A REPORT TO THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE Performance Audit Division Performance Audit Department of Corrections— Oversight of Security Operations September • 2011 REPORT NO. 11-07 Debra K. Davenport Auditor General The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the opera- tions of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee Senator Rick Murphy, Chair Representative Carl Seel, Vice Chair Senator Andy Biggs Representative Eric Meyer Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford Representative Justin Olson Senator Rich Crandall Representative Bob Robson Senator Kyrsten Sinema Representative Anna Tovar Senator Russell Pearce (ex officio) Representative Andy Tobin (ex officio) Audit Staff Dale Chapman, Director Jeremy Weber, Manager and Contact Person David Charbonneau Kerry Howell Karl Kulick Winter Morris Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free. You may request them by contacting us at: Office of the Auditor General 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333 Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at: www.azauditor.gov STATE OF ARIZONA DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA OFFICE OF THE MELANIE M. CHESNEY AUDITOR GENERAL DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL AUDITOR GENERAL Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Janice K. Brewer, Governor Mr. Charles L. Ryan, Director Department of Corrections Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Department of Corrections—Oversight of Security Operations. This report is in response to a November 3, 2009, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes §41-2951 et seq. I am also transmitting within this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience. As outlined in its response, the Department of Corrections agrees with all of the findings and plans to implement all of the recommendations. My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report. This report will be released to the public on September 23, 2011. Sincerely, Debbie Davenport Auditor General Attachment 2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051 Department of Corrections— Oversight of Security Operations REPORT Private prison oversight has improved, but HIGHLIGHTS PERFORMANCE AUDIT additional actions needed to strengthen monitoring Our Conclusion Inmate escapes indicated need to department policies. The new annual audit The July 2010 Kingman improve oversight—On July 30, 2010, tool measures actual performance against private prison escapes three inmates escaped from the Kingman department policies and procedures. alerted the Department of Department contract monitoring staff are Corrections (Department) private prison. The Department’s to the need for improved investigation determined that several responsible for ensuring that the private oversight of its private security deficiencies and policy violations prisons address findings. The Department prisons. The Department contributed to the escapes. Notably, the plans to update its policies and has implemented a new prison’s perimeter alarm system was not procedures to reflect this process in inspection program, January 2012. revised its annual audit working properly and had not been procedures, revised its serviced in 2 years. In addition, private Other improvements—In January 2011, Request for Proposals prison staff sometimes ignored the alarms the Department revised its RFP for 5,000 (RFP) for additional private and would reset the alarms without first prison beds, and began additional private prison beds to checking the perimeter. Although the strengthen monitoring and security developing training for Department had oversight procedures in contract monitoring staff. requirements. New requirements in the The Department should place, it had not identified the security RFP include enhanced internal monitoring, carry out its plans to issues that contributed to the escapes. performance measures, penalties for update its policies and noncompliance, and regular testing and procedures to reflect its Green Amber Red inspection revised annual audit program—In January 2011, to better annual certification of security systems. approach and implement assess security operations at all prisons, The Department is also developing the contract monitor the Department implemented the Green training for contract monitoring staff that is training. The Department Amber Red (GAR) inspection program. scheduled to begin in September 2011. should also improve officer compliance with security Under the program, various department Prison services comparison—The policies and procedures at security policies are tested monthly using Department reported that the new GAR state-run prisons. The a checklist. For example, one checklist inspections and revised annual audit Department should question related to key policies asks procedures will help it to compare private implement its plans to whether keys are inventoried at the identify trends and and state-run prison services every 2 beginning and end of each shift. systemic noncompliance years as required by statute. Although the and take appropriate Under the GAR, green means Department has not completed this system-wide action and compliance, amber means corrective comparison, it plans to do so by January should use this information 2012. to identify correctional action is needed for minor issues, and red officer training needs. means immediate corrective action is Recommendations: needed to avoid threats to safety. Private prison wardens are responsible for The Department should implement its developing corrective action plans to plans to: address amber and red findings. • Revise its policies and procedures to Annual audit procedures—As part of an reflect changes to the annual audit. effort started prior to the escapes, the • Continue developing and implement- 2011 Department has also revised its annual ing training for contract monitors. audit procedures. Prior to the July 2010 • Compare private and state-run prison September • Report No. 11-07 escapes, the annual audits did not services every 2 years as required by adequately assess compliance with statute. Additional actions should be taken to improve compliance with security policies and procedures at state-run prisons Policies and procedures help ensure such trends, the Department may determine the security—The Department has adopted policies underlying causes and address those throughout and procedures related to security operations at the prison system. The Department plans to analyze both private and state-run prisons, such as this data starting in 2012. procedures for conducting inmate counts and Assess training needs better—The Department tracking and securing keys and tools. can also use its GAR inspections and annual audits Compliance with these policies and procedures to assess training needs. The Department has a is critical for ensuring prison security. Although training bureau that, although informed of annual written instructions, training, performance reviews, audit results through discussions, does not actually and inspections, such as the GAR inspection and receive copies of the annual audit reports, which it annual audits, help to ensure that the could use to identify training needs. The training Department’s correctional officers comply with bureau also uses annual exams to test officers’ security policies and procedures, officers do not knowledge of policies to assess training needs. always comply. For example: However, the exams may not sufficiently cover • Policy requires officers to conduct a daily tool areas where department audits have found inventory. However, department reviews have systemic noncompliance. disclosed instances where tool inventories Continue efforts to ensure adequacy and were not conducted. consistency of post orders—Post orders are • Personal property of staff and others entering written instructions that should describe the the prisons must be inspected and cleared responsibilities, duties, and functions of a particular through metal detectors. However, depart- security post or work assignment. However, some ment and auditors’ reviews found several post orders do not include instructions regarding instances of inadequate personal property department requirements. Further, some post searches. orders are long and provide general instructions, • Inmates are generally required to keep their while other post orders contain clear and concise identification cards visible on their chests instructions regarding duties. Clear and concise when outside the housing area. However, post orders can help officers who are temporarily auditors witnessed inmates who did not have assigned to an unfamiliar post to quickly visible identification when moving to meals or understand the duties associated with the post. in the yard, and officers did not enforce the policies. The Department has