ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS

BIENNIAL COMPARISON OF
“PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC PROVISION OF SERVICES”
REQUIRED PER A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
Charles L. Ryan
Director
December 21, 2011
“Contributing to Safer Communities through Responsible, Professional and Effective Corrections”

1601 WEST JEFFERSON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
(602) 542-5497
www.azcorrections.gov
JANICE K. BREWER
GOVERNOR

CHARLES L. RYAN
DIRECTOR

December 21, 2011

The Honorable John Kavanagh, Chairman 2011
The Honorable Don Shooter, Chairman 2012
Joint Legislative Budget Committee
1716 W. Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re:

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 Reporting Requirements

Dear Representative Kavanagh and Senator Shooter:
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1609.01, the Arizona Department of Corrections (Department) is submitting the Biennial Comparison of
“Private Versus Public Provision of Services” Report (Biennial Report) required per sections K and M of the statute.
Biennial Report:
The Department has produced the Biennial Report with the intent to present data comparing the services provided by
private prison contractors who exclusively contract with the Department to the state’s provision of services for a similar
state-run facility. The purpose of the comparison, as defined by statute, is to determine if the contractor is providing the
same quality of services as the state at a lower cost or services superior in quality to those provided by the state at
essentially the same cost. This Biennial Report contains service data for fiscal year (FY) 2010, FY 2011, and calendar year
(CY) 2011 and cost data for FY 2010 taken from the FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report (Cost Report) required per
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(L)(M).

The Honorable John Kavanagh, Chairman 2011
The Honorable Don Shooter, Chairman 2012
December 21, 2011
Page 2 of 5

When I assumed leadership in January 2009, I began a systemic review of Department operational and administrative
practices. As part of that review, I found that the Department had for most years since 1998 reported annual audit
evaluation/inspection compliance data for both contracted private prisons and state-run prisons in information provided
annually to the JLBC and OSPB for the Master List of State Programs and/or the Five-year Strategic Plans, which were also
posted on the Department’s website. However, a formal, comprehensive biennial report comparing private and public
provision of services, required per A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M), had not been completed and submitted to JLBC since the
law was originally enacted. Based upon this finding, I initiated action to have the biennial comparison done and the
subsequent report produced.
As required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K), the biennial comparison is based on the professional correctional standards that the
Department has codified in written policies and procedures and has established in private prison contracts. In order to
measure performance against these correctional standards, it was necessary for me to develop the tools needed to capture
sufficient data to measure and compare these standards; including creating a new prison operations inspection program
and annual audit process that could be used both to ensure operational compliance and to collect and measure data for a
comparison of private and state-run prison services. We are currently working to further refine this annual audit process to
ensure that data can be effectively collected and sorted to compare private and state-run prison services in all nine (9)
required service areas identified in statute. All annual audits conducted beginning in 2012, will collect data in all nine (9)
required service areas.
In addition to creating a new annual audit process, it was also necessary to revise existing processes and develop new
processes to reliably capture and report both event-driven and outcome-based comparative prison data. This included
enhancements to the significant incident reporting (SIR) process, collection of assault data and mortality data, and revision
of internal data collection tools for inmate programs and services. Once annual audit data was available for CY 2011 and
comparative data was available for FY 2010 and FY 2011, I conducted the biennial comparison required by A.R.S. § 411609.01.

The Honorable John Kavanagh, Chairman 2011
The Honorable Don Shooter, Chairman 2012
December 21, 2011
Page 3 of 5

Cost Report:
As an addendum to the Biennial Report, I am providing the Cost Report required per A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(L)(M). This FY
2010 report was published April 13, 2011 and is the most recent report produced by the Department. Although A.R.S. § 411609.01(L) only requires the Department to conduct the cost comparison every five (5) years, the Department has provided
average daily costs annually for state prisons since FY 1983 and has included private prisons beginning in FY 1995.
The Cost Report analyzes expenditures for the incarceration of inmates sentenced to the Department including felons who
have been released and are monitored under community supervision. The Cost Report is prepared using actual
expenditures for appropriated funds as reported in the Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS, the state’s accounting
system) which includes payments made to, and on behalf of, private prison vendors. The costs used in the analysis include
all elements of salary and employee related expenditures (including employee and employer pension costs and health
insurance costs), all other operating expenses (including travel, utilities, inmate food, per diem payment for private prison
operators, etc.) and equipment (capital and non-capital).The Cost Report forms the basis for cost comparisons done by the
Department, including the cost comparisons for existing beds and the evaluation of new private prison bed contract
proposals.
The Cost Report has been prepared annually by ADC staff, with the exception of FY 2005 through FY 2007, when it was
prepared by MAXIMUS, Inc., a contracted vendor. In June 2009, I determined that the requirements of the contract could be
better performed in-house and chose not to renew the MAXIMUS, Inc. contract that ended on November 28, 2008. The
decision to complete the Cost Report internally afforded me the opportunity both to utilize existing Department knowledge
and expertise of prison operations and allocation of costs and to improve the comparative analysis. It is the intent going
forward to continually review and improve the analysis and allocation of prison operational functions and costs in an effort to
provide policymakers with the most accurate and up-to-date information relating to the costs associated with private and
state prison operations.

The Honorable John Kavanagh, Chairman 2011
The Honorable Don Shooter, Chairman 2012
December 21, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Biennial Report Limitations:
Although the Biennial Report provides a comparison of services for similar private and state-run prison facilities, it is
important to recognize that exact private prison unit versus state prison unit comparisons are not possible due to inherent
complexities resulting from the many differences in operating structure and requirements. This is equally true when
comparing facilities and when comparing cost.
Regarding facilities, disparity in population and the requirements and constraints imposed through statute and individual
private prison contracts have created significant differences in operational models between private and state-run prison
units. Private and state-run prison units vary by population size, inmate type, and services available. Each private prison
contract is unique and separate and delineates the exact responsibilities and requirements for the private prison including
size, bed capacity, custody level, inmate population type, inmate treatment and programming, and inmate health needs.
While population size and type can change for both private and state-run prison units, for private prisons the number of
beds, type of inmates, and services to be provided are all dictated by contract and can only change through a contract
amendment. The Department, on the other hand, has ongoing flexibility in determining the number and type of inmates to
be housed in a particular state-run unit. This flexibility has allowed the Department to effectively manage populations during
the constant population growth that occurred between 2001 and 2010, through ongoing re-designation of prison units,
movement of large inmate population types, and creation of temporary beds. The Department’s need to effectively manage
change and to find innovative solutions to population growth and population shifts has created customized, unique private
and state-run prison units with distinct missions, making side-by-side comparisons almost impossible.
In considering cost, private versus state cost comparisons are inherently complex due to the many differences in operating
requirements, such as inmate custody level and population requirements; medical, mental health and dental care
limitations; level of overcrowding; age of infrastructure; programming requirements; and land and building financing and
cost. For example, when considering prison capital construction costs, the depreciation amount for existing state prison
buildings was $1.41 per inmate per day compared to an average of $12.00 per inmate per day for private prison building
and financing costs. Thus, a perfect cost comparison is impossible to achieve.

The Honorable John Kavanagh, Chairman 2011
The Honorable Don Shooter, Chairman 2012
December 21,2011
Page 5 of 5

Biennial Report Findings:
The Biennial Report compared the six (6) private prison units operated under five (5) exclusive private prison contracts with the
Department to six (6) state-run prison units operated by the Department. The comparison showed that:
•
•
•

Four (4) of the six (6) private prison units provided a quality of service comparable to that provided by the state-run prison
unit at a cost within the range of per diem costs for the same inmate custody level.
One (1) of the six (6) private prison units provided a quality of service comparable to that provided by the state-run prison
unit; however, a cost comparison could not be conducted because the unit did not open until April 2010.
One (1) of the six (6) private prison units provided a quality of service below that provided by the state-run prison unit at a
cost within the range of per diem costs for the same inmate custody level.

The Department remains committed to ensuring the statutory requirements of A.RS. § 41-1609.01 are met. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if you have any questions.

Enclosures
cc:

Members of the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee
Richard Stavneak, Director, Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee
Eileen Klein, Chief of Staff, Office of the Arizona Governor
Scott Smith, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Office of the Arizona Governor
Thomas Adkins, Policy Advisor, Public Safety, Office of the Arizona Governor
John Arnold, Director, Governors Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting
Brandon Nee, Senior Analyst, Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biennial Comparison of “Private versus Public Provision of Services” Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

Statutory Authority for the Biennial Comparison of “Private versus Public Provision of Services”
Report: A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Action Taken by the Department Regarding this Statutory Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

Arizona Prison System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Biennial Report Limitations: Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Biennial Report Limitations: Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

Biennial Report Comparison Model and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

FY 2010 – FY 2011 Comparative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

CY 2011 Annual Audit Comparative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

Report Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Appendix: FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 1 of 82

BIENNIAL COMPARISON OF
“PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC PROVISION OF SERVICES” REPORT
The Arizona Department of Corrections (Department), with a fiscal year (FY) 2012 appropriated budget of $998,837,700 and
10,000 employees, is one of the largest departments in Arizona State Government. The Department serves and protects the
people of the state of Arizona by incarcerating inmates in correctional facilities and supervising conditionally released offenders in
the community. During incarceration, medical care and other health and welfare services are provided to inmates. In addition,
programs such as work, education, training, and substance abuse treatment are provided to inmates to promote employability,
literacy, sobriety, and accountability to crime victims and to increase the likelihood that released inmates will become law-abiding
citizens upon release.
The Department was created in June 20, 1968, pursuant to Laws 1968, Chapter 198 (A.R.S. §41-1601, et. seq.) by consolidating
independently operated prisons into a single department and authorizing the Department to oversee the operation of adult and
juvenile facilities and parole services. Since 1990, when the juvenile population was put under the authority of a newly created
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, the Department has incarcerated only those persons under the age of 18 sentenced
as adults.
Since 1968, the Department has served the entire state and operated in the public interest by operating a safe and secure prison
system that confines offenders as directed by the courts. Confinement contributes to public safety by removing offenders convicted
of felony crimes from society and preventing them from further victimizing citizens. In addition, the Department maintains effective
community supervision of offenders, facilitates their successful transition from prison to the community, and returns offenders to
prison when necessary to protect the public.
In 1968, the Department consisted of only three facilities, the Arizona State Prison in Florence, the Arizona State Industrial School
for Boys at Fort Grant, and the Arizona Youth Center in Tucson. Over the years, the Department has expanded from the original
system of three (3) independently run institutions to a unified correctional system with ten (10) Arizona State Prison Complexes
(ASPC):



ASPC-Douglas: A minimum and medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 2,578; includes the minimum security
satellite Papago Unit.
ASPC-Eyman: A medium, close, and maximum security prison with a total bed capacity of 5,131.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 2 of 82










ASPC-Florence: A minimum, medium, and maximum security prison with a total bed capacity of 4,439; includes the
minimum security satellite Globe Unit and the minimum security satellite Picacho Unit.
ASPC-Lewis: A minimum, medium, close, and maximum security prison with a total bed capacity of 5,234; includes the
minimum security satellite Sunrise Unit and the minimum security satellite Eagle Point Unit.
ASPC-Perryville: A minimum, medium, close, and maximum security prison for females with a total bed capacity of 4,274.
ASPC-Phoenix: A minimum, medium, close, and maximum security prison with a total bed capacity of 714.
ASPC-Safford: A minimum and medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 1,919; includes the minimum security
satellite Fort Grant Unit.
ASPC-Tucson: A minimum, medium, close, and maximum security prison with a total bed capacity of 5,294; includes the
minimum security satellite Southern Arizona Correctional Release Center (SACRC) Unit for females.
ASPC-Winslow: A minimum and medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 1,842; includes the minimum security
satellite Apache Unit.
ASPC-Yuma: A minimum, medium, and close security prison with a total bed capacity of 4,430.

The Department also currently has six (6) private prison units operated under five (5) exclusive private Arizona State Prison (ASP)
contracts with the Department:
 ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility/CACF (GEO): A medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 1,280.
 ASP-Phoenix West (GEO): A minimum security prison with a total bed capacity of 500.
 ASP-Florence West (GEO): A minimum security prison with a total bed capacity of 750.
 ASP-Kingman Hualapai Unit (MTC): A medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 1,508.
 ASP-Kingman Cerbat Unit (MTC): A minimum and medium security prison with a total bed capacity of 2,000.
 ASP-Marana (MTC): A minimum security prison with a total bed capacity of 500.
On October 31, 2011, the Department had jurisdiction over a total of 45,925 inmates and offenders:
1. 33,659 inmates incarcerated in Department prisons, including 3,609 females and 96 male and female minors;
2. 6,444 inmates incarcerated in contracted private prisons; and
3. 5,822 offenders on community supervision (inmates who have been paroled or statutorily released from prison before their
entire sentence has been served.)

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 3 of 82

ADC Facilities by Security Level/Mission
DUI = DUI
GP = General
Population
M = Medical
MH = Mental
Health
PS = Protective
Segregation
R = Reception
Physical Security
Levels:
5 = Highest
(maximum)
4 = High (close)
3 = Moderate
(medium)
2 = Low
(minimum)
ADC Owned & Operated Prison
ADC Contracted Private Prison

MTC
GP 3 2
Winslow
GP 4 3 2

Perryville
All 5 4 3 2

Geo
DUI 2

Lewis
PS 4 3 2
Yuma
GP 4 3 2

Phoenix
R, MH 5 4 3 2

MTC
GP 2

Tucson
M, MH 5 4 3 2

Florence/Eyman
GP 5 4 3 2
Geo (2)
GP 3 2

Safford
GP 3 2
Douglas
GP 3 2

23

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 4 of 82

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE BIENNIAL COMPARISON OF “PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC PROVISION OF SERVICES”
REPORT (A.R.S. § 41-1609.01)
The Department is submitting the Biennial Comparison of “Private Versus Public Provision of Services” Report (Biennial Report) as
required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) and (M).
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) requires that for executed private prison contracts, the Department Director conduct a biennial comparison
of the private contractor’s provision of services to the state’s provision of services for a similar facility. The purpose of the
comparison is to determine if the contractor is providing the same quality of services as the state at a lower cost or services
superior in quality to those provided by the state at essentially the same cost.
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) identifies service areas that the Department Director shall consider when conducting the biennial
comparison. They include nine (9) required service areas and allow for additional discretionary services areas as determined by
the Department Director:
1. Security
2. Inmate Management and Control
3. Inmate Programs and Services
4. Facility Safety and Sanitation
5. Administration
6. Food Service
7. Personnel Practices and Training
8. Inmate Health Services
9. Inmate Discipline
10. Other matters relating to services as determined by the Department Director
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(M), the service comparison is limited to contractors who exclusively contract with the
Department. In addition, the Department is required to submit to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) for its review each
completed service comparison.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 5 of 82

Law authorizing individual private prison contracts may also prescribe compliance with or exemption from requirements set forth in
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01. For example:
Laws 2003, 2nd Special Session, Chapter 5, Section 15, which authorized the one thousand beds awarded to Central
Arizona Correctional Facility (GEO), stated that “Notwithstanding section 41-1609.01, subsections G and K and section 411609.02, subsection B, Arizona Revised Statutes, the director of the department of corrections shall negotiate contracts or
amendments to existing contracts for the construction of a total of 1,000 new private prison beds not previously authorized
by the legislature, as soon as practicable…”
Similarly, Laws 2007, 1st Regular Session, Chapter 261, Section 8, which authorized the two thousand private beds
awarded by contract to ASP-Kingman (MTC) - Cerbat Unit, stated that “…notwithstanding section 41-1609.01, subsections
G and K and section 41-1609.02, subsection B, Arizona Revised Statutes, the department of administration shall reissue
the revised request for proposals to contract for two thousand private prison beds.”
In keeping with the statutory requirements of A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 and recognizing that although Session Law may have originally
exempted two private prison units from A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K), the Department has determined that it is in the best interest of the
state to conduct one comprehensive biennial comparison that includes all six (6) current private prison units operated under
contracts for private prison beds in Arizona.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
When Department Director Charles Ryan assumed leadership in January 2009, he began a systemic review of Department
operational and administrative practices. As part of that review, the Director found that the Department had for most years since
1998 reported annual audit evaluation/inspection compliance data for both contracted private prisons and state-run prisons in
information provided annually to the JLBC and OSPB for the Master List of State Programs and/or the Five-year Strategic Plans,
which were also posted on the Department’s website. However, a formal, comprehensive biennial report comparing private and
public provision of services, required per A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M), had not been completed and submitted to JLBC since the law
was originally enacted.
As required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K), the biennial comparison is based on the professional correctional standards that the
Department has codified in written policies and procedures and has established in private prison contracts. In order to measure
performance against these correctional standards, it was necessary for Department Director Ryan to develop the tools needed to
capture sufficient data to measure and compare these standards; including creating a new prison operations inspection program
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 6 of 82

and annual audit process that could be used both to ensure operational compliance and to collect and measure data for a
comparison of private and state-run prison services. In addition to creating a new annual audit process, it was also necessary for
Director Ryan to revise existing processes and develop new processes to reliably capture and report both event-driven and
outcome-based comparative prison data. This included enhancements to the significant incident reporting (SIR) process, collection
of assault data and mortality data, and revision of internal data collection tools for inmate programs and services.
Between July 2009 and April 2010, Director Ryan worked to reposition the Inspector General’s Office under the Director’s Office to
ensure the highest level of integrity, objectivity, and investigative independence. On April 12, 2010, Director Ryan replaced the
Department’s Inspector General, and directed the new Inspector General to develop a new prison operations inspection program
and annual audit process that could be used both to ensure operational compliance and to collect data to be used to compare
private prison and state-run prison services.
The first iteration of the new inspection program and annual audit process was completed in late 2010 and was used for all annual
audits conducted by the Department thus far in calendar year (CY) 2011. The 2011 audits focused on the statutorily required
service areas of Security, Inmate Management and Control, Inmate Programs and Services, and Food Services. The Department
is currently working to further refine the annual audit process to ensure that going forward, data can be effectively collected and
sorted to compare private prison and state-run prison provision of services in all nine (9) required service areas identified in
statute.
For this biennial comparison, in order to supplement the data collected through the annual audit process and to ensure that all nine
(9) service areas required by statute could be comparatively evaluated, Director Ryan identified forty-five (45) data elements
collected by the Department that could also be used to compare private prison and state-run prison provision of services for FY
2010 and FY 2011. These include incidents of contraband; incidents of inmate management and disturbances; numbers of minor
and major inmate violations; numbers of inmates engaged in education, work, and programming; incidents of accidental inmate,
staff, and visitor injuries; employee vacancy and turnover rates; correctional officer competency testing; inmate medical and mental
health status; and inmate grievances.
This Biennial Report contains service data for FY 2010, FY 2011, and CY 2011 and cost data for FY 2010 taken from the FY 2010
Operating Per Capita Cost Report (Cost Report) required per A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(L)(M).

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 7 of 82

ARIZONA PRISON SYSTEM
The Department serves and protects the people of the state of Arizona by incarcerating inmates in correctional facilities and
supervising conditionally released offenders in the community. During incarceration, welfare services and health care services
including medical, nursing, dental, mental health, and pharmacy are provided to inmates. In addition, structured programming
including work, education, career training, substance abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, spiritual services, and recreation
are provided to inmates to promote employability, literacy, sobriety, and accountability to crime victims and to increase the
likelihood that released inmates will become law-abiding citizens upon release.
In the community, the Department supervises offenders released from prison to serve the remainder of their sentence on
community supervision. The Department ensures the accurate release, effective re-entry, transition, and supervision of released
offenders utilizing a continuum of supervision services, strategies, evidence based programs, and meaningful incentives and
sanctions. The Department also facilitates the swift return to custody of those offenders who violate conditions of supervision and
who represent a serious threat to the safety of the community.
In addition to housing prisoners in state-run prisons operated directly by the Department, Arizona law, A.R.S. § 41-1609, allows the
Department to enter into adult incarceration contracts with private parties for the confinement of prisoners. However, A.R.S. § 411609.01(P) prohibits private prisons from carrying out certain essential functions that must remain with the Department, including
calculating inmate release dates; calculating and awarding sentence credits; approving the type of work inmates may perform and
the wages or sentence credits which may be given to inmates engaging in the work; granting, denying or revoking sentence
credits; placing an inmate under less restrictive custody or more restrictive custody; and taking any disciplinary actions. Since
these functions cannot be delegated to private prisons, the Department must provide these services.
Private prisons also operate under the constraints of unique and individualized contracts that delineate the exact responsibilities
and requirements for the private prison including size, bed capacity custody level, inmate population type, inmate treatment and
programming; and inmate health status, needs, and responsibilities. Similar to the Department’s responsibility to provide services
required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(P), the Department has the legal responsibility to manage the private prison contracts and closely
monitor and evaluate the private prisons to ensure that they are managed in accordance with applicable statutes, Department
policies and procedures, and contract provisions.
In FY 2011, state-run prisons housed 85% of Arizona prisoners (34,155 average daily population) sentenced to the Department.
The remaining 15% (6,071 average daily population) were housed in private prisons operating under contract with the Department.
This disparity in population and the requirements and constraints imposed through statute and individual private prison contracts
have created significant differences in operational models between private and state-run prison units.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 8 of 82

State Prison Facility Operating Model:
To house over 34,000 inmates, one of the larger prison populations in the nation (PEW Center on the States, Prison Count 2010),
the Department operates ten (10) prison complexes located throughout the state, each comprised of individual prison units. For the
ten (10) prison complexes there are a total of fifty-four (54) units. To effectively manage this population, the Department relies
upon a tiered model of centralized and localized services that eliminates duplication of effort, creates economies of scale,
maximizes resources, utilizes best practices, and ensures standardization among all state-run prisons.
The cornerstone of the Department’s state-run prison model is a statewide centralized service operation (Central Office) that
provides prison system services to all ten (10) state prison complexes. In addition, each prison complex has a centralized complex
service operation (Complex Model) that provides services to all prison units within the complex.

Custody/Housing Assignment
Inmate Grievances
PREA Investigations
Accounting
Director’s Office
Engineering Facilities
Human Resources
Inmate Work Oversight
Payroll
Radio Communications
Staff Training

Administration
Communications Center
Inmate Education
Mail and Property
Perimeter Security
Tactical Support
Visitation Processing

Department Central Office Services
Inmate Classification
Investigations
Prison Labor Classification
Arizona Correctional Industries
Canine Oversight
Food Services Management
Information Technology
Inspector General
Planning, Budget, Research
Religious Services Oversight

State Prison Complex Services
Armory
Food Service
Inmate Programming Services
Maintenance
Records/Release Processing
Training
Warehouse/Supply

Inmate Discipline
Inmate Releases
ACJIS/ACIC/NCIC
Business Services
Education Services Oversight
Health Services Oversight
Inmate Programming Oversight
Offender Operations Oversight
Procurement
Risk Management
Telecommunications

Business/Procurement/Banking
Health Services
Inmate Work Programs
Occupational Health
Sanitation Services
Transportation/Fuel
Waste Water/Infrastructure

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 9 of 82

Education Schedules
Inmate
Confinement/Security
Inmate Movement
Treatment Schedules

State Prison Unit Services
Feeding Schedule
Inmate Count

Healthcare Appointments
Inmate Management

Programming Schedules
Visitation

Shower Schedule
Work Schedules

Private Prison Facility Operating Models:
The Department began contracting with private prisons in 1994 and currently has six (6) private prison units operated under five
(5) exclusive private prison contracts. These private prisons house minimum and medium security prisoners only. Two (2) have
500 minimum beds each; one (1) has 750 minimum beds; one (1) has 2,000 minimum beds; one (1) has 1,280 medium beds; and
one (1) has 1,508 medium beds.
As previously explained, the Department retains full responsibility for the provision of certain essential functions that cannot be
delegated to the contracted private prisons (A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(P)) and is responsible for managing private prison contracts and
monitoring, evaluating, and correcting private prison operations and performance. This creates a bifurcated operating model of
shared centralized and localized services, with the Department providing essential operating services and contract monitoring and
oversight (Central Office) to all six (6) private prison units and the private prison units providing localized services, either as stand
alone units or under a complex model.
Currently, only the ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit and Cerbat Unit are operated under a complex model. In 2009, prior to
activation of the new 2,000 minimum bed Cerbat Unit, the Department renegotiated the ASP-Kingman contract in order to reduce
staffing and reduce per diem rates. The new general staffing patterns for the existing Hualapai Unit and the new Cerbat Unit were
revised to create centralized positions that could provide services to both units, thereby eliminating staffing duplication. This
staffing change enabled ASP-Kingman to operate under a complex model patterned after the state prison complex model. This
staffing change also enabled the Department to reduce the overall ASP-Kingman per diem rate of $62.16 to a blended overall rate
of $58.96, saving the Department almost $4 million dollars annually.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 10 of 82

Custody/Housing Assignment
Inmate Grievances
PREA Investigations
Contract Development

Administration
Communications Center
Inmate Education
Mail and Property
Perimeter Security
Tactical Support
Visitation Processing

Department Central Office Services
Inmate Classification
Investigations
Prison Labor Classification
Contract Compliance
Auditing
ASP-Kingman Complex Services
Armory
Food Service
Inmate Programming Services
Maintenance
Records/Release Processing
Training
Warehouse/Supply

Inmate Discipline
Inmate Releases
ACJIS/ACIC/NCIC
Service Monitoring

Business/Procurement/Banking
Health Services
Inmate Work Programs
Occupational Health
Sanitation Services
Transportation/Fuel
Waste Water/Infrastructure

ASP-Kingman Hualapai Unit and Cerbat Unit Services
Education Schedules
Feeding Schedule
Healthcare Appointments
Inmate
Inmate Count
Inmate Management
Confinement/Security
Inmate Movement
Programming Schedules
Shower Schedule
Treatment Schedules
Visitation
Work Schedules

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 11 of 82

The remaining four (4) private prison units, ASP-CACF (GEO), ASP-Phoenix West (GEO), ASP-Florence West (GEO), and ASPMarana (MTC) are individually operated stand alone units with localized services. Although ASP-CACF (GEO) and ASP-Florence
(GEO) are adjoining prison units sharing a common property line, which could be operated under a complex model to create
greater efficiencies and economies of scale.

Custody/Housing Assignment
Inmate Grievances
PREA Investigations
Contract Development

Department Central Office Services
Inmate Classification
Investigations
Prison Labor Classification
Contract Compliance
Auditing

Administration
Communications Center
Inmate Education Services
Inmate Programming Services
Maintenance
Records/Release Processing
Training
Warehouse/Supply

Private Prison Unit Services
Armory
Inmate Confinement/Security
Inmate Food Service
Inmate Work Programs
Occupational Health
Sanitation/Hygiene Services
Transportation/Fuel

Inmate Discipline
Inmate Releases
ACJIS/ACIC/NCIC
Service Monitoring

Business/Procurement/Banking
Inmate Count/Movement
Health Services
Mail and Property
Perimeter Security
Tactical Support
Visitation Processing
Waste Water/Infrastructure

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 12 of 82

CACF
GEO
1 Unit

Florence
West
GEO
1 Unit

Phoenix
West
GEO
1 Unit

Kingman
MTC
Complex

Douglas
5 Units

Eyman
5 Units

ADC Prison System Services
To all Prisons (A.R.S.41-1609.01)
Classification (custody level, housing);
Inmate Discipline; Inmate Grievances;
Inmate Releases; Investigations; Prison
Labor Classification; PREA
Investigations; ACJIS/ACIC/NCIC

Private Prison

Hualapai
Unit

ADC

Administration
Armory
Business/Procurement/Banking
Communications Center
Food Service
Health Services
Inmate Education/Programming
Inmate Work programs
Mail & Property
Occupational Health
Perimeter Security
Records/Release Processing
Sanitation/Maintenance
Tactical Support
Training
Transportation/Fuel
Warehouse/Supply
Visitation Processing
Waste Water/
Infrastructure

ADC Central Services
To Private Prisons
Private Prison Contract
Development;
Compliance & Service
Monitoring & Auditing
State and ADC Central Services
Accounting; ACI; Business
Services; Director’s Office; Canine
Oversight; Education Services
Oversight; Engineering Facilities;
Food Services Management;
Health Services Oversight; Human
Resources; Information
Technology; Inmate Programming
Oversight; Inmate Work Oversight;
Inspector General; Offender
Operations Oversight; Payroll;
Planning, Budget, Research;
Procurement; Radio
Communications; Religious
Services Oversight; Risk
Management; Staff Training;
Telecommunications

Cerbat
Unit

Marana
MTC
1 Unit

Yuma
5 Units

Florence
6 Units
ADC Complex
Administration
Armory
Business/Procurement/Banking
Communications Center
Food Service
Health Services
Inmate Education/Programming
Inmate Work Programs
Mail & Property
Occupational Health
Perimeter Security
Records/Release Processing
Sanitation/Maintenance
Tactical Support
Training
Transportation/Fuel
Warehouse/Supply
Visitation Processing
Waste Water/
Infrastructure

Lewis
8 Units

Perryville
8 Units

Phoenix
2 Units

Safford
3 Units

Tucson
9 Units
Winslow
3 Units

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 13 of 82

ASPC-EYMAN COMPLEX
Browning

Cook*

Male
Maximum
General Population

Male
Medium
Sex Offender

Operating Capacity:
888

SMU I
Male
Maximum
General Population
Sex Offender
Protective Segregation
Operating Capacity:
1,056

Complex
Administration
Transportation/Fuel
Health Services
Inmate Education
Inmate Programming/Services
Warehouse/Supply
Maintenance
Business/Procurement/Banking
Records/Release Processing
Visitation Processing
Food Service
Perimeter Security
Armory
Communications Center
Mail & Property
Training
Waste Water/Infrastructure
Occupational Health
Tactical Support

Operating Capacity:
1,245

Meadows*
Male
Medium
General Population
Operating Capacity:
1,126

Rynning
Male
Close
General Population

*Included as a Comparative Unit in the
Biennial Comparison Report

Operating Capacity:
800

FY 2011

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 14 of 82

ASPC-Tucson
Catalina*

Cimarron

Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 360

Male
Close/Medium
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 672

SACRC
Female
Minimum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 144

Winchester
Male
Medium
Sex Offender
Operating
Capacity: 736

Complex
Administration
Transportation/Fuel
Health Services
Inmate Education
Inmate Programming/Services
Warehouse/Supply
Maintenance
Business/Procurement/Banking
Records/Release Processing
Visitation Processing
Food Service
Perimeter Security
Armory
Communications Center
Mail & Property
Training
Waste Water/Infrastructure
Occupational Health
Tactical Support

Santa Rita
Male
Medium
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 768

*Included as a Comparative Unit in the
Biennial Comparison Report

Manzanita
Male
Medium
Medical
Operating
Capacity: 513

Whetstone*
Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 1,250

Minors
Rincon
Male
Close
General Population
Medical/Mental Health
Operating
Capacity: 669

Male
Close/Maximum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 182

FY 2011
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 15 of 82

ASPC-Lewis

Morey
Male
Close
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 800

Rast
Male
Close
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 404

Stiner
Male
Medium
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 1,100

Complex
Administration
Transportation/Fuel
Health Services
Inmate Education
Inmate Programming/Services
Warehouse/Supply
Maintenance
Business/Procurement/Banking
Records/Release Processing
Visitation Processing
Food Service
Perimeter Security
Armory
Communications Center
Mail & Property
Training
Waste Water/Infrastructure
Occupational Health
Tactical Support

Eagle Point
Male
Minimum
Protective Segregation
Operating
Capacity: 300

Sunrise
Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 100

Barchey
Male
Medium
Protective Segregation
Operating
Capacity: 978

Bachman*

Buckley

Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating
Capacity: 752

Male
Close
Protective Segregation
Operating
Capacity: 800

*Included as a Comparative Unit in the
Biennial Comparison Report

FY 2011
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 16 of 82

ASPC-Safford Complex

Ft. Grant
Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating Capacity: 877

Complex

Graham*

Administration
Transportation/Fuel
Health Services
Inmate Education
Inmate Programming/Services
Warehouse/Supply
Maintenance
Business/Procurement/Banking
Records/Release Processing
Visitation Processing
Food Service
Perimeter Security
Armory
Communications Center
Mail & Property
Training
Waste Water/Infrastructure
Occupational Health
Tactical Support

Male
Minimum
General Population
Operating Capacity: 711

Tonto
Male
Medium
General Population
Operating Capacity: 331

*Included as a Comparative Unit in the
Biennial Comparison Report

FY 2011
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 17 of 82

PRIVATE PRISONS
CACF

Marana

GEO Group
Male
Medium
Sex Offenders
Operating Capacity: 1,280

MTC
Male
Minimum
Drug/DUI
Operating Capacity: 500

Florence West
GEO Group
Male
Minimum
DUI
Operating Capacity:
750

ADC
Classification
(custody level, housing);
Inmate Discipline;
Prison Labor Classification;
Inmate Grievances;
Criminal Investigations;
PREA Investigations;
Inmate Releases;
ACJIS/ACCIC/NCIC;
Contract Development;
Contract Compliance;
Service Monitoring;
Auditing

MTC
Male
Lower Risk
Minimum/Medium
Operating Capacity:
3,508

Phoenix West
GEO Group
Male
Minimum
DUI
Operating Capacity: 500

FY 2011

Kingman

Hualapai Unit
Male
Medium
Lower Risk
General Population
Operating Capacity:
1,508

Cerbat Unit
Male
Minimum
Lower Risk
General Population
Operating Capacity:
2,000

Kingman is operated under a Complex Model

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 18 of 82

BIENNIAL REPORT LIMITATIONS: FACILITIES
Although A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) requires a comparison of services for similar private and state-run prison facilities for the purpose
of determining if a contractor is providing the same quality of services as the state at a lower cost or services superior in quality to
those provided by the state at essentially the same cost, it is important to recognize that exact private prison unit versus state
prison unit comparisons are not possible due to inherent complexities resulting from the many differences in operating structure
and requirements. This is equally true when comparing facilities and when comparing cost.
As previously illustrated, disparity in population and the requirements and constraints imposed through statute and individual
private prison contracts have created significant differences in operational models between private and state-run prison units. In
addition, private and state-run prison units vary by population size, inmate type, and services available. Each private prison
contract is unique and separate and delineates the specific responsibilities and requirements for the private prison including size,
bed capacity, custody level, inmate population type, inmate treatment and programming, and inmate health needs.
While population size and type can change for both private and state-run prison units, for private prisons the number of beds, type
of inmates, and services to be provided are all dictated by contract and can only change through a contract amendment. The
Department, on the other hand, has ongoing flexibility in determining the number and type of inmates to be housed in a particular
state-run unit. This flexibility has allowed the Department to effectively manage populations during the constant population growth
that occurred between 2001 and 2010, through ongoing re-designation of prison units, movement of large inmate population types,
and creation of temporary beds. The Department’s need to effectively manage change and to find innovative solutions to
population growth and population shifts has created customized, unique private and state-run prison units with distinct missions,
making side-by-side comparisons almost impossible.
Despite the inherent complexities in comparing private and state-run units, the Department has matched the six (6) private prison
units operated under five (5) exclusive private prison contracts to six (6) state-run prison units operated by the Department. The
Department selected a corresponding state-run prison unit based upon general similarities in custody level, inmate population
type, access to off-site healthcare, unit size, bed capacity, and average daily population.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 19 of 82

PRIVATE PRISON UNIT

STATE-RUN PRISON UNIT

ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility/CACF (GEO)
Medium Custody
1,280 Beds in FY 2011
Current Sex Offense Conviction

Medium Custody
1,229 Beds in FY 2011
Current Sex Offense Conviction or History of a Sex
Offense Conviction
No Sex Offender Treatment Services; General
Population Programming
Higher Medical/Mental Health Needs

Sex Offender Treatment
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASP-Phoenix West (GEO)

ASPC-Tucson, Catalina Unit

Minimum Custody
500 Beds in FY 2011
DUI Offenders
DUI Offender Treatment
Health Care Cost Limit Per Inmate ($10,000 Cap)
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASP-Florence West (GEO)
Minimum Custody
750 Beds in FY 2011
DUI Offenders and Return to Custody
DUI Offender Treatment
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit

Minimum Custody
360 Beds in FY 2011
General Population/Department Does Not Have a
Designated DUI Unit
General Population Programming
No Health Care Cost Limit Per Inmate (No Cap)
Higher Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASPC-Lewis, Bachman Unit
Minimum Custody
727 Beds in FY 2011
General Population/Department Does Not Have a
Designated DUI Unit
General Population Programming
Higher Medical/Mental Health Needs

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 20 of 82

PRIVATE PRISON UNIT

STATE-RUN PRISON UNIT

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit

ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit

Medium Custody
1,508 Beds in FY 2011
Restricted General Population (Lower Risk
Inmates; No Life Sentences, No Murder, No Escape
History, No more than 20 Years to Serve)
General Population Programming
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASP-Kingman(MTC) Cerbat Unit (opened April 2010)
Minimum Custody
2,000 Beds in FY 2011
Restricted General Population (Lower Risk
Inmates; No murder, No Escape History, No more
than 5 Years to Serve)
General Population Programming
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASP-Marana (MTC)

Medium Custody
1,126 Beds in FY 2011
All Risk Inmates/General Population (No
Restrictions)
General Population Programming
Higher Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASPC-Tucson, Whetstone Unit (opened July 2010)
Minimum Custody
1,250 Beds in FY 2011
All Risk Inmates/General Population (No
Restrictions)
General Population Programming
Higher Medical/Mental Health Needs

ASPC-Safford, Graham Unit

Minimum Custody
500 Beds in FY 2011
Lower Risk Drug and DUI Offenders
Substance Abuse Treatment
Health Care Cost Limit Per Inmate ($10,000 Cap)
Low Medical/Mental Health Needs

Minimum Custody
711 Beds in FY 2011
General Population
General Population Programming
No Health Care Cost Limit Per Inmate (No Cap)
Moderate Medical/Mental Health Needs

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 21 of 82

Although the Department has selected units with general similarities, the units are not entirely comparable. For example,
comparison of the private Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF) with the state-run Eyman Complex, Cook Unit shows that
although both house medium custody sex offenders and both have a similar bed capacity, there are significant differences. CACF
provides sex offender treatment and houses inmates with lower medical and mental health needs. Cook Unit does not provide sex
offender treatment and houses inmates with higher medical and mental health needs.
Similarly, comparison of the private Phoenix West with the state-run Tucson Complex, Catalina Unit shows that although both
house minimum custody inmates and both have a generally similar bed capacity there are significant differences. Phoenix West is
a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) facility, provides DUI treatment, has a correctional health care cost limit of $10,000 per inmate
(whereby an inmate is transferred to a state-run prison unit when their health care cost exceeds this cap), and houses inmates with
lower medical and mental health needs. Catalina Unit is a general population facility, the Department does not have a unit
exclusively designated for offenders with a current DUI conviction, provides general population programming, does not have a
correctional health care cost limit, and houses inmates with higher medical and mental health needs.

BIENNIAL REPORT LIMITATIONS: COST
The Department used the Cost Report to evaluate the cost requirement of A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K). It is important to recognize that
private versus state cost comparisons are inherently complex due to the many differences in operating requirements, such as
inmate custody level and population requirements; medical, mental health and dental care limitations; land and building financing
and cost; level of overcrowding; age of infrastructure; and programming requirements. Thus, a perfect cost comparison is
impossible to achieve.
To further illustrate the impact that these factors have in the overall per capita cost of a particular unit, consider the following
factors:
Overcrowding: The relative level of overcrowding within a particular unit is one factor that can significantly impact an
individual unit’s per diem cost or a prison unit comparison. Temporary beds are beds added to a unit in addition to
permanent beds assigned to that unit such as quonset huts, double/triple bunking, or beds in day rooms/classrooms.
Temporary beds are not part of the physical design of a unit and result in overcrowding; impact staff and inmate safety;
and create a strain on the physical plant such as water, sewage, and electric capabilities. A prison unit with a higher level
of overcrowding results in a lower per diem cost than a comparison unit because fixed costs are able to be spread over a
higher number of inmates.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 22 of 82

Complex Model: The statewide centralized service operation (Central Office) provides services to all ten (10) state prison
complexes. In addition, each prison complex has a centralized complex service operation that provides services to all
prison units within the complex (refer to diagrams on pages 13-18 of this report for more detail). This structure eliminates
duplication of effort, creates economies of scale, maximizes resources, utilizes best practices, and ensures
standardization among all state-run prisons. Similar to the impact of overcrowding, complexes that accommodate a larger
inmate population and utilize a complex model of operations are able to gain efficiencies by spreading fixed overhead
costs over a larger inmate population.
Inmate Management Functions and Programming: A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(P) prohibits private prisons from carrying out
certain essential functions that must remain with the Department, including calculating inmate release dates; calculating
and awarding sentence credits; approving the type of work inmates may perform and the wages or sentence credits which
may be given to inmates engaging in the work; granting, denying or revoking sentence credits; placing an inmate under
less restrictive custody or more restrictive custody; and taking any disciplinary actions. Since these functions cannot be
delegated to private prisons, the Department must provide these services. Private prisons also operate under the
constraints of unique and individualized contracts that delineate the specific responsibilities and requirements for the
private prison including size, bed capacity, custody level, inmate population type, inmate treatment and programming, and
inmate health needs.
The Cost Report has adjusted for the functions provided by state prisons that are not provided by contract prisons where
identifiable. However, several functions performed only by the state have functions where costs were not able to be
calculated. These costs have not been factored out of the state prison per diem cost (refer to Appendix - FY 2010
Operating Per Capita Cost Report pages 6-8 for more detail).
Inmate Health Care Limitations and/or Contract Exclusions: Both private and state-run prison units have differences in the
types of inmates that can be housed based on inmate medical, mental health and dental needs (refer to Appendix - FY
2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report pages 9-10 for more detail). Generally, state-run prisons house a higher
percentage of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs than private prison units. Private prison units
considered to be corridor facilities have access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with more severe medical
and mental health needs. Additionally, two private contracts have a $10,000 cap per inmate on health care services.
When the health care cost of a single inmate exceeds this cap, the inmate is returned to a state-run prison unit and the
state assumes all further medical treatment costs associated with the inmate.
The consolidation of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs to certain units is cost-efficient overall, but
results in a higher per diem cost for those units and complexes that house these inmates.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 23 of 82

Capital Construction/Depreciation: Another factor that complicates a true cost comparison is the differing treatment of the
capital construction cost by private and state facilities. Per A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(I)(J), private bed contracts are for ten (10)
years with two five (5) year renewal options after which the state owns the facility. The only exception is the current
Request for Proposal No. 110054DC for 5,000 new private beds (State of Arizona, Laws 2009, Third Special Session,
Chapter 6), which requires a twenty (20) year contract term but still transfers ownership of the facility to the state at the
conclusion of the contract. Due to these contractual arrangements, the state is able to fund the capital construction cost of
new facilities without directly obtaining additional debt.
The Department has attempted to adjust for the inclusion of capital construction costs in the private prison per diem
payments by adding the depreciation of state prison buildings to the daily state prison bed costs. However, the
depreciation amount is nominal due to the age of the state prison complexes that have been fully depreciated. In the Cost
Report, the state depreciation amount was $1.41 per inmate per day.
For private prison comparison units, the amount of the per diem payment funding the building and financing cost averages
$12.00 per inmate per day. These costs range from $4.48 - $19.46 per inmate per day. As a result, the capital
construction financing is typically a greater percentage of the private prison per diem cost than the amount added to the
state cost for depreciation.
Prison Age (Construction Date): The more efficient facility design and newer infrastructure also directly impact the
required staffing, maintenance needs, utility cost, and other factors. Therefore, newer, more efficiently designed facilities
typically result in lower operating costs. However, it is possible that these benefits are offset entirely by the increased
construction costs associated with newer facilities. ASP-Kingman (MTC), the newest of the private prisons, has the
highest amount of its per diem dedicated to building costs. The per diem amount dedicated to building costs for Kingman
is $19.46 per inmate per day compared to $4.48 per inmate per day at ASP-Florence West (GEO) Unit.
Square Footage: Additional square footage can also lead to higher building costs per inmate. For example, the ASPKingman (MTC) Cerbat Unit is 235 square feet per inmate (469,365 square feet for 2,000 inmates) which is much greater
than the ASP-Florence West (GEO) Unit square footage of 120 per inmate (90,017 square feet for 750 inmates). This is
likely another one of the factors that resulted in the building portion of the per diem being greater at ASP-Kingman (MTC)
Cerbat Unit ($19.46 per inmate per day) than at the ASP-Florence West (GEO) Unit ($4.48 per inmate per day).

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 24 of 82

BIENNIAL REPORT COMPARISON MODEL AND METHODOLOGY
The Biennial Report compares each of the six (6) private prison units to one Department prison unit (see table below). For each of
the six (6) operating private prison units, the Department selected a corresponding state-run prison unit based upon general
similarities in custody level, inmate population type, access to off-site healthcare, unit size, bed capacity, and average daily
population. The Biennial Report compares each set of prison units by each of nine (9) service areas required by statute; security,
inmate management and control, inmate programs and services, facility safety and sanitation, administration, food service,
personnel practices and training, inmate health services, and inmate discipline.
Private Prison Unit
ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility/CACF (GEO)
ASP-Phoenix West (GEO)
ASP-Florence West (GEO)
ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit
ASP-Kingman(MTC) Cerbat Unit
ASP-Marana (MTC)

State-Run Prison Unit
ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit
ASPC-Tucson, Catalina Unit
ASPC-Lewis, Bachman Unit
ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit
ASPC-Tucson, Whetstone Unit
ASPC-Safford, Graham Unit

Comparison of Similar Facilities:
The Biennial Report includes a comparison of “similar facilities” as required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K). For comparative purposes,
the Department is identifying “similar facilities” using prison units. The Department defines a unit as:
UNIT: A group of prison buildings and recreation fields that are within a fenced area and are designed to meet the facility
size requirements per the custody level being housed in this unit. The buildings contain the housing, support, education,
work based education, visitation, kitchen, dining and administration spaces necessary to support the activities of the staff,
inmates and public. Two custody levels may be contained in a single unit, provided the design and construction will yield
adequate separation.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 25 of 82

The Biennial Report compares each private prison unit to one Department prison unit. For each of the six (6) operating private
prison units, the Department selected a corresponding state-run prison unit based upon custody level, inmate population type,
access to off-site healthcare, unit size, bed capacity, and average daily population.
ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility (GEO) and ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit – Comparison:
Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF): This facility is a private prison operated by The GEO Group Inc. (GEO):







Custody: Medium.
Operating Bed Capacity: 1,280 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 1,263 in FY 2010 and 1,281 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to moderate mental
health needs.
Population Type: Sex Offenders; the sex offense convictions must be current convictions for either a sex offense
and/or an offense that is sexually motivated.
Specialty Services: Sex Offender Education and Treatment Program.

Cook Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Eyman Complex:







Custody: Medium.
Operating Bed Capacity: 1,337 in FY 2010 and 1,245 in FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 1,322 in FY 2010 and 1,242 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
severely limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to high
mental health needs.
Population Type: Sex Offenders; current sex offense convictions or history of sex offense convictions.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 26 of 82

ASP-Phoenix West (GEO) and ASPC-Tucson, Catalina Unit – Comparison:
Phoenix West: This facility is a private prison operated by The GEO Group Inc. (GEO):








Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 500 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 496 in FY 2010 and 495 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to moderate mental
health needs. In addition, the prison contract includes a correctional health care cost cap of $10,000 per inmate.
When the health care cost of a single inmate exceeds this cap, the inmate is transferred to a state-run prison unit.
Population Type: Current Conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
Specialty Services: DUI Treatment.

Catalina Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Tucson Complex:







Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 360 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 342 in FY 2010 and 357 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
severely limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to high
mental health needs. There is no correctional health care cost cap.
Population Type: General Population; the Department does not have a unit exclusively designated for
offenders with a current DUI conviction.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 27 of 82

ASP-Florence West (GEO) and ASPC-Lewis, Bachman Unit – Comparison:
Florence West: This facility is a private prison operated by The GEO Group Inc. (GEO):







Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 750 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 735 in FY 2010 and 737 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to moderate mental
health needs.
Population Type: Current Conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Return to Custody (RTC)
inmates who have violated their terms of community supervision and must be returned to prison.
Specialty Services: DUI Treatment.

Bachman Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Lewis Complex:







Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 727 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 842 in FY 2010 and 830 in FY 2011 (for both years includes inmates held in special
use detention beds).
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
severely limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to high
mental health needs.
Population Type: General Population; the Department does not have a unit exclusively designated for
offenders with a current DUI conviction.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 28 of 82

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit and ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit – Comparison:
Hualapai Unit: This facility is part of the Kingman private prison operated by Management and Training Corporation (MTC):








Custody: Medium. (The unit housed both minimum and medium custody inmates until April 2010, at which time it was
reclassified to house all medium custody inmates).
Operating Bed Capacity: 1,508 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 1,421 in FY 2010 and 1,018 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to moderate mental
health needs.
Population Type: Restricted to Lower Risk General Population Inmates:
Effective September 21, 2010, after three felons escaped from the Kingman private prison on July 30, 2010, the
inmate placement requirements for the Hualapai Unit were revised:
 No inmates with life sentences (including sentences of 25 years to life).
 No current or prior convictions for murder or attempted murder, including 1 st and 2nd degree murder.
 No inmates with an escape history from a secure perimeter within the last ten years.
 No inmates with more than twenty (20) years to serve.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.

Meadows Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Eyman Complex:








Custody: Medium.
Operating Bed Capacity: 1,126 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 1,214 in FY 2010 and 1,186 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
severely limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to high
mental health needs.
Population Type: General Population; all Risk Inmates/No Restrictions. Due to the inmate placement
requirements that became effective September 2010 for the Hualapai Unit, choosing a similar comparison state unit
was difficult. The Department does not have a state medium custody prison unit with equivalent inmate placement
criteria.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 29 of 82

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Cerbat Unit and ASPC-Tucson, Whetstone Unit – Comparison:
Cerbat Unit: This facility is part of the Kingman private prison operated by Management and Training Corporation (MTC).
The Department opened this unit and began loading inmates in April 2010:








Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 2,000 beds in FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP):1,578 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to moderate mental
health needs.
Population Type: Restricted to Lower Risk General Population Inmates:
Effective September 21, 2010, after three felons escaped from the Kingman private prison on July 30, 2010, the
inmate placement requirements for the Cerbat Unit were revised:
 No current or prior convictions for murder or attempted murder, including 1 st and 2nd degree murder.
 No inmates with an escape history from a secure perimeter.
 No inmates with more than five (5) years to serve.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.

Whetstone Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Tucson Complex. The unit opened on May 7, 2010, and
housed inmates effective July 1, 2010:








Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 1,250 in FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP):1,075 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit is a corridor facility with access to off-site healthcare and can house inmates with up to
severely limited physical capacity, severe physical illness, and chronic conditions and inmates with up to high
mental health needs.
Population Type: General Population; all Risk Inmates/No Restrictions. Due to the inmate placement
requirements that became effective September 2010 for the Cerbat Unit, choosing a similar comparison state unit
was difficult. The Department does not have a state prison minimum custody unit with equivalent inmate placement
criteria.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 30 of 82

ASP-Marana (MTC) and ASPC-Safford, Graham Unit – Comparison:
Marana: This facility is a private prison operated by operated by Management and Training Corporation (MTC):









Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 500 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 493 in FY 2010 and 499 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit has limited access to off-site healthcare and can only house inmates with up to
restricted physical capacity and reasonable accommodation requirements and inmates with up to moderate
mental health needs. In addition, the prison contract includes a correctional health care cost cap of $10,000 per
inmate. When the health care cost of a single inmate exceeds this cap, the inmate is transferred to a state-run prison
unit.
Population Type: Lower Risk Drug and DUI Offenders. Offenders housed at Marana must meet the following
criteria:
• No Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment Needs Scores lower than A/D-2.
• Offenders committed for Felony Class 4, 5, and 6 Property Offenses and in need of Substance Abuse/Alcohol
Abuse Treatment are eligible for placement.
• No offenders with a history of, or current convictions for, Felony Class 2 or 3 property offenses; history of
felony convictions for violent offenses; history of sex offense arrests or convictions, or child related offenses.
• No offenders with more than five (5) years remaining prior to release, pending disciplinary actions, or a history
of validated security threat group involvement.
Specialty Services: Substance Abuse Treatment.

Graham Unit: This facility is part of the Arizona State Prison Safford Complex:








Custody: Minimum.
Operating Bed Capacity: 711 beds in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Average Daily Population (ADP): 648 in FY 2010 and 670 in FY 2011.
Health Care Access: The unit has limited access to off-site healthcare and can only house inmates with up to
restricted physical capacity and reasonable accommodation requirements (higher health needs may be
accommodated with special approval) and inmates with up to moderate mental health needs. There is no
correctional health care cost cap.
Population Type: General Population/No Restrictions. Due to the inmate placement requirements for ASP-Marana,
choosing a comparison state unit was difficult. The Department does not have a state prison minimum custody unit
with equivalent inmate placement criteria.
Specialty Services: No special services; provides General Population programming.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 31 of 82

Services Compared:
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) identifies service areas that the Department Director shall consider when conducting the biennial
comparison. They include nine (9) required service areas and allow for additional discretionary services areas as determined by
the Department Director:
1. Security
2. Inmate management and Control
3. Inmate Programs and Services
4. Facility Safety and Sanitation
5. Administration
6. Food Service
7. Personnel Practices and Training
8. Inmate Health Services
9. Inmate Discipline
10. Other matters relating to services as determined by the Department Director
For the purposes of the Biennial Report, the Department compared each set of prison units by each of the nine (9) required
service areas. The Department did not include, however, any additional service areas as part of the Biennial Report.
Comparative Data Used:
As required by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K), the biennial comparison is based on the professional correctional standards that the
Department has codified in written policies and procedures and has established in private prison contracts. To measure
performance against these correctional standards, the Biennial Report relies on the use of three (3) distinct sets of comparative
facility/unit data; correctional operations data; inmate grievance data; and annual audit findings. The correctional operations data
allows for the comparison of seven (7) of the nine (9) service areas required by statute. The inmate grievance data allows for the
comparison of four (4) of the nine (9) service areas required by statute. The annual audit findings allow for the comparison of four
(4) of the nine (9) service areas required by statute. Use of all three (3) data sets ensures that all nine (9) service areas required
by statute are compared.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 32 of 82

FY 2010-FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparative Data:
FY 2010 and FY 2011 correctional operations comparative data for each of the six (6) operating private prison units and the
six (6) corresponding state-run prison units was collected for seven (7) of the nine (9) service areas identified in statute, as
follows:

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)
Service Areas
 Security

FY 2010 and FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparative Data








Cell Phones: Number of reported incidents in which cell phones (including cell
phone accessories, wireless communication devices and multimedia storage
devices) were confiscated.
Drugs: Number of reported incidents in which drugs (including drug
paraphernalia) were confiscated.
Escape Work Detail: Number of inmates who escaped outside of a secure
prison facility, i.e., from work detail, secure transport, or release center.
Escape Secure Facility: Number of inmates who escaped from a secure
prison facility.
Use of Force: Number of reported incidents in which prison staff was required
to use force with one or more inmates.
Weapons: Number of reported incidents in which weapons were confiscated.
Lost Keys: Number of reported incidents in which one or more prison keys
were identified as missing or unaccounted for.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 33 of 82

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)
Service Areas
 Inmate Management and
Control

FY 2010 and FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparative Data












Attempted Escapes: Number of inmates who attempted escape.
Inmate (I/M) Assaults: Number of reported incidents of assaults committed by
one or more inmates on one or more inmates that intentionally or
unintentionally caused physical injury.
Inmate (I/M) Fights: Number of reported incidents of fights between two or
more inmates.
Inmate (I/M) Groupings: Number of reported incidents of an unauthorized
grouping by a substantial number of inmates acting in concert for a common
purpose.
Inmate (I/M) Management Incidents: Number of reported incidents of one or
two inmates engaging in unauthorized activity or displaying uncooperative or
disruptive behavior resulting in official action beyond summary sanctions, such
as return to cell or order to disperse.
Inmate (I/M) Work Stoppage: Number of reported incidents of an unauthorized
temporary stoppage of work caused by one or more inmates.
Inmate (I/M) Disturbances: Number of reported incidents of collective action
by three or more inmates resulting in official action beyond summary
sanctions, such as return to cell or order to disperse.
Inmate (I/M) Assaults on Staff: Number of reported incidents of assaults
committed by one or more inmates on a staff member(s) that intentionally or
unintentionally cause physical injury. This includes striking the staff member
with hand(s), fist(s), or feet; touching staff with intent to injure; or committing
assault with bodily fluids by throwing or projecting saliva, blood, seminal fluid,
urine, or feces at an employee.
Number of Staff Assaulted: Total number of staff members assaulted for all
reported incidents of inmate assaults on staff.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 34 of 82

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)
Service Areas
 Inmate Programs and
Services

FY 2010 and FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparative Data










Facility Safety and
Sanitation









Personnel Practices and
Training







Inmate Health Services



Inmate Discipline






Education: Number of inmates enrolled in Functional Literacy Education
Program.
Career/Technical Education: Number of inmates enrolled in Career/Technical
Education (CTE) Program.
Substance Abuse/Sex Offender Treatment: Number of inmates participating in
Substance Abuse or Sex Offender Treatment.
Self Improvement Programs: Number of inmates participating in Self
Improvement Programming.
Arizona Correctional Industries (ACI): Number of inmates working for ACI
Intergovernmental Agreement Projects (IGA): Number of inmates working in
IGAs.
Work: Number of inmates working in the Prison Work Incentive Pay Program
(WIPP).
GED: Number of inmates earning a GED.
Functional Literacy: Number of inmates achieving 8th grade literacy.
Inmate Injury: Number of inmates who suffered an accidental injury during
routine course of daily activities.
Staff Injury: Number of staff who suffered an accidental injury while on duty.
Visitor Injury: Number of visitors who suffered an accidental injury while at the
prison unit.
CO Vacancy Rate: Correctional Officer II vacancy rate
CO Turnover Rate: Correctional Officer II turnover rate
Core Competency:
 Correctional Officer II Average Core Competency Test Score
 Correctional Supervisor Average Core Competency Test Score
Medical Score: Inmates indentified by Medical Score.
Metal Health Score: Inmates indentified by Mental Health Score.
Minor Violations: Number of inmate violations of Department policy or rule.
Major Violations: Number of inmate violations of Department policy or rule.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 35 of 82

FY 2010-FY 2011 Inmate Grievance Comparative Data:
FY 2010 and FY 2011 inmate grievance comparative data for each of the six (6) operating private prison units and the six
(6) corresponding state-run prison units was collected for four (4) of the nine (9) service areas identified in statute, as
follows:

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) Service
Areas
 Facility Safety and Sanitation
 Administration




Food Service
Inmate Health Services

FY 2010 and FY 2011 Inmate Grievance Comparative Data










Facility Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Commissary/Store Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Legal Access Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Mail Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Property Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Visitation Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Food Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Health Care Grievances: Number of grievances filed by inmates.
Medical Appeals: Number of health care grievances appealed to the
Arizona Department of Corrections Director.

CY 2011 Annual Audit Comparative Data:
Thus far in CY 2011, annual audits were completed on each of the six (6) operating private prison units and eight (8) of ten
(10) state-run prisons, including the six (6) state-run prison units used for comparative purposes.
The Department’s annual audit process utilizes an evaluative protocol and a collection instrument designed upon a
foundation of thirteen (13) competencies, which contain approximately 850 performance based questions. These
competencies and performance based questions were developed from existing agency policy and sound correctional
management practices, in an effort to create an instrument to evaluate performance and policy compliance within any
private or state-run prison setting. The annual audit process includes a determination of which competencies and questions
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 36 of 82

are applicable during an inspection by comparing the collection instrument against an individual prison unit’s physical plant,
custody level, programs, and inmate management practices.
The CY 2011 annual audits conducted thus far produced data in the thirteen (13) audit competency areas that could be
individually sorted and matched to four (4) of the nine (9) service areas identified in statute, as follows:

A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K) Service Areas
 Security



Inmate Management and Control



Inmate Programs and Services



Food Service















CY 2011 Annual Audit Competency Areas
Ingress/Egress
Keys
Perimeter and Towers
Security Devices
Tools
Weapons/Armory/DART/Armed Posts
Detention
Classification
Counts and Inmate Movement
Inmate Management
Inmate Services
Required Services
Food Service

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 37 of 82

FY 2010 – FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 38 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
SECURITY
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

SECURITY
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Security
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEO-CACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTC-Marana

Graham

727
842*

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Cell Phones

0

Medium
1

12

Minimum
0

0

Minimum
22

5

Medium
2

Minimum

Drugs

1

3

5

0

0

10

1

3

Escape Work Detail or
Secure Facility

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Use of Force

0

6

3

1

1

12

6

17

Weapons

0

1

0

1

0

13

6

5

Lost Keys

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

727
830*

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Minimum
2

2

0

4

0

0

2

0

0

10

1

0

Whetstone

MTC-Marana

Graham

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

Not Open in
FY 2010

FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Security
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:
Custody
Cell Phones
Drugs

GEO-CACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

(*includes
detention)

Medium
1
2

0
2

30
5

Minimum
3
2

7
0

Minimum
18
18

44
15

Medium
2
2

22
4

Minimum
9
4

1
6

Minimum
0
8

Escape Work Detail

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Escape Secure Facility

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

Use of Force
Weapons

2
0

5
1

1
1

2
2

1
0

6
11

14
18

22
27

11
4

10
4

0
3

0
11

Lost Keys

1

1

0

1

0

2

1

5

0

0

1

1

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 39 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
INMATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Management and Control
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Attempted Escapes

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I/M Assaults

0

10

1

2

2

22

19

19

4

4

I/M Fights

2

7

3

4

1

19

3

14

1

3

I/M Groupings

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

3

0

2

I/M Management

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

I/M Work Stoppage

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I/M Disturbance
I/M Assaults on
Staff
Number of Staff
Assaulted

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

6

9

5

1

0

0

3

0

0

1

7

9

5

1

0

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY 2010

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 40 of 82

INMATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Management and Control
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

727
830*

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Attempted Escapes

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I/M Assaults

5

8

1

6

7

19

24

28

9

11

0

2

I/M Fights

10

9

2

6

1

4

6

30

5

9

2

0

I/M Groupings

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

I/M Management

0

1

3

1

1

2

0

4

5

6

0

1

I/M Work Stoppage

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

I/M Disturbance
I/M Assaults on
Staff
Number of Staff
Assaulted

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

1

0

6

14

6

4

1

1

0

1

2

0

1

0

6

17

6

4

1

1

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 41 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
INMATE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATES PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Programs and Services
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Education

86/6.8%

124/ 9.3%

37 / 7.5%

34 / 9.6%

34 / 4.5%

76 / 10.6%

N/A**

135/10.8%

32 / 6.4%

116/16.6%

Career/Tech. Educ..
Substance Abuse/Sex
Offender Treatment
Self Improvement
Programs
Ariz. Corr. Ind. (ACI)
Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGA)
Work (WIPP)

35/2.8%

40 / 3.0%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

15 / 2.1%

N/A**

21 / 1.7%

16 / 3.2%

141/20.1%

244/19.2%

0 / 0.0%

467/ 94.2%

0 / 0.0%

49 / 6.5%

14 / 1.9%

N/A**

42 / 3.3%

289/58.3%

0 / 0.0%

233/18.3%

13 / 1.0%

38 / 7.7%

18 / 5.0%

.5 / 0.1%

26 / 3.6%

N/A**

28 / 2.2%

132/26.6%

75 / 10.7%

23 /1.8%

24 / 1.8%

4 / 0.8%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

134/ 18.6%

N/A**

128/10.2%

21 / 4.1%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

72 / 14.6%

88 / 24.4%

12 / 1.6%

46 / 6.4%

N/A**

0 / 0.0%

Opened
in April
2010, Did
Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY
2010.

582/45.8%

1,018/76%

148/ 29.9%

277/77.3%

314/42.2%

357/49.7%

N/A**

444/35.5%

196/39.4%

0 / 0.0%
166 /
23.7%
355/50.8%

GED

39

30

9

0

44

10

84

49

75

16

Functional Literacy

118

159

92

65

158

216

241

216

201

122

39 / 7.9%

**N/A: ASP-Kingman Hualapai Unit data was not tracked until January 2011, and therefore is not available in these areas for FY 2010 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010).

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 42 of 82

INMATES PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Programs and Services
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

GEOPhoenix
West

Catalina

GEOFlorence
West

Bachman

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

500
495

360
357

750
737

727
830*

Custody

(*includes
detention)

Medium

Minimum

112/ 9.1%

57 / 11.8%

32 / 8.8%

35 / 4.8%

85 / 11.7%

Career/Tech. Educ..
Substance Abuse/Sex
Offender Treatment
Self Improvement
Programs

31 / 2.4%

37 / 3.0%

0 / 0.0%

15 / 4.2%

0 / 0.0%

13 / 1.8%

234/ 18.3%

0 / 0.0%

450/ 91.6%

0 / 0.0%

63 / 8.5%

27 / 3.7%

202 /
15.9%

48 / 4.0%

48 / 9.7%

49 / 13.8%

5 / 0.7%

51 / 7.0%

Ariz. Corr. Ind. (ACI)

31/ 2.5%

24 / 2.0%

4 / 0.8%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

117/ 16.1%

Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGA)

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%

94 / 19.1%

167/ 26.5%

7 / 0.9%

6 /0.8%

995/81.0%

210 42.7%

352/ 84.4%

314/ 42.4%

351/ 48.3%

21

5

11

43

135

112

71

52

GED
Functional Literacy

144

Meadows
1,126
1,186

MTCCerbat
2,000
1,578
(740*)

Medium

92 / 7.2%

591 /
46.3%
33

1,508
1,018
(443**)

Minimum

Education

Work (WIPP)

MTCHualapai

39 /
4.3%**
0 / 0.0%**
88 /
9.7%**
68/
7.46%**

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

Minimum

Minimum

116 / 0.1%

60 / 4.0%*

201/19.0%

22 / 4.1%

112 / 6.9%

20 / 1.7%

55 / 3.7%*

34/3.0%

16 / 3.3%

118/ 17.8%

51 / 4.5%

94 / 6.3%*

0 / 0.0%

247/ 50.0%

0 / 0.0%

9 / 0.8%

72 / 4.8%*

53/5.0%

135/ 27.4%

61 / 9.2%

0 / 0.0%**

129 /
11.2%

8 /0 .5%*

56/5.0%

17 / 3.5%

0 / 0.0%

0 / 0.0%**

0 / 0.0%

9 / 0.0%*

92/9.0%

43 / 8.9%

167/ 25.1%

426 /
37.0%
46

440 /
29.5%*
126

448/42.0%

202/ 40.8%

352/ 53.0%

21

302/
33.2%**
52

49

49

39

146

42

238

59

257

133

144

**ASP-Kingman Hualapai Unit and Cerbat Unit data was not tracked until January 2011, and is only available in these areas for the full months of January 2011 through
June 2011. Therefore, the ADP has been adjusted to reflect actual ADP for the months January 2011 through June 2011 for the purposes of this calculation/comparison.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 43 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
FACILITY SAFETY AND SANITATION
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

FACILITY SAFETY AND SANITATION
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Facility Safety and Sanitation
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum
Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Not Open
Operate
in FY 2010
the Full
FY 2010.

Inmate Injury

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Staff Injury

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Visitor Injury

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

727
830*

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

Minimum
1

2

0

0

0

0

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Facility Safety and Sanitation
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Catalina
360
356

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Inmate Injury

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

Minimum
1
0

Staff Injury

0

4

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

Visitor Injury

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 44 of 82

FACILITY SAFETY AND SANITATION
FY 2010 Inmate Grievances: Facility Safety and Sanitation
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Facilities Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Medium

0

Minimum

9

0

Minimum

0

0

Medium

Minimum
Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Not Open
Operate
in FY 2010
the Full
FY 2010.

0

0

0

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

727
830*

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

Minimum

0

0

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

FY 2011 Inmate Grievances: Facility Safety and Sanitation
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:
Custody
Facilities Grievances

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

(*includes
detention)

Medium
16

Minimum
0

0

Minimum
0

0

Medium
0

0

Minimum
0

0

Minimum
0

0

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 45 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
ADMINISTRATION
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

ADMINISTRATION
FY 2010 Inmate Grievances: Administration
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

Property Grievances
Visitation
Grievances

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Commissary/Store
Grievances
Legal Access
Grievances
Mail Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Medium
1
5

Minimum
1
4

0
0

Minimum
0
1

0
0

Medium
1
0

2
0

Minimum
3
1

1

9

0

1

0

2

2

0

45

44

4

1

4

32

70

57

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY 2010

Minimum
3

1

0

0

0

1

3

14

0

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 46 of 82

ADMINISTRATION
FY 2011 Inmate Grievances: Administration
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

Property Grievances
Visitation
Grievances

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Commissary/Store
Grievances
Legal Access
Grievances
Mail Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

5

3

0

0

3

4

0

0

0

0

0

1

11

2

0

0

46

22

3

21

4

20

88

35

50

36

8

5

0

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 47 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
FOOD SERVICE
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

FOOD SERVICE
FY 2010 Inmate Grievances: Food Service
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody

Food Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Medium

1

Minimum

10

0

Minimum

0

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

0

0

2

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Bachman

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

727
830*

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

0

Not Open
in FY 2010

0

1

FY 2011 Inmate Grievances: Food Service
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Food Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Medium
1

Minimum
0

0

Minimum
0

0

Medium
0

2

Minimum
1

1

Minimum
0

0

0

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 48 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND TRAINING
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

PERSONNEL PRACTICES AND TRAINING
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Personnel Practices and Training
FY 2010

GEOCACF

Cook

Custody
CO Vacancy Rate

Medium
7.6%
3.7%

CO Turnover Rate

11.8%

20.3%

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum
16.0%
6.1%
41.0%

20.0%

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum
12.4%
4.5%
11.8%

22.2%

MTCHualapai

Meadows

Medium
3.1% *
5.0%
11.3% *

9.2%

Core Competency
Correctional Officer II
Average Score
Correctional
Supervisor Average
Score

76.83

80.87

87.73

80.00

89.32

79.08

76.20

79.08

82.88

88.46

90.31

87.81

85.78

88.00

80.94

86.45

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

Minimum
Not
Available

Not
Available

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY 2010.

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

Minimum
1.5%
5.2%
36.4%

24.5%

77.10

74.62

85.00

79.33

MTCMarana

Graham

FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Personnel Practices and Training
FY 2011
Custody

GEOCACF

Cook

Medium

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

CO Vacancy Rate

9.1%

2.4%

18.0%

6.1%

12.9%

10.7%

8.4%

3.3%

8.4%

15.9%

5.1%

10.3%

CO Turnover Rate

11.8%

11.3%

61.0%

11.1%

11.8%

6.9%

25.6%

6.5%

25.6%

8.5%

56.8%

12.5%

85.87

89.42

91.86

88.19

89.32

89.13

82.64

90.32

81.30

88.75

86.94

89.82

88.73

87.08

86.57

85.75

87.56

89.78

88.42

91.67

81.56

87.00

87.64

89.20

Core Competency
Correctional Officer II
Average Score
Correctional
Supervisor Average
Score

* This rate includes ASP-Kingman Cerbat Unit data for April 2010 through June 30, 2010. Data was not tracked by individual unit until July 1, 2010.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 49 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
INMATE HEALTH SERVICES
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATE HEALTH SERVICES
FY 2010 Inmate Grievances: Inmate Health Services
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

Medical
Appeals

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Custody
Health Care
Grievances

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Medium
9

Minimum
18

2

0

0

Minimum
14

0

1

2

Medium
31

0

9

9

Minimum
19

Minimum

Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY 2010

0

0

0

0

0

4

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,018

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

FY 2011 Inmate Grievances: Inmate Health Services
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

Bachman
727
830*
(*includes
detention)

Custody
Health Care
Grievances
Medical
Appeals

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

18

32

5

8

1

23

8

7

27

51

0

4

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

1

6

0

1

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 50 of 82

INMATE HEALTH SERVICES
Inmate Population by Medical Score, Data as of October 31, 2011
October 31,
2011
Capacity:
10/31/2011
Inside Count:

GEO-CACF

Cook

1,280

1,261

GEOPhoenix
West
500

1,221

500

1,276

Custody
Medical Score 1 Maximum
Physical
Medical Score 2 Sustained
Physical
Medical Score 3 Restricted
Physical
Medical Score 4 Limited Physical

Medium

360

GEOFlorence
West
750

353

682

Catalina

Minimum

Bachman

MTC-Hualapai

Meadows

MTC-Cerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

727

1,508

1,126

2,000

1.250

500

711

782

1,498

1,064

1,965

1,237

498

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

644
Minimum

773/61%

642/53%

256 / 51%

113/32%

423/62%

323/41%

873/58%

348/33%

1,043/ 53%

446 / 36%

328 / 66%

430/67%

341/27%

444/36%

183 / 37%

107/ 30%

227 / 33%

259 / 33%

492 / 33%

273/ 26%

663 / 34%

382 / 31%

164 / 33%

205/32%

126/10%

60 / 5%

60 / 12%

79 / 22%

30 / 4%

123/16%

113 / 8%

265 / 25%

200 / 10%

204 / 16%

5 / 1%

6 /1%

17 / 1%

65 / 5%

0 / 0%

51 / 14%

2 / 0%

70 / 9%

17 / 1%

160/ 15%

53 / 3%

190 / 15%

Not
Applicable

1/ 0%

Medical Score 5 Severely Limited

Not
Applicable

0 / 0%

Not
Applicable

1 /0%

Not
Applicable

1 / 0%

Not
Applicable

2/ 0%

Not
Applicable

5 / 0%

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Medical Score
Pending

19 / 1%

10 / 1%

1 / 0%

2 / 1%

0 / 0%

6 / 1%

3 / 0%

16 / 2%

6 / 0%

10 / 1%

1 / 0%

2/ 0%

1,276

1,221

500

353

682

782

1,498

1,064

1,965

1,237

498

644

Totals:

Medical Scoring Criteria
M-1

Maximum sustained physical capacity consistent with age; no special requirements.

M-2

Sustained physical capacity consistent with age; stable physical illness or chronic condition; no special requirements.

M-3

Restricted physical capacity; requires special housing or reasonable accommodations.

M-4

Limited physical capacity and stamina; severe physical illness or chronic condition; requires housing in a corridor Institution.

M-5

Severely limited physical capacity and stamina; requires assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); requires housing in Inpatient Component or Assisted Living area.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 51 of 82

INMATE HEALTH SERVICES
Inmate Population by Mental Health Score, Data as of October 31, 2011
October 31,
2011
Capacity:
10/31/2011
Inside Count:

GEO-CACF

Cook

1,280

1,261

GEOPhoenix
West
500

1,221

500

1,276

Custody
Mental Health
Score 1 - No
Need
Mental Health
Score 2 - Low
Need
Mental Health
Score 3 Moderate Need
Mental Health
Score 4 - High
Need
Mental Health
Score 5 - Acute
Need
Mental Health
Score Pending
Totals:

Medium

360

GEOFlorence
West
750

353

682

Catalina

Minimum

Bachman

MTC-Hualapai

Meadows

MTC-Cerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

727

1,508

1,126

2,000

1.250

500

711

782

1,498

1,064

1,965

1,237

498

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

644
Minimum

793/62%

725/59%

363/ 72%

81 / 23%

538 / 79%

326/42%

864 / 58%

416/ 39%

1,105/ 56%

377 / 30%

441/ 89%

558/87%

300/24%

333/27%

59 / 12%

56 /16%

62 / 9%

83 / 11%

417 / 28%

255/24%

448/ 23%

180 / 15%

51 / 10%

86/ 13%

183/14%

158/13%

78 / 16%

196/56%

81 / 12%

369/47%

216 / 14%

363 / 34%

411 / 21%

622 / 50%

6 / 1%

0 / 0%

Not
Applicable

3/0%

Not
Applicable

20/ 6%

Not
Applicable

4 / 1%

Not
Applicable

30 / 3%

Not
Applicable

58 / 5%

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

Not
Applicable

0 / 0%

2 / 0%

0 / 0%

0/ 0%

1 / 0%

0 / 0%

1 / 0%

0 / 0%

1 / 0%

0 / 0%

0 / 0%

0 / 0%

1,276

1,221

500

353

683

782

1,498

1,064

1,965

1,237

498

644

Mental Health Scoring Criteria
MH-1 No Need: Inmate does not require placement in prison complex with regular psychological/psychiatric staffing and services on site. Inmate has no known history of mental
health problems or treatment. Inmate has no recognized need for psychotropic medication, psychiatric monitoring or psychological counseling or therapy.
MH-2 Low Need: Inmate does not require placement in prison complex with regular psychological/psychiatric staffing and services on site. Inmate has a history of mental health
problems or treatment, but has no current recognized need for psychotropic medication, psychiatric monitoring or psychological counseling or therapy.
MH-3 Moderate Need: Inmate requires placement in prison complex with regular, full-time psychological/psychiatric staffing and services. Inmate has recognized or routine need for
mental health treatment and/or supervision.
MH-4 High Need: Inmate requires specialized placement in mental health program with highly structured setting and/or with intensive psychological/psychiatric staffing and services.
Inmate has recognized need for psychiatric monitoring and for intensive mental health treatment and/or supervision.
MH-5 Acute Need: Inmate requires placement in the Department licensed behavioral health treatment facility to receive intensive psychological/psychiatric services. Inmate has a
recognized acute need for mental health treatment and supervision.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 52 of 82

FY 2010 AND FY 2011 COMPARATIVE DATA
INMATE DISCIPLINE
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATE DISCIPLINE
FY 2010 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Discipline
FY 2010
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:
Custody

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,263

1,337
1,322

GEOPhoenix
West
500
496

Catalina
360
342

GEOFlorence
West
750
735

Bachman
727
842*

MTCHualapai

Meadows

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,508
1,421

1,126
1,214

Not
Available

Not
Available

500
493

711
648

(*includes
detention)

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum
Opened in
April 2010,
Did Not
Operate
the Full
FY 2010.

Not Open
in FY 2010

Meadows

MTCCerbat

1,126
1,186

2,000
1,578

Minor Violations

878

376

393

76

446

174

637

820

Major Violations

293

171

178

70

116

311

446

338

1,171

547

571

146

562

485

1,083

1,158

Bachman

MTCHualapai

727
830*

1,508
1,018

Totals:

Minimum
351

223

86

207

437

430

Whetstone

MTCMarana

Graham

1,250
1,075

500
499

711
670

FY 2011 Correctional Operations Comparison: Inmate Discipline
FY 2011
Capacity:
Average Daily
Population:
Custody

GEOCACF

Cook

1,280
1,281

1,229
1,242

GEOPhoenix
West
500
495

Catalina
360
357

GEOFlorence
West
750
737

(*includes
detention)

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Medium

Minimum

Minimum

Minor Violations

691

166

381

167

276

323

553

321

466

548

457

214

Major Violations

231

107

145

96

67

341

613

271

423

486

83

312

922

273

526

263

343

664

1,166

592

889

1,034

540

526

Totals:

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 53 of 82

CY 2011 ANNUAL AUDIT COMPARATIVE DATA

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 54 of 82

CY 2011 ANNUAL AUDIT COMPARATIVE FINDINGS
SECURITY
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

SECURITY
CY 2011 Annual Audit Findings Comparison: Security
CY 2011
Custody

GEOCACF

Cook

Medium

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum

MTCHualapai

Meadows

Medium

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

Minimum

MTCMarana

Graham

Minimum

Ingress/Egress

100%

96.0%

100%

100%

100%

94.6%

100%

80.0%

87.5%

100%

88.5%

80.0%

Keys
Perimeter and
Towers
Security Devices

97.3%

91.8%

83.9%

97.9%

91.4%

97.1%

92.3%

98.0%

92.3%

95.8%

95.7%

95.1%

100%

92.3%

100%

100%

100%

92.3%

100%

92.3%

100%

100%

100%

100%

94.1%

93.8%

100%

89.5%

82.9%

82.6%

97.1%

81.3%

94.1%

95.0%

75.0%

97.0%

Tools
Weapons/Armory/
DART/Armed Posts
Detention

89.8%

91.0%

94.9%

88.5%

91.5%

90.9%

96.6%

94.0%

93.1%

90.3%

93.2%

92.3%

97.8%

95.4%

96.2%

98.0%

96.1%

100%

94.7%

95.4%

100%

98.0%

98.8%

95.0%

89.1%

N/A*

100%

100%

100%

87.5%

96.2%

96.6%

96.2%

100%

100%

100%

Not Applicable

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 55 of 82

CY 2011 ANNUAL AUDIT COMPARATIVE FINDINGS
INMATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
CY 2011 Annual Audit Findings Comparison: Inmate Management and Control
CY 2011
Custody
Classification
Counts and Inmate
Movement
Inmate
Management

GEOCACF

Cook

Medium

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum

MTCHualapai

Meadows

Medium

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

Minimum

MTCMarana

Graham

Minimum

100%

100%

97.9%

98.2%

100%

97.8%

94.9%

95.8%

97.9%

98.3%

91.5%

100%

100%

95.0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

85.0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80.5%

99.1%

92.0%

99.2%

95.7%

94.0%

85.4%

97.6%

98.0%

95.3%

96.9%

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 56 of 82

CY 2011 ANNUAL AUDIT COMPARATIVE FINDINGS
INMATE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

INMATE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
CY 2011 Annual Audit Findings Comparison: Inmate Programs and Services
CY 2011
Custody

GEOCACF

Cook

Medium

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum

MTCHualapai

Meadows

Medium

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

Minimum

MTCMarana

Graham

Minimum

Inmate Services

98.6%

92.1%

100%

97.8%

100%

97.6%

98.5%

89.5%

98.5%

91.1%

88.5%

96.8%

Required Services

98.4%

93.1%

95.8%

100%

96.6%

91.4%

98.8%

92.4%

97.5%

96.6%

96.7%

99.1%

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 57 of 82

CY 2011 ANNUAL AUDIT COMPARATIVE FINDINGS
FOOD SERVICE
Private Prison Units (

) -- State Prison Units (

)

FOOD SERVICE
CY 2011 Annual Audit Findings Comparison: Food Service
CY 2011
Custody
Food Service

GEOCACF

Cook

Medium
100%

91.2%

GEOPhoenix
Catalina
West
Minimum
97.1%

95.0%

GEOFlorence
Bachman
West
Minimum
97.1%

90.6%

MTCHualapai

Meadows

Medium
100%

MTCCerbat

Whetstone

Minimum
85.3%

92.6%

97.6%

MTCMarana

Graham

Minimum
82.1%

100%

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 58 of 82

REPORT FINDINGS
The purpose of the Biennial Comparison is to determine if the private prison contractor is providing the same quality of services as
the state at a lower cost or services superior in quality to those provided by the state at essentially the same cost.

Cost of Services:
The Department used the Cost Report to evaluate the cost requirement of A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K). It is important to recognize that
private versus state cost comparisons are inherently complex due to the many differences in operating requirements, such as
inmate custody level and population requirements; medical, mental health and dental care limitations; land and building financing
and cost; level of overcrowding; age of infrastructure; and programming requirements. Thus, a perfect cost comparison is
impossible to achieve.
Despite these complicating factors, the Department has worked diligently to provide a thorough and complete cost comparison.
The unadjusted per diem costs published in the Cost Report reflect the total FY 2010 expenditures through 13 th month as
reported in the State of Arizona Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS) to establish baseline costs prior to adjustments for
cost and functions comparisons.
The adjusted per diem costs used for cost comparisons are arrived at by identifying and adjusting expenses for several functions
that are not provided by the private and/or state units at the same level by the private and/or state prison. The adjusted per diem
cost includes three adjustments necessary to provide a more accurate cost comparison between state-operated and contracted
prison beds: medical cost adjustment, inmate management functions adjustment, and depreciation (refer to Appendix - FY 2010
Operating Per Capita Cost Report pages 16-17 for additional information on unadjusted and adjusted per diem costs).
The adjusted costs (shown below), which are taken from the Cost Report, provide the best possible cost comparison between
state and contract beds for both minimum and medium custody inmates in FY 2010.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 59 of 82

FY 2010 Minimum Custody Per Diem Costs
Private Prison Costs
State Prison Unit Costs
Facility
Unadjusted 1 Adjusted 2
Comp. Unit
Unadjusted 1
Adjusted 1
ASP-Phoenix West (GEO)
$47.22
$40.64
Catalina
$60.44
$46.51
ASP-Florence West (GEO)
$50.19
$42.06
Bachman
$49.14
$40.59
ASP-Kingman (MTC) Cerbat Unit 3
N/A
N/A
Whetstone 3
N/A
N/A
ASP-Marana (MTC)
$50.77
$48.13
Graham
$46.42
$39.18
Avg. Minimum - All Units 4
Minimum Custody Range - All
State Units 5

$54.20

$46.56

5

$55.59

$46.59

$46.42 - $83.01

$39.18 - $73.90

1

The unadjusted state and contract bed per diem rates and the adjusted state bed per diem rates can be found in Appendix FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report on pages 19-29. Pages 16-18 of the Cost Report explain the report methodology
and differences between unadjusted and adjusted costs in more detail.
2

The Contract Bed per diem rates have been adjusted for medical costs by backing out the reported medical, mental health,
and dental relative daily cost from the contract fee schedule of each contract.
3

MTC - Cerbat and ASPC-Tucson - Whetstone did not open until April 2010 or later. Therefore, per diem cost information is
not available for these units.
4

“All Units” refers to all private and state prison units that housed minimum custody inmates and were included in the Cost
Report (see pages 19-29 referenced above).
5

“Minimum Custody Range - All State Units” refers to the range in per diem costs of all state units that housed minimum
custody inmates and were included in the Cost Report (see pages 19-29 referenced above).

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 60 of 82

FY 2010 Medium Custody Per Diem Costs
Private Prison Costs
State Prison Unit Costs
1
2
Facility
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Comp. Unit
Unadjusted 1
Adjusted 1
ASP-CACF (GEO)
$60.69
$52.09
Cook
$50.80
$41.68
ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit
$60.64
$54.59
Meadows
$56.14
$47.59
Avg. Medium - All Units 3
Medium Custody Range - All State
Units 4

$60.66

$53.02

4

$57.97

$48.42

$50.65 - $74.34

$39.29 - $66.57

1

The unadjusted state and contract bed per diem rates and the adjusted state bed per diem rates can be found in Appendix FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report on pages 19-29. Pages 16-18 of the report explain the report methodology and
differences between unadjusted and adjusted costs in more detail.
2

The Contract Bed per diem rates have been adjusted for medical costs by backing out the reported medical, mental health,
and dental relative daily cost from the contract fee schedule of each contract.
3

“All Units” refers to all private and state prison units that housed medium custody inmates and were included in the Cost
Report (see pages 19-29 referenced above).
4

“Medium Custody Range - All State Units” refers to the range in per diem costs of all state units that housed medium
custody inmates and were included in the Cost Report (see pages 19-29 referenced above).

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 61 of 82

Therefore, in compliance with the cost requirement of A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K), the Department finds as follows:
Minimum Custody Beds: The minimum custody private prison contract beds per diem costs are within the range of state-run
minimum custody prison unit bed per diem costs.
ASP-Phoenix West (GEO) is below both the state bed minimum custody adjusted per diem cost and its comparison unit
per diem cost. The adjusted per diem rate of ASP-Phoenix West (GEO) falls within the range of state-run minimum
custody prison units.
ASP-Florence West (GEO) is below the state bed minimum custody adjusted per diem cost but its per diem cost is above
the per diem cost of its comparison unit. The adjusted per diem rate of ASP-Florence West (GEO) falls within the range of
state-run minimum custody prison units.
ASP-Kingman Cerbat (MTC) was not opened until April 2010, so per diem rate information is not available.
ASP-Marana (MTC) is above both the state bed minimum custody adjusted per diem cost and its comparison unit per
diem cost. The adjusted per diem rate of ASP-Marana (MTC) falls within the range of state-run minimum custody prison
units.
Medium Custody Beds: The medium custody private prison contract beds per diem costs are within the range of state-run medium
custody prison unit bed per diem costs.
ASP-CACF (GEO) is above both the state bed medium custody adjusted per diem cost and its comparison unit per diem
cost. The adjusted per diem rate of ASP-CACF (GEO) falls within the range of state-run medium custody prison units.
ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit is above both the state bed medium custody adjusted per diem cost and its
comparison unit per diem cost. The adjusted per diem rate of ASP-Kingman (MTC) falls within the range of state-run
medium custody prison units.

Quality of Services:
The Department’s findings regarding each of the six (6) operating private prison units and the corresponding state-run prison unit
follows.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 62 of 82

ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility/CACF (GEO) and ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit – Comparison Findings:

1. Security:
The service level of CACF was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of incidents of cell phones, drugs, use
of force, and weapons in FY 2010 and a lower number of incidents of use of force and weapons FY 2011. In addition, the
annual audit comparative findings show that CACF’s overall compliance level was above Cook Unit’s overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level of CACF was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of inmate on inmate assaults, inmate on
inmate fights, and inmate assaults on staff than at the Cook Unit. The numbers of reported incidents for other measures were
all similar. In addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that CACF’s overall compliance level was above Cook Unit’s
overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
There are broad variances in the data collected for inmate programs and services. Although CACF and Cook Unit focus their
programming resources on different priorities, it appears that the overall level of service is comparable. However, the annual
audit comparative findings show that CACF’s overall compliance level was above Cook Unit’s overall compliance level.
Therefore, the Department considers CACF’s quality of service to be above Cook Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 63 of 82

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The overall service level of CACF appears comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. Occurrence numbers varied over
the two fiscal years for both units, with CACF having fewer facilities grievances in FY 2010, more facilities grievances in FY
2011, and fewer reported inmate, staff, and visitor injuries in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.
5. Administration:
The overall service level of CACF appears comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. Occurrence numbers varied over
the two fiscal years for both units, with CACF having fewer mail and visitation grievances in FY 2010 and FY 2011, but more
legal access and property grievances in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.
6. Food Service:
The service level of CACF was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of food grievances in FY 2010. In
addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that CACF’s overall compliance level was above Cook Unit’s overall
compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.
7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of CACF was below the comparison state unit. Although measurement results were mixed, CACF had higher
vacancy rates in FY 2010 and FY 2011, higher turnover rate in FY 2011, lower correctional officer test scores in FY 2010 and
FY 2011, and lower correctional officer supervisor test scores in FY 2010.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 64 of 82

8. Inmate Health Services:
CACF had fewer health care grievances than at Cook Unit in FY 2010 and FY 2011. However, given that Cook Unit generally
houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs, the Department considers CACF’s quality of
service to be comparable to Cook Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

9. Inmate Discipline:
The service level of CACF was below the comparison state unit. CACF had higher number of both levels of violations (minor
and major) than at the Cook Unit in both FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility/CACF (GEO) and ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit:
Overall Finding: Comparable Quality of Services/Cost Within Range of Per Diem Costs for Medium Custody State Beds
Of the nine (9) service areas, CACF was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in two (2) areas.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in three (3) areas.
Above the comparison state unit in four (4) areas.
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, CACF provided comparable
quality of services as the state at an adjusted cost of $52.09, which is within the range of per diem costs for medium custody state
beds ($39.29 - $66.57), per the Cost Report.
However, it should be noted that CACF, pursuant to Laws 2003, 2nd Special Session, Chapter 5, Section 15, was exempted from
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(G)(K), and therefore is not required to provide services at the same quality of services as the state at a lower
cost or services superior in quality to those provided by the state at essentially the same cost.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 65 of 82

ASP-Phoenix West (GEO) and ASPC-Tucson, Catalina Unit – Comparison Findings:

1. Security:
The service level of Phoenix West was below the comparison state unit. Phoenix West had a higher number of incidents of cell
phones, drugs, use of force, and lost keys in FY 2010 and a higher number of incidents of cell phones and drugs for FY 2011.
However, the annual audit comparative findings show that Phoenix West’s overall compliance level was above Catalina Unit’s
overall compliance level. Therefore, the Department considers Phoenix West’s quality of service to be comparable to Catalina
Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level of Phoenix West was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of inmate on inmate assaults
and inmate on inmate fights than at the Catalina Unit. The numbers of reported incidents for other measures were all similar. In
addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that Phoenix West’s overall compliance level was above Catalina Unit’s
overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
There are broad variances in the data collected for inmate programs and services. Although Phoenix West and Catalina Unit
focus their programming resources on different priorities, it appears that the overall level of service is comparable. In addition,
the annual audit comparative findings show that Phoenix West’s overall compliance level (97.9%) was within one percentage
point of Catalina Unit’s overall compliance level (98.9%). Therefore, the Department considers Phoenix West’s quality of
service to be comparable to Catalina Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 66 of 82

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The service level of Phoenix West was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. Incidences of inmate, staff, and
visitor injuries and facilities grievances were similar across both units.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

5. Administration:
The service level of Phoenix West was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. Phoenix West had more property
grievances in FY 2010, but significantly fewer property grievances in FY 2011. Incidences of grievances related to commissary,
legal access, mail, and visitation were similar across both units.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

6. Food Service:
The service level of Phoenix West was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. However, the annual audit
comparative findings show that Phoenix West’s overall compliance level was above Catalina Unit’s overall compliance level.
Therefore, the Department considers Phoenix West’s quality of service to be above Catalina Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of Phoenix West was below the comparison state unit due to significantly higher FY 2010 and FY 2011
turnover and vacancy rates. Core competency test scores at Phoenix West were marginally higher for both correctional officers
and correctional officer supervisors in both years. However, the degree of vacancy and turnover carry more weight because of
the magnitude of those numbers.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 67 of 82

8. Inmate Health Services:
Phoenix West had fewer health care grievances than Catalina Unit in FY 2010 and FY 2011. However, given that Phoenix
West has a correctional health care cost cap of $10,000 per inmate, whereby an inmate is transferred to a state-run prison unit
when their health care cost exceeds this cap, and given that Catalina Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher
medical and mental health needs, the Department considers Phoenix West’s quality of service to be comparable to Catalina
Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.
9. Inmate Discipline:
The service level of Phoenix West was below the comparison state unit. Phoenix West had higher number of both levels of
violations (minor and major) than at the Catalina Unit in both FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
ASP-Phoenix West (GEO) and ASPC-Tucson, Catalina Unit:
Overall Finding: Comparable Quality of Services/Cost Within Range of Per Diem Costs for Minimum Custody State Beds
Of the nine (9) service areas, Phoenix West was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in two (2) areas.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in five (5) areas.
Above the comparison state unit in two (2) areas
It should be noted that Phoenix West houses mainly minimum custody inmates with a current conviction for DUI, while the Catalina
Unit houses inmates with a variety of more serious commitment offenses. In addition, Phoenix West has a correctional health care
cost cap of $10,000 per inmate, whereby an inmate is transferred to a state-run prison unit when their health care cost exceeds
this cap, while the Catalina Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, Phoenix West provided
comparable quality of services as the state at an adjusted cost of $40.64, which is within the range of per diem costs for minimum
custody state beds ($39.18 - $73.90), per the Cost Report.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 68 of 82

ASP-Florence West (GEO) and ASPC-Lewis, Bachman Unit – Comparison Findings:

1. Security:
The service level of Florence West was above the comparison state unit due to lower incidences of cell phones, drugs, use of
force and weapons than at the Bachman Unit. In addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that Florence West’s
overall compliance level was above Bachman Unit’s overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level of Florence West was above the comparison state unit due to lower number of inmate on inmate assaults,
inmate on inmate fights, groupings, inmate management incidents, and inmate assaults on staff than at the Bachman Unit. In
addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that Florence West’s overall compliance level was above Bachman Unit’s
overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
There are broad variances in the data collected for inmate programs and services. Although overall it appears that the service
level of Florence West was below the comparison state unit due to the lower overall use of programming and work to engage
the inmate population, the annual audit comparative findings show that Florence West’s overall compliance level in this area
was above Bachman Unit’s overall compliance level. Therefore, the Department considers Florence West’s quality of service to
be comparable to Bachman Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 69 of 82

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The overall service level of Florence West was above the comparison state unit. Florence West had fewer reported inmate
injuries, staff injuries, and visitor injuries in both FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

5. Administration:
The service level of Florence West was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of grievances related to
commissary, mail, and property than at the Bachman Unit in both FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.
6. Food Service:
The service level of Florence West was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. However, the annual audit
comparative findings show that Florence West’s overall compliance level was above Bachman Unit’s overall compliance level.
Therefore, the Department considers Florence West’s quality of service to be above Bachman Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.
7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of Florence West was below the comparison state unit. Although measurement results were mixed, Florence
West had higher vacancy rates in FY 2010 and FY 2011, higher turnover rate in FY 2011, and lower correctional officer
supervisor test scores in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 70 of 82

8. Inmate Health Services:
Florence West had fewer health care grievances and medical appeals than at Bachman Unit in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
However, given that Bachman Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs, the
Department considers Florence West’s quality of service to be comparable to Bachman Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

9. Inmate Discipline:
Florence West had more reported violations than the comparative state unit in FY 2010 and fewer reported violations than the
comparative state unit in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

ASP-Florence West (GEO) and ASPC-Lewis, Bachman Unit:
Overall Finding: Comparable Quality of Services/Cost Within Range of Per Diem Costs for Minimum Custody State Beds
Of the nine (9) service areas, Florence West was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in one (1) area.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in three (3) areas.
Above the comparison state unit in five (5) areas.
It should be noted that Florence West houses mainly minimum custody inmates with a current conviction for DUI, while the
Bachman Unit houses inmates with a variety of more serious commitment offenses.
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, Florence West provided
comparable quality of services as the state at an adjusted cost of $42.06, which is within the range of per diem costs for minimum
custody state beds ($39.18 - $73.90), per the Cost Report.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 71 of 82

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit and ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit – Comparison Findings:
1. Security:
Although the service level of the Hualapai Unit was comparable to the Meadows Unit in FY 2010, the FY 2011 escape of three
felons and the higher incidences of cell phones and drugs in FY 2011 demonstrate a quality of service significantly below the
state unit’s service level. In addition, although the CY 2011 annual audit comparative findings show Hualapai Unit’s overall
compliance level was above Meadows Unit’s overall compliance level, this represents performance twelve (12) months after
the FY 2011 escapes. In response to the security lapses that caused the escape of three felons, the Department identified
serious operational and security deficiencies at ASP-Kingman and effective September 21, 2010, revised the inmate placement
requirements to remove, and going forward prohibit, more serious offenders, including inmates with life sentences, prior
convictions for murder or attempted murder, an escape history from a secure perimeter within the last ten years, more than 20
years to serve. In addition, the Department issued a cure notice to MTC on December 29, 2010. The Department continued to
work with MTC officials to resolve the outstanding concerns over the next three months. By late March 2011, MTC had made
substantial progress in curing the deficiencies previously identified by the Department.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level performance of the Hualapai Unit was comparable to the comparison state unit. In addition, although the
annual audit comparative findings show that Hualapai Unit’s overall compliance level was above Meadows Unit’s overall
compliance level, these audit findings represent performance twelve (12) months after the FY 2011 escapes and after the
Department issued a cure notice to MTC on December 29, 2010. Therefore, the Department considers Hualapai Unit’s quality
of service to be comparable to Meadows Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 72 of 82

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
Although data was unavailable for the Hualapai Unit in FY 2010, FY 2011 data shows that the Hualapai Unit was comparable in
quality to the comparison state unit. However, the annual audit comparative findings show that Hualapai Unit’s overall
compliance level was above Meadows Unit’s overall compliance level. Therefore, the Department considers Hualapai Unit’s
quality of service to be above Meadows Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The overall service level of the Hualapai Unit was above the comparison state unit. The Hualapai Unit had fewer reported staff
injuries in FY 2010 and FY 2011 and fewer reported inmate injuries in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

5. Administration:
The service level of the Hualapai Unit was below the comparison state unit. The Hualapai Unit had a greater number of
grievances in both FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

6. Food Service:
The service level of the Hualapai Unit was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. However, the annual audit
comparative findings show that Hualapai Unit’s overall compliance level was above Meadows Unit’s overall compliance level.
Therefore, the Department considers Hualapai Unit’s quality of service to be above Meadows Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 73 of 82

7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of the Hualapai Unit was below the comparison state unit due to a higher vacancy rate than the comparison
state unit in FY 2010 and higher turnover rates than the comparison state unit in FY 2010 and FY 2011. The Hualapai Unit also
had lower core competency test scores in all categories for both fiscal years.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

8. Inmate Health Services:
Hualapai Unit had fewer health care grievances and medical appeals than Meadows Unit in FY 2010, but more health care
grievances and medical appeals in FY 2011. Given that Meadows Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical
and mental health needs, the Department considers Hualapai Unit’s quality of service to be comparable to Meadows Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

9. Inmate Discipline:
The service level of the Hualapai Unit was below the comparison state unit due to a significantly higher number of violations
(minor and major) reported for FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 74 of 82

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit and ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit:
Overall Finding: Lower Quality of Services/Cost Within Range of Per Diem Costs for Medium Custody State Beds
Of the nine (9) service areas, the Hualapai Unit was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in four (4) areas.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in two (2) areas.
Above the comparison state unit in three (3) areas.
Of particular concern during the time period identified in the Biennial Report were the security findings, including the escape of
three felons on July 30, 2010. In response to the security lapses that caused the escape of three felons, the Department identified
serious operational and security deficiencies at ASP-Kingman and effective September 21, 2010, revised the inmate placement
requirements to remove, and going forward prohibit, more serious offenders, including inmates with life sentences, prior
convictions for murder or attempted murder, an escape history from a secure perimeter within the last ten years, more than 20
years to serve. In addition, the Department issued a cure notice to MTC on December 29, 2010. The Department continued to
work with MTC officials to resolve the outstanding concerns over the next three months. By late March 2011, MTC had made
substantial progress in curing the deficiencies previously identified by the Department.
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, the Hualapai Unit provided
quality of services below the state at an adjusted cost of $54.59, which is within the range of per diem costs for medium custody
state beds ($39.29 - $66.57), per the Cost Report.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 75 of 82

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Cerbat Unit and ASPC-Tucson, Whetstone Unit – Comparison:

1. Security:
The service level of the Cerbat Unit was below the comparison state unit. The Cerbat Unit had a higher incidence of cell
phones and the annual audit comparative findings show that Cerbat Unit’s overall compliance level was below Whetstone
Unit’s overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level of the Cerbat Unit was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. In addition, the annual audit
comparative findings show that Cerbat Unit’s overall compliance level (98.5%) was within one percentage point of Whetstone
Unit’s overall compliance level (98.8%).
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
There are broad variances in the data collected for inmate programs and services. Although the Cerbat Unit and the Whetstone
Unit focus their programming resources on different priorities, it appears that the overall level of service is comparable.
However, Cerbat Unit’s overall compliance level in this area was above Whetstone Unit’s overall compliance level. Therefore,
the Department considers Cerbat Unit’s quality of service to be above Whetstone Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 76 of 82

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The overall service level of the Cerbat Unit was above the comparison state unit. The Cerbat Unit had fewer reported visitor
injuries in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above the state unit service level.

5. Administration:
The service level of the Cerbat Unit was below the comparison state unit. The Cerbat Unit had a greater number of grievances
in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

6. Food Service:
The service level of Cerbat Unit was below the comparison state unit due to a higher number of food grievances in FY 2011. In
addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that Cerbat Unit’s overall compliance level was below Whetstone Unit’s
overall compliance level.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of the Cerbat Unit was below the comparison state unit due to a higher turnover rate than the comparison
state unit in FY 2011 and lower core competency test scores in both categories in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 77 of 82

8. Inmate Health Services:
Cerbat Unit had fewer health care grievances and medical appeals than Whetstone Unit in FY 2011. However, given that
Whetstone Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs, the Department considers
Cerbat Unit’s quality of service to be comparable to Whetstone Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

9. Inmate Discipline:
The Cerbat Unit had fewer reported violations than the comparative state unit in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is above to the state unit service level.

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Cerbat Unit and ASPC-Tucson, Whetstone Unit:
Overall Finding: Comparable Quality of Services/ Cost Cannot Be Determined At This Time.
Of the nine (9) service areas, the Cerbat Unit was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in four (4) areas.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in two (2) areas.
Above the comparison state unit in three (3) areas.
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, the Cerbat Unit provided
comparable quality of services as the state. Because the Cerbat Unit did not open until April 2010, the issue of cost cannot be
determined at this time.
However, it should be noted that the Cerbat Unit, pursuant to Laws 2007, 1st Regular Session, Chapter 261, Section 8, was
exempted from A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(G)(K), and therefore is not required to provide services at the same quality of services as the
state at a lower cost or services superior in quality to those provided by the state at essentially the same cost.

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 78 of 82

ASP-Marana (MTC) and ASPC-Safford, Graham Unit – Comparison:

1. Security:
The service level of Marana was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. The number of reported incidents for cell
phones, drugs, escape, use of force, and lost keys were all similar. In addition, the annual audit comparative findings show that
Marana’s overall compliance level (93.0%) was within two percentage points of Graham Unit’s overall compliance level
(94.2%).Therefore, the Department considers Marana’s quality of service to be comparable to Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

2. Inmate Management and Control:
The service level of Marana was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit for all inmate management and control
measurement factors. The numbers of reported incidents for attempted escapes, inmate assaults and fights, work stoppages,
disturbances, were all similar. However, the annual audit comparative findings show that Marana’s overall compliance level
was below Graham Unit’s overall compliance level. Therefore, the Department considers Marana’s quality of service to be
below Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.

3. Inmate Programs and Services:
There are broad variances in the data collected for inmate programs and services. Although Marana and Graham Unit focus
their programming resources on different priorities, it appears that the overall level of service is comparable. However, the
annual audit comparative findings show that Marana’s overall compliance level was below Graham Unit’s overall compliance
level. Therefore, the Department considers Marana’s quality of service to be below Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 79 of 82

4. Facility Safety and Sanitation:
The service level of Marana was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. Incidences of inmate, staff, and visitor
injuries and facilities grievances were similar across both units.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

5. Administration:
The service level of Marana was comparable in quality to the comparison state unit. There were fewer grievances overall in FY
2010 and more property grievances in FY 2011.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

6. Food Service:
The service level of Marana was above the comparison state unit due to a lower number of food grievances in FY 2010.
Although the annual audit comparative findings show that Marana’s overall compliance level was below Graham Unit’s overall
compliance level, the Department considers Marana’s quality of service to be comparable to Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

7. Personnel Practices and Training:
The service level of Marana was below the comparison state unit due to the FY 2011 turnover rate of 56.8%. Core competency
scores and vacancy rates were similar for both units. However, the FY 2011 CO Turnover Rate of 56.8% at Marana is
considerably higher than the 12.5% at the Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is below the state unit service level.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 80 of 82

8. Inmate Health Services:
Marana had fewer health care grievances and medical appeals than Graham Unit in FY 2011. However, given that Marana has
a correctional health care cost cap of $10,000 per inmate, whereby an inmate is transferred to a state-run prison unit when their
health care cost exceeds this cap, and given that Graham Unit houses a greater number of inmates with higher medical needs,
the Department considers Marana’s quality of service to be comparable to Graham Unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

9. Inmate Discipline:
Marana had comparable reported violations in FY 2010 and FY 2011 than the comparison state unit.
Finding: Private prison unit quality of services is comparable to the state unit service level.

ASP-Marana (MTC) and ASPC-Safford, Graham Unit:
Overall Finding: Comparable Quality of Services/ Cost Within Range of Per Diem Costs for Minimum Custody State Beds
Of the nine (9) service areas, Marana was found to provide a service level:
Below the comparison state unit in three (3) areas.
Comparable to the comparison state unit in six (6) areas.
In addition, it should be noted that Marana has a correctional health care cost cap of $10,000 per inmate, whereby an inmate is
transferred to a state-run prison unit when their health care cost exceeds this cap, while the Graham Unit houses a greater number
of inmates with higher medical and mental health needs
The Department deems this to indicate that during the time period covered in the Biennial Report, Marana provided comparable
quality of services as the state at an adjusted cost of $48.13, which is within the range of per diem costs for minimum custody state
beds ($39.18 - $73.90), per the Cost Report.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 81 of 82

REPORT FINDINGS SUMMARY TABLE

Private Prison Unit

Custody Level

Quality of Service

Cost of Service

ASP-Central Arizona Correctional Facility (GEO)

Medium Custody

Comparable

Within the range of per
diem costs for medium
custody state beds.

ASP-Phoenix West (GEO)

Minimum Custody

Comparable

Within the range of per
diem costs for minimum
custody state beds.

ASP-Florence West (GEO)

Minimum Custody

Comparable

Within the range of per
diem costs for minimum
custody state beds.

ASP-Kingman (MTC) Hualapai Unit

Medium Custody

Below

Within the range of per
diem costs for medium
custody state beds.

Comparable

Because the Cerbat
Unit did not open until
April 2010, the issue of
cost cannot be
determined at this time.

Comparable

Within the range of per
diem costs for minimum
custody state beds.

ASP-Kingman(MTC) Cerbat Unit

ASP-Marana (MTC)

Minimum Custody

Minimum Custody

Arizona Department of Corrections
Biennial Comparison of Private versus Public Provision of Services A.R.S. § 41-1609.01(K)(M)
December 21, 2011
Page 82 of 82

APPENDIX
FY 2010 OPERATING PER CAPITA COST REPORT

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Charles L. Ryan, Director

FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report
Cost Identification and Comparison of State and Private Contract Beds

Prepared By: Bureau of Planning, Budget and Research
Date Prepared: April 13, 2011

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ADC)
FY 2010 PRISON FACILITIES

ARIZONA STATE PRISON
COMPLEXES (ASPC)
ASPC-Douglas
ASPC-Eyman
ASPC-Florence
ASPC-Lewis
ASPC-Perryville
ASPC-Phoenix
ASPC-Safford
ASPC-Tucson
ASPC-Winslow
ASPC-Yuma

PRIVATE / CONTRACT PRISON BEDS
In-State Contract Prison Beds

Out-of-State Contract Prison/Provisional Beds

CACF (Florence) [GEO]
Florence West RTC [GEO]
Florence West DWI [GEO]
Phoenix West DWI [GEO]
Kingman [MTC]
Marana [MTC]
Navajo County Jail

Diamondback (Watonga, OK) [CCA]
Huerfano (Walsenburg, CO) [CCA]
Great Plains (Hinton, OK) [Cornell]

Introduction
The Arizona Department of Corrections (Department) publishes the Operating Per Capita Cost Report with the intent to analyze expenditures for
the incarceration of inmates sentenced to the Department including felons who have been released and are monitored under community
supervision. This report forms the basis for cost comparisons done by the Department, including the cost comparisons for existing beds and the
evaluation of new private prison bed contract proposals. The most recent published report is for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and can be found at the link
provided below:
http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/ADC_FY2010_PerCapitaRep.pdf
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 (L) requires that the “department of corrections conduct a cost comparison of executed privatization contracts once every five
years for each contract.” Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 (M) the Department is also required to submit the most recent cost comparison for
contractors who exclusively contract with the department to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for review. Although the report is required
only once every five years the Department publishes the comparison annually.
A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 (G) requires that “a proposal shall not be accepted unless the proposal offers cost savings to this state. Cost savings shall be
determined based upon the standard cost comparison model for privatization established by the director.” This particular statute is relevant in the
evaluation of new private beds and the Operating Per Capita Cost Report forms the basis for the standard cost comparison model.
Operating Per Capita Cost Report History
The Department has provided average daily costs annually for state prisons since FY 1983 and included Private Prisons beginning in FY 1995. The
report has been prepared annually by Department staff with the exception of FY 2005 through FY 2007 when it was prepared by a contracted
vendor.
In June 2009 the Department determined the requirements of the contract could be performed in-house and chose not to renew the contract that
ended on November 28, 2008. The decision to complete the report internally provided the Department with the opportunity to utilize its knowledge
and expertise of prison operations and allocation of costs. It also gave the Department the ability to more fully understand and identify areas where
differences in functions exist between state and private prisons in an attempt to improve the comparative analysis. Where identifiable, the costs for
functions that are not performed by contractors are excluded from the operating costs of state prisons for the cost comparison portion of the report.
State vs. private cost comparisons are inherently complex due to the many differences in operating requirements, such as inmate custody level and
population requirements; medical, mental health and dental care limitations; land and building financing and cost; age of prison and infrastructure;
and programming requirements. Thus, a perfect cost comparison is impossible to achieve.
i

However, it is the intent of the Department to continually review and improve the analysis and allocation of prison operational functions and costs
in an effort to provide policymakers with the most accurate and up-to-date per diem costs of both state and private prison operators.
Section I: State and Private Contract Prison Cost Comparison
Section I provides a cost comparison between state operated beds and contracted prison beds for minimum and medium custody inmates as
required every five years by A.R.S. § 41-1609.01 (L)(M).
The comparison identifies and adjusts expenses for several functions provided by the state that are not provided by contracted prisons. This section
includes three adjustments necessary to provide a more accurate cost comparison between state-operated and contracted prison beds: medical cost
adjustment, inmate management functions adjustment, and depreciation. These adjustments are explained in detail on page 2 of the FY 2010
Operating Per Capita Cost Report.
The adjusted costs, contained in the FY 2010 ADC Operating Per Capita Cost Report (shown below), provide the best possible cost comparison
between state and contract beds for both minimum and medium custody inmates in FY 2010.

Minimum Custody
Medium Custody

FY 2010
State Beds
Contract Beds
$46.59
$46.56
$48.42
$53.02

Section II: Inmate Management Functions
Section II identifies and compares inmate management functions that may be provided by state and/or contract bed providers, as well as medical,
mental health and dental contract exclusions and restrictions. The section also identifies other inmate placement limitations for contract prison bed
providers. The information is provided to clarify the differences in inmate placement for contract beds, as opposed to state prisons, which cannot
exclude inmates sentenced to the Department regardless of custody level, sentenced offense or health status.
Additional information can be found on the operational functions and inmate placement requirements of state and private prisons on the following
pages of the FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report:
• Pages 6-8 include a comparison of state and contract prison functions.
• Pages 9-10 describe the medical criteria an inmate must meet to be able to be transferred into a private prison.
• Pages 11-13 identify the criteria used by the ADC and private contract vendors in the placement of ADC inmates in private facilities.

ii

Section III: FY 2010 Per Capita Costs
Section III contains the detailed cost identification and assignment by prison complex, prison unit, contract prison bed provider, custody level,
community supervision and other expenses. The cost assignment and adjustment methodologies for calculating the unadjusted and adjusted per
diem costs are identified and explained.
The model is prepared using actual expenditures for appropriated funds as reported in the Arizona Financial Information System (the state’s
accounting system), which includes payments made to, and on behalf of private prison vendors. The costs used in the analysis include all elements
of salary and employee related expenditures (including employee and employer pension costs and health insurance costs), all other operating
expenses (including travel, utilities, inmate food, per diem payment for private prison operators, etc.) and equipment (capital and non-capital).
The process of allocating expenses to both state and private prison bed vendors is based on a combination of direct expenditures and a defined
methodology of indirect expenditures, based on criteria such as Average Daily Population (ADP), Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions, vehicle
fleet assignments, etc. (For a more complete explanation of the report methodology please refer to pages 16-18.)
Expenses for facilities that were open for only a portion of the fiscal year, one-time expenses, non-prison related expenses and highly specialized
functions are excluded from the calculations and are identified separately on pages 19 and 20 of the report.
The cost comparison model identifies, wherever possible, all direct and overhead costs for both state and private beds. In this process, functions are
identified which are provided by the Department that benefit both state run prisons and private bed contractors. If a cost for these services can be
identified they are allocated appropriately to both state and private bed contractors. If the cost of these services cannot be quantified, the
Department assumes the financial burden in the Per Capita Report which reduces the private beds per capita costs.
Section IV: Historical Costs
Section IV is comprised of the history of prior per capita cost reports by cost center categories, custody levels and other criteria.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I State and Private Contract Prison Cost Comparison
1
This section provides cost comparisons between state operated prison complexes and contracted prison beds for minimum and
medium custody inmates.
Cost Comparison Methodology of State and Contract Prison Beds…………………………………………………………………… 2
State and Contract Prison Cost Comparisons…………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Section II Inmate Management Functions
This section identifies inmate management functions that are provided by and paid for by the state but are not provided by the
private contractors. This inequity increases the state per capita cost which in comparison, artificially lowers the private bed cost.

5

This section also identifies medical and other contractual criteria used by private contractors in accepting inmates.
Inmate Management Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Contract Medical, Mental Health and Dental Criteria for Inmate Acceptance………………………………………………………… 9
Other Placement Criteria Exclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Section III Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Per Capita Costs
15
This section provides the methodology, summaries and detailed expenditure information used in the development of the FY 2010
Per Capita cost calculations.
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Indirect Cost Allocation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Expenditure Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Adjustments for Cost Comparison Detail………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
State Prison Expenditures by Prison Unit………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
State Prison Minimum Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………… 26
State Prison Medium Custody Unit Expenditures…………………………………………………………………………………………27
State Prison Close Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………………28
State Prison Maximum Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………… 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section IV Historical Costs
31
This section provides the history of reported costs for state, contract, jail and community supervision offender management.
State Prisons………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
In-State and Out-of-State Contract Prison Beds………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Adult Parole and Home Arrest………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34
Community Supervision…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Lease Purchase, One-time Costs and County Jails Pending Intake……………………………………………………………………36
Historical Per Capita Recap Detail………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Other Historical Information………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

SECTION I

Section I State and Private Contract Prison Cost Comparison
This section provides cost comparisons between state operated prison complexes and contracted prison beds for minimum and
medium custody inmates.
Cost Comparison Methodology of State and Contract Prison Beds…………………………………………………………………… 2
State and Contract Prison Cost Comparisons…………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

ADC FY 2009 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

1

COST COMPARISON METHODOLOGY OF STATE AND CONTRACT PRISON BEDS

The following steps have been developed to strive toward improved cost comparisons between state prisons and privately operated contract prison beds.
UNADJUSTED EXPENSES
The unadjusted expenses reflect the total FY 2010 expenditures through 13th month as reported in the State of Arizona Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS) to
establish baseline costs prior to adjustments for cost and functions comparisons.
ADJUSTED EXPENSES FOR COST COMPARISON
The cost comparison is arrived at using the following adjustments to the "Unadjusted Expenses" to provide a more accurate cost comparison between state operated and
contracted prison beds.
-

Medical Cost Adjustment
An inmate health care cost factor is identified and deducted due to the limitations imposed by the private contractors concerning inmates physical and mental health per
"Contract Criteria" detailed in Section II of this report. This adjustment is needed because unlike the private contractors, the ADC is required to provide medical and
mental health services to inmates regardless of the severity of their condition(s).
Section III identifies the methodology and data used to calculate this factor which was developed by dividing the total expense for inmate health care by the Average Daily
Population (ADP) and then by 365 days. The factor includes state inmate related health care expenses plus those paid for inmates returned to state prisons due to an
increase of their medical scores that exceeds contractual exclusions as identified in Section II.
The medical expense factor for in-state contract prisons is a weighted average developed using the individual contract fee schedules. Since the contractual inmate cost
per day does not identify the medical component of the per diem rate for inmates housed in out-of-state contracted prison beds, these contracts are not included in the
cost comparison.

-

Inmate Management Functions Adjustment
Where identifiable an additional expenditure adjustment is made for functions provided by state prisons that are not provided by contract prisons. Seven functions with
identified costs which have been excluded are:
- Inmate classification and sentenced time computation
- Inmate discharge payments
- Inter-prison inmate transportation
- Kennels - security dogs
- Reception other (not ASPC-Phoenix)
- Wildland fire crews
- Work Incentive Pay Program (WIPP) inmate wages
The "Function Comparison" list detailed in Section II of this report identifies many activities for which the associated costs were not able to be identified or excluded.

-

Depreciation - State Prison Beds Adjustment
For a better comparison, depreciation of state prison buildings has been added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since contract bed providers include the costs
of financing and depreciation in their daily per diem rates. The depreciation factor is not an actual expense incurred by ADC but is included for a more accurate
comparison. (Source of depreciation is the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) DAFR9350 report for FY 2010).

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

2

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STATE AND CONTRACT PRISON COST COMPARISONS

MINIMUM CUSTODY BEDS
STATE BEDS

Description

ADP

Unadjusted Expenses
Medical Cost Adjustment (1)
Inmate Management Functions Adjustment (2)
Depreciation - State Prison Beds Adjustment (3)

10,002

Adjusted Expenses for Cost Comparison

10,002

TOTAL COSTS

$

202,930,185
(34,426,384)
(3,575,864)
5,147,529

IN-STATE CONTRACT BEDS
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

ADP

$

55.59
(9.43)
(0.98)
1.41

2,979

46.59

2,979

170,075,466

TOTAL COSTS

$

58,936,609
(8,307,239)

DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

50,629,370

54.20
(7.64)

46.56

MEDIUM CUSTODY BEDS
STATE BEDS

Description

ADP

Unadjusted Expenses
Medical Cost Adjustment (1)
Inmate Management Functions Adjustment (2)
Depreciation - State Prison Beds Adjustment (3)

12,873

Adjusted Expenses for Cost Comparison

12,873

TOTAL COSTS

IN-STATE CONTRACT BEDS
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

272,395,685
(47,362,342)
(4,135,094)
6,625,089
$

227,523,338

$

ADP

57.97
(10.08)
(0.88)
1.41

1,648

48.42

1,648

TOTAL COSTS

DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

36,485,529
(4,595,613)

$

31,889,916

60.66
(7.64)

$

53.02

ADJUSTMENTS
(1) Medical Cost Adjustment:

For state beds, inmate health care costs are actual costs which have been identified and excluded due to the limitations imposed by private bed contractors concerning
inmates physical and mental health scores and, in some cases, medical cost cap exclusions. The adjustment for private contractors is based on a weighted average
developed using the individual contract fee schedules.

(2) Inmate Management Functions
Adjustment:

Where identifiable, direct and indirect costs for functions provided by ADC that are not provided by private contractors are excluded from state beds. An enclosed chart
identifies those functions, as well as other functions provided by ADC for which costs could not be identified.

(3) Depreciation Adjustment:

State prison buildings depreciation is added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since contract bed providers include the costs of financing and depreciation in
their daily per diem rates. (Source of depreciation is the Arizona Department of Administration)

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

3

INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

IS THE FUNCTION PROVIDED BY:
STATE PRISONS
CONTRACT PRISON BEDS

Functions with identified costs used for adjustments for cost comparison:
- Inmate Discharge Payments
- Inter-Prison Transportation
- Medical, Dental and Mental Health Treatment
- Reception and Classification
- Kennels - Security Dogs
- Work Incentive Pay Programs

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
Contractual Restrictions
No
No
See note

Functions with unidentified costs:
- Access to ACJIS or NCIC databases, or confidential AIMS screens
- Background Checks of Visitors, Employees and Contract Vendors
- Community Supervision and Final Review of Release Packets
- Criminal Investigations
- Death Row / Executions
- Detention Determinations
- Discharge Processing, Payments and Home Release Programs
- Discipline Determinations
- Hard Labor and Programming Requirements Compliance
- Reclassification and Movement
- Time Computation/Release Dates and Credits Calculations
- Warrants and Due Process Hearings for Executive Clemency
- Close and Maximum Custody Inmates
- Constituent Services/Inmate Family and Friends
- Coordination with County Attorneys under Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Statutes
- Criminal Aliens Processing with ICE
- "Do Not House With" Determinations
- Earned Incentive Program
- Emergency Escorted Visits
- Fugitive Apprehension
- Interstate Compact Processing/Determinations
- Minors
- Protective Segregation Determinations
- Return of Eligible Foreign Born Inmates to Home Country
- Revocation Hearings
- Sex Offender Notification and DNA Testing
- Sex Offender Treatment Programs
- Special Education Services (SPED) up to age 22
- Victim Services

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
ADC must approve
No
No
ADC must approve
No
No
No
No
No
No
Diamondback Only
No
In-State Only
In-State Only
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
CACF Only
Yes/No
No

(1)

(2)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(4)

(1) All ADC's private contractors have contractual restrictions for medical (M) and mental health (MH) services based either on an inmates M/MH score, or a medical cost cap,

which result in lower costs for the contractors. ADC must provide services to all inmates regardless of their medical condition(s) or M/MH scores.
(2) Contractors manage work programs as approved by ADC, however inmate wages (WIPP) are paid by ADC and are not included in contractors per diem rates.
(3) Per Arizona statutes, certain functions cannot be delegated. Other functions may be performed by Contractors, but only with ADC approval. (A.R.S. 41-1604, 41-1609.01

and 41-1750).
(4) Kingman staff indicated an inability to hire SPED qualified teachers, which prohibited placement of inmates with SPED needs during this period. Verbal discussions with

Great Plains and Diamondback facilities staff also restricted SPED inmates from placement, although contractually allowable.
ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

4

SECTION II

Section II Inmate Management Functions
This section identifies inmate management functions that are provided by and paid for by the state but are not provided by the
private contractors. This inequity increases the state per capita cost which in comparison, artificially lowers the private bed cost.
This section also identifies medical and other contractual criteria used by private contractors in accepting inmates.
- Inmate Management Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
- Contract Medical, Mental Health and Dental Criteria for Inmate Acceptance……………………………………………………… 9
- Other Placement Criteria Exclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

5

INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

The following two pages contain a comprehensive list of functions required to run a prison system. Each listed function has
a "yes" or "no" to indicate whether it is provided by the state and/or contract bed providers.
-

Seven functions have identified costs that have been included in the cost adjustments for comparison between state
and contract minimum and medium custody inmates in Section I.

-

The costs associated with the remaining functions were not able to be identified separately. This results in these
costs being included in the overall expense of inmate management for both state and private contract bed providers
as applicable. However, as noted, the state pays for and provides a majority of the inmate management functions
which the private contract vendors do not. As a result, the "real" costs for private contract beds are understated in
comparison to the reported costs for state beds.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

6

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
STATE AND CONTRACT PRISON FUNCTION COMPARISON

INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

IS THE FUNCTION PROVIDED BY:
IN-STATE
OUT-OF-STATE
STATE
CONTRACT
CONTRACT PRISON
Great Plains (1)
PRISONS
PRISONS

Functions with identified costs used for adjustments for cost comparison:
- Inmate Classification, Reclassification, Sentenced Time Computation, Credits
Calculation, and Release Date and Movement Determinations
- Inmate Discharge Payments
- Inter-Prison Transportation
- Kennels - Security Dogs
- Medical, Dental and Mental Health Treatment
- Reception and Intake Testing and Classification (Other than ASPC-Phoenix)
- Work Incentive Pay Programs

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
--------- Contractual Restrictions --------No
No
------------------- See Note -------------------

(2)

Functions with unidentified costs:
- Access to ACJIS or NCIC databases, or confidential AIMS screens
- Background Checks of Visitors, Employees and Contract Vendors
- Community Supervision and final review of Release Packets
- Criminal Investigations
- Death Row / Executions
- Detention Determinations
- Discharge Processing, Payments and Home Release Programs
- Discipline Determinations
- Hard Labor and Programming Requirements Compliance
- Warrants and Due Process Hearings for Executive Clemency
- Close and Maximum Custody Inmates
- Constituent Services/Inmate Family and Friends
- Coordination with County Attorneys under Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Statutes
- Criminal Aliens Processing with ICE
- "Do Not House With" Determinations
- Earned Incentive Program
- Education Programs
- Emergency Escorted Visits
- Fugitive Apprehension

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
------------ ADC Must Approve -----------No
No
No
No
------------ ADC Must Approve -----------No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

(3)
(4)

7

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
STATE AND CONTRACT PRISON FUNCTION COMPARISON

INMATE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS (Continued)
-

Inmate Property and Store
Inmate Records, including Health Records
Inmate Trust Accounts
Interstate Compact Processing/Determinations
Mail Inspection
Minors
Protective Segregation Determinations
Religious Services
Restitution
Return of Eligible Foreign Born Inmates to Home Country
Revocation Hearings
Sex Offender Notification and DNA Testing
Sex Offender Treatment Programs
Special Education Services up to age 22
Substance Abuse Programs
Victim Services
Visitation and Visitor Background Checks
Volunteer Services
Work Programs

IS THE FUNCTION PROVIDED BY:
IN-STATE
OUT-OF-STATE
STATE
CONTRACT
CONTRACT PRISON
Great Plains (1)
PRISONS
PRISONS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
CACF Only
No
------------------- See Note ------------------Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

(5)

(1) Huerfano and Diamondback facilities were not operational for the entire year, and are not included in this comparison of functions.
(2) Per Arizona statutes, certain functions cannot be delegated. Other functions may be performed by Contractors, but only with ADC approval. (A.R.S. 41-

1604, 41-1609.01 and 41-1750).
(3) All ADC's private contractors have contractual restrictions for medical (M) and mental health (MH) services based either on an inmates M/MH score, or a

medical cost cap, which result in lower costs for the contractors. ADC must provide services to all inmates regardless of their medical condition(s) or
M/MH scores.
(4) Contractors manage work programs as approved by ADC, however inmate wages (WIPP) are paid by ADC and are not included in contractors per diem
rates.
(5) Kingman staff indicated an inability to hire SPED qualified teachers, which prohibited placement of inmates with SPED needs during this period. Verbal
discussions with Great Plains facility staff also restricted SPED inmates from placement, although contractually allowable.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

8

CRITERIA USED BY IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE PRISON CONTRACTORS IN PROVIDING
MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL TREATMENT SERVICES
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SCORES DEFINITIONS

Exclusion criteria for medical, mental health and dental services are identified for each contract vendor on the following page. Medical and mental
health scores are defined as:
Medical (M)
M-5

Severely limited physical capacity and stamina; requires assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs); requires housing in inpatient or
assisted living area.

M-4

Limited physical capacity and stamina; severe physical illness or chronic condition.

M-3

Restricted physical capacity; requires special housing or reasonable accommodations.

M-2

Sustained physical capacity consistent with age; stable physical illness or chronic condition; no special requirements.

M-1

Maximum sustained physical capacity consistent with age; no special requirements.

Mental Health (MH)
MH-5 Acute Need - Requires placement in a licensed behavioral health treatment facility to receive intensive psychological and psychiatric
services. Offender has a recognized need for psychiatric monitoring. Offender has a recognized acute need for mental health treatment
and supervision.
MH-4 High Need - Offender requires specialized placements in a mental health program which provides a highly structured setting and/or has
intensive psychological and psychiatric staffing and services. Offender has a recognized need for psychiatric monitoring. Offender has a
recognized need for intensive mental health treatment and/or supervision.
MH-3 Moderate to High Need - Offender requires placement that has regular, full-time psychological and psychiatric staffing and services.
Offender has a recognized need, or, there exists current need for MH treatment and/or supervision.
or:
Moderate Need - Offender requires placement that has regular, full-time psychological and psychiatric staffing and services. Offender has a
recognized need, or, there exists a routine need for MH treatment and/or supervision.
MH-2 Low Need - Offender does not require placement in a facility that has regular, full-time psychological and psychiatric staffing and services on
site. Offender has a history of mental health problems or treatment, but has no current recognized need for psychotropic medication,
MH-1 No Need - Offender does not require placement in a facility that has regular, full-time psychological and psychiatric staffing and services on
site. Offender has no known history of mental health problems or treatment. Offender has no recognized need for psychotropic medication,
psychiatric monitoring, or psychological counseling or therapy.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

9

CONTRACT CRITERIA USED BY IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE PRISON CONTRACTORS IN PROVIDING
MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL TREATMENT SERVICES
AS OF JUNE 2010
Description
Inmate Capacity
Health Services Provider
Location
Medical (M) Score
Mental Health
(MH) Score
Nursing Hours

Medical Staffing

CACF
(Florence)

Florence West
DUI

Florence West
RTC

Kingman
Cerbat

Kingman
Hualapai

MCCTF
(Marana)

Navajo County
Jail

Phoenix West

1,200
PNA
Florence, AZ
M-4

500
PNA
Florence, AZ
M-4

250
PNA
Florence, AZ
M-3

2,000
PNA
Kingman, AZ
M-3

1,506
PNA
Kingman, AZ
M-3

506
MTC
Marana, AZ
M-3
MH - 2

48
County
Holbrook, AZ
M-3

500
PNA
Phoenix, AZ
M-4

MH - 3
24/7

MH - 3
24/7

MH - 3
24/7

MH - 3
24/7

MH - 3
24/7

(MH-3 w/approval)

24/7

MH - 2
24/7

MH - 3
24/7

Physician

ASPC-Winslow

Physician & MidLevel Provider

Extractions only
Crisis
intervention

Physician & Mid- Physician & Mid- Physician & Mid- Physician & Mid- Physician & MidLevel Provider Level Provider Level Provider Level Provider Level Provider

On-site Dental

Full

Full

Full

Full

Full

Full

Mental Health Staffing
Seriously Mentally Ill
(SMI)
Psychiatry
Medical Observation Beds
Formulary

Psychologist

Psychologist

Psychologist

Psychologist

Psychologist

Psychologist

Stable only
Yes
3 beds
ADC

Stable only
Yes
None
ADC

None
Yes
None
ADC

MIHS or SMH

MIHS or SMH

MIHS or SMH

Stable only
Yes
5 beds
ADC
Kingman
Regional

Stable only
Yes
None
ADC

Hospital Primary

Stable only
Yes
5 beds
ADC
Kingman
Regional

Hospital Secondary
Lab
X-ray
Pharmacy Services
Insullin Dependent Diabetics
ADA
High Cost
Accreditation
Unit Dose Medications
Chronic Conditions
Corridor Facility Status

As above
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
No cap
NCCHC
Yes
All
Yes

As above
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
No cap
None
Yes
All
Yes

As above
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
No
Full
No cap
None
Yes
None
Yes

MIHS
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
No cap
NCCHC
Yes
All
No

MIHS
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
No cap
NCCHC
Yes
All
No

SMH
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
$10,000 cap
ACA
Yes
All
Yes

SMH

None
No
3 beds
Non-ADC
Winslow, AZ
hospital
Flagstaff, AZ
hospital
ASPC-W
ASPC-W
ASPC-W
No
No Wheelchairs
ADC full pay
None
Yes
None
No

(1)
(1)

Full
Psychologist
Stable only
Yes
None
PNA
MIHS
MIHS
Contract
On-site
CorrectRx
Yes
Full
$10,000 cap
ACA
Yes
All
Yes

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1) When M and MH scores are exceeded, ADC pays for services until medical stability is achieved and the inmates are returned to ADC.
(2) MIHS and SMH terminated contract services for ADC inmates in November 2009 due to legislation passed that required ADC to obtain AHCCCS rates.
For the remainder of the fiscal year ADC provided medical services using temporary emergency contracts and sending inmates to nearest emergency rooms.
(3) In contracts where "No cap" is identified but medical costs become excessive, ADC accepts the return of inmates on a case by case basis.
(4) Corridor Facility Status indicates close proximity to major hospital and medical professional services.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

10

OTHER PLACEMENT CRITERIA EXCLUSIONS
BEYOND MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL CONTRACT EXCLUSIONS

The following two pages identify the criteria used by the private contract vendors in the acceptance of ADC inmates.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

11

OTHER PLACEMENT CRITERIA EXCLUSIONS
BEYOND MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL CONTRACT EXCLUSIONS

Central Arizona Correctional Facility [GEO]
- Originally accepted medium custody sex offender inmates who were convicted or arrested for a felony sex offense or other felony
where a sex act occurred - current or prior offense.
- As of May 2009, criteria changed to medium custody sex offenders convicted of a felony sex offense or other felony offense where a
sex act occurred - current offense only.
Florence West DWI [GEO]
- No inmates with a higher than minimum custody level.
Florence West RTC [GEO]
- No inmates with a higher than minimum custody level.
- No inmates who are returned to custody with new conviction(s), or active warrants or an active detainer for tried/untried felonies.
- No inmates who have specified chronic medical conditions.
Great Plains (Hinton, OK) [Cornell]
- No Murder 1 convictions.
- No inmate with a disciplinary violation or court conviction of escape from a secure perimeter
- No sex offender inmates (no history of felony sex offense convictions or arrests, other felony offenses where a sex act occurred, or
misdemeanor related sex offenses).
- No "Do Not House With" inmates.
- No inmates in need of Special Education (SPED).
- No inmates with a pattern of violence which is described as multiple disciplinary or court convictions for fighting within a ten year
period.
- Certain inmates suspected of Security Threat Group (STG) affiliation.
- No inmate with a disciplinary conviction for rioting, staff assault or assault on another inmate (with or without weapon).

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

12

OTHER PLACEMENT CRITERIA EXCLUSIONS
BEYOND MEDICAL, MENTAL HEALTH AND DENTAL CONTRACT EXCLUSIONS
Kingman [MTC]
- No offender with a higher than minimum or medium custody level, inclusive of overrides.
- No "Do Not House With" offenders.
- No offenders in need of Special Education (SPED).
- No inmates who are within two years of release and who must register as a sex offender.
Effective September 21, 2010, after three felons escaped on July 30, 2010, the placement exclusions for Kingman
changed to the following:
Minimum Custody:
- No current or prior convictions for 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 (including sentences of 25 years to life).
- No current or prior convictions for murder or attempted murder, including 1st and 2nd degree murder.
- No inmates with an escape history from a secure perimeter within the last ten years.
- No inmates with more than 20 years to serve.
Marana [MTC]
- No inmates higher than minimum custody level.
- No inmates who have a history of, or current convictions for, Felony Class 2 or 3 property offenses with specific exclusions.
- No inmates with a history of Felony convictions for violent offenses involving threat of violence or actual violence.
- No inmates with a history of sex offense arrests or convictions, or child related offenses (other than child abuse convictions for neglect
when such neglect was the direct result of the inmate's substance abuse problem).
- No inmates with more than five years remaining prior to the earliest possible release date.
- No inmates with pending disciplinary actions or history of validated STG involvement.
- No Alcohol/Drug Abuse Treatment Needs Scores lower than A/D-2.
Phoenix West DWI [GEO]
- No inmates higher than minimum custody level.
- No inmates with Sex Offense Status Codes of A, B, C or D.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

13

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

14

SECTION III

Section III FY 2010 Per Capita Costs
This section provides the methodology, summaries and detailed expenditure information used in the development of the FY 2010
Per Capita cost calculations.
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Indirect Cost Allocation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Expenditure Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Adjustments for Cost Comparison Detail………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
State Prison Expenditures by Prison Unit………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
State Prison Minimum Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………… 26
State Prison Medium Custody Unit Expenditures…………………………………………………………………………………………27
State Prison Close Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………………28
State Prison Maximum Custody Unit Expenditures……………………………………………………………………………………… 29

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

15

METHODOLOGY

UNADJUSTED DAILY PER CAPITA:
This "Operating Per Capita Cost Report" provides the average daily cost incurred by the ADC to incarcerate inmates within the state
operated prisons, and in- and out-of-state contract prison beds, and to monitor parolees through community supervision. The report
includes all ADC costs, not just housing related costs.
The report provides information on the ADP of all inmates sentenced to the ADC housed within the state and contract prison beds and
parolees in community supervision. The ADP is developed using the grand total of inmates, which includes both inside and outside
inmate counts obtained from the ADC's daily "Institutional Capacity & Committed Population" reports. The ADP for FY 2010 has been
developed based on 365 days. The FY 2010 began on July 1, 2009, and ended on June 30, 2010.
Financial information contained in this report was obtained from the ADC's expenditure data as reported in the USAS for 13th month
expenditures (the state's accounting system's technical end of the FY). Actual direct and allocated expenses are identified for all state
prison units, contract prison bed units and community supervision. Expenditures that are not assigned directly to prison units through
the USAS, such as operations support, are analyzed and allocated to prison units as either direct or indirect expenditures. The
allocation methodology is outlined on the following page. Expenses for facilities that were open for only a portion of the fiscal year, onetime expenses, non-prison related expenses and highly specialized functions are identified separately.
The following expenditures have been excluded from allocation to state prisons, contract prison beds and community supervision.
-

Lease purchase payments.
One-time costs for capital equipment.
County jails - inmates sentenced to ADC housed in county jails pending transport to ADC reception.
ASPC-Phoenix expenses include specialized mental health units (Aspen, Flamenco and B-Ward), and Inmate Worker, and the
Alhambra Reception units. These costs could not be accurately separated due to the accounting structure in place at that time.
State and Private Contractor prison beds that were not open for the entire year (partial year units).

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

16

METHODOLOGY (Continued)

ADJUSTED DAILY PER CAPITA:
The "Adjusted Cost Comparison" is arrived at using the following adjustments to the "Unadjusted Expenses" to provide a more accurate
cost comparison between state operated and privately operated prison beds.
-

Medical Cost Adjustment
An inmate health care cost factor is identified and deducted due to the limitations imposed by the private contractors concerning
inmates physical and mental health per "Contract Criteria" detailed in Section II of this report. This adjustment is needed
because unlike the private contractors, the ADC is required to provide medical and mental health services to inmates regardless
of the severity of their condition(s).

-

Inmate Management Functions Adjustment
Where identifiable an additional expenditure adjustment is made for functions provided by state prisons that are not provided by
contract prisons. Seven functions with identified costs which have been excluded are:
- Inmate classification and sentenced time computation
- Inmate discharge payments
- Inter-prison inmate transportation
- Kennels - security dogs
- Reception other (not ASPC-Phoenix)
- Wildland fire crews
- WIPP inmate wages
The "Function Comparison" list detailed in Section II of this report identifies many activities for which the associated costs were
not able to be identified or excluded.

-

Depreciation - State Prison Beds Adjustment
For a better comparison, depreciation of state prison buildings has been added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since
contract bed providers include the costs of financing and depreciation in their daily per diem rates. The depreciation factor is not
an actual expense incurred by ADC but is included for a more accurate comparison. (Source of depreciation is the ADOA
DAFR9350 report for FY 2010).

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

17

APPROPRIATED FUNDS
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION

OPERATIONS SUPPORT EXPENSES ALLOCATED TO:
COST
ALLOCATION
METHOD

STATE PRISONS

COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS

CONTRACT
PRISON BEDS

Office of the Director

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inspector General

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Health Services Oversight

ADP

Yes

No

Yes

Volunteer and Religious Services Oversight

ADP

Yes

No

No

Radio Communications

ADP

Yes

No

No

Offender Operations Oversight

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Contract Prison Monitoring

ADP

No

No

Yes

County Jails (pending intake)

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Support Services Oversight (Inmate Programs)

ADP

Yes

No

No

Vehicles

Yes

Yes

Yes

Engineering and Facilities

ADP

Yes

No

No

Human Services

FTE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Other Administrative Services

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Planning, Budget and Research

ADP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Staff Training

FTE

Yes

Yes

Yes

Correctional Officer Training

ADP

Yes

No

No

INDIRECT OPERATIONS SUPPORT EXPENSES

Administrative and Support Services:
Vehicle Fleet

FTE = Full Time Equivalent Position
ADP = Average Daily Population

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

18

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY - Part One of Two
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

OPERATIONS

Custody

STATE PRISONS:
ASPC-Douglas
ASPC-Eyman
ASPC-Florence
ASPC-Lewis
ASPC-Perryville
ASPC-Safford
ASPC-Tucson
ASPC-Winslow
ASPC-Yuma
SUBTOTAL STATE PRISONS
Partial Year Beds and Specialized Units
Excluded from Cost Comparison:
ASPC-Phoenix
ASPC-Lewis Eagle Point
ASPC-Perryville San Carlos
ASPC-Tucson St. Mary's Hospital
ASPC-Tucson Whetstone
ASPC-Yuma Cibola
ASPC-Yuma La Paz
SUBTOTAL STATE PRISON BEDS
TOTAL STATE PRISONS

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

All

Min
Min
Max
Min
Med
Min

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

2,480
5,222
4,385
5,116
3,486
1,854
4,385
1,765
2,350

$

40,093,897
101,151,330
77,372,542
77,929,447
53,642,925
27,515,023
91,975,122
32,927,726
41,924,565

COMPLEX
DIRECT

$

9,547,083
11,262,706
17,811,009
21,086,469
15,299,404
5,670,800
16,437,764
6,887,823
7,135,087

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL DIRECT

$

49,640,979
112,414,036
95,183,551
99,015,916
68,942,328
33,185,823
108,412,886
39,815,549
49,059,651

$

2,593,061
5,469,499
4,556,186
5,074,437
3,531,207
1,866,743
4,903,226
1,931,586
2,507,772

TOTAL EXPENSE

$

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

52,234,040
117,883,536
99,739,737
104,090,353
72,473,535
35,052,566
113,316,112
41,747,135
51,567,423

$ 20,016.52
21,527.01
21,706.63
19,354.17
19,776.92
17,899.58
24,723.58
22,558.38
20,876.45

$ 1,045.59
1,047.40
1,039.04
991.88
1,012.97
1,006.87
1,118.18
1,094.38
1,067.14

$ 21,062.11
22,574.40
22,745.66
20,346.04
20,789.88
18,906.45
25,841.76
23,652.77
21,943.58

21,121.37

1,044.80

22,166.17

31,043

544,532,576

111,138,143

655,670,720

32,433,717

688,104,437

589
59
15
4
15
21
20

28,361,250
2,922,097
1,696,661
1,639,216
2,034,154
1,561,363
1,223,074

5,074,777
242,862
65,832
15,104
56,224
63,748
60,712

33,436,027
3,164,959
1,762,493
1,654,319
2,090,378
1,625,111
1,283,787

1,014,333
124,966
10,452
57,396
14,331
14,277
13,597

34,450,360
3,289,925
1,772,945
1,711,716
2,104,709
1,639,388
1,297,383

723

39,437,814

5,579,260

45,017,074

1,249,351

46,266,425

31,766

583,970,390

116,717,403

700,687,794

33,683,068

734,370,862

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA (4)

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

$

57.70
61.85
62.32
55.74
56.96
51.80
70.80
64.80
60.12

$

60.73 (1)

(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

The State prisons include all custody levels of inmates while contract prison beds include only minimum and/or medium custody levels. State prison costs also include expenses not incurred by contract prisons.
Specialized units including Inmate Reception and Classification, Testing and High Level Mental Health Treatment.
Partial year units are excluded because of either start-up or shutdown costs that are not part of the normal costs of operating state or contracted prison beds.
For a better comparison, depreciation of state prison buildings has been added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since contract bed providers include the costs of financing and depreciation in their daily per
diem rates. The depreciation factor is not an actual expense incurred by ADC but is included for a more accurate comparison. (Source of depreciation is the ADOA DAFR9350 report for FY 2010).

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

19

50.95
53.19
53.43
47.17
45.29
44.53
57.04
56.92
52.97
51.39

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY - Part Two of Two
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

OPERATIONS
CONTRACT PRISON BEDS:
IN-STATE CONTRACTS
CACF
Florence West
Kingman
Kingman
Marana
Phoenix West
TOTAL IN-STATE CONTRACTS

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

COMPLEX
DIRECT

TOTAL DIRECT

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL
EXPENSE

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

Med
Min
Min
Med
Min
Min

1,263
735
1,255
385
493
496
4,627

27,157,104
12,794,580
26,793,761
8,219,602
8,578,783
8,155,414
91,699,244

133,988
271,040
300,275
92,116
286,912
122,361
1,206,692

27,291,092
13,065,620
27,094,036
8,311,718
8,865,696
8,277,775
92,905,936

684,696
399,900
681,871
209,182
269,768
270,786
2,516,202

27,975,787
13,465,520
27,775,906
8,520,900
9,135,463
8,548,560
95,422,138

21,608.15
17,776.35
21,588.87
21,588.87
17,983.16
16,689.06
20,079.09

542.12
544.08
543.32
543.32
547.20
545.94
543.81

22,150.27
18,320.44
22,132.19
22,132.19
18,530.35
17,235.00
20,622.90

60.69
50.19
60.64 (1)
60.64 (1)
50.77
47.22
56.50

Min
Med

1,284
487
1,771

25,881,834
9,829,192
35,711,026

63,512
11,449
74,961

25,945,346
9,840,641
35,785,988

695,020
263,610
958,630

26,640,366
10,104,251
36,744,617

20,206.66
20,206.66
20,206.66

541.29
541.29
541.29

20,747.95
20,747.95
20,747.95

56.84
56.84
56.84

6,398

127,410,270

1,281,654

128,691,924

3,474,831

132,166,755

20,114.40

543.11

20,657.51

56.60

20
1,795
479

373,309
39,503,791
11,346,492

0
350,639
138,546

373,309
39,854,430
11,485,038

10,790
971,472
260,625

384,099
40,825,901
11,745,663

2,294

51,223,592

489,185

51,712,777

1,242,886

52,955,664

8,692

178,633,862

1,770,839

180,404,701

4,717,718

185,122,418

40,458

762,604,253

118,488,242

881,092,495

38,400,785

919,493,280

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION:

6,644

14,225,723

0

14,225,723

3,590,325

17,816,049

2,141.14

540.39

2,681.52

7.35

TOTAL COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

6,644

14,225,723

0

14,225,723

3,590,325

17,816,049

0
0

19,912,100
5,019,125
398,451

OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACT
Great Plains
Great Plains
TOTAL OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACT
SUBTOTAL CONTRACT PRISON
BEDS
Partial Year Beds Excluded
from Cost Comparison:
Navajo County Jail
Out-of-State Contract - Diamondback
Out-of-State Contract - Huerfano
SUBTOTAL CONTRACT PRISON
BEDS
TOTAL CONTRACT PRISON BEDS
TOTAL ADC PRISON ADP

Min/Med
Min/Med
Min/Med

Accounting Adjustments:
Lease Purchase Payments
One-Time Costs
County Jails Pending Transport to ADC

19,912,100
5,019,125
398,451

TOTAL ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS

25,329,676

0

802,159,652

118,488,242

GRAND TOTAL ADP AND EXPENSES

47,102

-

0
0

19,912,100
5,019,125
398,451

25,329,676

0

25,329,676

920,647,894

41,991,111

962,639,005

$

2,141.14

$

540.39

$

2,681.52

$

7.35

(2)

(1) Includes $2,306,310 administrative adjustment for per diem payments.
(2) Except for footnote (1) on this page, balances to AFIS 13th month reports for appropriated funds with an adjustment of $50,000,000 to reverse the effect of an expenditure transfer to the Federal Economic Recovery Fund made
available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The adjustment is made to prevent expenditures being understated by $50,000,000.

20
ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

ADJUSTMENTS FOR COST COMPARISON DETAIL

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

21

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
ADJUSTMENTS FOR COST COMPARISON
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

2,480
5,222
4,385
5,116
3,486
1,854
4,385
1,765
2,350

$ 40,093,897
101,151,330
77,372,542
77,929,447
53,642,925
27,515,023
91,975,122
32,927,726
41,924,565

UNADJUSTED TOTAL STATE PRISONS

31,043

Adjustments for Cost Comparison to
Contract Prison Beds
Medical Cost Adjustment:
Subtotal

OPERATIONS

COMPLEX
DIRECT

TOTAL
DIRECT

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL
EXPENSE

DIRECT

2,593,061
5,469,499
4,556,186
5,074,437
3,531,207
1,866,743
4,903,226
1,931,586
2,507,772

$ 52,234,040
117,883,536
99,739,737
104,090,353
72,473,535
35,052,566
113,316,112
41,747,135
51,567,423

$ 20,016.52
21,527.01
21,706.63
19,354.17
19,776.92
17,899.58
24,723.58
22,558.38
20,876.45

INDIRECT

TOTAL

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

STATE PRISONS
UNADJUSTED STATE PRISONS:
ASPC-Douglas
ASPC-Eyman
ASPC-Florence
ASPC-Lewis
ASPC-Perryville
ASPC-Safford
ASPC-Tucson
ASPC-Winslow
ASPC-Yuma

Inmate Management Functions Adjustments:
Inmate Classification/Time Comp
Inmate Discharge Payments
Inter-prison Inmate Transportation
Kennels - Security Dogs
Reception Other (not ASPC-Phoenix)
Wildland Fire Crews
WIPP Inmate Wages
Subtotal
ADJUSTED SUBTOTAL STATE PRISONS
(ACTUAL EXPENDITURES)

9,547,083
11,262,706
17,811,009
21,086,469
15,299,404
5,670,800
16,437,764
6,887,823
7,135,087

$ 49,640,979
112,414,036
95,183,551
99,015,916
68,942,328
33,185,823
108,412,886
39,815,549
49,059,651

544,532,576

111,138,143

655,670,720

32,433,717

688,104,437

31,043
31,043

(112,225,076)
432,307,500

111,138,143

(112,225,076)
543,445,644

32,433,717

31,043
31,043
31,043
31,043
31,043
31,043
31,043
31,043

(1,900,045)
(230,189)
(1,577,580)
(227,425)
(210,848)
(18,277)
(5,388,911)
(9,553,273)

31,043

$

-

422,754,227

111,138,143

$

(1,900,045)
(230,189)
(1,577,580)
(227,425)
(210,848)
(18,277)
(5,388,911)
(9,553,273)

-

533,892,371

32,433,717

1,045.59
1,047.40
1,039.04
991.88
1,012.97
1,006.87
1,118.18
1,094.38
1,067.14

$ 21,062.11
22,574.40
22,745.66
20,346.04
20,789.88
18,906.45
25,841.76
23,652.77
21,943.58

21,121.37

1,044.80

22,166.17

(112,225,076)
575,879,361

(3,615.15)
17,506.22

1,044.80

(3,615.15)
18,551.02

(1,900,045)
(230,189)
(1,577,580)
(227,425)
(210,848)
(18,277)
(5,388,911)
(9,553,273)

(61.21)
(7.42)
(50.82)
(7.33)
(6.79)
(0.59)
(173.60)
(307.74)

566,326,088

$

-

17,198.48

1,044.80

$

57.70
61.85
62.32
55.74
56.96
51.80
70.80
64.80
60.12
60.73

60.73 (1)

(9.90) (2)
50.82

(61.21)
(7.42)
(50.82)
(7.33)
(6.79)
(0.59)
(173.60)
(307.74)

(0.17)
(0.02)
(0.14)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.00)
(0.48)
(0.84)

18,243.28

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

49.98 (1)

Depreciation (Buildings):

1.41 (10)

ADJUSTED TOTAL STATE PRISONS
(FOR COST COMPARISON):

51.39

CONTRACT PRISON BEDS
UNADJUSTED TOTAL IN-STATE
CONTRACT PRISON BEDS:
Adjustments for Cost Comparison to
State Prisons
Medical Cost Adjustment
ADJUSTED TOTAL IN-STATE
CONTRACT PRISON BEDS:

4,627

91,699,244

4,627

(12,902,852)

4,627

$ 78,796,392

1,206,692

$

1,206,692

92,905,936

2,516,202

(12,902,852)
$ 80,003,084

$

2,516,202

95,422,138

20,079.09

543.81

20,622.90

(12,902,852)

(2,788.60)

-

(2,788.60)

$ 82,519,285

$ 17,290.49

$

543.81

$ 17,834.30

56.50

56.50

(7.64) (11)
$

See following page for footnotes.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

22

48.86 (1)

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
ADJUSTMENTS FOR COST COMPARISON
FOOTNOTES:
(1)

The state prisons include all custody levels of inmates while contract prison beds include only minimum and/or medium custody levels.
Inmate health services are disproportionately borne by the ADC due to private prison contract criteria based on medical and mental health scores, or American Disability Act (ADA)
categories of inmates and, in some contracts, high cost medical caps.
(3) Inmate classification, reclassification, sentenced time computation, and release eligibility are functions that can not be performed by any private contractor.
(4) Inmate(s) discharge processing and payments are performed and paid for by ADC. Processing costs were not able to be identified and were not able to be deducted. However discharge
payments made to inmates were identified and deducted.
(5) ADC provides inmate transportation for all inmates housed in state prisons and in-state contract prisons via major transportation hubs located at the Phoenix, Florence, Tucson and Lewis
prison complexes.
(6) Security dogs and staff time are provided by ADC for both state operated and in- and out-of-state contract prisons contraband inspections.
(7) Reception costs are provided at ASPC-Tucson and ASPC-Perryville separately from the major reception center at ASPC-Phoenix. Costs are deducted for ASPC-Tucson reception for
inmates returning from private prison facilities and for inmates assigned to death row. ASPC-Perryville processes reception for female inmates, however only a small portion of these
costs were identified and deducted.
(8) As a cost saving feature for Arizona, Wildland Fire Crews are provided by state prisons, but are not provided by contract prisons.
(9) The WIPP payments are provided by ADC to state prison facilities and in- and out-of-state contract prison beds.
(10) For a better comparison, depreciation of state prison buildings has been added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since contract bed providers include the costs of financing and
depreciation in their daily per diem rates. The depreciation factor is not an actual expense incurred by ADC but is included for a more accurate comparison. (Source of depreciation is
the ADOA DAFR9350 report for FY 2010).
(11) Costs are derived from contract fee schedules where available. Out-of-state contract prisons did not provide fee schedules and are excluded from this calculation.
(2)

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

23

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
STATE PRISON EXPENDITURES BY PRISON UNIT
ANNUAL PER CAPITA
COMPLEX
DIRECT

TOTAL
DIRECT

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

Min
Min
Min
Med
Min

229
765
209
1,007
270
2,480

$

Max
Med
Med
Close
Max

816
1,322
1,214
885
985
5,222

19,684,753
20,427,913
21,062,611
17,687,597
22,288,456
101,151,330

1,760,138
2,851,004
2,618,197
1,908,764
2,124,603
11,262,706

21,444,892
23,278,917
23,680,808
19,596,360
24,413,059
112,414,036

Max
Min
Min
Min
Min
Med

1,147
714
305
1,104
185
930
4,385

24,886,645
10,729,395
6,083,966
16,564,654
4,623,903
14,483,979
77,372,542

4,659,063
2,900,089
1,238,756
4,484,187
751,470
3,777,444
17,811,009

ASPC-LEWIS
Bachman
Barchey
Buckley
Morey
Rast
Stiner
Sunrise
Total

Min
Med
Close
Close
Close
Med
Min

842
1,022
702
921
376
1,161
92
5,116

10,870,814
13,730,834
13,282,216
14,926,428
8,112,782
15,801,320
1,205,054
77,929,447

ASPC-PERRYVILLE
Lumley
Lumley
Lumley
Piestewa
San Pedro
Santa Cruz
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
Total

Max
Close
Med
Min
Min
Med
Min
Min

227
271
218
256
498
992
638
386
3,486

4,459,832
5,184,663
4,170,688
4,191,546
7,456,494
13,098,172
9,687,602
5,393,928
$ 53,642,925

COMPLEX / UNIT
ASPC-DOUGLAS
Eggers
Gila
Maricopa
Mohave
Papago
Total
ASPC-EYMAN
Browning
Cook
Meadows
Rynning
SMU I
Total
ASPC-FLORENCE
Central
East
Globe
North
Picacho
South
Total

4,037,389
10,492,480
3,980,780
17,128,355
4,454,893
40,093,897

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL
EXPENSE

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

5,163,935
14,180,998
5,018,087
22,097,269
5,773,751
52,234,040

$ 21,480.16
17,565.26
22,896.46
20,858.94
20,349.23
20,016.52

$ 1,069.77
972.00
1,113.53
1,084.73
1,035.04
1,045.59

$ 22,549.93
18,537.25
24,009.98
21,943.66
21,384.26
21,062.11

974,369
1,233,758
1,193,633
934,597
1,133,143
5,469,499

22,419,261
24,512,674
24,874,441
20,530,958
25,546,202
117,883,536

26,280.50
17,608.86
19,506.43
22,142.78
24,784.83
21,527.01

1,194.08
933.25
983.22
1,056.04
1,150.40
1,047.40

27,474.58
18,542.11
20,489.66
23,198.82
25,935.23
22,574.40

75.27
50.80
56.14
63.56
71.06
61.85

66.90
41.68
47.59
54.83
62.72
53.19

29,545,708
13,629,484
7,322,722
21,048,841
5,375,373
18,261,424
95,183,551

1,375,151
701,121
217,820
1,100,447
230,004
931,643
4,556,186

30,920,859
14,330,605
7,540,542
22,149,288
5,605,377
19,193,067
99,739,737

25,759.12
19,088.91
24,008.92
19,065.98
29,056.07
19,635.94
21,706.63

1,198.91
981.96
714.16
996.78
1,243.26
1,001.77
1,039.04

26,958.03
20,070.88
24,723.09
20,062.76
30,299.33
20,637.71
22,745.66

73.86
54.99
67.73
54.97
83.01
56.54
62.32

65.34
46.10
56.58
46.19
73.90
47.84
53.43

3,470,801
4,212,641
2,892,979
3,795,891
1,549,371
4,785,556
379,231
21,086,469

14,341,614
17,943,475
16,175,195
18,722,319
9,662,152
20,586,875
1,584,284
99,015,916

760,878
952,080
787,414
948,774
452,271
1,089,500
83,518
5,074,437

15,102,493
18,895,555
16,962,609
19,671,093
10,114,423
21,676,376
1,667,803
104,090,353

17,032.80
17,557.22
23,041.59
20,328.25
25,697.21
17,732.02
17,220.48
19,354.17

903.66
931.59
1,121.67
1,030.16
1,202.85
938.42
907.81
991.88

17,936.45
18,488.80
24,163.26
21,358.41
26,900.06
18,670.44
18,128.29
20,346.04

49.14
50.65
66.20
58.52
73.70
51.15
49.67
55.74

40.59
42.05
57.61
49.97
64.82
42.64
41.47
47.17

996,261
1,189,368
956,761
1,123,536
2,185,629
4,353,703
2,800,063
1,694,082
$ 15,299,404

5,456,093
6,374,031
5,127,449
5,315,082
9,642,123
17,451,874
12,487,665
7,088,010
$ 68,942,328

261,212
311,843
250,855
267,200
498,402
927,399
646,420
367,876
3,531,207

5,717,305
6,685,874
5,378,305
5,582,282
10,140,525
18,379,274
13,134,085
7,455,885
$ 72,473,535

24,035.65
23,520.41
23,520.41
20,762.04
19,361.69
17,592.62
19,573.14
18,362.72
$ 19,776.92

1,150.71
1,150.71
1,150.71
1,043.75
1,000.81
934.88
1,013.20
953.05
$ 1,012.97

25,186.37
24,671.12
24,671.12
21,805.79
20,362.50
18,527.49
20,586.34
19,315.77
$ 20,789.88

69.00
67.59
67.59
59.74
55.79
50.76
56.40
52.92
56.96

56.12
56.12
56.12
47.91
44.07
39.29
44.93
41.04
45.29

$

881,568
2,944,942
804,579
3,876,595
1,039,399
9,547,083

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

4,918,957
13,437,422
4,785,359
21,004,950
5,494,291
49,640,979

$

$

244,978
743,577
232,727
1,092,319
279,460
2,593,061

$

$

$

61.78
50.79
65.78
60.12
58.59
57.70

$

$

24

55.01
44.05
58.68
53.40
51.95
50.95

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
STATE PRISON EXPENDITURES BY PRISON UNIT
ANNUAL PER CAPITA
COMPLEX
DIRECT

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

Min
Min
Med

875
648
331
1,854

$

ASPC-TUCSON
Catalina
Cimarron
Cimarron
Complex Detention
Manzanita
Manzanita
Minors
Minors
Rincon
SACRC
Santa Rita
Winchester
Total

Min
Close
Med
Max
Close
Med
Close
Max
Close
Min
Med
Med

342
375
368
92
54
472
101
30
526
287
856
882
4,385

5,923,813
7,905,210
7,757,646
1,221,066
1,168,676
10,215,096
4,189,248
1,244,331
16,318,592
5,388,113
15,045,984
15,597,346
91,975,122

1,281,943
1,405,741
1,379,501
344,827
202,430
1,769,385
378,751
112,500
1,972,117
1,075,827
3,208,644
3,306,098
16,437,764

7,205,756
9,310,951
9,137,147
1,565,893
1,371,106
11,984,481
4,567,998
1,356,831
18,290,709
6,463,940
18,254,628
18,903,444
108,412,886

ASPC-WINSLOW
Apache
Coronado
Kaibab
Kaibab
Total

Min
Min
Close
Med

354
612
329
470
1,765

7,769,765
8,969,964
6,665,646
9,522,351
32,927,726

1,381,669
2,387,658
1,284,086
1,834,409
6,887,823

ASPC-YUMA
Cheyenne
Cocopah
Dakota
Dakota
Total

Med
Min
Close
Med

1,154
391
331
474
2,350

19,537,901
6,590,921
6,494,896
9,300,847
41,924,565

31,043

$ 544,532,576

COMPLEX / UNIT
ASPC-SAFFORD
Fort Grant
Graham
Tonto
Total

Grand Total

11,581,897
8,389,308
7,543,819
27,515,023

$

2,676,345
1,982,024
1,012,430
5,670,800

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL DIRECT

14,258,242
10,371,332
8,556,249
33,185,823

$

833,792
607,897
425,054
1,866,743

$

DIRECT

15,092,034
10,979,229
8,981,303
35,052,566

$ 16,295.13
16,005.14
25,849.69
17,899.58

338,783
420,894
413,037
79,865
61,998
541,907
179,975
53,458
750,701
305,685
866,482
890,443
4,903,226

7,544,539
9,731,845
9,550,184
1,645,758
1,433,104
12,526,387
4,747,973
1,410,289
19,041,411
6,769,625
19,121,110
19,793,888
113,316,112

9,151,434
11,357,623
7,949,732
11,356,760
39,815,549

410,684
596,042
380,825
544,035
1,931,586

3,503,742
1,187,139
1,005,009
1,439,197
7,135,087

23,041,643
7,778,060
7,499,904
10,740,044
49,059,651

$ 111,138,143

$ 655,670,720

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

INDIRECT

$

TOTAL

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

952.91
938.11
1,284.15
1,006.87

$ 17,248.04
16,943.25
27,133.85
18,906.45

$

21,069.46
24,829.20
24,829.20
17,020.58
25,390.85
25,390.85
45,227.71
45,227.71
34,773.21
22,522.44
21,325.50
21,432.48
24,723.58

990.59
1,122.38
1,122.38
868.09
1,148.11
1,148.11
1,781.93
1,781.93
1,427.19
1,065.10
1,012.25
1,009.57
1,118.18

22,060.06
25,951.59
25,951.59
17,888.67
26,538.96
26,538.96
47,009.63
47,009.63
36,200.40
23,587.54
22,337.75
22,442.05
25,841.76

60.44
71.10
71.10
49.01
72.71
72.71
128.79
128.79
99.18
64.62
61.20
61.49
70.80

46.51
57.37
57.37
35.93
58.96
58.96
114.62
114.62
85.33
50.62
47.51
47.83
57.04

9,562,118
11,953,665
8,330,557
11,900,795
41,747,135

25,851.51
18,558.21
24,163.32
24,163.32
22,558.38

1,160.12
973.92
1,157.52
1,157.52
1,094.38

27,011.63
19,532.13
25,320.84
25,320.84
23,652.77

74.00
53.51
69.37
69.37
64.80

66.11
45.66
61.47
61.47
56.92

1,204,749
405,260
369,142
528,620
2,507,772

24,246,391
8,183,320
7,869,047
11,268,665
51,567,423

19,966.76
19,892.74
22,658.32
22,658.32
20,876.45

1,043.98
1,036.47
1,115.23
1,115.23
1,067.14

21,010.74
20,929.21
23,773.55
23,773.55
21,943.58

57.56
57.34
65.13
65.13
60.12

50.54
49.89
57.96
57.96
52.97

$ 32,433,717

$ 688,104,437

$ 21,121.37

$ 1,044.80

$ 22,166.17

$

47.25
46.42
74.34
51.80

60.73

$

$

25

40.16
39.18
66.57
44.53

51.39

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
MINIMUM CUSTODY PRISON UNITS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA
COMPLEX
DIRECT

TOTAL
DIRECT

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

ASPC-DOUGLAS
Eggers
Gila
Maricopa
Papago
Total

Min
Min
Min
Min

229
765
209
270
1,473

$

ASPC-FLORENCE
East
Globe
North
Picacho
Total

Min
Min
Min
Min

714
305
1,104
185
2,308

10,729,395
6,083,966
16,564,654
4,623,903
38,001,918

2,900,089
1,238,756
4,484,187
751,470
9,374,502

13,629,484
7,322,722
21,048,841
5,375,373
47,376,419

ASPC-LEWIS
Bachman
Sunrise
Total

Min
Min

842
92
934

10,870,814
1,205,054
12,075,868

3,470,801
379,231
3,850,031

ASPC-PERRYVILLE
Piestewa
San Pedro
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
Total

Min
Min
Min
Min

256
498
638
386
1,778

4,191,546
7,456,494
9,687,602
5,393,928
26,729,570

ASPC-SAFFORD
Fort Grant
Graham
Total

Min
Min

875
648
1,523

ASPC-TUCSON
Catalina
SACRC
Total

Min
Min

ASPC-WINSLOW
Apache
Coronado
Total
ASPC-YUMA
Cocopah
Total

COMPLEX / UNIT

Grand Total

4,037,389
10,492,480
3,980,780
4,454,893
22,965,542

$

881,568
2,944,942
804,579
1,039,399
5,670,488

4,918,957
13,437,422
4,785,359
5,494,291
28,636,029

$

$

DIRECT

$ 21,480.16
17,565.26
22,896.46
20,349.23
19,440.62

701,121
217,820
1,100,447
230,004
2,249,392

14,330,605
7,540,542
22,149,288
5,605,377
49,625,811

14,341,614
1,584,284
15,925,899

760,878
83,518
844,397

1,123,536
2,185,629
2,800,063
1,694,082
7,803,310

5,315,082
9,642,123
12,487,665
7,088,010
34,532,880

11,581,897
8,389,308
19,971,205

2,676,345
1,982,024
4,658,370

342
287
629

5,923,813
5,388,113
11,311,926

Min
Min

354
612
966

Min

INDIRECT

$

TOTAL

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

$ 22,549.93
18,537.25
24,009.98
21,384.26
20,459.45

19,088.91
24,008.92
19,065.98
29,056.07
20,527.04

981.96
714.16
996.78
1,243.26
974.61

20,070.88
24,723.09
20,062.76
30,299.33
21,501.65

54.99
67.73
54.97
83.01
58.91

46.10
56.58
46.19
73.90
49.76

15,102,493
1,667,803
16,770,296

17,032.80
17,220.48
17,051.28

903.66
907.81
904.06

17,936.45
18,128.29
17,955.35

49.14
49.67
49.19

40.59
41.47
40.68

267,200
498,402
646,420
367,876
1,779,897

5,582,282
10,140,525
13,134,085
7,455,885
36,312,777

20,762.04
19,361.69
19,573.14
18,362.72
19,422.32

1,043.75
1,000.81
1,013.20
953.05
1,001.07

21,805.79
20,362.50
20,586.34
19,315.77
20,423.38

59.74
55.79
56.40
52.92
55.95

47.91
44.07
44.93
41.04
44.28

14,258,242
10,371,332
24,629,574

833,792
607,897
1,441,689

15,092,034
10,979,229
26,071,263

16,295.13
16,005.14
16,171.75

952.91
938.11
946.61

17,248.04
16,943.25
17,118.36

47.25
46.42
46.90

40.16
39.18
39.74

1,281,943
1,075,827
2,357,770

7,205,756
6,463,940
13,669,696

338,783
305,685
644,468

7,544,539
6,769,625
14,314,164

21,069.46
22,522.44
21,732.43

990.59
1,065.10
1,024.59

22,060.06
23,587.54
22,757.02

60.44
64.62
62.35

46.51
50.62
48.39

7,769,765
8,969,964
16,739,729

1,381,669
2,387,658
3,769,327

9,151,434
11,357,623
20,509,056

410,684
596,042
1,006,726

9,562,118
11,953,665
21,515,783

25,851.51
18,558.21
21,230.91

1,160.12
973.92
1,042.16

27,011.63
19,532.13
22,273.07

74.00
53.51
61.02

66.11
45.66
53.16

391
391

6,590,921
6,590,921

1,187,139
1,187,139

7,778,060
7,778,060

405,260
405,260

8,183,320
8,183,320

19,892.74
19,892.74

1,036.47
1,036.47

20,929.21
20,929.21

57.34
57.34

49.89
49.89

10,002

$ 154,386,678

$ 38,670,936

$ 193,057,614

9,872,571

$ 202,930,185

$ 19,301.90

987.06

$ 20,288.96

$

$

$

61.78
50.79
65.78
58.59
56.05

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

1,069.77
972.00
1,113.53
1,035.04
1,018.83

$

244,978
743,577
232,727
279,460
1,500,741

TOTAL
EXPENSE

5,163,935
14,180,998
5,018,087
5,773,751
30,136,771

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
INDIRECT

55.59

$

$

55.01
44.05
58.68
51.95
49.27

46.59

26

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
MEDIUM CUSTODY PRISON UNITS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

ASPC-DOUGLAS
Mohave
Total

Med

1,007
1,007

$ 17,128,355
17,128,355

ASPC-EYMAN
Cook
Meadows
Total

Med
Med

1,322
1,214
2,536

ASPC-FLORENCE
South
Total

Med

ASPC-LEWIS
Barchey
Stiner
Total

COMPLEX / UNIT

COMPLEX
DIRECT

TOTAL
INDIRECT

DIRECT

1,092,319
1,092,319

$ 22,097,269
22,097,269

$ 20,858.94
20,858.94

$ 21,004,950
21,004,950

20,427,913
21,062,611
41,490,524

2,851,004
2,618,197
5,469,201

23,278,917
23,680,808
46,959,725

1,233,758
1,193,633
2,427,390

24,512,674
24,874,441
49,387,116

930
930

14,483,979
14,483,979

3,777,444
3,777,444

18,261,424
18,261,424

931,643
931,643

Med
Med

1,022
1,161
2,183

13,730,834
15,801,320
29,532,154

4,212,641
4,785,556
8,998,197

17,943,475
20,586,875
38,530,351

ASPC-PERRYVILLE
Lumley
Santa Cruz
Total

Med
Med

218
992
1,210

4,170,688
13,098,172
17,268,860

956,761
4,353,703
5,310,464

ASPC-SAFFORD
Tonto
Total

Med

331
331

7,543,819
7,543,819

ASPC-TUCSON
Cimarron
Manzanita
Santa Rita
Winchester
Total

Med
Med
Med
Med

368
472
856
882
2,578

ASPC-WINSLOW
Kaibab
Total

Med

ASPC-YUMA
Cheyenne
Dakota
Total

Med
Med

INDIRECT

$

TOTAL

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

$ 21,943.66
21,943.66

17,608.86
19,506.43
18,517.24

933.25
983.22
957.17

18,542.11
20,489.66
19,474.41

50.80
56.14
53.35

41.68
47.59
44.51

19,193,067
19,193,067

19,635.94
19,635.94

1,001.77
1,001.77

20,637.71
20,637.71

56.54
56.54

47.84
47.84

952,080
1,089,500
2,041,580

18,895,555
21,676,376
40,571,931

17,557.22
17,732.02
17,650.18

931.59
938.42
935.22

18,488.80
18,670.44
18,585.40

50.65
51.15
50.92

42.05
42.64
42.37

5,127,449
17,451,874
22,579,324

250,855
927,399
1,178,255

5,378,305
18,379,274
23,757,578

23,520.41
17,592.62
18,660.60

1,150.71
934.88
973.76

24,671.12
18,527.49
19,634.36

67.59
50.76
53.79

56.12
39.29
42.32

1,012,430
1,012,430

8,556,249
8,556,249

425,054
425,054

8,981,303
8,981,303

25,849.69
25,849.69

1,284.15
1,284.15

27,133.85
27,133.85

74.34
74.34

66.57
66.57

7,757,646
10,215,096
15,045,984
15,597,346
48,616,072

1,379,501
1,769,385
3,208,644
3,306,098
9,663,628

9,137,147
11,984,481
18,254,628
18,903,444
58,279,700

413,037
541,907
866,482
890,443
2,711,869

9,550,184
12,526,387
19,121,110
19,793,888
60,991,569

24,829.20
25,390.85
21,325.50
21,432.48
22,606.56

1,122.38
1,148.11
1,012.25
1,009.57
1,051.93

25,951.59
26,538.96
22,337.75
22,442.05
23,658.48

71.10
72.71
61.20
61.49
64.82

57.37
58.96
47.51
47.83
51.12

470
470

9,522,351
9,522,351

1,834,409
1,834,409

11,356,760
11,356,760

544,035
544,035

11,900,795
11,900,795

24,163.32
24,163.32

1,157.52
1,157.52

25,320.84
25,320.84

69.37
69.37

61.47
61.47

1,154
474
1,628

19,537,901
9,300,847
28,838,748

3,503,742
1,439,197
4,942,939

23,041,643
10,740,044
33,781,687

1,204,749
528,620
1,733,369

24,246,391
11,268,665
35,515,056

19,966.76
22,658.32
20,750.42

1,043.98
1,115.23
1,064.72

21,010.74
23,773.55
21,815.15

57.56
65.13
59.77

50.54
57.96
52.70

12,873

$ 214,424,861

$ 44,885,308

$ 259,310,169

$ 13,085,515

$ 272,395,685

$ 20,143.72

1,016.51

$ 21,160.23

$

$

$

60.12
60.12

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

1,084.73
1,084.73

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

3,876,595
3,876,595

Grand Total

$

TOTAL
DIRECT

57.97

$

53.40
53.40

$

48.42

27

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
CLOSE CUSTODY PRISON UNITS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

COMPLEX / UNIT

Custody

ADP

COMPLEX
DIRECT

UNIT DIRECT

ASPC-EYMAN
Rynning
Total

Close

885
885

$ 17,687,597
17,687,597

ASPC-LEWIS
Buckley
Morey
Rast
Total

Close
Close
Close

702
921
376
1,999

ASPC-PERRYVILLE
Lumley
Total

Close

ASPC-TUCSON
Cimarron
Manzanita
Minors
Rincon
Total

TOTAL
INDIRECT

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

934,597
934,597

$ 20,530,958
20,530,958

$ 22,142.78
22,142.78

$ 1,056.04
1,056.04

$ 23,198.82
23,198.82

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

13,282,216
14,926,428
8,112,782
36,321,426

2,892,979
3,795,891
1,549,371
8,238,241

16,175,195
18,722,319
9,662,152
44,559,666

787,414
948,774
452,271
2,188,460

16,962,609
19,671,093
10,114,423
46,748,126

23,041.59
20,328.25
25,697.21
22,290.98

1,121.67
1,030.16
1,202.85
1,094.78

24,163.26
21,358.41
26,900.06
23,385.76

66.20
58.52
73.70
64.07

57.61
49.97
64.82
55.45

271
271

5,184,663
5,184,663

1,189,368
1,189,368

6,374,031
6,374,031

311,843
311,843

6,685,874
6,685,874

23,520.41
23,520.41

1,150.71
1,150.71

24,671.12
24,671.12

67.59
67.59

56.12
56.12

Close
Close
Close
Close

375
54
101
526
1,056

7,905,210
1,168,676
4,189,248
16,318,592
29,581,726

1,405,741
202,430
378,751
1,972,117
3,959,039

9,310,951
1,371,106
4,567,998
18,290,709
33,540,765

420,894
61,998
179,975
750,701
1,413,567

9,731,845
1,433,104
4,747,973
19,041,411
34,954,332

24,829.20
25,390.85
45,227.71
34,773.21
31,762.09

1,122.38
1,148.11
1,781.93
1,427.19
1,338.61

25,951.59
26,538.96
47,009.63
36,200.40
33,100.69

71.10
72.71
128.79
99.18
90.69

57.37
58.96
114.62
85.33
76.85

ASPC-WINSLOW
Kaibab
Total

Close

329
329

6,665,646
6,665,646

1,284,086
1,284,086

7,949,732
7,949,732

380,825
380,825

8,330,557
8,330,557

24,163.32
24,163.32

1,157.52
1,157.52

25,320.84
25,320.84

69.37
69.37

61.47
61.47

ASPC-YUMA
Dakota
Total

Close

331
331

6,494,896
6,494,896

1,005,009
1,005,009

7,499,904
7,499,904

369,142
369,142

7,869,047
7,869,047

22,658.32
22,658.32

1,115.23
1,115.23

23,773.55
23,773.55

65.13
65.13

57.96
57.96

4,871

$ 101,935,952

$ 17,584,507

$ 119,520,459

5,598,434

$ 125,118,893

$ 24,537.15

$ 1,149.34

$ 25,686.49

$

$

$

63.56
63.56

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

$ 19,596,360
19,596,360

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

1,908,764
1,908,764

Grand Total

$

TOTAL
DIRECT

70.37

$

$

28

54.83
54.83

60.59

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
MAXIMUM CUSTODY PRISON UNITS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

Custody

ADP

UNIT DIRECT

ASPC-EYMAN
Browning
SMU I
Total

Max
Max

816
985
1,801

$ 19,684,753
22,288,456
41,973,210

ASPC-FLORENCE
Central
Total

Max

1,147
1,147

ASPC-PERRYVILLE
Lumley
Total

Max

ASPC-TUCSON
Complex Detention
Minors
Total

Max
Max

COMPLEX / UNIT

Grand Total

COMPLEX
DIRECT

$

TOTAL
DIRECT

TOTAL
INDIRECT

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

974,369
1,133,143
2,107,512

$ 22,419,261
25,546,202
47,965,463

$ 26,280.50
24,784.83
25,462.49

$ 1,194.08
1,150.40
1,170.19

$ 27,474.58
25,935.23
26,632.68

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER

$ 21,444,892
24,413,059
45,857,951

24,886,645
24,886,645

4,659,063
4,659,063

29,545,708
29,545,708

1,375,151
1,375,151

30,920,859
30,920,859

25,759.12
25,759.12

1,198.91
1,198.91

26,958.03
26,958.03

73.86
73.86

65.34
65.34

227
227

4,459,832
4,459,832

996,261
996,261

5,456,093
5,456,093

261,212
261,212

5,717,305
5,717,305

24,035.65
24,035.65

1,150.71
1,150.71

25,186.37
25,186.37

69.00
69.00

56.12
56.12

92
30
122

1,221,066
1,244,331
2,465,398

344,827
112,500
457,327

1,565,893
1,356,831
2,922,725

79,865
53,458
133,322

1,645,758
1,410,289
3,056,047

17,020.58
45,227.71
23,956.76

868.09
1,781.93
1,092.81

17,888.67
47,009.63
25,049.56

49.01
128.79
68.63

35.93
114.62
55.28

3,297

$ 73,785,085

9,997,392

$ 83,782,476

3,877,197

$ 87,659,673

$ 25,411.73

$ 1,175.98

$ 26,587.71

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

$

$

75.27
71.06
72.97

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA

1,760,138
2,124,603
3,884,741

$

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

72.84

$

$

29

66.90
62.72
64.61

63.93

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

30

SECTION IV

Section IV Historical Costs
This section provides the history of reported costs for state, contract, jail and community supervision offender management.
State Prisons………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
In-State and Out-of-State Contract Prison Beds………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Adult Parole and Home Arrest………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34
Community Supervision…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Lease Purchase, One-time Costs and County Jails Pending Intake……………………………………………………………………36
Historical Per Capita Recap Detail………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
Other Historical Information………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

31

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEAR
STATE PRISONS
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

ADP

DIRECT
EXPENSE

8,270
9,508
10,705
11,801
12,887
13,912
14,970
16,293
17,737
19,542
20,742
21,588
22,593
24,029
24,614
25,261
26,624
27,699
28,329
27,913
28,379
30,265
29,310
30,366
31,043

$ 122,091,519
135,972,811
145,294,570
166,801,463
188,142,068
209,289,800
221,487,100
235,494,990
258,324,735
291,444,157
316,905,667
347,394,714
381,168,456
421,711,766
462,635,062
490,308,321
472,484,418
501,893,542
540,525,120
548,301,413
592,102,941
640,698,320
672,980,275
686,480,762
$ 655,670,720

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

$

$

6,066,451
19,204,104
22,954,162
24,067,517
19,893,848
19,664,345
17,720,739
21,489,929
25,794,276
28,016,281
29,422,680
33,133,327
33,216,759
41,466,368
46,850,301
49,183,003
46,824,897
40,279,487
42,039,039
44,711,535
47,410,593
49,172,654
29,125,846
33,694,069
32,433,717

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$ 128,157,970
155,176,915
168,248,732
190,868,980
208,035,916
228,954,145
239,207,839
256,984,919
284,119,011
319,460,438
346,328,347
380,528,041
414,385,215
463,178,134
509,485,363
539,491,324
519,309,315
542,173,029
582,564,159
593,012,948
639,513,534
689,870,974
702,106,120
720,174,831
$ 688,104,437

DIRECT

$

$

14,763.18
14,300.88
13,572.59
14,134.52
14,599.37
15,043.83
14,795.40
14,453.75
14,564.17
14,913.73
15,278.45
16,092.03
16,871.09
17,550.12
18,795.61
19,409.70
17,746.56
18,119.55
19,080.28
19,643.36
20,864.10
21,169.58
22,960.77
22,606.89
21,121.37

INDIRECT

$

$

733.55
2,019.78
2,144.25
2,039.45
1,543.71
1,413.48
1,183.75
1,318.97
1,454.26
1,433.64
1,418.51
1,534.80
1,470.22
1,725.68
1,903.40
1,946.99
1,758.75
1,454.19
1,483.96
1,601.83
1,670.62
1,624.73
993.72
1,109.60
1,044.80

TOTAL

$

$

15,496.73
16,320.67
15,716.84
16,173.97
16,143.08
16,457.31
15,979.15
15,772.72
16,018.44
16,347.38
16,696.96
17,626.83
18,341.31
19,275.80
20,699.01
21,356.69
19,505.31
19,573.74
20,564.23
21,245.19
22,534.72
22,794.31
23,954.49
23,716.49
22,166.17

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

$

42.46
44.72
42.94
44.31
44.23
45.09
43.66
43.21
43.89
44.79
45.62
48.29
50.25
52.81
56.55
58.51
53.44
53.63
56.19
58.21
61.74
62.45
65.45
64.98
60.73

(1) Excludes adjudicated juveniles, but includes minors sentenced as adults. Adjudicated juveniles were counted as part of the Department of Juvenile Corrections (when it became an agency separate from ADC).
(2) Revised
(3) Does not include excluded units as identified in the body of the reports.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

32

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)

(2)

(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEARS

DIRECT
EXPENSE

ADP

IN-STATE CONTRACTS
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

273
511
864
1,264
1,532
1,405
1,413
1,442
1,947
1,688
1,798
2,870
3,692
4,301
4,339
4,627

OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACTS
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

1,085
2,115
2,456
1,856
2,052
3,814
1,771

$

$

4,243,400
7,747,700
12,567,727
17,959,417
22,105,465
20,630,196
20,965,078
20,589,893
28,838,146
27,039,809
31,195,324
53,510,697
67,541,074
86,668,600
87,674,439
92,905,936

14,592,450
31,428,668
41,947,853
32,733,439
44,947,107
82,814,312
35,785,988

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

$

$

479,584
665,330
596,744
1,329,789
1,692,560
1,666,670
1,758,737
1,348,407
1,422,504
1,120,851
2,756,432
2,298,580
4,843,628
5,038,644
3,105,054
2,516,202

720,452
2,161,876
1,350,535
1,969,316
2,459,503
2,726,400
958,630

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

$

4,722,984
8,413,030
13,164,471
19,289,206
23,798,025
22,296,866
22,723,815
21,938,300
30,260,650
28,160,660
33,951,756
55,809,277
72,384,702
91,707,245
90,779,493
95,422,138

15,312,902
33,590,544
43,298,388
34,702,755
47,406,610
85,540,712
36,744,617

DIRECT

$

$

15,543.59
15,161.84
14,545.98
14,208.40
14,429.15
14,683.41
14,837.28
14,278.71
14,811.58
16,018.84
17,350.01
18,646.86
18,292.91
38,778.94
20,206.14
20,079.09

13,449.26
14,859.89
17,079.74
17,636.55
21,904.05
21,713.24
20,206.66

INDIRECT

$

$

1,756.72
1,302.02
690.68
1,052.05
1,104.80
1,186.24
1,244.68
935.10
730.61
664.01
1,533.05
800.99
1,311.85
2,164.81
715.62
543.81

664.01
1,022.16
549.89
1,061.05
1,198.59
714.84
541.29

TOTAL

$

$

17,300.31
16,463.86
15,236.66
15,260.45
15,533.96
15,869.66
16,081.96
15,213.80
15,542.19
16,682.86
18,883.07
19,447.84
19,604.76
40,943.75
20,921.75
20,622.90

14,113.27
15,882.05
17,629.64
18,697.61
23,102.64
22,428.08
20,747.95

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

$

47.40
44.98
41.74
41.81
42.56
43.36
44.06
41.68
42.58
45.58
51.73
53.28
53.71
58.26
57.32
56.50

38.56
43.51
48.30
51.23
63.12
61.45
56.84

(1) Revised
(2) Includes Navajo County Jail beds, does not include excluded units as identified in the body of the reports

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

33

(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

(2)
(2)
(2)

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
.
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEARS

DIRECT
EXPENSE

ADP

ADULT PAROLE
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

3,623
2,841
2,757
2,826
3,162
3,845
4,230
4,975
5,009
5,009
4,982
4,056
3,873
3,699
3,727

HOME ARREST
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

24
58
97
295
275
290
298
240
183
113
86
49

$

$

3,528,373
3,215,463
3,536,443
3,631,000
4,909,284
3,772,500
3,394,800
3,677,740
3,968,400
3,954,200
4,484,152
5,629,181
6,551,209
6,262,674
6,861,015

517,100
198,900
750,900
902,200
1,289,976
1,186,600
1,340,900
1,330,984
1,159,189
999,244
938,864
792,842

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

$

$

138,170
810,554
683,977
1,008,307
955,621
888,660
735,743
828,941
1,031,833
970,240
991,255
1,018,127
1,335,760
1,552,956
2,584,032

98,092
48,867
174,193
104,655
196,686
188,882
186,828
168,897
142,695
89,917
163,324
253,844

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

$

3,666,543
4,026,017
4,220,420
4,639,307
5,864,905
4,661,160
4,130,543
4,506,681
5,000,233
4,924,440
5,475,407
6,647,308
7,886,969
7,815,630
9,445,047

615,192
247,767
925,093
1,006,855
1,486,662
1,375,482
1,527,728
1,499,881
1,301,884
1,089,161
1,102,188
1,046,686

DIRECT

$

$

973.88
1,131.81
1,282.71
1,284.85
1,552.59
981.14
802.55
739.24
792.25
789.42
900.07
1,387.87
1,691.51
1,693.07
1,840.89

21,545.83
3,429.31
7,741.24
3,058.31
4,690.82
4,091.72
4,499.66
5,545.77
6,334.37
8,842.87
10,917.02
16,180.45

INDIRECT

$

$

38.14
285.31
248.09
356.80
302.22
231.12
173.93
166.62
206.00
193.70
198.97
251.02
344.89
419.83
693.33

4,087.17
842.53
1,795.80
354.76
715.22
651.32
626.94
703.74
779.75
795.73
1,899.12
5,180.49

TOTAL

$

$

1,012.02
1,417.11
1,530.80
1,641.65
1,854.81
1,212.27
976.49
905.87
998.25
983.12
1,099.04
1,638.88
2,036.40
2,112.90
2,534.22

25,633.00
4,271.84
9,537.04
3,413.07
5,406.04
4,743.04
5,126.60
6,249.50
7,114.12
9,638.59
12,816.14
21,360.94

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

2.77
3.89
4.18
4.50
5.08
3.32
2.67
2.48
2.73
2.69
3.00
4.49
5.58
5.79
6.92

70.23
11.70
26.13
9.33
14.81
12.99
14.05
17.08
19.49
26.41
35.11
58.36

$

Note: Effective FY 2001, the Adult Parole and Home Arrest ADP and expenses were reported as "Community Supervision" as reported on the following page.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

34

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEARS
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

DIRECT
EXPENSE

ADP

3,633
3,535
4,295
5,671
6,127
6,573
6,675
6,234
6,761
6,644

$

$

7,012,172
6,628,725
8,643,883
8,648,484
8,612,829
11,212,043
16,602,721
14,029,838
15,559,470
14,225,723

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

$

$

3,127,278
2,705,396
2,896,720
3,358,366
4,171,417
3,978,628
5,801,297
3,295,041
4,158,014
3,590,325

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

$

10,139,450
9,334,121
11,540,603
12,006,850
12,784,246
15,190,671
22,404,018
17,324,879
19,717,486
17,816,049

DIRECT

$

$

1,930.13
1,875.17
2,012.55
1,525.04
1,405.72
1,705.77
2,487.30
2,250.54
2,298.47
2,141.14

INDIRECT

$

$

860.80
765.32
674.44
592.20
680.83
605.30
869.11
528.56
615.00
540.39

TOTAL

$

$

2,790.93
2,640.49
2,686.99
2,117.24
2,086.54
2,311.07
3,356.41
2,779.10
2,913.47
2,681.52

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

$

7.65
7.23
7.36
5.78 (1)
5.72
6.33
9.20 (1)
7.59
7.98 (1)
7.35

(1) Revised

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

35

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS

FISCAL YEARS

ADP

LEASE PURCHASE PAYMENTS
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

-

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

DIRECT EXPENSE

$

786,600
13,755,900
25,385,998
17,483,874
25,502,763
13,495,911
1,074,074
1,053,481
1,043,700
1,058,971
1,043,873
560,332
1,032,168
3,979,560
2,121,295
4,230,250
19,912,100

$

TOTAL EXPENSE

1,834
3,463
11,754
-

$

786,600
13,755,900
25,385,998
17,483,874
25,502,763
13,495,911
1,074,074
1,053,481
1,043,700
1,058,971
1,043,873
562,166
1,035,631
3,991,314
2,121,295
4,230,250
19,912,100

ONE-TIME COSTS (1)
2008
2009
2010
COUNTY JAILS (PENDING INTAKE TO STATE CUSTODY)
2010

(1)
(2)

-

4,215,461
1,705,434
5,019,125

-

4,215,461
1,705,434
5,019,125

(2)

47

$

398,451

$

-

$

398,451

One-Time costs were not appropriately identified prior to FY 2008.
The ADP for County Jails pending intake is not included in the total ADP for the Department, but is provided for informational purposes only.
Prior to the FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost report the expenses for inmates pending intake to the ADC for reception and processing were
allocated to the costs of housing all ADC state and contracted prison vendors based on ADP. Beginning with the FY 2010 Operating Per
Capita Cost report these expenses have been excluded to improve the cost comparison analysis between state housed inmates and
contracted prison bed providers. See page 39 for ADP and expense history prior to FY 2010.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

36

HISTORICAL PER CAPITA RECAP DETAIL

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

37

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
FY 2008 RECAP DETAIL

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

DESCRIPTION
State Prisons
State Beds Excluded for Cost
Comparison Purposes
Total State Prisons

ADP

DIRECT
EXPENSE

29,310
1,092

$ 672,980,275
48,499,192

30,402

INDIRECT
EXPENSE
29,125,846
1,330,689

$ 702,106,120
49,829,881

721,479,467

30,456,535

751,936,001

4,301
2,052
1,155

86,668,600
44,947,107
25,803,392

5,038,645
2,459,503
1,196,091

91,707,245
47,406,610
26,999,483

7,508

157,419,100

8,694,239

166,113,339

Total Inmate Population

37,910

878,898,567

39,150,774

918,049,340

Community Supervision

6,234

14,029,838

3,295,041

17,324,879

-

2,121,295
4,215,461

In-State Contract Prison Beds
Out-of-State Contract Prison Beds
Contract Prison Beds Excluded
for Cost Comparison Purposes
Total Contract Prison Beds

Lease Purchase
One Time Costs (Equipment)
Total ADP and Expenses

44,144

$ 899,265,160

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

42,445,814

DIRECT
$ 22,960.77

INDIRECT
$

20,150.80
21,904.05

$ 2,250.54

$

TOTAL

993.72

$ 23,954.49

1,171.51
1,198.59

21,322.31
23,102.64

528.56

$ 2,779.10

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST
$

65.45

58.26
63.12

$

7.59

2,121,295
4,215,461
$ 941,710,975

38

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
FY 2009 RECAP DETAIL

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEAR
State Prisons
State Beds Excluded for Cost
Comparison Purposes
Total State Prisons

ADP

DIRECT
EXPENSE

30,366
987

$ 686,480,762
39,531,542

31,353

INDIRECT
EXPENSE
33,694,069
1,297,455

$ 720,174,831
40,828,997

726,012,304

34,991,524

761,003,828

4,339
3,814
120

87,674,439
82,814,312
2,936,183

3,105,054
2,726,400
88,376

90,779,493
85,540,712
3,024,559

8,273

173,424,934

5,919,830

179,344,764

Total Inmate Population

39,626

899,437,238

40,911,354

940,348,592

Community Supervision

6,761

15,539,944

4,158,014

19,717,484

In-State Contract Prison Beds
Out-of-State Contract Prison Beds
Contract Prison Beds Excluded
for Cost Comparison Purposes
Total Contract Prison Beds

Lease Purchase
One Time Costs (Equipment)
Total ADP and Expenses

46,387

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$ 914,977,182

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

45,069,367

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

$ 22,606.89

$ 1,109.60

$ 23,716.49

20,206.14
21,713.24

715.62
714.84

20,921.75
22,428.08

615.00

$ 2,913.47

$ 2,298.47

$

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST
$

64.98

57.32
61.45

$

7.98

4,230,250
1,705,434
$ 966,001,761

39

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
FY 2010 RECAP DETAIL

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEAR
State Prisons
State Beds Excluded for Cost
Comparison Purposes
Total State Prisons

ADP

DIRECT
EXPENSE

31,043
723

$ 655,670,720
45,017,074

31,766

INDIRECT
EXPENSE
32,433,717
1,249,351

$ 688,104,437
46,266,425

700,687,794

33,683,068

734,370,862

4,627
1,771
2,294

92,905,936
35,785,988
51,712,777

2,516,202
958,630
1,242,886

95,422,138
36,744,618
52,955,663

8,692

180,404,701

4,717,718

185,122,419

Total Inmate Population

40,458

881,092,495

38,400,786

919,493,281

Community Supervision

6,644

14,225,723

3,590,325

17,816,048

-

19,912,100
5,019,125
398,451

In-State Contract Prison Beds
Out-of-State Contract Prison Beds
Contract Prison Beds Excluded
for Cost Comparison Purposes
Total Contract Prison Beds

Lease Purchase
One Time Costs (Equipment)
County Jails Pending Intake
Total ADP and Expenses

47,102

$ 920,647,894

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

$

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

41,991,111

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

$ 21,121.37

$ 1,044.80

$ 22,166.17

20,079.09
20,206.66

543.81
541.29

20,622.90
20,747.95

540.39

$ 2,681.52

$ 2,141.14

$

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST
$

60.73

56.50
56.84

$

7.35

19,912,100
5,019,125
398,451
$ 962,639,005

40

OTHER HISTORICAL INFORMATION
- State Prison Costs by Custody Level
- Contracted Prison Bed Costs by Custody Level
- County Jails (Inmates Pending Transfer to State Custody)

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

41

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS (1)
STATE PRISONS BY CUSTODY LEVEL

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

ADP

TOTAL DIRECT

MINIMUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

9,457
8,896
10,002

$ 188,577,211
181,281,346
193,057,614

MEDIUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

10,342
11,297
12,873

226,703,763
237,582,034
259,310,169

CLOSE CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

6,082
6,452
4,871

MAXIMUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

3,429
3,721
3,297

LEVEL / FISCAL YEAR

$

TOTAL
INDIRECT

$

$

DIRECT

197,648,652
190,961,744
202,930,185

$ 19,940.49
20,377.85
19,301.90

10,035,763
12,300,930
13,085,515

236,739,526
249,882,964
272,395,685

164,495,483
169,095,664
119,520,459

6,352,293
7,440,248
5,598,434

93,203,817
98,521,718
83,782,476

3,666,350
4,272,492
3,877,197

$

9,071,440
9,680,398
9,872,571

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

INDIRECT

$

TOTAL

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA
COST (2)

$

$

959.23
1,088.17
987.06

$ 20,899.72
21,466.02
20,288.96

21,920.69
21,030.54
20,143.72

970.39
1,088.87
1,016.51

22,891.08
22,119.41
21,160.23

62.54
60.60
57.97

51.28
48.16
48.42

170,847,776
176,535,912
125,118,893

27,046.28
26,208.26
24,537.15

1,044.44
1,153.17
1,149.34

28,090.72
27,361.42
25,686.49

76.75
74.96
70.37

65.02
62.14
60.59

96,870,167
102,794,211
87,659,673

27,181.05
26,477.22
$ 25,411.73

1,069.22
1,148.21
1,175.98

28,250.27
27,625.43
$ 26,587.71

77.19
75.69
72.84

65.87
63.22
63.93

$

$

57.10
58.81
55.59

46.65
46.97
46.59

$

(1) Does not include costs for units excluded for cost comparison purposes.
(2) For a better comparison, depreciation of state prison buildings has been added as an expense to the daily prison bed costs since contract bed providers include the costs of financing and
depreciation in their daily per diem rates. The depreciation factor is not an actual expense incurred by ADC but is included for a more accurate comparison. The FY 2008 and FY 2009 Per Capita
Cost reports have not been republished to adjust for this in the history section, however they have been adjusted on this page.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

42

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
CONTRACT PRISON BEDS BY CUSTODY LEVEL

ANNUAL PER CAPITA

LEVEL / FISCAL YEAR

ADP

TOTAL DIRECT

TOTAL
INDIRECT

TOTAL
EXPENSE

DIRECT

INDIRECT

TOTAL

57,738,967
59,293,713
58,936,609

$ 18,746.41
19,302.36
19,239.43

$ 1,246.31
715.77
544.60

$ 19,992.72
20,018.13
19,784.02

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

ADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

$

IN-STATE CONTRACTS: (1)
MINIMUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

2,888
2,962
2,979

MEDIUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

1,368
1,334
1,648

$

54,139,622
57,173,589
57,314,258

$ 3,599,346
2,120,125
1,622,351

$

54.62
54.84
54.20

31,691,444
29,692,149
35,591,678

1,394,686
954,227
893,851

33,086,131
30,646,377
36,485,529

23,166.26
22,257.98
21,596.89

1,019.51
715.31
542.39

24,185.77
22,973.30
22,139.28

66.08
62.94
60.66

46.98
47.20
46.56

58.44
55.30
53.02

$

OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACTS: (2)
MINIMUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

n/a
n/a
1,284

25,945,346

695,020

26,640,366

20,206.66

541.29

20,747.95

56.84

n/a

MEDIUM CUSTODY
2008
2009
2010

2,052
3,814
487

44,947,107
82,814,312
9,840,641

2,459,503
2,726,400
$
263,610

47,406,610
85,540,712
10,104,251

21,904.05
21,713.24
$ 20,206.66

1,198.59
714.84
$
541.29

23,102.64
22,428.08
$ 20,747.95

63.12
61.45
56.84

n/a
n/a
n/a

$

$

$

(1) Does not include costs for units excluded for cost comparison purposes.
(2) Provided for informational purposes only, out-of-state contract prison beds were not used for cost comparison analyses.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

43

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORICAL PER CAPITA COSTS
ANNUAL PER CAPITA

FISCAL YEARS

ADP

DIRECT
EXPENSE

COUNTY JAILS (PENDING INTAKE TO STATE CUSTODY)
1990
179
$
2,604,200
1991
76
1,228,600
1992
84
1,417,800
1993
125
2,028,400
1994
158
1,717,600
1995
126
1,312,100
1996
235
2,238,384
1997
156
1,714,553
1998
202
2,313,408
1999
172
1,636,034
1,201,017
2000
106
2001
155
1,555,959
2002
209
2,066,903
2003
235
3,315,554
2004
158
2,016,725
2005
73
1,331,646
2006
63
756,985
2007
68
878,303
2008
72
429,161
2009
76
$
450,486

INDIRECT
EXPENSE

$

$

4,355
2,539
2,594
-

TOTAL
EXPENSE

$

$

2,604,200
1,228,600
1,417,800
2,028,400
1,717,600
1,312,100
2,238,384
1,714,553
2,313,408
1,636,034
1,201,017
1,555,959
2,066,903
3,315,554
2,016,725
1,336,001
759,524
880,897
429,161
450,486

DIRECT

$

$

14,548.60
16,165.79
16,878.57
16,227.20
10,870.89
10,413.49
9,525.04
10,990.72
11,452.51
9,511.83
11,330.35
10,038.45
9,889.49
14,108.74
12,764.08
18,241.73
12,015.63
12,889.68
5,960.57
5,935.25

INDIRECT

$

$

59.66
40.30
38.07
-

TOTAL

$

$

14,548.60
16,165.79
16,878.57
16,227.20
10,870.89
10,413.49
9,525.04
10,990.72
11,452.51
9,511.83
11,330.35
10,038.45
9,889.49
14,108.74
12,764.08
18,301.38
12,055.94
12,927.75
5,960.57
5,935.25

UNADJUSTED
DAILY PER
CAPITA COST

$

39.86
44.29
46.12
44.46
29.78
28.53
26.02
30.11
31.38
26.06
30.96
27.50
27.09
38.65
34.87
50.14
33.03
35.42
16.29
16.26

$

Prior to the FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost report the expenses for inmates pending intake to the ADC for reception and processing were allocated to the costs of housing all ADC
state and contracted prison vendors based on ADP. Beginning with the FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost report these expenses have been excluded to improve the cost comparison
analysis between state housed inmates and contracted prison bed providers.

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

44

END OF REPORT

ADC FY 2010 Operating Per Capita Cost Report

45