---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-seventh Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 5 -- 3:00 p.m.
Chairman Allen called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Gallardo |
Mr. Paton |
|
|
Mrs. Groe |
Chairman Allen |
|
|
Mr. Murphy |
|
|
|
Mr. Brown |
|
|
Kevin Bates, Analyst, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC)
John MacDonald, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
John Kaites, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO)
Kim Sheane, Policy Advisor to the Majority
Doris Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
Lorenzo Martinez, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC)
Tixoc Munoz, Correctional Officer, Lewis Complex
Caroline Isaacs, Program Director, Arizona Program, American Friends Service Committee
Kevin Bates, Analyst, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), said the JLBC had been asked to provide information to the Committee regarding Department of Corrections (DOC) correctional officers, vacancy rates and pay issues. He stated Department of Corrections (DOC) employees total 9700, of which 7400 are correctional officers, and the majority, 6200, are Correctional Officer II (CO II), the entry-level position. As of February 28, 2006, there were 4892 filled CO II positions, which is a vacancy rate of about 21.5 percent. He said present vacancy rates at the State prisons are as follows:
Mr. Bates explained the current average CO II salary is $32,150, which includes a base salary of $27,400, plus stipends and bonuses. Over the past years, Correctional Officers have received pay increases as follows:
Mr. Bates said for FY 2005, overtime expended was $6.2 million, and compensatory time accrued was $11,000. He said $13.8 million overtime has been expended to date for 2006, and DOC estimates that total overtime for 2006 will be $37 million. He noted a recent policy change allows only overtime. JLBC has recommended overtime and compensatory time will amount to $27.4 million for 2007.
Chairman Allen asked if the vacancy rates were calculated on FTEs (full-time employees) approved by the Legislature.
Mr. Bates replied yes, the number is calculated by the number of filled positions divided by the total number of funded FTEs.
John MacDonald, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), said he has the list of questions sent to him by the Committee and would provide answers.
Mr. MacDonald said CCA is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. The company has been in business for about 22 years, and has been doing business in Arizona since about 1994. Two facilities opened in 1994, and the third opened in 1999, all located in Pinal County (Eloy, Florence and Coolidge). He said two institutions house federal inmates, and the other facility houses inmates from Alaska and Hawaii. CCA houses approximately 1200-1400 Arizona inmates at a facility in Oklahoma, on a year-to year contract.
He said the capacity of facilities is as follows:
He said the facilities for the most part are full, and CCA does business in nineteen other states.
Mr. MacDonald said CCA would not typically advocate or oppose legislation dealing with Arizona Correctional Officer salaries. However, CCA believes a pay increase for those officers would be well-deserved. He said because of the large number of federal inmates, federal wage laws apply to CCA employees, and those wages are far above state employee wages.
In response to query from Chairman Allen, Mr. MacDonald said he did not know the employee vacancy rate for CCA, and would provide that information to the Committee as soon as possible.
John Kaites, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), answered the list of questions he had received. He said GEO has 900 Arizona prisoners in Reeves County, Texas. GEO has been headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida since 1986. He distributed a map that depicted GEO locations through the Country (Attachment 1). He said in Arizona, GEO has facilities in:
Florence, security levels 2 and 3; capacity – 750,
Phoenix, security level 2, capacity - 450, plus a 1,000-bed expansion in progress.
Mr. Kaites said GEO believes Arizona correctional officers deserve a raise and requested if that occurs, that GEO officers should receive the same increase in their contract so they can stay competitive. He said he does not know what GEO vacancy rates are, but will provide that information.
In response to query from Mr. Gallardo, Mr. Kaites said at the time the Legislature contracted with GEO, CSC, which has facilities in Arizona, was not a part of GEO.
Kim Sheane, Policy Advisor to the Majority, read the Committee’s list of questions and answers submitted by Tom Doran, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) (Attachment 2).
Chairman Allen said the Committee wanted to have a clear view of all the players in the state prison community, in order to have perspective when hearing from the Arizona Department of Corrections.
Doris Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) spoke to a handout: ADC Top Ten Improvements, 2003-2005: Public Safety Now, and Later (Attachment 3).
Mrs. Groe asked if using inmates as border work crews raises concern that they may try to cross the border, and what is the actual cost of transportation for these crews.
Ms. Schriro said in prior years, both the Yuma and Douglas facilities had brush abatement crews that assisted the Sheriff’s Department along the border. The Sheriff reported the crews were beneficial and aided in spotting trafficking activities. Those facilities are literally several feet from the border so transportation demands are not great.
Mrs. Groe asked how technical revocations were reduced. Ms. Schriro replied there are several initiatives, some sponsored by the Legislature. She explained ADC makes the expectations for discharge clear prior to transferring an inmate to the community. She said a parole could be revoked by either committing a new crime, or for violating conditions of release in the community.
Mrs. Groe asked if technical
revocations are subjective decisions made by parole officers.
Ms. Schriro explained conditions of release are explicit and the offender signs
a contract. Enhanced supervision by a senior parole officers over other parole
officers further ensures uniformity in enforcement.
In response to question from Mr. Murphy regarding reallocated vacant Correction Officer (CO) positions, Ms. Schriro explained existing vacancies were reassigned, so no person was negatively impacted, but the facilities overall would benefit.
Chairman Allen distributed an ADC Weekly CO II Status Report (Attachment 4). He said he assumes a Full Time Employee (FTE) is a person working a full-time job or two or three people working some combination of a 40-hour week. Ms. Schriro said that is her understanding.
Mr. Allen asked why the ADC does
not authorize the same number of FTEs that are funded.
Ms. Schriro responded that in the Legislative Special Session, ADC was authorized
to build 1,000 level-one beds and monies were funded to establish 228 FTEs to
operate those beds, but the Legislature did not authorize the FTEs. Mr. Allen
said he does not understand this process.
Ms. Schriro said she could provide the Committee with the actual language from
the appropriation bill.
Lorenzo Martinez, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), said he would research the Special Session bill language regarding the issue.
Mr. Allen asked if ADC vacancy savings are calculated from the filled number to the authorized number or from the filled number to the funded number. Ms. Schriro said they calculate based on the funded number because that is the Legislative intent as to the number of people to employ and assign to the facilities.
Mr. Allen asked if there is no one working the job, how can the money be spent. Ms. Schriro replied if they could hire a person they do, and if not, the vacancy savings goes toward offsetting the cost of overtime and geographic and retention stipends.
Mr. Allen asked if the bigger the vacancy savings, the better ADC could do the things necessary to retain the people they have. Ms. Schriro replied that is correct.
Mr. Allen said because the vacancy savings are used in that way, that shorts the number of people actually working, because ADC is not “coming to the Legislature and saying, hey, this is ridiculous, in Florence I’m authorized for 710 when I should have 782 people.” Ms. Schriro said the first preference of ADC is always to hire a person to fill a vacancy. They have only adopted these other strategies over the last several years because they are unable to fill the vacancies.
Ms. Schriro said she believes it is critical that ADC, the Legislature, and the public keep track of the number of people that are required to fill critical security posts, so that everyone knows what is required to operate a correctional complex, and then budget accordingly.
Mrs. Groe said she understands why ADC needs the vacancy savings to pay overtime, but she wishes that the “oversight in the budget process” had been brought to the attention of the Legislature by Ms. Schriro or her legislative liaison.
Ms. Schriro replied ADC budget staff and the Governor’s staff communicate regularly with JLBC and these anomalies are not being raised today for the first time.
Mr. Paton asked if the Director
has the discretion to double fill or triple fill positions.
Ms. Schriro replied everything is predicated on having the funds available.
They cannot create positions that cannot be paid. She said her ability to address
technical human resource matters is limited.
Mr. Gallardo recommended that the Committee send questions to the Director and to JLBC for answers and allow them to report back. He noted the private prisons received questionnaires.
Mr. Allen said he wants to make sure the Committee completely discusses the questions for which they want further answers. He said he wanted to continue in this area.
Mr. Paton asked if double filling does not naturally depress the wages of those who are in those positions. Ms. Schriro responded no, the salaries are established by the Department of Administration.
Chairman Allen asked how the ADC calculates release dates.
Ms. Schriro replied the agency is still in many instances in a remedial phase when it comes to automation and technology, and computation is one of those areas. She said ADC uses a mainframe that is archaic. She explained the technical method of calculation for release dates.
Mr. Allen asked if the ADC is not instantaneously keeping track of how long an inmate’s sentence is. Ms. Schriro replied that is not feasible with the mainframe.
Mr. Allen noted the Maricopa County Clerk’s Office automated almost fifteen years ago and their system is still state of the art. He asked why ADC has waited so long to go after automation and what the jeopardy of doing it the current way is.
Ms. Schriro responded the
jeopardy is minimized by having qualified staff to the work carefully and have
the work proofed. She said ADC is lacking in many basic areas, and that she,
and most likely prior directors, has made requests for a number of maintenance,
repair and automation activities, including security equipment. She said ADC
calculates it would cost about
$15 million to acquire new technology.
Chairman Allen asked how records are kept regarding inmate health care issues.
Ms. Schriro replied there are greater challenges to fully automate medical records because they lack connectivity to medical units in the state, and in some units, information cannot be transmitted electronically.
Mr. Gallardo noted the Maricopa County Clerk of the Court and Recorders Office have a direct funding source specifically for technology, personnel, equipment, etc. He asked if the Legislature has provided ADC with a funding source specifically for technology and staff.
Ms. Schriro replied no.
Chairman Allen asked if ADC has
ever requested monies for a completely new system.
Ms. Schriro replied that on a number of occasions ADC has requested monies for
a number of remedial projects that total $46 million.
Mr. Allen asked if having new technology would have saved a considerable amount of funding for labor. Ms. Schriro replied yes.
Mr. Allen said if funding has not been on the front burner, then these conversations might help.
Ms. Schriro said ADC has a large number of unmet needs that would be appropriate for a one-time monies consideration.
Mr. Gallardo commented that in terms of providing technology for ADC, it is important to consider a funding source to help the department in the long term.
Mr. Allen said the real issue is that the technology has not changed and ADC has fallen behind.
Mr. Gallardo said that is a failure of the Legislature.
Mr. Murphy asked if there are backlogs in calculating release dates. Ms. Schriro replied that ADC has been able to prioritize the kind of information they need, and for which inmates they need it.
Mr. Murphy asked if there has been a situation of backlogs wherein an inmate was released after he should have been. Ms. Schriro replied not to her knowledge.
Chairman Allen said the JLBC has recommended that the Legislature privatize Perryville and asked how that would help the ADC reach the goal of top number of staffing in other state prisons.
Ms. Schriro said she thinks it is a bad idea and would not help. If Perryville were privatized, and staff were to lose their jobs, they could opt to work for the private sector, or they could, based on seniority, opt to bump staff at other locations. She said to destabilize the system would have a substantially untoward effect.
Chairman Allen said it is not outside the public interest to make good utilization decisions of staff that is available.
Ms. Schriro replied the success of ADC is the result of employees over the years knowing the physical plant, knowing the population, and developing professional relationships that are yielding positive outcomes. To remove an entire workforce from a location, and impose a completely new workforce which neither knows the physical plant nor the prisoner population, would not be a good business decision and would not yield positive short-term or long-term outcomes for Arizona.
In response to queries from Mr. Allen, Ms. Schriro said she believes, based on data that has been provided to leadership, that private prisons operating in Arizona for Arizona operate at a greater cost to taxpayers than state-operated facilities.
Chairman Allen stated there are statutes that require that the female populations of Arizona prison be privatized and asked if that is correct.
Ms. Schriro replied not exactly. She explained that included in footnotes the last several years there was the direction to the department to issue an RFP (request for proposal), and then to proceed according to statute with the construction of additional beds for the female population. ADC did comply in full with the Legislative direction it received. It did issue an RFP, received three bids, made a cost comparison and determined that the state operation of the Perryville facility is less expensive to taxpayers than any of the three proposals to construct a new facility and manage the female populations. Several problems made it impossible for ADC to proceed further in compliance with statute. She said there is statute that directs that no contract may be entered and no commitment made unless funds are appropriated, and there was no money appropriated to construct the women’s facility.
Mr. Gallardo asked if privatizing prisons would save money for the state.
Ms. Schriro replied not in her view.
She said Florence West exceeded state per diem costs by $10.14 in 2003 and
$9.60 in 2004; Phoenix West exceeded state per diem by $4.36 in 2003 and
$3.82 in 2004, and the Marana facility exceeded state per diem costs by $4.11
in 2003 and $3.59 in 2004, which represents an over-expenditure between $3.5
million to $5.3 million for 2003 and 2004.
Mr. Gallardo noted that successes of ADC include: institutional violence is down, close communities are safer, inmate grievances and litigations are down, relapse to drug and alcohol use is down, inmate readiness for work is up. He asked if the state were to privatize, would the state see the same success.
Ms. Schriro said she does not believe that private prisons would ever achieve the same level of success as ADC. She said the goal of private prisons is to achieve a profit, and the goal of ADC is to improve, and to protect the public now and later.
In response to query from Mr. Allen if she would resist any effort of the legislature to privatize any existing prison in Arizona, Ms. Schriro said she has always followed the direction of the Legislature and would continue to do so.
In response to query from Mrs. Groe, Ms. Schriro said all basic services provided are required by statute, and she will provide the Committee with the actual dollar amounts and services provided.
In response to query from Mrs. Groe regarding classifications of inmates, Ms. Schriro explained part of the initial classification is driven by the charge resulting in the commitment to the department, as well as the length of the sentence imposed. She said over time, with good institutional conduct, and positive programming, inmates could be reviewed and reclassified. However, certain felons will never go below a certain level.
Mrs. Groe asked what
classifications are housed at the Kingman facility. Ms. Schriro replied
initially the Request for Proposal (RFP) called for three custody levels, 2 (low
medium),
3 (medium), and 4 (low max - high medium). She said she reviewed those
specifications and determined it was not a good proposal to have three
different custody levels in one building. After speaking with legislative
representatives, levels were revised to 2 and 3 only.
Tixoc Munoz, Correctional Officer, Lewis Complex, said that for the Legislature to give a pay raise to correctional officers would be fiscally responsible. Mr. Munoz said the Director of ADC has done an outstanding job and he is proud to work for her and he is proud to be a correctional officer.
Caroline Isaacs, Program Director, Arizona Program, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), explained AFSC is an international, non-profit, social justice and human rights organization founded in the Quaker belief in the inherent growth and dignity of all people. Ms. Isaacs said in Arizona the AFSC’s Criminal Justice Program works for sentencing reform, alternatives to incarceration, and advocates for prisoners, former prisoners and their families. She said she was present to speak about the risks of prison privatization and to shed light on misinformation that has historically been provided to decision makers in Arizona regarding cost comparisons of private and public facilities. She distributed a packet of studies and research to Committee members (Attachment 5). She said that private facilities in general, according to most of the research she has seen, in addition to not saving the state money, are less secure, less safe for the prisoners and the correctional officers, and have problems delivering adequate medical care.
Chairman Allen asked if there were comments on the House Select Committee’s findings regarding the meeting of February 23, 2006 (Attachment 6).
Mr. Gallardo commented on the findings as follows:
Mr. Gallardo referred to the Minority Report he had written (Attachment 7).
Chairman Allen moved that the House Select Committee’s findings as to
the meeting on February 23, 2006 be approved (Attachment 6). The motion
carried.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
_______________________________
Yvette O’Connor, Committee Secretary
March 2, 2006
(Original minutes, attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS, PERFORMANCE AND WASTE
2
March 2, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------