Proposed structural reorganization of correctional programs in Arizona

              REPORT TO
THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PROPOSED STRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION
OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
IN ARIZONA
Joint Study Committee on Juvenile Institutions
Room 324, State Capitol
Phoenix, Arizona
January 1968
PROPOSED STRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION
OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
IN ARIZONA
Report of
Juvenile Institutions
Joint Study Committee
Room 324, State Capitol
Phoenix, Arizona
January 1968
THlS DOCUMENl' is THE: PROPERTY NUMBER
&2,02. EAST AL.Hl'd/.ORA FLACE
'rUCSON. ARiZONA 85711
... APJTOL BUILDING. SENATE WING
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
••• ,,-"-".rUU v' .... l'....... \..lVlj' COMMITTEES
~;s':r'r,~~E~~;OR MAJORITY WHIP
TWEN1'Y.EIGHTH LEGISLATUHE STATE GOVEHNt-,tC~,n·1 CI-fAIHMAN
_....:...:..:.::.:::.:..:....:..:::=.:.:::..:::.:=~:.::.... __.....;. g~~~~ ~~~··IONS
COMMERCE AND ItJOUSTHY
FINANCE AND REVENUE
JUDICIARY
flULES
J\xizona~tCtte~~nCtte
'l1~o{'nhrJ\rizona
January 19, 1968
Honorable Marshall Humphrey
President of the Senate
Honorable Stan Turley
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Gentlemen:
JOINT LEGISLATIVE ElUDGET COMMITTEE
In compliance with your appointment on March 13) 1967, of a joint
interim committee to study state institutions for juveniles, we
herewith submit our report and recommendations. The members of
the committee are:
Senators: Jacquin, Chrm.
Wilcox
Stump
Representatives: Adams, Vice Chrm.
Stone
Sawyer
Your interim committee, in its first meeting, agreed on a two­pronged
approach to our task:
1. To work with the Board of Directors of State Institu­tions
for ~uveniles in regard to any problems) struc­turally
or financially, that might be prevalent, in an
attempt to resolve to give the necessary assistance in
this field.
2. To approach the total problem with a thorough over-all
look at the whole correctional field.
In view of the latter, we appointed a professional Advisory Com­mittee
on Corrections to work independently and make such recom­mendations
as they felt necessary. Their report and recommenda­tions
have been attached and made part of this report of your
interim committee, along with your interim committee's review of
t~at report and its correJating recommendations. Your interim
c~mmittee wishes to again thank its advisory committee and acknow­l~
dge the hours of work and effort that were provided the state
Of Arizona.
Ycmr interim committee met on several occasions with the Board of
Dfrectors of State Institutions for Juveniles to provide the
necessary help as outlined above. In regard to this, below are
o~tlined those subjects covered by your interim committee and the
-ii-
Honorable Marshall Humphrey
Honorable Stan Turley -2- January 19) 1968
Juvenile Board) as also recorded iri the minutes of your interim
committee's meetings.
The Juvenile Board pointed out the following concerns they felt
should be brought to the attention of the Legislature:
1. Commitment of juvenile offenders .
a. The Board of Directors expressed the opinion that
commitments should be made directly to the Board so
they could be properly funneled through the correc­tional
process.
b. The Board also expressed concern in regard to the
release of the juvenile offender and) again) such
should be made by the Board.
c. In this area, it was agreed the Board would submit
the necessary legi~lation to clarify and up-date
our statutes to the Legislature for their consid­eration.
2. The state has no statutory.provisions for the using of
federal funds in regard to certain areas of corrections.
The Board pointed out there were certain funds available)
but they did not have the authorization to commit this
money to be used.
3. There was general discussion as to the need for a juvenile
code revision) and particular mention was made of recom­mending
keeping authority over juveniles until the age of
21 rather than 18.
~. The accounting procedures of the Juvenile Board and the
Auditor's office were discussed at some length.
a. In this respect, the Board had contacted the Depart­ment
of Finance. The interim committee urged the
continuing use of, the Department of Finance to work
out a satisfactory accounting system agreeable to
both the Auditor and the Juvenile Board.
b. It was also felt that a full-time business manager
was necessary for the handling of the Board's
. administrative office; and these functions should
not rest solely with. the Executive Secretary as part
of his duties) but should be delegated •
. 5. Central parole system
a. It was stated that presently there are parolees
released without supervision, and even those with
-iii-
Honorable Marshall Humphrey
Honorable Stan Turley -3- January 19. 1968
supervision do not have the proper and necessary
supervision given to them. This is due to the lack
of a coordinated system and. secondly. enough
qualified personnel to do this job.
6. Concern was expressed that a greater cooperative effort
should be made by all related agencies of state govern­ment,
and an effort should be made by all concerned
parties. including the Legislature. to see that the
related field of governmental service is providing the
proper cooperation to the benefit of the people of the
state of Arizona.
7. Your interim comrrdttee, in discussion with the Board and
its Executive Secretary. also expressed a hope for a more
uniform contractual approach to foster homes and other
institutions. both in the nature of the contract and the
costs of placements.
8. The Board was urged to delve further into the research­ing
of the different correctional systems, with con­tinual
analysis of our own system for improvement.
Your interim committee also reviewed two other areas with the
Juvenile Board. the first being that of their appropriations
requests for the coming fiscal year and their presentation and
justifications for such. It was felt that the Board was aaequately
prepared and had done the necessary research at that time in regard
to their budget and analysis thereof. -
Secondly, we discussed the site for a new institution for seriously
delinquent girls, and your committee felt the Juvenile Board has
been taking the necessary steps to thoroughly research the availa­bility
and potential of all possible sites.
The balance of this report contains the work of our advisory com­mittee
and your interim committee's review of its recommendations
with necessary legislation attached.
-iv-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTALi •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ii
REPORT OF JUVENILE INSTI'l'UrrIONS JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE..... 1
Committee Procedure ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••��••• 1
Committee Recommendations -- Correctional Programs ••• 2
Role of the Governor ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3
Board of Pardons and Paroles •••••••••••.•••••.••••• 4
Citizens Advisory Inspection Board Not
Recommended. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5
Director of Corrections •.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 5
Division of Treatment Services..................... 6
Division of Custodial Services..................... 7
Division of Administrative Services •••••••••••••••• 7
Division of Research and Training Services ••••••••• 7
Division of Parole and Probation Services •••••••••• 7
Time Schedule for Implementing Proposal •••••••••••• 8
Other Committee Recommendations ••••••••••••••••••.••• 10
Further Study Needed ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12
APPENDICIES
A -- Bill Draft to Establish a State Department
of Correct ions. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • •• 13
B -- Report of Advisory Citizens Committee ••••••••••• 22
-v-
REPORT OF JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE
Juveniles represent a major segment of today's society. Their
numbers, combined with their living in an increasingly comple~ world
having greater demands on their minds, skills, and emotions, have
resulted in correspondingly greater demands on various governmental
programs and institutions. How well the state has responded to the
~hanges brought about by a more complex and highly mobile society
with respect to the juvenile institutions board and its program
in Arizona was a question to whi~h the members of the First Regular
Session of the 28th Legislature felt answers were needed. As a
means of developing the answers to t~isquestionJ the members es-tablished
a joint legislative study committee composed of three
members from the Senate and three members from the House of Repre-sentatives.
Committee Procedure
At their initial meeting on April 24, 1967, the members of
the joint committee agreed that their assignment consisted of two
major parts:
1. Problems of the Board of Directors of State Institutions
for Juveniles, including organizational structure
and program finances.
2. An over-all review of the various correctional programs·
in Arizona.
The members further agreed that they themselves should explore the
problems of the juvenile institutions board, but that the over-all
-1-
review of the state's correctional program would require profes­sional
assistance. The joint commi~tee therefore appointed a six­member
advisory committee consisting of citizens representing the
jUdiciarYJ adult probation J juvenile probation J corrections (penology
and administration), and adult parole to assist in the study of
correctional programs in Arizona.
~mit t =~5~~0!!1.Elend'i~12~1l~....: - q£,rr.:~L9't.~ro.~ l' a'!,l,~
The greater part of the joint committee's work durin~ 1967
was spent in meetings with members and staff of the juvenile in­stitutions
board J inclUding a tour of the Arizona Youth Center
located in Tucson.
- The remainder of the joint committee's time was devoted to
reviewing the report and recommendations submitted by its advisory
citizens committee on corrections and to developing the joint
committee's recommendations J including preparing a draft of a
bill thereon. In this connection J we would refer the members
of the Legislature and other interest.ed persons to the full re­port
of the citizens advisory committee which is appended hereto.
In brief J with respect to the problems of our correctional
programs in Arizona J the members of the advisory committee point
out that "realistic solutions to these problems will not be obtained
until the state changes its approach from a piecemeal basis to a
comprehensive one commanding a high priority in the list of program
accomplishments by our state government." Furthermore, "the objectives
-2-·
program goals. 11
~T==~"h;~"~e";"~~·""m~'''~=e~='m''U'·~b_':.e":~.r.:s.~""~t,:o.T.:<f'''''"~~t7.-h,;t,;e,>,'.:;';"==~""i"",,o,"==.A:io"''n''''cNt;'~''''''='c-:'~o::>'%'m'~O'''.;m~'''t''''i''=t-==t<''e''-'·e_''''7.~"~""-,C-c''-'-o'~~E:;n:;'·~"c·=·=eu,~;w~r="~_~·":o:w;",,,,,,i,,,t,,V~h·<::='-d;·_t·';:h;fI.'.'i."2"s-,.,..'..'=-'''''''g.cc::'.,'e''',....n,'''''''e~;",:~''r'"''''a,..:.;~l~.·=
£.£££!Pl~~ nd~t i£ n M2J': t 1}£2j.Yt~,.££X-2.£P1Ellli_~~_,2J.2d.1-l!.L~.kE2,£El!lg<.,~Jle r~.~j~"t:..!l.t,
££.SS?!!l!!l£!lSL~~ .~£,_iL1gJL~.i o~!l,~~ bJL.~.££gE~:E§'nX~iDg~ i.ll ...b~y_.!J}.!:."_.l]2£!~f?,,~rE=_££
t h,£-1..~.~lL,~:.~,gJ~l~.~l±Y~,,9.~rJ~l}(L~~~l r.:=~'££0~2~,,,E!L~~1 ~£_.S.e, s s.i o.!!~
As may be noted from a review' of the full report of the citizens
advisory committee, this group outlined in some detail the various
parts of its proposal to reorganize and consolidate programs at
the state level dealing with the institutionalization, rehabilita-tion,
and probation and parole of adult and juvenile offenders.
The following summary of the joint committee's proposed bill includes
our comments where differences exist with the general outline pro-posed
by the advisory committee.
Role of the Governor. Under the proposed bill, the Governor
would be the appoipting authority for the director of the State
Department of Corrections and the reconstituted Board of Pardons
and Paroles, with the consent of the Senate. These officials, who
-3--
would be appointed on a professional basis for a specific term
in office, would be sUbject to removal only for ~ause by the Governor.
!20srq~..of~~rarq9n~:~~n~!}.£~=~2..£2l..~~. The proposed board of pardons
and paroles would differ in composition as well as function from
the existing board. As proposed, the new board would consist of
three full-time salaried members who would serve solely in a quasi­judicial
capacity in deciding on the granting of paroles, pardons,
and commutations for inmates confined in the various correctional
institutions of the state. No more than one member from the same
professional discipline could be a member of the board at the same
time.
A small clerical staff would be needed to assist the board
members, but the preparation of pre-parole reports and the adminis­tration
of parole and probation services would ultimately be the
responsibility of personnel assigned to the department of correc­tions.
The board as such would be a unit of government separate
from the department of corr~ctions and would be responsible for
the preparation and submission of its own budget, although there
would exist a close working relationship between the two agencies.
Board members would be appointed by the Governor for three-year
terms, with the consent of the Senate, and could be removed
by the Governor only for cause. The advisory committee suggested
six-year terms for board members, but the joint committee believes
that three-year terms would be sufficient, there being no reason
to anticipate that board members performing their duties satisfac­torily
would not be reappointed, regardless of who might be occupying
the Governor's chair, since these appointments are to be made on
the basis of professional and educational qualifications and eXN
.perience.
C~i£g n,E.....!;.d v:if~~£~~]T_ ! n~J25~£1"!~2n_!22,f·r c~.:.. The advis 0 r y committ e e
recommended the creation of a citizens advisory inspection board
to serve in an advisory capacity to the Governor and to make in­spections
of the institutions within the department of corrections~
However, the joint committee believes·that ·it vlOuld not be neces­sary
to provide by statute for such a board. A governor could
appoint such a group at any time as an advisory bodywithQut this
being authorized by law. The joint committee's proposed bill
therefore does not include the creation of a citizens advisory in­spection
board.
!?i!:t;..£i£E:__<2--:L,CC2£~~£~ i£Q~~ The respons ibility for the day«·to·~day
administration and supervision of the department of corrections
would be vested in the director who would be appointed on the basis
of professional qualifications by the Governor, with the consent
of the Senate, for a term of six years. His major responsibilities
would include:
1. The maintenance and administration of all institutions
within the department.
2. The administration and execution of parole services
for those released in accordance with decisions of
the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
3. The devel~pment of recommendations for a uniform,
statewide probation program.
-5-
4. The development of policies and programs for considera-tion
by the Governor and the Legislature to improve
the various correctional programs of the state.
Part of the specific authority of the d~rector would be the
power to appoint or to remove the heads of the various divisions
within the department. However, all employees below the level of
a division head would be employed under a personnel system, with the
bill containing a directive for the director to retain those employees
of existing correctional agencies as employees of the new department.
The joint committee's proposed bill limits the number of divi-sions
that could be established within the department to no more
than five. In order to provide the director with necessary admin-istrative
flexibility~ the bill would allow the director to shift
duties between divisions, to consolidate divisions) and to take
other administrative action to improve the efficiency of the de-partrnent.
In this respect, the proposed bill does not spell out the
specific divisions to be established within the department; instead)
broad authorization is granted the director to establish no more
than five division~ relating to treatment services) custodial serv­ices,
administrative services, research and training services,
and parole and probation services. The advisory committee members'
report includ~d comments concerning five divisions along the fol-lowing
lines:
Division of Treatment Services. A division of treatment serv-ices
could be responsible for the educational and training programs
within the department, including academic, vocational, and industrial
training and correctional treatment and rehabilitation. The prison
industries program and programs of partial release involving work
or school could also be the" responsibility 'of this division.
D~=YJ:.~.~,2"n "ti ~J::.",g"~Cst ££.1 i aJ:_,§,~~:Yl£~.~,.~ A di vis ion 0 feu s t 0 di a1 s e r v­ices
could be assigned the responsibil~ty for the custody, control,
safekeeping, protection, and discipline of inmates housed in the
department's various institutions.
trative services could be charged with the responsibility for pre-paring
the department's budget, implementing budgetary contrOlS,
establishing and maintaining an accounting and internal aUditing
system, and establishing personnel and purchasing systems and con-troIs.
Division bf Research and Training Services. A division of --=~·,,,,,.'1....o.""=""'=-""ll'e.....,~,~:~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..:,tt'''''''''_~=--·L"n::;:'l.=~~=>=rx.',~,,,,,,~,.~.""""'-o=,,",,_:':"""''--'--~·''''~=c''''=~",'''~=:=''-~''''''''
research and training services could be responsible; on a con-tinuing
basis, for conducting training programs designed to improve
the performance levels of departmental personnel and to collect,
develop, and analyze statistical and other information necessary
for the evaluation and re-evaluation of the various correctional
programs.
and fully put into operation, a division of parole and probation
services could be responsible for the preparation of pre-sentence
and pre-parole reports for use by the courts and the members of
the pardons and paroles board and for the supervision of those
- ~7-'
DEP.ARTMENT OF
offenders released on probation by the courts or on parole by the
board, or under provisions of the interstate compact on probation
and parole. This division could also assist in developing a pro-gram
for a statewide system of probation, including uniform qualifying
standards for probation services as well as standards for probation
officers, together with a uniform salary system.
!.:i!n.~n§~9Jl£5~~,;t00 r_=LI!1P..J.2 m~.n t 2-ng2£C?E.2~.:.. The joint commit tee
agrees with the members of the advisory committee that it would be
preferable if the proposed consolidation and revisions in the state's
correctional program could be implemented all at once. However,
such a step does not appear feasible nor altogether necessary to
achieve the long-range benefits from the committee's proposal.
Consequently, the joint committee's bill includes the following
time schedule for full implementation:
1. As of the effective date of th~ bill, which would be
-
ninety days following its adoption and approval by the
Governor, a state department of corrections would be
created and all property and personnel presently under
the SQperintenderit of the State Prison and the Board
of Directors of State Institutions for Juveniles would
be transferred to the department,with the juvenile
institutions board being abolished. The Governor would
need to appoint the director who WOUld, in turn, appoint
his deputy directors to head the divisions established
at that time. There would be no need for the head of
a parole and probation services division to be appointed
until some time prior to July 1, 1969,"if such a division
is established.
2. As of July 1, 1969, the State Board of Pardons and
Paroles would be reconstituted in accordance with
the recommendations reviewed previously herein. This
date would also serve as the deadline for the activa­tion
of parole services within the corrections de­partment.
3. As of July 1, 1971, parole services could be expanded
to include probation services as well, including the
establishment of statewide standards for the probation
program.
-9-
Other Committee Recommendations
In addition to the foregoing proposal for the establish­ment
of a state department of corrections, the members of the
joint legislative committee also developed recommendations con-cerning
three other matters:
1. A facility for seriously delinquent juvenile females
is urgently needed in Arizona. At the same time, however, the com-mittee
believes that, if the department of corrections is created,
all existing facilities should undergo immediate review by the
director of corrections and that the director's recommendations
should merit consideration when final decisions are reached con-cerning
the construction of any new or additional facilities. In
thi6~nanner the state could expect to obtain maximum efficiency and
benefits as part of the results to be gained from consolidating
the various correctional programs within one department of state
government.
2. The committee also believes that, in view of the over-all
emphasis to reduce the rising crime rates and the problem of crime
in our streets, plus the impact of recent U.S. S~preme Court de­cisions
in the area of criminal law,. the Legislature should estab-lish
a committee composed of legislators and interested citizens
to begin a general revision and clarification of the state's
criminal co,1.e.
3. In the process of making its study, the committee also
noted a substantial need for greater cooperation in providing
-10-
services between agencies at the state level as well as between
state and local agencies. The committee suggests that the Joint
Budget Committee take particular note of interrelated services
provided by the various state agencies and explore with them how
better cooperation can be achieved that would result in greater
efficiency by reducing the overlapping of functions and in closer
working relationships. The committee also urges that the state
agencies strive to provide, whenever possible, the greatest amount
of assistance when requested by local agencies.
-ll~
~F""'_"u""''r'''t~~"h""":e<':'r-'''''"JSL""ttIru>F.:.d1~""y",,,,,,,N...~.,,,·..",,e_,,.,,,~e,,,,,,,,d,~~,,,<::e,_d_,~
The foregoing recommendations of the joint committ~e are by
no means intended to represent a c~re-all to the numerous problems
found in correctional processes and programs in Arizona. Other
problem areas are known to exist, and there are undoubtedly som"e
problems that are unknown to the members of the joint committee
at this time. Thus, the joint committee believes that it would
benefit the state in general and the Legislature in particular
if further interim study could be given to correctional problems
in Arizona. Among other things, particular attention should be
devoted to the question of indeterminate sentencing; removing
criminal procedures and sanctions from the traffic code; changing
the statutory age limits of youthful offenders in conjunction with
the establishment and implementation of a specific program for
these offenders; th~ state's role in the maintenance and operation
of correctional facilities by cities and counties; a treatment
and rehabilitation program for the criminally-committed alcoholic
or other drug~dependent person; and the addition of facilities
especially designed for the criminally insane. In addition, such
an interim legislative committee could review the preliminary
activity of the department of corrections if the committee's
recommended bill becomes a law.
-12-
APPENDIX A
BILL DRAFT TO ESTABLISH A STATE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT
-13-
State of Arizona
Senate
Twenty-eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session
S. B.
Introduced by
AN AC'I'
RELATING '1'0 S'l'A'l'E GOVERNMEN'l'; PROVIDING FOR 'rHE ESTABLISHI'1EN'r OP A
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANI­ZATION
OF THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES EFFECTIVE JULY 1~
1969; PROVIDING THAT THE STATE DEPAR'rflIEN'l' 01" CORREC'I'IONS SHALL
RECOMMEND A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE UNIFORM STATEWIDE PROBATION
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR 'nIE 'l'RANSFER OF RECORDS. PROPER'ry,
EQUIPMENT AND FUNDS TO THE DEPARTMENT; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN
EFFECTIVE DATES; AMENDING TITLE 41» ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,
BY ADDING CHAPTER II. ARTICLES 1 AND 2; AMENDING §§31-401r
31-412 AND 31-413v ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; REPEALING §31-201 s
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; ADDING A NEW §31-201~ AND REPEALING .
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 3~ ARTICLES 1 AND 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,
AND §31-403, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.
1 Be it enacted by the. Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 41, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
3 by adding chapter 11, articles 1 and 2, to read:
9 In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
New
ChI
New
Art.
Nev;
Sec.
4
5
6
7
8
CHAPTER 11
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ARTICLE 1. ORGANIZATION OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
41-1601. Definiti
10 +. "Department" means the state department of corrections.
1 2. "Director" means the director of the state department
2 of corrections.
New
Sec.
3
4 A. There shall be a state department of corrections.
5 B. The department shall have as its purpose the objective
6 of encompassing the supervisory staff and administrative
7 functions at the state level of all matters relating to the
8 institutionalization, rehabilitation and probation and limited
9 parole functions of all adult and juvenile offenders.
NeVI 10 ointment
Sec.
11 removal for cause
12 A. The director of the department shall be appointed
13 by the governor with the consent of the senate. The term of
14 the director first appointed shall expire on February 1, 1974.
15 Thereafter the director shall serve a term of six years.
16 B. The direc~or, as minim~m qualifications. shall have an
17 academic degree from an accredited college or university and at
18 least ten years of experience in working in a correctional pro~
19 gram, including five years of progressively increasing respon-
20 sibilities in an administrative capacity.
21 C. The compensation of the director shall be determined
22 by legislative appropriation.
D. The director may be removed for cause by the governor
1. Be responsible for the over-all operations and policies
of the department.
hE' direct r
A. The dir~ctor shall:
41-1604.
prior to the expiration of the term of the director.
23
2 11
New 25
Sec.
26
27
28
-15-
1 2. Maintain and administer all institutions within the
2 department, including prisons, reformatories, the Arizona state
3 industrial school at Fort Grant, reception and diagnostic centers,
4 halfway houses, and such other facilities as may be required
5 for the custody, contrOls correction, treatment and rehabilitation
6 of all offenders committed thereto.
7 3. Be responsible for the administration and execution
8 of parole services for those offenders released in accordance
9 with decisions of the board of pardons and paroles.
10 II. Develop and recommend a program to provide uniform state-
11 wide probation field services in Arizona. The recommendations
12 shall be submitted to the legislature within the first ten days
13 of the thirtieth legislature, first regular session.
14 5. Be responsible for the development of policies and pro-
15 grams which shall be recommended to the governor and the legis­16
1ature for the purpose of improving the various correctional-
17 programs of the state.
18 6. Employ division chiefs based on qualifications pre-
19 scribed by him which require education and practical experience.
20 7. Formulate a personnel system.
21 8. Retain i.n the employ of the department all employees
22 below the status of a division chief who prior to the effective
23 date of this chapter were employed by an agency which was made
24 a part of the department.
25 B. The director may:
26 1. Promulgate rules and regulations.
1 2. Shift duties between divisions, consolidate divisions
2 or take any administrative action to improve the efficiency of
3 the department.
New
Art.
11 ARTICLE 2. DIVISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT
7 The department shall consist of not more than five divisions
New
·Sec.
6 division chief
8 each of which shall be in charge of, a division chief appointed by
9 the dlrector. The compensation of each chief shall be determined
10 by the director sUbject to legislative appropriation.
NeVi 11
Sec.
41-1612. Divisions
12 The director shall establish divisions of the department
13 relating to treatment services, custodial services, adminis­14
trative services. research and training services and parole
15 and probation services. The director may assign such func-
16 tions to each division which are compatible with the major
17 function of the divi.sion.
18 Sec. 2. R0:E0:~l
19 Section 31-201, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed.
20 Sec. 3. Title 31, chapter 2, article 1, Arizona Revised
21 Statutes, is amended by adding a new §31-201, to read:
New 22
Sec.
31-201. Definition of """"01"; ntendent and s rin-
2 3 ~,~!1d,~nt..=£.f:.=~ ..!2£,>.~~~~=§!:~~=~~,J~2:t~.£.l],
211 As used in thi,s chapter, the terms "superintendent" or
25 "superintendent of the state prisort ll means the state department
26 of corrections.
1 Sec. 4. Sec. 31-401, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
2 to read:
3
4
5
31-401. -B-.o".''o'~~~'a'''~'r~=~'d'=':"-''''''o''':~~f'':::'''''p'''''a1':"''r'''_d~~''''o''''<n''''''s;'''.'''''·J.,aI-",:.:.,•n.,1t"'d''''''·'";'''=p'.:':~''a:,.'~-''r'''''o''''''''l'",,,e,,,,,=_s·.m,,,,;"_:o·'''''''"Q'"",=.~·1.;u.~.""'r.a,,,,,,.l":":"i""1..f'l»=''i'''~~ct"'2c'·a'''''''t'-=_~i_--;'o'''.,~~.n,·"~+-,,s,,,-=~.;:·,,-n
officers
6 A. There shall be a board of pardons and paroles which
7 shall consist of &~¥@ THREE members to be appointed by the
8 governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
12 ef~\;U1tT5-:'"
13 B. THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL SERVE ON A FULL-TIME
114 BASIS AND 'I'HE COMPENSArrION OF IvlEMBERS SHALL BE DE'rEHMINED BY
. 15 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION. EACH MEMBER SHALL BE APPOINTED ON
16 THE BASIS OF BROAD PROFESSIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
17 AND EXPERIENCE AND SHALL HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN INTEREST IN THE
18 STATE'S COHRECTIONAL PROGRAM. NO MORE THAN ONE MEMBER FROM THE
19 SAME PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AT
20 THE SAME TIME.
21 C. Of the members of the board first appointed j one shall
22 .bc appointed for a term expiring January 1, ~96~7 1970, and one
23 each for terms expiring onc7-AND tWOy-~hN8a-aRcl-&owp years
24 thereafter. Upon the expiration of any of the terms$ the ap-
25 pointee or successor shall be appointed for a term of &~¥O THREE
26 years. Appointment to fill a vacancy caused other than by ex-
27 piration of term shall be for the unexpired portion of the term.
release on
£~.~..~~'£.sL~~~~L"J2,§l;.£2~~,~~~=
If it appears to the board of pardons and paroles$ from a
report by the 8UPO~~R~ORdGRt DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, or upon
the application by the prisoner for a release on paroIe$ that
there is reasonable probability that the applicant will live
and remain at liberty without violating the law, then the board
may authorize the release of the applicant upon parole. The
applicant shall thereupon be allo\'led to go upon parole in the
Ie gal cust ody and under cant rol 0 f the pa?f:'::Cich,o~,e~i,eitJl'i,;,~a,nf±~'f3U;:>EH:ln,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. until expiration of the
me8t~B8B-e&-t~0-boepdT Reimburse~ent for nece~sary travel ex­penses
and subsistence actually incurred in the performance of
his duties as a member of the board shall be as provided by law
for public offi.cers and state employees.
E.A MEMBER OF THE BOARD MAY BE REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR
FOR CAUSE.
-iT F. Members of the board shall select from among its
members a chairman and such other officers as it deems advisable.
The board may make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with
law~ as it deems proper for the conduct of its business. The
board may from time to time amend or change the rules and regu­lations
and may cause them to be publlshed and distributed.
Sec. 5. Sec. 31-412, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
to read:
26
2'(
25
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 1t
--19-
1 maximum term specified in his sentence or until his absolute
2 discharge.
3 Sec. 6.
14 to read:
5 31-1113.
6
Sec. 31-413, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
D artment of corrections to
7 arolee
8 The pa~9~0-o~e~k DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS shall assist
9 in securing employment for paroled prisoners and for those d15-
10 charged before the maximum time for which they were sentenced.
11 The 0~epk DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS shall k8ep-th@-8UPQP~RtoR~ent
12 4R~Q~ffiQ~-G& MAINTAIN A REPORT ON the conduct of the prisoners
15
16
Sec. 7. of records
and funds
nt
17 All records, property, equipment and unencumbered and
18 unexpended funds shall be placed under the jurisdiction of the
19 state department of corrections on the effective date each
20 agency is transferred and becomes a part of the state depart-
21 ment of corrections as prescribed by this act.
22 Sec. 8. Effective dates
23 Sections 31-401, 31-412) and 31-413, Arizona Revised
211 Statutes) as amended by the provisions of this act, shall
25 become effectivt""J on JUly 1, 1969.
-20·~
1 Sec. 9. B~E~al
2 A. Title 8. chapter 3~ articles 1 and 2, Arizona Revised .
3 Statutes, are repealed.
4 B. Section 31-403. Arizona Revised.Statutes, is repealed
5 effective July 1» 1969.
-21-
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF ADVISORY CITIZENS COMMITTEE
-22-
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85003
JACK D. H. HAYS
JUDGE
Oc tobe r L~ ,
Honorable Will iam Jacquin, Senator
Chairman, Interim Legislative Committee
on Corrections
Arizona Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona
Dear Senator Jacquln:
1967
GOLDIE C, WETTER
COURT REPORTER
Enclosed herewith is the Report of your Advisory Committee
on Corrections. The Committee was assigned the task of studying
the corrections situation in Ar1zona and m~king recommendations
to the legislature as to changes which might be needed.
This Committee is composed of the following persons:
Or. June Morrison of the Uhiversity of Arizona, who has
special ized in the penology and Pub1 ic Administration
fields;
Dr. Peter Garabedian of the Arizona State University,
who has special ized in the penology and criminology
fields;
Mr. Robert Long, who is a Pima County Adult Probation
Officer;
Mr. James McLaughl in, who is the Chief Juvenile Probation
Officer of Maricopa County;
Mr. Allen Hanshaw, who is a practicing attorney and
member of the present Pardon and Parole Board; and
Han. Jack D. H. Hays, Judge of the Superior Court of
Maricopa County.
The Committee first met on t1cry 6th, 1967, at Tucson, Arizona, and
since tllci t Lime \"!e have individually and as b group spent many hours
in studying the problems oLcorrections. lYe h~we met regularly on
a monthly basis in either Tucson, Phoenix or Casa Grande. Each ,of us
is appreciative of this opportunity to serve our State and to call.
the attention of the legislature and of the people of the State to
the'dire need for changes in the corrections field in Arizona.
-23-
Hon. vlrn . .Jacquin
Senator
Page 2.
This Report has been unanimously approved by your
Committee, and we stand ready to meet with legislative committees.
or interested citizens to explain and support the proposals
which we have made.
Very truly yours,
JDHH/gw
Enc! .
REPORT OF ADVISORY CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS
The condition of correctional programs and institutions
in Arizona has been in the past and continues to be a matter
of primary importance and concern to every citizen in the
state. This concern is evidenced by various studies that have
been conducted in recent years and by the creation of a joint
legislative committee in the 1967 session to study juvenile
institutions in the state.
To assist the joint legislative committee, the members
created an advisory citizens committee whose members represent
areas of professional and related interests that are vitally
concerned with all aspects of the correctional programs and
institutions in Arizona. Members of this advisory committee
include representatives of the judiciary, adult probation,
juvenile probation, corrections (penology and administration),
and adult parole.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINDINGS
In undertaking the assignment from the joint legislative
committee, the members of the advisory committee started with
a review of current conditions in the total field of corrections,
including the report and recommendations submitted in 1958 by
the National Probation and Parole Association in collaboration
with the Osborne Association, Inc., and the United States
Children's Burea~, ana the changes that had been instituted
since that time. The members concluded that no substantive
improvements had been achieved with respect to correctional
-25-
services in Arizona and that many of the problems reported in
1958 remained much the same in 1967. Furthermore, the members
believe that realistic solutions to these problems will not be
obtained until the state changes its approach from a piecemeal
basis to a comprehensive one commanding a high priority in the
list of program accomplishments by our state government.
Based on the studies and first-hand experiences of the
members, we find that the objectives and achievements of the
state's present correctional system are adversely limited by
the duplication and overlapping of authority that exists within
this system among governmental units at the state level, among
various units at the local level, and between units at the
state and local levels. Moreover, this. situation has resulted
in a lack of coordinated efforts to the detriment of the cor­rectional
program as a whole. The committee would hasten to
point out, however, that these remarks are directed at the
organizational structure of the system itself and not at the
persons in charge of the system's operation. In fact, under
the present disorganized system, where no one person or group
is in charge, correctional services in many respects are being
provided as well as can be expected.
The advisory committee's finding concerning the disorgan­ized
state of affairs under the present system by no means is
intended to imply that other problems of importance do not
exist. They do exist, but attempts to correct these problems
should be postponed unti] defects in the over-all organiza­tional
structure have been eliminated.
-26-
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Three separate units operate independently to provide cor­rectional
services at the state level in Arizona: (1) the
Superintendent of the State Prison and Institute of Rehabilitation
at Florence, who is appointed by the Governor, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, for a six-year term; (2) the Board
of Pardons and Paroles whose part-time members are primarily
responsible for directing the state's adult parole program and
the program under the interstate compact on probation and
parole; and (3) the Board of Directors of State Institutions
for Juveniles whose members are responsible for the operation
of the Arizona State Industrial School at Fort Grant, the
Arizona Youth Center at Tucson, temp6raty forestry camps, the
placement of emotionally-distrubed juveniles and juvenile female
offenders, and juvenile parole.
Probation services in Arizona, on the other hand, are
provided through the superior courts on a county-by-county
basis. In Maricopa County, each superi6r court judge has his
own adult probation officer, while in Pima County five adult
probation officers working under central supervision serve
the ten superior court judges ih that county, and a separate
juvenile probation program is provided in both of these counties.
Contrastingly, in the other 12 counties in the state the pro­bation
officer acts both as a juvenile and an adult officer
and, in some instances, has subsidiary jobs such as bailiff,
librarian, and custodian of records.
-27~
The advisory committee recommends that the legislature
establish a unified correctional system in Arizona in order
that each of the related stages of arrest, detention, trial,
probation or incarceration, and parole can function smoothly
and efficiently based on a uniform set of personn~l standards
and program goals. The members believe that this can best be
accomplished through the establishment of one individual de-partment
at the state level as outlined in the accompanying
organizational chart and discussed in more detail in the
following text.
Proposeq~!.?:~~£.par!_~el3!.._of Corr.ectioE~_
The proposed state department of corrections is designed
to encompass the supervisory staff and administrative line
functions at the state level dealing with the institutional-ization,
rehabilitation, and probation and parole of all adult
and juvenile offenders.
The members of the advisory committee recognize that
the component parts of a state department of corrections are
essential to the future success of the corrections program in
Arizona. In reviewing these component parts, however, the
members are not necessarily sugges~~ng that any law imple-menting
the recommendations in this report be written in such
detail as to restrict the director in the administration of
the program.
Role of the Governor
The governor appears at the top of the organizational
chart of the committee's proposal. Under this proposal, the
-28-
governor would be the appointing authority for the director of
corrections as well as for those board members whose terms ex-pire
or who resign during the governor's term ot office.
Board of Pardons and Parole
The proposed board of pardons and parole would differ in
composition as well as funtion from the existing board. The
advisory committee recommends that the new board should be
composed of three full-time salaried members who would be
selected on the basis of broad professional or educational
qualifications and experience and who have a demonstrated
interest in the state's correctional program. Members would
be appointed by the governor for staggered six-year terms.
The role of the board would be to serve solely as a
quasi-judicial body and to decide on the granting or disallowing
of paroles, pardons, and commutations for inmates confined in
the various correctional institutions of the state, both male
and female, adult and 'juvenile. A small clerical staff would
be needed to assist the board, but the preparation of pre-parole
reports and the administration of parole and probation
services would be the responsibility of personnel assigned to
the department of corrections. Moreover, the board as such
would be a unit of government separate from the department of
corrections.
Serving in somewhat of a dual capacity, a proposed
citizens advisory and inspection board of corrections would
be composed of seven citizens who would be appointed by the
-29~·
governor to serve on ~ part-time basis for staggered six-year
terms. The board would serve in an advisory capacity to the
governor and, after making physical inspections of the in-stitutions
within the department of corrections, would report
the results of these inspections to the governor. In addition,
the board members would also closely observe the operations of
the total corrections program, including its strong points as
well as the weak points of the program, and would report their
conclusions and recommendations thereon to the governor.
Director of Corrections
The director of corrections, who would be an appointee of
the governor on the basis of professional qualifications, would
be charged with the responsibility fOr the over-all operations
and policies of the department of corrections. His major re-sponsibilities
would include:
1. The maintenance and administration of all institutions
within the department, including prisons, reformatories,
reception and diagnostic centers, halfway houses, and such
other facilities as may be required for the custody, control,
correction, treatment, and rehabilitation of all offenders
corr®itted thereto.
2. The administration and execution of parole services
for those offenders released in accordance with decisions
of the Board of Pardons and Parole.
3. The development and direction of a program to provide
uniform, statewide probation field services in Arizona.
4. The development of policies and programs for con-sidcration
by the governor and the legislature to improve
the various correctional programs of the state.
The director would also be responsible for the hiring of the
staff within the department of corrections and the preparation
and submission of a budget for all activities within the department.
In this former connection, the committee firmly reco~rnends that
all personnel below the division head level be employed under
a merit system, with those personnel transferred to the depart-ment
from existing agencies being allowed to continue in their
employment.
So far as qualifications for the director are concerned,
the committee recommends that, as a minimum, he should have
an academic degree from an accredited college or university
and at le4st ten years of experience in working in a correc-tional
program, including five years of progressively increasing
responsibilities in an administrative capacity.
Division of Treatment Services
The division of treatment services would be charged with
the supervision and administration of educational and training
programs within the department of corrections. These programs
would include academic, vocational, and industrial training and
correctional treatment and rehabilitation. Programs of partial
release, involVing work or school, and prison industries would
also be the responsibility of this division.
Division of Custodial Services
The division of custodial services would be assigned the
responsibility for the custody, control, safekeeping, protection,
and discipline of prisoners housed in the department's various
institutions.
-31-
Division of Administrative Services
The division of administrative services would be re-sponsible
for the preparation of the budget for the depart-ment,
the implementation of budgetary controls, the establish-ment
and maintenance of an accounting and internal auditing
system, and the establishment of personnel and purchasing
systems and controls.
The division of research and training services would be
charged with the responsibility of conducting training programs
designed to improve the performance levels of departmental per-sonnel
and to collect, develop, and analyze statistical and
other information necessary for the evaluation and reevaluation
of the various correctional programs on a continuing basis.
Division of Parole and Probation Services
The division of parol~ and probation services would be re-sponsible
for the preparation of pre-sentence and pre-parole
reports for use by the courts and the members of the pardons
and parole board and for the supervision of those offenders
released on probation by the courts or on parole by the board
or under provisions of the interstate compact on probation and
parole.
The division would be further responsible for the develop-ment
of a state-wide system of probation, including uniform
qualifying standrrrds of probation services as well as standards
for probation officers, together with a uniform salary system.
-32-·
'II im~Sc~,e dy l~r J.!EE1emen~i}lf~.ES>J2,9EJ:.
As mentioned previously, the advisory committee believes
quite strongly that, in order for the state and its citizens
to receive full value from the dollars being spent on the
various correctional programs in Arizona, it is essential for
the legislature to provide the framework necessary to bring
order to the present chaotic situation •. As a practical matter,
however, the members of the advisory committee realize that it
may not be possible to establish its proposed unified program
overnight either because of limited funds, for example, or
simply because it may not be possible to activate a proposal
of such magnitude all at once. Consequently, if the legislature
decides to implement the advisory committee's proposed de­partment
of corrections on the basis of a series of stages,
the members suggest the following:
First, create the department of corrections by law, in­cluding
its duties and responsibilities, and transfer all
property and personnel presently under the Superintendent of
the State Prison and the Board of Directors of State Institutions
for Juveniles to the department; also, establish the citizens ad­visory
and inspection board of corrections as recommended and
leave the existing State Board of Pardons and Paroles as it is
presently constituted and operating. Under this first stage,
the governor would appoj.nt the director of corrections and the
members of the advisory corrections board. In turn, the director
-33-
would need to appoint his deputy directors to head four of the
five divisional areas--treatment, custody, administration, and
research and training--leaving parole and probation for sub- .
sequent activation.
Sec9E£, not more than two years following the beginning of
the department's operation, revise the State Board of Pardons
and Paroles in line with the advisory committee's recommendation,
including the transfer of staff to the department tor the division
of parole services, but withhold implementation of a state-wide
probation system.
Thir~, within two or three years after the second stage,
revise the division of parole to include probation services as
well and establish state-wide standards for the probation program.
The advisory committee has included the foregoing time-table
with some reluctance since the members feel that theim-portance
of fully implementing their recommendations as a package
far outweighs any difficulties that might be encountered in such
an undertaking.
Areas of Future Consideration
During the various meetings held by the advisory committee,
the members also discussed a number of specific problems where
additional consideration in the future could be of benefit to
the state. These subjects included the question of indetermi-nate
sentencing; removing criminal procedures and sanctions from
the traffic code; a general revision of the state's criminal
code; changing the statutory age limits of youthful offende~s
in conjunction with the establishment and implementation of a
specific program for these offenders; the state's role in the
maintenance and operation of correctional facilities by cities
and counties; a treatment and rehabilitation program for the
criminally-committed alcoholic or other drug-dependent person;
and the addition of facilities specially designed for female
juvenile offenders, the criminally insane, etc.
Details for Lerislative Decisions --<._-_._--_._;,_._-,_._._--~- .._.,..._---
The advisory committee has attempted to provide the joint
legislative committee with a broad outline of its recommendations,
and it has not prepared a draft of a bill going into. the details
of these recommendations in the belief that the joint legislative
committee should make the decisions on these details, especially
where matters of policy are involved. The advisory committee
therefore takes no particular position with respect to such
matters as Senate confirmation of appointments by the Governor;
the length of terms to which appointed; the per diem of board
members; salary ranges for the top level of staff (except they
should be high enough to attract and retain qualified applicants);
and whether residence in the state should be a qualification •
... 35-
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF PROPOSED STATE DEPPRTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND RELATED BOAI-lDS
'f 1
I \ GOVERNOR 1:------------.
I I I \ " 1 I
I I ~ -l..\-----.,
. '. 1\ Board of Pardons !
\
and Parole . (Reconstituted) I
I , I
II
t
I
,I
Ci tizens Advisory and
I Inspec tion Board of II
Corrections
! I
II I,
IW
0\
I
IDivision of'
!ResearCh and ! Train~.ng
, Services
I .
I 1
Director I
of ~ __
Corrections I . I I . !
IiI
i'"'"' ' ! I I
I l-a I I 1
Division of I ! Division of Division of !
Treatment, Custodial !AdministrativeServices I ! Services. I Services li
I ! I· . I
,I !I i I I I. II I~', ---: --.:l;
--'- ~ _ .... --
I
Division of I
/
' Parole and I
Probation i
/, Services j
I .
! I l II
•
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. American Law Institute -- Model Penal Code -- (Part
IV Organization and Correction) May 1962.
2. Correctional Services in Arizona, 1958.
3. Letter, Organizational chart and statutes from Gus
Harrison, Director, Department of Mental Health and Corrections,
Augusta, Maine. April, 1967.
4. Letter and Statutes from Augustine W. Riccio, Director,
Department of Social Welfare, Providence, Rhode Island. April,
1967.
5. Letter and organizational chart from Albert C. Wagner,
Director, Division of Correction and Parole, State of New
Jersey, April 1967.
6. Letter and 1965 Annual Report from Richard B. Lauber,
Director, Youth and Adult Authority, State of Alaska.
7. Letters from William R. Conte, M.D., Director and
Daniel R. Jensen, Ass't. Supervisor, including materials re-lating
to Echo Glen Children's Center, from State of Washington.
8. Organizational chart for correctional &ervices in
Arizona.
9. Organizational chart, statutes and brochure entitled
"Corrections .in The Wisconsin Tradition" from the Division of
Corrections, State Department of Public Welfare, Madison, Wis-consin.
10. Standard Act for State Correctional Services, 196&.
-3'7-
•
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
11. Study on Laws Governing the Department of Correction,
issued by Legislative Council of Tennessee. 1964.
. .
12. Standard Act fot State Correctional Services (1966)
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
13. Task Force Report: Corrections (1967) The President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice •.