Performance audit, Department of Corrections, security staffing issues

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
SECURITY STAFFING ISSUES
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
January 1986
86- 1
DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
January 29, 1986
Members of the Arizona Legi sl ature
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, Security Staffing Issues. This
report i s i n response to the January 30, 1985 resolution of the Joint
Legi sl ative Oversight Committee.
The report addresses deficiencies i n the Department's abi 1 i ty to
accurately determine security staff needs. The report a1 so addresses
DOC's inability to hire enough correctional service officers due to high
turnover and a lengthy hiring process. Further, we found DOC's background
check process for correctional service officer appl icants was inefficient,
and DOC lacked guide1 ines to evaluate results of the check. Finally, we
found that correctional service officers 1 acked sufficient pre- service and
i n- servi ce t r a i ni ng.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items i n the report.
Respectful ly submitted,
~ o u ~ l yR. s Morton
Auditor General
Staff: William Thomson
Mark Fleming
Deborah A. Baldwin
Vivian A. Look
Mark J. Syracuse
Margaret E. Cawley
Enclosure
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. 8 SUITE 700 8 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 8 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC) staffing function. T h i s
audit was conducted i n response to a January 30, 1585, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee, which requires a performance auait
of DOC. This report i s one in a series of auait reports on the
Department.
For fiscal year 1985- 86, DOC has an estimated 4,659 authorized full- time
positions ( FTE), including 2,419 security positions ( correctional service
officers iCSOl and supervisors), 472 correctional program positions, and
217 medical positions. This report addresses staffing issues only as
they relate d i r e c t l y t o security s t a f f .
DOC'S Security Staffing Level s
Are tJot Pro~ erYl Determined ( see Pase 7)
DOC cannot accurately determine its security s t a f f needs. Security s t a f f
needs in a correctional institution depenu on two factors: 1 ) the number
of posts required to maintain adequate security, and 2) the numDer c; f
people required to cover each post. However, the formula BCC uses to
calculate the number of s t a f f needed to f i l l security posts ( s h i f t r e l i e f
factor) appears to understate the s t a f f i n g l e v e l s needed. DCC uses 5.0
full - time positions to s t a f f a seven- day, 24- hour post, compared kdith the
5.3 FTE positions that a review of actual records indicates are needea.
In addition, DOC has not clearly defined the number and type of posts
necessary for the proper and efficient operation of i ts institutions.
A1 though several studies have been undertaken, DOC has not completed a
comprehensive analysis of post needs. Further, DOC does not have an
accurate 1 i s t of the Department's posts on which to base post needs.
Due to the lack of information on posts needed to provide adequate
security and the variations between i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the s h i f t re1 ief
factor, DOC ana kuai tor General staff could not determine the nuriiber of
CSO positions DOC should have. DOC has completed a s t a f f i n g study.
However, it appears t h a t the study does n o t include a l l information
necessary t o determine tile number o f security posts needed. Therefore,
DOC needs t o complete a d d i t i o n a l studies and analyses t o improve i t s
deci sion- making abi 1 i ty regarding s t a f f i n g 1 eve1 s.
DOC'S Hi r i n g Process I s Inadequate
To Meet CSO S t a f f i n g Needs ( see page 21)
DOC i s unable t o h i r e enough CSOs t o meet i t s s e c u r i t y s t a f f i n g needs.
DOC has constant vacancies due t o high turnover and a lengthy h i r i n g
process. Once a p o s i t i o n becomes vacant, it takes DOC approximately
three months t o f i l l the i n s t i t u t i o n a l vacancy - more than four ana
one- ha1 f weeks t o h i r e a new CSO, plus s i x weeks t o t r a i n the new h i r e .
Because of the approxirnately 11- week delay, the number o f s t a f f required
t o adequately f i l l a seven- day, 24- hour post i s 5.3 FTEs. However,
reducing the delay t o two weeks, f o r example, would reduce the number o f
s t a f f needed t o 5.0 FTEs. Tile Department i s c u r r e n t l y implementing a
program t o reduce the del ay. This reduction woul d s i g r l i t i c a n t l y reduce
s t a f f needs throughout the Department. For example, the ASPC- Tucson
Santa Rita U n i t requires 127 CSOs t o fill i t s e x i s t i n g posts using the
5.3 s h i f t r e l i e f factor, b u t would require only 116 CSOs i f the factor
were reduced t o 5.0.
A1 though DOC plans t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y revise i t s h i r i n g process, probl ens
may continue. DOC w i l l assume a1 1 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r CSO recruitment,
selection and h i r i n g from the Department of Adriiinistration i n January
1986. DOC plans t o h i r e , t r a i n and have CSOs ready t o place i n vacancies
as they occur. tiowever, DOC c u r r e n t l y has problenrs beginning the h i r i n g
process i n a timely manner. Since t h i s process w i l l not change wtlen DGC
takes over CSO h i r i n g , tinlel iness may continue t o be a problem. Furti'ier,
the paperwork t o begin the process may contiriue t o be duplicated.
F i n a l l y , DOC may 1 ack adequate funding for Correctional O f f i c e r Training
Academy trainee positions, because it plans t o r e l y on vacancy savings.
If the Department succeeds i n reducing i t s vacancies, i r i s t i t u t i o n s w i l l
not have vacancy savings t o fund the trainee positions. DOC should
request funding f o r t h e t r a i n e e p o s i t i o n s i n order t o eliminate h i r i n g
del ays.
DOC ' s Inspectior~ s And I n v e s t i y a t i ons Section
Coul d Improve I t s Background I n v e s t i yation Process ( see pacje 31 )
DOC's background check process for CSG a p p l i c a n t s could be irrlproved.
Although the actual computer background check takes only minutes, the
background check process takes an average o f 34 days. The delay i s
caused because background forms are sent t o i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r processing.
Central i z i n g the process and a1 1 owing appl i c a n t s t o be interviewed by
h i r i n g a u t h o r i t i e s while backgrounds are checked could s i g n i f i c a n t l y
reduce the delay.
DOC a1 so needs t o develop guide1 ines f o r evaluating the r e s u l t s o f
background checks. DOC has no c l e a r p o l i c i e s i n d i c a t i n g what
d i s q u a l i f i e s an appl icant. As a r e s u l t , i n v e s t i g a t o r s who review tne
r e s u l t s o f background checks a t each i n s t i t u t i o n must use considerable
judgment i n deterinining who should be rejectea, creating the p o t e n t i a l
f o r inconsistent decisions.
Training For CSOs
I s Inadequate ( see page 35)
DOC has not provided CSOs with adequate t r a i n i n g . The aniount and type o f
in- service t r a i n i n g provided has been inconsistent. A1 though a r e c e n t l y
enacted DGC p o l i c y requires 20 hours o f in- service t r a i n i n g a year, DGC
CSOs receive f a r l e s s . Auditor General s t a f f reviewed 150 CSO i n - s e r v i c e
t r a i n i n g records. CSOs employed by DOC f o r more than two years r e c e i ~ e d
an average o f less than 13 hours o f in- service t r a i n i n g i n f i s c a l years
1984 and 1985. In addition, the t r a i n i n g received i s not uniform.
Inadequate in- service t r a i n i n g i s a1 so s i g n f i c a n t because some CSOs
r e c e ~ v e d no pre- service t r a i n i n y when they were i n i t i a l l y empl oyea.
Because o f DOC's i n c o n s i s t e n t in- service t r a i n i n g , CSOs may not be
adequately t r a i n e d i n c r i t i c a l ski1 1 areas. Lack of in- service t r a i n i n g
i s due t o s t a f f i n g shortages and poor recora keeping.
TALLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FINDING I: DOC'S SECURITY STAFFING LEVELS
ARE NOT PROPERLY DETERMINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DOC's S t a f f i n g Formula Appears To
Understate The Number O f S t a f f Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Need For Posts I s Not Clearly Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appropriate S t a f f i n g Levels Cannot Be Determined . . . . . . . . 13
S t a f f i n g Analysis Would Improve S t a f f i n g Decisions . . . . . . . 16
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FINDING 11: DOC'S HIRING PROCESS IS INADEQUATE
TO MEET CSO HIRING NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
DOC Has D i f f i c u l t y F i l l i n g CSO Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
DOC's New H i r i n g U n i t Plans To Hire
And Train In Advance O f Vacancies. But Problems May S t i l l E x i s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
El i m i n a t i ng Extended Vacmcies May Reduce
Resources For T r a i n i n g P o s i t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
FIEJDItlG I I 1 : DOC ' S INSPECTICI'dS AND INVESTIGXTIGNS SECTICR
COULD IMPROVE ITS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PROCESS . . . . . . . 31
Background Check Del ays Avail a b i l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
DOC Lacks Clear Guidelines For
Appl i c a n t Di squal i f i c a t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
New Background I n v e s t i g a t i o n Requirements
Could I n t e n s i f y Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINDING I V : TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONAL
SERVICE OFFICERS IS IHADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Amount And Type O f In- Service
Training Provided I s Inconsistent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Staff Shortages And Poor Record Keeping
L i m i t In- Service Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Amount And Type O f Pre- Service Training
Provided Has Been Inconsistent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9
DEPARTMENT RESPONSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - DOC Expenditures I n Personal Services And Employee
Related Expenses, D i v i s i o n O f kdul t I n s t i t b t i o n s And
Division Of Juvenile/ Community Service ( Unaudited) . . . . 4
TABLE 2 - Comparison O f DOC S t a f f i n g Formula With
Auditor General Records Review
August 17, 1984, Through August 16, 1985 . . . . . . . . . 9
TABLE 3 - Monthly Correctional Service O f f i c e r Terminations
For Fiscal Year 1984- 1 985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE 4 - Hours O f In- Service Training Received By CSOs,
J u l y 1, 1983 Through Jurie 30, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
TABLE 5 - Hours O f In- Service Training Received By CSOs
Lacking Pre- Service Academy Training
From Hire Date T). irough June 30, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . 44
TABLE 6 - Hours Of Pre- Service Training Received By CSOs . . . . . . 4 7
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r General has conductea a performance a u d i t o f
the Arizona Department o f Corrections ( DOC) s t a f f i n g function. This
a u d i t was conducted i n response t o a January 36, 1985, r e s o l u t i o n o f the
J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee, which requires a performance a u d i t
o f DOC. This r e p o r t i s one i n a series o f a u d i t reports on the
Department.
DOC i s s t a t u t ~ r i l y charged w i t h p r o t e c t i n g ttre p u b l i c froni offenders
under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . I n doing so, the Department must also ensure
t h a t a safe and j u s t enviror~ rnent e x i s t s w i t h i n i t s f a c i l i t i e s . DOC s t a f f
comprise a c r i t i c a l el ernent f o r accomplishing the Departmental mission.
Departmental S t a f f i n g
Among s t a f f who have d i r e c t innate contact, the l a r g e m a j o r i t y are
1 ocated i n the Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s , Juvenil e/ Communi ty Services and Hur~ ian
Resource/ Devel opnent Divisions. They i r r c l ude correctional s e c u r i t y
staff, c o r r e c t i o n a l program s t a f f and medical s t a f f . For f i s c a l year
1985- 86, DOC has an estimated 4,659 authorized f u l l - time positions,
i n c l ilding 2,419 s e c u r i t y positions, 472 c o r r e c t i o n a l program prjsi t i o n s
and 21 7 medical positions. Because o f time 1 i m i t a t i o n s , i~ owever, t h i s
r e p o r t addresses s t a f f i n g issues only as they r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o securi'cjl
s t a f f i n g .
Security S t a f f i n g
Staff p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h s e c u r i t y are l a r g e l y involved i n tile
d i r e c t supervision and control o f inmates, or i n supervising s t a f f w i t h
such r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Within DOC, s e c u r i t y s t a f f occupy p o s i t i o n s t h a t
fa1 1 under the Correctional Service s e r i e s , which i n c l udes c o r r e c t i o n a l
s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s ( CSGs) , sergeants, 1 ieutenants, captains and naJors.
Security s t a f f perform duties assigned t o s p e c i f i c s e c u r i t y posts.
Examples o f posts include:
r A tower 5uard watching ttse perin; eter o f an i r ~ s t i t u t i o no r observing
inmate d c t i v i t y i n the v i c i n i t y o f the tower,
a A gate o f f i c e r control 1 i n g access t o the i n s t i t u t i o n , and
0 A housing u n i t o f f i c e r monitoring inmate a c t i v i t y i n a dormitory.
Because o f the nature o f t h e i r work, more than 99 percent o f GOC's
s e c u r i t y s t a f f are located a t the i n s t i t u t i o n s , w i t h t h e remainder
involved i n functions t o support i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e c u r i t y s t a f f , such as
t r a i n i n g , and inspections and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
H i r i n g Process
The recruitment process f o r CSOs c u r r e n t l y involves several e n t i t i e s .
The Personnel D i v i s i o n o f the Department o f Administration ( DOA), DOC's
Central O f f i c e , DOC's Inspections and I n v e s t i g a t i o n s Section, and DOC
i n s t i t u t i o n s a1 1 share r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n the CSO h i r i n g process. DOA's
Personnel D i v i siotl receives and scores appl i c a t i o n s and nai n t a i ns an
a c t i v e r e g i s t e r o f applicants.* The Inspections and I n v e s t i g a t i o n s
Section completes background checks and n o t i f i e s DOA o f r e s u l t s . DOC's
Personnel O f f i c e generates h i r i n g 1 i s t s f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l use a f t e r a
request t o f i l l a p o s i t i o n has been submitted by the i n s t i t u t i o n ana
approved by DOC's Central Office. The i n s t i t u t i o n s contact and i n t e r v i e w
prospective empl oyees. F i n a l ly, DOC ' s Personnel O f f i c e updates the 1 i s t s
when it i s n o t i f i e d o f appointments. However, i n January 1986 DOA w i l l
r e l i n q u i s h control o f the CSO h i r i n g process t o DOC. An
intergovernmental agreement t o t h i s e f f e c t has already been approved by
both agencies.
Trainina
C o r r e c t i o n a l s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s p a r t i c i p a t e i n both pre- service ana
in- service t r a i n i n g . Pre- service t r a i n i n g i n v o l v e s a six- week c u r r i c u l uni
t o prepare CSOs f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l duties. The t r a i n i n g i s held d t
regional academies i n Tucson, P e r r y v i l l e, Florence and F o r t Grant. I n
J u l y IS84 the L e g i s l a t u r e moved t o c e n t r a l i z e and standardize CSO
pre- service t r a i n i n g , w i t h an appropriation t o e s t a b l i s h the Correctional
* ASPC- Fl orence /] as been excl uaea fror, i d i v i c e d COA- DOC autrrori ty, and
c u r r e n t l y oversees a l l phases o f 2SO recruitment f o r the
i n s t i t u t i o n .
O f f i c e r T r a i n i n g Academy ( COTA) i n Tucson. CGTA i s expected t o beyirr
operation i n January 1986. CSOs who s a t i s f a c t o r i l y complete Acadeil~ y
t r a i n i n g w i l l r e c e i v e a c e r t i f i c a t e from the Arizona Law Enforcement
O f f i c e r Advisory Council.
A1 so, DOC has required i n- service t r a i n i n g f o r CSUs. In- service t r a i n i n g
i s important t o improve CSOs' c r i t i c a l s k i l l s and keep them current on
operational procedures. A pol i c y rescinded i n October 1984 required CSOs
t o have 88 hours of in- service t r a i n i n g per year. DOC enacted a pol i c y
i n Noven~ ber 1985 t h a t requires 20 hours o f i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i t t g per year
f o r CSOs.
S t a f f i n g A1 1 ocations and Budget
For f i s c a l year 1985- 86, DOC has an estimated 2,395 authorized f u l l - t i m e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e c u r i t y s t a f f a l l o c a t e d t o the Divisions o f Adult
I n s t i t u t i o n s and Juvenil e/ Cor; ir;~ uni ty Services. I n addition, 23
c o r r e c t i o n a l service s e c u r i t y s t a f f are also employed i n tile Bureau o f
Inspections and I n v e s t i g a t i o n s ( D i v i s i o n o f Administration), and the
Training Section ( D i v i s i o n o f Human Resources and Development 1. Tab1 e 1
shows personal services and employee re1 ated expenditures f o r f i s c a l
years 1983- 84, and estimated expenditures i n these categories f o r f i s c a l
years 1384- 85 and 1985- 86, i n the two d i v i s i o n s i n which most
c o r r e c t i o n a l service s e c u r i t y s t a f f are employed.
DOC EXPENDITURES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES AND EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES
DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS ANC DIVISION OF JUVENILE/ COBIMUNITY SERVICE
( UNAUDITED)
Adul t I n s t i t u t i o n s
FTE Positions
Actual
1 983 - 84
FTE Securi ty Positions 1 ; 594
Expenditures ( a1 1 FTEs)
Personal Services 41,818,800
Empl oyee Re1 ated 10,612,200
Total
Juveni 1 e/ Comuni ty Services
FTE Positions 499
FTE S e c u r i t y P o s i t i o n s 186
Expenditures ( a1 1 FTEs)
Personal Services 8,133,600
Empl oyee Re1 ated 1,892,300
Total
Actual
1 984 - 85
Estimated
1 985 - 86
3,372(])
2,205
( I ) On June 20, 1985, COC underwent a reorganization, a t which time the
D i v i s i o n o f Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s ( f o r m e r l y A d u l t Services) and tile
D i v i s i o n o f Juvenil e/ Con~ muni ty Services ( formerly i u v c n i l e
Services) were created.
Source: Arizona Department o f Corrections buaget requests f o r f i s c a l
years 1985- 86 and 1986- 87
Audi t Scope and Objectives
This a u d i t focuses on the Department's a b i l i t y t o perform i t s s e c u r i t y
s t a f f i n g function e f f i c i e n t l y and e f f e c t i v e l y . The a u d i t r e p o r t presents
i t s f i n d i n g s and recornfiiendations i n four major areas.
@ The a b i l i t y o f DOC t o evaluate s e c u r i t y s t a f f i n g needs a t the
i n s t i t u t i o n a l 1 eve1 ,
a The a b i l i t y of TrOC's h i r i n g process t o meet Departmental needs for
s e c u r i t y s t a f f ,
0 Tile effectiveness o f DOC ' s backgrobtid i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f prospective
CSOs, and
e The adequacy of DOC'S t r a i n i n g f o r c o r r e c t i o n a l service o f f i c e r s .
Due to tine constraints, we were unable t o address all potential issues
identified during our audit work. The section Areas for Further Audit
Work describes these issues.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation t o tile Director of the
Department of Corrections and his staff for their cooperation and
assistance during the audit.
FINDING I
DOC ' S SECURITY STAFFIP, IG LEVELS ARE NOT PROPERLY DETERMINEE
The Department of Corrections ( DOC) cannot accurately determine i t s
security staffing needs. The forn~ ual for determining tile staffing level
needed to cover a given jest seems to underestimate the s t a f f needed. In
addition, the Department has not clearly defined i t s security post
needs. As a result, i t cannot be determined whether institutional
security staffing i s adequate. A comprehensive staffing study woul d
resol ve these problems.
Security s t a f f needs in a correctional institution depena on two factors:
1 ) the number of posts required to maintain adequate security, and 2 ) the
number of people required to cover each post. Specific posts generally
are established based on the need to monitor and control inmate movement
and activity. Thus, the number and types of posts vary ti~ roughotit tire
day and also from day to day, reflecting changes i n the level and type of
inn: ate activity. Coverage for a particular post ranges from 24 ilours per
day, seven days a week, t o e i g h t hours per day, five days a week or
1 ess. Once necessary posts are determined, the number of people ireeaed
to cover those posts is computed from a staffing formula. A staffing
formula determines the number of people required to cover a post, taking
into account time employees are expected to be away from tne post ciue to
vacations, i l l n e s s , etc.
DOC's Staffing Formul a Appears To
Understate The Number Of Staff Needed
DOC's forriiula for calculating the number of s t a f f to f i l l a security post
appears to result in lower s t a f f i n g l e v e l s than are actually needed.
DOC's figures for available work days, used to cal cnlate the formula,
overestimate the actual figure by 20 days. DOC figures are inaccurate
because DOC did not follow standard c r i t e r i a in developing i t s formula.
The accuracy of the formula is highly important, since even small
differences in figures can affect the adequacy of institutional staffing.
DOC'S estimate of available work days is 20 days more than the actual
number of days correctional service officers ( CSOs) are ' likely t o be a t
thei r posts. The Department estimates 226 avai 1 abl e days. Actual
figures show only 206 days. Auditor General s t a f f tested DOC'S formula
by reviewing the leave records of a randomly selected sample of 174 CSOs
and correctional security sergeants employed by DOC from August 17, 1984,
to August 16, 1985. Because DOC uses a single fornula for the entire
Department, Auditor General s t a f f tested the formula by computing a
Department- wide figure. As Tab1 e 2 shows, DOC ' s figures deviate
considerably from those of our records review.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF DOC STAFFING FORMULA WITH AUDITOR GENERAL RECORDS REVIEW
AUGUST 17, 1984, THROUGH AUGUST 16, 1985
Category
Regular days off
Annual leave
Sick leave
Hol i day 1 eave
Comp time taken
M i 1 i tary 1 eave
Absence without approval
Administrative leave with pay
Administrative leave without pay
Bereavement 1 eave
Civic duty
Industrial leave
Jury duty
In- service training
Pre- service training
Time required to f i l l vacancies
Special assignments requiring
employee to be away from post
Total number of days employee
expected to be away from post
DOC Formula
104 days
12
Calculation of Staffing Formula
a ) 365 days per year 365
b) Minus number of days
empl oyee away from post -- 1 39
C ) Equals number of days
employee avai 1 abl e to cover post 226
Employees required to cover:
Seven- day, eight- hour s h i f t
( 365 divided by available
days per employee per year 1.6
Seven- day, 16- hour s h i f t
( two times number needed to
cover seven- day, eight- hour s h i f t ) 3.2
Seven- day, 24- hour s h i f t ( three
times number needed to cover
seven- day, eight- hour s h i f t ) 5 . 0 ( ~ )
Auditor General Review
104 days
14.61
6.66
5.68
2.75
.39
.15
.04
.26
.16
- 0-
1.05
not available
159.00
N/ A indicates that DOC does not consider t h i s factor in its staffing formula
calculations.
( 2 ) Auditor General review showed that the number of in- service training hours CSOs
receive i s far below American Correction Association ( ACA) standards. Because
using historical data would have incorporated substanaard c r i t e r i a into the
formula, ACA standards were used. DOC had no official training policy a t the time
of this study.
( 3) DOC currently requires all newly hired CSOs to receive 240 hours ( 30 days) of
pre- service training. Because the period covered by the review did not r e f l e c t
current practice, t h i s figure was based on current practice. To calculate the
pre- service training factor, i t was necessary to use a turnover estimate. We used
31 percent, as reported for fiscal year 198445 by DOA's Personnel Division.
( 4) In computing a staffing formula, the turnover rate i s used to calculdte time
required to f i l l vacancies. Again, 31 percent was used [ see note ( 3 ) l .
( 5) Actual result i s 4.8, b u t DOC rounds this figure up to 5.0
( 6) Figures r e f l e c t rounding.
Source: DOC payroll records, DOC staff intervie~ rs, A CA standards, DOA Personnel Div~ si on
reports, and interview with N. R. Cox arla Associdtes
DOC's f i g u r e s are inaccurate because DOC d i d n o t f o l l o w standard c r i t e r i a
i n developing i t s formula. DOC's s t a f f i n g formula:
Does not account f o r a l l f a c t o r s causing employees t o be away from
t h e i r posts. DOC's formula accounts f o r the impact o f o n l y f o u r
factors: regular days o f f , annual leave, s i c k leave and holiday
1 eave, and omits numerous other factors such as m i l i t a r y 1 eave,
t r a i n i n g time, comp time taken, time required t o f i l l vacancies and
i n d u s t r i a l leave.
0 I s n o t based on h i s t o r i c a l data. DOC calculates i t s formula using
f i g u r e s f o r annual, holiday and sick leave accrued by employees
r a t h e r than time a c t u a l l y taken. As a r e s u m thennual leave
f i g u r e i s two and one- ha1 f days too low, while holiday and sick
leave are more than f i v e days too high.
0 I s not computed by i n s t i t u t i o n . DOC uses the same formula f o r the
e n t i r e Department, even though marked v a r i a t i o n s among i n s t i t u t i o n s
may e x i s t .
I s n o t reviewed annually. Evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t DOC's formula
has n o t been updated f o r a t l e a s t nine years.
Thus, DOC's 5.0 s t a f f i n g fi yure f o r seven- day, 24- i~ our posts i s
d e f i c i e n t , compared w i t h the 5.3 figure r e s u l t i n g from our review. The
sarne i s t r u e f o r 16- hour and eight- hour posts. However, even 5.3 may
underestimate the t r u e s t a f f i n g requirements, s i n c e i n f o r m a t i o n on tirne
spent f o r special assignments was n o t r e a d i l y available. I n adai t i o n ,
Auditor General s t a f f used Department o f Administration ( DOA) turnover
figures, which may have been l o t i because the figures a i d r ~ o t incluae
vacancies a r i s i n g from promotions and transfers w i t h i n DOC. Thus, DOC's
s t a f f i n g formula may be l e s s accurate than shown i n Table 2."
The accuracy of the formula i s c r i t i c a l , because even small differences
i n f i g u r e s computed can have p o t e n t i a l l y serious consequences f o r
i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a f f i n g . For example, DOC used i t s own 5.0 figure to
compute t e n t a t i v e s t a f f i n g l e v e l s f o r Florence's new Administrative
Segregation Unit, d e s p i t e c o n s u l t a n t recommendations advising the use of
3 However, DOC can decrease the s t a f f i n g requirements by el i m i n a t i ng
i n e f f i c i e n c i e s . For example, the time f o r f i l l i n g vacancies may be
unnecessarily : cngthy. The Department may also be a ~ l et o decrease
turnover among s e c u r i t y staff. Since both factors influence
s t a f f i n g requirements, decreasing them waul d a1 SO decrease the
requi remen ts.
a 5.2 figure for a seven- day, 24- hour post. This apparently minor
change, according to an institutional official, reduced staff by 30
positions for this 768 bed u n i t . * Differences among institutions can
also affect the accuracy of the formula at the institutional level,
because using a Department- wide formula may provide some institutions
w i t h more staff than they really need, while leaving others w i t h less
than they require. For example, because Arizona State Prison Complex
( ASPC )- Perryvi 11 e has a 68 percent turnover rate, prel iminary
cal cul ations show that this faci 1 i ty woul d be a1 1 ocated approximately 33
fewer CSOs under a system- wide formula than i t \ vould under a formula
based on institution- specific data.
The Need For Posts Is
Plot Cl earl v Defined
DOC has not clearly defined posts necessary for the proper and efficient
operation of i t s institutions. DOC has insufficiently analyzed staffing
requirements to identify needed security posts. Moreover, the Department
1 acks the necessary information to eval uate security post needs.
Thorough evaluation of post requi rements i s particularly important
because Arizona ' s growing pri son popul ation has increased institutional
staffing requirements.
No Evidence Of Analysis - DOC has not completed a comprehensive analysis
of Departmental post needs. Although staffing requirements for an
institution are normally determined through post analysis, which
ascertains the number and types of posts necessary for effective and
efficient institutional operation, Auditor General staff could find no
evidence that DOC had done such an analysis. We identified two staffing
studies, cornpl eted in 1983 and 1984, that exami ned Adul t Insti tuti ons '
personnel. However, information in both studies was based almost
exclusively on staff interviews or written input from institutional
personnel. The few studies that may have incorporated broader substantive
x We were unable to calculate the staffing formula's effect on the
enti re Department because of incomplete i nforrnation regarding posts
at all DOC institutions.
c r i t e r i a were older studies l i m i t e d t o only one i n s t i t u t i o n and thus, do
n o t adequately r e f l e c t changes t h a t have occurred since the studies were
compl eted.
A comprehensive post analysis i s necessary because i n s ti t u t i onal post
requirements are a f f e c t e d by several factors, i n c l u d i n g inmate custody
l e v e l , t h e s i z e o f the i n s t i t u t i o n , the design o f the f a c i l i t y ,
i n s t i t u t i o n a l programs and the mission o f the i n s t i t u t i o n . A post
analysis assesses the e f f e c t s o f these f a c t o r s on i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a f f i n g
using elements o f time and motion studies, task analyses, work load
measures and evaluations o f s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n .
DOC Lacks Essential S t a f f i n g Information - DOC does not have an accurate
l i s t o f the Department's posts on which t o evaluate post needs.
Post documents t h a t show duty assigncents f o r CSOs on each s h i f t
c o n f l i c t e d with s t a f f interviews and Auditor General observations o f post
coverage. For exarnpl e, post docunlen t s showed some posts uei ng covered
( as much as 24 hours per day) t h a t i n r e a l i t y were r a r e l y covered because
of CSO vacancies or other unexpected leave. In a t l e a s t two cases, posts
existed t h a t were not recorded i n w r i t t e n documents. I n both instances,
a p o r t i o n o f the CSOs' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were i n areas e n t i r e l y unrelated
t o security, such as typing or time keeping. O f f i c i a l s a t one f a c i l i t y ,
i n which CSO vacancies j~ impedf r ~ ntri o t o 24 i n less than f i v e nonttls i n
1984, declared t h a t the post document was only " paperwor~" t h a t d i d not
r e f 1 e c t the t r u e s i t u a t i o n .
E f f e c t O f Inmate Population Growth - Compl e t i c n p o s t a n a l y s i s
p a r t i c u l a r l y v i t a l because unprecedented inmate population growth has
changed i n s t i t u t i o n a l work loads. For example, i n l a t e 1584 COC
increased i n s t i t u t i o n a l capacity by nearly 30 percent a t the San Juan and
Santa Cruz Units a t ASPC- Perryville by zuding 112 tjeds to eacll u n i t .
Yet, the beds were added with no increase i n s e c u r i t y s t a f f . S i m i l a r l y ,
when ttle tilinimurn Custody Unit bias created a t ASFC- Tucson, security s t a f f
were provided from e x i s t i n g Iiincon Unit a l l o c a t i o n s , l e a v i n g both u n i t s
sri t h fewer s t a f f thdn i n s t i t u t i o r l a l o f f i c i a l s ttrought aaequdte.
Some i n s t i t u t i o n s have a c t u a l l y l o s t p o s i t i o n s a- t the very time t h a t
c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i 1 i t i e s experienced s i g n i f i c a n t inmate population
increases. For example, the ASPC- Fl orence Central Uni t has 1 os t 30 CSBs
since 1981. According t o an i n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c i a l , t h i s u n i t had 265
a l l o c a t e d CSO posi t i o r ~ s i n 1981 but only 235 such p o s i t i o n s f o r 1985- 86.
Even though bed capacity remains unchanged from 1981, the average d a i l y
population a t Central U n i t has increased s l i g h t l y . Tine ASPC- Florence
South U n i t has l o s t s e c u r i t y s t a f f while a t the same time t a k i n g on
a d d i t i o n a l beds. As o f June 1985 the South U n i t had 123 CSGs compared t o
145 i n 1980. Yet, since 1980 inmate population has increased by 152, t o
t h e c u r r e n t population o f 600.
Apprgpri a t e S t a f f i n g Levels
Cannot Be Determined
W i t l l o u t an accurate s t a f f i n g formula and analysis o f post requirements,
thc number o f s t a f f needed t o provide adequate s e c u r i t y cannot be
i d e n t i f i e d . As a r e s u l t , it i s d i f f i c u l t t o deternine wily ilpparent
s t a f f i n g shortages e x i s t , or i f they e x i s t a t a l l . Possible explanations
include underall ocation, i n e f f i c i e n t placement o f s t a f f and improper use
o f s t a f f .
During the review o f a d u l t i n s t it l r t i o r ~ s ' s e c ~ rtyi , ( kuai t o r General
r e p o r t number 85- 12) consul t a n t s N. R. Cox and Associates i d e n t i f i e a many
instances o f apparent s t a f f shortages i r l DOC f a c i l i t i e s . Yet, w i t t i o u t d
comprehensive analysis, they could not determine whether " shortages were
due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers of personnel , i n e f f i c i e t ~ t deployment of
personnel, or inadequate evaluation of personnel needs. . . ." The lack
o f re1 i a b l e i n f o r r i a t i o n a1 so prevented Auditor General s t a f f from
determining adequate s t a f f i n g 1 eve1 s. Several p o s s i b i l i t i e s may explain
apparent shortages.
Underall ocation - I n some instances, i r l s t i t u t i o n s c, ay be inadequately
staffed. Marly instances of inadequate s t a f f i n g appear t o e x i s t .
Inadequdte s e c u r i t y s t a f f i n g creates Iielrastli ps not only f o r seclrri ty
s t a f f but also f o r other s t a f f as well as inmates.
I n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s c i t e d numerous examples o f need f o r a d d i t i o n a l
securi ty posts. I n addition, p r e l iminary cal cul ations by Auditor General
s t a f f i n d i c a t e d t h a t some i n s t i t u t i o n s appear 1 ess adequately s t a f f e d
than others. Based on e x i s t i n g posts, adequacy o f s t a f f i n g varied from
less than 70 percent t o almost 95 percent. However, some i n s t i t u t i o n s
t h a t appear more adequately s t a f f e d may have less s t a f f than needed
because many f a c i l i t i e s have eliminated or omitted posts due t o s t a f f i n g
constraints. For exampl e:
e North U n i t Outside Trustee does ! lot provide s t a f f f o r one p ~ s t ,
thereby leaving a dorm unguarded. With e x i s t i n g s t a f f , t h i s u n i t
cannot have a CSO i n the dorm witkout s a c r i f i c i n g security
e l sewhere. Incidents o f t h e f t and assaul t have occurred.
e San Pedro does n o t s t a f f the post a t one o f two dining h a l l s i n the
u n i t . As a r e s u l t , 216 inmates and the u n i t ' s CSOs have 90 minutes
t o eat i n a single dining h a l l w i t h a maxirnuci capdcity o f 56.
Because there are only enough CSOs t o supervise e i g h t outside work
crews, F l orence Complex security has apparently been abl e t o hanal e
i t s work load only by taking out fewer crews than are available,
despite statutes that require a l l able- bodied inmates t c work 40
OUTS per week.
When s t a f f i n g probl ems occur, i n s t i tlrti ons address these prolil e ~ i s through
a v a r i e t y of strategies: ( 1 ) p r i o r i t i z e posts, ( 2 ) balance the nusiber of
s t a f f working each s h i f t , ( 3) use s e c u r i t y supervisors t o cover routine
posts, ( 4) use CSOs as s e c u r i t y supervisors, ( 5 ) deny requests t o attend
t r a i n i n g , and ( 6) i n extreme cases, c a l l i n security s t a f f on t h e i r days
o f f and leave v i t a l posts vacant temporarily. The s t r a t e g i e s are not
a1 together desirable. For example, p r i o r i t i z i n g posts nlay leave c e r t a i n
s e c u r i t y posts vacant. According t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a f f , the Tucson and
P e r r y v i l l e Complexes each leave one control room post 1 argel y u n f i l l e d
due t o s t a f f shortages. Auditor General s t a f f observed t h a t s t a f f i n
both control rooms were barely able t o keep up w i t h work demands. Yet,
N. R. Cox and Associates s t a t e t h a t control room posts are o f such v i t a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t a post analysis begins w i t h assessiny tile iideqclacy o f
control room posts. Using s e c u r i t y supervisors i n posts r o u t i n e l y f i l l e d
by CSOs can r e s u l t i n less supervision o f correctional security s t d t f .
Denying leave requests and c a l l i n g i n employees while they are on leave
can resul t i n increased work loads, a d d i t i o n a l stress and decreased
moral e f o r empl oyees.
14
The end result i s that institutional security may suffer. N. R. Cox and
Associates observed Inany instances i n which security is less than
adequate.
o The Rincon yard control officer had to leave the station unattended
to perform another task.
r ASP- Fort Grant does not have sufficient officers to guard each dorm.
o Only one officer supervises more than 100 inmates during the
m i d n i g h t s h i f t in the ASPC- Tucson 1- ti nin; i; m Custcdy Unit.
Improper security staffing a1 so affects other iristi tutional personnel as
\/ ell as inmates. In tines of severe need, correctional program officers
( CPOs) i n some f a c i l i t i e s perform security duties. In a t l e a s t one
f a c i l i t y , the Deputy Narden and even the secretary escort irirnates duririg
severe security s t a f f shortages. Under some circumstances, nonsecurity
s t a f f cannot provide services to inmates unti 1 security escorts are
availabl e. One I- leal t h Services o f f i c i a l s t a t e d that the dentist serving
cellblock 6 may see clietrts only 15 minutes out of the hour aue to a
shortage of seclirity escorts. Another s t a f f mernber stated that a great
portion of her days are spent waiting for security o f f i c e r s t o escort
inmates to her. As a result, not only are s t a f f time and resources used
inefficiently, b u t inmates receive limited services.
Inefficient Use Of Staff - On the other hand, i n s t i t u t i o n s that appear to
be short of s t a f f may be using s t a f f iriefficiently. Some institutions,
for example, appeared to have a much greater proportion of security
supervi sors performi ng adnini strative functions than others. Accordi ny
to N. R. Cox and Associates, some administrative posts may not have been
created in response to a pressing need, but rather to reward senior
employees. Varying use of security supervisors may exist in part because
DOC has no guide1 ines as to the level and number of security supervisors
appropriate for each i n s t i t u t i o n , or how security supervisors should be
used. In response to a question regarding how security supervisor
staffing i s determined, some institutional o f f i c i a l s stated that they
merely " work w i t h ; itlat we have."
CSOs I n Nonsecurity Positions - I n other cases, s t a f f i n g problems may
have arisen because many i n s t i t u t i o n s must use CSOs f o r f u n c t i o n s t h a t ,
though not s e c u r i t y re1 ated, are v i t a l t o i ns ti t ~ t i o n a l operations. Some
CSOs work i n posts t h a t would be more a p p r o p r i a t e l y f i l l e d by b u i l d i n g
maintenance supervisors, clerks, t y p i s t s , mechanics, storekeepers and
food service supervisors. I n one u n i t , the Deputy Marden stated t h a t ten
CSOs perform work t h a t should be doce by food service supervisors, CPOs
and recreation aides; and f i v e more work i n areas t h a t do not necessarily
r e q u i r e CSOs. Yet, having CSOs working i n f u n c t i o n s u n r e l a t e d t o
s e c u r i t y may cause an i n s t i t u t i o n t o leave a s e c u r i t y post unstaffed or
r e s u l t i n inadequate r e l i e f f o r some posts. Some i n s t i t u t i o n s have
requested nonsecurity p o s i t i o n s f o r these functions b u t the requests have
not been funded.
S t a f f i n g Analysis Woul d
Improve S t a f f i n g Decisions
A comprehensive s t a f f i n g analysis uoul a iniprove DOC'S a b i l i ty t o niake
decisions regarding s t a f f i n g 1 eve1 s. DOC has completed a s t a f f i n g study
intended t o he1 p the Department i d e n t i fy s t a f f i n g needs. A1 though the
study provides DOC w i t h some information, the study does n o t f u r n i s h DOC
w i t h inforniation needed t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f i n g needs because o f incoh- iplete
information, d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the s t a f f i n g formula, and l i m i t e d c r i t i c a l
review o f data submitted by the i n s t i t u t i o n s .
DOC has r e c e n t l y completed a study o f s t a f f i n g needs. This study,
completed i n December 1985, was intended t o assess staf'fing f o r the
e n t i r e Departxent, and w i l l be used t o determine needs f o r e x i s t i n g and
new positions. Previous DOC studies c o ~ p l e t e d f o r the purpose o f
devel oping s t a f f i n g p a t t e r n s f o r new i n s t i t u t i o n s used consul tants chosen
s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the task. DOC o f f i c i a l s stated they they rniglrt have
used an outside consultant f o r the c u r r e n t study, but resource
c o n s t r a i n t s prevented thern from consi aeri ng ttli s a1 t e r n a t i ve. Tile
s t a f f i n g study has enabled DOC t o obtain information it previously
1 acked, and has he1 ped the Department update e x i s t i n g information. For
example, the study provided DOC w i t h current l i s t s o f positions,
organizational charts, and schematic diagrams showing posts for various
institutions. I t a1 so projected i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a f f i n g needs for fiscal
year 1986- 87.
Incomplete Information - The DOC staffing study does not provide GOC with
compl ete inforniation needed to accurately determine staff ins needs.
Schematic diagrams, intended to depict security post 1 ocati ons, were
incompl etely devel oped for some ins t i tutions and mi ssi ng for others.
Schematic diagrams were missing for a1 1 b u t one unit a t ASPC- Perryvil le.
Information showing the specific location of each post and specific areas
covered by each post was missing or incomplete for most units a t
ASPC- Fl orence.
!. lorever, the Department did not analyze the tasks and duties necessary t o
carry out each i n s t i t u t i o n ' s mission. A task analysis form a c r i t i c a l
part of a staffing study, because the objective of such an analysis i s to
identify specific tasks, duties, and interrelationships among tasks an0
duties, to determine the numbers and types of pcsts needed for tile 1, rost
efficient and effective operation of an institution. This inforcation
must be reviewed and analyzed before accurate concl usi ons rerjdrui ng
staffing needs can be reached. Because DOC did not conduct ( 1 tasu,
analysis as part of its staffing study, the extent of inefficiencies in
s t a f f u t i 1 ization remains unknown, and concl usions about the number arid
location of security posts may not be accurate.
Staffing Formula - The staffing formula developed as a result of the DOC
study may be inaccurate. As rioted previcusly, the staffing foroul d
should include all factors that cause employees to be away from a post.
tiowever, DOC officials stated that a t l e a s t one factor, the tirne requirea
to f i l l vacancies, was not included." As a result, DOC came up with
formulas of 4.64 to 4.87 for seven- day, 24- hcur posts for nost
institutions, which was rounded to 5.0 to provide some " cushion." Yet,
the basis for rounding specifically to 5.0 ( as opposeu to 4.9, 5.1, 5.2,
* Cther factors re1 ated to trtiining n~ ay have also ~ e e n excluded.
However, rde uere unable to determine from DOC records hob
in- service and pre- service training factors were calculated.
17
etc.) i s unclear. It i s also unclear how DOC plans to modify the
s t a f f i n g formula f o r one i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t apparently required the use o f
a 5.12 formula. An accurate s t a f f i n g formula i s h i g h l y important; even
small differences i n the formula used can have p o t e n t i a l l y serious
consequences f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a f f i n g .
Limited Review - Information gathered f o r the study was conipiled and
conclusions were drawn with only l i m i t e d Central O f f i c e review. For
example, one i n s t i t u t i o n a c t u a l l y stated t h a t t h e d u t i e s performed by one
CSO could be performed e q u a l l y w e l l by a secretary, y e t the statement was
apparently not considered i n the f i n a l compilation o f s t a f f i n g needs.
One DOC o f f i c i a l did state t h a t t h e r e s p e c t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n a l treacis were
contacted, especial ly when i n s t i t u t i o n a l data appeared unreal i s t i c .
However, d i f f e r i n g opinions among i n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s regarding the
types o f posts needed and the kinds o f positions necessary t o f i l l
p a r t i c u l a r posts l e d t o inconsistencies i n determining how s i m i l a r posts
would be s t a f f e d anlong d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s . For example, sonic u n i t s
use a storekeeper i n the " innate store" ( commissary) post, whereas others
use a CSO i n the same post. Another example i s the WIPP payroll post, i n
which u n i t s rnay use CPOs, CSOs arid clerks, based on c i f f e r i r i y
i n s t i t u t i o n a l rationales.
COhJCLUSI ONS
DOC i s unable to accurately determine s e c u r i t y s t a f f i n g requi rer, ients.
DOC uses an inaccurate formula t h a t apparently underestimates s t a f f i n g
needs. Furthermore, post needs are not c l e a r l y defined. Consequently,
DOC does not know whether c u r r e n t s t a f f i n g i s adequate. A comprehensive
s t a f f i n g analysis could a l l e v i a t e s t a f f i n g problems.
REC CF1F1E tdDATI ONS
1. DOC should complete aaciitional studies and analyses to deter~ fiine the
fol 1 owing:
a. the number of security posts needed basea on wor- ic 1 oad measures,
detailed task analyses, s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n and f a c i l i t y design;
b. other areas affecti rig security staffing, incl udi ng staffing
needs for areas i n which CSOs are currently inappropriately
assigned; and
c. at1 accurate staffing foriilula for each i n s t i t u t i o n , along with a
plan to gradually eliminate Departmental inefficiencies that
tend to inflate the staffing fon; iula.
DOC should report to the Legislature the results of the staffing
sttrdy, as well as the Departnxnt's procjrcss in implementin~ study
results.
If DOC 1 acks sufficient resources to perfcrm a coiriprehensive staffing
analysis, DOC stiould request monies from the Legislature to hire a
consultant to perforrn the study.
2. DOC should review the staffing forniula annually and post neeas
periodically to assess changes i n conditions affecting staffing
needs. DOC should report the results of these reviews to the
Legisl ature.
FINDING I 1
DOC'S HIRING PROCESS IS INADEQUATE TO MEET CSO HIRING NEEDS
The Department o f Corrections ( DOC) i s unable t o h i r e enough c o r r e c t i o n a l
s e r v i c e o f f i c e r s ( CSOs) t o meet i t s s e c u r i t y s t a f f i n g needs. DOC has
d i f f i c u l t y f i l l i n g CSO p o s i t i o n s and must constantly operate w i t h high
vacancy 1 eve1 s. The Department pl ans t o c e n t r a l i z e the h i r i n g process,
but several major problems w i l l s t i l l e x i s t . I n addition, reducing the
time t h a t p o s i t i o n s are vacant may also elirriinate the vacarlcy savings
counted on t o fund t r a i n i n g positions.
Currently, the Department o f Administration ( BOA)- State Personnel
D i v i s i o n i s u l t i m a t e l y responsible f o r developing procedures governing
CSO recruitment, s e l e c t i o n and h i r i n g . State Personnel has an o f f i c e a t
DOC's Central Office t h a t employs both DOA and DOC s t a f f . State
Personnel receives appl i c a t i o n s and maintains a r e g i s t e r o f CSO
candidates. DOC's Personnel O f f i c e generates h i r i n g 1 i s t s f o r
i n s t i t u t i o n s and updates the r e g i s t e r . DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s receive t~ irn5i
l i s t s , intervievr candidates and make f i n a l h i r i n g decisions.* tiohever,
under a neb4 intergovernmental agreement between State Personnel and DCC,
DOC w i l l assume a l l CSO recruitment r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . DCC has
established a special Recruitrrlent U n i t f o r Selection and H i r i n g ( FiUSH) t~
c e n t r a l i z e CSO h i r i n g . RUSH i s scheduled t o begin recruitment i n January
1986.
DOC Has D i f f i c u l t y
F i l l i n a CSO Positions
DOC has d i f f i c u l t y f i l l i n g CSO vacancies. DOC records i n a i c a t e t h a t i t s
i n s t i t u t i o n s operate w i t h a high number o f CSO vacancies. CSO vacancies
are due t o high turnover and a lengthy h i r i n g process. The constant
vacancies increase the number o f s t a f f needed t o operate i n s t i t u t i o n s .
* A r i zoria S t a t e P r i s o n C c ~ pelx - F1 orence as been excl uded frcici
divided DOA- DOC a u t h o r i t y . It i s t h e o n l y i n s t i t u t i o n presently t o
oversee a l l phases o f CSO recruitmerlt.
CSO Vacancy Levels Are High - DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s constantly operate with a
high number o f CSO vacancies. DOC vacancies r e s u l t from newly authorized
CSO positions and CSO terminations. The termination vacancies r e s u l t
from high turnover, which may have several causes.
DOC has a large number of vacancies caused by newly authorized CSO
positions. DOC has been authorized 413.5 new CSO positions for f i s c a l
year 1985- 86. Most o f the new positions ( 252.5) are f o r tfie emergency
f a c i l i t i e s . One hundred sixty- one new positions are being added f o r
e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s .
I n addition t o vacancies caused by newly authorized positions, DOC hds a
high number of vacancies caused by CSO terminations. Since DOC has not
maintained Department- wide h i s t o r i c a l records on vacancy levels, we were
unabl e t o cal cul ate a Departmen t - w i de average monthly vacancy 1 eve1 .
However, CSO ~ nont h l y termirlati ons for the 1984- 85 fis cal year were
obtained from Arizona State Prison Complex ( AsPC)- Florence,
ASPC- Perryville and ASPC- Tucson. A summary o f tile terminations for these
i n s t i t u t i o n s i s presented i n Table 3. The three i n s t i t u t i o n s had a t o t a l
of 616 vacant positions o f i ,346.5 authorized CSO positions, r e s u l t i n g i n
an overall termination level of 46 percent. ASPC- Perryville had the
highest termination level a t 69 percent, ASPC- Florence ijac; 46 percent,
and ASPC- Tucson had a 21 percent termination r a t e f o r 10 months.
TABLE 3
MONTHLY CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICER TERKINATIONS(~ )
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984- 85
F a c i l i t y
Month and Year ASPC- F1 orence ASPC- Perryvi 11 e ASPC- Tucson
J u l y 1984
August
September
October
November
December
January 1985
February
March
Apri 1
PI ay
June
Total
no data
no data
6
6
3
4
4
5
10
G
8
- ti
Authorized
CSO Positions
f o r 1984- 85 737.5 31 7 226
1 984 - 85
Termination Percentage 45.6% 69.4% 21.0%(~)
) Terminations based on prosotions, transfers, demotions, d i snissals
and resignations a t the end o f each month.
( 2 ) Ten months only.
Source: Recrui trnent U n i t f o r Sel e c t i o n and H i r i n g , Department o f
Corrections
CSO vacancies are the r e s u l t o f high turnover. DOA reports i n d i c a t e t h a t
for f i s c a l years 1983- 84 and 1984- 85 the CSO turnover r a t e was
approxiniately 32 and 31 percent, respectively.* During the same period,
the turnover r a t e f o r a l l p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n DOC was 26 percent. The
o v e r a l l turnover r a t e f o r a l l State service p o s i t i o n s was 20 percent i n
1983- 84, and 18 percent i n 1984- 85. Therefore, the turnover r a t e for the
CSO p o s i t i o n has been much higher than the average r a t e f o r a l l State
* Turnover, as defined by DOU, incltiaes only those employees leaving
State service. The r a t e does not include CSO vacancies due tc,
pronlotions, t r a n s f e r s or cienotions. Thus, tiie DCA turnover r a t e i s
usually lower than the termination percentage shown i n Table 3.
service positions, and has been higher than the average f o r a l l p o s i t i o n s
w i t h i n DOC. CSO turnover r a t e s a l s o vary widely among i n s t i t u t i o n s and
from year t o year. For example, i n 1983- 64 ASPC- Tucson' s turnover rate,
as defined by DOA, was 33 percent; b u t i n 1984- 85 i t s turnover r a t e had
dropped t o 21 percent. DOA reported ASPC- Perryvi 11 e' s turnover r a t e as
36 percent i n 1983- 84, and 43 percent i n 1984- 85. Such annual turnover
r a t e v a r i a t i o n impacts DOC'S a b i l i t y t o a n t i c i p a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l CSO
replacement needs due t o turnover.
Although the CSO turnover r a t e i s high, the causes f o r turnover are not
clear. Two studies were completed t o i n v e s t i g a t e CSO turnover. A1 though
t h e s t u d i e s provide i n s i g h t i n t o p o t e n t i a l causes o f CSG turnover, each
has 1 i m i t a t i o n s . DOA's study was l i m i t e d t o 50 CSOs and one
i n s t i t u t i o n . DOA reviewed e x i t interviews o f 50 CSOs resigning froril
ASPC- Fl orence between October 1 , 1983, and September 30, 1984. * Resul t s
o f DOA's review indicated t h a t the most common reasons for CSOs leaving
were: 1) personal reasons n o t r e l a t e d t o the job, 2) work environment,
and 3 ) supervisors. DOC co~ npleted a folio\-+ up study i n A p r i l 1985 uue t o
i t s concern t h a t CSOs were leaving because o f t h e i r supervisors.
However, GOC's study was 1 i m i t e d t o CSCl supervisors and d i d not r e f l e c t
CSO opinions on the causes o f turnover.
This DOC sttidy founo t h a t from tile supervisors' perspective, the priinary
f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g r e t e n t i o n of CSOs i s the pay scale. The other major
f a c t o r i d e n t i f i e d inpacting CSO d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was unaerstdffing.
Understaffing, according t o the report, increased tension and stress on
i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s wtio were expected to ccjver two, and son~ etices tiiree
posts. I n addition, the task force concluded t h a t one of the causes of
CSO di s s a t i sfactiorl with sergeants and 1 i eutenants i s the " di snal level "
of supervisory/ rnanagement t r a i n i n g provided by DOC.
I n a d d i t i o n t o conductir~ g these studies, DOC has implemented an e x i t
i n t e r v i e w program t o monitor reasons for CSO turnover. Since January
* E x i t surveys were sent t o 2U2 CSCls who resigned from
ASPC- Florence. Of the 202 sent, 50 were returned. DOA's
conclusions were based on t l i c 50 returnea surveys.
2 4
1985 DOC has sent questionnaires t o CSOs wi~ o resign from the Department
t o determine t h e i r reasons f o r leaving. According t o DOC o f f i c i a l s , the
r e s u l t s o f the questionnaires w i l l be used t o develop s t r a t e g i e s t o
reduce turnover.
Lengthy t i i r i n g Process Co~ pounds Vacancy Problem - I n dudition t o tile
high CSO turnover r a t e , t h e h i r i n g process forces the i n s t i t u t i o n s t o
w a i t alrnost three months u n t i l CSO p o s i t i o n s are f i l l e d . Auditor General
s t a f f reviewed CSO h i r i n g l i s t s * prepared between October 1984 and June
1985 t o determine the delay i n f i l l i n g positions. However, o f the 487
p o s i t i o n numbers reviewed, information on the date t h e p o s i t i o n s were
f i l l e d was o n l y a v a i l a b l e on 133. Based on the 133 p o s i t i o n s f o r which
information was available, r e s u l t s o f the review i n d i c a t e t r i a t the
average length o f t i n e taken t o f i l l a CSO p o s i t i o n i s more t t ~ a n fciur and
one- half weeks. Once hired, a CSO niust a t t e n d a six- week t r a i n i n g
program. Therefore, an i n s t i t u t i o n must krai t a p p r o x i ~ i a t e l y 11 !. reeks t o
f i l l a vacant CSO position. According t o our analysis, ASPC- Florence
h i r e s w i t h i n tllree weeks, sirlce i t s h i r i n g 1 i s t s are prepared w i t i l o u t
Central O f f i c e involvement. With the required t r a i n i n g , the t i n e t o fill
a p o s i t i o n a t ASPC- Florence i s nine weeks. Thus, ASPC- Florence i s aule
t o fill p o s i t i o n s more quickly, b u t ttie delay i s s t i l l more than two
rnontiis.
Two major areas impact the delay i n the h i r i n g process: DOC'S h i r i n g
approach and the inadequacy o f h i r i n g l i s t s .
0 Current H i r i n g Approacll - DOC does n o t begin recruitment u r i t i l it
receives n o t i c e t h a t a p o s i t i o n w i l l become vacant. As the process
i s structured, even i f DOC were able t o h i r e a CSO the day a
posi t i o n became vacant, the i n s t i t u t i o n would s t i 11 be without a
CSO f o r s i x weeks while the new h i r e conpleted t r d i n i r i ~ .
0 H i r i n g L i s t s Do Rot Provide Enough Interested Applicants - t i i r i n g
1 i s t s do not provide enough interested, qua1 i f i e a appi icants. Trio
of the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' personnel o f f i c e r s stated t h a t they assume
t h a t a t l e a s t h a l f o f the applicants on a h i r i n s l i s t w i l l not
respond t o an i n t e r v i e w con tact. ASPC- Perryvi 1 I e , f o r exampi e,
JC t i i r i n g 1 i sts were reviewed from ASPC- Ferryvill e, ASPC- iticson,
ASP- Fort Grant, ASPC- Doug1 as, Catal ind 5lountain Juvenile
I n s t i t u t i o n , Adobe : lokntai n J u ~ e n iel I n s t it u t i o r r ana iaew Darn
Juvenile I n s t i t u t i o n .
25
sent 93 i n t e r v i e w contact l e t t e r s from a h i r i n g l i s t t o f i l l 26
vacancies. On1 y 28 appl i c a n t s responded. The Associate Warden
stated t h a t from the 28 respondents, they would be lucky t o h i r e
15; thus, 11 p o s i t i o n s would remain vacant and would need t o be
f i l l e d from a subsequent h i r i n g l i s t . One p o t e n t i a l cause f o r tile
low response r a t e may be the timeliness o f candidate interviews.
Due t o the background check requirement f o r CSOs, applicants may
not appear on a r e g i s t e r f o r several weeks ( see Finding 111). By
the time the applicants are contacted they may no longer be
i n t e r e s t e d i n the position. Another cause may be discrepancies
between DOA and DOC i n removing applicants from the r e g i s t e r . COC
a u t h o r i t i e s o f t e n note reasons on h i r i n g l i s t s f o r not h i r i n g an
i n d i v i d u a l . However, DOA, which i s ul t i m a t e l y responsible f o r
removing applicant names from the r e g i s t e r , may not f i n d the
expl anation provided s u f f i c i e n t t o remove an applicant from the
r e g i s t e r . Thus, these applicants may continue t o appear on other
h i r i n g 1 i s t s .
Lack o f coordination w i t h i n DOC also a f f e c t s the i n i t i a t i o n o f the h i r i n g
process.
8 Duplication O f Paperwork - DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s begin tile h i r i n g
process w i t h the completion o f an i n t e r n a l 303 form. The form i s
used t o inform personnel t h a t a person i s leaving it position. Once
the p o s i t i o n becomes vacant, a form 303 i s again completed t o
request t h a t the vacant p o s i t i o n be f i l l e c i . The form contains two
sections f o r these two personnel transactions, and both could be
completed simultaneously.*
e A u t i l o r i z a t i o n Sigilatures - Accordirry t o our a n a l j s i s , the number of
signatures requirea on the 303 form has nearly doubled i t s
processing tiize from 4.4 work days t o 8.2 work days. During the
period analyzed, two versioris o f the form 303 were used. Tile o l d
form recjui r e d t h r e e d if f ~ r e n Dt O C signatures f o r proper conpl etion,
whereas the revised form added an a d d i t i o n a l signature
requi renent. Since the Personnel O f f i c e cannot send h i r i n g l i sts
t o i n s t i t u t i o n s u n t i 1 receiving the form, the processing time
impacts the t i n e l i n e s s o f t i i r i n g CSOs.
Tile delay i n f i l l i n g vacancies a t i n s t i t u t i o n s increases s t a f f needs.
The length o f time a p o s i t i o n i s vacant a f t e r a terniination impacts the
s t a f f i n g formula. As i n d i c a t e d i n Finding I, the s t a f f i n g formula
determines the number o f CSOs needed t o s t a f f a post. DOC c u r r e n t l y uses
a s t a f f i n g formula o f 5.0 f o r a 24- hour, seven- day post. Based on our
review o f the formula, we found t h a t w i t h t l ~ ec u r r e n t 11- week cielay t o
* At the time o f our re vier^, ASPC- Florence d i d not conplete the
" request t o f i l l " p o r t i o n of the 303 form, b u t used the " change o f
status" section t o begin the h i r i n g process.
f i l l positions a t institutions, the staffing formul a stioul d be 5.3.
However, i f the delay in f i l l i n g vacancies could be reduced to two weeks,
for exa~ iple, the stdffing formula could be reduced to 5.0. DGC i s
currently implementing a procedure to reduce the delay ( see page 28).
This would reduce s t a f f needs significantly. For example, Dased on
existing posts, the Santa Rita Unit a t ASPC- Tucson requires ' 327 CSOs
under the 5.3 figure. Based on the 5.0 figure, needs woula be reduced to
116 CSOs. Department- wide, the reduction could ? lave a significant impact
on overall staffing needs. Ho\. iever, since ; re Liere unable to obtain the
total number of posts Department- wide, we were not able to calculate a
Department- wide reduction i n totdl number of CSOs needed.
DOC's New Hiring U n i t Plans To Hire
And Train In Advance Of Vacancies,
B u t Problems May Sti 11 Exist
' 1 though DOC plans to change i t s hiring process, some of the existing
problems may s t i l l exist. DOC will assume primary resporlsibil i ty for
recruitment, selection and hiring of CSOs. The ctiancje wi 1 l central ize
tile proc2ss, and eliminate some of the duplication arid coordinaticn
problems. However, sorrie problerr~ s such as di fficul ty i n providing each
institution with the number of needed CSOs, untirnel iness in Intel 1 igence
Sc Investigj. tion ( I& I ) backgrouvrd ciiecks, arid DOC's l e r i ~ t t ~ y aria
duplicative process to i n i t i a t e hiring are likely to continue.
Change Wi 11 El ini nate Some Probl eras - Un~ er an intergovernnieritui
agreement behieen DOA and DOC, DOC will assume a1 1 responsibility for CS3
recruitment, se1 ection, and hiring. GOC has created a kecrui triient lini t
for Selection and Hiring to perform these functions.* According to tile
IIUSII Administrator, RUSH pl ans to besin recrui tcrent in January 19db.
Since all new CSCs must receive pre- service training prior to beins
placed a t an i n s t i t u t i o n , RUSH will work closely with the Correctiofial
Officer Training Academy ( COTA). RUSH will hire new CSOs into li% i tea
% RUSH was developed throu~ h d joint DOA- 002 task force. CCA iias
also conducted studies to identify ways to improve CSO selection
and retention. In addition, DCA bqill continue to be involved w i tti
RUSH as i t will perform audits to ensure DOC remains in compliance
w i t h DOA personnel rules and regulations.
t r a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s while they attend the Academy. Upon completion o f the
t r a i n i n g , each CSO w i l l be assigned t o a permanent authorized CSO
p o s i t i o n a t an i n s t i t u t i o n .
The new c e n t r a l i z e d h i r i n g process w i l l emphasize f i l l i n g vacancies as
they occur. Through RUSH, DOC plans t o a n t i c i p a t e CSO vacancies, and
thus have CSOs hired, t r a i n e d and reaciy t o place i n vacancies when they
occur. By h i r i n g arrd t r a i n i n g CSOs i n advance o f vacancies DOC intends
t o reduce the length o f time 3 vacancy e x i s t s .
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f the process combined w i t h prescreening o f applicants
should eliminate the problems associated w i t h d e f i c i e n t h i r i n g 1 i s t s . An
o b j e c t i v e o f RUSH i s t o remove undesirable applicants from the s e l e c t i o n
process before they are placed on the CSO r e g i s t e r . Screening w i l l be
performed a t several points throughout the process. For example, the
appl i c a t i c n packet w i l l contain a questionnaire t h a t asks the appl i c a n t s
about t h e i r a b i l i t y or w i l l i n g n e s s t o perform c e r t a i n duties such as the
w i l l i n g n e s s t o use force or the willinc$ ess t o work varied s h i f t s . I f an
appl i c a n t chooses not t o perform these functions, t h a t appl i c a r i t w i 11 be
removed from the process d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l stages. I n a d d i t i o r ~ , ttie rlew
process d i f f e r s from the c u r r e n t process i n t h a t applicants w i l l not be
placed on the a c t i v e r e g i s t e r u n t i l a f t e r they have taken a w r i t t e n exam
and had an oral interview. Those found undesirable w i l l be rerrloved from
the s e l e c t i o n process. Thus, a l l applicants l i s t e d on tile r e g i s t e r
should be hireable, and the h i r i n g l i s t s generated from the r e g i s t e r
should contain a greater proportion of q u a l i f i e d applicants than a t
present.
DOC W i l l Continue To Encounter Sone H i r i n g D i f f i c u l t i e s - A problem t h a t
may continue under the new h i r i n g process i s the time1 iness i n obtaining
CSO applicant backgroutld checks. As discussed i n Finding I 1 1 ( see pase
31 ), the background check has been untimely and has delayed appl i c d n t s "
a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r h i r i n g . According t o the RUSH coordinator, I A I i v i ' l l
continue t o process background checks a f t e r RUSH assumes h i r i n g
responsi bi1 i ty. However, backgrourid ci- iecks w i l l be 1 ini ted t o only tilose
who RUSH intends t o interview, r a t h e r than a l l applicants as i s done
c u r r e n t l y . RUSH w i l l need r e s u l t s o f the background checks w i t h i n two
weeks, therefore, it w i l l be important f o r RUSH t o coordinate w i t h I& I t o
ensure t h a t r e s u l t s are returned i n a t i m e l y manner.
RUSH may also encounter problems w i t h the proceaure used t o begin the
h i r i n g process. DOC's Personnel D i v i s i o n c u r r e n t l y has problems i n
o b t a i n i n g t h e " request t o f i l l " form 303 i n a t i r r ~ e l y rlanner. Accordiriy
t o DOC's Personnel Manager, under RUSH DOC w i l l continue t o process the
" requests t o f i l l " form 303 t h r o u ~ ht he same ci- ianriel s a t DOC. The major
d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t the form w i l l go t o RUSH instead o f t o DOC Personnel.
Since RUSH cannot transfer a COTA graduate i n t o a permanent p o s i t i o n
u n t i l it receives form 303, delays i n RUSH'S r e c e i p t o f the " request t o
f i l l " forin 303 could s t i l l impact i n s t i t u t i o n s operating w i t h vacancies.
Thus, t i n e l i n e s s i n o b t a i n i n g the form may continue t o be a problem. In
aadi t i o n , dupl i c a t i o n o f paperwork w i 11 continuo. The new process w i 11
r e q i l i r e the i n s t i t u t i o n s t o continue t o send a " change o f statas" form
303 when a person vacates a p o s i t i o n , and a " request t o f i l l " t o r n 333 t o
i n i t i a t e h i r i n g . Added t o the process i s another change o f status form
t r a n s f e r r i n g the COTA graduatc i n t o ttie vacant p o s i t i o n number.
El iminating Extended Vacancies May Reduce
Resources For T r a i n i n g P o s i t i o n s
Because DGC does not have separate funding f o r COTA t r a i n i n l ; posi tiorrs,
it may be unable t o reduce the time CSO p o s i t i o n s are vacant. One o f
DOC'S objectives i n c r e a t i n g RUSH i s t o h i r e and t r a i n CSOs i n advance of
vacancies, i n order t o decrease or eliminate the time a CSO p o s i t i o n i s
vacant. To meet t h i s objective, DOC has establ i skied 1 i m i tea t r a i n i n g
p o s i t i o n s and funded t h e p o s i t i o n s w i t h vacancy savings from the 1985- 86
budget. However, each i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l have t o fund the t r a i n i n g
p o s i t i o n s from i t s own personnel funds i n the future. When a COTA
graduate i s assigned t o an i n s t i t u t i o n , the i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l be charged
f o r tile six- week period t h e t r a i n e e attended the Academy. I n s t i t u t i o n s ,
tnerefore, w i l l need t o have personnel funds a v a i l a b l e to fund - both
authorized p o s i t i o n s and t r a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s i n order t o request a CSO i n
advance o f a vacancy.
Due to the current high turnover and the lengthy period required to f i l l
positions, institutions skoul d have vacancy savings to use for advance
hiring. However, i f RUSH is able to eliminate or decrease the time CSO
positions are vacant, institutional vacancy savings wi l l be reduced. If
these vacancy savings are depleted, the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' abil i ty to fund
training positions i s eliminated. An institution would be forced to wait
until a position becorries vacant to request that the position be f i l l e d .
Without separate funding for training positions, DOC is not l i k e l y t o
succeed i n reducing the length of tine i t s CSO positions are vacant.
CONCLUSION
DOC'S hiring process i s inadequate to meet CSO needs. DOC constantly
operates w i t h a high level of CSO vacancies. These vacancies are due to
both a high turnover rate and a lengthy hiring process. Although DOC'S
move to centralize i t s hiring process will eliminate some problems, DOC
will continue to have difficulty in f i l l i n g CSO vacancies. In adaition,
the Department may l ack adequate funding for training positions.
1. DOC should continue to monitor reasorrs for CSO turnover and estiibl ish
procedures to reduce i denti fied turnover causes.
2. DOC should require institutions to complete the " change of status"
and the " request to f i l l " portions of form 303 a t the same time to
eliminate duplication.
3 . DOC should request funding for tile CGTA training positions in Griler
to allow DCC to hire CSOs in advance of needs.
FINDING I11
DOC ' S INSPECT1 ONS AND INVESTIGATIONS SECT1 ON CCULD IMPROVE ITS BACKGRCUND
INVESTIGATION PROCESS
The Department of Corrections' ( DOC) background check process f o r
correctional service o f f i c e r ( CSO) appl icants coul d be improved. Eel ays
caused by background investigations o f CSO appl icants could be reduced.
I n addition, DOC needs t o develop clear guidelines f o r applicant
disqual i f i c a t i o n . The current problems with background check delays and
lack o f guidelines may have an even greater impact as the background
i n v e s t i g a t i o n process i s niodi fied.
DOC began performing background investigations f o r CSO applicants i n
November 1984.* Applicants f o r CSO positions are required t o complete a
background investigation form, and indicate any p r i o r convictions. This
form i s sent t o the Department o f Administration ( DOA) along with the
appl ication. DOA forwards the background i n v e s t i g a t i o n form to DOC.
DOC'S Inspections and Investigations ( I & ) Section d i s t r i b u t e s the forms
t o one o f four i n s t i t u t i o n s t o run National Criminal Information Center,
Arizona Criminal Information Center, Arizona Computerized Criminal
iii story, and I n t e r s t a t e Information InGex background checks.** The
checks i d e n t i f y any outstanding warrants and previous convictions f o r an
appl icant. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l I& SIe ctions then determine whether a
person i s e l i g i b l e f o r h i r i n g , and send a l i s t o f the r e s u l t s t o Central
Office. Once Central Office receives tile l i s t s , the r e s u l t s are
forwarded t o DOA. The check serves as a preliminary screen f o r DOC. I f
an applicant i s hired by DOC, a f i n g e r p r i n t check i s performed by the
Department of Public Safety and the Federal Bureau o f Investigation.
* Before November 1984, backgrour~ d checks were only perforrned a f t e r a
CSO was hired by DOC. ** Wo\ vever, there appear to be inconsistencies anlong i n s t i - t u t i ons i n
the use of the computerized background checks.
Background Check
Del ays Avail a b i l i t v
The background i n v e s t i g a t i o n s performed f o r CSO appl icants del ays t h e i r
a v a i l a b i l i t y . Background checks have not been conducted i n a timely
manner. A1 though the cause o f the delay i s unclear, d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f
the process contributes t o the untimeliness. Since the delay impacts
appl i c a n t a v a i l a b i l i ty, DOC should continue processing appl icants wtlile
awaiting r e s u l t s o f background checks.
CSO Background Checks Are Untimely - The background checks f o r CSO
a p p l i c a n t s a r e not performed i n a timely manner. Although the actual
computer i n q u i r y r e q u i r e s o n l y rrrinutes, the checks take an average o f
more than 30 days. These delays may eliminate some job candidates.
iJhen DOA receives appl i c a t i ons it codes prel imi nary i nfornation intci tne
CSO r e g i s t e r and l i s t s the applicants as pending. Applicants are l e f t i n
a pending status u n t i l the r e s u l t s o f the background checks are
received. h'e reviewed the time1 i ness o f the background check process.
Although data was lacking f o r a number o f applications, f o r those
a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r which data was available we found t h a t it takes an
average of 34 days from the time DOA receives an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the
Department t o complete the background check. The 34 days does not
i n c l u d e t h e time it takes f o r t h e r e s u l t s o f the check t o be returned t o
DOA and updated on the r e g i s t e r . I n addition, DOC had no record o f
completing a background check for 30 percent of the applicants pie
reviewed.
The delay i n background checks may unnecessarily eliminate seine CSO
candidates. I f DOA does not receive the r e s u l t s of a background check
w i t h i n three months, the a p p l i c a t i o n i s purged from the computer's
pending r e g i s t e r . * Between February 25 and August 8, 1985, DOA forwarded
three l i s t s t o DOC i n d i c a t i n g a t o t a l o f 282 applicant names f o r bhich i t
* Becduse the purge i s performed a t a given t i n e each ~ lontii, solne
applicants remain on the r e g i s t e r more than 90 days. For example,
an applicant on the l i s t f o r 88 aays a t tile t i n e o f the monthly
deletions would remain on the 1 i s t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g month.
had not received a response. According t o a DOA personnel analyst, DOC
d i d respond with the r e s u l t s o f the background checks f o r most o f the
applicants on the l i s t s ; however, r e s u l t s were n o t received f o r about
one- third of the applicants. Thus, due t o DOC'S f a i l u r e t o monitor the
process, some applicants who nay have no criminal h i s t o r y are not placed
on the DOA r e g i s t e r as e l i g i b l e .
Decentralization Contributes To Delay - Although the exact cause o f the
delay i s unclear, decentral i z a t i o n o f background check responsibi 1 i ty
c l e a r l y contributes t o the delay. According t o i n s t i t u t i o n d l o f f i c i a l s ,
the background check can be performed quickly. However, the time needed
t o send names t o i n s t i t l r t i o n s and r e c e i v e r e s u l t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y del ays
the process. Arizona S t a t e Prison Complex ( AsPC)- F1 orence has a
c e n t r a l i z e d process and, thus, has CSOs available f o r h i r e much sooner.
According t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s responsible f o r conducting the
checks, the background checks are performed quickly. The actual process
o f keying information i n t o the computer t o obtain a record f o r a CSO
applicant i s very quick. The r e s u l t s of the check usually appear
immediately. However, i n s t i t u t i o n a l I& I personnel have other duties, and
usually run the background checks i n batches as time permits. I n
addition, some background checks require follow- up t o determine the
outcome o f pending dispositions. Acccrdi ng t o DOC o f f i c i a l s, t h i s can
sometimes take several weeks.
Decentral i z a t i on o f the process has inherent del ays. A1 though records
i n d i c a t e t h a t background checks take an average of 34 days, no logs* or
records existed f o r t h e p e r i o d o f our review t o show exactly how much
delay occurred a t the various processing points. However, p a r t o f the
delay can be explained by the sheer nurnber o f p a r t i e s who must receive
the form. Background check forms are sent from DOA t o I& I Central
Cffice, from I& I Central O f f i c e to the i n s t i t u t i o n s , and then back
* IGI Degan logging appl i c a t i o n s i n iiay l5b5 t o track tile background
forms' proqress t o and from the i n s t i t u t i o n s . However. a t the t i n e
o f our . analysis, there was i n s u f f i c i e r l t documentatior; to trace a
form through the e n t i r e process.
33
through the same parties.* Both time1 iness and control could be irliproved
if the background check process were centralized. Centralization is
possible because terminals are available a t institutions in the Ptrijenix
area, and the Central Office is also planning to obtain a terminal.
ASPC- Fl orence has a central ized background check process and, t h u s , has
CSOs avai lab1 e for hire much sooner. ASPC- Fl orence appl ications are
received and processed a t Fl orence, whi 1 e a1 1 other institutions '
applications are f i r s t sent to DOA. The background checks for
ASPC- Fl orence CSO appl icants are processed by Florence ' s I& I Section.
According to the Personnel Administrator a t Florence, results from
background checks for CSO applicants are received within two weeks.
Few Appl icants Have Criminal Records - Delaying appl icant processing
during background checks also appears to be unnecessary. The number of
appl icants \ rho do not clear the process i s re1 atively small and does not
appear to warrant the del ay. Therefore, DOC could continue processi tiy
appl icants while the backgrcund checks are being cocducteu.
Delaying all CSO applicants to perform the background checks appears
unbiarranted. Processi ny of appl icants stops while backy rour~ a checks dre
completed. During this pending period, applicants do not appear on a
hiring l i s t and cannot be interviewed by hiring authorities. The number
of applicants screened out through the background checks is very srilall.
W e obtai ned informati on f r ~ n30 C which indicates that approxi~ nately 4
percent of appl icants fai 1 the background check.** Therefore, DOC del ays
the process for a l l applicants when only a snall number f a i l .
~ r DOA will be el irrlinated fror~ i tile process when the hiring process i s
central ized. Beginning in January 1986, the app'l ications and
backgrourid check forms will be sent to the Fiecruitraent U n i t f r ~ r
Selection and Hiring in Tucson, which will forward the forrns to Id1
a t Central Office in Phoenix for processing. ** T h i s figure contains primarily CSO applicants, b u t i t also contains
background check figures for other DUC empl oyees.
DOC could allow applicants t o appear on h i r i n g 1 i s t s and be interviewed
by h i r i n g a u t h o r i t i e s whil e t h e background checks are being processed.
DOC has already taken t h i s approach f o r Arizona State Prison- Douglds.
Due t o the number o f CSOs t h a t needed t o be h i r e d t o s t a f f ASP- Douglas,
DOC ' s Personnel tlanager i nformed DOA t h a t he was waiving the requirement
t h a t background checks be performed p r i o r t o placing these CSOs on a
h i r i n g l i s t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e l e t t e r dated !* lay 3, 1905 states:
" The f a c i l i t y s t a f f w i l l conduct the background
i n v e s t i g a t i o n w h i l e the personnel 1 i a i son o f f i c e arvai t s
r e c e i p t o f a h i r i n g l i s t , sends out notices f o r
interviews and conducts the interviews. H i r i n g
decisions w i l l not be made u n t i l background checks are
completed. Hoi~ ever, t h i s special process i s bei tig
i n s t i t u t e d t o avoid the 2- 3 months delay i n completing
background checks before an applicant can be placed i n
the CSO r e g i s t e r . "
DOC Lacks Clear Guidelines
For Appl i c a n t Disqual i f i c a t i o n
DOC lacks c l e a r guidelines as t o what f a c t o r s i c i e n t i f i e d i n a backgrourld
check should cause an applicant t o be i n e l i g i b l e . The lack o f guide1 ines
a1 ong w i t i 1 the decentral i z a t i o n o f the process may cause inconsistency.
I n contrast, the Department of Public Safety ( DPS) has s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a
f o r e l i g i b i l i t y .
Lack Of Clear P o l i c i e s on D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n - DOC has no clear p o l i c i e s
i n d i c a t i n g what kind o f background d i s q u a l i f i e s an applicant. As a
r e s u l t , i n v e s t i g a t o r s a t each i n s t i t u t i o n who review the r e s u l t s o f
background checks must sometimes use considerable judgment i n
determining who should be rejected. As a r e s u l t , t h e i r decisions may be
inconsistent. For example, the i n v e s t i g d t o r s indicated t h a t fel ony
c o n v i c t i o n s a r e general l y grounds f o r r e j e c t i o n . However, DGC has an
ex- offender program ~ r t i i c h suggests t h a t felony convictions should not
automatically d i s q u a l i f y appl icants. In aadi t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l Id1
o f f i c i a l s noted the 1 ack o f gui del i nes f o r misdemeanor offenses. Arrests
or convictions f o r suco offenses as s h o p l i f t i n g , DWI or narcotics use nay
or may not d i s q u a l i f y an applicant. However, no standard c r i t e r i a i s
used t o ~ a k eth e decision. Thus, there i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c o n s i s t e n t
treatment o f appl icants.
Some inconsistencies could be reduced if, as discussed e a r l i e r , the
background check process were central ized, since fewer people waul d be
involved i n i n t e r p r e t i n g resul t s o f the check. tiowever, gui del i nes wolil d
s t i 11 be necessary t o ensure consistent i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f resul ts.
DPS Has Specific C r i t e r i a For E l i g i b i l i t y - The Department o f Public
Safety has clear guidelines f o r r e j e c t i n g applicants from t h e s e l e c t i o n
process. DPS' s selection guide1 i nes define the conditions t h a t coul d
r e s u l t i n r e j e c t i o n . These conditions cover sexual misconduct, drug
invol vement, t h e f t or misappropriation o f property, acts c o n s t i t u t i n g a
felony, f r a u d o r misrepresentation, and c r e d i t and d r i v i n g record. If1
addition, DPS gui del i nes i n c l ude t i n e elements w i t h i n kiiiich the
conditions must e x i s t f o r r e j e c t i o n . For example, marijuana use does not
dutomatically cause an applicant t o be rejected, as long as tnc w e was
n o t w i t h i n the 12 months before the a p p l i c a t i o n was submitted. DPS
considers any felony act cause f o r r e j e c t i o r l o f the applicant, reyaruless
o f the time element. DPS also uses a polygraph examination i n exploring
these conai ti ons. DOC should develop i t s own standards f o r screeni ns
appl icants.
! Jew Background I n v e s t i g a t i o r l Requirenients
Coul d I n t e n s i f v Probl erns
The current probl ems wi ti- i background check del ays ana 1 iick o f gui del i ner;
may have an even greater impact as the background i n v e s t i g a t i o n process
i s modified. Tile Arizorsa Law Enforcer, ient O f f i c e r Advisory Council
( ALEOAC) i s required by s t a t u t e t o establish uniform standards f o r
background i n v e s t i ~ a t i o n s o f CSO appl icants. DOC i s c l t r r e n t l y devel opirry
standards t o meet ALEOAC requirements f o r background investigations.
Since the standards w i 11 require CI ri~ uch more exter~ sivc i n v e s t i g a t i c r l than
i s c u r r e r l t l y performed, delays and t h e l a c k o f guidelines may create even
greater probl ems.
ALEOAC is responsible for establ ishing uniform standards for CSO
background investigations. The Legi sl ature approved funding f o r f i s c a l
year 1984- 85 to establ ish the Correctional Officer Training Academy i n
Tucson. In connection w i t h this appropriation, Arizona Revised Statlrtes
( A. R. S) $ 41 - 1821 was modi fied to require ALEOAC to establ i sh standards
for background investigations to be conducted on CSO applicants before
they enroll i n the academy. Specifically, A. R. S. $ 41- 1821 D states, i n
part:
" D. The Council Shall :
4. Establ ish uniform standards for background
investigations, irlcl ilding criniinal histories under-section
41 - 1750, subsection G, of all appl icants
before enrolling in tkre academy. The Council inay
adopt special procedures for extended screening and
investigations i n extraordinary cases to ensure
s u i t a b i l i t y and adaptability to a career as a
correctional officer. "
DOC is currently developing standards to rneet ALEOAC requirements.
ALEGAC's rules and regulations define background investigation
requirements for peace officers. R13- 4- 05 requires that background
investigations for peace officers include a history statement and a
written evaluation based on the results of the investigation, to be used
for determining applicant s u i t a b i l i t y . The rule s t a t e s t h a t the sources
of the investigation should include a polyyraph exam, review o f a
driver's license record, contact of educational institutions, review of
police f i l e s in jurisdictions the applicant has lived, a review of DPS
criminal records, a review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
records, contact wittl a t l e a s t three previous en~ ployers, check of
references, and contact w i t h the appl icant's neighbors. DOC i s
devel opi ng standards based on ALEOAC guide1 i nes; tiowever, the standards
proposed for CSOs will not be as extensive. DOC plans to present a
proposal to ALEOAC for approval in November 1985.
Since the standards will require a much more extensive investigation than
i s currently performed, the delays and lack of guidelines r, lay have ail
even greater impact. DOC currently requires only corriputerized criminal
h i s t o r y checks f o r CSO appl icants; however, these checks are delaying
applicants' a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r h i r e by 34 days. As the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
process becomes more extensive, the p o t e n t i a l for even greater delays i s
increased. In a d d i t i o n , t h e new process w i l l r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l sources
which may create additional p o s s i b i l i t i e s for i n c o n s i s t e n t decisions i n
the absence o f guidel ines f o r disqual i f y i n g appl icants.
CONCLUSION
DOC'S background check process f o r CSO a p p l i c a n t s could be improved. The
background i n v e s t i g a t i o n performed f o r CSO appl ican t s unnecessarily
del ays appl ican t avai 1 abi 1 i ty. I n addition, DOC 1 acks c l ear gui del i nes
f o r appl i c a n t d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n .
1. DOC should c e n t r a l i z e i t s background check function. C e n t r a l i z a t i o n
would allow DOC t o improve i t s timeliness i n conducting background
checks, and reduce the p o t e n t i a l for i n c o n s i s t e r ~ t treatrncnt of
applicants based on the r e s u l t s o f the background checks.
2. DOC should allow CSO applicants t o appear on h i r i n g l i s t s while
background checks a r e being conducted.
3. DOC should estdbl i sir clear guidel ines f o r r e j e c t i n g CSO appl icants.
FINDING I V
TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS IS INADEQUATE
The Department o f Corrections ( DOC) has n o t provided c o r r e c t i o n a l s e r v i c e
o f f i c e r s ( CSOs) w i t h adequate t r a i n i n g . The amount and type o f i n - s e r v i c e
t r a i n i n g received by CSOs has varied, due l a r g e l y t o s t a f f sl~ ortages and
poor record keeping. A1 though the amount and type o f pre- service t r a i n i n g
received by CSOs has a1 so been inconsistent, a new academy has been
established t o c o r r e c t t h i s s i t u a t i o n .
Amount And Type O f In- Service
Training Provided I s I n c o n s i s t e n t
DOC has not designed a c o n s i s t e n t i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g program f o r CSOs.
The number o f hours o f i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g has not met minimum standards.
Further, the type o f i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g given t o CSGs has been varied.
I n a d d i t i o n , CSOs without pre- service t r a i n i n g may not have received
i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g i n c r i t i c a l areas t o make up f o r the lac^ o f
pre- service t r a i n i n g . As a r e s u l t , CSOs may not be adequately t r a i n e d i n
c r i t i c a l ski1 1 areas.
Amount O f Training Has bjot Met Kinimun Glliaelines - The nurmer o f
in- service t r a i n i n g hours received by CSOs has n o t met minimum
guide1 ines. A1 though DOC has been operating w i t h o u t a t r a i n i n g pol i c y
since October 1984, a new t r a i n i n g pol i c y r e q u i r i n g CSOs t o receive ax
l e a s t 20 hours o f annual i r i - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g a f t e r t h e i r f i r s t year ,-/ as
approved i n November 1985.* However, as shown i n Table 4, CSOs have n o t
received s u f f i c i e n t i n- service t r a i n i n g t o meet the 20- hour standard. Tne
Table summarizes t r a i n i n g received b y CSOs f o r the two y e a r p e r i o d o f July
1, 1983, through June 30, 1S85. CSOs employed by CGC for hiore than t ~ o
years received an average o f l e s s than 13 hours o f i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r
f i s c a l years 1984 and 1985.
* This 20- hour requirement i s less than the 8G hours o f annual
i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g required by DOC'S previous t r a i n i n g pol i c y and
the 40 hours suggestea by the American Correctionhl Association
( ACA). According t o a GOC memo, the 80- hour t r a i n i n g p o l i c y was
rescinded due t o " a shortage o f personnel resources." The 20- i~ our
requirement i s based on t r a i n i n g resources c u r r e n t l y available.
TABLE 4
HOURS OF IN- SERVICE TRAINING
RECEIVED BY CSOs
JULY 1 , 1983, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1985
Length of Number of Average Trai ni ng
Service CSOs( 1 ) Hours
0 - 6 months
7 - 12 months
13 - 18 months
19 - 24 months
over 24 months
( l ) The total is less than 150 becduse one CSO resigned before
completing academy training and was excluded from the sample. Also,
51 CSOs did n o t have in- service training files and were eliminated
from the sample.
Source: Randorn sample of 150 CSO in- service training files from five
correctional faci l i ties: Arizona State Prison- Fort Grant, and
Arizona State Pri son Conql exes at Florence, Pert- yvill e, Phoenix
and Tucson
Type Of In- Service Training 2eceived Is Not Uniform - To the extent that
training is conducted at a l l , the type of in- service training received by
CSOs has been inconsistent. A1 though each institution's training needs
may vary, certain topics should be taught a t a1 l facilities. According to
ACA standards, annual refresher courses in f i r s t aid, weapons, security
procedures and legal issues are essential.
Although CGC training policy in effect until October 2, 1984, recjuireG
training in suck areas as f i r s t aid, weapons and security procedures, a
review of DOC training files revealed tnat CSOs were not receiving
adequat? instruction in these critical areas. In our sample, of the 47
CSOs hired before July 1 , 1983, only six, 13 percent, received in- service
f i r s t aid training and only 28, 60 percent, received in- service security
procedures training during fiscal years 1584 and 1985.
Training inconsistency is further increased because CSOs are allo& ed t o
subs ti tute OR- the- job training hours for i n- service training tiours. For
example, a CSO may record as in- service training tiriie spent filling a
different post for a day. While on- the- job training nay be an effective
40
way t o learn some r o u t i n e j o b s k i l l s , it i s oriented toward s p e c i f i c
requirements of a given position. Moreover, r e l i a n c e on ori- the- job
t r a i n i n g provides no assurance t h a t CSOs w i l l be trained i n c r i t i c a l s k i l l
areas. A spokesperson f o r ACA stated t h a t on- the- job and in- service
t r a i n i n g are d i s t i n c t programs and should not be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r one
another. I n addition, s u b s t i t u t i n g on- the- job f o r i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g
could prevent CSOs from receiving formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n c r i t i c a l ski1 1
areas because CSO in- service t r a i n i n g hours would be inaccurately i n f l a t e d .
Lack Of In- Service Training I s C r i t i c a l For CSOs With No Pre- Service
Training - Inadequate in- service t r a i n i n g i s also s i c j n i f i c a n t because some
CSOs received no pre- service t r a i n i n g when they were i n i t i a l l y empl oyed.
Nineteen CSOs i n our random sample d i d n o t receive any pre- service academy
t r a i n i n g . The number o f hours o f in- service t r a i n i n g cannot be deterfilined
for f i v e o f the 19 CSOs because they do not have t r a i n i n g records. None
o f the 14 with in- service t r a i n i n g records have received adequate
in- service t r a i n i n g , as shown i n Table 5." Nine o f the CSCs, whose years
o f service range from one t o seven, attended less than 20 hours t o t a l
in- service t r a i n i n g . Only one CSO attended as much as 20 hours t r a i n i n g
per year. Since DOC has no plans t o provide pre- service t r a i n i n g f o r
those who have not received it, in- service t r a i n i n g i s v i t a l t o ensure
t h a t these CSOs are t r a i n e d i n c r i t i c a l areas.
~ r As noted previously ACA standards require a minimum o f 40 hours
annually o f in- service t r a i n i n g . DOC'S r e c e n t l y approved t r a i n i n g
p o l i c y w i l l require a t l e a s t 20 llours annually o f in- service
t r a i n i n s .
TABLE 5
HOURS OF IN- SERVICE TRAINING RECEIVED BY CSOS
LACKIIJG PRE- SERVICE ACADEMY TRAINING
FROM HIRE DATE THROUGH JUNE 30, 1985
H i r e Date
4/ 78
2 / 80
4/ 81
8/ 81
5/ 82
7/ 82
10/ 82
6/ 83
7/ 83
8/ 83
8/ 83
8/ 83
2/ 84
9/ 84
TYPE OF TRAINING
F i r s t Aid Weapons Procedures
0 6 G
0 0 10
0 0 4
0 0 11
0 10 4 5
8 10 4 2
14 18 18
0 5 2
0 5 31
2 0 9
0 2 8 6
0 5 1
0 5 0
0 0 0
Total
12
7 0
4
11
5 5
6 0
5 0
7
3 6
11
3 4
b
5
0
Source: Random sample o f 150 CSO i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f i l e s fror:] f i v e
c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i 1 i t i e s : ASP- Fort Grant, ASPC- Fl orence,
ASPC- Perryvil 1 e, ASPC- Phoenix and ASPC- Tucson
C r i t i c a l S k i l l s Flay Not Be Develoued - Because o f DOC'S i n c o n s i s t e n t
in- service t r a i n i n g p o l i c y , CSOs may not be adequately t r a i n e d i n c r i t i c a l
s k i l l areas. As stated i n the ACA Standards ; qanual, " Onboiny
t r a i n i n g . . . enables employees t o sharpen s k i l l s and keep abreast of
changes i n operational procedure." W i t i i o u t such t r a i n i n g , CSOs rilay be
unable t o respond t o a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n i n an appropriate manner.
Lack of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i r i g i n c r i t i c a l areas could increase the S t a t e ' s
p o t e n t i a l 1 i a b i l ity. For example, some i n s t i t u t i o n s do not have lnedical
personnel on- si t e 24 hours a day. Theretore, should an emergency occur,
i t would be b e n e f i c i a l f o r CSOs t o be t r a i n e d i n f i r s t a i d procedures.
S t a f f Shortages And Poor Record Keeping
L i n i t In- Service Trainina
DOC has been unable t o provide CSOs w i t h s u f f i c i e n t in- service t r a i n i n g .
S t a f f i n g shortages have prevented CSOs frcm a t t e n d i n g i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g
classes. I n addition, due t o poor record keeping, DOC cannot e f f e c t i v e l y
monitor t r a i n i n g pol i c y compliance.
Staffing Shortages Prevent CSOs From Attending Classes - S t a f f i n g
shortages make it d i f f i c u l t t o schedule CSOs f o r in- service t r a i n i n g .
According t o several Deputy Wardens, CSOs cannot be t r a i n e d during t h e i r
regular s h i f t s due t o s t a f f shortages. Scheduling a CSO f o r t r a i n i n g
could compromise a f a c i l i t y ' s s e c u r i t y i f the CSO's post remains u n f i l l e a
while t h a t person i s i n t r a i n i n g . I n addition, because o f a lack o f
funds, compensatory time cannot be approved f o r a CSO to a t t e n d a
t r a i n i n g class during another s h i f t . Whi 1 e several Deputy Wardens
recognize the need f o r in- service t r a i n i n g , because o f s t a f f i n g problems
they are re1 uctant or unable t o allow CSOs t o attend classes.
To r e c t i f y t h i s s i t u a t i o n , DOC should incorporate a f a c t o r t h a t accourits
f o r in- service t r a i n i n g hours i n t o i t s s t a f f i n g formula ( see Finding I ) .
DOC'S current s t a f f i n g formula does not i n c l u d e a f a c t o r f o r in- service
t r a i n i n g . A r e v i s e d s t a f f i n g formula coul a determine s t a f f 1 eve1 changes
necessary t o allow f o r in- service t r a i n i n g . This r e v i s i o n could sive the
Deputy Wardens the fl e x i b i 1 i ty t o schedul e CSOs f o r various in- service
classes. Once s t a f f i n g l e v e l s are adjusted, the Ueputy iidraens should be
responsible f o r ensuring t h a t CSOs receive adequate in- service t r a i n i n g .
DOC Cannot E f f e c t i v e l y I'iioni t o r Training Pol i c y Compl iance - Poor record
keeping prevents DOC from monitoring CSO compl iance with in- service
t r a i n i n g p o l i c i e s . DOC does not have an agency- wiae record keeping
procedure for in- service t r a i n i n g . As a r e s u l t , record keeping for
i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g varies anlong f a c i 1 i ti es. Me requested in- service
t r a i n i n g records froin Arizona State Prison- Fort Grant and the Arizona
S t a t e Prison Complexes ( ASPC) a t F1 orence, P e r r y v i l l e, Phoenix and
Tucson. The records obtained were not i n a standardized format. It
appears t h a t each f a c i l i t y has designed i t s own form t o document tiie
amount o f t r a i n i n g received by i t s CSOs.
I n addition, the records n; ay not r e f l e c t a l l the in- service t r a i n i n g CSOs
have received. One i n s t i t u t i o n had t o request t h a t i t s enipl oyees submit
copies o f t h e i r t r a i n i n g records t o the i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r a i n i n g o f f i c e r .
Further, i n a sample o f 79 CSO t r a i n i n g records from ASPC- Fl orence, 35,
more than 44 percent, were missing. Overall, o f 150 CSO records
requested 51, 34 percent, had no t r a i n i n g f i l e s .
To improve the s i t u a t i o n , DOC plans t o convert t o an automated and
c e n t r a l i z e d record- keeping process. DOC'S Bureau of Staff Development
r e c e n t l y desisned a Training Records Inforrilation Management System
( TRIbl). The system wi 11 store CSOsl i n - s e r v i c e and pre- service t r a i n i n g
records. Information frorn the regional i n s t i t u t i o r i s p i i l l be mailed t o
the main o f f i c e where an employee w i l l i n p u t t h e data.
Amount And Type O f Pre- Service Training
Provided Has Seen I n c o n s i s t e n t
DOC has got provided newly h i r e d CSOs w i t h adequate pre- service t r a i n i n g .
The amount and type o f pre- service t r a i n i n g CSOs receive has not been
consistent. However, DOC ' s r e c e n t l y establ i shed Correctional O f f i c e r
Training Academy ( COTA) should e l iminate these deficiencies.
According t o a DOC t r a i n i n g o f f i c e r , pre- service t r a i n i n g f o r CSOs began
i n J u l y 1973 as the r e s u l t o f t h e murder o f two guards a t ASPC- Florence.
Over time, regional academies for pre- service t r a i n i n g have been
established a t ASP- Fort Grant and Arizona S t a t e P r i s o n Complexes a t
Florence, P e r r y v i l l e and Tucson. Also, DOC has contracted with Pnoenix
Coll ege t o provide prc- service t r a i n i n g .
Amount And Type O f Pre- Service Training lias Varied - The amount o f
pre- service t r a i n i n g t h a t CSOs have received a t the regional academies has
v a r i e d . For exaniple, the pre- service t r a i n i n g program offered i n Dece~ ber
1984 a t the Tucson academy l a s t e d 160 hours, while the program offered a t
the Florence academy l a s t e d 240 hotirs. A random sample o f 150 CZO
t r a i n i n g f i l e s from the four academies shows t h a t the amourtt of
pre- service t r a i n i n g received by CSCs has rdnyed fronl 0 t o 280 hours.
Table 6 h i g h l i g h t s the r e s u l t s o f the study.
TABLE 6
HOURS OF PRE- SERVICE TRAINING
RECEIVED BY CSOs
Hours o f
Training
0
1 - 80
81 - 160
161 - 240
over 240
Elo record
Number o f Percentage o f
CSOs( 1) Total
( I ) One CSO resigned before completing academy t r a i n i n g doc! ,, as excl baed
from the sample. One CSO was a c t u a l l y a c o r r e c t i o n a l medical
a s s i s t a n t and was eliminated from the sample.
Source: Random sample o f 150 CSO t r a i n i n g f i l e s from f o u r r e g i o n a l
acadenies: Arizona State Prison- Fort Grant and the Arizorra State
Prison Complexes a t Florence, P e r r y v i l l e and Tucson
I n a d d i t i o n t o the variance i n the amount o f t r a i n i n g received, sor~ e CSCs
had a delay between t h e i r s t a r t i n g date and the date they becjan
pre- service t r a i n i n g . Sample r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t 9 percent o f the CSOs
received pre- service t r a i n i n g we1 1 a f t e r t h e i r h i r e dates. The del ays
ranged from one month t o more than three years.
rloreover, the type o f pre- service t r a i n i n g CSOs received has not been
c0ns. i stent. Before May 1965 each regional academy devel oped i t s crui
curriculum and used i t s own i n s t r u c t o r s . For example, the t r a i : i i n y
academy a t ASPC- Tucson emphasized corrlmunicati ons and hurrian re1 aticns,
whereas the t r a i n i n g academy a t ASPC- Florence empilasized physical t r a i n i n g
and sel f- defense. However, since klay 1985 a standardized pre- service
t r a i n i n g c u r r i c u l um has been implemented a t t h e r e g i o n a l academies.
New Correctional O f f i c e r Training Academy Shoul d Reduce Problerns - To
ensure t h a t CSOs are t r a i n e d consistently, i n 1984 the L e s i s l a t u r e
appropriated $ 1.9 m i l l i o n t o tile Department of Public Safety for the
constrlrction of a Correctional O f f i c e r s Training Academy. COTA i s
intended t o c e n t r a l i z e arid stdndardize DOC'S pre- service t r a i n i n g pro5ram.
COTA i s located on the grounds o f the Arizona Law Enforcement O f f i c e r
Training Academy ( ALETA) i n Tucson. COTA was modeled a f t e r ALETA's
f a c i l i t y and w i l l acconmmodate 150 cadets: 100 i n residence and 50
commuters.
At the time o f the appropriation, the L e g i s l a t u r e required t h a t the
Arizona Law Enforcement O f f i c e r Advisory Counci 1 ( ALEOAC ) approve COTA's
curriculum. ALEOAC approved tile curriculum on A p r i l 17, 1985. The new
c u r r i c u l um was based on a Department o f Administration job analysis o f tile
CSO p o s i t i o n . The c u r r i c u l urn corlsists o f 240 hours o f classroom t r a i n i n g
i n the f o l l o w i n g areas.
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o c o r r e c t i o n s
Law and l e g a l issues i n c o r r e c t i o n s
Inmixte/ ward supervision dna nianayement
Security procedures
Proficiency s k i l l s
Administrative a c t i v i t i e s
CSOs who s a t i s f a c t o r i ly cornpl ete the t r a i n i n g progranl w i 11 receive d
c e r t i f i c a t e from ALEOAC.
According t o DOC o f f i c i a l s , the academy should be operaticjnai by January
1986. A t t h a t time, DCC plans t o terminate pre- service t r a i n i n g a t the
regional academies. The t r a i n i n g a t COTA w i l l be given t o groups o f 51)
CSO cadets, w i t h new classes beginning every two weeks.
CONCLUSION
DOC'S pre- service ana in- service t r a i f ii ng programs have not p r ~ vaied CSCs
w i t h adequate t r a i n i n g . Both the amount and type o f t r a i n i n g provided t o
CSOs have been inconsistent. Moreover, GOC i s unable t o ensure t h a t CSbs
receive adequate in- service t r a i n i n g .
RECOt~ ll. 1ENDATOI NS
1. DOC should adopt ana enforce i t s d r a f t t r a i n i n g pol i c y t h a t requires
a t l e a s t 20 ) lours o f annual i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g a f t e r the f i r s t year
of employment. I n addition, DOC should ensure t h a t t r a i n i n g i s
consistent and i n c r i t i c a l s k i l l areas. Once s t a f f i n g l e v e l s make it
p r a c t i c a l , DOC should consider increasing the number o f in- service
t r a i n i n g hours required per year.
2. DOC should incorporate a factor i n t o the s t a f f i n g formula t h a t
accurately states the required number o f in- service t r a i n i n g hours so
s t a f f i n g needs can be r e a l i s t i c a l l y estimated. This w i l l enable CSOs
t o a t t e n d i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g classes.
3. DOC shoul d adopt agency- wide record- keepi ng procedures f o r i n- service
t r a i n i n g . This w i l l enable DOC t o maintain CSOs' t r a i n i n g f i l e s so
they accurately ref1 e c t each enpl oyee ' s t r a i n i n g hours.
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of our audit we identified potential issues that we were
unable to pursue due to time constraints.
a Can recruitment and retention of correctional medical s t a f f be
improved?
Qua1 i fied correctional medical s t a f f are di fficul t to recruit and
retain in the Department of Corrections ( DOC). For example,
according to health s t a f f , the infirmary a t Ariz~ na State Prison
Compl ex ( ASPC 1- Fl orence Central U n i t had to be c1 osed temporarily due
to a lack of nurses to s t a f f the unit. Among the explanations that
have been given for the difficulty i n recruiting s t a f f are
noncompetitive salaries for some professions, fewer benefits thari are
available in the private sector ( e. g., overtime pay and pay
differentials for working less desirable s h i f t s ) , and the lengthy
amount of time required to hire medical personnel through the State
personnel system. Even when qual i f i e a people are hired, the distant
location of many DOC f a c i l i t i e s from major population centers arla
inadequate facil i t i e s a t some prisons di scourage niedical staff from
staying long. Yet, the retention of qualified s t a f f i s vital i f EOC
i s to provide a system of ready access to medical care, as required
by a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the N i n t h
Circuit ( Liska v. D O C ) , i n which the court ruled that a aelzy in
providing health care may amount to a violation of constitutional
rights. Further audit work needs to be done to determine idhether
changes can be made to improve the recruitment and retention of
qual i fied correctional medical s t a f f .
a Is correctional program staffing consistent and adequate within the
Department of Corrections?
Prel ininary audit work indicates that correctional program staffing
varies widely among institutions. For fiscal year 1985- 56, DOC Itas
an estimated 472 correctional progranl positions. Correctional
program s t a f f perform various d u t i e s , i n c l u d i n g overseeing release
programs and mandatory par01 e, monitoring inmate progress, counsel i n g
inmates, ensuring t h a t inmates a r e i n v o l v e d i n work and education
programs, and handling inmate problems. Even though c o r r e c t i o n a l
program s t a f f i n g needs are determined i n p a r t by i n s t i t u t i o n a l
programs and the mission o f the i n s t i t u t i o n , these f a c t o r s alone may
not explain the wide v a r i a t i o n s i n c o r r e c t i o n a l program o f f i c e r ( CPO)
case loads. Among the a d u l t i n s t i t u t i o n s we examined, the average
case load o f CPOs varied from 31 t o 150 innlates per CPO. However,
even when custody l e v e l i s taken i n t o account, CPO s t a f f i n g varies
widely. Further a u d i t work i s needed t o determine the appropriate
1 eve1 o f program s t a f f .
Must the Specialized Progranl U n i t ( SPU) a t ASPC- Florence be licensed
under c u r r e n t s t a t u t o r y requirements?
Preliminary a u d i t work i n d i c a t e s t h a t because o f t h e n a t u r e o f the
programs and a c t i v i t i e s conducted a t the Specialized Program U n i t a t
ASPC- Florence, SPU may f a l l under the Department o f iieal t h Services
( DHS) d e f i n i t i o n o f a " behavioral health service agency. " CHS
defines " behavioral health service agency" as " a class o f health cure
i n s t i t u t i o n s other than a hospi t a l which provides screening,
eval u a t i on, care o r treatment t o persons iiavi ng mental d i sorders,
personal i ty disorders, emotional conditions, or substance abuse
problerils." If SPU does, indeed, meet t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , tnen the
continued operation o f t h i s u n i t without a 1 icense may be a v i o l a t i o n
o f Arizona Revised Statutes 536- 407. H.
If SPU i s required t o be 1 icensed as a behavioral health service
agency, DHS r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s f u r t h e r r e q u i r e t h a t there be a
s u f f i c i e n t number o f a p p r o p r i a t e l y q u a l i f i e d s t a f f and supporting
personnel t o provide the q t i a n t i t y and types of services set f o r t h i n
the agency's w r i t t e n program statement. DOC c u r r e n t l y has one
f a c i l i t y t h a t i s a 1 icensed p s y c h i a t r i c u n i t providing mental heal t t l
services ( 6- Ward, ASPC- Phoenix- A1 hanibra). I n addition, according t o
a Flamenco o f f i c i a l , DMS i s requiring tne Fla~ nenco Unit
( ASPC- Phoenix) t o meet 1 icensure requirements before the u n i t opens
i n 1986. S t a f f a t t h i s u n i t w i l l be providing care f o r inmates with
p s y c h i a t r i c problems. Further audit work needs to be done t o
determine whether SPU should be licensed and s t a f f e d as a behavioral
health service agency.
BRUCE BABBITT
GOVERNOR
1601 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85W7
( 6432) 255- 5536
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
DIRECTOR
January 24, 1986
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 North Central
Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton :
The enclosed comments are provided in accordance with your letter dated
January 6, 1986, for inclusion with the text of the published report of the
Performance - Aud- it - of the Department - of Corrections, Security Staffing Issues.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed comments, please call me or
Terry L. Stewart at 255- 5820.
Sin/ cer - ly,
Enc 1 osure
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
SECURITY STAFFING ISSUES
GENERAL COMMENTS
As indicated in the Security Staffing Issues report, staffing concepts for
corrections institutions involve two major components. The first component
relates to the number of security posts that are required to make a particular
institution secure for the inmate population and staff. In the case of
Arizona, this particular component is not easily identified due to the
diversity of design and age of the various institutions that are in
operation. The second component involves the application to those number of
posts, a staffing formula to determine the total complement that is necessary
to staff the number of posts that have been identified as required for
adequate security. When the individual post is a 24- hour a daylseven- day a
week post, the staffing formula that has traditionally been utilized by the
Department of Corrections is 5.0. Of course, posts that require less than
seven days a week, 24- hours a day have a reduced overall staffing formula
requirement.
Additionally, security staffing is impacted by the additional requirements
defined by institutional needs. A correctional institution is not simply an
institution with security officers. The correctional institution must deliver
a full range of services to the inmate population as well as that of staff.
For example, medical care, food service, inmate programming and personnel
support are additional requirements that must be met beyond that of
security. If, for example, an institution's food service operation is
understaffed by virtue of inadequate resource allocation, turnover, or other
reasons, the need to feed the inmates does not stop. It must occur, and in
many cases wi 11 occur, through the use of security staff or the reassignment
or reclassification of security staff to meet that requirement.
Traditional ly, the legislature has funded security staff more 1 iberal ly than
support services staff. The focus of this comment is simply to emphasize that
security staffing cannot be looked at in isolation. Total institutional
requirements must be considered before judgments can be made from a security
staff perspective.
In September of 1985, the Department undertook a comprehensive staffing study
to more fully analyze the staffing requirements at the institutional level, as
well as those on a Department- wide basis. This particular study involved a
post- by- post analysis to determine appropriate staffing levels for each
institution. In addition, the study reviews the National Institute of
Corrections' ( NIC) recommendation to estimate the staffing level if those
particular standards were met. We be1 ieve the staffing study adequately
identifies the staffing requirements and formulas and includes all the
information necessary to determine the total number of security personnel
needed.
Finally, the report is significantly affected by time. Much of the
information is dated and as can be seen in this response, a great deal of
progress has been made in the last 12 months.
FINDING I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
NO. 1 - DOC SHOULD COMPLETE ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES TO DETERMINE THE
FOLLOWING:
A. THE NUMBER OF SECURITY POSTS NEEDED BASED ON WORK LOAD MEASURES, a
DETAILED TASK ANALYSES, STAFF UTILIZATION AND FACILITY DESIGN.
RESPONSE :
The Department would agree that additional analysis is required as it relates
to task analysis. Task analysis, as defined by the Department of Corrections,
includes the " gathering, recording and evaluation of tasks related data used
for productivity improvements as would be determined through a motion and time
study." However, the Department's recently completed Staffing Study did cover
workload measures and facility design noted in the recommendation.
a
B. OTHER AREAS AFFECTING SECURITY STAFFING, INCLUDING STAFFING NEEDS FOR
AREAS IN WHICH CSO'S ARE CURRENTLY INAPPROPRIATELY ASSIGNED.
RESPONSE :
While we would take issue with CSOs being inappropriately assigned in view of
our comments contained in the introductory section regarding requirements in
addition to security, the Department agrees that additional study and analysis
in other areas are appropriate. Those studies will be undertaken as
priorities and resources permit.
C. AN ACCURATE STAFFING FORMULA FOR EACH INSTITUTION, ALONG WITH A PLAN
TO GRADUALLY ELIMINATE DEPARTMENTAL INEFFICIENCIES THAT TEND TO
INFLATE THE STAFFING FORMULA.
RESPONSE:
The Department's Staffing Study determined staffing formu1 as based on a
sampling of 20% actuals for larger institutions and 100% for smaller
institutions to determine staffing formulas for each special institution.
Many of the responses to the recommendations contained in the remainder of
this report are descriptions of actions that have been undertaken to eliminate
those inefficiencies. In most cases, these corrective actions were initiated
prior to these recommendations.
DOC SHOULD REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE THE RESULTS OF THE ENTIRE STAFFING STUDY,
AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT'S PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING STUDY RESULTS.
RESPONSE :
The r e s u l t s o f the December 1985 S t a f f i n g Study w i l l be reported t o the
l e g i s l a t u r e .
IF DOC LACKS SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE STAFFING
ANALYSIS, DOC SHOULD REQUEST MONIES FROM THE LEGISLATURE TO HIRE A CONSULTANT
TO PERFORM THE STUDY.
RESPONSE :
If a d d i t i o n a l study i s required and external resources are needed, the
Department w i l l seek funding from the l e g i s l a t u r e .
NO. 2 - DOC SHOULD REVIEW THE STAFFING FORMULA ANNUALLY AND POST NEEDS
PERIODICALLY TO ASSESS CHANGES I N CONDITIONS AFFECTING STAFFING NEEDS. DOC
SHOULD REPORT THE RESULTS OF THESE REVIEWS TO THE LEGISLATURE
RESPONSE :
Each year, the Department o f Corrections uses a s t a f f i n g formula t o j u s t i f y
p o s i t i o n s requested through the appropriations process. We stand ready t o
provide t h a t information t o t h e L e g i s l a t u r e on an annual basis.
FINDING 11: DOC'S HIRING PROCESS I S INADEQUATE TO MEET CSO HIRING NEEDS
The r e p o r t describes a b i f u r c a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the area of the h i r i n g
process. It describes t h a t p o r t i o n o f the process which i s handled by the
Personnel D i v i s i o n o f the Department o f Administration and subsequently
describes the personnel h i r i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t are managed by DOC'S
c e n t r a l personnel o f f i c e . It should be noted t h a t the h i r i n g practices are
established by s t a t u t e and under the Personnel Rules and Regulations.
Therefore, the substantive process involved i n h i r i n g Correctional Service
O f f i c e r s i s guided by those laws and regulations. The r e p o r t only speaks to
the l o g i s t i c a l concerns involved i n t h a t process.
It should also be noted t h a t while the Department o f Corrections has a c e n t r a l
personnel office, t h a t personnel o f f i c e i s managed by personnel who r e p o r t t o
the Department o f Administration Personnel D i v i s i o n and not t o the Department
o f Corrections. While p a r t o f the DOC c e n t r a l personnel o f f i c e s t a f f are DOC
employees, the personnel managers r e p o r t t o the Department o f Administration.
FINDIMG I1
RECOMMENDATIONS
NO. 1 - DOC SHOULD CONTINUE TO MONITOR REASONS FOR CSO TURNOVER AND ESTABLISH
PROCEDURES TO REDUCE IDENTIFIED TURNOVER CAUSES.
RESPONSE
The Department agrees it should monitor the reasons for turnover. We are
currently developing and/ or implementing policies and/ or programs that will
reduce the turnover. Targeted recruitment that does a better job of informing
the potential candidate of the nature of the position will result in recruits
making more informed decisions. Thus, we feel the employed cadet will more
likely remain with the Department.
Additionally, the Staff Development/ Training Bureau is currently managing a
statewide Basic Supervision Program for all first- and second- line
supervisors. More than 400 supervisors have participated in this 24- hour,
three- day training program. The major elements of the program curriculum are
basic supervision principles and knowledge. A standardized agency- adopted
Supervisor's Manual is given to each participant for his/ her continued use.
The manual consists of State Personnel guide1 ines, agency pol icies and other
recommended supervisory materials that the participant may find helpful.
As a result of legislative authority and funding to increase the salary levels
of CSOs two steps and the approval of and implementation of a " lead" CSO
classification, CSO 11, turnover for the first quarter of FY 1985 was 19%,
down from approximately 28% the previous quarter.
Finally, the Department has implemented an exit interview process which seeks
to solicit information from exiting employees to analyze why they are choosing
to leave the Department. This information will then be utilized to develop
strategies directed at reducing turnover and the attendant vacancy levels.
RESPONSE
The Department is currently considering a number of alternatives to improve
the " change of status" and the " request to fill" portions of the 303 to
eliminate duplication and time delay. One of the alternatives being
considered is to utilize the Automated Inmate Management System ( AIMS) as the
communications mechanism for communicating vacancies to the Central Off ice.
This automated system, if it could be adapted, would totally eliminate the
problem in this area.
NO. 3 - DOC SHOULD REQUEST FUNDING FOR THE COTA TRAINING POSITIONS IN ORDER TO
ALLOW DOC TO HIRE CSO'S IN ADVANCE OF NEEDS.
RESPONSE
The Department agrees. Funding will be requested to fund COTA training
positions to ensure that training is not adversely impacted with the
elimination of vacancy savings.
FINDING 111: DOC'S INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS SECTION CAN IMPROVE ITS
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PROCESS
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41- 1663, D- 4, the Department of
Corrections is mandated to complete a background investigation, including
criminal histories, under Title 41- 1750, of all applicants before enrolling in
the academy. This particular statutory requirement to conduct background
investigations became effective on August 3, 1984. Unfortunately, resources
have not been appropriated to assist in the accomplishment of that legislative
mandate. As a result, the Department of Corrections has used its somewhat
limited resource of Inspections and Investigations to accomplish this
objective.
Additionally, a number of aspects of the background investigation process are
not amenable to the control of the Department of Corrections. For example,
the background investigation may reveal that an applicant has been charged
with a