Performance audit, Department of Corrections, sunset factors

View Description

View PDF & Text

PDF
Text

Text Search...

DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 30, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Samuel A. Lewis, Director
Department of Corrections
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Corrections, Sunset Factors. This report i s
in response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee.
This report i s the last in a series of reports to be issued on the
Department of Corrections and addresses the twelve Sunset factors which
Arizona Revised Statutes $ 41- 2354 directs the Legislature to consider in
determining whether the Department of Corrections should be continued or
terminated. This report summarizes and presents information from the
four recently completed audits of the Department along with s p e c i f i c
information provided by the Department.
My s t a f f 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 l l be released to the public on October 1, 1991.
DRN : l mn
Sincerely,
A
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE . SUITE 700 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 4 3 8 5 . FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 1 2 5 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has prepared agencywide Sunset Factors
for the Department of Corrections ( DOC) in response to a June 14, 1989,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. These Sunset
Factors were prepared as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona
Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Arizona's f i r s t prison, the Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l prison, was established in
1875 and accepted i t s f i r s t inmates the following year. I t was replaced
by the Arizona State Prison at Florence, which was bui I t by inmate labor
between 1907 and 1909. The Department of Corrections was o f f i c i a l l y
established by the Legislature on June 20, 1968.
Oraanization
DOC has six divisions and operates six prison complexes(') and three
prisons. Three divisions -- Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s , Community Corrections,
and Arizona Correctional Industries -- are responsible for prison
operations and related programs. Three other divisions --
Administration, Human Resources/ Development, and Inspections and
Investigations -- provide agencywide administration and support
a c t i v i t i e s . A b r i e f description of the operations of each division
fol lows.
Adult Institutions Division operates six pr i son comp l exes located in
Douglas, Florence, P e r r y v i l l e , Phoenix, Tucson, and Winslow, and
three low- level security prisons at Fort Grant, Safford, and Yuma.
As of July 22, 1991, Arizona's adult i n s t i t u t i o n s housed 14,906
inmates and had 14,478 beds. The d i v i s i o n also operates an Offenders
Service Bureau and units providing educational and pastoral services,
and family assistance.
Communitv Corrections Division operates two correct i ona I re I ease
centers, the Adult Parole Services u n i t , the Home Arrest Program, and
( 1) A prison complex i s an i n s t i t u t i o n consisting of several prisons housing d i f f e r e n t
types of offenders. For example, the prison complex at Florence encompasses seven
prisons ranging from minimum custody t o maximum security f a c i l i t i e s .
the Fugitive u n i t . Parole o f f i c e r s supervise released inmates for
the period specified by their releases. In addition, t h i s division
i s responsible for implementing the Home Arrest Program, a
r e s t r i c t i v e program that uses an electronic monitoring system to
confine inmates to their residences except for authorized a c t i v i t i e s ,
such as employment or mandated treatment programs.
Arizona Correctional Industries Division ( ACI) manages industrial and
agribusiness enterprises that employ inmates. The d i v i s i o n uses
inmate labor for a variety of enterprises, including coupon
processing, data entry, farming, furniture refurbishing, graphic
a r t s , manufacturing, metal fabricating, and sewing. Through both
contract labor and j o i n t ventures, ACI also provides employment
opportunities for inmates with private sector companies. Unlike
other DOC divisions, ACI i s mandated to operate without l e g i s l a t i v e
appropriations as of July 1, 1991.
Administration Division provides agencywide support. The d i v i s i o n ' s
Bureau of Business and Finance i s responsible f o r p a y r o l l ,
accounting, contracting, purchasing, and inventory control. The
d i v i s i o n ' s F a c i l i t i e s Management Bureau assists the State's
Department of Administration in the prison construction program and
i s responsible for much of DOC'S ongoing maintenance a c t i v i t y . I t s
Management Information Services Bureau manages DOC'S data processing
and systems development functions. The Communications Bureau i s
responsible for managing the State prison system's radio and
telephone communications network. The d i v i s i o n ' s Bureau of
Management and Budget i s responsible for budget development and
control .
Human Resources/ Deveioment Division manages and coordinates programs
that impact a l l DOC personnel. The division i s composed of three
bureaus, Personnel, Staff Development and Training, and Health
Services, and manages the procedures for h i r i n g , training, and
promoting departmental s t a f f . The d i v i s i o n also provides and
coordinates health services for a l l inmates in DOC'S custody.
Inspections and I n v e s t i ~ a t i o n s Divisions performs a variety of
functions related t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l operations and security. The
Investigations Bureau conducts background investigations of
applicants for employment, employees, volunteers, and investigative
sources; criminal investigations; polygraph investigations;
investigations of employee misconduct; hears appeals of inmate
grievances and d i s c i p l i n e ; c o l l e c t s and analyzes intelligence; and
conducts internal audits. The Inspections Bureau performs agency
inspections to provide an independent appraisal of mission
performance, efficiency, and economy.
Staffinq And Budaet
DOC has 5,829 Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) positions, most of which provide
prison security and are located within the Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s Division.
These positions include more than 3,300 FTE Correctional Service
Officers. Approximately 294 FTE positions are located in the central
o f f i c e in Phoenix.
WCts operations are funded primarily by General Fund appropriations.
During fiscal year 1990- 91, the Department expended more than $ 240
million from the General Fund ( see table below). These General Fund
expenditures included $ 4.2 million for capital outlay. In addition, WC
rece i ved and expended $ 10.3 mi l l ion i n Spec i a l Funds.
TABLE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STATEMENTS OF FTES AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1989- 90, AND 1990- 91
( unaudited)
FTE Positions 6,094.2 5,612.2 5,829.2
General Fund:
Personal Services
Employee Related
Professional/
Outside Services
Travel, in- state
out- of- state
Food
Capital Out lay
Other operating
Total General Fund
Soecial Funds:
Criminal Justice
Enhancement Fund $ 1,951,893 $ 2,684,829 $ 2,606,631
Corrections Fund 0 5,253,819 - 0-
Corrections Grants Fund 1,966,143 1,523,418 270,976
Enterprises Fund 5,247,488 6,081,185 6,371,395
Other Funds 1 - 397.474 1 ,225,746 1,088.365
Total Special Funds $ 10,562,998 $ 16,768,997 $ 10,337,367
Total Expenditures $ 250,848.583 $ 268.105.098 $ 250,839,860
Sources: Arizona Financial Information Systems and the State of Arizona,
Appropriations Report for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1989,
June 30, 1990, and June 30, 1991.
Scope Of Current Audits
The current series of audits was conducted as a Sunset Review of the
Department of Corrections under the direction of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Cornittee. The following four audits were conducted as part o f
t h i s review.
The Bed S~ ace Impacts ( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12) audi t
addresses those factors within the Department's control that impact
prison population and the resulting bed space needs, an issue that
was s p e c i f i c a l l y raised by the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee. Although we found that DOC can take steps to reduce
prison overcrowding and free up bed space, these steps w i l l not be
s u f f i c i e n t t o eliminate overcrowding.
The Institutional Securitv And Staffing ( Performance Aud i t Report No.
91- 4) audit i s a follow- up review that assesses WC's actions in
response to previous performance audits of Adult lnst i tut ions
Security ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 12) and Security Staffing
Issues ( Performance Audit Report No. 86- 1). In the i n s t i t u t i o n a l
security audit, we i d e n t i f i e d deficiencies in perimeter and internal
security and problems in controlling contraband in adult prisons. In
the s t a f f i n g audit, we i d e n t i f i e d deficiencies in the Department's
a b i l i t y to accurately determine security s t a f f i n g needs. This audit
also reviewed problems encountered by DOC in h i r i n g Correctional
Service Officers and the lack of s u f f i c i e n t training for those
o f f i c e r s .
In our follow- up work we found that DOC has made s i g n i f i c a n t
improvements in i n s t i t u t i o n a l security and in i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and
personnel systems. However, we also noted that DOC should continue
i t s e f f o r t s to improve in- house training for Correctional Service
Officers and should periodically review i t s formula for determining
the number of security s t a f f needed a t i n s t i t u t i o n s .
The Arizona Correctional Industries ( Performance Aud i t Report No.
91- 13) audit reviews the Department's industrial program to provide
employment for inmates. We found that the program has improved upon
the performance of i t s predecessor, ARCOR. However, the program is
s t i l l not operating in a self- supporting manner because of poor
business practices and employs a r e l a t i v e l y small number of inmates.
The Facilities Construction And Maintenance ( Performance Audit Report
No. 91- 12) audit i s a follow up to previous audits of the Faci l i ties
and Construction Division ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 2) and
F a c i l i t i e s Maintenance ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 13). In the
construction audit we found that DOC'S planning for inmate housing
had been i n s u f f i c i e n t and that the Department lacked an adequate
budget development process for new prisons. The maintenance audit
i d e n t i f i e d needed maintenance of approximately $ 9 m i l l i o n , and
uncovered problems in WC's procedures for evaluating f a c i l i t y
maintenance needs and reporting maintenance expenditures.
In our current audit, we found that prison construction in Arizona is
generally timely, within budget and less costly than prison
construct ion in other states. We also ident i f ied several aspects of
Department of Administration construction management that could be
strengthened. Although many of the maintenance problems identified
in our 1985 audit have been corrected, Arizona prisons continue to
deteriorate. Additional funding for capital renewal projects w i l l be
needed to reverse this deterioration. In addition, the Department
needs to more carefully review requests for maintenance funding and
promote more cost- effective solutions to maintenance problems.
This report addresses the twelve statutory Sunset Factors. In addressing
these factors, information from the current series of audits is
summarized and presented in the various Sunset Factors, as appropriate,
along with specific information provided by the Department.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and
staff of the Department of Corrections for their cooperation and
assistance during the audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. $ 41- 2354, the Legislature should consider the
following twelve factors in determining whether the Department of
Corrections should be continued or terminated.
1. Obiective and purpose in establishinq the department
The Department of Corrections ( DOC) was established in 1968. Prior
to 1968, Arizona's prisons operated independently. A. R. S.
$ 41- 1602. B states that DOC If.. . shal I have as i t s purpose the
objective of encompassing the various i n s t i t u t i o n s , f a c i l i t i e s and
programs which are now or may become a part of the correctional
program of the state, and to provide the supervisory s t a f f and
administrative functions at the state level of a l l matters relating
to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and parole functions of
all adult offenders."
WC's mission statement declares that i t s purpose i s to serve and
protect the people of the State by imprisoning offenders legal ly
committed to the Department. WC's objectives in carrying out i t s
mission include the following:
maintaining effective custody and control over offenders;
maintaining a healthy, safe, and secure environment for s t a f f
and offenders; and
providing q u a l i t y programs for offenders so they w i l l have
opportunities to learn more responsible behavior and increase
their chances of returning to society as law- abiding citizens.
2. The effectiveness with which the deljartment has met its obiective and
purpose and the efficiencv with which the de~ artment has operated
The Department defines i t s success in meeting i t s objectives in terms
of ( 1) accepting a l l offenders committed to the prison system by the
superior court of each county, ( 2) requiring offenders to serve their
legal sentence, ( 3) providing a safe and humane envi ronment during
the time a sentence i s being served, ( 4) minimizing. escapes from
secure custody, ( 5 ) ensuring public safety through parole
supervision, and ( 6) effectively reducing the per capita cost of
maintaining each offender.
Our audit work indicates that the Department has been effective in
providing secure confinement for the offenders in i t s custody. Our
review of i n s t i t u t i o n a l security and staffing ( Performance Audit
Report No. 91- 4) identified significant improvements in perimeter and
internal security, as well as policies and procedures to control
c r i t i c a l areas such as v i s i t a t i o n , medication, and inmate personal
property. We found that the number of escapes has been reduced from
38 in 1986 to 12 in 1990. DOC has also significantly improved
recruitment of Correctional Service Officers and reduced staff
turnover.
We also identified a number of areas in which the Department could
improve i t s effectiveness and efficiency. These areas include more
clearly defining security staffing needs ( Performance Audit Report
No. 91- 4), more accurately calculating inmate release dates
( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12), and developing meaningful and
r e a l i s t i c estimates of maintenance needs ( Performance Audit Report
NO. 91- 12).
In assessing i t s effectiveness, the Department notes that i t has
successfuIly accepted inmates from the various counties despite a
chronic shortage of prison beds. DOC reports that i t s prisons are
relatively safe for both inmates and s t a f f , and inmates are provided
a comparable community standard of care in the areas of medical,
mental health, and dental services.
DOC also characterizes i t s operations as e f f i c i e n t because i t has
reduced costs per inmate during a period of rapid expansion. The
Arizona Joint Comnittee on State Revenues and Expenditures ( Fiscal
2000) noted that the cost per inmate ( i n constant 1980 dollars)
dropped from $ 17,788 in fiscal year 1980- 81 to $ 14,418 in fiscal year
1987- 88. During fiscal year 1989- 90 the actual cost per inmate was
$ 16,143. DOC reports i t has added over 10,000 beds to the prison
system since 1980. The most recent average construction cost per bed
by security level i s $ 41,000 for the maximum level, $ 36,000 for the
medium level, and $ 20,000 for minimum level, costs well below the
national average for prison construction.
3. The extent to which the de~ artment has 0Derated within the public
interest
Generally, the Department operates within the public interest by
confining offenders as directed by the courts. Confinement
contributes to public safety by removing those convicted of crimes
from society and preventing them from further v i c t i m i z i n g c i t i z e n s .
The current operating practices of the Department's prison industry
program, Arizona Correctional Industries ( ACI), may not be in the
public i n t e r e s t . Although ACI has reduced the size of the losses
experienced by i t s predecessor, ARCOR, poor business practices have
hampered i t s a b i l i t y to become self- supporting as required by
statute. From July 1, 1988, to March 31, 1991, only three of i t s
twenty industries realized a gross p r o f i t . ACl's loss before i t s
State appropriation during the f i r s t nine months of f i s c a l year
1990- 91 was $ 857,040. However, du r i ng the course of the aud i t AC I
reduced i t s s t a f f by 18 positions and developed a plan to become
s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t by the end of t h i s current fiscal year. Success of
t h i s plan i s c r i t i c a l because without s i g n i f i c a n t improvements, ACl's
continued v i a b i l i t y i s questionable ( Performance Audit Report No.
91- 13).
4. The extent to which the rules and regulations promulqated bv the
department are consistent with the leqislative mandate
The Department's rules and regulations appear to be consistent with
i t s l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. A. R. S. 541- 1604 establ ishes a broad range
of duties and powers of the Director of DOC. The Department's
current rules and regulations provide specific procedures for
operating correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s as defined by law. These rules
and regulations address areas that affect the public rather than
inmates. The Administrative Procedures Act s p e c i f i c a l l y exempts
"... rules concerning only inmates of a correctional or detention
f a c i l i t y in secure custody ... i f adopted by the State Department of
Correct ions."
5. The extent to which the de~ artment has encouraaed input from the
public before promul~ atina its rules and rqulations and the extent to
which it has informed the public as to its actions and their e x m t e d
impact on the public
The Department i s required to comply with the Administrative
Procedures Act only f o r rules that d i r e c t l y impact the public. The
rules and regulations promulgated by the Department since April 1988,
that affect the public have generally been promulgated in compliance
with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Documentation provided by the Department indicates that notice was
f i l e d with the Secretary of State, and public notices were properly
posted. Rules promulgated during t h i s period addressed public
attendance hearings of the Board of Pardons and Paroles held within
prisons, the medical and physical requirements for Correctional
Service Officers, the use of telephones by inmates, and v i s i t a t i o n .
In addition, the Department repealed rules governing inmate
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , inmate d i s c i p l i n e , furlough and other types of
releases and parole el i g i b i l i t y .
6. The extent to which the de~ artment has been able to investi~ ate and
resolve complaints that are within its iurisdiction
The Department receives complaints from inmates, i t s employees, and
from the public. Complaints from inmates are f i l e d as appeals to
d i s c i p l i n e imposed ( 1,706 in 1990) and formal inmate grievances
( 15,546 in 1990). According to the Department, appeals of inmate
. disciplinary actions are investigated and addressed within a period
of 10 days while the period for investigating and addressing the
appeals of inmate grievances varies from 10 to 90 days, depending on
the level of appeal.
Our audit work indicates that the Department's inmate disciplinary
system i s adequately designed to meet due process requirements, and
there are indications the system meets those requirements.
Additionally, we found that disciplinary actions are we1 l documented.
( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12)
Complaints from DOC employees and the public include formal employee
grievances and complaints. I f documented, these complaints are
investigated by the Inspections and Investigations Division as
" internal a f f a i r s investigations" or " special investigations".
During 1990, the Department handled 350 employee grievances and
conducted 369 internal a f f a i r s investigations.
7. The extent to which the Attornev General or anv other applicable
aclencv of State cjovernment has the authority to prosecute actions
under enablinq leuislation
A. R. S. 541- 192 directs the Attorney General to provide legal services
to the Department. According to DOC, the majority of the legal
services involve representing Department employees who are sued by
inmates. Inmates who commit crimes while incarcerated or while
escaping are prosecuted by the county attorney of the county in which
the crime was comnitted.
8. The extent to which the department has addressed deficiencies in the
enablinq statutes which prevent it f rorn fulf illins its statutory mandate
According to DOC, in recent years the Department has sought
legislation on a regular basis. The requested legislation has
addressed the establishment and operation of f a c i l i t i e s ,
institutions, and programs; the provision of agency staff and
administrative functions; and matters relating to the
institutionalization, rehabilitation, and parole of offenders. The
Department reports that i t initiated the introduction of 55
individual pieces of legislation between January 1987 and June 1990,
38 of which were enacted.
Key legislation supported or requested by the Department during the
1991 Regular Session of the Legislature include the following:
HB 2142 - Shock Incarceration - a1 lows the Department to place
inmates in the Shock Incarceration Program. Previously only the
courts had the authority to sentence offenders to serve time in this
program. This b i l l also assigns the responsibility for supervising
inmates in the comnunity to the Department's Adult Parole Services
Uni t .
SB 1317 - Home Arrest Extension - this Iegislat ion changed the
r a t i o established by A. R. S. $ 31- 326. F from 1 supervising corrections
o f f i c e r for every 15 inmates, to 1 o f f i c e r for every 25 inmates in
the Home Arrest Program. The change al lows the program to
accomdate a greater number of inmates without additional s t a f f .
SB 1098 - Arizona Correctional Industries: Promrty DisgmsaI - this
b i l l allows Arizona Correctional Industries to place a l l monies
earned from property disposal in i t s Revolving Fund.
SB 1323 - Prisoners: Hard Labor - t h i s bi l l gives the Di rector of the
Department the authority to administer work programs. When
s u f f i c i e n t work i s not available f o r inmates, the Department would
then not be subject to l i a b i l i t y from those inmates not assigned to
work.
HI3 2299 ( HB 2412- Omnibus Victim Riahts) Victim Notification -
establishes requirements for notifying crime victims. Upon request
and using forms developed by the Attorney General, the Department is
required to provide victims with ( 1) the e a r l i e s t release date for
prisoners serving sentences exceeding six months, ( 2) 15- days notice
p r i o r to release, and ( 3) notice of a prisoner's death. In addition,
victims have the right to be present and heard at any proceeding that
involves the possible release of an inmate.
HB 2433 - Establishment of De~ artment Motor Pool - excludes DOC
from the Department of Administration Motor Pool and authorizes DOC
to operate i t s own motor pool.
SB 1237 - Mentally Disordered Prisoner - revises A. R. S. $ 31- 226 to
allow f o r voluntary transfers of male and female prisoners deemed
mentally disordered to the appropriate treatment f a c i l i t i e s within
the Department.
9. The extent to which chanqes are necessary in the laws of the
department to complv with the factors listed in the subsection
In our Bed Space Impacts audit we recormend that the Legislature
cons i der mod i fy i ng exist i ng release programs in several ways. These
modifications would provide the Department with greater f l e x i b i l i t y
in making release decisions and would require the Department to
establish c r i t e r i a for making these decisions. In addition, we
recomnend that the Legislature consider allowing the Department to
expand the categories of parole- eligible inmates. ( See Performance
Audit Report No. 90- 12, pages 23 through 33 and 35 through 44.)
In our audit of the Arizona Correctional Industries we recornend that
the Legislature monitor ACl's progress toward becoming
self- sufficient as required by law. I f ACI is unable to meet this
goal during this current fiscal year, one option the Legislature
should consider is restructuring ACI as a private non- profit
corporation. ( See Performance Audit Report No. 91- 13, pages 15
through 21.)
The Department has also identified a series of changes to control the
growth of the prison population. Some of these changes w i l l require
legislation; however, the Department believes these changes w i l l
enable i t to f u l f i l l i t s mission in more than a minimal manner. DOC
would l i k e sentencing discretion to be returned to judges. To ensure
systematic sentencing, the Department suggests that a sentencing
guideline commission be created to make recommendations to the
Legislature on changes to the sentencing structure. The Department
also suggests that sentences should consist of time served plus time
earned for good conduct, and a l l other forms of release and release
supervision would be eliminated. Finally, DOC recommends that
alternatives to incarceration should be placed under the direction of
the courts and probation authorities rather than the Department.
10. The extent to which the termination of the aqencv would sisnificantlv
harm the ~ u b l i c health, safetv or welfare
Terminating the Department of Corrections would significantly harm
public safety and welfare. The Department serves a v i t a l purpose by
providing secure confinement for those sentenced by the courts to
serve time in prison. The importance of the corrections function at
the State level i s recognized throughout the United States; a l l
states operate correctional f a c i l i t i e s for adult inmates. In the
absence of a State correctional system in Arizona, local governments
would be required to expand correctional f a c i l i t i e s to house
prisoners currently incarcerated in State institutions. Since
Arizona has t r a d i t i o n a l l y provided confinement for felony offenders
at the State level, s h i f t i n g responsibility to local governments for
this function would be costly.
1. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised bv the
h a r t r n e n t is amrooriate and whether less or more strinaent levels of
reaulation would be appropriate
The Department of Corrections i s not a regulatory agency; therefore
t h i s factor does not apply.
12. The extent to which the department has used private contractors in
the nerformance of its duties and how effective use of ~ r i v a t e
contractors could be accomelished
The Department has used private contractors to provide healthcare
services, treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs, and food services
for inmates.
The Department reports 60 healthcare service contracts with private
sector providers. These services include medical specialty services,
in- patient and out- patient hospital care, laboratory services,
optometric care, and emergency ground transportation.
Treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs contracted from private sources
serve inmates and released offenders. The Department reports 59 such
program contracts that include religious services, vocational and
academic education, psychological counseling, substance- abuse
programs, sex offender therapy, and temporary residential services.
The Department has four food service management contracts valued at
approximately $ 8.6 m i l l i o n per year. The Department has been
contracting for food services since 1983 and uses food service
contracts in the prison complexes at Douglas, P e r r y v i l l e , Tucson, and
Winslow.
I) _-_ _-> '
FIFE SYMINGTON
GOVERNOR
1601 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
( 602) 542- 5536
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
DIRECTOR
September 27, 1991
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
I have reviewed the draft of the Arizona Department of Corrections ( ADC) Sunset Factors
Audit. I find its content to be reflective of the status and progress this agency has made
with one major exception. That exception involves the Sunset Audit of the Arizona
Correctional Industries ( ACI).
I am genuinely disappointed in the sunset audit on ACI. I voice this disappointment
because you failed to provide an objective point of reference for a valid comparison --
meaning the function should have been singularly compared to the private sector, other
comparable states, or itself during prior periods of operation. Unfortunately, the audit
inconsistently vacillated among all three of these areas without any standard or objective
criteria or audit standards.
As I indicated to your staff, I had hoped the audit would be useful. However, it fails to
recognize the condition of ACI's predecessor, ARCOR, and to note the progress that has
been made since 1985 in terms of financial management, profit and loss, revolving fund, and
finally, auditability. I positively believe that information would have been useful to the
legislature and general public.
Regardless of my opinion of this particular audit and any other audits you have conducted
during my tenure, I believe we are a better managed department today due to those audits.
Though sometimes the audits were painful, they have forced us to take positive and
corrective steps to improve our management and operations which have benefited the
Department, the State of Arizona, and, ultimately the taxpayers. For this, I thank you.

Description

Rating
TITLE	Performance audit, Department of Corrections, sunset factors
CREATOR	Arizona. Office of the Auditor General.
SUBJECT	Arizona--Dept. of Corrections--Auditing; Sunset reviews of government programs--Arizona;
Browse Topic	Government and politics
DESCRIPTION	16 pages (PDF version). File size: 614.3 KB. A report to the Arizona State Legislature September 1991, Report No. 91-14.
Language	English
Publisher	Arizona. Office of the Auditor General.
TYPE	Text
Material Collection	State Documents House Received Reports
Acquisition Note	Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT	Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.
DATE ORIGINAL	1991-09-30
Time Period	1990s (1990-1999)
ORIGINAL FORMAT	Paper
Source Identifier	LG 6.2:R 36/91-14
Location	24507534
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER	91-14.pdf
DIGITAL FORMAT	PDF (Portable Document Format)
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS	Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library.
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.
File Size	614.3 KB
Full Text	DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL September 30, 1991 Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor Mr. Samuel A. Lewis, Director Department of Corrections Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Department of Corrections, Sunset Factors. This report i s in response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This report i s the last in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Corrections and addresses the twelve Sunset factors which Arizona Revised Statutes $ 41- 2354 directs the Legislature to consider in determining whether the Department of Corrections should be continued or terminated. This report summarizes and presents information from the four recently completed audits of the Department along with s p e c i f i c information provided by the Department. My s t a f f 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 l l be released to the public on October 1, 1991. DRN : l mn Sincerely, A 2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE . SUITE 700 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 4 3 8 5 . FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 2 5 5 - 1 2 5 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Office of the Auditor General has prepared agencywide Sunset Factors for the Department of Corrections ( DOC) in response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. These Sunset Factors were prepared as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2351 through 41- 2379. Arizona's f i r s t prison, the Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l prison, was established in 1875 and accepted i t s f i r s t inmates the following year. I t was replaced by the Arizona State Prison at Florence, which was bui I t by inmate labor between 1907 and 1909. The Department of Corrections was o f f i c i a l l y established by the Legislature on June 20, 1968. Oraanization DOC has six divisions and operates six prison complexes(') and three prisons. Three divisions -- Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s , Community Corrections, and Arizona Correctional Industries -- are responsible for prison operations and related programs. Three other divisions -- Administration, Human Resources/ Development, and Inspections and Investigations -- provide agencywide administration and support a c t i v i t i e s . A b r i e f description of the operations of each division fol lows. Adult Institutions Division operates six pr i son comp l exes located in Douglas, Florence, P e r r y v i l l e , Phoenix, Tucson, and Winslow, and three low- level security prisons at Fort Grant, Safford, and Yuma. As of July 22, 1991, Arizona's adult i n s t i t u t i o n s housed 14,906 inmates and had 14,478 beds. The d i v i s i o n also operates an Offenders Service Bureau and units providing educational and pastoral services, and family assistance. Communitv Corrections Division operates two correct i ona I re I ease centers, the Adult Parole Services u n i t , the Home Arrest Program, and ( 1) A prison complex i s an i n s t i t u t i o n consisting of several prisons housing d i f f e r e n t types of offenders. For example, the prison complex at Florence encompasses seven prisons ranging from minimum custody t o maximum security f a c i l i t i e s . the Fugitive u n i t . Parole o f f i c e r s supervise released inmates for the period specified by their releases. In addition, t h i s division i s responsible for implementing the Home Arrest Program, a r e s t r i c t i v e program that uses an electronic monitoring system to confine inmates to their residences except for authorized a c t i v i t i e s , such as employment or mandated treatment programs. Arizona Correctional Industries Division ( ACI) manages industrial and agribusiness enterprises that employ inmates. The d i v i s i o n uses inmate labor for a variety of enterprises, including coupon processing, data entry, farming, furniture refurbishing, graphic a r t s , manufacturing, metal fabricating, and sewing. Through both contract labor and j o i n t ventures, ACI also provides employment opportunities for inmates with private sector companies. Unlike other DOC divisions, ACI i s mandated to operate without l e g i s l a t i v e appropriations as of July 1, 1991. Administration Division provides agencywide support. The d i v i s i o n ' s Bureau of Business and Finance i s responsible f o r p a y r o l l , accounting, contracting, purchasing, and inventory control. The d i v i s i o n ' s F a c i l i t i e s Management Bureau assists the State's Department of Administration in the prison construction program and i s responsible for much of DOC'S ongoing maintenance a c t i v i t y . I t s Management Information Services Bureau manages DOC'S data processing and systems development functions. The Communications Bureau i s responsible for managing the State prison system's radio and telephone communications network. The d i v i s i o n ' s Bureau of Management and Budget i s responsible for budget development and control . Human Resources/ Deveioment Division manages and coordinates programs that impact a l l DOC personnel. The division i s composed of three bureaus, Personnel, Staff Development and Training, and Health Services, and manages the procedures for h i r i n g , training, and promoting departmental s t a f f . The d i v i s i o n also provides and coordinates health services for a l l inmates in DOC'S custody. Inspections and I n v e s t i ~ a t i o n s Divisions performs a variety of functions related t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l operations and security. The Investigations Bureau conducts background investigations of applicants for employment, employees, volunteers, and investigative sources; criminal investigations; polygraph investigations; investigations of employee misconduct; hears appeals of inmate grievances and d i s c i p l i n e ; c o l l e c t s and analyzes intelligence; and conducts internal audits. The Inspections Bureau performs agency inspections to provide an independent appraisal of mission performance, efficiency, and economy. Staffinq And Budaet DOC has 5,829 Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) positions, most of which provide prison security and are located within the Adult I n s t i t u t i o n s Division. These positions include more than 3,300 FTE Correctional Service Officers. Approximately 294 FTE positions are located in the central o f f i c e in Phoenix. WCts operations are funded primarily by General Fund appropriations. During fiscal year 1990- 91, the Department expended more than $ 240 million from the General Fund ( see table below). These General Fund expenditures included $ 4.2 million for capital outlay. In addition, WC rece i ved and expended $ 10.3 mi l l ion i n Spec i a l Funds. TABLE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATEMENTS OF FTES AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1989- 90, AND 1990- 91 ( unaudited) FTE Positions 6,094.2 5,612.2 5,829.2 General Fund: Personal Services Employee Related Professional/ Outside Services Travel, in- state out- of- state Food Capital Out lay Other operating Total General Fund Soecial Funds: Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund $ 1,951,893 $ 2,684,829 $ 2,606,631 Corrections Fund 0 5,253,819 - 0- Corrections Grants Fund 1,966,143 1,523,418 270,976 Enterprises Fund 5,247,488 6,081,185 6,371,395 Other Funds 1 - 397.474 1 ,225,746 1,088.365 Total Special Funds $ 10,562,998 $ 16,768,997 $ 10,337,367 Total Expenditures $ 250,848.583 $ 268.105.098 $ 250,839,860 Sources: Arizona Financial Information Systems and the State of Arizona, Appropriations Report for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1989, June 30, 1990, and June 30, 1991. Scope Of Current Audits The current series of audits was conducted as a Sunset Review of the Department of Corrections under the direction of the Joint Legislative Oversight Cornittee. The following four audits were conducted as part o f t h i s review. The Bed S~ ace Impacts ( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12) audi t addresses those factors within the Department's control that impact prison population and the resulting bed space needs, an issue that was s p e c i f i c a l l y raised by the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. Although we found that DOC can take steps to reduce prison overcrowding and free up bed space, these steps w i l l not be s u f f i c i e n t t o eliminate overcrowding. The Institutional Securitv And Staffing ( Performance Aud i t Report No. 91- 4) audit i s a follow- up review that assesses WC's actions in response to previous performance audits of Adult lnst i tut ions Security ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 12) and Security Staffing Issues ( Performance Audit Report No. 86- 1). In the i n s t i t u t i o n a l security audit, we i d e n t i f i e d deficiencies in perimeter and internal security and problems in controlling contraband in adult prisons. In the s t a f f i n g audit, we i d e n t i f i e d deficiencies in the Department's a b i l i t y to accurately determine security s t a f f i n g needs. This audit also reviewed problems encountered by DOC in h i r i n g Correctional Service Officers and the lack of s u f f i c i e n t training for those o f f i c e r s . In our follow- up work we found that DOC has made s i g n i f i c a n t improvements in i n s t i t u t i o n a l security and in i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and personnel systems. However, we also noted that DOC should continue i t s e f f o r t s to improve in- house training for Correctional Service Officers and should periodically review i t s formula for determining the number of security s t a f f needed a t i n s t i t u t i o n s . The Arizona Correctional Industries ( Performance Aud i t Report No. 91- 13) audit reviews the Department's industrial program to provide employment for inmates. We found that the program has improved upon the performance of i t s predecessor, ARCOR. However, the program is s t i l l not operating in a self- supporting manner because of poor business practices and employs a r e l a t i v e l y small number of inmates. The Facilities Construction And Maintenance ( Performance Audit Report No. 91- 12) audit i s a follow up to previous audits of the Faci l i ties and Construction Division ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 2) and F a c i l i t i e s Maintenance ( Performance Audit Report No. 85- 13). In the construction audit we found that DOC'S planning for inmate housing had been i n s u f f i c i e n t and that the Department lacked an adequate budget development process for new prisons. The maintenance audit i d e n t i f i e d needed maintenance of approximately $ 9 m i l l i o n , and uncovered problems in WC's procedures for evaluating f a c i l i t y maintenance needs and reporting maintenance expenditures. In our current audit, we found that prison construction in Arizona is generally timely, within budget and less costly than prison construct ion in other states. We also ident i f ied several aspects of Department of Administration construction management that could be strengthened. Although many of the maintenance problems identified in our 1985 audit have been corrected, Arizona prisons continue to deteriorate. Additional funding for capital renewal projects w i l l be needed to reverse this deterioration. In addition, the Department needs to more carefully review requests for maintenance funding and promote more cost- effective solutions to maintenance problems. This report addresses the twelve statutory Sunset Factors. In addressing these factors, information from the current series of audits is summarized and presented in the various Sunset Factors, as appropriate, along with specific information provided by the Department. This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards. The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and staff of the Department of Corrections for their cooperation and assistance during the audit. SUNSET FACTORS In accordance with A. R. S. $ 41- 2354, the Legislature should consider the following twelve factors in determining whether the Department of Corrections should be continued or terminated. 1. Obiective and purpose in establishinq the department The Department of Corrections ( DOC) was established in 1968. Prior to 1968, Arizona's prisons operated independently. A. R. S. $ 41- 1602. B states that DOC If.. . shal I have as i t s purpose the objective of encompassing the various i n s t i t u t i o n s , f a c i l i t i e s and programs which are now or may become a part of the correctional program of the state, and to provide the supervisory s t a f f and administrative functions at the state level of a l l matters relating to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and parole functions of all adult offenders." WC's mission statement declares that i t s purpose i s to serve and protect the people of the State by imprisoning offenders legal ly committed to the Department. WC's objectives in carrying out i t s mission include the following: maintaining effective custody and control over offenders; maintaining a healthy, safe, and secure environment for s t a f f and offenders; and providing q u a l i t y programs for offenders so they w i l l have opportunities to learn more responsible behavior and increase their chances of returning to society as law- abiding citizens. 2. The effectiveness with which the deljartment has met its obiective and purpose and the efficiencv with which the de~ artment has operated The Department defines i t s success in meeting i t s objectives in terms of ( 1) accepting a l l offenders committed to the prison system by the superior court of each county, ( 2) requiring offenders to serve their legal sentence, ( 3) providing a safe and humane envi ronment during the time a sentence i s being served, ( 4) minimizing. escapes from secure custody, ( 5 ) ensuring public safety through parole supervision, and ( 6) effectively reducing the per capita cost of maintaining each offender. Our audit work indicates that the Department has been effective in providing secure confinement for the offenders in i t s custody. Our review of i n s t i t u t i o n a l security and staffing ( Performance Audit Report No. 91- 4) identified significant improvements in perimeter and internal security, as well as policies and procedures to control c r i t i c a l areas such as v i s i t a t i o n , medication, and inmate personal property. We found that the number of escapes has been reduced from 38 in 1986 to 12 in 1990. DOC has also significantly improved recruitment of Correctional Service Officers and reduced staff turnover. We also identified a number of areas in which the Department could improve i t s effectiveness and efficiency. These areas include more clearly defining security staffing needs ( Performance Audit Report No. 91- 4), more accurately calculating inmate release dates ( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12), and developing meaningful and r e a l i s t i c estimates of maintenance needs ( Performance Audit Report NO. 91- 12). In assessing i t s effectiveness, the Department notes that i t has successfuIly accepted inmates from the various counties despite a chronic shortage of prison beds. DOC reports that i t s prisons are relatively safe for both inmates and s t a f f , and inmates are provided a comparable community standard of care in the areas of medical, mental health, and dental services. DOC also characterizes i t s operations as e f f i c i e n t because i t has reduced costs per inmate during a period of rapid expansion. The Arizona Joint Comnittee on State Revenues and Expenditures ( Fiscal 2000) noted that the cost per inmate ( i n constant 1980 dollars) dropped from $ 17,788 in fiscal year 1980- 81 to $ 14,418 in fiscal year 1987- 88. During fiscal year 1989- 90 the actual cost per inmate was $ 16,143. DOC reports i t has added over 10,000 beds to the prison system since 1980. The most recent average construction cost per bed by security level i s $ 41,000 for the maximum level, $ 36,000 for the medium level, and $ 20,000 for minimum level, costs well below the national average for prison construction. 3. The extent to which the de~ artment has 0Derated within the public interest Generally, the Department operates within the public interest by confining offenders as directed by the courts. Confinement contributes to public safety by removing those convicted of crimes from society and preventing them from further v i c t i m i z i n g c i t i z e n s . The current operating practices of the Department's prison industry program, Arizona Correctional Industries ( ACI), may not be in the public i n t e r e s t . Although ACI has reduced the size of the losses experienced by i t s predecessor, ARCOR, poor business practices have hampered i t s a b i l i t y to become self- supporting as required by statute. From July 1, 1988, to March 31, 1991, only three of i t s twenty industries realized a gross p r o f i t . ACl's loss before i t s State appropriation during the f i r s t nine months of f i s c a l year 1990- 91 was $ 857,040. However, du r i ng the course of the aud i t AC I reduced i t s s t a f f by 18 positions and developed a plan to become s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t by the end of t h i s current fiscal year. Success of t h i s plan i s c r i t i c a l because without s i g n i f i c a n t improvements, ACl's continued v i a b i l i t y i s questionable ( Performance Audit Report No. 91- 13). 4. The extent to which the rules and regulations promulqated bv the department are consistent with the leqislative mandate The Department's rules and regulations appear to be consistent with i t s l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. A. R. S. 541- 1604 establ ishes a broad range of duties and powers of the Director of DOC. The Department's current rules and regulations provide specific procedures for operating correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s as defined by law. These rules and regulations address areas that affect the public rather than inmates. The Administrative Procedures Act s p e c i f i c a l l y exempts "... rules concerning only inmates of a correctional or detention f a c i l i t y in secure custody ... i f adopted by the State Department of Correct ions." 5. The extent to which the de~ artment has encouraaed input from the public before promul~ atina its rules and rqulations and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its actions and their e x m t e d impact on the public The Department i s required to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act only f o r rules that d i r e c t l y impact the public. The rules and regulations promulgated by the Department since April 1988, that affect the public have generally been promulgated in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Documentation provided by the Department indicates that notice was f i l e d with the Secretary of State, and public notices were properly posted. Rules promulgated during t h i s period addressed public attendance hearings of the Board of Pardons and Paroles held within prisons, the medical and physical requirements for Correctional Service Officers, the use of telephones by inmates, and v i s i t a t i o n . In addition, the Department repealed rules governing inmate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , inmate d i s c i p l i n e , furlough and other types of releases and parole el i g i b i l i t y . 6. The extent to which the de~ artment has been able to investi~ ate and resolve complaints that are within its iurisdiction The Department receives complaints from inmates, i t s employees, and from the public. Complaints from inmates are f i l e d as appeals to d i s c i p l i n e imposed ( 1,706 in 1990) and formal inmate grievances ( 15,546 in 1990). According to the Department, appeals of inmate . disciplinary actions are investigated and addressed within a period of 10 days while the period for investigating and addressing the appeals of inmate grievances varies from 10 to 90 days, depending on the level of appeal. Our audit work indicates that the Department's inmate disciplinary system i s adequately designed to meet due process requirements, and there are indications the system meets those requirements. Additionally, we found that disciplinary actions are we1 l documented. ( Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12) Complaints from DOC employees and the public include formal employee grievances and complaints. I f documented, these complaints are investigated by the Inspections and Investigations Division as " internal a f f a i r s investigations" or " special investigations". During 1990, the Department handled 350 employee grievances and conducted 369 internal a f f a i r s investigations. 7. The extent to which the Attornev General or anv other applicable aclencv of State cjovernment has the authority to prosecute actions under enablinq leuislation A. R. S. 541- 192 directs the Attorney General to provide legal services to the Department. According to DOC, the majority of the legal services involve representing Department employees who are sued by inmates. Inmates who commit crimes while incarcerated or while escaping are prosecuted by the county attorney of the county in which the crime was comnitted. 8. The extent to which the department has addressed deficiencies in the enablinq statutes which prevent it f rorn fulf illins its statutory mandate According to DOC, in recent years the Department has sought legislation on a regular basis. The requested legislation has addressed the establishment and operation of f a c i l i t i e s , institutions, and programs; the provision of agency staff and administrative functions; and matters relating to the institutionalization, rehabilitation, and parole of offenders. The Department reports that i t initiated the introduction of 55 individual pieces of legislation between January 1987 and June 1990, 38 of which were enacted. Key legislation supported or requested by the Department during the 1991 Regular Session of the Legislature include the following: HB 2142 - Shock Incarceration - a1 lows the Department to place inmates in the Shock Incarceration Program. Previously only the courts had the authority to sentence offenders to serve time in this program. This b i l l also assigns the responsibility for supervising inmates in the comnunity to the Department's Adult Parole Services Uni t . SB 1317 - Home Arrest Extension - this Iegislat ion changed the r a t i o established by A. R. S. $ 31- 326. F from 1 supervising corrections o f f i c e r for every 15 inmates, to 1 o f f i c e r for every 25 inmates in the Home Arrest Program. The change al lows the program to accomdate a greater number of inmates without additional s t a f f . SB 1098 - Arizona Correctional Industries: Promrty DisgmsaI - this b i l l allows Arizona Correctional Industries to place a l l monies earned from property disposal in i t s Revolving Fund. SB 1323 - Prisoners: Hard Labor - t h i s bi l l gives the Di rector of the Department the authority to administer work programs. When s u f f i c i e n t work i s not available f o r inmates, the Department would then not be subject to l i a b i l i t y from those inmates not assigned to work. HI3 2299 ( HB 2412- Omnibus Victim Riahts) Victim Notification - establishes requirements for notifying crime victims. Upon request and using forms developed by the Attorney General, the Department is required to provide victims with ( 1) the e a r l i e s t release date for prisoners serving sentences exceeding six months, ( 2) 15- days notice p r i o r to release, and ( 3) notice of a prisoner's death. In addition, victims have the right to be present and heard at any proceeding that involves the possible release of an inmate. HB 2433 - Establishment of De~ artment Motor Pool - excludes DOC from the Department of Administration Motor Pool and authorizes DOC to operate i t s own motor pool. SB 1237 - Mentally Disordered Prisoner - revises A. R. S. $ 31- 226 to allow f o r voluntary transfers of male and female prisoners deemed mentally disordered to the appropriate treatment f a c i l i t i e s within the Department. 9. The extent to which chanqes are necessary in the laws of the department to complv with the factors listed in the subsection In our Bed Space Impacts audit we recormend that the Legislature cons i der mod i fy i ng exist i ng release programs in several ways. These modifications would provide the Department with greater f l e x i b i l i t y in making release decisions and would require the Department to establish c r i t e r i a for making these decisions. In addition, we recomnend that the Legislature consider allowing the Department to expand the categories of parole- eligible inmates. ( See Performance Audit Report No. 90- 12, pages 23 through 33 and 35 through 44.) In our audit of the Arizona Correctional Industries we recornend that the Legislature monitor ACl's progress toward becoming self- sufficient as required by law. I f ACI is unable to meet this goal during this current fiscal year, one option the Legislature should consider is restructuring ACI as a private non- profit corporation. ( See Performance Audit Report No. 91- 13, pages 15 through 21.) The Department has also identified a series of changes to control the growth of the prison population. Some of these changes w i l l require legislation; however, the Department believes these changes w i l l enable i t to f u l f i l l i t s mission in more than a minimal manner. DOC would l i k e sentencing discretion to be returned to judges. To ensure systematic sentencing, the Department suggests that a sentencing guideline commission be created to make recommendations to the Legislature on changes to the sentencing structure. The Department also suggests that sentences should consist of time served plus time earned for good conduct, and a l l other forms of release and release supervision would be eliminated. Finally, DOC recommends that alternatives to incarceration should be placed under the direction of the courts and probation authorities rather than the Department. 10. The extent to which the termination of the aqencv would sisnificantlv harm the ~ u b l i c health, safetv or welfare Terminating the Department of Corrections would significantly harm public safety and welfare. The Department serves a v i t a l purpose by providing secure confinement for those sentenced by the courts to serve time in prison. The importance of the corrections function at the State level i s recognized throughout the United States; a l l states operate correctional f a c i l i t i e s for adult inmates. In the absence of a State correctional system in Arizona, local governments would be required to expand correctional f a c i l i t i e s to house prisoners currently incarcerated in State institutions. Since Arizona has t r a d i t i o n a l l y provided confinement for felony offenders at the State level, s h i f t i n g responsibility to local governments for this function would be costly. 1. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised bv the h a r t r n e n t is amrooriate and whether less or more strinaent levels of reaulation would be appropriate The Department of Corrections i s not a regulatory agency; therefore t h i s factor does not apply. 12. The extent to which the department has used private contractors in the nerformance of its duties and how effective use of ~ r i v a t e contractors could be accomelished The Department has used private contractors to provide healthcare services, treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs, and food services for inmates. The Department reports 60 healthcare service contracts with private sector providers. These services include medical specialty services, in- patient and out- patient hospital care, laboratory services, optometric care, and emergency ground transportation. Treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs contracted from private sources serve inmates and released offenders. The Department reports 59 such program contracts that include religious services, vocational and academic education, psychological counseling, substance- abuse programs, sex offender therapy, and temporary residential services. The Department has four food service management contracts valued at approximately $ 8.6 m i l l i o n per year. The Department has been contracting for food services since 1983 and uses food service contracts in the prison complexes at Douglas, P e r r y v i l l e , Tucson, and Winslow. I) _-_ _-> ' FIFE SYMINGTON GOVERNOR 1601 WEST JEFFERSON PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 ( 602) 542- 5536 SAMUEL A. LEWIS DIRECTOR September 27, 1991 Douglas R. Norton Auditor General State of Arizona 2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Dear Mr. Norton: I have reviewed the draft of the Arizona Department of Corrections ( ADC) Sunset Factors Audit. I find its content to be reflective of the status and progress this agency has made with one major exception. That exception involves the Sunset Audit of the Arizona Correctional Industries ( ACI). I am genuinely disappointed in the sunset audit on ACI. I voice this disappointment because you failed to provide an objective point of reference for a valid comparison -- meaning the function should have been singularly compared to the private sector, other comparable states, or itself during prior periods of operation. Unfortunately, the audit inconsistently vacillated among all three of these areas without any standard or objective criteria or audit standards. As I indicated to your staff, I had hoped the audit would be useful. However, it fails to recognize the condition of ACI's predecessor, ARCOR, and to note the progress that has been made since 1985 in terms of financial management, profit and loss, revolving fund, and finally, auditability. I positively believe that information would have been useful to the legislature and general public. Regardless of my opinion of this particular audit and any other audits you have conducted during my tenure, I believe we are a better managed department today due to those audits. Though sometimes the audits were painful, they have forced us to take positive and corrective steps to improve our management and operations which have benefited the Department, the State of Arizona, and, ultimately the taxpayers. For this, I thank you.

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Performance audit, Department of Corrections, sunset factors

Performance audit, Department of Corrections, sunset factors

Description