ASU_Police_Accountability_Class_100410
Document Sample
Arizona Department of
Corrections
ASU-Correctional Accountability
October 4, 2010
2
Arizona Department of Corrections
FY 2011 Appropriation Summary
Description FTE Amount
FY 2010 Final Appropriation 9,755.9 984,043,800*
Restore FY2010 Provisional Bed Reduction 0.0 8,877,600
2,000 New Private Prison Beds 0.0 39,977,700
Close Provisional Beds 0.0 (86,520,300)
Restore FY 2010 Furlough, Perf. Pay Reduction 0.0 658,700
5% FTE Reduction (487.0) -
4,000 New State Beds – Operations 746.3 58,101,700
FY 2011 Lease Purchase Reduction 0.0 (6,304,100)
FY 2011 Appropriation Bill 10,015.2 998,835,100
Health Insurance Adjustment 0.0 10,837,200
Lease-Purchase Adjustment 0.0 2,100
Personnel Expenditure Reduction 0.0 (17,327,500)
FY 2011 Appropriations Report 10,015.2 992,346,900
*Includes $50,000,000 of non-appropriated one-time Federal Stimulus funds for comparative purposes.
3
ADC Facilities by Mission, Security Level
DUI = DUI
GP = General Pop.
R = Reception MTC
M = Medical GP 3 2
MH = Mental Health
PS = Protective Seg.
Sp = Specialized Winslow
GP 4 3 2
Physical Security
Levels:
5 = Highest (max)
Geo
Perryville DUI 2 Phoenix
4 = High (close)
3 = Moderate All 2-5 R, MH 2-5
(medium)
2 = Low (minimum) Lewis Florence/Eyman
PS 4 3 2 MTC GP, Sp 5 4 3 2
Yuma
GP 2 Geo (2)
GP 4 3 2 Safford
Gr Plains/Cornell GP,SP 3 2
GP 3 2
GP 3 2
Tucson
M, MH 5 4 3 2 Douglas
GP 3 2 4 4
ADC INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY & COMMITTED POPULATION
for the MONTH ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Rated Beds + Operating Capacity Total Special Inmate Inmate Total
Temporary Beds = MAX Beds CLOSE Beds MED Beds MIN Beds Operating Use Population Population Inside
Operating Capacity Rated Temp. Rated Temp. Rated Temp. Rated Temp. Capacity Beds Beds in Operating in Special Inmate
(R+T=OC) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (A-H) Beds Beds Population
Arizona State Prison
Douglas 0 0 0 0 803 124 1,252 505 2,684 89 2,438 85 2,523
Eyman 1,536 312 400 0 1,992 660 0 0 4,900 360 4,715 303 5,018
Florence 1,074 0 0 0 1,192 499 1,426 248 4,439 96 4,323 82 4,405
Lewis 0 0 2,004 0 1,924 276 1,024 128 5,356 275 4,581 249 4,830
Perryville (Female) 228 72 298 0 960 0 2,666 74 4,298 60 3,357 18 3,375
Phoenix* 247 137 125 0 150 0 41 14 714 9 602 7 609
Safford 0 0 0 0 278 53 1,208 395 1,934 55 1,871 29 1,900
Tucson* 36 0 1,146 30 2,146 458 1,754 152 5,722 243 5,331 197 5,528
Winslow 0 0 0 0 800 0 954 136 1,890 51 1,855 31 1,886
Yuma 0 0 800 0 2,118 6 1,500 80 4,504 175 2,881 129 3,010
Total Rated Beds 3,121 4,773 12,363 11,825 32,082
Total Temporary Beds 521 30 2,076 1,732 4,359
ASPC Total 36,441 1,413 31,954 1,130 33,084
Contracted In-State Private Prisons
Central AZ Correc.
0 0 0 0 1,000 280 0 0 1,280 40 1,262 11 1,273
Facility (GEO)
Florence-West (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 150 750 25 692 17 709
Phoenix-West (GEO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 500 20 470 17 487
Kingman (MTC) 0 0 0 0 1,400 108 1,870 0 3,378 153 2,703 100 2,803
Marana (MTC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 50 500 10 495 0 495
In-State Private Total 0 0 0 0 2,400 388 3,320 300 6,408 248 5,622 145 5,767
Provisional Contracted Out-of-State Private Prisons
Great Plains
Correctional Facility, 0 0 0 0 9 0 914 0 923 68 910 9 919
OK (Cornell)
Provisional Total 0 0 0 0 9 0 914 0 923 68 910 9 919
ALL TOTAL 3,121 521 4,773 30 14,772 2,464 16,059 2,032 43,772 1,729 38,486 1,284 39,770
Out to Court/Out to Medical 509
TOTAL INMATE POPULATION 40,279
*ASPC-Phoenix has 20 Rated Female Beds/2 Female Special Use Beds; ASPC-Tucson/SACRC has 144 Rated Female Beds/152 Temporary Female Beds/2 Special Use Female Beds
5
INMATE POPULATION GROWTH
As of June 30, 2010
FISCAL YEAR MONTHLY NET GROWTH AND AVERAGE
MONTH FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
July (110) 13 113 147 143 148 61 128 8 130
August 180 131 213 142 54 (7) 228 266 220 53
September 94 44 165 18 169 181 200 75 142 6
October 8 196 (344) 122 288 176 330 79 244 165
November 8 153 98 18 122 60 119 (18) (12) (76)
December 80 259 (159) (18) 108 249 60 128 3 (146)
January 70 237 141 4 (111) (66) (75) 91 240 (41)
February 11 166 253 61 (117) 160 135 263 111 (123)
March 52 278 256 277 248 387 429 262 156 128
April 174 240 408 46 33 202 237 232 155 126
May 44 66 154 66 (6) 342 206 225 203 (23)
June 165 227 170 7 102 301 361 78 45 (134)
TOTAL 776 2,010 1,468 890 1,033 2,133 2,291 1,809 1,515 65
MONTHLY AVERAGE 65 168 122 74 86 178 191 151 126 5
6
ADC Custody Levels
Minimum Custody
Low risk inmates. Permitted to work outside the secured
perimeter of a facility. May participate in community work
crews and do not require controlled movement within the
facility where they are housed.
7
Minimum Custody Tents
88
ADC Custody Levels
Medium Custody
Inmates representing a moderate risk to public and staff.
May not work outside the secured perimeter of a facility
unless under armed supervision and require limited
controlled movement within the facility where they are
housed.
9
Minimum/Medium
Custody Dorms
10 10
ADC Custody Levels
Close Custody
Inmates representing a high risk to public and staff. May
not work outside the secured perimeter of a facility unless
under armed supervision and require controlled
movement within the facility where they are housed.
11
Close Custody
12
12
ADC Custody Levels
Maximum Custody
Inmates representing the highest risk to public and staff.
They are housed in a celled setting. They have limited
work opportunities within the secured perimeter of a facility
and must work under armed escort and restraints outside
the facility. They must be escorted in full restraints within
the facility when not in a cell.
13
Old Max Custody
1414
ADC Vision
Contributing to safer communities
through responsible, professional and
effective corrections.
15
ADC Mission
To serve and protect the people of Arizona
by securely incarcerating convicted
felons, by providing structured
programming designed to support inmate
accountability and successful community
reintegration, and by providing effective
supervision for those offenders
conditionally released from prison.
16
ADC Guiding Principles
We have the legal and operational responsibility to be
accountable and responsive to the judicial, legislative, and
executive branches of government; to our employees; to
inmates; and most importantly, to the citizens of Arizona.
We value honesty and integrity in our relationships, and we
place a high priority on quality of services and development
of teamwork, trust, and open communication.
We make fiscally sound, measurable decisions, and respond
effectively to the changing demands placed upon the agency
by stakeholders, citizens, and their representatives.
We maintain an environment that is humane and equitable to
both employees and inmates, utilizing a grievance and
disciplinary system that is consistently administered and
fosters due process.
We develop, encourage, recognize, and reward professional
performance and growth by employees at all levels.
17
Management Focus
Efficiency
Affordability and Fiscal Responsibility
Transparency
Accountability
Honesty
Evaluation and Performance Improvement
18
Correctional Accountability
Accountability is a vital element of
Corrections.
Both individual correctional officers and
Departments of Corrections must be held
to account for their actions.
Effective accountability procedures are
essential if Correctional agencies are to
achieve their public safety goals.
19
Individual-Level Accountability
Individual-level accountability involves the
conduct of correctional officers with
respect to lawful, respectful, and equal
treatment of prisoners.
Accountability is ensured by controlling
conduct through training, written policies,
supervision, regular performance evaluations,
and investigation of misconduct.
20
Employee Training
New Officers complete 7 weeks of pre-service training at the
Correctional Officers Training Academy, a residential course at
Tucson.
All other new employees complete 40 credit hours of New Employee
Orientation at their work location.
Employees with inmate contact are required to complete 40 credit
hours of in-service training each year. The focus is on security
basics, safety issues and legal requirements.
As employees promote, they complete additional management
training of 40-80 hours each, including:
Professional Development Program
Sergeants‟ Leadership Academy
Correctional Officers III Academy
Correctional Managers‟ Academy
Correctional Administrators‟ Academy
Community Corrections Officer Academy
21
Employee PACE Process
Accountability requires that Correctional employees know what job
performance standards they are expected to meet.
Performance Appraisal for Correctional Employees (PACE) is the
Department's official employee evaluation system.
It is established in accordance with applicable personnel rules.
It ensures that employees understand the tasks expected of them and
that their performance is evaluated fairly and objectively.
It rates employees against clearly defined performance standards.
The PACE:
Improves an employees understanding of their job assignments, the
established standards for performance, and their progress in meeting
the standards.
Encourages employee development and improvement in job
performance.
Assists in identifying training needs.
Provides employee performance feedback through performance
documentation on the quality of work being performed.
Provides a means to document disciplinary actions related to employee
performance. 22
Employee Grievance Process
The employee grievance procedure is established to
address any employment-related matter of concern that
directly and personally affects an employee, provided the
Department has complete or partial jurisdiction over the
matter and neither statute nor Arizona Department of
Administration (ADOA) Personnel Rules provide an
alternative means of resolution.
ADC Department Policy requires management to resolve
employees' job-related problems fairly, quickly and at the
lowest possible organizational level and informally, when
possible. Department Policy establishes procedures and
time frames for addressing employee grievances.
23
Employee Grievance Process
Informal Meeting – allows supervisors and employees
the opportunity to discuss issues face-to-face in an
attempt to resolve the issue at the lowest possible level.
If the issue cannot be resolved during the informal
process, the formal process begins.
Formal Review – consists of 3 steps: Step I, Step II and
Step III, with the ADC Director being the final Review
Authority.
Step IV may be an option, if the employee alleges discrimination
or non-compliance with ADOA Personnel Rules and is submitted
to the ADOA Director for review.
Specific time frames are established for each Step within the
process.
24
Employee Discipline Process
ADC‟s Department Policy establishes procedures for
addressing and correcting unacceptable employee
behavior, while on or off duty, as well as any
performance deficiencies. All corrective disciplinary
actions shall be completed within established time
frames:
30-calendar days for any disciplinary actions that fall below a 40-
hour suspension and is handled through the internal Supervisor
Complaint process.
60-calendar days for any disciplinary actions that fall above a 40-
hour suspension, demotion or dismissal and is handled through
the internal Supervisor Complaint process.
120-calendar days if the matter is investigated by ADC‟s internal
Administrative Investigative Unit.
25
Employee Discipline Process
ADC employs approximately 9,500 staff and has many layers of
supervision and authority levels.
Specific guidelines and time frames have been established to
ensure fairness, consistency, efficiency and accountability.
The following example depicts time frames regarding misconduct
addressed through ADC‟s internal Supervisor Complaint process
and subsequently referred to ADC‟s internal Administrative
Investigations Unit for further investigation.
Day
1 Incident (approving authority becomes aware of misconduct)
5 Supervisor Complaint issued to employee
11 Employee response received (case referred to AIU)
63 AIU completes investigation
75 Authority‟s review and determination complete
105 Employee Relations/Attorney General‟s Ofc/DD Review
109 Notice of Charges sent to Authority and issued to employee
113 Employee response to Notice of Charges due
120 Final Disciplinary action served to the employee 26
Agency-Level Accountability
Agency-level accountability involves the
performance of Correctional Departments with
respect to securely incarcerating prisoners,
providing programming that supports their
accountability and successful community
reintegration, and supervising those
conditionally released from prison.
Accountability is ensured by establishing system
standards, measuring outcomes, evaluating
performance, and performing continuous process
improvement.
27
ASP-Kingman Escape
and
ADC Response
28
29
ASP-Kingman Escape
July 30, 2010:
1600 hours (4:00 PM): Inmates McCluskey, Province, and Renwick
were accounted for at the 1600 hour formal count.
2045 – 2115 hours (8:45-9:15 PM): At sometime between yard
closure at 2045 hrs and 2115 hrs which was shift change, Inmates
McCluskey, Province, and Renwick, with the help of accomplice
Welch, escaped; exiting the perimeter of the prison complex at a
point on the East side and walking to the North and East of the
prison.
2140 hours (9:40 PM): MTC positively identified two of the inmates
as unaccounted for in their dormitory.
2143 hours (9:43 PM): MTC discovered the third inmate as
unaccounted for in his dormitory.
30
ASP-Kingman Escape
July 30, 2010:
2150 hours (9:50 PM): MTC initiated ICS at approximately 2150
and ordered a recount of the entire unit.
2206 hours (10:06 PM): MTC perimeter patrol found the breach in
the perimeter fence (30 inches by 22 inches hole) including wire
cutters inside & outside of the perimeter fence and tracks leading
into and out of the perimeter fence.
2230 hours (10:30 PM): At approximately 2230, MTC notified
Mohave County Sheriff‟s Office. This and subsequent notifications
were all later than appropriate.
31
ADC Response and Action
July 30, 2010:
2337 hours (11:37 PM): ADC was officially notified of the escape 2
hours after MTC positively identified the inmates had escaped.
2337 hours (11:37 PM): ADC Division Director of Offender
Operations dispatched K9 teams from the Lewis, Florence and
Winslow Prisons.
2350 hours (11:50 PM): ADC Division Director of Offender
Operations activated ADC Central Office Emergency Operations
Center and assumed Incident Command for ADC. ADC maintained
constant communication from the ADC Central Office Emergency
Operations Center with the Kingman ADC On-Site Monitor, MTC
officials, and law enforcement.
32
ADC Response and Action
July 31, 2010:
0254 hours (2:54 AM): ADC sent out media advisory of the escape.
0400 hours (4:00 AM): ADC Tracking Teams began arriving at
ASP-Kingman. ADC Division Director of Offender Operations
deployed them to assist Mohave County in tracking the inmates.
0800 hours (8:00 AM): Contract Beds Operation Director arrived on
scene at ASP-Kingman and took over as on-scene commander for
ADC. Kingman is directed to enhance their perimeter patrols
effective immediately and remain in place until further notice.
1400 hours (2:00 PM): ADC accepted offer from US Marshal‟s
Service to assist in the man hunt.
33
ADC Response and Action
July 31, 2010 to the present
August 4-6, 2010: ADC Security Operational Review Team
dispatched to Kingman to conduct a Security Operations
Assessment of Kingman. Serious deficiencies were identified.
August 4, 2010: ADC Director Ryan met with MTC leadership in
Phoenix.
August 12, 2010: ADC Director Ryan conducts an inspection of
ASP-Kingman and presents MTC officials with the draft Security
Assessment Report resulting from the August 4-6, 2010
assessment. The report clearly identifies that human error on the
part of MTC contributed to the escape and that ADC monitoring
inspection inadequacies also contributed to the escape.
August 13, 2010: MTC submitted letter to ADC making full
admission of responsibility for escape.
34
ADC Response and Action
July 31, 2010 to the present
August 30-September 1, 2010: ASP-Kingman was re-evaluated by
the Division Director of Offender Operations, the new ADC Contract
Beds Operations Director, and new On-Site Monitor. Additional and
uncorrected deficiencies were identified since the August 4-6, 2010
Security Operations Assessment was conducted.
September 9, 2010: ADC Director Ryan and Deputy Director
Flanagan conducted a follow-up inspection of ASP-Kingman. Many
of the operational deficiencies found on August 4 -6, 2010, still
existed as of August 30, 2010, 30 days following the escape.
Of greatest concern to learn first-hand on September 9, 2010, was
that the entire electronic security perimeter alarm system must be
replaced because not only has it not worked properly (in at least 2
½ years), it was not installed correctly in 2004.
35
ADC Response and Action
Following the escape from ASP-Kingman and due to a lack of public
confidence with the management of ASP-Kingman, ADC also placed
the following restrictions on the ASP-Kingman inmate population and
removed Inmates from the prison. These restrictions apply only to ASP-
Kingman:
Minimum Custody: No inmates convicted of 1st or 2nd degree
murder or attempted murder; no inmates with a history of escape or
attempted escape from a secure perimeter; no inmates with more
than five years to serve.
Medium Custody: No inmates with life sentences; no inmates
convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder or attempted murder; no
inmates with an escape or attempted escape from a secure
perimeter within the last ten years; no inmates with more than 20
years to serve.
36
ADC Response and Action
Under these new restrictions, ADC has transferred 238 inmates from
ASP-Kingman to other medium custody and minimum custody state
prisons:
25 Minimum Custody Inmates: 20 convicted of 2nd degree
murder or 1st degree attempted murder; and 5 with a history of
escape or attempted escape from a secure perimeter.
213 Medium Custody Inmates: 68 with life sentences; 12
convicted of 1st degree murder or attempted 1st degree murder; 83
convicted of 2nd degree murder or attempted 2nd degree murder;
15 with an escape or attempted escape from a secure perimeter
within the last ten (10) years; and 35 with 20 plus years to serve.
37
Comparison of States’ Correctional
Classification Systems
The current ADC classification system is consistent with national
and Western State‟s classification systems.
Most prison systems in the United States use custody levels
equivalent to minimum, medium, close, and maximum. The types of
inmates classified into these custody levels are also generally the
same, with minimum custody housing low risk inmates, medium
custody housing moderate risk inmates, close custody housing high
risk inmates, and maximum custody housing highest risk to public
and staff.
In order to determine risk and assign an inmate into the appropriate
custody level, most states use an objective scoring system that
considers criminal history (current and prior convictions; length of
sentence; time remaining prior to release; prison behavior (prison
violence and discipline record); escape history; sex offender status;
age; and gang affiliation. 38
ADC Correctional System
Comprehensive Review
39
Review of Prisons
Following the escape from ASP-Kingman, ADC immediately began a
comprehensive review of all prison operations. In addition to the
ongoing security assessment of ASP-Kingman:
All in-state private prisons were reviewed and assessed the week of
August 16-20, 2010. Teams conducted complete security
assessments of the other four in-state private prisons: ASP-Phoenix
West, ASP-Marana, ASP-CACF, and ASP-Florence West.
Although the private prison in Oklahoma (Great Plains Correctional
Facility, GEO) is currently in the deactivation process, its perimeter
systems and fencing were assessed on August 23, 2010.
Deficiencies noted in these private prison assessments were
addressed with each facility operator in letters dated August 26,
2010. The facilities were mandated to address and provide
Corrective Action Plans for the cited deficiencies by September 3,
2010, inclusive of a time line for completion.
In addition, all ADC state prison perimeter systems and fencing
were reviewed and assessed the week of August 16-20, 2010. 40
Regulatory Oversight &
Compliance Monitoring
The post ASP-Kingman escape security assessment and administrative
investigation revealed:
Significant security device and operational practice deficiencies that
were determined to be mostly of human error.
ADC methods for private prison contract administration and operational
oversight were not adequate as applied to that facility. Although
processes to report problems were in place, it was learned that
assigned ADC staff were not adequately following Inspection/Reporting
Policies (Department Order 703).
Further security assessments at all other contracted private prisons
revealed that the inspection/reporting procedures lacked specific
accountability components to ensure compliance and revealed additional
failures to follow and/or enforce facility inspection policy requirements.
Ultimately, although it is the contractor‟s obligation to adhere to all ADC
policies, it is the responsibility of ADC to inspect and report deficiencies to
the contractor and to ADC Director Ryan and ADC executive staff.
41
Regulatory Oversight &
Compliance Monitoring
Actions taken as a result of the post escape assessment at ASP-
Kingman, and the security assessments at all private contracted
facilities:
The ADC Contract Beds Operations Director resigned and the
at-will ADC Contract Monitor at ASP-Kingman was dismissed.
ADC Director Ryan named a new ADC Contract Beds
Operations Director, and assigned a seasoned Deputy Warden
as the new ADC Contract Monitor at ASP-Kingman.
Due to the volume and nature of deficiencies identified in the
security assessment and investigation, several management
staff employed by ASP-Kingman were also terminated by MTC.
Inspection and reporting requirements of Department Order 703
were immediately reinforced for all private contract beds. Corrective
action plans were required from all private prison contractors for
deficient findings resulting from the security assessments; with
daily/weekly updates on corrective action progress.
42
Regulatory Oversight &
Compliance Monitoring
A redesigned inspection program has been implemented to replace
the “Peer Audit Review” system that was in place since 2005.
It encompasses all ADC operated and private contracted beds, and
requires positive compliance inspection and reporting on a daily,
weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis.
It focuses on a „green, amber, red‟ compliance/warning/non-
compliance system (GAR), which can be conducted on a daily,
weekly, monthly, quarterly basis.
Using an electronic notebook and software, the compliant and
deficient areas are reported immediately to those responsible for
immediate correction.
If it is a „red‟ indicator, then the „bad‟ or „non-compliant‟ practice or
repair/correction must be made immediately.
43
“GAR” 16 Competencies
Administrative Counts & Movement
Detention Ingress/Egress
Key Control Mail & Property
Perimeter Security Radios
Inmate Regulations Searches
Security Devices Tool Control
Tower Operations Transportation
Visitation Weapons
44
ADC 703 Monthly Inspection Report
COUNTS/INMATE MOVEMENT - Department Order 701
Performance Measure (Description) Grn Amb Red Notifications Level
Is inmate movement controlled/coordinated by
1
staff? o o o 2
Does the picture board match the count
2
sheets? o o o 1
Does the AIMS Facility Population Report
3
match the Accountability Officer's latest count? o o o 2
Are Formal Counts being conducted on each
4 shift? o o o 2
At what times?
Do the formal counts include physical ID card
5 to face check and are they recorded on the o o o 1
appropriate AIMS count sheet?
Is there documentation (information and
6 significant information reports) supporting any o o o 1
emergency counts?
Remarks: (Record significant facts, observations, and other data used to support ALL amber / red findings. Note-
Inspectors may also use this section to note other observations regarding topics not specifically addressed within this
section.)
Reviewer's Signature / Date
45
Emergency Notification Procedures
Contracted Arizona private prisons are contractually required by ADC policy
to immediately upon suspicion of an escape activate the Incident
Command System and notify ADC, local police agencies, and the
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
ASP-Kingman‟s delay in notifying both local law enforcement and ADC was
not a result of un-clear or vague guidelines that the prison is required to
follow. The failure to make timely notifications was a failure on the part of
MTC staff.
To correct this, ADC has taken the following action:
Since August 7, 2010, emergency drills, including simulated notification of ADC
and law enforcement, have been conducted at ASP-Kingman on each shift.
Regular monthly and/or weekly training in all emergency situations will continue
thereafter.
Designated Armed Response Teams (DART) training is being conducted one
per shift per week.
A joint training session has been set up with Mohave County Sheriff‟s Office
(MCSO) for late September.
The ADC Emergency Preparedness Administrator is reviewing the emergency
response plans at all private and public facilities to ensure that they clearly
outline incident response requirements.
46
5,000 Private Prison Bed RFP
Cancellation
On September 10, 2010, in the interest of public safety and as
authorized pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2539 and A.A.C. R2-7-C308,
ADC cancelled the 5,000 Private Prison Bed RFP.
This was done to ensure that a private prison Contractor can meet
security and operational requirements and to eliminate or reduce
unfavorable occurrences within Arizona‟s contracted private prisons.
The RFP is currently being revised and will be reissued in 2010 with
additional safeguards, performance requirements, and compliance
monitoring processes designed to ensure public safety.
The revised and reissued RFP will require review by the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee prior to issuance, per Laws 2009, 3rd
Special Session, Ch. 6.
47
Private Prison
RFP & Contract Changes
Future requests for proposals (RFPs) and contracts for private prisons, including the
5,000 Private Prison Bed contract, will contain new or expanded provisions:
Expanded and better defined RFP evaluation criteria.
More comprehensive information regarding a contractor‟s past performance and
past occurrences.
Annual re-certification of all security systems.
Staff mechanisms to report problems.
Private prison coverage of costs incurred by federal and other jurisdictions.
Enhanced contract performance auditing guidelines, required performance
outcomes and measures, and reporting requirements.
Contract monitoring general requirements.
Additional monetary offsets and sanctions that can be when exigent
circumstances occur.
48
ASP-Kingman/What Lies Ahead
MTC‟s performance at ASP-Kingman is being monitored on a daily, weekly,
and monthly basis, using the ADC „green, amber, red‟ compliance/warning/
non-compliance system (GAR).
MTC staff at ASP-Kingman is being redirected and retrained.
The entire ASP-Kingman electronic security perimeter alarm system is
being replaced.
Seven (7) armed perimeter patrol officers are stationed and will remain in
place at both ASP-Kingman units, until the perimeter alarm system is
replaced.
No new inmates will be assigned to ASP-Kingman, until MTC is fully
compliant with ADC policy and all contractual requirements.
PUBLIC SAFETY IS JOB #1.
49
Questions?
50
