t it may cost $ 5.2 m i l l ion t o $ 9 m i l l ion t o
repair the crumb1 ing structures and the l i f e and safety hazards i n the
u t i l i t y systems. This i s due t o a combination of factors, including the
age of the Arizona's prisons, severe overcrowding and intentional
destruction by the inmates. DOC needs t o incorporate long- term planning
i n t o i t s maintenance function.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . DOC needs to undertake a comprehensive study to develop a 1 ong- range
plan for f a c i l i t y maintenance i n which a l l needs are i d e n t i f i e d and
p r i o r i t i z e d . A1 ternatives f o r correcting the problems need to be
evaluated. The cost f o r these a1 ternatives needs t o be included i n
the construction program.
2. Based on the p r i o r i t i e s established i n Recommendation 1 above, DOC
needs t o develop a maintenance budget t h a t includes adequate funding
for the repairs i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s report.
FINDING I 1
THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
INFORPATION FOR EVALUATING FACILITY NAINTENANCE NEEDS
Currently, the budget development process does not provide s u f f i c i e n t
information f o r Departmental or Legislative eval uation o f maintenance
needs a t Arizona correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s . Consequently, the Department
of Corrections ( DOC) has not received adequate maintenance funds. This
has occurred p a r t i a l l y because DOC currently lacks some information
needed f o r developing adequate maintenance budgets. I n addition, the
budget review and appropriation process does not ensure that the
Legislature can make informed decisions about maintenance funding needs.
Furthermore, DOC does not consider maintenance needs when allocating
appropriated funds t o individual i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
DOC Has Not Received
S u f f i c i e n t Maintenance Funds
DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s have not received an adequate level of maintenance
funds. Maintenance expenditures are not s u f f i c i e n t t o keep f a c i l i t i e s i n %
good repair. Moreover, Land, Bui 1 ding and Improvement ( LB& I ) funds
requests for major maintenance projects have not been approved.
Maintenance Expenditures Appear Low - DOC ' s i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance
expenditures appear t o be below the level necessary t o maintain the
i n s t i t u t i o n s i n good repair. A1 though physical plant improvement funds
have increased maintenance funding, the amount some i n s t i t u t i o n s expend
i s s t i l l inadequate. Funding level s for other states' corrections
agencies indicate t h a t some DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance programs are
underfunded.
I, I n fiscal year 1983- 84 DOC began to receive physical plant improvement
funds through the LB& I appropriations b i l l . This funding mechanism was
establ ished to provide DOC with additional maintenance monies. The funds
DOC receives are based on 1 percent of the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' replacement
values.* DOC has received a t o t a l o f $ 3.4 m i l l i o n since f i s c a l year
1983- 84. ( Additional l y , since f i s c a l year 1983- 84 the Department has
commi t t e d more than $ 1 m i 11 ion f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l improvement projects
through Endowment Earnings funds) .**
Despite the addition of physical plant improvement funding, DOC has not
expended adequate funds t o maintain i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n f i s c a l year
1982- 83, Arizona State Prison Complex ( AsPC)- Fl orence, ASP- Fort Grant,
ASPC- Phoenix- Women ' s Center, ASPC- Phoenix- A1 hambra, and Adobe Mountain
Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n expended less than 1 percent of the f a c i l i t i e s '
replacement values on maintenance, as shown i n Table 6. Most
i n s t i t u t i o n s ' f i s c a l year 1983- 84 maintenance expenditures were be1 ow 1
percent, a1 though many increased the f o l l owing year. However,
ASPC- Fl orence, DOC'S most dilapidated f a c i l i ty, has not even received the
minimum 1 percent funding l e v e l .
* Many property management firms use a percentage o f the rep1 acement
val ue to determine maintenance budgets f o r f a c i 1 i t i e s they
oversee. One percent i s the minimum funding l e v e l . Some
properties receive funding up to 2 percent o f replacement values.
Rep1 acement val ues f o r State- owned properties i n Arizona are
determined by the Department o f Administration- Facil i t i e s Planning
and Construction Section.
** Earnings on State lands and i n t e r e s t on the investment o f the
permanent land funds are appropriated i n compliance with S25 o f the
enabling act and the Constitution to be used f o r the support o f
State penal i n s t i t u t i o n s and reformatories.
TABLE 6
MAINTENANCE FUNDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF REPLACEMENT VALUE(^ )
FACILITY
ASPC- Fl orence
ASP- Safford
ASP- Ft. Grant
ASPC- Tucson
ASPC- Perryvil l e
ASPC- Phoeni x- A1 hambra Reception
And Treatment Center
ASPC- Phoenix- AZ Center f o r Women
Adobe Mountain Juvenile
I n s t i t u t i o n
Catalina Mountain Juvenile
I n s t i t u t i o n
) Funding percentages were determined by combining actual maintenance
expenditures from the operating budget with the amount the f a c i l i t y
tias received from physical plant improvements t o provide the t o t a l
maintenance funds.
During t h i s f i s c a l year several LB& I projects were completed with
operating funds. These projects are r e f l e c t e d i n t h i s percentage
but the funds were not used f o r maintenance. See Finding 111, page
3 7
J I .
( 3) During f i s c a l year 1982- 83 equipment purchases were coded to
maintenance accounts. These expenditures are ref1 ected i n t h i s
percentage but were not used f o r maintenance.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General S t a f f from Department of
Administration replacement value records and Arizona Financial
Information System fiche and tapes for f i s c a l years 1982- 83 and
1 984- 85
I n contrast t o DOC maintenance expenditures, most f a c i l i t i e s i n two other
states' corrections departments receive a t l e a s t 1 percent of t h e i r
f a c i l i t i e s replacement val ues.* I n New Mexico, a f a c i l i t y undergoing
capital renovations received 1 percent, while other f a c i l i t i e s received
up t o 4.2 percent. I n Florida, a r e l a t i v e l y new f a c i l i t y received only
* F l o r i d a and New Mexico were selected for comparison because they
are considered by national correctional association o f f i c i a1 s to
have good maintenance programs.
0.6 percent f o r f i s c a l year 84- 85, while a l l others received 1.4 percent
or more. An i n s t i t u t i o n b u i l t i n 1913 received 4.7 percent.*
DOC maintenance expenditures per adult inmate are a1 so 1 ower than other
correctional systems. The Federal Prison System ( FPS) Western Region
f a c i l i t i e s expended from $ 201 t o $ 505 per inmate i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84.
New Mexico expenditures ranged from $ 218 t o $ 453 per inmate i n t h a t same
year. A1 1 Arizona DOC adult f a c i l i t i e s , excluding ASP- Safford, expended
less than $ 212 per inmate i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84.
For f i s c a l year 1984- 85 DOC maintenance expenditures are a1 so less than
other corrections i n s t i t u t i o n s . FPS Western Region faci 1 i t i e s received
$ 212 to $ 498 per inmate f o r maintenance funding. New Mexico correctional
i n s t i t u t i o n s received from $ 151 t o $ 720 per inmate, and f a c i l i t i e s i n
Florida received $ 144 t o $ 327 per inmate. I n contrast, DOC adult
i n s t i t u t i o n s received from $ 53 t o $ 259 per inmate and four adult
i n s t i t u t i o n s , including ASPC- Fl orence, received 1 ess than $ 1 10 per inmate.
One reason DOC expenditures are so low i n comparison with other systenis
may be t h a t the current method of determining replacement value i s not
adequate. DOC'S f a c i l i ty replacement value appl ies t o the buildings, it
does not include items such as electronic perimeter security, fencing and
external u t i l i t y systems. Because of t h i s , a Department o f
Administration ( DOAI- Facil i t i e s P l anning and Construction o f f i c i a l stated
t h a t DOC should receive more than 1 percent of the i n s t i t u t i o n s '
repl acement val ues. Further, the repl acement val ue method assumes t h a t
the f a c i l i t i e s have been adequately maintained i n the past. However,
i n s t i t u t i o n s 1 i ke ASPC- Florence are exceptions to t h i s assumption and
need more than 1 percent, according t o the DOA o f f i c i a l .
Land, Euilding And Improvenient ( LB& I) Funding I s Lacking - DOC has also
not received adequate funding f o r i t s LB& I projects. LB& I funds are used
* These maintenance funding percentages were derived from operating
expenditures only. I n contrast, the percentages shown i n Table G
i n c l ude both operating expendi tures and physical pl ant improvement
funds.
by State agencies for major capital improvements. Many of the major
maintenance projects undertaken by DOC f a l l i n this category. DOC has
requested approximately $ 87 million i n LB& I funding over the l a s t five
fiscal years, but has only received $ 10 million, or less than 12 percent
of its total requests, as shown i n Table 7.
TABLE 7
TRENDS IN DOC'S LB& I
FUNDING REQUESTSA ND LEGISLATIVEA PPROPRIATIONS() ~
- FY Amount Requested Amount Appropriated % Of Request Approved
81 - 82 $ 14,893,000 $ 3,221,000 22%
85 - 86 12,530,000 4,531 , o o o ( ~ ) - 3 6
Total $ 87,027,645 $ 1 0,032,000 1- 2%
LB& I projects used i n this analysis include physical plant
improvements and other selected f a c i l i t y improvements.
( 2) Of t h i s amount, $ 1.73 million was appropriated to DGC for physical
plant improvements. The remaining funds were appropriated to DOA
rn to build a water/ wastewater treatment plant a t ASPC- Fl orence.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from DOC budget requests and
State of Arizona Appropriations Reports for fiscal years 1981- 82
through 1985- 86
• Numerous projects are c r i t i c a l to f a c i l i t y operations and have been
requested several times between fiscal years 1981 - 82 and 1985- 86 without
being approved.* Some of these projects include: 1) a water treatment
pl a n t f o r ASPC- Fl orence, which was requested three times before being
a funded i n fiscal year 1985- 86; 2) Phase IIA and Phase IIB improvements**
* Additional information on DOC f a c i l i t y conditions can be found in
Finding I , page 5.
** The consulting firm of Rosser, White, e t . al. conducted a
comprehensive review of ASPC- Florence facil i t i e s in 1980. These
improvements were recolnmended by the consultant a t that time.
f o r ASPC- Florence, requested three times; and 3) water and sewer
improvements f o r Fort Grant, requested twice.
The lack of adequate LB& I funding has placed pressure on DOC to use
maintenance funds f o r LB& I projects. DOC completed three LB& I projects
with operating funds when appropriated funds began t o run short ( see
Finding I 11, page 39). Similar conditions may occur as new prisons are
b u i l t as a r e s u l t of the $ 72 m i l l ion construction program. Because o f
funding constraints, some support f a c i l i t i e s and capital equipment needed
t o operate the new prisons may not be provided by the Department o f
Administration. Maintenance funds may again be seen as a means o f
obtaining these f a c i l i t i e s and equipment.
DOC ' s Mai ntenance Budget Requests
Lack Essenti a1 Information
DOC ' s maintenance budget requests do not i n c l ude necessary information.
Maintenance budgets do not consider a l l factors t h a t a f f e c t the need for
projects. I n addition, administrators who develop maintenance budget
requests l a c k t h e necessary t r a i n i n g and expertise t o prepare requests.
C r i t i c a l Factors Not Considered - DOC has not considered several
important factors when devel oping the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance budgets.
DOC develops a portion o f i t s operating budget request ( including the
maintenance funding requests) using incremental budgeting.* However,
these budget requests do not address several factors t h a t increase
maintenance funding needs. Furthermore, DOC's administrators do not
always adjust requests f o r operating funds t o account f o r the impact o f
additional maintenance s t a f f or the r e j e c t i o n o f LB& I p r o j e c t requests.
Incremental budgeting does not address several factors t h a t can increase
DOC's maintenance funding needs. Incremental budgeting assumes t h a t the
1 eve1 of service remains constant, providing additional funds only f o r
* The incremental portion of the request i s called the continuation
budget. Funding requests f o r new programs or changes i n current
programs are cal l e d pol icy issues. See page 29 f o r DOC's use of
p o l i c y issues for maintenance funding requests.
increasing costs of goods and services. However, maintenance needs do
not remain constant over time. For example, as a f a c i l i t y ages the
amount necessary t o maintain the physical plant w i l l increase. DOC
f a c i l i t i e s range from 100 years 01 d a t ASP- Fort Grant t o less than one
year old a t ASPC- Douglas. Similarly, i f a prison i s overcrowded
day- to- day maintenance needs w i l l be greater than i f the f a c i l i t y i s a t
design capacity. For instance, ASP- Fort Grant and ASPC- Tucson Santa Rita
Unit exceeded design capacity by 65 percent as o f August 28, 1985.
The type o f construction a1 so affects maintenance budget requirements.
Less durable f a c i l i t i e s , such as the ASPC- Florence East Unit and North
Unit quonsets and t r a i l e r s , w i l l require more repairs than permanent
f a c i l i t i e s .
DOC operating budgets also do not address operating funding needs when
additional maintenance s t a f f are requested or when LB& I projects are not
approved. Some o f the Department's maintenance s t a f f i n g requests have
not included operating funds or equipment necessary for additional
personnel. Furthermore, unfunded LB& I projects can also lead t o
increased operating needs. For example, ASPC- Fl orence requested funding
for a water treatment plant i n f i s c a l years 1982- 83, 1983- 84 and
1985- 86. Although t h i s project was approved f o r the 1985- 86 f i s c a l year,
an ASPC- Florence o f f i c i a l estimates t h a t i n t e r i m repairs to keep the
affected systems operable required approximately $ 145,000 per year.
To ensure that a l l c r i t i c a l information i s submitted, DOC'S budget
requests should i n c l ude maintenance pol i c y issues. These pol i c y issues
shoul d address the factors t h a t resul t i n increased maintenance needs.
I n addition, staffing requests should i n c l ude re1 ated operating and
equipment needs. Col orado and New Mexico correctional f a c i l i ty managers
use s i m i l a r methods t o obtain additional maintenance funding. Federal
corrections o f f i c i a l s use zero- based budgeting,* which requires them t o
i d e n t i fy maintenance needs for the upcoming year. The zero- based
-* Zero- based budgets require t h a t a1 1 expenditures be i d e n t i f i e d and
j u s t i f i e d . It does not consider h i s t o r i c a l expenditures.
approach i s especial ly useful i n devel oping maintenance budgets, which
require more planning and analysis than other program areas. By using
maintenance p o l i c y issues, DOC's maintenance program w i l l b e n e f i t from
the f l e x i b i l i t y o f zero- based budgeting w i t h i n the State's incremental
budgeting framework.
Lack of Training And Expertise - DOC's maintenance budget requests are
inadequate, p a r t i a l l y because administrators who develop the budgets lack
adequate t r a i n i n g and expertise. DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s ' budgets are i n i t i a l l y
compiled a t each i n s t i t u t i o n . However, administrators responsible f o r
preparing the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' budgets receive only minimal training.
Moreover, maintenance supervisors and physical pl ant directors, who have
the expertise and d i r e c t knowledge of maintenance needs, often have no
r o l e i n developing budget requests.
The administrators who are responsible f o r developing the i n s t i t u t i o n s '
budget requests are not adequately trained. An Auditor General survey of
i n s t i t u t i o n administrators determined that:
e Five of 23 wardens and superintendents who responded t o the
survey indicated t h a t they have not received any t r a i n i n g on
budget preparation.
e Six o f 18 wardens and superintendents who have received t r a i n i n g
noted t h a t the t r a i n i n g was limited.
@ Eighteen of 23 wardens and superintendents indicated t h a t none
of the budget preparation t r a i n i n g addressed the maintenance
budget.
a Two o f 11 business managers who responded to the survey have not
received any budget t r a i n i n g .
e Eight of the 9 business managers trained i n budgeting indicated
t h a t the t r a i n i n g d i d not address the maintenance budget.
A1 though Central Office provides t r a i n i n g sessions yearly, many
administrators do not attend. I n contrast, the New Mexico Department of
Corrections has a policy t h a t requires the administrators to attend
budget t r a i n i n g sessions. Because many DOC administrators do not attend
t r a i n i n g sessions, it i s l i k e l y t h a t they do not begin the budget
development process u n t i l after Central Office sends out the budget
forms. This decreases the quality of the budget request because Central
Office does not provide the forms until shortly before the institutions'
requests are due to be completed. For example, the Bureau of Management
and Budget provided the institutions' assistant directors with the budget
forms and instructions for the 1986- 87 budget 14 working days before
policy issues were due and 28 days before continuation budgets were due.
During this time the institutions also had to allocate their 1985- 86
budgets to their various functions before the fiscal year started.
DOC maintenance supervisors and physical pl ant directors, who have the
expertise and direct know1 edge to i denti fy maintenance needs, often have
no role in developing budget requests. Only five of 10 maintenance
supervisors and physical plant directors who responded to an Auditor
General survey indicated that they are asked about maintenance budget
needs. In contrast, individual s i n simi 1 ar positions at corrections
institutions in New Mexico, New Jersey, Colorado and a t the Federal level
are required to develop the maintenance budget request. Furthermore,
these individuals receive budget development training that focuses
specifically on the maintenance budget and its unique funding needs.
Budaet Review and A ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t i o n
Process Limits Maintenance
Budget Decision- Making
The existing budget process does not provide opportunities for executive
and Legislative evaluation of maintenance needs when recommending and
appropriating funds. Executive and Legislative budget analysis does not
focus on individual institutions. Moreover, the use of LB& I projects to
meet major maintenance needs can complicate funding for operating
maintenance needs.
Budget Review Does Not Focus On The Institutional Level - Presently,
maintenance funding needs are not specifically addressed during the
budget review process. Executive and Legi sl ative budget analysts reviw
continuation budget requests for each DOC program, b u t do not evaluate
more detailed items such as maintenance funds for each institution. The
analysts' work loads prevent them from reviewing budget requests i n
greater detail.
The Executive Budget Office ( EBG) and Joint Legislative Budget Committee
( JLBC) analysts do not review each institution ' s continuation budget
maintenance requests and expenditures. Rather, their review is limited
to the division 1 eve1 , therefore, each institution ' s maintenance requests
and expenditures cannot be analyzed. DOC's budget request incl udes
complete expenditure and request detail s for each division. However, DOC
is not required to submit such details for each institution. As a
result, the analysts are not able to assess the adequacy of each
facil i ty ' s maintenance funds.
Thorough review and analysis of Corrections budget requests is c r i t i c a l .
DOC budget has experienced tremendous growth i n the past several years
and warrants additional review. The DOC budget grew from $ 50.4 million
i n fiscal year 1979- 80 to $ 170.4 million i n 1985- 86, an increase of
approximately 238 percent. T h i s increase i n DOC's budget has resulted
from significant inmate population increases. The institutions, which
house the inmates, expend a t l e a s t two- thirds of DOC's budget. However,
the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' budgets are not reviewed individually.
Although EBO and JLBC analysts agree that reviewing institutional
requests would be valuable, they feel that t h e i r work 1 oad prevents them
from doing so. DOC's current EBO analyst has three assi~ nments: DOC,
the Department of Education, and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. These
three assi gnn~ ents constitute approximately one- ha1 f of the General Fund
budget. DOC's JLBC analyst has five assignments: DOC, the Attorney
General ' s Off ice, the Audi tor General ' s Office, the Board of Pardons and
Paroles, and the Land Department. Both analysts agree that i f DOC's
budget requests were reviewed a t the institutional level i t would require
a t l e a s t one full- time analyst for each budget office. However, EBO and
JLBC currently have only 18 analysts i n total for the State's 100
agencies.
LEA1 Projects Complicate Maintenance Funding - Use of LB& I funds to meet
major maintenance needs can compl icate funding f o r operating maintenance
needs. LB& I funds are sometimes necessary f o r specific maintenance
projects. However, because the Legislature appropriates LB& I monies
a f t e r a l l agencies' operating budgets are appropriated, DOC's maintenance
operating budget may not always be adequate. I n some cases, the lack o f
LB& I funds w i l l place a burden on the operating budget. For example, i f
an LB& I request t o replace a roof i s not funded, the maintenance
department may have t o patch the roof t o prevent leaking and repair water
damage to the b u i l d i n g ' s i n t e r i o r . Because the i n s t i t u t i o n had planned
t o replace the roof, i t s operating budget may not have adequate funds t o
make i n t e r i m repairs and s t i l l meet other routine maintenance needs. DOC
could develop policy issues t h a t address the consequences of not
receiving funding f o r an LB& I project. Although policy issues are
considered before LB& I projects are funded, the EBO and JLBC analysts
could make recommendations based on t h e i r knowledge o f the l i k e l i h o o d
t h a t the LB& I p r o j e c t would be funded. The analysts agree t h a t t h i s i s a
viable a1 ternative t h a t would address potential operating budget
s h o r t f a l l s.
Maintenance Is Not A P r i o r i t v - - - - -.,
I n Allocating And Expending
Appropriated Funds
DOC does not consider maintenance needs when a1 1 ocating and expending
funds. DOC's a1 1 ocation process does not recognize individual
i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance needs. I n addition, a1 1 ocations are made f o r
" Other Operating Expenditures" i n t o t a l , a1 1 owing the i n s t i t u t i o n s t o
determine the extent of maintenance funding.
A1 locations Do Not Consider Maintenance - DOC's budget allocations do n o t
I) recognize individual i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance needs. A1 though
i n s t i t u t i o n a l a1 1 ocations are based on several factors, the condition of
f a c i l i t i e s i s not included among these factors. After receiving i t s
appropriation, DOC ' s Bureau o f Management and Budget, i n conjunction with
the appropriate division, allocates funds t o each i n s t i t u t i o n . DOC uses
the f o l 1 owing c r i t e r i a t o a1 1 ocate the Department's appropriation:
1. past expenditures of the f a c i l i t y , *
2. present and forecasted inmate population,
3. approved policy issues, and
4. forecasted construction project compl e t i on dates.
A1 though these factors affect maintenance requirements, they are not
s u f f i c i e n t f o r determining an i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance funding needs
because they do not recognize a f a c i l i t y ' s state o f repair. I n contrast,
Florida and Colorado corrections o f f i c i a l s consider a f a c i l i t y ' S
maintenance requirements when appropriations are a1 1 ocated.
Allocations Do Not Specify Maintenance Funds - DOC allocations are made
f o r " Other Operating Expenditures ," therefore, the i n s t i t u t i o n s determine
the amount of funds committed t o maintenance. A1 lowing the i n s t i t u t i o n s
to determine the amount of funds f o r maintenance has resulted i n
i n s u f f i c i e n t support f o r maintenance a t some i n s t i t u t i o n s . Some
i n s t i t u t i o n s do not a1 1 ocate any funds specifical ly f o r maintenance,
keeping t o t a l " Cther Operating Expenditures" under central ized control.
Consequently, the maintenance function has had no funds committed to it
a t these i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Only three of ten maintenance supervisors and physical plant directors
who responded t o an Auditor General survey indicated t h a t they are given
a maintenance budget. Further, only one adul t i n s t i t u t i o n s maintenance
head out o f e i g h t i s aware o f the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s maintenance budget. This
s i t u a t i o n makes planning and p r i o r i t i z i n g maintenance a c t i v i t i e s
d i f f i c u l t f o r these individual s who are responsible f o r properties t h a t
range i n val ue from $ 600,000 t o $ 65 m i 11 ion.
Other states' corrections agencies, i n contrast t o Arizona, designate
. funds for maintenance and require maintenance managers to oversee the
maintenance budget. Florida and Colorado corrections o f f i c i a l s designate
funds speci f i c a l ly for maintenance when making a1 1 ocations. According to
one Florida corrections o f f i c i a l , the specific a1 1 ocations a1 1 ow greater
expenditure control. Furthermore, corrections maintenance department
* DOC'S h i s t o r i c a l maintenance expenditures are inaccurate. See
Finding 111, page 37.
managers i n the Federal Prison System, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and
New Jersey are required t o oversee the maintenance budgets.
CONCLUSION
The budget development process i s not designed t o provide necessary
information for Departmental or Legislative evaluation o f f a c i l i t y
maintenance needs. As a r e s u l t , DOC has not received adequate
maintenance funds. DOC 1 acks c r i t i c a l information necessary for
developing adequate maintenance budgets. I n addition, the budget review
and appropriation process does not ensure t h a t the Legislature can make
informed decisions about maintenance needs. Furthermore, DOC does not
consider maintenance needs when a l l o c a t i n g and expending i t s
appropriation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Legislature shoul d consider:
1. Funding maintenance needs on a regular and consistent basis using a
predetermined formula such as a minimum o f 1 percent o f f a c i l i t y
repl acemen t val ue.
2. Funding LB& I projects t h a t are c r i t i c a l to f a c i l i t y maintenance.
3. Directing DOA- Facilities Planning and Construction Section t o u t i l i z e
a more accurate method of determining DOC f a c i 1 i t i e s repl acement
costs.
4. Providing, i f necessary, EBO and JLBC additional s t a f f f o r more
thorough review of DOC ' s budgets.
The Executive Budget Office and J o i n t Legislative Budget Committee staff
shoul d consider:
1 . Assigning one staff member f u l l time t o the DOC budget to a1 1 ow f o r
more thorough review o f DOC'S i n s t i t u t i o n a l budget requests. If
s u f f i c i e n t s t a f f are not avail able, additional positions shoul d be
requested.
2. Making recommendations f o r funding pol i c y issues that address
operating budget requirements when LB& I major maintenance projects
w i l l not be recommended.
3. Directing DOC t o include maintenance expenditure and request data f o r
each i n s t i t u t i o n i n i t s budget request so the analysts can review
i n s t i t u t i o n a l needs.
DCC should:
1. Develop maintenance Policy Issues to address:
a) the increasing maintenance funding needs t h a t r e s u l t from a
f a c i 1 i ty ' s increased age, use and construction type,
b) the impact on operating budgets when LB& I projects are not
funded, and
c ) operating and equipment funds needed when additional maintenance
s t a f f are requested.
2. Provide mandatory maintenance budget development t r a i n i n g to the
i n s t i t u t i o n s ' administrators. This t r a i n i n g should focus on the
uneven nature of maintenance needs and how these needs can be
addressed with maintenance policy issues.
3. Require t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' maintenance managers p a r t i c i p a t e i n
the maintenance budget development and oversight.
4. Consider the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' physical plant conditions when a1 1 ocatiny
appropriated funds. DOC should a1 locate maintenance funds separately
from the remaining " Other Operating Expenditures" t o ensure t h a t the
i n s t i t u t i o n s use the funds f o r maintenance.
FINDING I11
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HAS OVERSTATED MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES
The Department of Corrections ( DOC ) has misrepresented i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s '
maintenance expenditures. The i n s t i t u t i o n s ' reported maintenance
expenditures are inaccurate due t o improper purchases. These improper
expenditures were possible because DOC does not review i n s t i t u t i o n a l
maintenance expenditures. Because o f the poor conditions o f Arizona's
prisons, t h e Legislature may want t o speci f i c a l ly appropriate maintenance
funds t o ensure t h a t the funds are used properly t o provide needed
maintenance.
I n s t i t u t i o n s ' Maintenance
kxpenditure Data I s Inaccurate
Maintenance expenditures reported by DOC ins ti t u t i ons are incorrect. The
i n s t i t u t i o n s have completed Land, Building and Improvement ( LB& I ) projects
with operating funds. Moreover, the i n s t i t u t i o n s have inappropriately
i d e n t i f i e d capital equipment purchases as maintenance supplies. Improper
use of these funds has reduced funds available f o r maintenance and
contributed to an erroneous budget base.
The Legislature appropriates DOC f a c i l i ty maintenance funds through the
operating and LB& I appropriations b i l l s. The maintenance funds i n the
operating budgets are w i t h i n the " Other Operation Expenditures" category.
Therefore, maintenance operating funds t h a t are used t o preserve a
f a c i l i t y i n i t s e x i s t i n g state are not specified i n DOC appropriations.
LB& I funds are appropriated f o r f a c i l i t y improvement projects, which
include major repair projects as well as new construction. LB& I
appropriations specify do1 1 ar amounts for f a c i l i ty improvement projects.
With the exception of LB& I maintenance projects, there i s no specific
appropriation f o r DOC maintenance.
LB& I Projects Inappropriately Funded - DOC institutions have used their
operating appropriations for LB& I projects. The institutions have funded
unauthorized LB& I projects w i t h operating funds. In addition,
institutions have completed approved LB& I projects w i t h their operating
appropriation.
Using a general appropriation for LB& I projects, unless those projects are
specified i n the general appropriations b i l l , i s prohibited. Attorney
General Opinion 181- 103 states that:
" An appropriation i s , the setting aside from the public revenue of a
certain sum of money for a specified object, i n such a manner that the
executive officers of the government are authorized to use that money,
and no more, for that object and no other, . . . therefore . . . monies may be expended only for work specified by the terms of
the appropriation and . . . legislative action will be necessary to
authorize an expenditure for an. v other work." ( em~ hasis added)
Despite t h i s restriction, four DOC institutions initiated and completed
unauthorized LB& I projects w i t h their operating appropriations.* A1 though
the expenditures were made for construction, the institutions reported
them as maintenance expenditures.
e Arizona State Prison Complex ( AsPC)- Perryville used approximately
$ 10,100 to build racquetball courts, storage sheds and a
motorpool i n fiscal year 1982- 83.
a ASP- Safford used approximately $ 36,000 to build a 36- bed quonset
and an administration bui 1 ding w i t h structures from the A1 pine
Conservation Camp during fiscal year 1982- 83.
a ASP- Picacho used approximately $ 6,500 to erect outdoor ramadas
f o r v i s i t a t i o n and a wall i n the kitchen i n fiscal year 1983- 84.
B Catal ina Mountain Juvenile Institution ( Cf4lI ) used approximately
$ 10,900 to build a guard tower and visitation center enclosure
during fiscal year 1984- 85. **
* These projects a1 so viol ate statutory requirements for pub1 ic works
construction. Attorney General opinion 182- 064 states that ". . . A. R. S. $ 32- 142 sets out an absolute requirement that any
public works construction be supervised by a qualified [ Board of
** TEexcphennidciatlu reRse gfiosrt rat htiiosn ] p rroejgeicstt rwaenrte. " c oded to maintenance supplies and
educational suppl ies.
I n addition t o these unauthorized LB& I projects, three DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s
used t h e i r operating appropriation t o complete approved LB& I construction
projects.
e ASP- Safford used approximately $ 10,300 t o complete the mess h a l l
construction p r o j e c t during f i s c a l year 1982- 83.
6 ASP- Fort Grant used approximately $ 2,300 to f i n i s h construction
on the new v i s i t a t i o n center during f i s c a l year 1982- 83.
e ASPC- Perryvi 11 e used approximately $ 10,900 t o compl ete Aspen
Driving While Intoxicated Center and ASPC- Perryvil l e fencing
projects i n f i s c a l year 1982- 83.
Although the i n s t i t u t i o n s may have needed t o i n i t i a t e and complete the
LB& I projects, the Department shoul d have requested approval to transfer
operating funds to an LB& I account. As stated i n Attorney General Opinion
181- 103, L e g i s l a t i v e action i s required i f an appropriation i s to be used
f o r purposes other than was intended. Instead o f requesting transfers,
however, the i n s t i t u t i o n s charged the expenditures to repair and
maintenance. Yet, these projects are capital out1 ays, not maintenance or
repairs, and should have been funded with LB& I monies rather than
operating funds.
Capital Equipment Recorded As Maintenance - Some i n s t i t u t i o n s ' c a p i t a l
equipment purchases have been improperly recorded as maintenance i terns.
A t l e a s t two DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s have purchased capital equipment and charged
the purchases t o maintenance accounts.*
ASP- Safford - approximately $ 12,500 was expended on a r o l l - u p
g r i l l e and an a i r cooled condensing u n i t i n f i s c a l year 1982- 83.
e CMI - approximately $ 20,500 was used to purchase capital
equipment f o r the kitchen and sewage treatment system i n f i s c a l
year 1982- 83.
* Capital equipment i s defined by the Arizona Department o f
Administration ( DOA) as a1 1 nonexpendabl e material s with an
a c q u i s i t i o n cost o f more than $ 300 and probable useful l i f e o f more
than one year. DOA requires t h a t each State agency keep a
nonexpendabl e material s inventory. However, material s t h a t are
attached to or have become a permanent p a r t o f a b u i l d i n g or
structure shoul d not be i n c l uded i n the nonexpendable material s
inventory.
These capital equi pment purchases circumvented DOC'S capital equipment
procurement procedures and control s. From f i s c a l year 1982- 83 through
1984- 85, DOC required t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s request capital equipment
through Central Office. This system was established t o control the
i n s t i t u t i o n s ' capital equipment purchases and to provide Central Office
with a way t o inventory capital equipment. According t o one Central
Office empl oyee, designating capital equipment purchases as maintenance
i tems reduces the Department's abi 1 i ty t o control i t s equipment inventory.
Maintenance Funds Reduced - DOC ' s improper expenditures have reduced funds
available f o r maintenance and contributed t o an erroneous budget base.
The t o t a l funds recorded f o r ASP- Safford' s f i s c a l year 1982- 83 maintenance
were approximately $ 129,300, however, a t l e a s t $ 59,500 was used on
nonmai ntenance projects. S i m i 1 arly, CMJI recorded approximately $ 1 07,400
f o r f i s c a l year 1982- 83 maintenance expenditures, but a t 1 east $ 20,600 i s
known to have been used f o r nonmaintenance items. Consequently, while
some DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s have used t h e i r operating budgets inappropriately,
DOC f a c i l i t i e s have deteriorated.
The f u l l extent of the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' improper use o f funds i s unknown.
A1 1 inappropriate expendi tures coul d not be determi ned because only a
small percentage o f the claims f o r f i s c a l years 1982- 83, 1983- 84 and
1984- 85 were reviewed. Moreover, claims were not reviewed f o r a l l
i n s t i t u t i o n s . Therefore, other unapproved projects may exist. A1 so, the
t o t a l expenditures f o r i d e n t i f i e d projects may be greater than what was
found during t h i s audit. For example, only $ 6,700 o f the $ 30,000 used f o r
ASP- Safford's quonset h u t p r o j e c t was i d e n t i f i e d through the claims
selected. Sirnil arly, according to DOC o f f i c i a l s, ASP- Fort Grant's
v i s i t a t i o n center's construction costs exceeded the LB& I appropriation by
approximately $ 25,000, however, only one $ 2,300 claim was selected during
the audi t.
Inadequately control 1 ed maintenance expenditures have resul ted i n a
h i s t o r i c a l record t h a t includes many nonmaintenance items. Because the
expenditure record i s used as the basis f o r developing budget requests,
these requests are also i n error. Future DOC maintenance budgets w i l l be
developed with erroneous information, unless the maintenance budget i s
zero- based.
Improper Expenditures Possible
Due To Inadeauate Review
The i n s t i t u t i o n s ' inappropriate expenditures were possible because of
inadequate maintenance expenditure data review. Although DOC redesigned
i t s Arizona Financial Information System ( AFIS) reports to provide for
comparisons among i n s t i t u t i o n s , the reports are not being used f o r t h i s
purpose. Furthermore, AFIS does not provide DOC with s u f f i c i e n t
mai ntenance expenditure data. A more informative accounting system woul d
provide DOC with greater control over maintenance.
Unused AFIS Data - DOC has not adequately used i t s expenditure data,
a1 though cost centers were developed speci f i c a l ly f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l
comparisons. Each i n s t i t u t i o n has a t l e a s t 20 cost centers, including
plant operations, t h a t incur maintenance expenditures. I n f i s c a l year
1983- 84 DOC reorganized i t s i n s t i t u t i o n a l cost centers. One of the
primary reasons f o r reorganizing the cost centers was t o provide DOC with
a way to compare costs among the i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n s t i t u t i o n a l comparisons
would i d e n t i f y expenditures t h a t were out o f l i n e from the other
i n s t i t u t i o n s . However, DOC has not used cost center expenditure data to
monitor the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' budgets. Simi 1 arly, p r i o r t o f i s c a l year
1983- 84 DOC did not compare various i n s t i t u t i o n a l expenditures to monitor
expenditure 1 eve1 s. * According to one DOC administrator, specific
expenditures have not been reviewed because Central Office and the
i n s t i t u t i o n s are interested only i n t o t a l do1 1 ars expended rather than
types o f expenditures and the imp1 ications o f these expenditures.
Because DOC has not reviewed the plant operations cost center and
maintenance expenditure data, the ins ti t u t i o n s ' maintenance expenditures
have not been adequately controlled. If DOC o f f i c i a l s had reviewed t h i s
data, they may have determined t h a t maintenance expenditures a t some
* S i m i l ar comparisons led to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of inappropriate
expenditures i n t h i s audit.
i n s t i t u t i o n s were f a r below the expenditures of smaller and newer
i n s t i t u t i o n s . Consequently, the i n s t i t u t i o n s may have been able t o make
improper purchases.*
Adequate Information Not Available - AFIS maintenance expenditure
categories are not adequate to provide DOC with important expenditure
data. The Arizona Chart of Accounts does not include s u f f i c i e n t
categories i n which t o code maintenance expenditures. Consequently, DOC
spent more than $ 1,133,000 on u n i d e n t i f i a b l e maintenance items during
f i s c a l years 1982- 83 through 1984- 85.
The Chart of Accounts does not include s u f f i c i e n t categories f o r
maintenance expenditures. Some DOC business managers indicated t h a t the
Chart of Accounts does not include appropriate categories f o r specific
maintenance i terns. DOC uses two primary r e p a i r and maintenance accounts
for f a c i l i ty maintenance: " Repair and Mai ntenance- Contract" and " Kepai r
and Maintenance- Suppl ies." Each o f these accounts i n c l udes categories
t h a t further i d e n t i f y the types o f maintenance being performed. Within
the account " Repair and Maintenance Suppl ies" there are seven categories:**
1. Buildings
2. Communication
3. H i ghway- Roadway
4. Highway- Signs and T r a f f i c Control
5. H i ghway- Other
6. Shop
7. Other
A substanti a1 amount of maintenance invol ves a c t i v i t i e s unrel ated to
b u i l dings, communications and shop, which are the three maintenance
suppl ies categories most appl icabl e t o DOC f a c i l i t i e s . For example, the
* DOC administration has reorganized i t s cost centers f o r f i s c a l year
1985- 896. This reorganization was done to provide not only
comparative costs, but also a means of i d e n t i f y i n g expenditures that
were not previously i d e n t i f i e d . Department o f f i c i a l s stated t h a t
t h i s new system w i l l be used to monitor i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
more c l osely .
** The " Repair and Maintenance- Contract" category i s very similar to
these categories.
maintenance on perimeter lights, security systems and u t i l i t i e s outside a
building do not fa1 1 into any specific maintenance categories. However,
due to the lack of categories these expenditures can only be coded " other."
Due to the lack of sufficient maintenance categories, approximately
$ 1 , I 33,000 was coded " other" during f i scal years 1982- 83 through 1984- 85,
and i s t h u s unidentifiable. These expenditures comprise approximately 35
percent of the total funds expended for maintenance i n that period. Lack
of adequate detail i n the maintenance expenditure categories prevents
identification of how the $ 1,133,000 was used.
D
Informative Accounting System - A detailed accounting system allows for
more accurate identification of a1 1 maintenance expenditures. For
example, Fl orida's accounting system incl udes several maintenance
categories that aid its users i n planning and controlling expenditures.
F1 ori da's system has 14 maintenance contract categories and ten
maintenance suppl ies categories t h a t clearly identify the system being
repaired. The categories incl ude:
Bui 1 dings
Communications
Heating And Air conditioning
Kitchen Equipment
Laundry
Medical Equipment
Securi ty Equi pmen t
Maintenance Suppl ies- El ectri cal
Lumber
Roofing
Pl umbing
Gl ass Products
Florida's system a s s i s t s i t s Department of Corrections i n planning and
controlling maintenance. According to a Florida Department of
Corrections official , the current system was imp1 emented two years ago
because the previous system did not provide sufficient information for
management deci sion- making. The current system assists maintenance
personnel i n planning, because i t a1 1 ows them to identify maintenance
funds expended on each system. For example, each f a c i l i t y knows exactly
how much was spent on roofing, or heating and a i r conditioning projects.
Further, the business managers can control maintenance expenditures
because they know exactly where the funds are going. In addition, if
unexpected needs arise, Fl orida corrections o f f i c i a l s feel t h a t they have
better documentation t o support a request f o r additional funds.
The General Accounting Office ( GAO), the State agency t h a t oversees State
accounting a c t i v i t i e s , could revise the Chart o f Accounts to provide DOC
with improved expenditure control . Currently, GAO i s r e v i s i n g the Chart
o f Accounts, however, the revisions focus on capital out1 ay accounts.
According to a GAO o f f i c i a l , the f a c t t h a t DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s have coded 35
percent o f t h e i r maintenance expendi tures t o " other" categories might be
s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n t o request an addition t o the Chart of Accounts.
However, GAO would f i r s t determine the level of s p e c i f i c types o f
maintenance expenditures Statewide before it would revise maintenance
categories w i t h i n the Chart o f Accounts.
If the Chart o f Accounts i s not revised, DOC could supplement i t s AFIS
data with a manual system s i m i l a r t o F l o r i d a ' s accounting system. This
system could assist the Department i n planning f o r maintenance and
control 1 ing maintenance expenditures. A1 though DOC woul d s t i 11 use AFIS
for overall accounting, an i n t e r n a l system coul d provide the i n s t i t u t i o n s
with more accurate maintenance expenditure data. The manual system could
be developed t o provide further breakdown w i t h i n the " other" maintenance
categories.
Legi s l ature May Want
To A ~ ~ r o ~ r i Ma atient enance , a 8 - -
Funds Se~ aratevl
Because of the poor conditions o f Arizona's prison f a c i l i t i e s , the
Legisl ature may want to specifical ly appropriate DOC maintenance funds to
ensure t h a t the monies are used appropriately. Recent changes w i t h i n DOC
may l i m i t improper expenditures i n the future. However, if DOC cannot
ensure t h a t adequate funds w i l l be used f o r maintenance, the Legislature
shoul d consider appropriating maintenance funds separately.
Changes May Prevent Future Problems - Recent changes w i t h i n DOC may l i m i t
improper expenditures i n the future. DOC recently establ ished an i n t e r n a l
review process f o r construction projects. Furthermore, improper capital
equipment purchases may be control 1 ed because the i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l
receive capital equipment funds i n future f i s c a l years. These changes may
eliminate inconsistencies i n DOC maintenance expenditure control.
DOC issued D i r e c t o r ' s Management Order ( DMO) 85- 13, " Construction and
Maintenance Project Requirements," on July 22, 1985. The DM0 defines
maintenance construction projects ( LB& I ) and maintenance repair projects
and i d e n t i f i e s the funding source f o r each p r o j e c t type. The DM0 requires
t h a t a l l construction and major maintenance projects be reviewed by the
Bureau o f Maintenance and P l anning w i t h i n Central Office. This review
shoul d improve DOC'S abil i ty t o control the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' construction
a c t i v i t i e s .
Improper capital equipment purchases may be stopped because the
i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l receive t h e i r own capital equipment funds s t a r t i n g i n
fiscal year 1985- 86. DOC administrators determined that centralized
capital equipment purchasing created more oversight problems than it
solved. I n fact, the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' improper coding o f capital equipment
purchases may have occurred i n p a r t because they were not allowed to
purchase t h e i r own capital equipment. A1 though t h i s factor aid not play a
part i n the decision t o return equipment funds t o the i n s t i t u t i o n s , it i s
1 ess 1 i kely t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l improperly code these purchases
because they w i l l control t h e i r capital equipment funds.
These changes may eliminate inconsistencies i n Departmental decisions
which a1 1 owed i n s t i t u t i o n s to inappropriately use maintenance funds for
LB& I projects and equipment purchases. I n some cases, the i n s t i t u t i o n s
received Central O f f ice approval before completing unauthorized LB& I
projects or improperly purchasing capital equipment. By approving
improper expenditures, Central Office has set a precedent for other
i n s t i t u t i o n s t o f o l low.
Maintenance Appropriation Should Be Considered - If the Cepartment cannot
ensure t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l use maintenance funds appropriately, the
Legislature shoul d consider appropriating maintenance monies separately.
Similar concerns over tracking and control 1 ing funds has led the
Legislature t o appropriate other DOC monies separately. Other state
l e g i s l atures appropriate funds f o r maintenance t o guarantee t h a t t h e i r
correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l be properly maintained.
Concern regarding expenditure tracking and control 1 ed the Legislature t o
appropriate some DOC monies separately. DOC receives lump sum
appropriations for each o f i t s f i v e programs. However, the following DOC
expenditures have been appropriated as " below the 1 ine i tems" t o allow f o r
greater expenditure tracking and control:* inmate discharge expense, work
incentive pay pl an, exoffenders ' stipends, purchase of care, and
management information system monies.
Below the l i n e item appropriations lock the monies i n so t h a t the agency
cannot move the funds t o another area. I f DOC needed t o transfer monies
out of a " below the 1 ine item" category, the Executive Budget Office ( EBO)
would request J o i n t Legislative Budget Commi ttee ( JLBC) approval.
( Although JLBC approval i s not required, DOC'S EBO analyst stated t h a t it
woul d request JLBC approval because of Legisl a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n these
expenditures. 1 Maintenance funds coul d a1 so be control 1 ed i n the same
manner as DOC food monies, which were removed from the " Other Operating
Expenditures" 1 ine i tem i n the f i s c a l year 1985- 86 appropriation.
Transferring food monies now requires EBO approval. Either method would
a1 1 ow for better expenditure tracking because the monies woul d be
i d e n t i f i e d separately.
Other states have appropriated maintenance funds separately to a1 1 ow for
increased control. The New Mexico Legisl ature's f i s c a l year 1985- 86
maintenance appropriation t o the New Mexico Department o f Corrections was
made by l i n e item. Furthermore, New Jersey's l e g i s l a t u r e began to
appropriate maintenance funds as a separate program i n f i s c a l year
1982- 83. The New Jersey l e g i s l a t u r e made t h i s change to segregate
maintenance expenditures and ensure t h a t the funds would be properly
u t i l ized. Florida's maintenance funds have a1 so been appropriated as a
separate program since 1970, when t h a t state went t o program budgeting.
x Line i terns i n c l ude personal services, empl oyee re1 ated expenditures,
professional and outside services, other operating expenditures, etc.
CONCLUSI ON
DOC has overstated its maintenance expenditures. The institutions'
maintenance expenditures are inaccurate because LB& I projects and capital
equipment purchases have been identified as maintenance repairs. These
improper expenditures were possible because DOC does not review
institutional maintenance expenditures. Because of the poor conditions of
Arizona's prisons, the Legisl ature may want to appropriate maintenance
funds separately to ensure that the funds are used properly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Legislature should consider:
1. Directing DOC to develop its maintenance budget using a zero- based
method to eliminate the improper expenditures from the budget base.
2. Appropriating DOC maintenance funds separately.
The Department of Corrections shoul d:
1 . Closely monitor institutional expenditures to ensure that LB& I
projects or equipment purchases are not being made w i t h funds
designated for maintenance.
2. Request that the Joint Legislative Budget Commi ttee transfer operating
appropriations to LB& I accounts when the funds are going to be used
for LB& I projects.
3. Request that GAO revise the Chart of Accounts maintenance categories,
or develop a manual accounting system to allow for more accurate
identification of maintenance expenditures. This system shoul d
incl ude more specific categories for maintenance expenditures.
FINDING I V
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NEEDS TO REVIEW I4AINTENANCE STAFFING
The Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC ) i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance
s t a f f may be inadequate t o meet i t s responsibil i t i e s . DOC f a c i l i t i e s are
not being properly maintained. This has occurred p a r t i a l l y because the
Department's maintenance s t a f f level s and expertise may not be s u f f i c i e n t
t o maintain i t s f a c i l i t i e s .
DOC F a c i l i t i e s Lack
Proper Maintenance
DOC has not adequately maintained i t s f a c i l i t i e s . Some routine
maintenance projects have been improperly compl eted. A1 so, the
Department has not imp1 emented a comprehensive preventive maintenance
program.
Improper Routine Maintenance - DOC has not ensured t h a t routine repair
work i s properly completed. A recent review of DOC f a c i l i t i e s yielded
numerous examples o f inadequate maintenance. This lack o f consistent and
proper r e p a i r work has l e d t o p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t s t o the health and safety
o f DOC s t a f f and inmates.
During recent f a c i l i t y v i s i t s , examples o f a lack o f adequate repair
were observed.
ILLUSTRATION 5
LEAKING SEWER PIPES
Illustration 5 shows sewage and
domestic water leaking into a
plumbing chase a t Arizona State
Prison Compl ex ( ASPC )- Fl orence.
Because no drainage was available
in the plumbing chase, a trough
was chiseled i n the concrete floor
to collect the standing water. An
evaporative- cool er water pump is
used to return collected water to
the sewer 1 ine ( see arrows). The
leaks have been occurring for some
time and should have been
repai red. A State 1 ab
microbial ogi s t stated that the
leaking sewer water may present a
severe health hazard to DOC staff
working i n that plumbing chase.
e In cellblocks 2, 3 and 4 at ASPC- Florence, maintenance staff
joined galvanized and copper water pipe i n a plumbing repair
project. Combining these two metals results in an electrolysis
that dissolves metaTl ic pl umbing. This unnecessary
deterioration of the plumbing can result i n increased
maintenance building costs.
@ A t Catal ina Mountain Juveni 1 e Institution, maintenance staff
were unaware of the need to p u t protective fluid i n the cooling
system and consequently, d i d not. This resulted i n the growth
of algae w i t h subsequent reduction i n the system's efficiency
and potential increased operating costs.
a Illustrations 6 and 7 show an electrical repair a t
ASPC- Florence. An old electrical junction box was destroyed by
f i r e due to a short circuit caused by water leaking into the box
( Illustration 6). The circuit box was replaced and repaired
incorrectly. The wires shown in Illustration 7 should not be
exposed, b u t should be in electrical conduit. A1 so, the wiring
shown by arrows in Illustration 7 is anchored to the overhead
metal grate. On our . subsequent v i s i t , this project was
appropriately repaired.
ILLUSTRATION 6 ILLUSTRATION 7
DESTROYED ELECTRICAL REPAIRED ELECTRICAL
JUNCTION BOX JUNCTION BOX
ILLUSTRATION 8
WATER LEAK - DETERIORATING CONDUIT
The arrows i n I l l u s t r a t i o n 8 show an e l e c t r i c a l conduit eroded
by dripping water a t ASPC- Florence. It i s apparent from the
d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f the conduit t h a t - t h e water has been dripping
f o r some time. The e l e c t r i c a l wiring i s l i v e , and i n conjunction
with the deteriorated conduit, creates an e l e c t r i c a l c i r c u i t
t h a t i s not grounded. The leak should have been repaired and
the conduit replaced to eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y o f
electrocution.
At Catalina Mountain Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n a c h l o r i n a t o r was
purchased i n 1983 to automatically add an appropriate amount of
chlorine t o the water system. As o f September 1985, the
c h l o r i n a t o r had not been hooked up because an e l e c t r i c switch
required to connect the c h l o r i n a t o r t o the water system had not
been purchased. As a resul t, maintenance personnel have added
handfuls of swimming pool chlorine t o the domestic water. Such
hand c h l o r i n a t i n g does not ensure t h a t the amount o f c h l o r i n e i s
adequate. According to a Department o f Heal t h Services
Specialist, t h i s may r e s u l t i n health problems f o r s t a f f and
incarcerated juveniles.
Lack O f Complete Preventive Maintenance Program - DOC has not implemented
a comprehensive preventive maintenance program. Preventive maintenance
i s an important and cost e f f e c t i v e phase o f a maintenance program.
However, DOC f a c i l i t i e s do not have adequate preventive maintenance
programs. Consequently, DOC w i l l not r e a l i z e the potential savings o f a
preventive maintenance program.
Preventive Maintenance i s an important part of a maintenance program. It
involves planning f o r the regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance
of equipment, systems and buildings. This inspection and maintenance i s
designed to f o r e s t a l l the need f o r major r e p a i r or replacement, and to
ensure t h a t physical p l a n t and equipment remain operable and e f f i c i e n t .
DOC f a c i l i t i e s reviewed during t h i s audit have not implemented complete
preventive maintenance programs. ASPC- Tucson, ASPC- Perryville and Adobe
Mountain Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n perform the most preventive maintenance o f
a l l f a c i l i t i e s . However, none o f these three i n s t i t u t i o n s have been able
to perform preventive maintenance on a l l equipment and systems. The
faci 1 i ty maintenance supervisors from these three i n s t i t u t i o n s indicated
that, with proper resources, they would add the inspection of b u i l d i n g
i n t e g r i t y , roofs and security systems t o t h e i r preventive maintenance
a c t i v i t i e s . Further, ASPC- Fl orence has performed preventive maintenance
on emergency generators and steam b o i l e r s only. F i n a l l y ,
ASPC- Phoeni x- Women ' s Center, ASPC- Phoenix- A1 hambra, New Dawn Juveni 1 e
I n s t i t u t i o n s and ASP- Safford have no s i g n i f i c a n t preventive maintenance
programs.
DOC can r e a l i z e savings through the implementation of an effective
preventive maintenance program. The 1 ack o f a preventive maintenance
program increases operating costs. For example, a t
ASPC- Phoenix- Alhambra, the a i r handling u n i t s have had no routine
preventive maintenance for a t l e a s t s i x years. According to the
maintenance supervisor, t h i s neglect has l e d t o approximately a 40
percent decreased efficiency of the f a c i l i ty ' s system. In contrast,
Adobe Mountain Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n performed preventive maintenance on
r e f r i g e r a t i o n u n i t s and appears to have saved approximately $ 5,800 i n one
year.
Maintenance Staff
' May Be Inadequate
DOC i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance s t a f f may be inadequate t o meet i t s
responsibil i t i e s . The Department's maintenance s t a f f 1 evel s may not be
s u f f i c i e n t to maintain i t s f a c i l i t i e s . Moreover, DOC maintenance
personnel may 1 ack expertise needed t o e f f e c t i v e l y meet physical pl ant
maintenance needs.
I n s u f f i c i e n t Maintenance S t a f f - DOC's maintenance s t a f f level may not be
adequate to maintain i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n comparison with Federal prison
standards, DOC may not have adequate s t a f f to maintain i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Although additional maintenance positions have been requested, few have
been approved.
DOC's maintenance departments appear to be understaffed when compared
with the Federal Prison System ( FPS). The Federal Prison System's
staffing guidelines use a f a c i l i t y ' s size and security r a t i n g i n
developing s t a f f i n g levels. According to FPS guide1 ines, 12 DOC
f a c i l i t i e s flay be understaffed by approximately 47 maintenance positions
as shown i n Tab1 e 8. For instance, the ASPC- Phoenix- A1 hambra- Fl amenco-
Aspen complex, comprised of more than 132,000 square feet, would require
approximately 19 maintenance positions. However, t h i s complex i s
a1 1 ocated two maintenance positions. A1 so, a regional a r c h i t e c t f o r the
Federal prison system stated t h a t t h e i r older f a c i l i t i e s would most
1 i kely exceed the s t a f f 1 evel s suggested i n the gui del i nes. Therefore,
f a c i l i t i e s 1 ike ASPC- Fl orence may require more s t a f f than indicated by
the Federal formula because o f t h e i r age.
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF
DOC MA1 NTENANCE STAFF LEVELS TO FEDERAL PRISON FORMULA
AT SELECTED FACILITIES( 1 )
Federal
I n s t i t u t i o n DOC s t a f f Formul a Di f ference
ASPC- Fl orence
ASPC- Fort Grant
ASP- Saf ford
ASPC- Perryvi 11 e
ASPC- Tucson
ASPC- Women ' s Center
ASPC- A1 hambra/ Fl amenco
Adobe Floun t a i n J . I.
Catalina Mountain J. I.
New Dawn J . I.
A1 amo
Douglas D. W. I.
Total -- 7 6 1- 23 -- 47
( 1) Maintenance positions included f o r t h i s analysis are as follows:
physical p l a n t d i r e c t o r , b u i l d i n g maintenance supervisors, b u i l d i n g
maintenance workers, e l e c t r i c i a n s , e l e c t r o n i c technicians,
p l umbers, carpenters, we1 ders, painters and r e f r i g e r a t i o n
mechanic. Inmates are used i n the Federal Prison System but are
not accounted f o r i n the s t a f f i n g pattern c r i t e r i a .
Source: Prepared by Auditor General s t a f f from DOC f a c i l i t y maintenance
s t a f f l e v e l s as o f August 1985, and Federal Prison System s t a f f
guidelines
blai ntenance department vacancies f u r t h e r decrease DOC staf fi ng
resources. A1 located f u l l - time equivalent positions ( FTE) do not
represent the actual number o f maintenance s t a f f . As o f August 2 1985,
12 of 83 maintenance positions were vacant ( 14 percent).* These
vacancies negatively a f f e c t the maintenance departments efficiency i n
completing r e p a i r projects.
* These positions do not include seven approved b u t vacant FTEs for
fi scal year 1 985- 86.
DOC has acknowledged maintenance s t a f f i n g inadequacies i n i t s annual
budget request, however, many positions have not been approved. DOC
requested 74 additional maintenance positions between f i s c a l years
1981- 82 and 1985- 86.* Only 23 o f the 74 requested positions ( 31 percent)
were approved; however, 19 of the 23 were approved i n the two most recent
f i s c a l years, 1984- 85 and 1985- 86. Consequently, DOC's attempts t o
substanti a1 ly increase maintenance s t a f f 1 eve1 have been 1 argely
unsuccessful.
Maintenance S t a f f May Lack Expertise - Some DOC maintenance s t a f f may
not be qua1 i f i e d t o repair c r i t i c a l systems a t various f a c i l i t i e s . * *
Black and Veatch, consultants f o r the Auditor General, reviewed DOC
faci 1 i t i e s and recommended t h a t DOC maintenance departments obtain
additional staff with c r i t i c a l maintenance ski1 1 s. The consul tants
indicated t h a t poorly maintained f a c i l i t i e s observed during t h e i r
inspections can be d i r e c t l y attributed, i n part, to lack of maintenance
expertise. The consul tants i d e n t i f i e d the need f o r additional
maintenance personnel, t o include:
e ski 11 ed e l e c t r i c a l maintenance person a t ASPC- Fl orence,
@ s k i l l e d mechanical maintenance person a t ASPC- Florence,
e s k i l l e d mechanical maintenance person a t ASPC- Phoenix- Alhambra,
and
ski 11 ed mechanical maintenance person a t ASPC- Phoenix- Women ' s
Center.
Since the consultants' review did not include a l l f a c i l i t i e s or a l l
problems w i t h i n each f a c i l i t y , c r u c i a l s k i l l s may be lacking a t other
i n s t i t u t i o n s .
DOC'S a b i l i t y to h i r e competent staff may be affected by the low
maintenance staff sal aries. Seven o f DOC's trade areas monthly sal aries
are approximately $ 170 per month less than t h a t paid f o r comparable
* I n some cases, when positions were not approved, the same position
was requested i n subsequent years.
** DOC maintains many c r i t i c a l u t i l i t y and security systems. These
are e l e c t r i c a l , domestic water, sewage, ventilation, heating and
cool ing , and mechanical and el ectronic securi ty systems.
trades i n other Arizona government agencies.* The annual average for
DOC's seven trade areas i s $ 21,120 while the average for other government
agencies i s $ 23,148. This represents a nine percent difference. This
d i s p a r i t y between DOC maintenance salaries and other government agencies
may impair DOC's a b i l i t y t o r e c r u i t more qua1 i f i e d individuals seeking
pub1 i c sector employment.
Correctional i n s t i t u t i o n employment i s not as desirable, general ly, as
employment i n other State agencies. DOC's maintenance employees have to
work with and around inmates, which creates a d d i t i o n a l j o b stress. The
State has dealt with a s i m i l a r problem when securing food service
personnel f o r DOC. The regular State Food Service Supervisor pay grades
were upgraded to Correctional Food Service Supervisor. This salary
upgrade was designed to compensate State s t a f f working under d i f f i c u l t
c i rcumstances.
CONCLUSION
DOC's i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance s t a f f may not be adequate t o meet i t s
responsibil i ties. Consequently, DOC f a c i l i t i e s are not being adequately
maintained. Inadequate maintenance has resul ted p a r t i a l ly from the
Department's i n s u f f i c i e n t maintenance s t a f f 1 eve1 s and expertise.
DOC should review i t s f a c i l i t i e s maintenance requirements to i d e n t i f y the
specific tasks and s k i l l s needed t o perform adequate f a c i l i t y
maintenance. Subsequently, DOC shoul d develop mai ntenance s t a f f i n g
patterns for each i n s t i t u t i o n . The review should include an analysis of
* These seven trade positions are e l e c t r i c i a n , pl umber, we1 der,
electronic technician, carpenter, painter and r e f r i g e r a t i o n
mechanic. Arizona private/ publ i c sector sal ary averages were
determined by Department of Administration ( DOA) Personnel Division
and are found i n the J o i n t Governmental Salary Survey, 1984. DOC
salaries are not included i n the DOA calculations.
maintenance salaries and the possibility of creating a series of
Correctional maintenance staff positions simil ar to the Correctional food
service series.
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of the audit we i d e n t i f i e d several potential issues
t h a t we were unable t o pursue because they were beyond the scope of our
audit or we lacked s u f f i c i e n t time.
Should the State establish a statutory d e f i n i t i o n of Land,
Buil ding and Improvement projects?
Land, Building and Improvement ( LB& I ) projects are not defined
i n Arizona Revised Statues, or the Department o f
Administration- Division of Finance or General Accounting Office
rules. DOC o f f i c i a l s have expressed concern about the lack of
an LB& I d e f i n i t i o n , and feel t h a t it has contributed to the
inappropriate expenditures i d e n t i f i e d i n Finding 111. Other
states have statutory d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t specify what constitutes
a capital outlay. For example, Florida and Colorado statutes
provide a subjective d e f i n i t i o n o f capital out1 ay projects,
while New Jersey and New Mexico both have established minimum
do1 l a r amounts f o r capital projects. Further audit work i s
necessary to determine whether the lack o f an LB& I d e f i n i t i o n
has caused confusion among Arizona State agencies, and what
would be the most appropriate d e f i n i t i o n o f LB& I projects.
e I s maintenance shop space adequate f o r proper equipment
maintenance and b u i l ding repair projects?
The Department of Corrections ( DOC ) maintenance shops may have
inadequate f l o o r space. At Arizona State Prison Complex
( ASPC 1- Fl orence and ASPC- Perryvil 1 e, the maintenance b u i l dings
may not have s u f f i c i e n t work space f o r repairs. For . instance,
a t ASPC- Florence plumbers are unable t o get 1 ong pipes necessary
f o r some repairs i n t o the plumbing shop. This lack o f
s u f f i c i e n t repair space may lead to substandard repair work,
resul t i n g i n decreased e f f i c i e n c y and increased costs. Further
audit work i s needed t o determine the adequacy of shop space f o r
each f a c i l i t y .
5 9
a Does the Department of Corrections have adequate financial
information?
The Department currently re1 ies on the Arizona Financial
Information System ( AFIS) for a l l of its accounting needs.
A1 though AFIS provides DOC w i t h monthly reports for each of i t s
organizational units, DOC facil i ty business managers have
indicated that the AFIS reports are not timely. The Department
needs up- to- date f i nanci a1 information. For exampl e, one DOC
business manager stated that financial information needed for
budget preparation was not available until two months a f t e r the
budget dead1 ine. Other states ' corrections agencies, i n
contrast, have their own automated accounting systems which
allow them to more readily determine the agencies' financial
status. Further audit work i s necessary to determine what
should be done to provide the Department w i t h accurate financial
information more quickly.
BRUCE BABBITT
GOVERNOR
November 2 1 , 1985
321 WEST INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85013
( 602) 255- 5536
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
DIRECTOR
Douglas R. Norton
A u d i t o r General
2700 North C e n t r a l , S u i t e 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
D e a r M r . Norton:
The a t t a c h e d comments are provided, per your letter dated
November 14, 1985, f o r i n c l u s i o n with t h e t e x t of t h e published
r e p o r t of t h e Performance Audit o f t h e Department of
C o r r e c t i o n ' s F a c i l i t i e s Maintenance.
I f you have any q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e a t t a c h e d comments,
p l e a s e c a l l me o r Roger Austin at 255- 3460.
SincPe Z ly,
' ,,- -' D i r e c t o r /
SAL / RHA/ g
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
The primary responsibility and objective of the Department of Corrections is the care,
custody and control of the inmates committed to it. During the past five years, this
mission has been difficult to meet due to the increasing inmate population and
overcrowding which has resulted in the lack of facilities to handle this population. The
result has been t h a t emphasis by this Department has been placed on the overcrowding
situation t o the detriment of other functions of the Department.
One of the areas t h a t has suffered has been the maintenance function. I t must b e
emphasized, however, t h a t as the Auditor General points out, it has not been t o t a l l y
ignored. The Department has requested a considerable amount of money. To quote the
auditor, " Only twelve percent of the Department's LB & I Request was funded over the
past five fiscal years." The reason t h a t funds have not been appropriated to the
Department and the Department h a s been unable t o allocate internal dollars t o the
maintenance effort has been the overcrowding situation. The emphasis has been on new
and temporary facilities.
The Department, in general, concurs with a substantial portion of the findings of this
audit report. As a m a t t e r of f a c t , a vast majority of the issues addressed in the audit
report have been undertaken by the Department and there will continue t o be requests
for funds in order that these problems may be solved.
Further exacerbating the problems as described by the Auditor General is the continued
emphasis on new construction which has, in some instances, required t h a t t h e already
lacking maintenance staff be used t o assist in these areas. Further, the Auditor General
points out t h a t t h e building of temporary, non- permanent structures is a cause f o r
concern in the maintenance a r e a . This is because these type structures require more
maintenance and additional funds than would be required for permanent facilities. This
situation is made even more problematical in t h a t t h e Legislature approved and funded
similar facilities in the Emergency Bed Unit Program which is being accomplished at
Douglas, Florence, Tucson and eventually will house 1,100 inmates of medium to minimum
custody. These units will, as the auditor has said, " Require more repairs than permanent
facilities, are less durable and will severely a f f e c t maintenance budget requirements.
Maintenance manpower requirements are increased with residential- type housing in that
institutionalized felons are destructive individuals." Further, these " temporary" beds are
second- hand and were in poor condition prior t o acceptance by the Department of
Administration.
rn As pointed out by the Auditor General, the lack of proper maintenance shop space
further hinders proper maintenance. Maintenance facilities have been requested for
ASPC- Douglas, ASPC- Florence, ASPC- Perryville in t h e FY 86/ 87 LB & I request as the
facilities that do exist at ASPC- Florence have been condemned by the DOA several years
ago and the room t h a t exists at ASPC- Perryville is not adequate.
Specific funding problems which have occurred due to the continuous change in
requirements to support operations and over- crowding, are cited below:
1. ASPC- Florence " CB4 Security Improvements"- $ 1,300,000.00 in funds were
appropriated in FY 81/ 82. Design work was in progress, but the project was
stopped by the Director and funds were transferred to meet operating needs in
FY 83.
2. ASPC- Florence Wall, Tower and Security Improvements - Funding appropriated
in FY 79/ 80 in the amount of $ 365,000.00 was reallocated from the project and
was used as s t a t e match funds for a $ 1,000,000.00 federal grant, for renovation
& security improvements for the old Administration building, security
improvements to the So. Unit dormitories and construction of support space at
the South Unit.
3. ASPC- Florence Central Unit Yard Office - Funds were transferred from this
project in 5/ 81 due to the leasing of the Alhambra facility, the federal court
order, funding of cellblocks 5 & 6, move of the Adult Women's Facility from
Florence to a leased Phoenix facility ( Maricopa's Durango Facility).
These examples of reallocation of funds, were required due to a heavy influx of
inmate committments, federal court mandate, and other outside uncontrollable
factors.
The following comments address specific recommendations for each of the findings in the
audit report.
FINDING I
RECOMMENDATION I
The Department of Corrections is in the process of addressing this recommendation in
several ways. First, the Department was reorganized in January, 1985 and has
established a Facilities Maintenance Bureau. This Bureau has written several
Departmental policies, including ones on maintenance, construction project acceptance
procedures and on the proper use of funds for LB & I projects. This Bureau will be
heavily involved in future budgeting for maintenance, LB & I projects, and future Budget
Requests.
As an example, this Bureau developed $ 86 Million Dollars worth of potential LB & I
requests, of which $ 36 Million Dollars was included in the FY 1986/ 1987 budget. The
Department does not have the $ 400,000-$ 500,000 available to hire a consultant as
indicated by the Auditor in this finding. We will consider this item for future funding.
RECOMMENDATION 2
As previously discussed, the Department has developed a Maintenance Budget that
addresses the repairs identified in this Performance Audit Report. Two things must be
considered here. First i s the fiscal and political realities of the budget process. As
noted, $ 86 Million Dollars was identified as potential requirements for LB & I and
maintenance projects. However, given the reality of the amount of available General
Fund monies for appropriations for LB & I Projects, only $ 36 Million Dollars of the
Agency's highest priorities were requested. Further, as the Auditor General has pointed
out, only twelve percent of all previously submitted LB & I requirements were funded
over the past five years. This leaves one to confront the reality that while a
Maintenance Budget may be developed and submitted, there is no way to ensure that
adequate funding for repairs will ever be made available due to the limited resources of
the State as a whole. I t must also be noted t h a t t h e vast majority of all the maintenance
requirements identified in this report have been identified to the Legislature in the past
and have not received adequate funding, or have received no funds at all.
FINDING I1
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION 3
The Department of Corrections calculates its own modified facility replacements to
offset the undervalues by DOA of Facility Replacement Costs and to allow the inclusion
of leased facilities, such as those at the Arizona State Hospital and the Southern Arizona
Release Center in Tucson. These values are based on available DOA figures with
addition for those items DOA does not include, such as fences, external utility systems,
electronic perimeter detection systems and adds in estimated facility replacement costs
for those facilities t h a t a r e scheduled for operation prior to the s t a r t of the next fisca