Performance audit, Department of Corrections, bed space impacts

              DOlJGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUL> ITIIH GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA . I BLESSING. CPA
DEPliTY AlJDITOR GENCHAL
December 28, 1990
Members of the Legislaure
State of Arizona
The Honorable Rose Mof ford
Governor of the State of Arizona
Mr. Samuel L. Lewis, Director
Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Corrections, Bed Space Impacts. This report
is in response to a September 22, 1989, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee and was conducted as part of the Sunset
Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes $ 541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
This report is the f i r s t in a series of four reports to be issued on the
Department of Corrections. The report addresses those factors within the
control of the Department of Corrections that impact prison population
and resulting bed space needs. We found that the Department can take
some steps to reduce overcrowding and free bed space; however,
overcrowding w i l l continue. In addition, we found that the large number
of release types u t i l i z e d in Arizona has resulted in a complicated system
that may actually work against reducing the prison population. The
report also contains greater detail about specific areas which impact bed
space, including discipl inary penalties, revocation of releases,
calculation of inmate release dates, and processing of inmates out of DOC
institutions.
A response from the Department of Corrections is contained on the yellow
pages following the body of this report. My staff and I w i l l be pleased
to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
This report w i I l be released to the pub1 ic on January 2, 1991.
DRN : l mn
STAFF: William Thomson Debbie A. Allen
Deborah A. Klein David J. Vidoni
Cindy G. Whitaker Jean Wood
Lucinda A. Trimble Mary M. Edmonds
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. 0 SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
those factors w i t h i n the c o n t r o l o f the Department of Corrections ( DOC)
and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ( BPP) that impact prison population
and resu l t i ng bed space needs. Th i s aud i t was conducted i n response to a
September 22, 1989, 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, and as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h in Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A . R . S. ) 9541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Efforts By DOC Could Free Needed Bed Space;
However, Overcrowding Will Continue ( see pages 5 through 21 )
DOC can take some steps to reduce overcrowding and free bed space;
however, overcrowding w i l l continue. The J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight
Committee directed us to examine how DOC'S and BPP's actions impact the
size of the inmate population. The resolution specified that we examine
the d i f f e r e n t inmate releases outlined in statutes, as well as the
effects of the d i s c i p l i n a r y system, parole revocations, and time
computation. Therefore, we analyzed how each of these factors affects
the need for prison beds. However, there i s a difference between the bed
impact of a factor and the number of beds DOC could actually save. For
example, although d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties impact up to 214 beds, DOC can
not be expected to save al l of these beds, because i t can not el iminate
a l l d i s c i p l i n a r y penal t i e s . Disciplinary penal t i e s are an important
factor i n prison control. DOC can, however, save some beds by changing
some aspects of the way i t operates i t s d i s c i p l i n a r y system. Exactly how
many beds can be saved w i l l depend on the po l i c i es DOC adopts . However,
when comparing potential savings to the magnitude of Arizona's prison
overcrowding, i t i s h e l p f u l t o know that even i f a l l penalties were
eliminated, i t would save only 214 beds.
Our analyses indicate that the greatest impacts on bed space are the
result of the imposition o f d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties ( up to 214 beds), the
revocation o f e a r l y releases for technical v i o l a t i o n s ( up to 285 beds),
and DOC decision making regarding Temporary Release ( up to 90 beds)
and Provisional Release ( up to 170 beds). Although problems e x i s t , DOC'S
calculation of release dates and timeliness i n processing inmates for
release, appear to have only a minimal impact on bed space. F i n a l l y ,
although release approval rates have fluctuated g r e a t l y , we could not
determine the impact of the Board of Pardons and Paroles' decisions on
bed space.
Because changes to the system can be expected to free only some of the
beds i d e n t i f i e d previously, and the inmate population i s expected to
continue growing, we concluded that overcrowded prison conditions w i t I
continue. Even i f DOC were able to save a l l beds we i d e n t i f i e d , DOC
would s t i l l be substantially short of meeting i t s bed needs during the
next two years.
Therefore, the Legislature should consider some of the f o l lowing options
to address the problem of prison overcrowding:
reducing the number of offenders sent t o prison, by encouraging the
increased use o f a l t e r n a t i v e s to incarceration;
reducing sentence lengths, through a review of the criminal code and
development of sentencing guidelines;
expanding e x i s t i n g release types, by modifying the conditions and
e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a , thereby increasing the number of inmates that
q u a l i f y f o r release; and
increasing prison capacity.
In September 1989, the Legislature commissioned a corrections and
criminal code revision study, which should provide additional information
about these opt ions.
Arizona's Multiple Release Types Can Be
Counterproductive To Reducing Prison Overcrowding
( see pages 23 through 33)
The large number of release types u t i l i z e d i n Arizona has resulted in a
complicated system that may actually work against reducing the prison
population. Arizona has more release types than any other
state prison system in the nation. While Arizona has nine early
releases, most other states have four or fewer.
Whi le the release types currently in place appear to have been
implemented i n an e f f o r t to reduce bed space needs, the addition of early
release types does not necessari ly translate into an increase in releases
or ensure inmates are released as early as possible. Many releases can
overlap during an inmate's sentence. Consequently, many inmates choose
to stay in prison longer to take advantage of a more desirable release,
thus taking up much needed bed space. For example, approximately 25
percent of the inmates scheduled for Parole hearings, waive t h e i r
hearings to wait for another release which may require less supervision
than Parole. Further, because some releases target the same inmates, the
pool of inmates e l i g i b l e for release i s not extended.
The sheer number of releases can also create administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s
for DOC'S Time Computation Unit, beause the unit must manually calculate
a l l projected release dates.
Based on these findings, we believe the State's present system of release
types needs simpl i f i cat ion. We recomnend the Legislature consider the
fo l low i ng changes :
replace Early Parole with a DOC- authorized " emergency" release;
0 e l iminate Temporary Release, which lacks a clear purpose;
modify Provisional Release by establishing v a l i d c r i t e r i a for release
decisions;
allow Parole e l i g i b i l i t y e a r l i e r in an inmate's sentence, and
eliminate Work Furlough, which would then be unnecessary;
modify the use of Home Arrest so i t can be used as a condition of
release for. high- risk releasees who require intensive supervision; and
* eliminate Discretionary Release which i s used very infrequently, and
generally applies only to inmates i n e l i g i b l e for any other type of
early release.
I f the above changes were implemented, Arizona would s t i l l be l e f t with
four release types -- Provisional, Earned Release Credit Date, an
emergency re lease, and Parole. Whi le some changes cou Id be easi ly
implemented, others should be postponed u n t i l certain areas of the
criminal j u s t i c e system are reviewed by the corrections and criminal code
revision study.
Other Finding Areas
Other Findings i n t h i s report address, i n greater detai I , the information
about bed impact i n Finding I , and include the following:
Although the d i s c i p l i n a r y system as a whole appears to be functioning
well, the e f f e c t s of d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties on some inmate releases
may be overly severe, and even unintended. A d d i t i o n a l l y , DOCts
authority to revoke inmates' release credi t s ( f o r f e i t u r e o f good
time) as a d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty, i s greater than that of many other
states. ( See pages 35 through 44)
Arizona needs to develop a l t e r n a t i v e s to revoking inmate releases.
Nationally, there i s a trend toward the increased use of intermediate
sanctions, such as changing supervision requirements, before
i n i t i a t i n g revocation. Another trend i s the increased use of home
detention, intensive supervision, and the use of halfway houses with
drug and/ or alcohol treatment programs. ( See pages 45 through 52)
DOC needs a more adequate system for c a l c u l a t i n g accurate inmate
release dates. Currently, due to factors such as d i f f e r e n t
sentencing laws, multiple release types, and a cumbersome,
t ime- consumi ng manual system, t i me comput at i on i s a comp l i cated and
d i f f i c u l t function. In order to provide a more e f f i c i e n t means of
calculating release dates, DOC needs to establish a r e l i a b l e ,
automated time computation system. ( See pages 53 through 61)
While most DOC- authorized releases are processed on time, some
Board- approved re leases are not. Changes i n the re lease process,
additional placement options, and the use of an inmate tracking
system may help reduce delays. ( See pages 63 through 70)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F l ND l NG I : EFFORTS BY DOC COULD FREE
NEEDED BED SPACE; HOWEVER, OVERCROWDING
WILLCONTINUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DOC And Board Actions Impact
Bed Space Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While Recommended Changes W i l i Help,
Overcrowded Conditions Wil I Continue
I n T h e F u t u r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Options To Address Overcrowding
Should Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 1 1 : ARIZONA'S MULTIPLE RELEASE TYPES
CAN BE COUNTERPRODUCT I VE TO REDUC I NG
PRISONOVERCROWDING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Has An Excessive Number
Of Release Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona's Release System I s
I l l o g i c a l And Uncoordinated. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M u l t i p l e Releases Complicate
Time Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current System Needs
S i m p l i f i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING Ill: ALTHOUGH THE DOC DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM
APPEARS TO BE FUNCTIONING WELL OVERALL, THERE
ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT CAUSE EXCESSIVE
DELAYS IN I W T E RELEASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D i s c i p l i n a r y Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D i s c i p l i n a r y System Design
Adequateoverall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( con ' t )
Page
FINDING I l l ( c o n ' t )
Although DOC'S D i s c i p l i n a r y Process Appears
Reasonable O v e r a l l , Several Facets Of The System
Can Cause Excessive Delays I n Release. . . . . . . .
F o r f e i t u r e Penalty L i m i t s
Are High . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING IV: ARIZONA SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE
USE OF VARIOUS INTERMEDIATE STEPS AND
OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO REVOCATION . . . . . . . . . . .
Revocation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number Of Revocat ions Large. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some States Are Increasing E f f o r t s
To Reduce The E f f e c t s Of Revocation. . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Needs To Pursue
Revocation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING V: DOC DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE
SYSTEM FOR ACCURATELY CALCULATING
IWATE RELEASE DATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The C a l c u l a t i o n O f Release Dates
I s A Complex Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Current System
I s Cumbersome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Complexity Of Time Computation
Creates Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DOC Lacks An
Automated System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( con ' t )
FINDING V I : ALTHOUGH MOST DOC RELEASES ARE
PROCESSED IN A TIMELY MANNER,
MODIFICATIONS COULD FURTHER
ACCELERATE INMATE RELEASE. . . . . . . . .
DOC A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Releases Almost Always
Occur On Or Before An Inmate's
E l i g i b i l i t y Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3
DOC'S Time To Process Board Releases
CouldBe Reduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Other Improvements Could
F a c i l i t a t e Inmate Release. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
GLOSSARY
AGENCY RESPONSE
APPEND l X
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Impact On Bed Space Of D i s c i p l i a r y Penalties
Imposed Against Inmates Released I n 1989 . .
TABLE 2 Impact On Bed Space Of Release V i o l a t o r s
Subsequently Released I n 1989. . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 Arizona Board Of Pardons And Paroles
Parole, Work Furlough, And Home Arrest
Hearing And Decision S t a t i s t i c s
Calendar Years 1987, 1988, And 1989. . . . .
TABLE 4 Good Time F o r f e i t u r e Penalty
For T w o V i o l a t i o n T y p e s B y S t a t e . . . . . .
LlST OF TABLES ( con ' t )
TABLE 5 Department Of Corrections And
Board Of Pardons And Paroles
V i o l a t i o n And Revocation S t a t i s t i c s
Calendar Year 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
TABLE 6 Average, Median And Range Of Days Taken
To Process Board- Approved Releases . . . . . 6 6
LlST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Department Of Corrections
Admissions And Releases
January 1987 Through June 1990 . . . . . . . 15
FIGURE 2 Department Of Corrections
Bed Capacity Vs. Inmate Population
January 1987 Through June 1990 . . . . . . . 16
FIGURE 3 Department Of Corrections
Bed Capacity Vs. Projected Populations
July 1990 Through December 1992. . . . . . . 18
FIGURE 4 I l l u s t r a t i o n Of Release Overlap. . . . . . . 26
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
those factors w i t h i n the control of the Department of Corrections ( DOC)
and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ( BPP) that impact prison population
and r e s u l t i n g bed space needs. This audit was conducted i n response to a
September 22, 1989, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight
Committee, and as p a r t o f the Sunset Review set f o r t h i n Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. S.) 9341- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Various Factors Within The Criminal Justice
And Corrections Systems Impact Prison
Population And Bed Space
Prison populations, and thus prison bed space requirements, are the
r e s u l t o f State laws as well as DOC and BPP p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s . For
example, criminal statutes determine which offenders w i l l be sentenced to
prison and the length of t h e i r sentence. In a d d i t i o n , s t a t u t o r y
provisions, coupled w i t h DOC and BPP p o l i c i e s and decisions, determine
the number of inmates released before the end of t h e i r sentences. For
example, the BPP has the a u t h o r i t y to approve inmates for release to
Parole, Early Parole, Work Furlough, and Home Arrest. The r e f o re, DOC has
d i sc re t i on to approve Provisional, Discretionary, Earned Release Credit
Date, and Temporary re I eases. On I y two re l eases, Mandatory and Sentence
Expi rat ion, are d i c t a t e d s o l e l y by s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s . ( l ) Therefore,
DOC p o l i c i e s and procedures c o n t r i b u t e to the size o f the prison
population and the number of beds that are needed.
Some of the major processes w i t h i n DOC's control that impact inmate
numbers and bed space requirements include the f o l lowing:
The c a l c u l a t i o n o f an inmate's release date( s1. S h o r t l y a f t e r
entering the State prison system, DOC's Time Computation Unit
calculates an inmate's projected release date( s). In order to
determine the e a r l i e s t possible release date, dates are calculated
for each type of release for which the inmate may be e l i g i b l e .
Frequently, inmates are e l i g i b l e for more than one type of e a r l y
re I ease.
( 1 ) Words appearing i n bold are defined i n the Glossary.
D i s c i p l i n a r y actions against an inmate. D i s c i p l i n e may r e s u l t i n the
f o r f e i t u r e of earned good time, placement i n a status that does not
allow the inmate to accumulate good time c r e d i t s , and/ or a delay i n
the date when the inmate can be heard by the BPP for a Parole release.
Timeliness o f release processing. Before a c t u a l l y releasing an
inmate, DOC completes the necessary processing. Part of the
processing involves i n v e s t i g a t i n g the inmate's proposed release
environment.
Handling of inmates who v i o l a t e release conditions. Some inmates
released to supervision, v i o l a t e the c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i r release and
have t h e i r release revoked. These v i o l a t o r s are brought back i n t o
custody and remain i n prison u n t i l t h e i r sentence expires or they
q u a l i f y and are approved for another e a r l y release.
Scope And Methodology
The primary focus of t h i s audit was based on a September 22, 1989,
r e s o l u t i o n by the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee, which d i r e c t e d
us to conduct a study o f :
". . . Provisional Release as provided by A. R. S. 931- 411, Earned
Release Credits as provided i n A. R. S. 941- 1605.07, the Parole
C e r t i f i c a t i o n System, Temporary Release as provided by
A. R. S. 531- 2338, Discretionary Release as provided by
A. R. S. 531- 233J, Actual Release as provided by A. R. S. 441- 1604.07DI
the inmate d i s c i p l i n a r y system as i t a f f e c t s inmate release, the Time
Computation U n i t , and the performance of Parole o f f i c e r s w i t h respect
to revocation of Parole; and the Board of Pardons and Paroles and i t s
impact upon the inmate population numbers; and a l l other actions of
these two agencies which a f f e c t inmate population numbers . . ."
Our study addressed the adult i n s t i t u t i o n s -- both male and female
inmates. Findings I and I I summarize the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study. The
r e p o r t ' s remaining Findings address i n d i v i d u a l programs mentioned i n the
r e s o l u t i o n . Furthermore, we attempted to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
two a l t e r n a t i v e s t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n -- Shock Incarceration and Home
Arrest, Our preliminary research concluded that because these two
programs have b. een i n operation only a short p e r i o d o f time, i t would not
be possible to accurately and reasonably assess t h e i r impact.
This report also contains other p e r t i n e n t information regarding DOC'S
lack of adequate and re1 iable management information. ( See page 71)
Due to time c o n s t r a i n t s , we were unable to f u l l y address two p o t e n t i a l
issues i d e n t i f i e d during the a u d i t . ( For a d d i t i o n a l information about
these issues, see Areas f o r Further Audit Work, page 75.)
This audit was conducted i n accordance w i t h generally accepted government
a u d i t i n g standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the D i r e c t o r and
s t a f f of the Department of Corrections f o r t h e i r cooperation and
assistance during the a u d i t .
FINDING I
EFFORTS BY DOC COULD FREE NEEDED BED SPACE;
HOWEVER, OVERCROWDING WILL CONTINUE
Although DOC'S actions a f f e c t prison bed space, the a n t i c i p a t e d growth of
the prison population w i l l more than o f f s e t p o t e n t i a l bed savings.
Therefore, the State w i l l need to consider o t h e r o p t i o n s to adequately
address pr i son capac i t y prob I ems.
DOC And Board Actions Impact
Bed Space Requirements
Act ions taken by both the DOC and the Board of Pardons and Paroles have
had varying bed impacts. The imposition o f d i s c i p l i n a r y p e n a l t i e s , the
revocation of releases, and the decision- making processes used i n
granting inmate releases have had the greatest impact on bed space.
However, DOC'S timeliness i n processing approved releases and i t s time
computation function appear to have had only a minimal e f f e c t on bed
space. Although savings on bed space could be realized through e f f o r t s
i n these areas, the p o t e n t i a l i s l i m i t e d .
Disciplinary penalties impact bed space requirements - D i s c i p l i n a r y
actions can a f f e c t an inmate's length of i n c a r c e r a t i o n , and thus the use
of prison beds. DOC has the a u t h o r i t y to impose penalties when an inmate
i s convicted of v i o l a t i n g a d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e . Two types of penalties
can d i r e c t l y a f f e c t an inmate's length of i n c a r c e r a t i o n :
Forfeiture of Earned Release Credits - A number of release c r e d i t
days an inmate has accumulated toward completion of h i s or her
sentence(') are taken away or " f o r f e i t e d . "
Placement in a nonearning status - Parole Class I l l and Parole Class
IX are penalty designations which, during that period, the inmate
does not earn release c r e d i t s .
To determine the actual e f f e c t o f d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties on an inmate's
length of incarceration, we q u a n t i f i e d the impact of time- loss penal t i e s
imposed upon the 5,750 inmates released i n 1989. We used t h i s group for
( 1 ) By s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , i n a d d i t i o n t o the number o f days they a c t u a l l y serve, most
inmates a r e a b l e t o earn day c r e d i t s toward t h e i r release.
our study ( r a t h e r than the c u r r e n t p o p u l a t i o n ) because the number of days
imposed through F o r f e i t u r e and Class I l l placement do not always
t r a n s l a t e i n t o e x t r a days of incarceration. Instead, the impact of the
penalties depends on f a c t o r s such as the eventual type of release, any
r e s t o r a t i o n of good time previously f o r f e i t e d , and the a b i l i t y of the
inmate to earn good time. For example, i f an inmate loses 100 days
through F o r f e i t u r e , i t may have no e f f e c t on time served i f the inmate i s
granted release on Parole. Therefore, by studying releasees, we were
able to determine whether the d i s c i p l inary penalties received during the
inmate's incarceration a c t u a l l y delayed release. As shown i n Table 1, i n
a l l , F o r f e i t u r e and Class I l l placement resulted i n a t o t a l of 56,179
days of a d d i t i o n a l incarceration for our study population, a f i g u r e
equating to 153 inmates remaining incarcerated one a d d i t i o n a l year.
TABLE 1
IMPACT ON BED SPACE OF DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES
IMPOSED AGAINST INMATES RELEASED IN 1989
Release Credit Paro l e
Forfeiture Class I l l
Total number of inmates 5,750 5,750
Number inmates r e c e i v i n g p e n a l t y 538 ( 9.4%) 1,080 ( 18.8%)
Number of penalties imposed 740 2,127
Number of days imposed 70,149 134,486
Bed impact i n daysca) 30,259 25,920
One year bed equivalent 82 7 1
( a) For the impact on bed space, our f i g u r e s are conservative due t o instances i n which
computer program l o g i c design was unable t o process the e f f e c t s of c e r t a i n
di sci p l i nary actions on re1 eased inmates who were exceptional cases.
Source: O f f i c e of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of the impact of
DOC d i s c i p l inary penal t i e s on bed space for inmates released i n
1989.
Although d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties a f f e c t bed space, the a b i l i t y to
d i s c i p l i n e i s a v i t a l element of prison c o n t r o l . F u r t h e r , DOC does not
appear to have used F o r f e i t u r e and Class I l l penalties on a large number
of inmates. As shown i n Table 1, of the 5,750 inmates released i n 1989,
9.4 percent had earned release c r e d i t s f o r f e i t e d , while 18.8 percent
received a Class I l l placement. F u r t h e r , 80 percent of a l l inmates
received no time- loss p e n a l t i e s . ( ' ) Since s i m i l a r information was
unavailable from other s t a t e s , we were not able to compare the frequency
of DOC's use of time- loss p e n a l t i e s . While the frequency w i t h which DOC
imposes d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties seems reasonable, the amount of earned
good time DOC i s able to take away f o r i n d i v i d u a l p e n a l t i e s appears
high. We compared DOC's f o r f e i t u r e l i m i t s with those of other s t a t e s ,
and found that DOC's l i m i t s were generally higher. Thus by reducing
these l i m i t s , DOC could reduce the number of days f o r f e i t e d by inmates.
The imposition o f p e n a l t i e s can also a f f e c t an inmate's release i n other
ways. For example, a Class I l l placement renders an inmate i n e l i g i b l e
for Parole during placement, and can delay the inmate's release on
Parole. We were unable to determine the number of inmates that - would
a c t u a l l y have been granted Parole i f t h e i r hearings had not been delayed
by t h i s placement. However, we reviewed a n o n s t a t i s t i c a l sample of 40
cases i n which an inmate received a Class I l l penalty and was l a t e r
released on regular Parole. We found that i n 87 percent of these cases,
the inmate's release date was a f f e c t e d . I f we assume these cases are
representative and we apply the 87 percent to a l l 1989 regular Parole
releasees w i t h Class I l l p e n a l t i e s , we estimate the impact of the Class
I l l penalty would be over 22,000 days, or 61 a d d i t i o n a l beds per year.
The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider amending A. R. S. 941- 1604.06 to a l low DOC
to change Class I I I to a parole e l i g i b l e class. ( For more information on
t h i s recommendat i on, see F i nd i ng 1 1 1 , page 35.
Another i n d i r e c t r e s u l t of the Class I l l and F o r f e i t u r e penalties i s that
they may render inmates i n e l i g i b l e for Provisional Release.( 3) ( For the
( 1 ) O f the 5,750 releasees, 1,147 ( 19.9 percent) received a t l e a s t one penalty of e i t h e r
F o r f e i t u r e , Class 111, or Class I X .
( 2) I n a d d i t i o n t o e v a l u a t i n g t h e Class I11 placement, we also analyzed the impact of
another Parole c l a s s i f i c a t i o n -- Class 11. Like the Class I11 d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty,
the Class I1 designation renders an inmate i n e l igbil e t o earn release c r e d i t s . Class
I1 i s used as a sanction f o r inmates who are performing i n e f f e c t i v e l y i n programs
intended f o r t h e i r betterment such as educational, v o c a t i o n a l , or counseling. While
i t s use i s c u r r e n t l y minimal, it has been used more frequently i n the past, and DOC
has suggested they would l i k e t o renew i t s use i n the f u t u r e . Against our study
population of 5,750 inmates released i n 1989, use of Class I1 resulted i n 2,276 days
of prison beds being occupied 1 onger.
( 3 ) I n a d d i t i o n , i n June 1990, DOC established a Temporary Release ( TR) p o l i c y i n which
d i s c i p l inary actions may also render an inmate i n e l i g i b l e f o r TR.
impact on bed space of inmates not released due to i n e l i g i b i l i t y for
Provisional Release, see page 9 of t h i s Finding.)
Impact of revocation on bed space - Prison bed space i s also influenced
by the revocation of inmate releases. Inmates discharged from the
S t a t e ' s prisons under a supervised release must adhere to a set of
conditions imposed by DOC, the BPP, o r b o t h . When a releasee v i o l a t e s
these conditions, he or she may be returned to a DOC medium s e c u r i t y
f a c i l i t y to await a revocation hearing. As a r e s u l t o f a revocation
hearing, a v i o l a t o r ' s release may be revoked. I f t h i s occurs, the
v i o l a t o r w i l l l i k e l y remain i n prison u n t i l the end of h i s or her
sentence, or u n t i l released on another e a r l y release.
Release v i o l a t o r s returned to DOC as a r e s u l t of revocation proceedings
have a considerable impact on prison bed space. We reviewed a l l inmates
released i n 1989 ( 948) who, p r i o r to t h i s release, had been returned to
DOC as a r e s u l t of a release v i o l a t i o n . We selected t h i s group for
review in order t o q u a n t i f y the amount of time v i o l a t o r s remain i n prison
once returned to DOC. We found, as indicated i n Table 2, a t o t a l of
237,436 days of a d d i t i o n a l bed space. When calculated over a one year
period of time, t h i s equates to the use of 650 prison beds to accommodate
these release v i o l a t o r s .
TABLE 2
IMPACT ON BED SPACE OF RELEASE VIOLATORS
SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED IN 1989
One Year
Total Bed
BPP Days Equivalent
Revoked V i o l a t o r s
Technical v i o l a t i o n s 68,095 36,032 104,127 2 85
New offense
Subtotal
Nonrevoked V i o l a t o r s 3,495 253 3,748 10
TOTAL 175.802 61 ,634 237.436 & Q
Source: Prepared by the O f f i c e of the Auditor General s t a f f from data
obtained from DOC'S AIMS.
8
Through use of a l t e r n a t i v e methods, DOC may be able to reduce the number
of beds required for release v i o l a t o r s . Over one- half of the bed days
u t i l i z e d for release v i o l a t o r s were due to new offenses, thus the
d e c i s i o n t o recommit the releasee to prison was outside DOC's c o n t r o l .
However , for those revoked as a resu l t of a technical violation, DOC shou l d
consider taking a d d i t i o n a l actions to avoid revocation, thus d i v e r t i n g
v i o l a t o r s from prison. For example, i f DOC had resources a v a i l a b l e , the
use of halfway house beds, substance abuse programs, e l e c t r o n i c
monitoring, or home detention could not only reduce the number of beds
used annually for technical v i o l a t o r s , but could also be less expensive.
( For more information about revocations, see Finding I V , page 45.)
Impact on bed space of DOC and Parole Board release decisions - Both
DOC'S and BPP's release decisions impact prison bed space. DOC has four
release types w i t h i n i t s control -- Temporary, P r o v i s i o n a l ,
D i s c r e t i o n a r y , and Earned Release Credit Date. In a d d i t i o n , the Board's
decision making impacts four releases -- Parole, Work Furlough, Home
A r r e s t , and Early Parole. The frequency w i t h which these release types
have been u t i l i z e d over time has varied, thus t h e i r impact on bed space
has fluctuated.
As shown below, DOC's decisions regarding release impact prison bed space.
Temporary Release ( TR) - TR i s a p e r i o d of release up to 90 days i n
advance of another release type. DOC has been inconsistent i n i t s
use of TR; for example, according to s t a t i s t i c s compiled by DOC
between January 1987 and March 1990, the monthly percentage of
releasees granted TR f l u c t u a t e d from a low of 10.8 percent to a h i g h
of 35 percent. Because the Department has granted TR i n c o n s i s t e n t l y ,
the impact of i t s decisions was d i f f i c u l t to assess, and we were
unable to determine which inmates could have been e l i g i b l e for TR.
U n t i l June 1990, as DOC had no e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a , the decision to
grant TR was l e f t s o l e l y t o the d i s c r e t i o n of designated s t a f f w i t h i n
the Adult Parole Services D i v i s i o n . However, i n June 1990, DOC
established a p o l i c y o u t l i n i n g e l i g i b i l i t y requirements for TR.
Preliminary review by the Department indicates that t h i s p o l i c y
should r e s u l t i n a one- time savings of 50 to 90 beds during 1990.
e Provisional Release ( PR) - To a l low the Director the d i s c r e t i o n to
i d e n t i f y s u i t a b l e inmates f o r e a r l y release, Provisional Release
replaced Mandatory Release i n 1985. The Department uses two c r i t e r i a
to determine e l i g i b i l i t y for PR: that the current i n c a r c e r a t i o n was
not the r e s u l t of a revocation w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d time period, and
that the inmate's i n t e r n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r i s k scores meet c e r t a i n
levels. As DOC lacked accurate information on the number of inmates
denied Provisional Release, we were unable to obtain any information
on the number of inmates not released on PR due to a p r i o r
revocation. However, we were able to estimate the number of inmates
denied PR due to high r i s k scores. Based on our review of inmate
r i s k scores for January, February, and March 1990, we determined that
420 inmates annually were denied t h i s release. By remaining i n
prison u n t i l e i t h e r t h e i r Earned Release Credit Date or sentence
e x p i r a t i o n ( which occurs four months a f t e r PR e l i g i b i l i t y ) , the
inmates denied PR required the equivalent of 140 a d d i t i o n a l beds per
year. In June 1990, DOC revised i t s p o l i c y for PR by relaxing i t s
e l i g i b i l i t y requirements. Preliminary review by the Department
i n d i c a t e s t h a t the change which relaxed the r i s k score requirements
should r e s u l t i n a one- time savings of 140 to 170 beds during 1990.
Discretionary Release ( DR) - OR i s a release granted s o l e l y at the
d i s c r e t i o n of the D i r e c t o r to inmates who e x h i b i t p o s i t i v e behavior,
p a r t i c i p a t e i n work, treatment, and/ or t r a i n i n g programs, are a
minimal r i s k to p u b l i c safety and who, by v i r t u e of t h e i r offense,
are not e l i g i b l e f o r any other e a r l y release. To be considered for
DR, inmates must request t h i s release from the DOC D i r e c t o r . Very
few such requests are received by the D i r e c t o r ; i n 1989 only two
Discretionary Releases were granted. Because DR applies to only a
few inmates, there i s very l i t t l e p o t e n t i a l t o impact bed space i n
t h i s release area.
Earned Release C r e d i t Date ( ERCD) - ERCD i s a d i s c r e t i o n a r y release
granted by the D i r e c t o r to inmates who have earned release c r e d i t s
which, when added to the time already served, equal the length of the
sentence imposed by the court. Although t h i s i s c a l l e d a
d i s c r e t i o n a r y release, according to a DOC o f f i c i a l , inmates are
automatically approved for t h i s release once they reach t h e i r ERCD.
Therefore, i f DOC continues to automatically approve inmates for t h i s
release, there i s no p o t e n t i a l for impacting bed space i n t h i s
release area.
The Board's decisions i n v o l v i n g release also impact bed space. According
to information received from DOC, the Board's release- approval rates have
f l u c t u a t e d on a monthly as well as a yearly basis. On a monthly basis
for example, Paroles ( i n c l u d i n g Paroles under A. R. S. $ 931- 412. A, 31- 412.8
and 31- 233.1) ranged from a high approval rate of 60.8 percent i n May
1987, to a low of 30.4 percent i n December 1988. For Work Furlough
releases the variance was g r e a t e r , ranging from no approvals to 52.9
percent approval. Table 3 ( page 11) shows the number of hearings
annually, the releases granted, and the calculated approval rates.
Although the Board's approval rates have fluctuated s u b s t a n t i a l l y , we d i d
not attempt to second- guess the appropriateness of Board decisions, or
determine t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to bed space. Doing so would have been an
extremely d i f f i c u l t and subjective task because, as we reported e a r l i e r
t h i s year i n our audit of the Board ( Report 90- 2), the Board has no
guidelines to govern i t s decision making.
Paroles:
1987
1988
1989
TABLE 3
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
PAROLE, WORK FURLOUGH, AND HOME ARREST
HEARING AND DECISION STATISTICS
CALENDAR YEARS 1987, 1988, AND 1989
Hear i ngs Re leases Granted Approval Rate
WorK Furlough:
1987 145
1988 262
1989 774
Home Arrest:
1988( a) 226
1989 468
A I l Releases:
1987 4,221
1988 5,482
1989 6,627
( a) Inmates were i n i t i a l l y approved f o r placement i n the Home A r r e s t program i n November
1988.
Source: Prepared by the O f f i c e of the Auditor General s t a f f from
information provided by the Department of Corrections.
Impact of time computation on bed space - Errors made by the Time
Computation Unit can a f f e c t the a v a i l a b i l i t y of bed space by causing
e i t h e r early or l a t e releases. The f o l l o w i n g e r r o r s i n time computation
most often impact bed space:
releasing an inmate who was not e l i g i b l e for release, or not
releasing an inmate who was e l i g i b l e for a p a r t i c u l a r release; and
inaccurately c a l c u l a t i n g release dates, causing an inmate to be
released too e a r l y or too l a t e .
We could not o b j e c t i v e l y determine the rate at which time computation
errors occur or t h e i r actual impacts on bed space. We were unable to use
DOC'S data on e r r o r s because we found i t was incomplete and u n r e l i a b l e .
We were unable to prepare our own data because time computation i s
complex, and DOC has never developed comprehensive w r i t t e n procedures for
time computations ( see Finding V, page 56). Therefore, there was
inadequate information to guide us i n our analysis. In a d d i t i o n , we
attempted to use consultants, but found the only q u a l i f i e d consultants we
could i d e n t i f y had previously worked for DOC, and therefore could not
meet the audi t i ng standards' requi rements for independence.
Although we were unable to s t a t i s t i c a l ly analyze the time computations
prepared by DOC, several factors lead us to conclude that the impact of
time computation e r r o r s on bed space i s l i m i t e d . When e r r o r s are made
and inmates are released l a t e , the e r r o r s generally involve a r e l a t i v e l y
low number of days. For example, a Phoenix time computation consultant
indicated i n a September 1989 report to the L e g i s l a t u r e , that he had
discovered hundreds of errors made by DOC on release date c a l c u l a t i o n s .
However, a l l of those errors resulted i n a bed impact of only eleven beds
annual I y . In a d d i t i o n , of the l a t e releases reported by DOC'S Time
Computation U n i t f o r 1989, the average delay was 11.8 days. Errors are
also made i n r'eleasing inmates too e a r l y , which would lessen the impact
of the late releases. For example, i n December 1989, 28 inmates were
found to have been temporarily released on Home A r r e s t , although they
were not e l i g i b l e for release. In another recent case, an inmate was
found to have been released four and one- half years too e a r l y .
Impact of release processing on bed space - The processing of inmates
approaching a release appears to have a l i m i t e d e f f e c t on bed space.
lnmates are released from DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s on e i t h e r a DOC a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
release, or a Board- approved release. DOC i s able to process most
administrative releases ( about 65 percent of a l l releases) out of
i n s t i t u t i o n s by the inmate's e l i g i b i l i t y date. I n f a c t , of the 224
administrative releases we reviewed, only four ( 1.8 percent) were
released a f t e r t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y date. DOC i s able to release these
inmates in a timely manner because the Department begins processing the
release well i n advance of the inmate's e l i g i b i l i t y date.
Board releases, however, are not processed p r i o r to Board approval .
lnmates released on Parole as a r e s u l t o f an i n i t i a l hearing, represent
approximately 22 percent of a l l releases. Most of these Parolees are
being released by t h e i r Parole E l i g i b i l i t y Date; 62 of the 75 such
Parolees we reviewed were released on time, while 13 were released a f t e r
t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y date. Further, these 13 releases were delayed due to
factors outside of the Department's c o n t r o l : i n eight cases the inmates
were not heard by the Board u n t i l s h o r t l y before t h e i r Parole E l i g i b i l i t y
Date; i n four cases there was a lack of bed space i n e i t h e r DOC'S
Correctional Release Centers or p r i v a t e release f a c i l i t i e s ; and one case
involved an inmate's v i o l a t i o n of a major d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e .
The Board also approves releases for Early Parole, Home A r r e s t , Work
Furlough, and Paroles r e s u l t i n g from more than one hearing. E l i g i b i l i t y
for release under these programs occurs on the date the Board approves
the release and takes place when DOC completes i t s processing. These
releases ( about 13 percent of a l l releases) require an average of 44 days
to process out of i n s t i t u t i o n s . Although DOC has taken actions to reduce
the time required to process these releases, some f u r t h e r e f f i c i e n c i e s
could be realized ( see Finding V I , page 63). However, the p o t e n t i a l f o r
impacting bed space i s l i m i t e d . For every f i v e days reduction i n the
average processing time, DOC would save an estimated ten beds annually.
Greater savings on bed space could be realized by developing adequate
placement options. Although most a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Parole releases were
being processed by the release e l i g i b i l i t y dates, many of these inmates
cou l d have been re leased even ear l i er on a Temporary Re lease had a
placement option been a v a i l a b l e . A t the present time, DOC has two
Correctional Release Centers ( s i m i l a r t o halfway houses). However, due
to l i m i t e d bed space during the months of March and A p r i l 1990,
approximately 227 inmates a day were w a i t i n g f o r admission. Therefore,
the a d d i t i o n o f halfway houses could also reduce the time necessary to
release inmates from other DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s .
While Recommended Changes Will Help,
Overcrowded Conditions Will Continue
In The Future
Although some savings could be realized in the system as a r e s u l t of
recommended changes, overcrowding w i l l p e r s i s t . In recent years, the
S t a t e ' s prisons have operated most of the time above emergency capacity
l i m i t s . Although a d d i t i o n a l bed space i s expected to be b u i l t over the
next few years, crowded conditions are l i k e l y to continue.
Prisons operated above capacity - In recent years, as considerably more
offenders have entered DOC's f a c i l i t i e s than have l e f t , the State's
prisons have operated overcrowded. From January 1987 through June 1990,
t h i s trend has resulted i n a t o t a l of 4,343 more offenders entering than
leaving the system. The number of those admitted exceeded the number of
those released i n 37 of 42 months ( see Figure 1, page 151, and DOC's
inmate population grew at an average rate of approximately 103 inmates
per month.
As a r e s u l t , the prison system has been overcrowded and generally forced
to operate under emergency conditions. In analyzing DOC's bed capacity
and inmate count ( population) s t a t i s t i c s from January 1987 through June
1990, we found that the number of inmates was generally greater than the
number of beds i n DOC's n i n e p r i s o n complexes. For example, i n comparing
the actual number of inmates housed i n DOC f a c i l i t i e s to operating bed
capacity, i n only 12 of 42 months ( 29 percent of the time) were there
fewer inmates than a v a i l a b l e beds. i n comparing what has been defined as
" emergency capacity" ( 98 percent operating capacity) w i t h the t o t a l
number of offenders ( those inside DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s and those committed to
DOC but awaiting t r a n s f e r from a j a i l to a DOC faci I i t y ) , there were
excess beds i n any month. ( See Figure 2, page 16).
I
14
FIGURE 1
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES( a)
JANUARY 1987 THROUGH JUNE 1990
( a) Includes a l l actual physical admissions into and releases from the prison system, with
the exception of Shock Incarceration inmates. Admissions include, for example, not
only new commitments, but also releasees who have had their releases revoked and have
been returned to prison. Releases include, for example, those offenders ( s t i l l on
" inmate" status) who have been released on Home Arrest and Work Furlough, as well as
those who have l e f t the system as a result of escape, death, etc.
Source: Prepared by O f f i c e o f the Auditor General s t a f f using informat ion
obtained from the Department of Correct ions.
FIGURE 2
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
BED CAPACITY Vs. INMATE POPULATION(^)
JANUARY 1987 THROUGH JUNE 1990
0- 1::::::::-:::::+:::::-:::::::::::: cc
1/ 87 7/ 87 1 7/ 88 1/ 60 7/ 80 9/ 00
MONTHLY 1 / 87- 6/ 90
( a) Two d i f f e r e n t inmate population groupings are i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s graph.
The " inside pop." ( i n s i d e population) includes those inmates who actual1 y resided
within DOC i n s t i t u t i o n s .
" Total pop. I1 ( t o t a l committed population), includes a l l offenders comrni tted t o
DOC, including j a i l offenders who would have occupied a DOC bed i f beds were
readily available, as well as those inmates who normally resided i n a DOC
i n s t i t u t i o n , but were temporarily removed from the i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r reasons such
as h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n or court appearances.
( b) " Bed Capacity" i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h i s graph refers t o the operating bed capacity a t
emergency 1 eve1 s ( 98 percent of operating capacity) .
Source: Prepared by Office of the Auditor General s t a f f using information
provided by the Department of Corrections.
Overcrowding wi I I continue - A l though some changes, as recommended i n
other Findings i n t h i s report, have the p o t e n t i a l to ease overcrowding,
overcrowded prison conditions are l i k e l y to continue. We analyzed
projected inmate populations and anticipated bed capacity increases for
the period July 1990 through December 1992 ( 30 months), and found that
although the number of beds w i l l increase by approximately 2,044 ( from
13,484 to 15,528) during t h i s time, there w i l l generally be more inmates
than available beds. Comparing the most recent DOC inmate population
project ions(') ( prepared i n October 1990), to expected bed capaci ty at
emergency levels, shows that DOC w i l l have bed shortages i n each month
during 1991 and 1992. ( See Figure 3, page18.) Further, during t h i s
same period, using the adjusted population figures, there w i l l be an
average monthly shortage of 725 beds, and for unadjusted population
figures the average monthly shortage w i l I be 980.( 2)
Changes i n the current system could free some beds, but not enough to
overcome these projected shortages. The following are two such examples
of changes that could impact future bed space requirements.
DOC recently created a Temporary Release p o l i c y , and revised i t s
Provisional Release p o l i c y t o loosen e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a . These
changes were made to allow more inmates to be released. Based on DOC
estimates, these changes should result i n a one- time savings of 190
to 260 beds ( most occurring during 1990).
( 1) DOC population forecasts ( p r o j e c t i o n s ) consider a l l offenders committed t o the
Department. The under1 ying forecast f i g u r e ( base p r o j e c t i o n ) represents gross
expected increases i n population and i s , f o r t h i s Finding, referred t o as the
unadjusted p r o j e c t i o n . The " adjusted p r o j e c t i o n " i s the unadjusted f i g u r e modified t o
include assumptions about various f a c t o r s t h a t could i n f l u e n c e t h e gross forecast
f i g u r e . For example, the impact of expected changes i n t h e l a w and the expected
impact o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n are taken i n t o account. Both types of
forecasts are presented i n t h i s Finding, because f o r the f i r s t 6 months o f 1990,
actual growth ( 1 17 inmateshonth) has been closer t o the unadjusted f i g u r e ( 89.0
inmates/ month) r a t h e r than the adjusted f i g u r e ( 75.1 inmateshonth).
( 2 ) One impact of House B i l l 2350 -- the e l i m i n a t i o n of earned release c r e d i t s f o r inmates
serving mandatory minimum sentences -- i s not included i n the October 1990 p r o j e c t i o n
figures. According t o DOC'S Research U n i t Supervisor, the p r o j e c t i o n s were not
adjusted f o r t h i s because most of the impact of t h i s change should occur only i n the
long- term ( a f t e r 1995) as the inmates t o which t h i s applies t y p i c a l l y s e r v i c e l o n g e r
than average sentences.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
BED CAPACITY VS. PROJECTED POPULATIONS( a)
JULY 1990 THROUGH DECEMBER 1992
- BED CAPACITY
7/ 90 1/ 93 7/ 9 1 1 / 02 7/ 92
MONTHLY 7/ 90- 12/ 92
( a) This graph contains population projections based on DOC'S October 1990 forecasts
( considering actual growth and the impact of various factors for July t o September 1990).
Projections were adjusted to include on1 y i nsi de- count- type inmates and those committed to
DOC but s t i l l held i n county j a i l s .
( b) The bed capacity figures used to create t h i s graph are the expected, future operating bed
capacity figures mu1 ti pl ied by 98 percent, to derive the emergency operating capacity.
4
These figures were determined by using as a base, the actual operating capacity as of July
1990, and were then adjusted based on expected future construction and other f a c i l i t y
modifications detailed as follows:
facili# y No. of Beds Expected Occllpancv Date
W i ns1 ow
Perryville
Florence
Saf f ord
F'l orence
September 1990
February 1991
March 1991
September 1992
November 1992
Source: Prepared by Office of the Auditor General s t a f f using information
obtained from the Department of Corrections and the Department of
Administration.
Alternatives to revocation could also save prison beds. Based on our
analysis, we found that approximately 285 beds were required to
accommodate technical release v i o l a t o r s who were re- released i n
1989. Through a l t e r n a t i v e s t o revocation, DOC should be able to
reduce the number of beds needed for these v i o l a t o r s .
Although we could not determine the exact number of beds that could be
saved by making changes i n the current system, even i f DOC were able to
save every bed we i d e n t i f y i n t h i s r e p o r t , DOC would s t i l l need a
substantial number of a d d i t i o n a l beds during the next two years. In
a d d i t i o n , DOC w i l l need both time and resources to obtain the maximum
savings on bed space. Many potent i a l savings are not ' If ree," but involve
developing and implementing less expensive a l t e r n a t i v e s to incarceration,
such as halfway houses or e l e c t r o n i c monitoring. A t the present time
these a l t e r n a t i v e s are very l i m i t e d . In f a c t , although s t a t u t e s were
changed to broaden the scope of inmates e l i g i b l e for e l e c t r i c monitoring
through Home A r r e s t , funding for the program was recently reduced.
Simi l a r l y , DOC c u r r e n t l y has few resources for a1 ternat ives to
incarceration. In the 1988 L e g i s l a t i v e Session, DOC requested
l e g i s l a t i o n t o allow i t to contract for return- to- custody bed space
through private f a c i l i t i e s . However, the attempt was unsuccessful. To
save beds, Arizona may f i r s t have to spend on a l t e r n a t i v e s .
Because prison overcrowding w i l l continue, the L e g i s l a t u r e should
consider possible options to address the problem. The options to address
overcrowding can e i t h e r come at the " front- end" of the system ( i . e . ,
p r i o r to incarceration) or at the " back- end," a f t e r the inmate has been
incarcerated. These options include the f o l l o w i n g :
@ Reducing the number of offenders sent to prison - As a means of
reducing the number of offenders sent to prison, the L e g i s l a t u r e
could consider encouraging the increased use o f a l t e r n a t i v e s to
incarceration. This would include emphasizing present a l t e r n a t i v e s
as well as considering new programs. L e g i s l a t o r s could assume an
important role i n t h i s process by specifying, i n very narrow, precise
terms, which type of offender i s to be sent to p r i s o n . The remaining
offenders could then be placed i n programs designed as a l t e r n a t i v e s
to incarceration. In f a c t , a t least 12 s t a t e s ( i n c l u d i n g Colorado,
Minnesota, l owa, and New Mexico) have enacted " Commun i t y Corrections
Actst1 to encourage the use of community- based c o r r e c t i o n s .
Shorten sentence lengths - Another option to reduce bed space needs
i s to shorten sentence lengths. Such an option would requi r e a
review of the c r i m i n a l code, and the development of sentencing
guidelines that would reduce the amount of time served for s p e c i f i c
offenses.
e Modifying the conditions and c r i t e r i a for release - A t h i r d option to
reduce bed space needs i s to expand or modify current release types.
A t the present time, Arizona has numerous release types that a'llow
inmates to leave prison before the e x p i r a t i o n of t h e i r sentences.
These releases include Parole, Early Parole, Work Furlough, Home
A r r e s t , Mandatory Release, Provisional Release, Temporary Release,
and Earned Release Credit Date. Many of these releases are
r e s t r i c t e d through e l i g i b i I i t y c r i t e r i a which, i f modified, could
a l l o w a d d i t i o n a l inmates to q u a l i f y for release. For example, u n t i l
recently Home Arrest targeted felony Class 4, 5, and 6 inmates, but
was modified ( e f f e c t i v e September 1990) to include felony Class 2 and
3 inmates who have already met e l i g i b i l i t y for other types of
re l ease.
e Increasing prison capacity - A f i n a l option to a l l e v i a t i n g
overcrowding i s to expand prison capacity e i t h e r through increasing
the number of State prison beds, or through c o n t r a c t i n g w i t h the
p r i v a t e sector.
We a n t i c i p a t e these options w i l l be among the subjects of a forthcoming
study on the c r i m i n a l code. In September 1989, the L e g i s l a t u r e
commissioned a " c o r r e c t i o n s and criminal code r e v i s i o n study" that would
encompass a review of the code, the need for sentencing g u i d e l i n e s , and
the operat ions of the Department of Correct ions . ( I )
( 1 ) This study i s to r e p o r t on such areas as a p r o f i l e of offenders c u r r e n t l y i n the State
prison system; the s u i t a b i l i t y of any category of inmates f o r commi tment to
a1 t e r n a t i v e programs other than prison; the p r o j e c t i o n s of prison population growth
over the next ten years, based on e x i s t i n g sentencing p r a c t i c e s and s t a t u t o r y
guidelines; an examination of t h e c u r r e n t sentencing p r a c t i c e s mandated by the
criminal code; the impact a permanent sentencing guide1 i nes commission would have on
p r o t e c t i n g the pub1 i c; economical use of State resources; promoting respect f o r the
law by providing f o r j u s t punishment f o r a c r i m i n a l offense i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the
s e v e r i t y of the offense and t h e o f f e n d e r ' s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y ; and ensuring t h a t the
punishment imposed i s commensurate w i t h the punishment imposed on others committing
s i m i l a r offenses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our other Findings address s p e c i f i c changes i n DOC's operations that
could be made to reduce bed space requirements. However, changes i n
DOC's operations alone w i l l not address the overcrowding problem.
Therefore, the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider other options to address
prison overcrowding, i n c l u d i n g more emphasis on a l t e r n a t i v e s t o p r i s o n ,
reducing sentence lengths, modifying the conditions and c r i t e r i a for
releases, and/ or increasing prison capacity.
FINDING II
ARIZONA'S MULTIPLE RELEASE TYPES
CAN BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO
REDUCING PRISON OVERCROWDING
The implementation of various release types over the years has resulted
i n a complicated system t h a t may a c t u a l l y be counterproductive to
reducing p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n . Arizona has more release types than any
other s t a t e i n the n a t i o n . The sheer number of releases can r e s u l t i n
the system " working against i t s e l f . " F u r t h e r , the number of release
types complicates c a l c u l a t i o n of projected release dates. Changes i n the
current types of release are needed to achieve a s i m p l i f i e d , more
e f f i c i e n t release system.
Arizona Has An Excessive
Number Of Release Types
There are a v a r i e t y of ways an inmate can obtain release from prison
p r i o r to sentence e x p i r a t i o n and, i n f a c t , only a small percentage of
inmates a c t u a l l y serve t h e i r e n t i r e sentence. Of the 6,465 inmates
released i n 1989, only 679 ( 10.5 percent) remained i n prison u n t i l the
end of t h e i r sentence.
A 50- state survey revealed Arizona has the largest number of release
types of any state p r i s o n system i n the n a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n to sentence
e x p i r a t i o n , there are nine other types of releases that can be authorized
by e i t h e r DOC or the Board of Pardons and Paroles to release
p r i s o n e r s . ( ' ) Most states have considerably fewer release types.
T h i r t y - f i v e o f the 50 s t a t e corrections agencies we contacted had four or
fewer. Only one s t a t e , M i s s o u r i , w i t h seven types of releases, i s close
to Arizona. Generally, most states define Parole as release granted by a
Parole board. Some use Parole i n a d d i t i o n to such programs as e a r l y
release, house a r r e s t , or i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i ~ n . ( ~ ) Most states also use
( 1 ) For a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e n i n e release types, i n c l u d i n g e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a ,
date o f inception, and h i s t o r y , see Appendix.
( 2 ) Twenty- seven states use Parole as the only form o f board release.
two o r t h r e e forms of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e release ( work release, or a release
based on " good time" or release c r e d i t s earned) authorized by the
department of c o r r e c t i o n s .
Arizona's Release System
Is Illogical And Uncoordinated
Whi le t h e release types c u r r e n t l y i n place appear to have been
implemented i n an e f f o r t to reduce bed space needs, the a d d i t i o n o f e a r l y
release types does not n e c e s s a r i l y t r a n s l a t e i n t o an increase i n
releases, or ensure inmates are released as e a r l y as p o s s i b l e . Many
releases can overlap w i t h i n an inmate's sentence. Consequently, many
inmates choose t o stay i n p r i s o n longer to take advantage of a more
desirable release, thus taking up much needed bed space. F u r t h e r ,
because some releases t a r g e t the same inmates, the pool of inmates
e l i g i b l e f o r release i s not expanded.
Release types overlap - With so many release types a v a i l a b l e , inmates
o f t e n have several d i f f e r e n t p o t e n t i a l release dates at the same time or
close to one another. As the f o l l o w i n g examples i l l u s t r a t e , t h i s i s
e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r inmates w i t h shorter sentences.(')
Example 1 - An offender sentenced to two years i s e l i g i b l e for Parole
at one- half of the sentence served. Thus, t h i s inmate i s e l i g i b l e
for Parole, P r o v i s i o n a l Release, or Mandatory Release i n 12
months,( 2) Early Parole, Home A r r e s t , and Work Furlough i n s i x
months, and Earned Release C r e d i t date i n 16 months. A Temporary
Release can also be added to any of these releases that w i l l allow
the inmate to get out up to an a d d i t i o n a l 90 days e a r l i e r . ( See
Figure 4, page 26.)
Example 2 - An offender sentenced to f i v e years i s e l i g i b l e for
Parole a t one- half of the sentence served. Therefore, Early Parole
and Home Arrest e l i g i b i l i t y f a l l at s i x months; Work Furlough
( 1 ) We chose a two- year sentence t o i l l u s t r a t e how close release dates are on short
sentences. I n a d d i t i o n , we selected a five- year sentence because, according t o 1989
DOC s t a t i s t i c s , it i s the most common length imposed. I n f a c t , approximately 50
percent of the t o t a l prison population i n 1989 had sentences of f i v e years or less.
The examples i 11 ustrated assume a s i n g l e sentence i s imposed, the inmate earns release
c r e d i t s from the beginning of the sentence, and t h e r e a r e no i n t e r r u p t i o n s i n release
c r e d i t earning s t a t u s d u r i n g the course of the sentence.
( 2 ) Inmates are e l i g i b l e f o r e i t h e r Provisional or Mandatory Release, b u t n o t both. The
date of the offense determines the e l i g i b i l i t y f o r each type of release.
e l i g i b i l i t y at 18 months; Parole e l i g i b i l i t y at 30 months;
Provisional or Mandatory Release at 34 months; and Earned Release
Credit Date at 40 months. A Temporary Release to any of these
releases w i l l also allow the inmate to get out up to an a d d i t i o n a l 90
days e a r l i e r . ( See Figure 4 , page 26.)
The number o f releases a v a i l a b l e can have a negative bed impact - Because
m u l t i p l e release types overlap, inmates o f t e n r e l i n q u i s h one type of
release type for another, and choose to stay i n prison longer, taking up
much needed bed space. For instance, i n a recent audit of the Board of
Pardons and Paroles ( Report No. 90- 2), we noted that approximately 25
percent of those e l i g i b l e to be heard for Parole, waived t h e i r r i g h t to a
hearing, and most ( 69 percent) d i d so because of an upcoming DOC
administrative release. During our a u d i t , t h i s f i n d i n g was f u r t h e r
documented i n a review of the waivers for the February 1990 Parole Board
hearings. Although not a l l inmates indicated why they waived a hearing,
nearly 70 percent of the 229 waivers stated the reason as an upcoming DOC
release.
A DOC release may be more a t t r a c t i v e than a Board release because most
release choices appear to center on the amount of supervision a f t e r
re lease.
0 Parolemay require a longer period o f supervision - Some inmates may
not want Parole because thev know i f thev take a DOC release. thev
w i I l have a s h o r t e r p e r i o d b f s u p e r v i s i o ~ . By s t a t u t e , an inmat;
released on Parole must remain on Parole supervision u n t i l sentence
e x p i r a t i o n or an absolute discharge by the Board. For example, i f an
inmate w i t h a two- year sentence i s paroled at one year, then Parole
supervision would continue for another year. However, the length of
supervision required by DOC releases can be considerably less. Both
Mandatory and Provisional Release require only up to s i x monthst
supervision. And, as shown i n Figure 4, ( see page 26), on a short
sentence ( such as two years), a Mandatory or Provisional Release can
occur at the same t ime as Parole e l i g i b i l i t y . Thus, an inmate does
not necessarily have to stay i n prison longer to get out w i t h a
shorter period o f supervision.
Board may impose more conditions o f supervision - Inmates may also
choose to forego a Board release because more conditions of
supervision could be imposed. There are both standard and a d d i t i o n a l
special c o n d i t i o n s t h a t can be imposed by e i t h e r the Parole o f f i c e r
38 Months
40 Months
FIGURE 4
ILLUSTRATION OF RELEASE OVERLAP
Example 1 -- Two- Year Sentence Example 2 -- Five- Year Sentence
Provisional or
Mandatory Release
Earned Release
Credrt Date
Sentence Begins
Early Parole
Home Arrest
Work Fur l ough
0 Months Sentence 0 Months
60 Months 1 Sentence
Expr res
6 Months
12 Months -
14 Months
16 Months
24 Months
Source: Prepared by the O f f i c e of the Auditor General s t a f f , based on
release e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a and input from the Department of
Corrections s t a f f .
Beg I ns
Early Parole 6 Months
Home Arrest
Work Furlough
Parole E l i g i b i l i t y
Mandatory or
P r o v ~ s r o n a l Release
Earned Release
Credrt Date 18 Months
Sentence
Exp~ re s
or the Board.(') We found the Board tends to impose more special
conditions on inmates than does DOC. This can best be i l l u s t r a t e d by
an example of an inmate who was o r i g i n a l l y approved for Parole, but
l a t e r refused to accept i t . The Board had approved the release w i t h
special c o n d i t i o n s : no alcohol o r i l l e g a l drugs; chemical t e s t i n g for
drugs and a l c o h o l ; payment of r e s t i t u t i o n , f i n e s , fees, and court
costs; payment of a $ 30 monthly fee; f u l I- time employment and/ or
school; and counseling. However, a f t e r refusing to accept Parole,
three months l a t e r the inmate was released by DOC on a Provisional
Release with - no s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s .
Because Parolees are generally supervised for a longer period and may
have more conditions of supervision imposed on t h e i r release, the
l i k e l i h o o d of Parole revocation increases and, t h e r e f o r e , may also be
a deterrent i n considering Parole. ( For more information on
revocations, see Finding I V , page 45).
Parole Board releases require a supervision fee - In considering
Parole, the requirement to pay supervision fees for Parole Board
releases can also be a d e t e r r e n t . Inmates c u r r e n t l y pay supervision
fees on Board releases, but not on DOC a d m i n i s t r a t i v e releases. By
s t a t u t e , the Board can, depending on the inmates a b i l i t y to pay,
" . . . r e q u i r e as a condition of parole that the prisoner pay a monthly
supervision fee of not less than t h i r t y do1 I a r s . " In a d d i t i o n ,
inmates released on Home Arrest are assessed an add i t i onal dai l y fee
of at least $ 1, for the use o f e l e c t r o n i c monitoring equipment.
Thus, the prospect of having to pay a fee i s a d e t e r r e n t f o r some
inmates i n considering a Parole release.
Of those inmates who waived the February 1990 Parole hearing, and
indicated the date and type of release they a n t i c i p a t e d , the average
waiting period was 1.7 months. However, one inmate was w i l l i n g to wait
as long as eight months for another type of release.
Targeting o f same inmates l i m i t s pool o f inmates e l i g i b l e f o r release -
Because some releases favor the same inmate, the large number of releases
does not increase the pool of e l i g i b l e inmates. Early Parole and Home
Arrest have, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , s p e c i f i c a l l y targeted the same low- risk
inmates ( Class 4, 5, and 6 felons). Although l e g i s l a t i o n passed l a s t
session now expands Home A r r e s t t o include some Class 2 and 3 felons,
many inmates are s t i l l c e r t i f i e d e l i g i b l e for two or more releases
( dually c e r t i f i e d ) at the same time. In December 1989, for example, 283
inmates were d u a l l y c e r t i f i e d for Home Arrest and Early Parole. This
dual c e r t i f i c a t i o n appears to put the two releases i n competition."
( 1 ) Standard conditions of Parole supervision include n o t i f y i n g the Parole o f f i c e r o f
changes i n residence, making earnest e f f o r t s i n securing and maintaining employment,
and obeying a l l laws.
27
As a r e s u l t , many inmates c e r t i f i e d for both releases, choose to be heard
for Early Parole instead of Home A r r e s t , because of the less i n t e n s i v e
supervision requi rements. cl) In a d d i t i o n , although not speci f i c a l l y set
aside by s t a t u t e , Work Furlough also tends to target low- risk offenders.
Thus, there are three release types t h a t g e n e r a l l y favor the same
inmate. The f i n a l r e s u l t , however, i s that the pool of inmates e l i g i b l e
for release i s not expanded simply because there are more types of
re leases.
Multiple Releases Complicate
Time Computation
The sheer number of release types can create a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s
for DOC'S Time Computation Unit which must manually c a l c u l a t e a l l
projected release dates. Having nine releases means the Time Computation
technicians responsible for c a l c u l a t i n g release dates must be
knowledgeable i n a l l laws for the nine types of releases a f f e c t i n g the
caIculations, including the e f f e c t i v e dates and the e l i g i b i l i t y
c r i t e r i a . ( For example, knowledge of the e f f e c t i v e date for each type of
release i s c r u c i a l because c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r the same type of release can
d i f f e r , depending on when the offense was committed.) In a d d i t i o n ,
because inmates are frequently e l i g i b l e for more than one type of
release, Time Computation technicians must c a l c u l a t e a separate release
date for each type of release an inmate i s e l i g i b l e f o r . The number and
complexity of release types coupled w i t h an inadequate manual system of
c a l c u l a t i o n , the absence of a comprehensive procedure manual, and high
s t a f f turnover has resulted i n e r r o r s i n the c a l c u l a t i o n o f release
dates. ( For more information on Time Computation of Release Dates, see
Finding V , page 53.)
( 1 ) Home Arrest has several supervi sion requi rements: a) except f o r occasions authori zed
by the Home Arrest o f f i c e r , the inmate must remain i n h i s o r her residence a t a l l
times; b) the inmate i s monitored 24 hours a day by the Parole o f f i c e through a
tamper- proof anklet t h a t emits a signal t o an in- home r e c e i v e r connected by telephone;
C) the inmate receives t h e i n t e n s i v e supervision of a Home A r r e s t o f f i c e r and; d) the
inmate i s required t o pay an e l e c t r o n i c monitoring fee. I n c o n t r a s t , an inmate
released on E a r l y Parole requires no e l e c t r o n i c monitoring, and may have l e s s contact
with a Parole o f f i c e r than a Home Arrestee.
Cur rent System Needs
S i m p l i f i c a t i o n
Based on our findings, we believe Arizona's present system of release
types needs to s i m p l i f i e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , comments made by various State
o f f i c i a l s , including the D i r e c t o r and s t a f f of DOC, and the Attorney
General's O f f i c e , also i d e n t i f y the current system as too complex and i n
need of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . The L e g i s l a t u r e could consider the f o l l o w i n g
options i n working toward a more e f f i c i e n t , s i m p l i f i e d system.
Replace Early Parole w i t h a DOC- authorized Emergency Release - The
function of Early Parole could be more e f f e c t i v e l y accomplished w i t h
a d i f f e r e n t type of emergency release.
Early Parole, Arizona's emergency release type, has not had a
s i g n i f i c a n t impact on overcrowding. E a r l y p a r o l e was established i n
1982 to allow the D i r e c t o r to c e r t i f y c e r t a i n inmates as e l i g i b l e f o r
Parole when the inmate population exceeds 98 percent operating
capacity. The Board of Pardons and Paroles then holds hearings f o r
the c e r t i f i e d inmates and decides whether or not to grant release.
However, during the l a s t three years ( 1987 to 1989), the number of
inmates i n the system exceeded 98 percent o p e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y i n a l l
but two months, yet only 183 ( one percent) of the 16,500 inmates
released were l e t out on Early Parole.
Because Early Parole has not been e f f e c t i v e as an emergency release.
the D i r e c t o r has increasingly resorted to the use of other
DOC- authorized releases i n an attempt to a l l e v i a t e overcrowding.
According to a DOC o f f i c i a l , the o r i g i n a l purpose of Temporary
Release was to allow prisoners periods of time i n the community to
f i n d housing and employment p r i o r to t h e i r scheduled release date.
However, i n an e f f o r t to free needed bed space, the D i r e c t o r r e c e n t l y
created a Temporary Release pol i c y t o increase the number of inmates
e l i g i b l e for t h i s release. As a f u r t h e r means to reduce
overcrowding, the D i r e c t o r has also r e c e n t l y relaxed c r i t e r i a for
release on Provisional Release.
I f the Legislature intends to provide an e f f e c t i v e means of emergency
release, i t should consider replacing Early Parole, a
Board- controlled release, w i t h a DOC- authorized release. Placement
of Early Parole under the a u t h o r i t y of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles has shown that i t l i m i t s DOC'S abi l i t y to adequately c o n t r o l
prison population as DOC has no c o n t r o l over the number of inmates
approved for the release. Further, i f an emergency capacity
s i t u a t i o n occurs, Early Parole i s i n e f f e c t i v e as an emergency release
due to the amount of time needed to c e r t i f y inmates as e l i g i b l e , hold
hearings, and then process those that were approved f o r release. I n
order ta provide c o n t r o l of prison p o p u l a t i o n , o t h e r states w i t h an
emergency release type general l y place i t under the author i t y o f the
corrections agency. I n seven of the ten s t a t e s w i t h an emergency
release, the DOC i s the a u t h o r i z i n g agency.
I f a DOC- authorized release i s established, controls should be
developed to ensure that i t i s used only as an emergency measure, and
that low r i s k offenders who have served most of t h e i r sentences are
the f i r s t targeted for emergency release. The current D i r e c t o r
opposes the placement of an emergency release under the Department I s
control due to h i s concern that pressure could be placed on the
Director to release inmates. However, controls could be establ ished
for determining when the measure would be put i n t o e f f e c t and which
inmates should be considered. For example, i n South Carolina,
emergency release occurs f o l l o w i n g the Governor's d e c l a r a t i o n o f an
emergency. In Oklahoma, emergency release occurs i f the prison
population exceeds 95 percent capacity for 60 days. Further, the
inmates e l i g i b l e for release under emergency release could also be
defined. Arizona's Early Parole requires that inmates only need to
serve s i x months of t h e i r sentence before being considered e l i g i b l e .
Other s t a t e s , on the other hand, use emergency release for those
inmates that have served most of t h e i r sentence and are considered
good r i s k s .
Modify the use of P r o v i s i o n a l Release as an e a r l y release - I f the
Legislature eliminated Early Parole for a DOC- authorized emergency
release, but s t i l l favored having an additional e a r l y release ( other
than Parole or ERCD) then the Legislature should consider r e t a i n i n g
Provisional Release, but require DOC to modify the use of t h i s
release. Provisional Release allows the Director to have d i s c r e t i o n
i n determining inmates s u i t a b l e for a six- month, supervised e a r l y
release. Currently the d i s c r e t i o n used for Provisional Release i s
based on i n t e r n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scores t h a t are used to determine
the s e c u r i t y level and f a c i l i t y i n which to house an inmate.
However, based on our analysis, use of these scores for release
decisions i s not necessarily appropriate, as they may not accurately
r e f l e c t p o t e n t i a l public r i s k . For instance, a higher i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r i s k score can automatically r e s u l t from d i s c i p l i n a r y action for an
i n f r a c t i o n such as lthorseplay. l' ( See Finding I l l , page 35.)
Therefore, the Legislature should ensure that DOC more speci f i c a l l y
assessed p o t e n t i a l r i s k when making such release decisions.
Eliminate Temporary Release - I f the Legislature provides DOC w i t h a
DOC- authorized emergency release mechanism, then the L e g i s l a t u r e
should consider e l i m i n a t i n g Temporary Release as a separate release
type. As indicated e a r l i e r , the o r i g i n a l purpose of Temporary
Release was to a l l o w p r i s o n e r s periods of time i n the community to
f i n d housing and employment p r i o r to t h e i r scheduled release date on
another release. However, Temporary Release has never been
implemented with a clear purpose. According to DOC o f f i c i a l s , since
i t s inception, there has never been any formal o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a on
which to base i t s approval. As a r e s u l t , Temporary Release has been
used inconsistently and has varied, based on the d i f f e r e n t DOC s t a f f
reviewing and approving these releases. Currently, i t i s frequently
used as a means of releasing inmates up to 90 days p r i o r t o t h e i r
scheduled release date i n order to reduce overcrowded conditions.
I f the Legislature does e l iminate Temporary Release as a separate
release type, i t should consider b u i l d i n g i n t o the remaining DOC
release types a short- term llcushionlt period ( two weeks or l e s s ) .
Temporary Release provides DOC f l e x i b i l i t y so i t can release an
inmate during the regular work week when the release date fa1 Is on a
weekend, or arrange a release to coincide w i t h a v a i l a b l e
transportation from the releasing i n s t i t u t i o n . Several of the other
s t a t e ' s corrections agencies we contacted use such a cushion period
for f l e x i b i l i t y i n arranging release.
Allow e a r l i e r Parole e l i g i b i l i t y and eliminate Work Furlough - The
Legislature should consider allowing Parole e l i g i b i l i t y e a r l i e r i n an
inmate's sentence. I f Parole e l i g i b i l i t y was a v a i l a b l e e a r l i e r , Work
Furlough may not be needed as a separate release type.
Many s t a t e s a l l o w Parole e l i g i b i l i t y e a r l i e r than Arizona.
Twenty- one states have at least one type of Parole e l i g i b i l i t y sooner
( ranging from one- eighth to one- ha1 f of sentence imposed) than
Arizona's one- half of sentence imposed, which i s the e a r l i e s t point
for Parole e l i g i b i l i t y . An a d d i t i o n a l eleven states allow Parole
e l i g i b i l i t y a f t e r the minimum sentence i s served, which may also be
e a r l i e r than the one- half sentence imposed.
There are several benefits from allowing e a r l i e r Parole e l i g i b i l i t y .
F i r s t , i f Parole were much e a r l i e r than other release types, inmates
might be more l i k e l y to want Parole. As previously mentioned, many
inmates waive Parole because an administrative release w i t h less
supervision i s imminent. Second, although e a r l i e r Parole would allow
e a r l i e r release for some inmates, there would also be a longer period
of supervision.
I f Parole e l i g i b i l i t y were to occur e a r l i e r i n an inmate's sentence,
the need for Work Furlough would be questionable. C u r r e n t l y , Work
Furlough i s b a s i c a l l y a form o f e a r l y Parole ( i . e . , 12 months p r i o r
to Parole e l i g i b i l i t y ) . Although c e r t i f i c a t i o n requirements for Work
Furlough are s l i g h t l y t i g h t e r than those for Parole, once released,
both Work Furloughees and Parolees have s i m i l a r supervision
requirements. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the same types of inmates generally are
e l i g i b l e for both.
Modify the use o f Home Arrest - The Legislature should consider
modifying Home Arrest so i t can be used as a condition of release,
rather than as a separate release type, for those inmates determined
to require intensive supervision. I t appears l o g i c a l that inmates
considered higher r i s k s would require more intensive supervision than
lower r i s k offenders to whom Home Arrest c u r r e n t l y applies.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , due to the manner i n which Home Arrest i s c u r r e n t l y
implemented, an inmate's stay i n the program i s l i m i t e d . Most
inmates approved for Home Arrest are not placed i n the program unt i l
l a t e r i n t h e i r sentence ( even though they can be e l i g i b l e at s i x
months). As a r e s u l t , inmates generally spend an average of only
four months i n the program, before r e v e r t i n g to another type of
release type w i t h less intensive supervision.
A few states c u r r e n t l y use intensive supervision ( which may include
house arrest and/ or e l e c t r o n i c surveillance) as a condition of
e l i g i b i l i ty for another type of release.(') For example, South
Carolina uses home detention w i t h e l e c t r o n i c monitoring as a
condition of e i t h e r Probation o r Parole, and as an added sanction for
Parole v i o l a t o r s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , New Jersey uses Home Arrest w i t h
e l e c t r o n i c monitoring for inmates already granted Parole or for
Parole v i o l a t o r s . Moreover, New Mexico a p p l i e s i n t e n s i v e supervision
( i . e. home a r r e s t w i t h e l e c t r o n i c monitoring) f o r h i g h - r i s k offenders
released on Parole, who would otherwise remain incarcerated.
@ Eliminate Discretionary Release - The Legislature should consider
e l i m i n a t i n g D i s c r e t i o n a r y Release. Discretionarv Release b a s i c a l l v
allows inmates i n e l i g i b l e for any other type o f * e a r l y release ( such
as those inmates required to serve a l l or at least a p o r t i o n o f the
sentence imposed by the court) to be released by the Di rector of DOC
s i x months e a r l y . - We found no other state that had a release type
s i m i l a r t o A r i z o n a ' s D i s c r e t i o n a r y Release. In a d d i t i o n , the
Director of DOC t o l d us that because inmates applying for
Discretionary Release are not e l i g i b l e for anything else, he does not
feel he should have the sole d i s c r e t i o n for release.
I n conclusion, i f the Legislature were t~ consider and implement a l l of
the changes recommended i n t h i s Finding, DOC would be l e f t w i t h three
release types -- Provisional Release, Earned Release Credit Date, and an
emergency release. The Board would be responsible only for Parole.
While some changes, such as the e l i m i n a t i o n o f Discretionary Release,
m o d i f i c a t i o n of Home Arrest, m o d i f i c a t i o n of Provisional Release,
e l i m i n a t i o n of Temporary Release and replacement of Early Parole w i t h a
DOC- authorized emergency release, could be e a s i l y implemented, the
Legislature should postpone implementation of the r e v i s i o n to Parole
e l i g i b i l i t y and the e l i m i n a t i o n o f Work Furlough, u n t i l other areas of
the criminal j u s t i c e system ( such as the criminal code, sentencing
guidelines, and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o incarceration) are reviewed.
( 1 ) I n a d d i t i o n to Arizona, 18 of the 50 states we contacted had some form of i n t e n s i v e
supervision or used Home A r r e s t / e l e c t r o n i c monitoring as a separate release program or
as a c o n d i t i o n of a release. Four states s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned t h a t i n t e n s i v e
supervision i s used as a c o n d i t i o n of Parole supervision.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Legislature should consider the f o l l o w i n g options:
1. Replace Early Parole w i t h an emergency release type under the control
of the Department of Corrections. A d d i t i o n a l l y , c r i t e r i a for such an
eme rgency re l ease shou l d be deve loped, poss i b l y w i t h some object i ve
r i s k screening, to allow e a r l y release for inmates who have served a
substantial p o r t i o n o f t h e i r sentence.
2. Eliminate Temporary Release, but provide a short " cushion" period as
part of a l l other releases, to allow DOC some i i e x i b i i i t y i n
releasing inmates as close as possible to t h e i r projected release
date.
3. Modify Provisional Release by e s t a b l i s h i n g v a l i d c r i t e r i a for release
decisions.
4. Revise Parole e l i g i b i l i t y to allow e l i g i b i l i t y e a r l i e r . The
L e g i s l a t u r e should also consider e l i m i n a t i n g Work Furlough.
5. Modify Home Arrest so i t i s implemented as a condition o f release
supervision, rather than as a separate release type.
6. E l i m i n a t e D i s c r e t i o n a r y Release.
FINDING Ill
ALTHOUGH THE DOC DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM APPEARS
TO BE FUNCTIONING WELL OVERALL,
THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT CAUSE
EXCESSIVE DELAYS IN INMATE RELEASE
While the DOC d i s c i p l i n a r y system appears to be f u n c t i o n i n g well o v e r a l l ,
the e f f e c t s of d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties on inmate release may be overly
severe. The DOC d i s c i p l i n a r y system i s structured to meet due process
requirements, and DOC appears t o adequately document d i s c i p l i n a r y
actions. However, a d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty can s i g n i f i c a n t l y delay release
i n a v a r i e t y of ways. A d d i t i o n a l l y , DOC'S a b i l i t y to revoke inmates'
release c r e d i t s ( f o r f e i t u r e of good time) as a d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty i s
greater than that of other s t a t e s .
Disciplinary Process
When an inmate v i o l a t e s a d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e , a DOC s t a f f member ( usually
a c o r r e c t i o n a l services o f f i c e r ) w r i t e s a n o t i c e of r u l e v i o l a t i o n or
t i c k e t , and presents i t to both the inmate and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l u n i t ' s
d i s c i p l i n e coordinator. The d i s c i p l i n e coordinator investigates the
charge and determines whether the v i o l a t i o n w i l l be handled as a major or
minor i n f r a c t i o n . ( ' )
Major v i o l a t i o n s are defined by the penalty imposed: 1) loss of release
c r e d i t s , 2) placement i n Parole Class I I I , a length o f time i n which an
inmate can not earn release c r e d i t s and i s not e l i g i b l e for Parole, or 3)
d i s c i p l i n a r y i s o l a t i o n . Major v i o l a t i o n s are adjudicated by a
three- member d i s c i p l i n a r y committee, and the inmate may appeal the
committee's decision to an appeals o f f i c e r i n the DOC central o f f i c e .
( 1 ) There are f i v e groups of d i s c i p l i n a r y v i o l a t i o n s . Group I and I1 v i o l a t i o n s
( i n c l u d i n g r i o t i n g , assault, escape, and arson) a r e t h e most severe and always r e s u l t
i n major p e n a l t i e s . Group I11 and I V v i o l a t i o n s range from committing three minor
v i o l a t i o n s i n a 90- day period and not being present a t a count, t o drug possession and
the use and the manufacture of weapons, and are considered e i t h e r major or minor
v i o l a t i o n s a t the d i s c r e t i o n of the d i s c i p l i n e coordinator. Group V v i o l a t i o n s are
defined as minor, and i n c l u d e u s i n g obscene 1 anguage, exchanging p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t
permission, and f a i l u r e t o obey i n s t i t u t i o n a l rules.
Minor offenses are resolved at the coordinator l e v e l , and outcomes
include dismissing the charges, or imposing less s t r i n g e n t penalties such
as a reprimand or a loss of p r i v i l e g e s .
Disciplinary System Design
Adequate Overall
In general, the DOC d i s c i p l i n a r y system appears to be adequately designed
to meet due process requirements, and there are i n d i c a t i o n s i t i s meeting
those requirements. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we found that when d i s c i p l i n a r y
actions are taken, they are well documented.
D i s c i p l i n a r y system generally w e l l designed - DOC'S d i s c i p l i n a r y system
i s designed to provide for due process. The Department's d i s c i p l i n a r y
process generally meets the standards set by the American Correctional
Association ( ACA) for inmate d i s c i p l i n a r y systems i n a d u l t c o r r e c t i o n a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s . These standards specify the time frames for due process,
the procedures for handling v i o l a t i o n s , and the process for hearings,
inmate r i g h t s , and appeals. The DOC system, as pub1 ished i n i t s Rules of
D i s c i p l i n e , f u l f i l l s a l l 23 ACA standards i n p a r t , and 21 i n f u l l .
DOC also has a d i s c i p l i n a r y appeals group, independent of i n s t i t u t i o n a l
management, which serves to ensure due process requirements are met.
This group a l s o c o n t r i b u t e s to consistency between i n s t i t u t i o n s by
t r a i n i n g and c e r t i f y i n g d i s c i p l i n a r y s t a f f , and developing and updating
the eight- hour block of d i s c i p l i n a r y 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 .
System appears t o be used a p p r o p r i a t e l y - DOC does not appear to be using
time- loss penalties e x c e s s i v e l y . ( l ) As d e t a i l e d p r e v i o u s l y i n Finding I ,
( see page 5) less than ten percent of the 5,750 inmates released i n 1989
had received penalties of good time f o r f e i t u r e , and the average penalty
( 1 ) A1 though we examined the a p p l i c a t i o n of penalties f o r the e n t i r e inmate population, we
d i d not review the appropriateness of DOC'S actions i n i n d i v i d u a l cases. The scope of
the a u d i t d i d not allow f o r s t a t i s t i c a l review of i n d i v i d u a l d i s c i p l i n a r y actions.
Consequently, we cannot comment on t h e e x t e n t to which t h e p e n a l t i e s imposed by DOC
f i t the v i o l a t i o n , o r whether the v i o l a t i o n code under which the inmate was charged
was appropriate f o r the actual behavior.
was 95 days. Less than 19 percent of our study population of 1989
releasees had received a Class I l l placement, and the average time
imposed was 63 days. ( I n the study population, a 60- day placement i n
Class I l l could cause an inmate to remain incarcerated 20 a d d i t i o n a l
days.) S t a t i s t i c s published by the d i s c i p l i n a r y appeals group i n d i c a t e
the system i s functioning a p p r o p r i a t e l y . According to DOC records, i n
1989, of the almost 41,000 v i o l a t i o n s addressed by d i s c i p l i n e
coordinators or committees, 4,800 resulted i n v e r d i c t s of g u i l t y of major
v i o l a t i o n s , and only 24 lawsuits were f i l e d .
Also, in over 22 percent of the 7,407 cases heard by d i s c i p l i n e
committees i n 1989, the committees found inmates " not g u i l t y , " or
dismissed the charges due to procedural e r r o r -- an i n d i c a t i o n that the
committees are conscious of due process issues. F i n a l l y , the number of
cases brought before the d i s c i p l i n a r y appeals group has remained
consistent from 1988 to 1989, and does not appear excessive.
The documentation o f d i s c i p l i n a r y data appears t o be accurate and
thorough - In a d d i t i o n t o having a well- designed system of d i s c i p l i n a r y
p o l i c i e s and procedures, DOC also appears to adequately document
d i s c i p l i n a r y actions. We cross- checked the d i s c i p l i n a r y paperwork i n the
central o f f i c e master f i les w i t h that on DOC's Automated Inmate
Management System ( AIMS) for 20 inmates. In a l l 20 cases there was
consistency between AIMS data and the d i s c i p l i n a r y paperwork. A 1987
study conducted by the DOC Planning Bureau w i t h assistance from the
Bureau of Justice also found a r e l i a b i l i t y level of over 99 percent for
AIMS d i s c i p l i n a r y data.
Although DOC's Disciplinary Process Appears
Reasonable Overall, Several Facets Of The System
Can Cause Excessive Delays In Release
A d i s c i p l i n a r y conviction can a f f e c t an inmate's release date i n a
v a r i e t y of ways, sometimes r e s u l t i n g i n excessive and unintended delays.
For example, d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n can s i g n i f i c a n t l y delay an inmate's
Parole e l i g i b i l i t y through use of the Class I l l penalty. Some
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s a l s o render an inmate i n e l i g i b l e for DOC
discretionary releases. The time l o s t due to a d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty
coupled with delays i n Parole and other DOC releases, may prolong release
more than i s reasonable or intended.
Class 1 1 1 placement can delay Parole e l i g i b i l i t y - Currently a s i n g l e
Class I l l penalty can delay an inmate's Parole e l i g i b i l i t y . Since the
automatic delay i n p a r o l e t h a t r e s u l t s from the Class I l l penalty appears
unwarranted, the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider amending s t a t u t e s to allow
DOC the a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h Class I I I as a P a r o l e - e l i g i b l e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
A. R. S. 441- 1604.06 requires DOC to maintain a Parole c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
system comprised of at least two Parole e l i g i b l e classes and one
n o n e l i g i b l e class, and also allows as many other classes of
n o n e l i g i b i l i t y to be established as DOC deems necessary. Given t h i s
a u t h o r i t y , DOC has created nine Parole classes. One of these, Class I l l ,
i s used solely as a d i s c i p l i n a r y penalty. Class I l l placement impacts an
inmate three ways: 1) the inmate becomes i n e l i g i b l e for Parole, 2) the
inmate's i n i t i a l Parole El i g i b i Ii t y Date ( PED) advances, and 3) the
inmate does not earn release c r e d i t s .
Placement i n Class I l l delays an inmate's Parole e l i g i b i l i t y .
A . R. S. 441- 1604.04. F requi res that the e a r l i e s t PED be advanced one day
for every day spent i n an i n e l i g i b l e c l a s s . ( l ) For example, i f an inmate
i s i n i t i a l l y e l i g i b l e for Parole i n 100 days, and receives a 90- day Class
I l l penalty, the inmate would then not be e l i g i b l e for Parole for 190
days.
Preventing an inmate from being heard by the Parole Board because of a
Class I l l placement does not appear warranted for several reasons:
The strong e f f e c t on Parole i s inconsistent w i t h the l e s s serious
nature of the Class I l l penalty. A Class I l l penalty i s less severe
than a f o r f e i t u r e of good time. However, Class I l l can delay an
inmate's Parole up to eight months, while F o r f e i t u r e does not.
DOC d i s c i p l i n a r y s t a f f using Class I I I may not intend i t to postpone
the inmate's Parole hearing date. According to a DOC d i s c i p l i n a r y
aooeals o f f i c e r , few d i s c i u l i n a r v s t a f f understand the way i n which a
lass I I I d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n - a f f e c t s PED. In a d d i t i o n , both
d i s c i p l i n a r y appeals group management and s t a f f stated that the Class
I l l penalty should not a f f e c t an inmate's Parole e l i g i b i l i t y .
( 1 ) The postponement o f the PED one day f o r each day i n a none1 i g i b l e class occurs only
p r i o r t o the inmate reaching h i s f i r s t PED. Thus, an inmate becoming e l i g i b l e f o r
Parole but denied, i s no longer a f f e c t e d by the * day- for- day p r o v i s i o n
( A. R. S. $ 41- 1604.06. F).
38
Other states do not allow d i s c i p l i n a r y penalties to keep inmates from
parole hearings. In our survey of eleven s t a t e s , none of the eight
w i t h Parole placed an inmate i n a P a r o l e - i n e l i g i b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as
a r e s u l t of a d i s c i p l i n a r y v i o l a t i o n . ( ' ) The Parole board i n most of
these states, I ike the Board in Arizona, considers the inmate's
d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y when deciding whether to grant Parole.
D i s c i p l i n a r y actions can l i m i t release options - In a d d i t i o n t o
preventing a Board release, d i s c i p l i n a r y actions can render an inmate
i n e l i g i b l e for DOC d i s c r e t i o n a r y releases. DOC's p r a c t i c e o f
automat i cal ly increasing an inmate's Institutional Risk score ( I score) as a
r e s u l t of certain d i s c i p l i n a r y actions, may unnecessarily delay an
inmate's release. As i n other s t a t e s , when considering an increase i n an
inmate's I score, DOC should review the nature of the d i s c i p l i n a r y
v i o l a t i o n and the inmate's d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y .
DOC's practice of automatically increasing an inmate's I score may
unnecessarily delay an inmate's release. DOC u t i l i z e s an inmate's
I score as a c r i t e r i o n for two major types of DOC d i s c r e t i o n a r y releases
-- Provisional and Temporary Release. We reviewed the I scores of a l l
inmates considered for Provisional Release i n the f i r s t quarter of 1990,
and found an average of 24 inmates per month were i n e l i g i b l e , based
solely on t h e i r d i s c i p l i n a r y - r e l a t e d score.
DOC raises an inmate's I score one point each time the inmate receives a
F o r f e i t u r e , a Class I l l placement, or d i s c i p l i n a r y i s o l a t i o n . Since an
inmate usually enters DOC w i t h an I score of three, and a score of four
can render the inmate i n e l i g i b l e for both Temporary and P r o v i s i o n a l
Release, only one d i s c i p l i n a r y action can cause the inmate to lose a
180- day Provisional Release and a 60- to 90- day Temporary Release.
Inmates who have not committed dangerous offenses may also be labeled as
high i n s t i t u t i o n a l r i s k s . By p o l i c y , DOC a u t o m a t i c a l l y r a i s e s the score
for each conviction that includes a major penalty. These p e n a l t i e s may
be imposed for v i o l a t i o n s such as disobeying an order, being absent for a
( 1 ) We contacted eleven s t a t e s t o i n v e s t i g a t e a v a r i e t y of d i sci p l i ne- related issues
i n c l u d i n g the e f f e c t o f d i s c i p l ine on Parole e l i g i b i l i t y . These j u r i s d i c t i o n s were
selected i f they had a s i m i l a r l y designed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system ( s i x s t a t e s ) , were
very large systems w i t h overcrowding, or had been i d e n t i f i e d as u s i n g i n n o v a t i v e
approaches i n the 50- state survey conducted on release.
count, and other nondangerous charges. In a d d i t i o n , major penalties may
be imposed for committing three minor offenses i n a 90- day period. Thus,
as a r e s u l t o f v i o l a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l grooming rules three times i n 90
days, an inmate could receive one of the major penalties and have h i s
I score automatically increased
Most other states are not automatically increasing I scores, based on
d i s c i p l i n a r y actions. Only one of the six states i d e n t i f i e d as having
s i m i l a r inmate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems allows d i s c i p l i n e s to automatically
a f f e c t I scores. However, that s t a t e does not use the I score as a
release c r i t e r i o n . Most of these states consider the inmate's
d i s c i p l i n a r y h i s t o r y during a r e g u l a r l y scheduled review, and at that
time consider whether the v i o l a t i o n ( s ) , or the pattern of v i o l a t ions,
pose an increased r i s k .
The multiple effects of discipline, in combination, can cause excessive
release delays - Since d i s c i p l i n a r y actions can a f f e c t release dates i n
several ways, one v i o l a t i o n can have a domino e f f e c t , causing excessive
and probably unintended delays i n obtaining release. A time- lass penalty
( F o r f e i t u r e or Class I I I ) coupled w i t h a delay i n Parole el i g i b i l i t y can
have an overly severe and unintentional e f f e c t on release. The f o l l o w i n g
case, obtained during our a n a l y s i s o f f i r s t quarter, 1990 Provisional
Release e l i g i b i l i t y , i s such an example:
A young inmate serving a one and one- half year sentence for
t h e f t was penalized w i t h F o r f e i t u r e o f 50 days good time c r e d i t ,
60 days of Class I l l , as well as other penalties not i n v o l v i n g
time loss. The write- up of the v i o l a t i o n i n h i s f i l e indicated
that he had another inmate i n a choke hold and the o f f i c e r noted
that the inmate " had been warned before about horseplay." As a
r e s u l t of t h i s one d i s c i p l i n a r y action ( the inmate had none
before, none a f t e r ) , h i s Parole e l i g i b i l i t y was postponed two
months, and, h i s I score increased to four, which caused him to
lose a Provisional Release. The combined e f f e c t o f F o r f e i t u r e
and Class I l l on h i s Earned Release Credit Date was 70 days.
When the inmate entered DOC he could have been released on
Parole a f t e r serving only nine months, or 12 months on
Provisional Release. As a r e s u l t of one v i o l a t i o n , h i s next
scheduled DOC release became an Earned Credit Release Date, at
which time he would have served 15 months. The appropriateness
of the 50- day penalty i s not at issue here, but rather the way
i n which a s i n g l e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n can snowball and cause
excessive, and probably unintended, delays i n r e l e a s e . ( ' )
Forfeiture Penalty
Limits Are High
DOCts a b i l i t y to revoke inmates' earned good time i s greater than that of
other s t a t e s . Although DOC does not impose F o r f e i t u r e p e n a l t i e s on a
large number of inmates, a s i g n i f i c a n t number of days are taken away
annually. Because i t s p o l i c y a l l o w s h i g h F o r f e i t u r e l i m i t s , DOC can take
away s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of good time for a s i n g l e c o n v i c t i o n . These
l i m i t s are o f t e n higher than those i n other s t a t e s . Due to the impact
F o r f e i t u r e s can have on p r i s o n bed space, some states are reviewing t h e i r
penalty p o l i c i e s .
Significant number of days taken away through Forfeiture - While DOC does
not impose F o r f e i t u r e p e n a l t i e s on a l a r g e number of inmates, the number
of days relinquished annually are s i g n i f i c a n t . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned,
less than ten percent of the 5,750 inmates i n our study population of
1989 released inmates had received the F o r f e i t u r e p e n a l t y , and only four
of the 740 penal t i e s imposed were greater than one year. However,
according to DOC r e p o r t s , the Department revoked a t o t a l of 281,653
earned release c r e d i t days during 1988 and 1989. Although the Department
d i d restore 38,434 days during t h i s period, the net F o r f e i t u r e was
243,219 days -- a f i g u r e equivalent to r e t a i n i n g approximately 666
inmates i n prison one a d d i t i o n a l year. While not a l l days r e l i n q u i s h e d
impact bed space, t h i s f i g u r e i s , nevertheless, high.
DOC forfeiture limits are high - DOC can take a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of
inmatest good time because i t s p o l i c y allows high F o r f e i t u r e l i m i t s .
Although DOC does not usually revoke as much good time as i t s l i m i t s
a l l o w , c u r r e n t p o l i c y permits the D i r e c t o r to take away a l l or a
s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of an inmate's earned release c r e d i t s ( days) as a
penalty f o r c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n a r y v i o l a t i o n s . For example, the D i r e c t o r
( 1 ) A1 though the di sci pl i nary v i o l a t i o n affected the inmate's administrative re1 eases and
his e l i g i b i l i t y f o r regular Parole, it did not a f f e c t his e l i g i b i l i t y f o r Home A r r e s t ,
for which he was approved by the Parole Board and released during May 1990.
has the a u t h o r i t y to take away up to one year of good time for
" disobeying an order", and up to eight months for drug use -- the two
most common v i o l a t i o n s for which F o r f e i t u r e i s imposed.(')
Other s t a t e s ' l i m i t s are lower - DOC's F o r f e i t u r e penalty l i m i t s are
often considerably higher than those used by corrections agencies i n
other states.( 2) As shown i n Table 4 ( see page 43), F o r f e i t u r e l i m i t s
for the same v i o l a t i o n s are often less i n other s t a t e s . For example, for
disobeying an order, 16 of the 24 states we surveyed c i t e d a F o r f e i t u r e
l i m i t of 60 days or less. In Arizona's system, up to 305 days more can
be taken away for the same v i o l a t i o n . Even for the most severe
v i o l a t i o n s -- homicide, r i o t i n g , and taking a hostage -- DOC's l i m i t s are
greater than those o f at least one- half of the 24 states w i t h the
F o r f e i t u r e penalty.
Some states are examining e x i s t i n g F o r f e i t u r e p o l i c i e s - During our
survey, some states commented that they have been or w i l l be reassessing
t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e s t r u c t u r e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on F o r f e i t u r e
penalties, i n p a r t , as a r e s u l t a f overcrowding i n t h e i r prison systems.
As an example, an o f f i c i a l i n the Washington system stated t h a t , " we
real ly had to take a hard look, when we have such overcrowding problems,
whether we wanted to lengthen an inmate's stay for the bad- boy type of
behavior, l i k e refusing to obey an order. Of course, there are times
when refusing to obey an order i s a s e c u r i t y t h r e a t , and i n those cases
they are charged w i t h a d i f f e r e n t v i o l a t i o n . " A year and a h a l f ago
Washington redefined many v i o l a t i o n charges, making them more s p e c i f i c ,
and reduced or eliminated p r i o r F o r f e i t u r e penalties for many of the less
se r i ous charges.
( 1 ) I n our study population of 5,750 releasees, 40 percent o f a l l F o r f e i t u r e p e n a l t i e s
were imposed f o r these two v i o l a t i o n s .
( 2) We surveyed a l l s t a t e s w i t h p r i s o n populations of 5,000 o r more as of January 1989.
I n t o t a l , 30 s t a t e s met t h i s c r i t e r i a and were surveyed.
TABLE 4
MAXIMUM GOOD TIME FORFEITURE PENALTY
FOR TWO VIOLATION TYPES BY STATE(^)
Disobeying An Order Drug Use
State Pena l t y State Penal t y
A l abama
New York
Texas
Ar i zona
Arkansas
Michigan
Kansas
Mississippi
Ok I ahoma
Connecticut
F l o r i d a
Kentucky
New Jersey
Maryland
Cal i f o r n i a
l nd i ana
Lou i s i ana
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V i r g i n i a
Co l o rado
W i scons i n
I I l i n o i s
Washington
Un l imi ted
Unl i m i ted
Unl imi ted
12 Months
12 Months
6 Months
6 Months
100 Days
90 Days
60 Days
60 Days
60 Days
60 Days
40 Days
30 Days
30 Days
30 Days
30 Days
30 Days
30 Days
30 Days
20 Days
20 Days
15 Days
0 Days
A l abama Unl i m i ted
New York Un l i m i ted
Texas Un l imi ted
Michigan 2 Years
Arkansas 12 Months
New Jersey 12 Months
Ok l ahoma 12 Months
Arizona 8 Months
F l o r i d a 6 Months
I I l inois 6 Months
Kansas 6 Months
South Carolina 6 Months
Tennessee 6 Months
C a l i f o r n i a 150 Days
Mississippi 100 Days
Connecticut 90 Days
l nd i ana 90 Days
V i r g i n i a 90 Days
Kentucky 60 Days
Mary land 60 Days
W i scons i n 40 Days
Colorado 30 Days
Lou i s i ana 30 Days
North Carolina 30 Days
Washington 30 Days
( a) We also contacted Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D. C. which
a r e n o t presented above because they e i t h e r do not have good time p r o v i s i o n s , do not
use F o r f e i t u r e as a penalty, or F o r f e i t u r e has l i t t l e or no impact on release. We
were unable t o obtain a response from Massachusetts, which also met survey s e l e c t i o n
c r i t e r i a .
Source: Prepared by O f f i c e o f the Auditor General s t a f f from Auditor
General d i s c i p l i n e penalty survey of states w i t h inmate
populations of 5,000 or greater as of January 1989. The survey
was conducted i n June 1990.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider r e v i s i n g A. R. S. 1341- 1604.06 to a l low
DOC to e s t a b l i s h Class I l l as a P a r o l e - e l i g i b l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
2. DOC should not automatically increase an inmate's I n s t i t u t i o n a l Risk
score due to d i s c i p l i n a r y convictions.
3. DOC should begin to assess i t s penalty s t r u c t u r e from the standpoint
of a long- term goal of decreasing reliance on penalties of
time- loss. In the short- term, DOC should reduce F o r f e i t u r e l i m i t s
for less serious v i o l a t i o n s .
FINDING IV
ARIZONA SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE USE OF VARIOUS
INTERMEDIATE STEPS AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO REVOCATION
Because the revocation of releases has a sizeable impact on prison bed
space, Arizona should explore a l t e r n a t i v e s to revocation. Many releases
granted by the DOC and the BPP are l a t e r revoked, and releasees are
returned to p r i s o n . Other states are considering v a r i o u s o p t i o n s to
minimize the impact of revocations on bed space. Arizona should consider
using various intermediate steps p r i o r to revocation as well as options
for placement other than p r i s o n , when revocation occurs.
With the o v e r a l l increase in prison populations n a t i o n a l l y , and r e s u l t i n g
e f f e c t on bed space, greater a t t e n t i o n has been focused on the impact of
revocation on bed usage. A National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections ( NIC)
s p e c i a l i s t t o l d us the manner i n which states choose to respond to
v i o l a t o r s can help to r e l i e v e overcrowding problems. He pointed out that
n a t i o n a l l y , during the period 1977 through 1987, the rate of Parole
v i o l a t i o n admissions to prison increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y more ( 284 percent)
than the increase i n court admissions ( 97 percent).
Revocation Process
Most inmates discharged from the S t a t e ' s prisons, w i t h the exception of
those released on ERCD and sentence e x p i r a t i o n , w i l l be under the
supervision of the Department's Parole D i v i s i o n for a c e r t a i n period of
time. For these supervised releases, the inmate must comply w i t h a set
of conditions imposed by DOC, the BPP, or both. These conditions o u t l i n e
acceptable conduct d u r i n g s u p e r v i s i o n , and may a l s o s p e c i f y a d d i t i o n a l
special requirements such as counseling, employment, and frequency of
contacts w i t h a Parole o f f i c e r . ( ' ) When the releasee f a i l s to adhere to
( 1 ) A standard set of conditions apply t o a l l releasees. For example, these conditions
include n o t i f y i n g the Parole o f f i c e r before a residence change, securing a w r i t t e n
t r a v e l p e r m i t before l e a v i n g t h e S t a t e , p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any program of assistance as
directed by the Parole o f f i c e r , and obeying a l l c i t y , county, State, and Federal
laws. I n a d d i t i o n , special conditions can be imposed, i n c l u d i n g no i l l e g a l drug o r
a1 cohol usage, chemi cal t e s t i ng f o r drugs and a1 cohol , substance abuse counsel i ng, and
month1 y fees f o r supervision.
these conditions, he or she v i o l a t e s the conditions of h i s or her
release. V i o l a t i o n s are c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r " technical v i o l a t i o n s " or
as a " new offense". Once a v i o l a t i o n has occurred, t h e Parole o f f i c e r
can request that a warrant be served on the releasee. The releasee i s
then transported to the county j a i l or a DOC reception center, and i s
eventually housed i n a DOC medium s e c u r i t y f a c i l i t y to await a revocation
hearing. DOC and BPP hold hearings to determine i f a v i o l a t i o n has
occurred and whether the release should be revoked ( n u l l i f i e d ) . I f the
release i s revoked, the v i o l a t o r remains i n p r i s o n u n t i l sentence
e x p i r a t i o n or u n t i l he or she i s approved for another e a r l y r e l e a s e . ( ' )
Number Of Revocations
Large
Many releases are revoked -- approximately 1,000 annual l y i n recent
years. Although v i o l a t i n g the conditions of release and being returned
to DOC does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t i n a revocation, revocation i s by
far the most frequent outcome. In 1989, 90 percent of the 1,121
releasees who v i o l a t e d the conditions o f t h e i r release had t h e i r release
revoked. S t a t i s t i c s for 1988 showed s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n that 85 percent
of the v i o l a t o r s had t h e i r releases revoked.( 2) Thus the impact of
revocation on p r i s o n bed space i s considerable. Offenders revoked on
technical v i o l a t i o n s spent 104,127 days i n p r i s o n , w h i l e new offenses
accounted for an add i t i ona l 129,561 days. ( 3) Because one- ha l f of the bed
days u t i l i z e d f o r release v i o l a t o r s were due to new offenses, the
decision to recommit the releasee was outside of DOC'S c o n t r o l . However,
t h i s s t i l l means a large number of beds are used annually to house
inmates whose releases are revoked for technical v i o l a t i o n s .
Not only are there a large number of revocations, but most occurred as a
r e s u l t of technical v i o l a t i o n s . As shown i n Table 5 ( page 471, i n 1989
( 1 ) At the time of revocation, the Board may choose to place revoked v i o l a t o r s i n t o the
Home Arrest program.
( 2 ) We compared the number o f supervised releases i n 1988 and 1989, to the number of
revocations during the same period. I n 1988, the percentage of releases revoked
equaled 29 percent of those released to supervision. I n 1989, the f i g u r e t o t a l e d 27
percent. However, some of these revocations could have been f o r inmates released
p r i o r t o e i t h e r of these years.
( 3) We studied a l l inmates released i n 1989 who, p r i o r t o t h e i r 1989 release, were
returned t o DOC due t o a release v i o l a t i o n .
for example, 89 percent of a l l revocations were the r e s u l t of technical
v i o l a t i o n s , while new offenses accounted for only eleven percent of a l l
revocations issued. According to a DOC Parole o f f i c i a l , most technical
v i o l at i ons resu l t i ng i n revocat ion are due to abscond i ng supe rv i s i on, and
drug and alcohol usage. Our analysis of warrant requests, which specify
the circumstances that are considered v i o l a t i o n s , supported t h i s
information. In reviewing a l l March 1990 warrant logs, we found that
absconding supervision and drug usage were among the most common
v i o l a t i o n s .
TABLE 5
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
VIOLATION AND REVOCATION STATISTICS
CALENDAR YEAR 1989
Type of Violation
New Offenses:
Total Revoked
Total Not Revoked
Technical:
Total Revoked
Total Not Revoked
Pending D i s p o s i t i o n
Total V i o l a t o r s
DOC BPP
Re l easees Re l easees Total
Source: O f f i c e o f the Auditor General s t a f f analysis based on information
obtained from the Department of Correct ions Alhambra f a c i I i t y ,
P e r r y v i l l e - San Juan Unit and Santa Maria U n i t , and ASPC -
Tucson.
Some States Are Increasing Efforts
To Reduce The Effects Of Revocation
Some states are changing the way i n which they handle release v i o l a t o r s .
We spoke to national experts from the American Probation and Parole
Association, the National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections, and the Rand
Corporation. They t o l d us revocation i s now an area receiving
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t e n t i o n nationwide due, i n large p a r t , to the impact
revocations have on prison p o p u l a t i o n s . ( l ) They also t o l d us there i s a
trend toward the increased use of intermediate sanctions before
i n i t i a t i n g revocation, such as issuing w r i t t e n warnings and/ or changing
required conditions. Another trend i s toward the increased use of
a l t e r n a t i v e s ( rather than incarceration) such as home d e t e n t i o n ,
i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n , e l e c t r o n i c monitoring, and halfway houses. A key
element of t h i s trend i s the use o f r e s i d e n t i a l s e t t i n g s w i t h treatment
programs for substance abuse.
We also contacted 13 states to review t h e i r e f f o r t s toward reducing the
number of v i o l a t o r s returned to prison.( 2) We found t h a t w h i l e programs
varied from s t a t e to s t a t e , and some programs had only recently been
implemented, many states use a combination of options that include
r e q u i r i n g Parole o f f i c e r s to consider intermediate steps p r i o r to
revocation; using a l t e r n a t i v e placement options that are less expensive
than p r i s o n , such as e l e c t r o n i c monitoring and halfway houses, to keep
v i o l a t o r s i n the community; and placing some who v i o l a t e the conditions
of t h e i r release by using alcohol or drugs i n treatment programs, e i t h e r
i n the community or i n lower s e c u r i t y prisons, only for the length of the
program. Some programs being used by other states are described below
In Florida, about one- half of a1 I v i o l a t o r s held for revocation
hearings have t h e i r release conditions restructured and are then
re leased.
( 1 ) A1 though l i t t l e formal research has been completed on t h i s area to date, the Rand
Corporation i s c u r r e n t l y conducting a study f o r Texas on t h e d i v e r s i o n of technical
Parole v i o l a t o r s from prison confinement. The National I n s t i t u t e of Corrections i s
also i n the process of studying Parole v i o l a t i o n and revocation systems i n f i v e states
-- New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina.
( 2) These s t a t e s were selected f o r study through conversations with national c o r r e c t i o n s
p r o f e s s i o n a l s , DOC s t a f f , o r i n our review of corrections l i t e r a t u r e and various
studies o f prison systems i n other states.
Approximately 50 percent of those v i o l a t o r s heard for revocation are
a c t u a l l y revoked, and an estimated 30 percent of those revoked are
placed i n t o a Home Arrest- type program ( w i t h e l e c t r o n i c monitoring).
This program, referred to as the Community Control Program, i s
a v a i l a b l e only for Parole v i o l a t o r s . The length of the program i s
s i x months, a f t e r which the v i o l a t o r i s reviewed again for Parole.
The program i s very inexpensive, w i t h the cost averaging
approximately $ 4 per day as compared to $ 35 per day for incarceration.
F l o r i d a also places v i o l a t o r s i n " in- house programming" e i t h e r p r i o r
to i n i t i a t i n g revocation, or as a r e s u l t of revocation hearing. The
program l a s t s 90 to 120 days, depending on the type of v i o l a t i o n
( such as using drugs o r a l c o h o l ) . The f a c i l i t i e s are operated by
p r i v a t e vendors, and cost from $ 10 to $ 50 per week, as opposed to
$ 245 per week for i n c a r c e r a t i o n .
South Carolina has developed d e t a i l e d revocation guidelines for i t s
Parole o f f i c e r s , hearing o f f i c e r s , and Parole board. These
guidelines l i s t a range of options including, for example,
counseling the releasee, r e s t r u c t u r i n g the release plan, placement i n
a contracted p r i v a t e f a c i l i t y f o r s p e c i a l i z e d substance abuse
programming, a 45- to 90- day placement i n a halfway house, community
service, and issuing a warrant for a r r e s t for revocation. I f
revocation occurs, the board can require the revokee t o a t t e n d a
60- day drug treatment program i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s , a f t e r which he or
she w i l l be reheard f o r release.
The implementation of these guidelines has reduced the number of
revocations. The Deputy Executive Director of the Department of
Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services s t a t e d t h a t before developing
these guidelines, 95 percent of those v i o l a t o r s seen by the hearing
o f f i c e r for a p r e l i m i n a r y hearing were referred to the board for
revocation. Since implementing these guidelines, 55 percent of the
v i o l a t o r s remain on release s t a t u s .
Minnesota establ i shed " revocation guide1 ines" i n 1986. Parole
o f f i c e r s must r e f e r t o these guide1 ines to determine the appropriate
a c t i o n and options, i f any. For example, for c e r t a i n minor
v i o l a t i o n s , the guidelines provide the options of taking no a c t i o n ,
r e s t r u c t u r i n g the conditions of supervision without higher approval,
or proceeding toward revocation. Minnesota's Director of Adult
Release t o l d us that about one- half of a l l v i o l a t o r s have the
conditions of t h e i r release r e s t r u c t u r e d , r a t h e r than being placed
i n t o the revocation process.
Minnesota also developed a Home Arrest program ( w i t h e l e c t r o n i c
monitoring)' for v i o l a t o r s . About 20 percent of v i o l a t o r s are placed
i n t h i s program e i t h e r before revocation proceedings are i n i t i a t e d ,
or as a r e s u l t o f revocation hearings. The D i r e c t o r of Adult Release
s t a t e d t h a t o n l y a few of the v i o l a t o r s who are placed on Home Arrest
p r i o r to i n i t i a t i n g revocation proceedings are subsequently heard for
revocation. He also noted t h a t , based on the average length of time
on Home Arrest of 60 days, at a cost of about one- fourth that of
prison, Minnesota saves about $ 2,100 per v i o l a t o r . Minnesota also
uses halfway houses e i t h e r before i n i t i a t i n g revocation, o r as a
r e s u l t o f revocation proceedings.
Wisconsin requires Parole o f f i c e r s , when appropriate, to consider
c e r t a i n intermediate steps p r i o r to i n i t i a t i n g revocation. Some of
these steps include reviewing and modifying conditions, conducting
formal or informal counseling sessions w i t h releasees to reemphasize
the necessity of compliance w i t h the conditions, and issuing formal
or informal warnings.
In a d d i t i o n , Wisconsin also developed a program s p e c i f i c a l l y designed
for v i o l a t o r s . The A l t e r n a t i v e to Revocation Program ( A T R ) , adopted
i n 1980, o f f e r