Contracted Private Prisons Assessment
ASP-Phoenix West
Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility
ASP-Florence West
Central Arizona Correctional Facility
Red Rock Correctional Center

Assessment
P = Professionalism: Modeling the idea
R = Responsibility: Owning your actions
I = Integrity: Doing the right thing
C = Courage: Taking action despite fear
E = Efficiency: Making every action count

Arizona Department of Corrections
Contracted Private Prisons Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1


Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………..
● Aerial Photographs ……………………………………………………………………
 Substantive Summary ……………………………………………………………….
 ADC Assessment Team ……………………………………………………………….

i
ii
iii
iv

SECTION 2
CHAPTER 1
Arizona State Prison-Phoenix West; Operated by GEO Group
 Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff….………………………
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………….
 Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication ………….
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………….
 Objective 3: Staff Training…………………………………………………………
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .
 Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team……………………………………………….
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
Findings ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Key Findings, Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff ………….……
Key Findings, Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication…
Key Findings, Objective 3: Staff Training ……………………………………………..
Key Findings, Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………

1
10
11
19
20
22
24
31
32
32
32
33
34
35

CHAPTER 2
Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility; Operated by MTC
 Objective 1: Assessment of MTC Leadership and Staff ………………………..…
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision …………………………………...
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 3: Staff Training ………………………………………………………….
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………………….
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
Findings ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Key Findings, Objective 1: Assessment of MTC Leadership and Staff ………….……
Key Findings, Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication…
Key Findings, Objective 3: Staff Training ……………………………………………..

1
10
11
18
20
21
23
27
28
28
28
29
1

Key Findings, Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………

29
30

CHAPTER 3
Arizona State Prison-Florence West; Operated by GEO Group
 Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff …………………………..
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communications………….....
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 3: Staff Training ………………………………………………………….
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
 Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………………….
 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………
Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………
Key Findings, Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff ………….……
Key Findings, Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication …
Key Findings, Objective 3: Staff Training ……………………………………………..
Key Findings, Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………

1
9
10
18
20
22
23
27
28
28
28
29
30
31

CHAPTER 4
Central Arizona Correctional Facility, Operated by GEO Group
 Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff …………………………..
 Key Findings ......................................................................................................
 Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication ……………..
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .....
 Objective 3: Staff Training …………………………………………………………..
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .....
 Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ………………………………………………..
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .......
Findings …………………………………………………………………………………………
Key Findings, Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff ………….…….
Key Findings, Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication …
Key Findings, Objective 3: Staff Training ……………………………………………..
Key Findings, Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………

1
12
14
20
21
24
25
31
32
32
32
33
33
34

CHAPTER 5
Red Rock Correctional Center
 Objective 1: Assessment of CCA Leadership and Staff …………………………..
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… ......
 Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication …………….
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .....
 Objective 3: Staff Training …………………………………………………………
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… ......
 Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………………….
 Key Findings ……………………………………………………………… .....

1
11
13
20
21
23
24
29
2

Findings………………………………………………………………………………………..
Key Findings, Objective 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff .…………..…..
Key Findings, Objective 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication …
Key Findings, Objective 3: Staff Training ……………………………………………..
Key Findings, Objective 4: ADC Monitoring Team ……………………………………
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….

31
31
31
32
32
33

SECTION 3
CHAPTER 1
Phoenix West Exhibits
1. GEO / Phoenix West Policy & Procedure-Human Resources Overtime
2. GEO Memorandum to Contract Beds – Menu Exception
3. Phoenix West Annual Inspection December 2014
4. Restraint Inventory Memo
5. GEO / Phoenix West In-service Training Memo
6. Personnel – Disciplinary Action
7. 703 Tour Report (06-29-2015)
8. May 2015 GAR
9. 2015 Constituent Services Report
10. Phoenix West YTD Discipline
11. Grievance Logs
12. AIMS Classification Print-out
13. January 2015 GAR – Detention
14. Individual Inmate Detention Record
15. Visitation Summary
16. Capacity Report (08-14-2015)
17. Religious Services Calendar
18. Library Pamphlet
19. Recreation Hours of Operation & Monthly Calendar
20. Phoenix West FY2015 Annual Training Plan
21. Firearms Instructor Evaluation
22. DART Training Lesson Plan - RESTRICTED
23. DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan - RESTRICTED
24. Department Order 706, Incident Management - RESTRICTED
25. Phoenix West Preservice Hours Comparison
26. Phoenix West FTO Roster
27. ADC Tactical Support Agreement
28. Phoenix West NIMS Completion
29. ADC / Private Prison Munitions Comparisons
30. May, June & July 2015 / 703 Tour Reports
31. Phoenix West Org. Chart and Leadership
CHAPTER 2
Marana Exhibits
1. Marana Institution Order 706 – RESTRICTED
2. ADC / Marana Contract #ADC130052DC, pg. 29 & 30
3

3. Marana Over Time Memo
4. Deficiency Letter To Warden Casey (08-14- 2015)
5. Restraint Inventory Memo (09-17-2015)
6. 703 Tour Report (06-03-2015) (07-22-2015)
7. Marana Staff Dismissals, Discipline & Time in Service
8. Marana Employee Exit Survey’s
9. 2014 / 2015 Constituent Services Report
10. Marana Inmate Discipline
11. Grievance Logs
12. AIMS Classification Print-out
13. Visitation Summary
14. Capacity Report
15. Programs Listing
16. Religious Services Calendar
17. Library Schedule
18. Recreational Activities
19. Marana FY2015 Annual Training Plan
20. Deficiency Letter (07-22-2015)
21. Monitor Findings and MTC Response (07-22-2015)
22. Firearms Instructor Evaluation
23. DART Training Lesson Plan - RESTRICTED
24. DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan – RESTRICTED
25. Department Order 706, Incident Management – RESTRICTED
26. Marana 280 Hour Preservice Comparison
27. Warden Casey Email (09-02-2015)
28. Marana Pre Service Academy Schedule
29. Marana FTO Roster
30. ADC Tactical Support Unit Agreement
31. NIMS Tracker Report
32. Private Prison Munitions Comparisons
33. May, June & July 2015 / 703 Tour Reports
34. Marana Org. Chart and Leadership
CHAPTER 3
Florence West Exhibits
1. Warden / CO Meeting Minutes
2. Staff Recall Meeting Minutes
3. Employee Termination History Report
4. Employee Transaction History Report
5. 2015 Constituent Services Report
6. AIMS Discipline Report
7. Grievance Logs
8. AIMS Classification Print-out
9. Inmate Visitation System Reports
10. Capacity Report
11. Religious Services Calendar
12. Library Calendar
13. Recreation Hours Memo
14. Florence West FY 2015 Annual Training Plan
4

15. DART Training Lesson Plan – RESTRICTED
16. DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan – RESTRICTED
17. Department Order 706, Incident Management – RESTRICTED
18. ADC Tactical Support Unit Agreement
19. NIMS & In-Service FY2016
20. ADC / Private Prison Munitions Comparisons
21. May, June & July 2015 / 703 Tour Report
22. Warden Maulden Deficiency Letter (08-17-2015)
23. Florence West Org. Chart & Leadership
CHAPTER 4
CACF Exhibits
1. Deficiency Letter from T. Diaz (08-17-2015)
2. Personnel Transaction History Report
3. 2014 / 2015 Constituent Services Report
4. CACF Inmate Discipline
5. Grievance Logs
6. AIMS Classification Print-out
7. Detention Report
8. Visitation Summary
9. Capacity Report
10. Religious Services Calendar
11. Library Schedule
12. Recreation Calendars
13. CACF FY2015 Annual Training Plan
14. Firearms Instructor Evaluation for Certification/Recertification (Goff)
15. 280 Hour Academy Comparisons
16. ADC / CACF Contract # 040176DC, pg. 21
17. CACF Correctional Emergency Response Team Attendance Roster
18. TSU Annual Training Schedule
19. ADC / CACF Contract #040176DC, pg. 103 & 104
20. TSU Equipment
21. ADC Tactical Support Unit Agreement
22. CACF Email FEMA Certificates
23. ADC / Private Prison Munitions Comparisons
24. May, June & July 2015 / 703 Tour Reports
25. Deficiency Letter from R. Credio (08-17-2015)
26. CACF 2014 Annual Inspection / Audit Results (12-04-2014)
27. CACF Org. Chart & Leadership
CHAPTER 5
Red Rock Exhibits
1. RRCC Card System Rosters
2. RRCC Workforce Management / Over Time Policy
3. RRCC COII Meeting Minutes
4. Constituent Services Email from J. Gunn
5. RRCC Inmate Discipline
6. Grievance Logs
7. AIMS Classification Print-out & DI 95-61 Over Due Report
8. Detention Report
5

9. Visitation Summary
10. Capacity Report
11. Religious Services Calendar
12. Library Schedule
13. Recreation Calendar
14. RRCC FY2015 Annual Training Plan
15. ADC / RRCC Contract #12-00001388, Firearms Requirements
16. Senior Firearms Certification/Recertification
17. DART Drill Cross Fire Photos
18. DART Training Lesson Plan - RESTRICTED
19. DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan – RESTRICTED
20. Department Order 706, Incident Management – RESTRICTED
21. RRCC Academy Schedule
22. 280 Hour Comparisons
23. ADC Tactical Support Agreement
24. NIMS Tracking Report
25. Private Prison Munitions Comparisons
26. May, June & July 2015 / 703 Tour Reports
27. Bi Weekly Tour Report
28. Red Rock Org. Chart & Leadership

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the completion of the ASP-Kingman Riot assessment, Director Charles L. Ryan
assembled a multi-disciplinary team of subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the five remaining private prisons. This team conducted a comprehensive review,
including several hundred staff and inmate interviews, and an extensive document review at each
location. The most significant findings of fact include:
•

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

The culture at each of the five contracted prisons is positive with open lines of
communication between inmates, line-staff, and unit administrators. Inmates were
satisfied with their conditions of confinement and expressed the ability to meet with
security supervisors and administrators on a regular basis.
The majority of the private prison Wardens were not conducting regularly scheduled
meetings with line staff. However, all were found to be actively interacting with staff and
inmates.
Staff training at the private facilities did not completely replicate the Arizona Department
of Corrections (ADC) training. Staff instructors were not teaching all required classes and
in some cases made unauthorized reductions in classroom hours for certain pre-service
training courses. Other class time reductions were made which could be attributed to
smaller class sizes.
Overall, the Emergency Response Plans (ERP) at the contracted facilities were lacking in
content and uniformity. The three GEO facilities all had identical ERP’s which were
well written, but not individualized to the specific facilities. The Management and
Training Corporation (MTC) ERP was not written in accordance with the National
Incident Management System (NIMS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) ERP was well written, but was
missing several key annexes required by contract.
Designated Armed Response Team (DART) readiness and effectiveness was deficient in
all private prison facilities with the exception of Central Arizona Correctional Facility
(CACF).
Overall the inmate programming offered in the private facilities was in compliance with
contractual requirements and the private contractors place a high level of focus and
resources on inmate programming.
Overall the private prisons presented well and sanitation was acceptable.
Three of the five facilities inspected were found to be substandard in enforcement of
housing unit regulation compliance. Several facilities were double bunked and afforded
very little storage space for inmate property, making enforcement of inmate regulations
more difficult. Housing unit regulation compliance was excellent in the remaining
prisons.

28

26
24

15

14

25

27

29

17

16
12

18
10

11

30

19

20

9 8 7
6

4

3

2

1

21

22

5
13

23A 23

1. Traffic Control
2. Warehouse
3. Administration
4. Visitation
5. Old Maintenance
6. Laundry
7. Central Control
8. Operations
9. Medical
10. Commissary/
Property
11. Kitchen
12. Dining Hall
13. WBE/ACI
14. Fox Unit
15. Rec. Yard 1
16. Rec. Yard 2
17. Rec. Yard 3
18. Center Yard
19. Sweat Lodge
20. Rec. Yard 4
21. Rec. Yard 5
22. Juliet Unit
23. Echo Unit
23A. Detention
24. Detention Rec.
25. Programs
26. Horticulture
Class
27. Hotel Unit
28. Ball Field
29. Golf Unit
30. Receiving and
Discharge

ASPC MARANA (MTC)
Classrooms

Unit 1 G-J Pods

Kitchen

Detention

Admin
Unit 2 A-F Pods
Visitation

Health Unit

Classroom

ASPC - PHOENIX WEST
Kitchen
Dorm 1-8

Visitation

Dormitory
Health Unit
Education

Administration

SUBSTANTIVE SUMMARY

On July 1-4, 2015 large scale rioting occurred at the Arizona State Prison-Kingman operated by
Management and Training Corporation (MTC). As a result of these riots, ADC Director Charles
L. Ryan assembled a multi-disciplinary team of subject matter experts to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the Kingman prison.
Subsequent to that assessment, Director Ryan instructed the team to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the five remaining private prisons that house ADC inmates. The scope of the
assessment included a thorough analysis of (1) Leadership and Staff, (2) Inmate Management,
Supervision, and Communication, (3) Staff Training, (4) ADC Monitoring teams.
The team conducted a comprehensive review, including several hundred staff and inmate
interviews, and an extensive document review at each location.
The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) has inmates housed in the following five other
privately operated facilities throughout the state:






ASP- Phoenix West, a 500 bed facility operated by the GEO Group (GEO).
Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility, a 500 bed facility operated by
Management and Training Corporation (MTC).
ASP- Florence West, a 750 bed facility operated by GEO.
Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF) a 1280 bed facility operated by GEO.
Red Rock Correctional Center, a 1568 bed facility operated by Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA).

Following is a summary of the findings at each facility:
ASP- Phoenix West:
Warden Phillips and his team are available, accessible, and responsive to staff and inmates.
Although Warden Phillips was not holding employee meetings in accordance with Department
Order (DO) 112, Department Meetings, he is actively involved in the operation of the facility
and meets with staff on a regular basis. He has an open door policy which he fully utilizes.
Overall sanitation of the facility is acceptable. However, DO 704, Inmate Regulations
compliance was lacking. Phoenix West is swamp cooled and the facility was hot particularly in
dorms 1 and 2. The inmate population was satisfied with the conditions of confinement.
In spite of the low rate of pay for officers and the high turnover rate, employee morale is
excellent. Overtime is utilized frequently to maintain required staffing. Overtime is consistently
and fairly managed.
1

The programming and inmate services offered at Phoenix West are compliant with ADC policy
and the contract. Overall, the review of these services indicated that they are positively received
by the inmates and the contractor places an appropriate level of importance on their delivery.
Phoenix West failed to deliver some in-service supervisory classes by not utilizing the current
lesson plan, and in other cases made unauthorized reductions in classroom hours for certain preservice training courses. ADC Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA) cadets receive 13
contact hours of crisis intervention training; Phoenix West academy cadets receive 9 hours. This
is noncompliant with COTA curriculum. Many of the supervisory staff including Warden
Phillips have not attended required National Incident management System (NIMS) courses.
Firearms instructors were reported to use poor communications with class participants. Annual
firearms instructor evaluations had not been completed for the firearms instructors. The Senior
Firearms Instructor received an Unsatisfactory/Noncompliance Evaluation from the ASPCPhoenix Senior Firearms Instructor on 08/11/2015.
The assessment team observed a Designated Armed Response Team (DART) drill and the
participants were not familiar with how to deploy the munitions. Phoenix West DART
equipment does not include helmets for individual team members. Phoenix West supervisors
were not trained with the current DART for Supervisors lesson plan. There is no reference to
DART in facility Emergency Response Plan (ERP). All of the Arizona GEO Group operated
facilities use the same ERP. The ERP is well written, but it is not tailored to the individual
facility.
The ADC Monitoring Team assigned to Phoenix West maintains a cooperative working
relationship with the Phoenix West administration. The ADC ASP-Phoenix West monitoring
team meets timeframes on the majority of the required paperwork. The team completes its
(Green/Amber/Red) GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC policy and
contract requirements. At the time of the Kingman riots, the team was only monitoring in-service
training completion, not pre-service training, nor the quality/curriculum content of the training.
Quality of pre-service and in-service training is now being monitored.
Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility:
Warden Jeremy Casey and his team are available, accessible, and responsive to staff and
inmates. Warden Casey is personally involved in the day to day operation of the facility. Warden
Casey is actively involved the training of his staff. He teaches Self Defense and Crisis
Intervention in the pre-service academy.
Warden Casey is holding all employee meetings in accordance with DO 112, Department
Meetings. He meets with staff and inmates regularly. He has an open door policy which he fully
utilizes.

2

Overall sanitation of the facility was above average. DO 704, Inmate Regulations compliance
was very good with a few minor deficiencies noted mainly in the double bunked areas. Marana is
swamp cooled. However, there were few inmate complaints due to the strategic placement of
fans throughout the facility. The inmate population was satisfied with the conditions of
confinement. Inmates identified as Security Threat Group suspects or who are involved in prison
politics are identified and relocated.
In spite of the low rate of pay for officers and the high turnover rate, employee morale is
excellent. Overtime is utilized frequently to maintain required staffing. Overtime is consistently
and fairly managed. Overtime is not creating issues for staff.
Marana employs a large number of former ADC employees. These employees are viewed as
mentors and teachers. Staff and inmates reported that they have a positive impact on the facility.
The programming and inmate services offered at Marana are compliant with ADC policy and the
contract. Overall, the review of these services indicated that they are positively received by the
inmates and the contractor places an appropriate level of importance on their delivery.
Some pre-service academy rosters could not be located in order to demonstrate that all required
course contact hours had been completed.
The ERP is not written within the guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The ERP does not contain emergency support functions or annexes. There are no clear
directions within the ERP on how to manage an inmate disturbance, an inmate homicide, or an
inmate work stoppage/strike. WebEOC/NIMS are the standard methods utilized by ADC for
managing large scale incidents. Much of the Marana management is unfamiliar with/does not
have access to WebEOC.
The assessment team observed a DART drill and the DART team leader was not familiar with
how to deploy munitions. There are not enough restraints on the facility to restrain the entire
inmate population in the event of an emergency.
The ADC Monitoring Team assigned to Marana maintains a cooperative working relationship
with the Marana Administration. They are working through transition issues with the lead
monitor, DW Adam Bradley. He is known by many staff at Marana and his communication style
has not been well received. The ADC ASP-Marana monitoring team meets timeframes on the
majority of contractually required paperwork. The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour
requirements in accordance with ADC policy and contract requirements. At the time of the
Kingman riots the team only monitored in-service training completion, not pre-service training,
nor the quality/curriculum content of the training. Quality of pre-service and in-service training
is now being monitored.

3

ASP-Florence West:
Warden Rick Mauldin and his team are available, accessible, and responsive to staff and inmates.
Although Warden Mauldin was not holding employee meetings in accordance with DO 112,
Department Meetings, he is actively involved in the operation of the facility and meets with staff
on a regular basis. He has an open door policy which he fully utilizes.
Overall sanitation at the facility was sub-standard and DO 704, Inmate Regulations compliance
was lacking. Florence West is swamp cooled, there were fans in use and the inmates were not
complaining. Inmates reported four staff members who are aggressive and/or unprofessional.
The majority of inmates reported being satisfied with the conditions of confinement at Florence
West.
Staff pay is not an issue at Florence West, and employee morale for the most part is good.
Dayshift is not being required to take the mandatory 30 minute lunch break and the other shifts
view this as a pay differential. Assistant Warden Duggan made a comment about this in a
meeting that upset the swing shift staff. These issues are beginning to have a negative effect on
employee morale. Overtime is utilized frequently to maintain required staffing. Overtime is
consistently and fairly managed.
The programming and inmate services offered at Florence West are compliant with ADC policy
and the contract. No structured recreation activities are offered to the inmate population and the
WIPP jobs are primarily porter positions providing minimal work hours. Overall, the review of
the programming offered indicated that they are positively received by the inmates. There is a
high volume of idle inmates at Florence West.
Pre-service training for Florence West is conducted at the CACF facility. Four Security
Supervisors have not completed all required National Incident Management System (NIMS)
courses. DART for Supervisors 2015 was not offered in FY2015.
The assessment team observed a DART drill and the participants were not familiar with how to
deploy munitions. Florence West supervisors were not trained with the current DART for
Supervisors lesson plan. There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan
(ERP). All of the Arizona GEO Group operated facilities use the same ERP. The ERP is well
written, but it is not tailored to the individual facility.
The ADC Monitoring Team assigned to Florence West maintains a cooperative working
relationship with the Florence West administration. The ADC ASP-Florence West monitoring
team meets timeframes on the majority of the contractually required paperwork. The team
completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC policy and
contract requirements. At the time of the Kingman incident, the team was only monitoring inservice training completion, not pre-service training, nor the quality/curriculum content of the
training. Quality of pre-service and in-service training is now being monitored
4

Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF):
Warden Bennie Rollins and his team are available, accessible, and responsive to staff and
inmates. Although Warden Rollins was not holding employee meetings in accordance with DO
112, Department Meetings, he is actively involved in the operation of the facility and meets with
staff on a regular basis. He has an open door policy which he fully utilizes.
Overall sanitation at the facility was excellent. DO 704, Inmate Regulations compliance was
very good. CACF West is swamp cooled, there were fans in place and the inmates were not
complaining. Inmates reported being satisfied with the conditions of confinement at CACF.
Ingress search procedures for staff are not to standard. Members of the assessment team
witnessed violations of policy and this was previously documented in the May, 2015, GAR,
CACF, when staff did not conduct proper ingress search procedures on two staff.
Entry level pay is not an issue at CACF, however, many staff complained because they have not
had a raise in years. Florence West, also owned by GEO, has received annual raises. Staff
reported that senior staff earns the same rate of pay as new officers. In spite of this issue, morale
is good for the majority of staff. Overtime is utilized to maintain required staffing. Overtime is
not creating issues for CACF with the exception of a miscommunication issue. Staff were
confused about the amount of overtime required to reduce their overtime mandate number.
Warden Rollins was addressing this.
The programming and inmate services offered at CACF are compliant with ADC policy and the
contract. Overall, the review of these services indicated that they are positively received by the
inmates and the contractor places an appropriate level of importance on their delivery.
CACF failed to deliver some in-service courses in a classroom setting by providing training that
was being conducted in control rooms from printed slide shows. CACF failed to deliver some
pre-service courses as required by ADC by making unauthorized reductions in classroom hours
in several critical areas; Use of Force, Transportation and Restraints, Non Violent Crisis
Intervention. It was confirmed that in June, 2014, at least two employees had been placed into
the academy at Week 4 and was provided curriculum from the first 3 weeks to catch up.
The assessment team observed a DART drill at CACF. The team was well trained and the drill
was effective. CACF is contractually required to have a thirty person Tactical Support Unit
(TSU). They have a Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT). It does not have the
required number of positions filled or the minimum equipment required by contract for a TSU.
Tactical Training is not conducted in accordance with the ADC Tactical Training Schedule.
There is no reference to DART in the facility Emergency Response Plan (ERP). All of the
Arizona GEO Group facilities use the same ERP. The ERP is well written, but it is not tailored to
the individual facility.

5

WebEOC/NIMS are the standard methods utilized by ADC for managing large scale incidents.
Much of the CACF management is unfamiliar with/does not have access to WebEOC. The
CACF Warden has not completed MAG400. Five security supervisors and two staff have not
completed the required NIMS training.
The ADC monitoring team assigned to CACF maintains a cooperative working relationship with
the CACF administration. The ADC CACF monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority
of the contractually required paperwork. The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour
requirements in accordance with ADC policy and contract requirements. At the time of the
Kingman incident, the team was only monitoring in-service training completion, not pre-service
training, nor the quality/curriculum content of the training. Quality of pre-service and in-service
training is now being monitored.
Red Rock Correctional Center:
Warden Bruno Stolc and his team are available, accessible, and responsive to staff and inmates.
Although Warden Stolc was not holding employee meetings in accordance with DO 112,
Department Meetings, he was holding the majority of required meetings. He is actively involved
in the operation of the facility and meets with staff on a regular basis. He has an open door policy
which he fully utilizes.
Overall sanitation at the facility was excellent. DO 704, Inmate Regulations compliance was
lacking. Red Rock is air conditioned and the facility was comfortable. Inmates reported being
satisfied with the conditions of confinement at Red Rock.
The programming and inmate services offered at CACF are compliant with ADC policy and the
contract. Overall, the review of these services indicated that they are positively received by the
inmates. Classes are taught in a professional manner and encourage pro-social behavior. The
contractor places an appropriate level of importance on their delivery.
The majority of the ASP Red Rock Administration has not completed required NIMS training
including MAG 300 or 400. Supervisor Essentials and DART for Supervisors 2015 training was
not offered or completed. The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for Red Rock is well written,
however, it is missing several required annexes.
The assessment team observed a DART drill and the participants were not familiar with how to
deploy munitions. The DART leader demonstrated poor tactics, splitting his team and losing his
ability to direct the team. This decision confused team responders as to their roles and created an
unsafe condition (cross fire) for responders.
The ADC monitoring team assigned to Red Rock maintains a cooperative working relationship
with the Red Rock administration. The ADC Red Rock monitoring team meets timeframes on
the majority of the contractually required paperwork. The team completes its GAR Inspections
6

and tour requirements in accordance with ADC policy and contract requirements. At the time of
the Kingman incident, the team was only monitoring in-service training completion, not preservice training, nor the quality/curriculum content of the training. Quality of pre-service and inservice training is now being monitored.

7

Assessment Team Bio’s

The Contracted Private Prison’s assessment team was comprised of the following individuals
from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC):
Ernest Trujillo, Northern Region Operations Director (NROD) – ADC 28 years; Mr. Trujillo
promoted through the ranks and has been a Warden at ASPC-Safford, Lewis and Eyman
complexes. He served as the Security Operations Administrator prior to becoming the NROD
over five prison complexes.
Gerald Thompson, Deputy Warden of Operations (DWOP) – ADC 25 years; Mr. Thompson has
promoted through the ranks and has been the Deputy Warden at SMU-I, Morey, and Rast. He
presently serves as the Deputy Warden of Operations for Lewis Complex.
Therese Schroeder, Deputy Warden (DW) – ADC 27 years; Ms. Schroeder promoted through the
ranks and has been a Warden at ASPC-Safford, Perryville and Tucson. DW Schroeder also held
the position of Security Operations Administrator at Central Office. She currently works for
Community Corrections as the Deputy Warden of the Southern Arizona Community Corrections
Center (SRCCC).
Wayne Mooney, Deputy Warden (DW) - ADC 19 years; Mr. Mooney has promoted through the
ranks and has been an Associate Deputy Warden at Eyman and Deputy Warden of Compliance
at ASPC-Winslow. He is presently Unit Deputy Warden at ASPC-Lewis Barchey Unit.
John Weiss, Deputy Warden – ADC 16 years; Mr. Weiss has been a Tactical Support Unit
member and Crisis Negotiations member. He promoted through the ranks and currently works
as a Unit Deputy Warden at ASPC-Perryville.
Mark Versluis, Training Officer II (TOII) – ADC 32 years; Mr. Versluis promoted through the
security ranks and served as the Tactical Support Unit Comander prior to his retirement. Mr.
Versluis rehired as an Industry Product Specialist and is currently a Training Officer II.
Luis Matos, Lieutenant – ADC 15 years; Lt. Matos has promoted through the security ranks
working in Special Security Unit (SSU), Designated Armed Response Team (DART) Leader,
Service Dog Handler/Supervisor, Tactical Support Unit (TSU) Member/Leader, and currently as
Special Services Unit (SSU) Coordinator for ASPC-Lewis.
Aurelio Quintero, Lieutenant – ADC 16 years; Lt. Quintero has worked at Eyman and Florence
Complexes, promoting through the security ranks. He has been working in the Special Security
Unit (SSU) for 13 years. He is currently the SSU Coordinator for ASPC-Florence.

1

Carlos Reyna, Lieutenant – ADC 27 years; Lt. Reyna has worked all custody levels at ASPCEyman and promoted through the security ranks. He has worked for the Special Security Unit
(SSU) for 18 years and has assisted all prison SSUs investigatative disturbances, racial tensions
to mediations and assisted Security Threat Group (STG) Units. Lt. Reyna is currently the SSU
Coordinator for ASPC-Eyman.
John Chavez, Sergeant – ADC 18 years; Sgt. Chavez has worked at ASPC-Eyman and Florence
and promoted through the security ranks. He has worked for the Special Security Unit (SSU) for
15 years and has assisted all prison SSUs investigate disturbances, racial tensions to mediations
and assisted Security Threat Group Units.

2

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
ASP–PHOENIX WEST
Operated by
GEO GROUP
OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff
The Assessment Team evaluated the staff and leadership of Arizona State Prison (ASP) Phoenix
West (GEO), to include strengths and weaknesses, communications, decision making, and
overall effectiveness in operations of the prison.
Members of the ADC assessment team engaged in direct observation of unit management and
operational practices for three (3) days. They conducted over fifty (50) interviews with GEO
staff and interviewed over eighty (80) inmates. Interviews were conducted with the majority of
officers, sergeants, and lieutenants. GEO staff members appeared to be very candid in their
responses to the assessors.
From the interviews conducted with staff, very few concerns were shared. Questions were asked
concerning the leadership approach of the management team. The only negative opinion voiced
is that the current rate of pay is too low. With the exception of complaints about pay, the staff
appear to be happy with their work and employer.
Warden Wayne Phillips
Warden Phillips has been assigned to ASP-Phoenix West for approximately eighteen (18)
months. He stated during his tenure at Phoenix West there have been two different ADC Lead
Monitors.
The purpose of the assessment was discussed with Warden Phillips. He was advised that the
process was not meant to be a ‘gotcha’ and if the assessment revealed any concerns that needed
to be addressed he would be advised of them. Warden Phillips said he welcomed the assessment
team and would be responsive to any concerns relayed to him.
Warden Phillips was informed that his staff reported he tours frequently and is accessible to
them. He discussed his style of management is to be personally involved. Warden Phillips said
he meets with all new hires and conducts the actual interviews as much as possible. He spends
time with cadets and they discuss the low pay issue. He reported that he asks the new cadets to
spend a year with them (GEO/Phoenix West) and it will ‘pad your résumé’. He acknowledged
that the low pay is creating a high turnover rate. He is aware of the overtime usage and monitors
it. GEO policy does not limit how much overtime an employee may work in a week. (GEO/Phx.
West, Policy and Procedure Manual, Title: Overtime, Exhibit #1) He said they occasionally
have an officer who works more than 24 hours of overtime in a week, Warden Phillips is advised
1

of the overtime and they try to avoid it. For the most part, they do their best to only allow staff to
work 24 hours of overtime per week.
Warden Phillips was asked about his relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team and if there
were any concerns; he reported none. He said there was a period of transition when ADC Lead
Monitor Deputy Warden (DW) Bradley was assigned to Phoenix West, but they have worked
through it and now communicate very well.
The Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspection instrument was discussed with Warden Phillips. He
reported there are a high number of GAR findings and they are upsetting to his staff. The fact
that GAR is a snapshot in time and different monitors have different styles and approaches was
discussed; he feels confident that his team is dealing with it. He mentioned that GAR has peaks
and valleys. He said that he has to keep staff calm when they receive a GAR finding, but he
understands the process.
Warden Phillips reported that he sees Contract Beds Operations Director (CBOD) Tara Diaz and
Deputy Bureau Administrator (DBA) Ron Credio and has a good relationship with them; he
respects them. Overall, he feels that he and the current monitoring team have a good relationship.
He said that they have reached a point of partnership and have a cooperative relationship.
Warden Phillips mentioned that due to the different monitors and from what inmates from other
facilities report, he feels that ADC facilities are not run consistently in the same manner. He was
advised that ADC expects to run all facilities consistently and that staff and inmates should find
the same procedures in place at all prisons. He stated that ADC has more redundancy of
paperwork than other agencies he has worked for.
Warden Phillips reported that he personally attends inmate orientation on Thursdays. He tells the
inmates up front that he does not allow inmate politics on his unit. He tells them they will be
locked up if they try to run things at Phoenix West. On most mornings he walks through the
facility first to get a feel for the day; he tours daily. He said he believes in talking and listening to
inmates. He stated the issues that resulted in the Kingman riots were identifiable and that
someone missed something. On his walks he carries a notebook and writes down inmate and
staff issues and he follows up on them. He ensures that all inmates know that ‘political’ behavior
will not be tolerated.
There was discussion about the team witnessing racial integration at the tables in the chow hall
and that the inmates were happy with the food. The inmates housed in the 3 GEO facilities
receive three hot meals a day, as approved by CBOD Diaz. The GEO facilities utilize the 2008
menu which required three hot meals a day (GEO/Phx West January 14, 2015 memo to
Contract Beds Operations Director, Tara Diaz, Exhibit #2) In an ADC facility, minimum
custody inmates receive two hot meals and sack lunch.
2

Warden Phillips was asked if the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) contained information
regarding the Designated Armed Response Team (DART). He responded that he will review it to
check. He stated that DART is a
.
Warden Phillips was asked about the facility
. He said that he is reviewing this with DW
Bradley now but feels that it might not be a concern in minimum custody. Note:
. The
munitions was discussed. He discussed the strategy for
. He reported that with a
. He said that money is a problem and
discussed that Phoenix West is not making a profit. He was advised of the concern regarding the
DART not having helmets as part of the assigned equipment even though they are specified in
the DART for Supervisors lesson plan. He stated that he will be obtaining helmets for the DART.
Warden Phillips has not attended the required National Incident Management System (NIMS)
required training- specifically MAG 300/400. He did not think he was required to and will follow
up with DW Bradley. (He has since been scheduled to attend the MAG 300 training in
September, 2015.)
Warden Phillips acknowledged that he has not been holding meetings with different categories of
employees as required in Department Order 112. In review of the FY 2015 Annual Inspection
Report (12/18/14), it was noted that Warden Phillips was not meeting quarterly with the Facility
Health Administrator (GEO/Phx West 2015 Phoenix West Audit, Exhibit #3) He said he will
now hold all required meetings. He stated that he did not feel they were needed due to the size of
the facility and the fact that he sees the staff every day because he tours frequently.
Warden Phillips stated his main frustration as the Warden of Phoenix West is the staffing.
Warden Phillips stated that Phoenix West officers’ pay is lower than any of the other private
prisons in the State. Warden Phillips was advised that one of his officers had told an assessment
team member that GEO could not give the officers a raise due to “the company giving ADC 100
beds”. Warden Phillips said the officer was referring to the $10 dollars a day for each of the 100
emergency beds. It was discussed that the officer having this information allowed him to have
the perception that it is ADC’s fault that his pay is low. Warden Phillips said that he does not
believe this is so. He stated that the officers received a 2.5% raise last year, but that their pay is
still low. This is why he preaches “give me one year.” When asked if training an officer who will
only stay one year is cost effective, he stated that he did not believe it was and that the company
needs to find a way to keep staff. The staff have the option to transfer to other GEO facilities,
but most want to stay in the area. He reported that he feels they have a vested interest in the staff,
but that this is at a level above him. Warden Phillips had a brief discussion about GEO being a
3

publicly-traded company. He then commented that due to the high employee turnover rate they
hold approximately four academies per year.
The interview was ended with commentary that the staff and inmate morale is high. Warden
Phillips said he feels he does not have any problems in this facility. He wishes he could do more
for his staff yet he does what he can. They hold monthly recalls of all staff which are held in
visitation. This is when the staff is recognized for positive performance, provided a meal and
pertinent information is shared.
Assistant Warden Edward Coday
Assistant Warden (AW) Coday has worked at Phoenix West for approximately 3 years. He
promoted to the position from Captain in October 2014. When asked to describe his role at
Phoenix West, AW Coday replied that he is the second in command and oversees security and
the overall operation of the facility. He said security is his main concern and he oversees the
yard. He reported that he tours daily, sometimes 2 or 3 times per day. He said he has a lot of
paperwork, but he likes to tour.
AW Coday was asked about his relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team. AW Coday stated
he has a very good relationship with the ADC monitors and he believes he can talk to the
monitors about problems. He said there are no concerns. He stated that each monitor sees things
differently and that there has been a lot of turnover within the monitor team. He has worked with
three lead monitors (Manriquez/White/Bradley) and several Captains and Correctional Officer
IIIs (COIIIs). He said that all of them see things differently which can be frustrating, but they
work through issues and make changes as needed. He reported that he has a good relationship
with the current team and they converse and get along. He reported that when staff writes
disciplinary tickets the inmates tell the staff they will beat the ticket. It seems that the inmates
only get extra duty hours and that the Captain keeps the tickets at the lowest level, especially for
non-compliance with Department Order (DO) 704. He stated that he has discussed this with
Captain Fernandez and advised him that the staff do not feel supported when this happens. AW
Coday was advised that this would be reported to DW Bradley for him to monitor more closely.
AW Coday stated that he and the ADC monitors have different ideas on how DO 704 should be
enforced in the dorms. AW Coday’s main concerns were about what items should be allowed on
the TV shelf.
AW Coday reported that the facility maintains proper compliance with Security Device
Inspection (SDI) reports and the necessary follow up required for any reported deficiencies.
Compliance with this requirement was observed and confirmed by the assessment team.
When asked if he felt that there were
. He
4

said that his goal is to maintain staff safety. When asked about only having
reported that
are on order. He also reported that he has ordered

he

. The Emergency
Response Plan (ERP) for Phoenix West was reviewed and there was no mention of a DART
response in the plan. AW Coday was asked if he could find any mention of a DART response in
the ERP for Disturbances/Riot and he confirmed that DART was not mentioned. Within the
ERP, the Disturbance/Riot Annex for Phoenix West also describes
Correctional
Emergency Response Team (CERT)
. This Annex was
plagiarized from another GEO ERP and has not been adapted to the Phoenix West facility.
Phoenix West
, nor are they contracted
. CERT is
a term used by Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF), also operated by GEO,
. The ERP is stored in the Command Center and is accessible to staff during an
emergency. No other concerns were noted with the ERP. The plan is thorough and has an
updated call out list of staff phone numbers which were updated 08/15/2015.
AW Coday monitors staffing and the use of overtime. He said he tries to ensure that no one
works more than 24 hours of overtime per week and he knows who to watch because they want
to work more. He stated, ‘we are a training academy for ADC’. He said he wishes they had more
training they could offer staff such as Tactical Support Unit (TSU), K9, and Special Security
Unit (SSU). He also said that
) work SSU, but they do
this as an additional duty;
.
AW Coday was advised that his July graveyard tour was only 30 minutes long as he was logged
in at 0530 hours. He said that sometimes he monitors crews without coming inside and that he
often checks on work crews early in the morning. He stated that he normally does 2 or 3 hour
tours.
AW Coday advised that he talks to the inmates and advises them on the expectations at Phoenix
West and how it is (no politics).
Assistant Warden (AW) Bruce LeValley
AW LeValley functions as the Business Manager for Phoenix West. The interview with him was
brief. The only concern that he shared was that he feels at times there are changes to policy or the
technical manual that conflict with the contract or require clarification. AW LeValley was
advised to address these concerns with DW Bradley, DBA Credio and CBOD Diaz. He reported
that he does communicate well with the monitors. He said he may not always get the answer he
wants, but they communicate well.

5

Assistant Warden (AW) Mary Coonrod
AW Coonrod was asked to provide a description of the duties she performs at ASP-Phoenix
West. She advised that her responsibilities included supervising and monitoring the five
substance abuse counselors, the five case managers, one teacher, one full time librarian, the
offender information unit, Work Incentive Pay Plan (WIPP), programs compliance and a part
time clinical director. She has worked for GEO for twenty years in her current capacity. When
asked what programs they provide to the inmates she gave me the list of available programs with
familiarity and emphasis on the Department’s classes Re-entry and Cognitive Restructuring. She
was familiar with the responsibility to ensure inmates less than 23 years old with no GED were
required to be enrolled in education.
AW Coonrod was asked if GEO offered a CTE class to inmates and replied with “No, it’s not in
the contract.” She was asked how she prepares her staff to teach classes to inmates. They are
prepared by attending ADC ‘Train the Trainer’ courses. The Clinical Director also helps to
prepare the staff. AW Coonrod also observes some classes and evaluates the instructors by
providing feedback.
When asked if there were clear objectives for the classes she advised there were objectives as
well as tests to identify if the inmate had received the message.
AW Coonrod had reached twenty years of employment with GEO the week prior. When asked
if she was going to retire she said she would stay for awhile longer as she enjoyed her work and
the company she worked for.
During interviews with the programs staff there were two staff members identified that had been
with GEO for 19 years and the shortest amount of time was 4 months, but claimed many years of
experience in substance abuse counseling in the correctional arena. All staff members
interviewed was happy with their employment and saw themselves working there in the future.
Captain Ramon Suarez
Captain Suarez was asked how often a security post is collapsed, he responded ‘never’. A review
of three months of shift rosters determined this to be true. Captain Suarez was asked what actions
were to be taken if they had an emergency inmate escort to the hospital. He stated it rarely
happens, but they would call someone in from home to assist.
Captain Suarez was asked if he had at least two weeks of projected staffing rosters. He produced
two weeks of the rosters and stated he has to do this several weeks in advance so he can fill in
any ‘holes’ with overtime staff.
Captain Suarez was asked how often security staff conduct bunk searches of the inmate
population. He advised that two bunks are searched in each dorm on Day and Swing shifts seven
6

days a week. Captain Suarez stated the inmate population is also searched every quarter for three
days. He produced a search schedule and ICS paperwork for Quarterly Searches. Warden
Phillips and Assistant Warden Coday confirmed that WEBEOC is opened every quarter for
inmate searches.
Captain Suarez was asked how often DART Drills were conducted and his response was they are
done monthly. He said the drills are conducted in the parking lot and the weapons are never
loaded. Warden Phillips confirmed that DART drills were conducted monthly in the parking lot
and the weapons were not loaded. Captain Suarez stated their DART is not provided with
helmets. Note: The requirement for having helmets as a part of the DART equipment is
contained in the DART for Supervisors lesson plan. Several boxes were observed stacked up in
the hallway in front of the DART storage room. This created a very small space to maneuver
with DART weapons and munitions.
Captain Suarez was asked how often he inspects correctional service logs to ensure security
checks are being completed in a timely manner. He said daily, as security is his first priority.
Correctional Service Journals were reviewed and they verified that staff are conducting security
checks. The assessor visually confirmed that security checks are being conducted at least once
every hour.
Captain Suarez was asked how he tracks Security Device deficiencies. He stated staff on post
check the security devices daily, Key Control Officer Mickelson checks the security devices
weekly, and he (Capt. Suarez) checks the security devices once a month. Captain Suarez
produced three months of Security Device Inspection (SDI) reports. The May security device
report showed two open items, Light #3 was out and Camera #2 was not working. An observed
concern was the failure to carry over the two items (light #3 and camera #2) from one month to
another. Captain Suarez stated “it was an oversight because 99 percent of all security device
deficiencies are repaired in the month they are discovered.” The assessor confirmed that Light #3
was repaired and Camera #2 was working properly.
Captain Suarez and Assistant Warden Coday were asked separately if they ever have any
security devices that go unrepaired for long periods of time. Captain Suarez and AW Coday
stated that door
was worked on for approximately two months and it could not be repaired.
They both stated the door worked fine, but it would not alarm in main control if the door was
opened. They finally installed a new alarm system on the door and it now alarms in main control.
Security device deficiencies are repaired quickly and the only delay is when they have to order
parts. The assessor confirmed that security devices are inspected and repaired in a timely manner
at Phoenix West. Overall, SDI processes are properly addressed.
Deputy Warden, Adam Bradley (ADC Monitor) submitted a memo with an inventory of the
Phoenix West restraints. The following is a list of restraints in accordance with the memo:
7

handcuffs,
handcuffs issued to staff, leg irons, belly chains,
flex cuffs on-site, and
flex cuffs in the offsite work crew checkers vehicle. Phoenix West
(GEO/Phx. West-Phoenix West Restraint
Inventory Memo, Exhibit #4)
Summary of observations and conclusions:
Staff consistently reported that they had completed their required training and that the academy
was productive and prepared them for the job. (GEO/Phx. West Phoenix West In-service
training audit DW Bradley and Phoenix West response, Exhibit #5)
Staff consistently reported that the supervisors (sergeants and lieutenants) are readily available to
them and that they tour frequently.
Staff consistently reported that the Administration is well known to them and are approachable.
It was observed that Warden Phillips tours daily and the staff and inmates know him well.
Assistant Warden Coonrod and Coday, and Captain Suarez are also well known to staff. Line
staff and supervisors report they see the unit administrators in the housing areas and dining area
frequently each week. All tour frequently and are reported to be accessible and responsive. The
overall response from line-staff is that the security supervisors, to include the Chief of Security,
are all routinely meeting with staff and inmates.
CO III/Case managers were positive and reported that their workloads are acceptable and that
they have time to see inmates daily.
GEO staff consistently reported that they know the ADC monitors, that they see them touring,
and that they feel the monitors are approachable.
Hiring information was reviewed and only one concern was noted. An employee (GEO/Phx.
West Personnel Report, Exhibit #6) had been dismissed for drug usage and was listed on a
personnel report as ‘eligible for rehire.’ This is being corrected. The amount of employee
discipline was not excessive and staff did not report any concerns related to employee discipline.
The turnover rate is high but does not appear to be related to employee management issues. It is
reported to be due to the pay rate.
DO 703 reports were reviewed and found to be complete and thorough. Warden Phillip’s reports
were comprehensive and contained a good narrative of what was inspected. There were no large
discrepancies in reports from the GEO team to the ADC monitoring team. Three minor concerns
were noted- Lead Monitor DW Bradley omitted the time and date on a May 2015 tour. Warden
Phillips marked a swing shift tour with a time of 1200 AM and AW Coday did a 30 minute

8

graveyard tour in July 2015. All were advised of these errors. (GEO/Phx. West, GEO 703 Tour
Reports, Exhibit #7)
An experience level comparison in terms of years in job code was conducted relative to the staff
at GEO and like-positions within ADC. Additionally, a comparison of the length of time in a
qualifying pay grade/rank was completed with GEO Case Managers and ADC COIIIs, as well as
the Sergeants in ADC and GEO. The results of the total comparisons are listed below:
Position
CO
COIII
Sgt
Lt
Captain
COIV
ADW
ADW
Warden

ADC
6.40
4.96
3.75
3.81
3.14
4.11
1.26
1.26
2.77

Full Time Positions:
Correctional Officer II
Sergeant
Lieutenant

ASP-Phoenix West
3.3
7.6 (Case Manager)
2.1
0.9
0.8
N/A
0.9 (Operations AW)
20 (Programs AW)
1.2
Allocated
54
3
4

Filled
43
3
4

Vacant
11
0
0

ASP-Phoenix West has a total of 97 positions to include Administration, Security, Clerical, and
Medical staff.
Overtime is used on most, if not all shifts, to reach required staffing. Staff voiced that for the
most part, they volunteer for the overtime and are rarely mandated to work overtime. If
mandatory overtime is needed, there is a fair and consistent method for making the assignments.
Line-staff report that they often work between eight (8) and twenty four (24) hours of overtime
per week; predominantly the overtime worked is voluntary. Several staff state there is a
maximum of 24 hours of overtime per week allowed; anything over that would require approval
from Warden Phillips. The majority of staff interviewed shared that they are happy for the
opportunity to work overtime to supplement their pay.
During the pay periods noted, the following staff worked in excess of 48 hours overtime:
Pay Period Ending:
5/10/15
5/24/15
6/7/15
7/19/15

Staff and Hours of OT worked, in excess of 48 hrs:
Tandler 56.5, Gracey 60.5, Baldwin 61.0
Ceron 49.5, Tandler 64.75, Daniels 53.5, Mahana 59.75
Tandler 49.5, Gracey 54.75, Baldwin 66.75
Tandler 49.75

9

Posts are typically fully staffed without collapsing of posts. Overtime is used to fill vacant posts
on the roster. If a post needs to be collapsed in order to provide staffing for an emergency
medical transport, staff are called in from home to fill the collapsed post.
Key Findings
•

DART equipment does not include helmets for individual team members. [Violation of
DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan, operational concern]

•

GEO Warden and Assistant Warden have not attended all required NIMS courses.
[Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education,]

•

GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]

•

There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of DO
706, Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

The facility Emergency Response Plan Annex for Disturbance/Riot refers to
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT)
This Annex has not been adapted to the Phoenix West facility.
[Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•
. [Operational concern and sound correctional practice]

10

OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
ASP-Phoenix West presented a clean and well cared for image in the Administration areas. The
Administration and hallways had been freshly painted. The staff were welcoming and
professional. The ingress procedure was not to standard and team members were not thoroughly
searched. This was corrected and improved for the rest of the visit. As noted in the May 2015,
GAR, GEO staff did not conduct proper ingress on two DOC staff (GEO/Phx. West May 2015,
GAR Searches, Exhibit #8) The Case Manager’s offices as well as officer stations appeared neat
and orderly.
The unit was clean and this continued on into the inmate areas as sanitation was generally
satisfactory throughout the tour. Inmate compliance with housing regulations was lacking.
Towels were tied to bunks to create partitions and block the view. Finished hobby craft items
were on display in inmate cubicles and there were some pictures of scantily dressed females
visible throughout the dorms. Inmates were sharing cable connections to receive television
signals not associated with the inmate TV system. Inmates were witnessed without shirts and
wearing beanies. The bunk areas do not have bulletin boards and there was not a clear directive
or photograph to show what an acceptable living area should look like. There were a large
number of inmates still asleep at the time of the tour, 0900 hours, and it appeared there was an
overall appearance of idleness among the inmate population. Warden Phillips stated he did not
have enough jobs for every inmate and this was evident. The living areas and hallways were full
of inmates not involved in programming, work, or scheduled activities. Interaction with the
inmates was good, they responded politely when spoken to and did not present a negative
demeanor.
The living areas are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in Dorms 1 and 2.
Portable evaporative coolers were observed in these areas. There were active measures being
taken to cool down the warmer areas.
The inmate population stated they had continuous access to the Phoenix West Administration
and they were very pleased with how they were being treated. Inmates were positive about the
food and visitation. While observing a meal it was witnessed that inmates were integrated in the
chow hall with no issues noted.
Officers were in the Officers Stations when the assessment team arrived, however, they greeted
and walked with the team, but were not seen already on the floor engaging inmates. The officers
were professional and pleasant to interact with.

11

Constituent Services:
A review of complaints from constituent services would indicate that ASP-Phoenix West is
within ADC standards and comparable to other ADC units of its size and custody level.
(GEO/Phx West FY 2015 Constituent Services Report, Exhibit #9)
Disciplinary:
There was a significant increase in the number of inmate disciplinary violation reports compared
to the past three years. The current trend projects an increase of 80% for Calendar Year 2015
when compared to Year 2014. Over 61% of the inmate disciplinary violations identified below
appear to be inmate behavior that can be potentially mitigated through one-on-one counseling.
Inmate disciplinary violation reports issued in Year 2012, Year 2013 and Year 2014 were
respectively 595, 678 and 715. Year over year for 2012 and 2013, there was an increase of 14%
in inmate discipline. For 2013 and 2014, there was an increase of 5% in inmate discipline year
over year. As of 08/17/2015, there were 804 inmate disciplinary violation reports issued. At the
current trend, Year 2015 inmate disciplinary violation reports issued is projected to increase 80%
when compared to Year 2014. (GEO/Phx. West 2012, 2013, and 2014 Year to Date Discipline
AIMS Print Out, Exhibit #10) As of 08/17/2015 for Year 2015, 61.55% of inmate disciplinary
violation reports issued consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

01B - Aggravated Refusal (17.04%)
11B - Disrupt Count (22.51%)
25B - Disobey Directive (13.06%)
04C - Disrespect to Staff (1.49%)
05C - Violating Grooming (2.61%)
20B - Obstructing Staff (2.24%)
36B - Violating Department Instruction (2.24%)

As of 08/17/2015, inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

77 guilty major verdicts
405 guilty minor verdicts
165 informally resolved inmate disciplines
152 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts
5 pending

Grievances:
The number of formal inmate grievances filed at Phoenix West totaled six so far for calendar
year 2015. These numbers are within the average range when compared to similar custody ADC
units (ASPC-Winslow, Apache Unit and ASPC-Lewis Eagle Point/Sunrise Unit) on a per capita
12

basis. Inmate Personal Property was the main grievance issue at Phoenix West, which is
common. (GEO/Phx. West, ASP-Phoenix West Grievance Logs, ASPC Lewis – Eagle Point
Grievance Logs, and ASPC Winslow – Apache Grievance logs, Exhibit #11)
Classification:
A review of the classification actions with the general population inmates at Phoenix West
indicates that all classification actions are within time frames with the exception of one inmate.
(GEO/Phx. West Phoenix West AIMS Classification Print Out, Exhibit #12)
Detention:
ASP-Phoenix West detention unit holds up to 19 inmates. Currently there are only three inmates
in detention cells. Two inmates are pending reclassification to medium custody (felony detainer
holds) and one inmate is pending discipline for staff conflict. Six (6) inmates were improperly
classified or had classification actions that were not actively followed up to facilitate movement
from detention to a general population facility. The ADC COIII is responsible for the
classification actions for inmates assigned to detention. Noted in January 2015 GAR ‘Detention’
finding #5 shows five inmates not properly logged in the detention report. (GEO/Phx. West
January 2015, GAR Detention, Exhibit #13) The inmates housed in detention reported they
were very content with how they were being treated. The detention inmates stated they see the
Captain, Warden, Shift Commanders, and Program Officers on a regular basis, and they receive
recreation and showers on a regular basis. (GEO/Phx. West Individual Inmate Detention
Records, Exhibit #14)
Visitation:
Visitation at Phoenix West is higher when compared to a similar ADC Unit. For the month of
July, 2015, AIMS indicates there were 980 adult and minor visitors. ASPC-Lewis, Eagle
Point/Sunrise visitation for the month of July was 284. With a population difference 262 more
inmates at Phoenix West that equals a 40% higher visitation rate. There are many contributing
factors to the high visitation numbers. The location of the prison, many first time convictions
and it is a low level DUI unit. (GEO/Phx. West, Visitation Summary: ASP Phoenix West &
ASPC Lewis Eagle Point, Exhibit #15)
Inmate Programs
Education:
ASP-Phoenix West has two mandatory literacy classes and one GED class for students less than
twenty two years of age. There are currently no students less than twenty two years old enrolled
in GED.
13

ASP-Phoenix West also has a work at home GED course that is mandatory for any inmate
assigned to an offsite work crew. The teacher is available in the afternoon for tutoring and
questions. Current enrollment in Functional Literacy 18 and GED is 51 inmates. (GEO/Phx.
West, Capacity Report, Exhibit #16)
Career Technical Education (CTE)
ASP-Phoenix West does not have a CTE program. When asked why not, it was stated that it is
not identified in the contract.
Substance Abuse Programs – Case Manager Programs
ASP-Phoenix West provides substance abuse counseling to all inmates assigned to the facility;
all inmates at Phoenix West are minimum custody and are serving DUI sentences. Per the
contract all inmates must attend a minimum of five hours per week of substance abuse treatment
and/or education classes for the duration of their stay.
The program consists of a statutorily mandated 36 hour curriculum (referred to as levels 1 &2)
covering DUI treatment (20 hours) and education (16 hours). Each inmate is assigned to the
levels classes within 1 – 2 weeks of arrival at the facility.
Once completed with the levels curriculum inmates are then assigned to additional classes
covering the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Basic Alcohol and Drug History
Cognitive Restructuring
Family Dynamics
Non-Violent Communications
Decision Making / Stress Reduction
Parenting
Positive Relationships / Support Systems
Relapse Prevention / Coping

Each class is five weeks in length. When an inmate is 5-6 weeks from release they are placed in
a Pre-Release class.
The total amount of substance abuse programming the inmate receives depends on his sentence
length. A large number of inmates assigned to Phoenix West are serving four month sentences
as a condition of probation; others are serving up to five years. All of the substance abuse
programs are taught by a licensed counselor.

14

Case managers teach Thinking for a Change and re-entry programs. The inmates are assigned
based on their order of placement on the priority ranking report.
Case Managers also conduct office hours and are available daily to the inmate population. When
walking amongst the inmate population one does not receive a lot of questions regarding case
management issues. This is indicative of being able to meet with a case manager regularly.
Reviews of classes show the counselors and case managers are actively teaching and engaging
the inmates during class. (GEO/Phx. West, Capacity Report, Exhibit #16)
Religious Services:
ASP-Phoenix West provides a number of religious program services. They provide an
Alcoholics Anonymous program that is religious based. The religious services calendar
indicates a wide range of programs and services for various religious groups showing a service
or meeting everyday with the exception of the 1st and 3rd Friday of the month. (GEO/Phx. West,
Religious Services Calendar, Exhibit #17)
Library Operations:
The library is open five days a week for five hours a day. The schedule rotates from the morning
to the afternoon to ensure that inmates assigned to offsite work crews have the opportunity to
visit the lending library. In addition to the books on the shelf the librarian has also partnered
with the Phoenix Public Library to allow inmates to check out books from there as well.
(GEO/Phx. West, Library Pamphlet, Exhibit #18)
Work Opportunities:
ASP-Phoenix West has a maximum population of 500 inmates and a current population of 485
inmates. There are three types of jobs available to the inmates at Phoenix West: Arizona
Correctional Industries (ACI) employs 10 inmates, Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA)
employs 109 inmates, and Work Incentive Pay Plan (WIPP) employs 254 inmates. Of those 254
inmates, 91 are employed as either a building porter or a porter for programs, visitation, clothing
or other. Total employed inmates are 373 at the unit which is a 70% rate of employment.
When comparing the racial breakdown of the unit versus that of inmates working there is no
more than a 2% difference in any race, indicating that jobs are shared equally by racial
composition. (GEO/Phx. West, Phoenix West Capacity Report, Exhibit #16)
Structured Recreation:
An effective management tool for correctional administrators when they are challenged with
keeping inmates occupied and engaged if meaningful jobs are lacking is to provide an ample
amount of recreational activities in both active and passive formats. Phoenix West has a full time
15

recreation coordinator who is present Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM. He has
scheduled recreation tournaments monthly and supervises the recreation field and multipurpose
room during the duty times. (GEO/Phx. West Recreation Hours of Operation and Monthly
Calendar, Exhibit #19)
Intelligence Gathering/Sharing:
ADC Special Security Unit (SSU) staff reported to the Phoenix West facility for the purpose of
assessing and determining the current culture that exists among the inmate population and GEO
staff. An initial tour of the unit was taken with Arizona Department of Corrections monitors
facilitating the tour. The tour was in the
. SSU staff toured the facility
to include the inmate living areas, common areas, education classes and the recreation yard.
During the tour several initial observations were made to include the following; a large number
of the inmate population did not appear to be engaged in any programming, education or work
assignments. Inmates' sanitation within the dorms could use some attention to detail to include
inmate grooming.
Security concerns during the initial tour include the
. These structures
. (See
Below Pictures)

The designated GEO staff members assigned to perform SSU duties were interviewed to
determine their understanding of prison dynamics, prison cultures, Security Threat Group (STG)
/Criminal Street Gang (CSG) and the Department Order (DO) 806 policy. This group consists of
. It is apparent that they had a limited understanding of the
16

STG/806 policy. GEO staff stated that they needed additional training in interviewing
techniques and additional resources that would help with intelligence gathering and analysis. The
designated GEO staff members are not assigned to full time SSU duties at the GEO facility, and
assume dual responsibilities during the course of the day.

Approximately eighty (80) inmates from throughout the inmate population, to include all races,
were interviewed regarding conditions of confinement. The following information was obtained:
inmates strongly stated that the ADC monitoring staff tours the facility daily and is available for
inmates’ issues and concerns. Inmates stated that any inmate is allowed to participate in town
hall meetings (Forums) and they are held frequently. The inmate population expressed that GEO
management and ADC monitors take a committed stance in addressing concerns before
escalating into major issues.
The inmate population stated that Warden Phillips tours the yard daily and is approachable when
they have any issues that require administrative involvement. Inmates also stated that Assistant
Warden Coday and Captain Suarez are always available and are seen very frequently among the
inmate population. Inmates state that the GEO management staff has an open door policy. They
reinforced that they feel most of their issues and concerns are successfully resolved which allows
relief for the inmate population.
Programming was a concern of the inmate population, they stated that minimal programming is
afforded to the inmate population and that vocational and ACI jobs are very limited. A racial
balance within the inmate work programs offered at the facility appears to be appropriate.
The inmate population was observed during recreation, meal turnouts, and dormitory activity. It
was witnessed that inmate prison politics are basically non-existent. This practice among the
inmate population allows for integration of the races without any negative consequences from
the established prison protocols implemented by the inmate population in other state institutions
and units. The integration of the inmate population was observed on all levels of interaction.
(Below is a picture taken of an integrated bible study group that inmates hold daily on their
own on the recreation yard.)

17

The GEO Administration with the assistance of the ADC monitors and the designated staff, who
oversee SSU duties have implemented effective practices to address inmates attempting to
become political or inmates attempting to have a negative influence on the facility. Inmates
demonstrating these types of behavior are addressed immediately. Those who fail to change their
behavior and attempt to push prison politics or try to negatively influence the inmate population
are placed in detention and issued disciplinary. This method appears to be positive in
maintaining a non-political and integrated prison facility.
During the observation of line staff assigned to the dorms, staff members were witnessed
demonstrating sound correctional practices as outlined in post orders. They were observed to be
in a state of continuous movement within the dorms providing security and engaging the inmate
population.
‘Walk and Talk’ sessions with the inmate population in the dorm setting and the recreation area
validated that inmates are complying with directives and instructions when interacting with
correctional and programming staff members. Supervisory presence during the course of the day
allowed the SSU assessors to witness successful interaction with both line staff and the inmate
population.
SSU interviews concluded that GEO line staff, supervisors and Administration are effectively
engaging the inmate population that allows for best correctional practices to benefit the ASPPhoenix West. The culture allows for the inmate population concerns and issues to be elevated
and resolved with overall satisfaction. The GEO staff has demonstrated that by implementing
sound correctional practices, the public, staff and inmates benefit from the safe, secure operation
of an institution.

18

Key Findings
•

Ingress search procedures for ADC employees not up to standards. As noted in the May,
2015, GAR, GEO staff did not conduct proper ingress on two DOC staff (Searches
finding #12). [Violation of DO 708, Searches]

•

Inmate compliance with housing regulations was lacking and required greater attention to
detail. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

There were a large number of inmates still asleep at the time of the tour, 0900 hours, and
it appeared there was an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate population. The
living areas and hallways were full of inmates not involved in programming, work, or
scheduled activities.[Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern,
sound correctional practices]

•

The living areas are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in Dorms 1
and 2. Portable evaporative coolers were observed in Dorms 1 and 2.[Operational
Concern]

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Noted in January
2015 GAR ‘Detention’ finding #5 shows five inmates not properly logged in the
detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification, and Classification
Technical Manual]

•

.
[Operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

Assigned private prison staff self-report limited understanding of intelligence-gathering,
Security Threat Groups, and related subjects. [Operational concern, sound correctional
practices]

19

OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training
The following is a summary of the Assessment Team’s review of staff training to include preservice, in-service and specialized courses for TSU, DART, and Emergency Management
(NIMS). Team members interviewed training staff, examined class rosters, course curricula, and
a multitude of training-related documents to better understand the learning process at ASPPhoenix West. (GEO/Phx. West, FY2015 Annual Training Plan, Exhibit #20)
Training was found to be deficient in some areas. Phoenix West had reduced or failed to conduct
some of the classes required by ADC, both pre-service and in-service. Also the senior firearms
instructor received an unsatisfactory rating during a recertification evaluation. This brings into
question the validity and quality of the senior firearms instructor’s provided lessons.
In-Service Training:
A sample of three months of in-service rosters and FY15 spreadsheet of in-service training were
reviewed, no findings of noncompliance were found. On July 22, 2015 Deputy Warden Adam
Bradley, ADC Monitor conducted an audit and found that 99% of staff had completed the
required annual training. One employee did not attend Self-Defense during the training year and
12 staff had not completed required NIMS training. The deficiencies were corrected by GEO.
(GEO/Phx. West, Phx West In-service training audit DW Bradley and Phx. West response,
Exhibit #5)
A review of rosters indicated that Supervisor Essentials FY 2015 training was completed for all
assigned supervisors.
A review of firearms rosters for May 2015, June 2015, and July 2015 was completed with no
discrepancies found. ADC Monitor Captain Fernandez reported that he had observed firearms
training on at least three occasions and witnessed poor communications among instructors and
students. Further inquiries of instructor credentials revealed annual firearms instructor
evaluations had not been completed. During the FY 2015 Annual Facility Inspection, 12/18/14,
Phoenix West was cited for not having current evaluation for the Senior Firearms Instructor. The
last evaluation on file is for 2012. Captain Fernandez scheduled an onsite evaluation by an ADC
Senior Firearms Instructor from ASPC-Phoenix. The Senior Firearms Instructor (Owens)
received an Unsatisfactory/Noncompliance Evaluation which was conducted on 8/11/2015
(GEO/Phx. West, Phx West Firearms Instructor Evaluation for Recertification, Exhibit #21)
Designated Armed Response Team (DART):
A review of reports for May, June, July reveal DART drills were completed on each shift, once
per month.

20

A DART response drill was conducted for the purpose of assessment team evaluation: The
DART responded without protective head gear (helmets), although not specifically required in
ADC policy, ADC’s DART for Supervisors 2015 lesson plan shows a riot helmet as minimum
safety equipment. ASP-Phoenix West is in process of purchasing helmets. DART response time
was
. DART responders were called into a briefing room for approximately
two minutes for a briefing on use of force. Individual DART responders were asked what
munitions they were carrying and how they would deploy each type of munition. Each DART
responder was asked specifically how they would deploy the munitions they were carrying
(target areas). Staff answered incorrectly in each instance. The DART leader said he would not
believing that he could not ensure the safety of staff and weapons. (GEO/Phx.
West, DART Training Lesson Plan dated 04-19-2005 *Restricted, Exhibit #22), (DART for
Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit #23), (Department Order 706, Incident
Management *Restricted, Exhibit #24) Command and General Staff assignments were made
the drill. Staff accountability was initiated at approximately
and
completed at approximately
.
Training Officer Beamer was asked if the DART for Supervisors 2015 course was being taught.
It was discovered that the old version of DART for Supervisors was taught in FY 2015.
(GEO/Phx. West, DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit #23) Training
Officer Beamer stated the new version will be presented as soon as possible.
Pre-Service Training:
A review of the training curriculum for GEO’s Correctional Officer Training Academy was
compared with the curriculum of ADC’s Correctional Officer Training Academy. Three GEO
academy class rosters were compared with the ADC pre-service 280-hour academy matrix. The
review showed the training for GEO is significantly shorter primarily in the areas of Use of
Force, and Transportation and Restraints. Disparities in other critical classes were also
discovered. ADC has determined that Crisis Intervention is a critical course and it is to be
instructed only by Grade 20 personnel (Captain or COIV) or above. ADC spends 13 contact
hours with this course instructing cadets in conflict resolution, non-violent crisis intervention,
and professional staff/inmate communications. It is taught through lesson delivery and scenariobased learning. GEO delivers the course in 9 hours, notably shorter than ADC. When Training
Officer Beamer was questioned about the discrepancies in required training, he stated that some
disparities are due to class size of often ten or fewer cadets as compared to ADC’s thirty plus
cadet sized classes. (GEO/Phx. West, ADC/GEO Pre-Service Training Hours Comparison,
Exhibit #25) Due to the noted disparities in pre-service training, GEO failed to meet their
contractual obligation by not teaching the approved COTA curriculum.
Three pre-service classes were observed unannounced. In each instance, an ADC lesson plan and
slide show was observed being used and content was well presented.
21

As part of ADC Pre-Service training, a Field Training Officer Program (FTO) is in place to
afford cadets and newly graduated officers an opportunity to be mentored by a specially selected,
experienced officer. The assessment confirmed that GEO does conduct a Field Training Officer
Program (FTO) as part of pre-service training (GEO/Phx. West, GEO FTO Rosters, Exhibit
#26)
Tactical Support Unit:
The Phoenix West facility
(GEO/Phx. West, Phoenix
West/ADC Tactical Support Agreement, Exhibit #27)
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training:
Three security supervisors have not completed NIMS 200, two administrators have not
completed MAG 300 and three administrators have not completed MAG 400. (GEO/Phx. West,
Phoenix West NIMS completion, Exhibit #28) Warden Phillips, Assistant Warden Coday,
Assistant Warden LeValley, and Captain Suarez were asked if they have completed ICS 300
training. AW Coday and Captain Suarez stated they have both completed ICS 300 and 400.
Warden Phillips and AW LeValley stated they have not completed ICS 300 or 400 training.
Captains, Assistant Wardens, and Wardens should have completed at least ICS 300. This course
is only offered in a classroom setting. Warden Phillips and AW LeValley stated they have plans
to complete ICS 300 and 400 courses the next time they are afforded the opportunity.
Munitions Comparison:
A comparison of less than lethal munitions at Phoenix West was compared to ASPC-Winslow,
Apache Unit due to like custody level and population size. In each category except CS grenades,
Phoenix West had fewer munitions on hand than Apache Unit. There are currently no minimum
standards established for munitions inventories within ADC. (GEO/Phx. West, ADC Private
Prisons, Munitions Comparisons, Exhibit #29)
Overall, the training programs at ASP-Phoenix West appear to require greater management
oversight.
Key Findings
•

GEO failed to deliver some in-service supervisory classes by not utilizing the current
lesson plan, and in other cases made unauthorized reductions in classroom hours for
certain pre-service training courses.[Violations of Contract #010039DC, Sections 3.10,
Governing Law/Department Written Instructions; 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff
Training; 4.29, Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education,
operational concern, sound correctional practices]
22

•

COTA cadets receive 13 contact hours of crisis intervention training; GEO academy
cadets receive 9 hours. This is noncompliant with COTA curriculum. [Violation of
Contract #010039DC Section 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff Training; 4.29, Staff
Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational concern,
sound correctional practices]

•

GEO Supervisors were not trained with the current DART for Supervisors lesson plan.
Violation of Contract #010039DC Section 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff Training;
4.29, Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational
concern, sound correctional practices]

•

DART equipment does not include helmets for individual team members. [Violation of
DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan, identified in Objective #1, operational concern]

•

DART members could not correctly identify how to deploy assigned munitions.
[Violation of DART Training Lesson Plan, operational concern]

•

Five (5) supervisory staff including GEO Warden and Assistant Warden have not
attended all required NIMS courses. [Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO
509, Employee Training and Education, identified in Objective #1]

•

Firearms instructors were reported to use poor communications with class participants.
Annual firearms instructor evaluations had not been completed for the firearms
instructors. During the FY 2015 Annual Facility Inspection, 12/18/14, Phoenix West was
cited for not having current evaluation for the Senior Firearms Instructor. The last
evaluation on file is for 2012.The Phoenix West Senior Firearms Instructor received an
Unsatisfactory/Noncompliance Evaluation from the ASPC-Phoenix Senior Firearms
Instructor on 08/11/2015. [Violation of DO 510, Firearms Qualification/Firearms
Instructor Certification, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

23

Objective 4 – ADC Monitoring Team
This segment encompasses a review of duties and functions of the on-site ADC staff assigned to
monitor the operations of ASP-Phoenix West staff and bridge the relationship between the
Department and ASP-Phoenix West.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs a cadre of full-time staff to monitor contract
compliance of contracted prison facilities. The ADC Monitoring Team is comprised of:
Tara Diaz, Contract Beds Operations Director (oversees monitoring of all contract bed facilities)
Ron Credio, Contract Beds Deputy Bureau Administrator (oversees monitoring of all contract
bed facilities)
ASP-Phoenix West Monitoring Team
Adam Bradley, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor
Barry Fernandez, Captain, Disciplinary Coordinator, Monitor
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer (Assigned to Central Office- visits Phoenix
West)
Kairu Washington, CO III, Programs Monitor
The ADC Assessment Team reviewed the contract for GEO and the scope of work within
Department Order #106, Contract Beds, and Department Order #703, Security/Facility
Inspections for the bureau and assigned monitors.
The ADC monitors were interviewed and their performance was reviewed. The assessment also
included a review of the current contract, discussions with GEO staff, operational observations,
and document checks. After reviewing DO 703 GAR (Green-Amber-Red) inspection reports,
audit results, monthly reports, inmate disciplinary findings and classification decisions, the
assessment team determined the following:
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on the
policy. They are conducting their required monthly tours based on a review of submitted DO 703
reports (GEO/Phx. West ADC 703 Reports, Exhibit #30) The ADC Monitoring Team completes
their GAR and DO 703 monthly inspections appropriately. This is evident through GAR
inspection results, tour inspections reports and observations. GAR inspections and prison tours
are conducted to monitor the specific security operations and security devices at a prison unit and
ensure that they remain in good working condition, and that supervisory and other management
personnel conduct regular inspections and tours. The monitor team is known to the staff and the
24

inmate population. They tour frequently and conduct regular GAR inspections. There are a
significant number of GAR findings most months.
These tools (GAR, tours/inspections) do not ‘monitor’ the culture of a prison unit, to include the
interactions between inmates and staff, and the attitudes of each group. GAR inspections do not
ask questions about the quality or quantity of staff training, or how often officers see their
supervisors on the yard. To properly assess the culture of a prison unit, one needs to speak with
staff and inmates at length and observe their interactions. In depth town hall meetings (Forums)
with inmates should be observed routinely and the attitudes of both staff and inmates noted.
Given the small size of this facility, ADC monitors have been able to be involved more in-depth
with these listed activities.
The ADC Monitoring Team has established a process of addressing issues on the spot and
working with the GEO Administrators to correct them. DW Bradley monitors GAR corrective
action plans (CAPs) and at this time there are none pending. The assessment team noted no
delays in CAPs follow-up.
The team meets timeframes for the majority of their mandatory oversight and decision making
on the high volume of inmate actions (classification, disciplinary, visitation, releases,
correspondence, etc.) and contractor clearances. Six (6) inmates were improperly classified or
had classification actions that were not actively followed up to facilitate movement from
detention to a general population facility. Noted in January 2015 GAR ‘Detention’ finding #5
shows five inmates not properly logged in the detention report.
ADC monitors report that generally there is open communication between the GEO staff and
ADC Monitoring Team. When asked if he felt that staff has been advised not to talk to the
monitors, Captain Fernandez replied, “Sometimes, when we GAR a lot, it happens. It goes back
and forth. A couple of staff here told us ‘we can’t talk to you’ but again, this was during the high
GAR month.” He said it has gotten better. GEO employees did not share any information with
the assessment team that would indicate that they were told it was frowned upon to speak to
ADC staff.
ADC Lead Monitor DW Bradley reported he has been monitoring in-service training. He
advised that he monitors percentage of completion of required courses and advised GEO
management of their training percentages in June. He said they improved them by the end of the
training year. He reports that Phoenix West completed the training year at 99% with one officer
who did not complete self-defense training. DW Bradley stated that Captain Fernandez teaches
Inmate Discipline at Phoenix West. Monitoring the quality of instruction, the compliance with
curriculum requirements, and the overall GEO approach to training is not included in written
instructions to the monitoring team and is not currently within the scope of their responsibility.
25

Additionally, the ADC Annual Inspection report, compiled by the Inspections Unit, only reports
on findings of completed training.
The Contract Beds Monitoring Team members were interviewed separately.
Deputy Warden Adam Bradley
DW Adam Bradley was interviewed on August 18, 2015. He has been assigned as the ADC Lead
Monitor over the GEO operated Phoenix West and MTC operated Marana facilities for over six
months. He has 18 years experience with the Department. He stated that he has a copy of the
contract and refers to it as needed. The contract for GEO is a separate contract from that of MTC.
He attended monitor training and was explained the expectations of the position upon
assignment.
DW Bradley was asked to detail his duties as a monitor and to describe his role. He stated that he
supervises the monitor team and is a member. He is a mediator between the team and private
prison management. He tours, monitors, conducts GAR inspections, reviews for policy and
contract compliance. He oversees most areas of the facility.
DW Bradley was asked if he observed training and monitored training percentages. He stated he
does. When asked if he was monitoring these prior to the Kingman riots, he stated that he was.
He advised GEO management of their completed training percentages in June and they improved
them by the end of the training year. He reports that ASP-Phoenix West completed the training
year at 99% with one officer who did not complete self-defense. Bradley stated that Captain
Fernandez also teaches Inmate Discipline at Phoenix West.
DW Bradley reports that his relationship with the management team is professional. He interacts
well with the Warden and AWs. GAR was discussed and the fact that the monitor team enters a
high number of GAR findings. He acknowledged that they do but that they report what they find.
He said that at first this was causing an issue with the GEO management team. It was a bit of an
‘us versus them’ situation when the team entered 54 GAR findings in the month of April, 2015.
There is an ebb and flow to the GAR findings and it has been worked out. There were only 13
GAR findings in July but this was the month when DW Bradley was in Kingman and on annual
leave. He reported there is no quota for GAR findings and that the team gives warnings and uses
findings as teachable moments. He said that at times his COIII can get excited about GAR
findings and he is working with him to always be professional. When advised that Captain
Fernandez had stated that GEO retaliated with issuing inmate tickets when the GAR findings
were high, Bradley acknowledged this and said that this has been resolved. When the possible
need for a clerical position was discussed, DW Bradley said the workloads were not excessive
and were very manageable. DW Bradley reported that Phoenix West is current on GAR
corrective action plans.
26

DW Bradley reports that when he finds issues or when there are concerns he reports them to
DBA Ron Credio and/or CBOD Tara Diaz. He said that Ron Credio is who he goes to for
clarification on issues. He also said that he communicates and reviews issues with Warden
Phillips. He reports low level issues directly to the Warden. For example he has worked with him
for issues with the performance of Captain Suarez and the Captain has improved his performance
significantly.
DW Bradley splits his time between Marana and Phoenix West. He determines his schedule by
need and it is not a set schedule. He attends the morning briefing of the facility he is at. He
attends the Phoenix West detention meeting when he can and does not typically attend the
weekly Intel meeting but the Captain does.
DW Bradley splits his graveyard tours between the two facilities but does occasionally do more
than one per month at each. He monitors ingress/egress, crew turnouts, kitchens, and overall unit
operation on these tours. He is required to tour all offsite work crews one time per quarter and
the Captain is required to tour them monthly. DW Bradley stated that he had not been ensuring
that the Wardens complete their required meetings but he is now doing so. Due to the size of the
facilities he feels that he and his team have the ability to know the staff and inmates, and pick up
on inmate and staff morale issues and the culture of the units.
When advised that only one of the two team members goes to the morning meeting at Phoenix
West, DW Bradley stated that he knew this and that he agreed with that procedure. He said that
when he is at Phoenix West, only he goes to the meeting. By only one team member attending
he feels that it alleviates the possibility of the management team feeling ‘ganged up on’ or for an
‘us versus them’ impression. He also said that by not having both attend the meeting, one of his
team can be working while the other attends the daily briefing. Bradley stated that his goal is that
there are always two of the three team members on site. He is building a cooperative relationship
with the management team. When advised that the captain and COIII do not reconcile the daily
incident reports in order to know that they have reviewed all of them, DW Bradley stated that he
will implement this.
DW Bradley stated that he is notified of all significant issues, all SIRs, and anything urgent. He
stated that he typically gets a call from his COIII or Captain first and then GEO management
contacts him.
Captain Barry Fernandez
Captain Barry Fernandez was a Captain for one year before his assignment to Phoenix West as a
monitor. He has been at this assignment for one year and four months. He has a copy of the
contract and has attended monitor training. He understands the expectations of a monitor.

27

Captain Fernandez described his duties and his role by saying that he is the Disciplinary
Coordinator and that he monitors for contract compliance. He conducts GAR inspections and
also notifies the management team of issues by email correspondence. He tours off-site work
crews one time per month, or more. He assists at Kingman as needed and he covers for Captain
Kraatz as needed. He said that he acts as a mentor for the GEO staff and that he teaches them
how ADC does things. He acts as a mediator between inmates and GEO staff when inmates
bring issues to him. He discussed how he handled two recent issues with an inmate’s property
and the lack of boots. He advises that he addresses issues verbally, by email, through GAR and
in the morning meetings. He also reports issues to DW Bradley.
Captain Fernandez reported that typically DW Bradley is on site two days per week. When there
are issues he reports them right away to Bradley and to Warden Phillips. He follows his chain of
command and is comfortable taking issues to Warden Phillips. There was a time when the AWs
were upset about the number of GAR findings. There were about 35 in one month, he thinks it
was April. They were touring more to get DW Bradley acquainted with the facility and they did
GAR findings for issues they found. For the most part, DW Bradley follows up on the GAR
corrective action plans. He said that when he enters a GAR finding, he goes back the next month
and checks the area again to verify that it was corrected. If it has not been he does another GAR
finding and will enter a Red GAR finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. He stated that
Red GAR findings are effective.
Captain Fernandez stated that most of the other monitoring teams have secretaries who enter the
disciplinary tickets. We discussed this as Phoenix West is a small facility and the workload is
reasonable. Fernandez said it is, but when the monitoring team enters a lot of GAR findings the
facility retaliates with a lot of tickets issued to inmates. He said he gets stacks of tickets and the
mood changes. He said it gets less friendly and not as professional. When asked to give an
example, he said that it does not get unprofessional, it is just different. He said that it is better
now. The management team has gotten to know DW Bradley and it has improved. When asked
if he had reported this to DW Bradley he said he had and that Bradley said “you knew that was
going to happen” and it will get better. Captain Kraatz came and assisted with the tickets and
things are better now.
Captain Fernandez typically takes the DO 703 tour form with him on formal tours. He talks to
officers and checks on them and their uniform compliance. He typically comes in at 0400 or a
little earlier for a graveyard tour. He monitors ingress/egress, count, kitchen, work crew turnouts,
pat downs, boots, escape flyers, talks to staff and more. On his informal tours he walks around
and checks on staff and checks on different areas. When he has a GAR finding he discusses it
with the Warden and advises DW Bradley.
When asked if he felt that staff has been advised not to talk to the monitors, he replied,
“Sometimes. When we GAR a lot, it happens. It goes back and forth. A couple of staff here have
28

told us ‘we can’t talk to you’ but again this was during the high GAR month. It has gotten
better.” Fernandez said, “DW White resolved issues more informally. DW Bradley is more
formal, more GAR, but now it is better.” The officers talk to him (Fernandez); he gets calls and
they bring him issues. He refers them to their Human Resources staff etc. Staff also talk to him
about working for ADC. When asked if he feels he can assess staff morale, he stated he can. It is
good but they do talk to him about pay. When advised of the officer who said that GEO cannot
give raises because of giving ADC 100 beds, Fernandez said he has never heard an officer talk
about that but Warden Phillips does.
Captain Fernandez said that he has witnessed programs meetings with the case managers but he
had not been monitoring to see if the Management team was compliant with ADC policy on staff
meetings.
Captain Fernandez stated there were some issues with how Captain Suarez talked to inmates. He
addressed the issue and later some inmates thanked him. He said that Suarez is doing much
better. He reported that Phoenix West averages about 100 tickets per month and the majority are
for failing to show up for work and/or being out of place.
Captain Fernandez stated that he does not work weekend duty but that on occasion he does come
in. COIII Washington just came in for the last food visit. When advised that a couple of inmates
had mentioned that the visitation area is small and frequently runs out of tables, Fernandez said
this has not been documented by incident reports and he was not aware of any issues. Note: DW
Bradley investigated this issue and the visitation area runs out of tables infrequently and
visitation policy is followed when this occurs.
Captain Adam Kraatz
Captain Adam Kraatz is the Contract Beds Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO). He works out of
Central Office and covers all facilities as the relief captain. He has been with Contract Beds for
1.5 years and promoted into the position. He does not have copies of the contracts as he would
need all and he has access to all of them at Central Office. When Kingman had a captain
vacancy he used to cover as their DHO. His duties are: DHO for Marana, Phoenix West,
Florence West, CACF, and Red Rock. He travels to Kingman one time per month to assist.
Captain Kraatz sets the schedule for the contract beds pre-audits. He views his role as: Contract
beds is all one team, we work for the success of all. Inmate Disciplinary is his primary role,
although he assesses everywhere while he tours and as he walks to and from disciplinary offices.
He pays attention to what is going on. If he finds any issues, he debriefs with the private prison
Warden and the ADC Deputy Warden. He talks to staff and said that sometimes supervisors will
hide issues or cover things up but not the officers, they talk to him. They will tell him if
something is broken or if they need a key to somewhere.
29

Captain Kraatz starts his day at Central Office where he checks his email and mail and then
heads out to whichever facility needs his coverage that day. He does not typically attend facility
meetings, but if he is covering for a Captain he does attend. He addresses issues on the spot when
warranted and raises them up to DBA Ron Credio and CBOD Tara Diaz as needed.
CO III Kairu Washington
COIII Kairu Washington was interviewed concerning his role as a monitor at ASP-Phoenix
West. COIII Washington has been a monitor at ASP-Phoenix West for approximately four (4)
months. He attended monitor training facilitated by CBOD Tara Diaz and DBA Ron Credio. He
keeps a copy of the contract in his office and refers to it when necessary. COIII Washington was
asked about his role as an ADC monitor. He stated that he is responsible for ensuring the
contractor is aware of policy requirements, a program manager for inmate programs and
reclassification, and he works with Captain Fernandez to complete the monthly GAR inspection
report. He tours the unit several times per week, monitoring the GEO line staff, reporting
infractions to their supervisors when necessary, or speaks one-on-one with the staff member to
correct minor findings. COIII Washington or Captain Fernandez attends the daily Warden’s
meeting ensuring ADC is represented. He also attends the weekly detention meeting with
Captains Fernandez and Suarez (GEO), Warden Phillips, and the Assistant Wardens. COIII
Washington was asked how he reports concerns to his supervisor and to the GEO
Administrators. He stated he will complete the GAR inspection report, send emails, or speak
with staff directly. When asked about his working relationship with GEO staff he stated they
have a good working relationship and things continue to improve. He noted a high level of GEO
supervisor and administrator engagement with the ADC Monitors and with their line staff.
COIII Washington was asked about how he reports concerns with GEO Administrators. He
stated he will bring his concerns to the attention of Deputy Warden Bradley to address. COIII
Washington said overall there is a good working relationship between the GEO Group and the
ADC Monitor team at ASP-Phoenix West, with open lines of communication between the two.
Summary
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on
what is required in DO #106. They are conducting their required monthly tours and they
complete their GAR inspections appropriately. ADC Monitors conduct detailed GAR
inspections, complete required paperwork, tours and inspections, and are determining if GEO
meets their contractual obligations and requirements. They are not monitoring pre-service
training nor GEO employee discipline. The workload for the ADC Monitoring Team at Phoenix
West is significantly less than the workload of the ADC Monitoring Team assigned to ASPKingman. This allows them to tour more frequently and to interact in a manner that affords them
the opportunity to assess staff and inmate morale and the facility culture. The ADC Monitoring
Team is well known to GEO management and officers.
30

GEO management reports that the transition to each new monitor can be difficult and requires an
adjustment period. However, the GEO management team and the ADC Monitoring Team have
been able to communicate and develop a professional working relationship.
Key Findings
•

The ADC ASP-Phoenix West monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

The team had some lapses in timeframes on detention unit-related disciplinary and
classification. Six (6) inmates were improperly classified or had classification actions that
were not actively followed up to facilitate movement from detention to a general
population facility. Noted in January 2015 GAR ‘Detention’ finding #5 shows five
inmates not properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 803, Inmate
Disciplinary Procedure, and DO 801, Inmate Classification]

•

The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements.
[Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]
The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

•

Key Findings, listed by Objective
The following comprises a recap of all key findings associated with narratives contained in the
four (4) Objectives described in this report, as sorted by Objective. Per Contract 010039DC,
GEO shall follow all applicable Department Orders and Director’s Instructions, and only
findings associated with ADC policies that are applicable to GEO have been listed herein. Thus,
any violation of applicable ADC policy also constitutes a violation of Contract 010039DC.
Moreover, per the contract, GEO will ensure the compliance and performance of ADC policies
and directives, and correct any deficiencies.
FINDINGS
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff (page 9-10)
•

DART equipment does not include helmets for individual team members. [Violation of
DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan, operational concern]

31

•

•

GEO Warden and Assistant Warden have not attended all required NIMS courses.
[Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education, ]
GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]

•

There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of DO
706, Incident Management, Operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

The facility Emergency Response Plan Annex for Disturbance/Riot refers to
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT)
.
This Annex has not been adapted to the Phoenix West facility.
[Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
(page 18-19)
•

Ingress search procedures for ADC employees not up to standards. As noted in the May,
2015, GAR, GEO staff did not conduct proper ingress on two DOC staff (Searches
finding #12). [Violation of DO 708, Searches]

•

Inmate compliance with housing regulations was lacking and required greater attention to
detail. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

There were a large number of inmates still asleep at the time of the tour, 0900 hours, and
it appeared there was an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate population. The
living areas and hallways were full of inmates not involved in programming, work, or
scheduled activities. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern,
sound correctional practices]

•

The living areas are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in Dorms 1
and 2. Portable evaporative coolers were observed in Dorms 1 and 2. [Operational
Concern]

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Noted in January
2015 GAR ‘Detention’ finding #5 shows five inmates not properly logged in the
detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification, and Classification
Technical Manual]

32

•

.
[Operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

Assigned private prison staff self-report limited understanding of intelligence-gathering,
Security Threat Groups, and related subjects. [Operational concern, sound correctional
practices]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training (page 22-23)
•

GEO failed to deliver some in-service supervisory classes by not utilizing the current
lesson plan, and in other cases made unauthorized reductions in classroom hours for
certain pre-service training courses. [Violations of Contract #010039DC, Sections 3.10,
Governing Law/Department Written Instructions; 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff
Training; 4.29, Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education,
operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

COTA cadets receive 13 contact hours of crisis intervention training; GEO academy
cadets receive 9 hours. This is noncompliant with COTA curriculum. [Violation of
Contract #010039DC Section 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff Training; 4.29, Staff
Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational concern,
sound correctional practices]

•

GEO Supervisors were not trained with the current DART for Supervisors lesson plan.
Violation of Contract #010039DC Section 4.6.2. Recruitment/Hiring/Staff Training;
4.29, Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational
concern, sound correctional practices]

•

DART equipment does not include helmets for individual team members. [Violation of
DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan, identified in Objective #1, operational concern]

•

DART members could not correctly identify how to deploy assigned munitions.
[Violation of DART Training Lesson Plan, operational concern]

•

Five (5) supervisory staff including GEO Warden and Assistant Warden have not
attended all required NIMS courses. [Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO
509, Employee Training and Education, identified in Objective #1]

•

Firearms instructors were reported to use poor communications with class participants.
Annual firearms instructor evaluations had not been completed for the firearms
instructors. The Senior Firearms Instructor received an Unsatisfactory/Noncompliance
Evaluation from the ASPC-Phoenix Senior Firearms Instructor on 08/11/2015. [Violation
33

of DO 510, Firearms Qualification/Firearms Instructor Certification, operational
concern, sound correctional practices]
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 4: ADC Monitoring Team (page 30-31)
•

The ADC ASP-Phoenix West monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

The team had some lapses in timeframes on detention unit-related disciplinary and
classification. Six (6) inmates were improperly classified or had classification actions that
were not actively followed up to facilitate movement from detention to a general
population facility. Noted in January 2015 GAR ‘Detention’ finding #5 shows five
inmates not properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 803, Inmate
Disciplinary Procedure, and DO 801, Inmate Classification, identified in Objective
#2]

•

The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]
The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

•

CONCLUSION
Based upon observations, reviews of available materials, inmate interviews, and staff contacts
and interviews, the Assessment Team concluded that the inmate population at ASP-Phoenix
West was satisfied with their conditions of confinement. The overall conditions within the
facility were favorable. Staff members appeared to be content with their employer (GEO).
Overall unit sanitation was acceptable. Compliance with housing regulations requires closer
attention to detail. However, due to all living spaces being doubled bunked with very little
storage space, inmate living areas will appear cluttered.
The DART response was lacking in knowledge by both team members and supervisory staff.
The DART could use additional drills to strengthen their knowledge of DART protocols. GEO
management is also apprehensive about
Pre-service and in-service training requires follow-up attention to bring the
training programs into contract and policy compliance

34

Overall, ASP-Phoenix West presents a well groomed image. The relationship amongst the ADC
Monitor Team, GEO management, line staff members, and inmates is positive.

35

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
MARANA COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY
Operated by
MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORPORATION (MTC)
OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of MTC Leadership and Staff
The Assessment Team evaluated the staff and leadership of ASP-Marana (MTC), to include
strengths and weaknesses, communications, decision making, and overall effectiveness in
operations of the prison.
Members of the ADC assessment team engaged in direct observation of unit management and
operational practices for three (3) days. They conducted over fifty-four (54) interviews with
MTC staff and interviewed over ninety (90) inmates. Interviews were conducted with the
majority of officers, sergeants, lieutenants, inmate banking staff, and human resources staff.
MTC staff members were candid in their responses to the assessors.
From the interviews conducted with staff, very few concerns were shared. Questions were asked
concerning the leadership approach of the management team. The only negative opinion voiced
is that the current rate of pay is too low. With the exception of complaints about pay, the staff
appears to be happy with their work and employer.
Warden Jeremy Casey
Warden Casey has been assigned to ASP-Marana since 01/23/2008. He has been the Warden
since 09/22/2013, having promoted through the ranks. He is known by the inmates and the staff
and tours frequently.
The purpose of the assessment was discussed with Warden Casey. He was advised that the
purpose was not meant to be a ‘gotcha’ and that if the assessment revealed any issues that needed
to be addressed he would be advised of them. Warden Casey advised that he welcomed the
assessment and that he would be responsive to any issues relayed to him. Warden Casey said that
he is always happy to have extra eyes on his operation. During the assessment process, Warden
Casey was very welcoming to the team.
Warden Casey shared that MTC conducts 360 degree employee engagement surveys each year.
He takes these surveys seriously and reviewed his past two sets of results with the assessment
team. He showed how Marana’s feedback was overall positive. He discussed that ASP-Marana’s
annual ADC Inspection had taken place the week before. He feels that the score will be a bit
lower than the previous year, but that the findings are mostly clerical and paperwork issues. He
expressed disappointment at the findings that were shared with him and stated that his team is
already working on corrective action plans to correct the deficiencies.

He was asked to describe how he views his role at ASP-Marana. Warden Casey replied that he is
responsible for the entire operation and his direct reports. He is the first line supervisor of the
Executive Staff Assistant, the Chief of Security (Major), the Finance Manager, the Human
Resources Manager, and the Programs Manager (PM). He reported that the PM used to be the
Major and that she promoted through the security ranks. When asked what she did to prepare for
her role as programs manager, Casey stated that she had attended the COIII Academy and did on
the job training (OJT) with the former PM. He reported that Captain Botelho is at Kingman this
week and the Captain’s position is not on the official staffing roster and is an extra position that
he requested and was approved by the corporate office to fill.
Warden Casey reported that he has completed required National Incident Management System
(NIMS) training to include MAG 300 and 400, and has completed his required annual in-service
training. He stated that the Major is new to his position and will attend the NIMS classes soon.
Captain Botelho has completed MAG 300 and will complete MAG 400 in the near future.
Warden Casey was asked if the facility conducts live fire Designated Armed Response Team
(DART) drills. Casey reported that the facility only does live fire DART drills when they have
ammunition that is due to expire. They conduct practice DART drills in the parking lot. Each
shift does one drill per month and Warden Casey conducts one drill per month personally.
Warden Casey reported that Marana uses WebEOC for quarterly searches and that it was used
for a recent power outage. They use it for all pre-planned events as well. Currently only he and
the PM have access to it, but he is working to get the Captain and Major the necessary access.
Warden Casey reported that
. They
currently
. He
said the last time that they needed
.
does conduct tours
of Marana for familiarization, but the
. Warden Casey was
advised that the ASP-Marana Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is not in the format that is
common within ADC prison complexes and is difficult to review. The Emergency Response Plan
(ERP) for ASP-Marana is not written within the guidelines of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The ERP does not contain emergency support functions or
annexes. The ERP for ASP-Marana contains copies of Department and Institutional Orders. The
only documentation within the section for Disturbances/Riots is Marana’s Institutional Order for
Department Order (DO) 706, Incident Management, (MTC/Marana, Institutional Order 706
*Restricted, Exhibit #1) There are no
.
The Arizona Department of Corrections contract with the MTC requires directives within the
ERP that address
. (MTC/Marana, ADC
Contract #ADC 130052DC pages 29 & 30, Exhibit #2) There are no sections listed in the ERP
that address
. Warden Casey reported that the
current ERP was done in conjunction with the ADC Emergency Preparedness Administrator and
past ADC Monitors. The former Emergency Preparedness Administrator, Julie Augeri was

contacted and she stated that she never approved the ASP-Marana ERP. Warden Casey advised
that he is very amenable to making changes to the current ERP.
Warden Casey was asked if he believed that ASP-Marana is lacking in any areas with regards to
training. He replied that he does not believe so. He stated that he observes DART and Incident
Command System (ICS) drills and holds his own DART drill each month. Warden Casey
monitors the training academy classes and teaches the Self Defense course. He said that he
conducts searches with staff during the quarterly searches of the facility. He reported that
Training Officer Huff does a very thorough job instructing classes and academies. Warden Casey
was asked if he believed that the amount of munitions on inventory at Marana was adequate to
support the facility until ASPC-Tucson TSU arrived. Casey said that he believed the inventory
was adequate. Warden Casey was asked if he would
. He said
that he would, with permission from the ADC monitors. He stated that he would
He was asked if he believed DART
. He stated, ‘No’, he would

.

This information was relayed to Warden Casey.
Warden Casey was asked if he felt the
MK9 OC foggers (pepper spray)
. Marana has foggers on site. Casey replied they
. He stated that Marana has
not had a use of force incident in over five years. He was asked what Marana is doing to
reduce/eliminate incidents that require force to be used. He said they train not to chase inmates
who are in possession of contraband. He said it is not formal training, just talking and reviewing
of incidents from other prisons. He reviews the ADC Morning Report with his staff and they
discuss incidents in which uses of force could have been avoided. He stated that most of their
drugs/contraband is found in common areas.
The use of overtime at Marana was discussed. Warden Casey recently issued a memorandum
restricting the amount of overtime a staff member can work each week. He said this was
suggested by CBOD Diaz and he felt it was a good idea. He stated that Marana does not have to
mandate overtime very often. He said that the restrictions do not affect many staff, but they did
have one officer who recently worked 94 hours of overtime in one pay period. He said that MTC
policy does not define how overtime is worked. Warden Casey was advised that the assessment
team interviews were not revealing that the overtime restrictions were a problem for his staff.
Warden Casey issued a memorandum on August 25, 2015 to the Marana staff concerning
overtime (MTC/Marana, Overtime Memo, Exhibit #3) Warden Casey advised the staff they

could only work 24 hours overtime in a week and they must have at least one day off during the
week.
Warden Casey was advised that his Chief of Security is not submitting the required Department
Order (DO) 704 Weekly Inspection reports. He advised that the procedure they have been using
was previously approved, but he will make this change immediately. Warden Casey was asked if
ASP-Marana has any issues with Security Device Inspection (SDI) repair and he replied that
their issues are corrected quickly.
Warden Casey was asked about the inmate employment and programming at Marana. He
reported that approximately 20% of the population goes off site for work each day. He said that
inmates work and/or program to keep themselves productively occupied. He reported that there
are inmates who have completed all programming offered and he wishes they could be rotated
out in order to facilitate receiving inmates who need the programming. He said that
approximately 380 of the 500 inmates are employed and that he and his team actively seek more
employment opportunities. Warden Casey advised that the facility conducts Community
Betterment work projects each month in addition to the work and programming. They clean the
local park and work at the local food bank.
Warden Casey was advised that in the assessment team’s review of DO 703 reports, it was noted
that he did a graveyard shift tour that only lasted one hour and his other two tours were 1.5
hours. It was discussed that the facility is small and he tours often. Casey was advised to
monitor his team’s reports as Captain Botelho had failed to document the time on one of his
reports. Warden Casey committed to reviewing these issues. It was discussed that until recently,
Warden Casey had not been holding monthly inmate town hall meetings (MTC/Marana,
Deficiency Letter to Warden Casey, August 14, 2015, Exhibit #4) He agreed that he had not,
and stated that because he tours so frequently, he is available to the inmate population. He said
he is now holding these meetings monthly and will continue to do so. It was discussed that policy
does not mandate monthly meetings with inmates.
Warden Casey was asked if the ADC monitors attend his daily briefings. He stated that
approximately 9 out of 10 meetings ADC is there, usually Lieutenant (Lt.) Murphy. He stated
that Lead Monitor Deputy Warden (DW) Bradley attends when he is at Marana. (COIII Cione
works 0900-1700 and is not on-site for the morning meeting). He said he includes ADC in his
meetings. Warden Casey was asked about his relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team. He
stated that they have a good relationship. He said he knows DW Bradley and feels comfortable
addressing issues with him. He stated that he is familiar with DW Bradley’s style and has no
issues with him; however, his staff members feel DW Bradley is aggressive and has a ‘gotcha’
mentality. He said staff gets excited when they receive a Green-Amber-Red inspection (GAR)
finding. Casey advised that he feels they (MTC and ADC monitors) are all one team. His staff
members feel that there is no redirection/training/assistance, but the monitors are quick to make
GAR findings. Warden Casey said this is not a change, that under the previous lead monitor, it

was the same. The monitors go right to documenting a GAR finding. He said that it is getting
better and the working relationship with DW Bradley is good, but Bradley’s style is the same as
it always was.
Warden Casey was asked to discuss Marana’s training program. He said that as the Deputy
Warden at Marana, training fell under his supervision. He no longer has a Deputy Warden
assigned and he has remained active in monitoring training. He is involved in the academies and
the facility in-service training. He completed 100% of all of his required in-service training. He
said that Marana holds approximately 3 academies each year, and shared that Training Officer
Huff does a great job. He was advised that his staff all said the same about Huff. Warden Casey
advised that he teaches Crisis Intervention and Self Defense at the academies and he visits them
weekly. He personally does the introduction and leads the initial tours for the cadets.
Warden Casey was asked about his approach to operating the facility. He said that ‘we’ (MTC
facilities) all get the same direction. He said, this facility has been here for 22 years, Marana has
an easy population and a lot of experienced staff. Casey said that he believes in a team approach
and a family atmosphere.
Programs Manager Stormy Genzman
Programs Manager Genzman (PM) was asked to provide an overview of her duties with MTC.
She advised that she oversees the programs department, education, substance abuse, vocational
ed, and the chaplain. Her focus is for her team to engage the inmate population in pro-social
behaviors; to teach them classes that will prepare them for entry back into society.
Genzman has been employed by MTC since 2003 with a brief break in service. She began her
career as a Correctional Officer and rose to the rank of Lieutenant (Lt.) at Marana. While at
Marana she was the American Correctional Association (ACA) preparedness Lt. for a number of
years. The ACA Lt. is responsible for maintaining documentation for the facility to be ACA
certified. She then promoted to Shift Captain with MTC and was assigned at a prison in east
Texas for three and a half years. Her next promotion was back to Marana as the Major. She said
this detail lasted for the prior two years. Approximately three months ago she promoted to
Programs Manager.
PM Genzman was asked if she had support from her Warden and who she goes to for mentoring.
She advised that Warden Casey is very helpful to her and supportive. He is there to guide and
mentor her. Outside of Warden Casey she relies on other Programs Mangers within her
organization for technical support.
Genzman was asked about her interaction with the ADC monitors. She explained that she had a
hard time communicating with DW Bradley at first, but once she figured out “it is just his
personality”, she is able to deal with him. When asked if he is helpful, she explained that if she

requires communications with him, she utilizes her chain of command for that communication.
Her communications with COIII Cione and Lt. Murphy are good and she considers them to be
helpful.
Major Peter Porter
Major Peter Porter retired from ASPC-Tucson as a Lieutenant. Major Porter stated each shift
conducts monthly DART and evacuation/fire drills. Major Porter said he has not completed
MAG 300 and he is scheduled to attend MAG 300 in October. Major Porter stated he is able to
access WebEOC through PM Stormy Genzman’s access. Major Porter stated that he has been
trying to obtain access to WebEOC for Captain Botelho and himself. This information was given
to the ADC Lead Monitor, DW Adam Bradley. Major Porter stated they use WebEOC for escape
drills and quarterly searches. Major Porter produced a WebEOC documented drill with the
majority of the required ICS paperwork properly completed.
Major Porter was asked if he thought
Major Porter said
Major Porter stated Warden Jeremy Casey has

.

Major Porter stated he has worked as an Officer, Lieutenant, Captain, and Major for ASPMarana. Major Porter stated he lives five minutes away from the facility and staff members call
him if they need assistance. Major Porter stated he will come in to assume a post if there is a
medical escort or a staff member has an emergency.
Major Porter stated he believes ASP-Marana benefits from having many retired or former
Arizona Department of Corrections employees. Major Porter stated the Marana staff members
are able to interact well with inmates and there has not been a use of force in five years.
Major Porter was asked what tactics he would use in deployment of a DART. He stated he
would
Major Porter stated DART drills are conducted monthly on each
shift. He said DART stages and practices outside of the facility by the armory, and the weapons
are never loaded unless the DART drill is being conducted at the range. Major Porter stated he
would
.
Major Porter said he does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate housing areas
(DO 704) and he does not include the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703 report.
DO 704, Inmate Housing Regulations states the Chief of Security or designee shall conduct

weekly inspections of all inmate living areas. These inspections shall be documented, by
exception, in the Chief of Security's Monthly Report in accordance with Department Order #703,
Security/Facility Inspections. Major Porter stated he would start completing these reports, and
the Lead Monitor DW Bradley was working on providing Major Porter some examples of the
report.
The May 2015 Security Device Inspection Report (SDI) for ASP-Marana displayed that work
order 15-230 (Security light in C- Pod) was pending since 4-22-2015 and none of the
consecutive monthly security device reports account for the security device ever being repaired.
Major Porter stated this was an inadvertent mistake and work order 15-230 was actually repaired
on 04-24-2015. Major Porter said he did not receive the paperwork for a month and he corrected
his copies of the Security Device Report. Major Porter produced documentation which
demonstrated that work order 15-230 was repaired on 04-24-2015. Major Porter stated Marana
security devices are repaired in a timely manner and the only delays are when they have to order
a part. The SDI reports for May, June and July verified that security devices are being repaired in
a timely manner. The assessor confirmed that security devices are inspected and repaired in a
timely manner at ASP-Marana. Overall, SDI processes are properly addressed.
DW Bradley produced a restraints inventory memo which listed
handcuffs,
leg irons,
belly chains,
flex cuffs, and
handcuffs issued to staff (MTC/Marana, Marana Restraint
Memo, Exhibit #5)
. Major Porter reported that Marana
.
Summary of observations and conclusions:
The majority of staff reported seeing their immediate supervisors out on the yard and in the
housing units several times each day. They reported the Captain, Major, PM, and Warden are
also on the yards daily and all are approachable and interact with staff and inmates in a
professional manner.
Overall, MTC staff members are familiar with the ADC monitors and know them by name. Staff
members said they are out on the yards and tour the housing units regularly. Monitors were
observed interacting with staff and inmates. Communication is generally of a professional nature
and the relationship between ADC monitors and MTC is getting better, following what some
describe as a “rocky start” with new Lead Monitor DW Adam Bradley. Several staff members
mentioned they felt the monitors hold MTC to higher standards than state-run facilities (MTC
has several former ADC staff currently working at ASP-Marana).
Overall the MTC staff was very positive about their work, the administration, and MTC.
Although several staff mentioned that the pay is lower than ADC, morale was high and the
officers appeared happy with their work and employer.

There are a number of former and/or retired Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
employees employed at Marana. These employees appeared to have a positive impact on the
facility operations. New officers reported that the former ADC employees teach and mentor
them. Of the five MTC lieutenants, four are former ADC employees. The Major, Captain, and
Warden are all former ADC supervisors, as are two of the correctional program officers (CPOs),
and several other employees. These former ADC employees all spoke positively of the facility
and the administration.
Staff consistently reported they had completed their required annual in-service training and the
academy was productive and properly prepared them for the job. The training officer (Huff) is
highly respected and all staff interviewed spoke favorably of him.
Staff consistently reported the supervisors (Sgts. and Lts.) are readily available to them and they
tour frequently. Many spoke of them as mentors and teachers. Graveyard shift reported they are
an exceptionally close team and cited the supervisors as the reason for this.
Staff consistently reported the Administration is well known to them and they are approachable.
Major Porter is reported to come to work before graveyard shift leaves for the day several times
per week. Staff also stated that he tours often and more than one time per day. The Program
Manager (PM), Stormy Genzman, is the former Major. She tours daily and most staff spoke
favorably of her.
Correctional Programs Officers (CPOs) were positive and reported their workloads are
acceptable and that they have time to see inmates daily.
Marana staff consistently reported they know the ADC Monitors and they see them touring. The
majority of staff reported that they feel comfortable talking to the monitors and they are
approachable. However, many staff reported their relationship with Lead Monitor DW Bradley is
not mutually cooperative. Multiple staff reported he is not approachable and they dislike the
manner in which he addresses issues and staff. Several staff reported he is typically on his phone
while he tours and he is too busy to talk to them. Several staff cited an incident in which the SSU
officer attempted to introduce himself to DW Bradley to discuss Bradley’s expectations of him.
They reported that Bradley was not willing to meet with the officer and without looking up from
his computer advised the officer to follow his post order and from that he would know Bradley’s
expectations of him. When questioned, the majority of these staff reported that while they
disliked DW Bradley’s manner, he is not unprofessional. Three staff members mentioned an
incident where DW Bradley told a Marana Sergeant that he was one tattoo or one ear gauge
away from being an inmate. They reported this was said in front of other staff and embarrassed
the Sergeant. This incident, and the fact that many Marana staff know DW Bradley from prior
work experience, appears to have tainted their opinion of him. Several staff reported that Lt.
Murphy has changed under the supervision of DW Bradley and she is less approachable and less

likely to give a warning rather than a GAR finding. Overall, Lt. Murphy is reported to be friendly
and approachable. Many staff reported that the team is now taking a ‘gotcha’ approach with
regard to GAR.
DO 703 Security/Facility Inspections Monthly Reports were reviewed. The reports are complete
and thorough. Two minor issues were noted- Warden Casey conducted a graveyard tour in June
2015 that was only one hour in duration and Captain Botelho failed to put a time on his July 22,
2015 tour report. (MTC/Marana, July, 2015, DO 703 Reports, Exhibit #6) Reviews of the
monthly DO 703 reports indicate that tours are being conducted by all command staff and the
ADC monitors as policy requires. There were no significant discrepancies between reports from
the MTC team to the ADC monitors.
Hiring information was reviewed and no issues were noted. Marana does lose staff to other
agencies with higher pay and therefore they do have a significant rate of turnover. Disciplinary
was not excessive and no staff reported any concerns with it. (MTC/Marana, Dismissal and
Disciplinary Report, Exhibit #7)
Exit questionnaires were reviewed and revealed no concerns. (MTC/Marana, Exit
Questionnaires, Exhibit #8)
An experience level comparison in terms of years in job code was conducted relative to the staff
at MTC and like-positions within ADC. Additionally, a comparison of the length of time in a
qualifying pay grade/rank was completed with MTC CPO’s and ADC COIIIs, as well as the
Sergeants in ADC and MTC. The results of the total comparisons are listed below:
Position
CO
COIII
Sgt
Lt
Captain
Major
COIV
Warden

ADC
6.4
4.96
3.75
3.81
3.14
4.11
2.77

ASP-Marana
2.25
1.39 (Correctional Program Officer)
1.96
1.34
0.25
0.25
0.25 (Program Manager)
1.94

Full Time Positions Allocated
Correctional Officer II 47
Sergeant
6
Lieutenant
5

Filled
47
5
5

Vacancy
0
1
0

ASP-Marana has a total of 83.57 MTC staff to include Administration, Security, Clerical, 8.42
subcontracted Medical, and 7.00 subcontracted Food Service positions equaling 98 positions.
Overtime is used on most, if not all shifts to reach required staffing. Warden Casey recently
implemented overtime use regulations requiring staff to have at least one regular day off (RDO)

per week and setting a cap on the maximum number of hours that can be worked per week at 24
hours. Staff voiced that they are accepting of the new regulations and these restrictions would
only affect a very small number of staff. All staff interviewed reported the majority of overtime
is voluntary. On the occasions when overtime is mandated they reported the procedures in place
are fair and consistent. It was also reported that officers are able to pre-schedule overtime in
order to avoid being mandated to work unscheduled overtime, and it is possible to maintain a
schedule that does not interfere with their lives outside of work. Staff also reported the sergeants
will work overtime in order to avoid mandatory overtime for their officers.
During the pay periods noted, the following staff worked in excess of 48 hours overtime:
Pay Period Ending:
06/21/2015
07/19/2015
08/02/2015
08/16/2015

Staff and Hours Overtime Worked in Excess of 48 Hours:
Jamie Ramos 58.3 hours, Rudy Acosta 61.7 hours
Jamie Ramos 69.2 hours, Rudy Acosta 49.9 hours
Jamie Ramos 49.2 hours, Rudy Acosta 67.5 hours
Jamie Ramos 94.8 hours, Jacob Urbina 49.1 hours

Posts are typically fully staffed without collapsing of posts. Overtime is used to fill vacant posts
on the roster. If a post needs to be collapsed in order to provide staffing for an emergency
medical transport, staff is called in from home to fill the collapsed post.
Key Findings
•

•

•

The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is not written within the guidelines of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The ERP does not contain emergency support
functions or annexes. There are
. [Violation of
Contract #130052DC, Section 1.8.8, Critical Incident Response Plan; and DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) and he does not include the results of these inspections in his
monthly DO 703 report. [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Inspections and DO
704, Inmate Housing Regulations]
.
[Operational concern and sound correctional practice]

OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
The roadway leading into ASP-Marana presented exceptionally well. It was very clean and
manicured. No weeds were noted and there is Southwestern rock art work on the sides of the
road.
The assessment team was thoroughly and professionally processed though the main point of
entry. IDs were checked, property was thoroughly searched, phones were checked, and all staff
was logged in. Note: Ingress/egress processing was professional and compliant for the entire
assessment period.
Warden Casey met the team and introduced himself. He personally provided a summary of the
MTC operation. Following the initial briefing, he conducted the initial tour for the Assessment
Team. The administration area and the programming areas were very clean and orderly. The
visitation presented well. It was noted that ASP-Marana holds inmate visitation on three days
(F/S/S) in order to accommodate the needs of the population. The housing units, recreation
fields, and dining areas appeared clean and free of trash and debris.
Inmate compliance with housing regulations for the most part was good. There were some areas
that were not exceptional, but the overall appearance was very good. The inmate restrooms and
housing areas were clean and sanitary. There was a picture which gave the inmates two options
on how to make their bed. The bed could be made with a blanket or the bed could be made with a
sheet and the blanket folded at the foot of the bed. Several inmates chose a different alternative
and made their bed with just a sheet. There was no uniformity as to how the inmates’ beds were
prepared.
The dormitories were quite warm and are cooled by evaporative cooling. However, large fans are
mounted in several locations on the walls and in the hallways. These fans kept the air moving
and made the atmosphere much more acceptable. Inmates were not complaining about the
temperatures.
In the morning hours, over fifty percent of the inmate population was observed lying on their
assigned bunks. Over twenty percent were observed lying on their bunks during the afternoon
hours. This gave an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate population. However, all
classrooms were continuously occupied and the facility sends just over 100 inmates (out of 500)
off site to work each day.
Inmates were observed on the recreation fields, actively engaged in activities (basketball,
handball, jogging), all were in grooming and dress compliance. During the three day assessment,
inmate attitudes were good as they were observed freely and positively engaging in discussion
with assessment team members. Random pat searches were observed and based on the reaction
of the inmates, it was evident that this is a common practice at ASP-Marana. Inmate work crews
were observed exiting the facility. The sally port officer conducted thorough pat searches prior to

their departure and proper identification procedures were followed (face-to-ID, and escape fliers
verified).
The staff was welcoming and professional. The officers’ uniforms looked professional and
grooming compliance was above average. The staff received new uniform shirts while the team
was on site.
Constituent Services:
A review of complaints from constituent services would indicate that ASP Marana is within
ADC standards and comparable to other ADC units of its size and custody level. (MTC/Marana,
FY 2015 Constituent Services Report, Exhibit #9)
Disciplinary:
There was an increase in the number of inmate disciplinary violation reports when compared to
Year 2014. The current trend projects an increase of 67% for Calendar Year 2015 when
compared to Year 2014. Over 78% of the inmate disciplinary violations identified below appear
to be inmate behavior that can potentially be mitigated through one-on-one counseling.
Inmate disciplinary violation reports issued in Year 2012, Year 2013 and Year 2014 were
respectively 610, 468, and 471. For Year over year for 2012 and 2013, there was 23% decrease
in inmate discipline. For 2013 and 2014, inmate discipline year over year remains approximately
the same. As of 07/31/2015, there were approximately 460 inmate disciplinary violation reports
issued. At the current trend, Year 2015 inmate disciplinary violation reports issued is projected to
increase 67% compared to Year 2014. (MTC/Marana, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Marana
Discipline Report, Exhibit #10)
As of 07/31/2015 for Year 2015, 78.91% of inmate disciplinary violation reports issued
consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

11B-Disrupt Count (38.91%)
25B-Disobey Verbal (17.83% )
05C-Violating Grooming (9.78%)
20B-Obstructing Staff (9.13%)
01B-Aggravated Refusal (1.52%)
13B-False Reporting (1.09%)
04C-Disrespect to Staff (0.43%)
36B-Violating Department Instruction (0.22%)

As of 07/31/2015, the 460 inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
•
•
•

50 guilty- major verdicts.
259 guilty- minor verdicts.
131 informally resolved inmate disciplinary violations.
20 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts.

Grievances:
The number of formal inmate grievances filed at ASP-Marana totaled three for calendar year
2015. These numbers are within the average range when compared to similar custody ADC units
(ASPC-Winslow, Apache Unit and ASPC-Lewis, Eagle Point Unit) on a per capita basis. Inmate
Personal Property was the main grievance issue at Marana, which is common. (MTC/Marana,
2015 Grievance Logs ASP Marana, ASPC Winslow Apache, and ASPC Lewis Eagle Point,
Exhibit #11)
Classification:
A review of the classification actions at ASP-Marana indicates that most actions were completed
within policy time frames. No information entered on the DI99 comments field for custody
override of one inmate on 08/06/2015. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions.
(MTC/Marana, AIMS DI 95 Screen, Exhibit #12)
Detention:
ASP-Marana detention unit holds up to 7 inmates with one cell dedicated to a watch order bed.
At the time of the tour there were only 2 inmates housed in detention cells. The data entry into
the Detention Report was incomplete: There were 4 inmates under the 805 review process. For 3
of the inmates, no information was entered in the “DO 805 STATUS” section of the Detention
Report documenting each step of the DO 805 review process for tracking. The ADC COIII is
responsible for classification actions. The 2 inmates housed in detention reported they were very
content with how they were being treated. The detention inmates stated they see the Captain,
Warden, Shift Commanders, and Program Officers on a regular basis, and they receive recreation
and showers on regular basis.
Visitation:
Visitation at ASP-Marana has average visitation when compared to a similar ADC Unit. For the
month of July, visitation summaries indicate there were 238 adult and minor visitors. ASPC
Lewis-Eagle Point visitation for the month of July was 284. The visitation room was well
maintained and had games for adults and children. (MTC/Marana, Visitation Summary ASP
Marana and ASPC Lewis Eagle Point, Exhibit #13)
Inmate Programs
Education:
ASP Marana has one mandatory literacy classes and two GED classes. There are currently no
students less than twenty two years old enrolled in GED. (MTC/Marana, Capacity Report,
Exhibit #14)

Career Technical Education (CTE):
ASP-Marana offers a course referred to as NCCER, it is a partnership with The National Center
for Construction Education and Research. Some of the courses taught are Carpentry, Welding
and Plumbing. (MTC/Marana, Capacity Report, Exhibit #14)
Substance Abuse Programs – Correctional Programs Officer
ASP-Marana provides substance abuse treatment for all inmates assigned to the facility who
have demonstrated a need for substance or alcohol abuse treatment.
Inmates are assigned to substance abuse programs and treatment based on their order of
placement on the priority ranking report. There are life skills classes also available to the
population at ASP-Marana.
Life Skills Classes are taught by one of the five Correctional Programs Officers. The classes are
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Cultural Diversity
Cognitive Restructuring
Pre Release
Cage your Rage
Inside Out Dad
Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University
Victims Impact Class

Substance abuse classes are taught by a licensed counselor. The classes are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alcoholics Anonymous
Crystal Meth Anonymous
Narcotics Anonymous
Helping Men Recover
Moderate Substance Abuse Treatment
Relapse Prevention

Correctional Programs Officers (CPOs) also conduct office hours and are available daily to the
inmate population. When walking amongst the inmate population one does not receive a lot of
questions regarding case management issues. This is indicative of being able to meet with a case
manager regularly. The open office hour times were posted throughout the inmate living areas.
The assessor visually verified the CPO’s were holding office hours as stated.
Reviews of classes show the counselors and CPO’s are actively teaching and engaging the
inmates during class. (MTC/Marana, Programs Listing Report, Exhibit #15)

Religious Services:
ASP-Marana provides a number of religious program services. They provide a SMART
Recovery and Celebrate Recovery program. The religious services calendar indicates a wide
range of programs and services for various religious groups showing a service or meeting every
day of the month. (MTC/Marana, Religious Services Calendar, Exhibit #16)
Library Operations:
The library is open six days a week for four hours a day. The schedule rotates from the morning
to the afternoon to ensure that inmates assigned to offsite work crews have the opportunity to
visit the lending library. (MTC/Marana, Library Schedule, Exhibit #17)
Work Opportunities:
ASP-Marana has a maximum population of 500 inmates and current population of 483 inmates.
There are two types of jobs available to the inmates at Marana: Inter Governmental Agreement
(IGA) employs 80 inmates, and Work Incentive Pay Plan (WIPP) employs 191 inmates; of the
191 WIPP jobs 49 of those inmates are employed as a porter. Total employed inmates are 271.
When comparing the racial breakdown of the unit versus that of inmates working there is no
more than a 3% difference in any race, indicating that jobs are shared equally by racial
composition. (MTC/Marana, Capacity Report, #14)
Structured Recreation:
An effective management tool for correctional administrators when they are challenged with
keeping inmates occupied and engaged if meaningful jobs are lacking is to provide an ample
amount of recreational activities in both active and passive formats. ASP-Marana holds
tournaments monthly and events daily. The recreation field is accessible during all yard open
times. (MTC/Marana, Recreation Calendar, Exhibit #18)
Intelligence Gathering/Sharing:
ADC Special Security Unit (SSU) staff reported to the Marana facility for the purpose of
assessing and determining the current culture that exists among the inmate and MTC staff. An
initial tour of the unit was taken with Arizona Department of Corrections monitors facilitating
the tour. The tour was in the presence of MTC staff. SSU staff toured the facility to include the
inmate living areas, common areas, education classes and the recreation yard. The sanitation of
the unit was excellent. This demonstrated both staff and inmates are paying attention to
cleanliness and sanitation. The presentation and the cleanliness of the unit reflect pride and good
morale from both staff and inmates.
The designated MTC staff assigned to perform SSU duties were interviewed for the purpose of
determining their understanding of prison dynamics, prison cultures, Security Threat Group

(STG) /Criminal Street Gang (CSG) and the Department Order (DO) 806 policy. This group
consists of
. The
has been assigned
to fulfill this role, and had a good understanding of the STG/806 policy. The
is new to this role and was limited in the understanding of the STG/DO 806
policy.
complimented MTC for
, who is
highly experienced in working with the STG/DO 806 policy. The members in the group all have
additional areas of responsibilities and are unable to dedicate a full day to addressing inmate
issues and concerns.
.
With the exception of
, MTC SSU staff has a limited understanding of the STG/CSG
inmate population and are not provided with any additional training that would benefit them in
their duties. The MTC Officers assigned to the SSU roles do not attend the Administrative daily
meetings very often due to their other support and shift assignments. ADC SSU staff members
are required to attend these meetings at the ADC prisons in order to ensure that direct
communication occurs between the staff gathering intelligence, and the administrative staff
members that have a “Need to Know.” This communication is essential to both areas. The staff
members filling the roles of SSU can keep the administrative staff updated/aware of any
changing trends, issues, and behaviors with the inmate population which may later become major
concerns. This interaction between SSU and the management team also ensures that the MTC
SSU staff members can gain a closer working relationship which will allow the Warden and
Chief of Security to be aware of all concerns and areas needing attention. MTC Officers
overseeing SSU roles stated that they are often called on to fill post assignments on shift. The
MTC Officers stated that the demand for them to fulfill other unit assignments does not allow
them to conduct a proper monitoring of the inmate population. As a result,
.
An emerging theme among the inmate population is that the meat product that is being served to
the inmate population is not well received due to its perceived poor quality. Food service is
managed by Trinity Services Group at the facility just as it is at ADC facilities. ADC SSU staff
members are aware that this meat product is disliked by inmates at other ADC facilities.
Approximately 90 inmates from throughout the inmate population, to include all races, were
interviewed regarding conditions of confinement. Interviews included inmates of all races and
those inmates identified as suspected Criminal Street Gang (CSG) members. Inmates at the
Marana facility, who are identified as suspected Security Threat Group (STG) members, are
immediately referred to Classification and transferred from the facility to a more structured
prison facility. Inmates stated that the Marana facility is not influenced by the prison politics that
exist within the Arizona Department of Corrections.

The inmate population appeared to have an understanding of the chain of command at the MTC
facility and stated the Warden, supervisors and line staff members are approachable. Inmates
stated the town hall meetings (Forums) are successful in addressing concerns and issues.
MTC staff and inmates benefit from former/retired experienced Arizona Department of
Corrections staff members that are currently employed at the MTC facility. The MTC facility
also benefits from the utilization of part time employment of current ADC staff members who
wish to work shift assignments. Their experience, shared with the junior MTC staff, develops a
mentorship amongst colleagues and ensures that best practices are being used at this facility.
ADC SSU Staff interacted with inmates in different inmate programs that take place at ASPMarana. This programming included WIPP, Education, Substance Abuse, etc. Inmates appeared
to be highly engaged and respectful during these different programs. ADC SSU staff conducted a
small Town Hall meeting with newly graduating GED student inmates to include inmate
Education Aides and the Education Teacher, Ms. Cherie Roberts. The inmates were very
cooperative during this interaction and the overall consensus was positive feedback regarding the
prison facility and MTC employees. During observation of Ms. Roberts, she appeared to be
highly engaged and to be a positive influence on inmates assigned to GED programming. ADC
SSU staff attended the GED graduation ceremony held in the Marana visitation room. MTC
Administrative, Support and Education staff members attended the ceremony along with Warden
Jeremy Casey and guest speaker Ed Honea, the Mayor of the Town of Marana. (Below is a
picture taken of the GED graduation ceremony with Mayor Honea pictured at the podium.)

The Mayor expressed the very close relationship between the prison facility and the Town of
Marana (approximately 22 years). He stressed his appreciation and gratitude to the MTC staff
and the inmates for all of the support they provide to Marana. He stated that this relationship has
saved the Town of Marana thousands of dollars for all of the city services provided by the
inmates and the staff members.

ADC SSU staff monitored the meal service in the dining hall. The inmates did segregate by race
while eating, but there did not appear to be signs of any racial tension or problematic behaviors.
Inmates were observed socializing with the different races around the dining hall, but did not sit
with other races at the tables. MTC staff and multiple inmates expressed to SSU that during meal
turnouts is typically the only occasion where segregation at the tables takes place. ADC SSU
staff did observe proper socializing between all races (i.e. shaking hands, joking, sharing
cigarettes, etc).
ADC SSU staff observed MTC staff conducting proper random pat-down searches during
turnouts. It was apparent that these searches are being conducted consistently on a day-to-day
basis due to the inmate’s willingness to comply when randomly selected. Inmates, without
question would automatically submit to the search and begin removing their possessions from
their pockets before the MTC Officers had to direct them to do so. Inmates were also removing
their ball caps for the search before being directed to do so.
Key Findings
•

•

•

•

There was a picture posted which gave the inmates two options on how to make their
bed. Several inmates chose a different alternative and made their bed with just a sheet.
There was no uniformity as to how the inmates’ beds were prepared. [Violation of DO
704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The living areas are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in the
dormitories. However fans had been placed in multiple areas and the inmates were not
complaining. [Operational Concern]
In the morning hours, over fifty percent of the inmate population was observed lying on
their assigned bunks. Over twenty percent were observed lying on the bunks during the
afternoon hours. This gave an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate
population. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern, sound
correctional practices]
Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Four inmates
were not properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate
Classification, and Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound
correctional practice]

OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training
The following is a summary of the Assessment Team’s review of staff training to include preservice, in-service and specialized courses for TSU, DART, and Emergency Management
(NIMS). Team members interviewed training staff, examined class rosters, course curricula, and
a multitude of training-related documents to better understand the learning process at ASPMarana. (MTC/Marana, FY2015 Annual Training Plan, Exhibit #19)
Pre-service training was found to be deficient in some areas. MTC had reduced or failed to
conduct some of the classes for pre-service training as required by ADC.
In-Service Training:
MTC Marana Training Officer Huff was interviewed on Friday August 21, 2015 because of his
assignment to assist MTC Kingman with training needs August 24, thru 28, 2015.
A sample of three months of in-service rosters and a spreadsheet of in-service training for FY15
were reviewed. No findings of noncompliance were discovered. An audit completed by ADC
Monitor Deputy Warden Adam Bradley on July 22, 2015 (MTC/Marana, Deficiency Letter to
Warden Casey, Exhibit #20) found three security staff had not completed Van Driver training
and two medical staff had not completed self-defense training. This deficiency was corrected by
MTC on July 29, 2015 (MTC/Marana, Marana Monitor findings and MTC response, Exhibit
#21)
A review of rosters indicated that Supervisor Essentials FY 2015 training was completed for all
assigned supervisors.
A review of twelve months of firearms rosters was completed with no discrepancies found. MTC
Marana Senior Firearms Instructor is Training Officer (TO) Huff. Huff received a positive
annual firearms recertification from the Senior Firearms Instructor at ASPC-Tucson
(MTC/Marana, Annual Senior Firearms Recertification, Exhibit #22)
Designated Armed Response Team (DART):
A review of reports for May, June, July reveal DART drills were completed on each shift, once
per month.
A DART response drill was conducted for the purposes of assessment team evaluation:
Individual team responders were asked what munitions they were carrying and how they would
deploy each type of munitions. Officers responded correctly regarding what munitions they were
carrying and the proper deployment areas, but did not answer correctly on
. All officers knew that
were the
desired impact area for impact munitions. The DART Leader answered incorrectly for the
and when asked said he would

. When asked if he had been trained to
he responded,
‘yes.’ (MTC/Marana, DART Training Lesson Plan dated 04-19-2005 *Restricted, Exhibit
#23), (DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit #24), (Department Order
706, Incident Management *Restricted, Exhibit #25) Warden Casey said he would
if he believed he could do so safely.
Training Officer Huff was asked if the DART for Supervisors 2015 course was being taught. He
confirmed that it was and produced the relevant training records for this course.
Pre-Service Training:
A review of the training curriculum for MTC’s Correctional Officer Training Academy was
compared with the curriculum of ADC’s Correctional Officer Training Academy. Two MTC
pre-service academy schedules and three pre-service academy class rosters were reviewed and
compared with an ADC pre-service 280 academy matrix (MTC/Marana, 280 hour academy
comparisons, Exhibit #26) Disparities of training hours in some classes were found. Training
Officer Huff was asked about some disparities in COTA class training hours, he said he believed
that the disparities were due to class size of often eight or fewer cadets compared to ADC’s thirty
plus cadet sized classes. For example: ADC provides 8 hours of training on inmate supervision.
MTC rosters showed this course being completed in 2 hours. TO Huff then provided updated
CDs with COTA curriculum from ADC Training Officer II R. Smith provided in early 2015.
Additionally some pre-service rosters could not be located. Warden Casey directed that the staff
whose rosters could not be located were to be retrained on September 1 & 2. (MTC/Marana,
Warden Casey email, Exhibit #27) Classes were completed September 2nd.
A review of the MTC academy schedule was completed by Lead Monitor Deputy Warden
Bradley prior to the Assessment Teams review. Corrections for future academy classes were
made to ensure the correct hours are dedicated to each class. (MTC/Marana, Marana PreService Academy Schedule, Exhibit #28)
As part of ADC Pre-Service training, a Field Training Officer Program (FTO) is in place to
afford cadets and newly graduated officers an opportunity to be mentored by a specially selected,
experienced officer. The assessment confirmed that MTC does conduct a Field Training Officer
Program (FTO) at ASP-Marana as part of pre-service training. (MTC/Marana, FTO Rosters,
Exhibit #29)
Tactical Support Unit:
The Marana facility
. MTC Marana’s
ADC Tactical Support Agreement, Exhibit #30)

.
(MTC/Marana,

National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training:
Three security staff have not completed required NIMS training those employees are currently
on Military Leave or FMLA. The Chief of Security has been scheduled for MAG 300 on
10/27/2015 The Chief of Security and Captain have been scheduled for MAG 400 TBD
(MTC/Marana, Marana NIMS tracker report, Exhibit #31)
Munitions Comparison:
A comparison of less than lethal munitions at MTC Marana was compared to ASPC-Winslow,
Apache Unit due to like custody level and population size. In each category, MTC Marana had
substantially fewer munitions on hand than Apache Unit. There are currently no minimum
standards established for munitions inventories within ADC (MTC/Marana, Marana munitions,
Exhibit #32)
Overall, the in-service and supervisor training programs at ASP-Marana appear to be well
managed. Pre-service training requires greater management attention.
Key Findings
•

•

•

COTA cadets receive 8 hours of inmate supervision training; MTC academy cadets
receive 2 hours. [Violation of Contract #130052DC Section 1.10.7, Staff Training,
and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational concern, sound
correctional practices]
Some pre-service academy rosters could not be located in order to demonstrate that all
required course contact hours had been completed. [Violation DO 509, Employee
Training and Education; operational concern, sound correctional practices]
DART leader could not correctly identify
and is not
fully compliant with DART tactics. [Violation of DART Training Lesson Plan,
operational concern]

OBJECTIVE 4 – ADC Monitoring Team
This segment encompasses a review of duties and functions of the on-site ADC staff assigned to
monitor the operations of ASP-Marana staff and bridge the relationship between the Department
and ASP-Marana.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs a cadre of full-time staff to monitor contract
compliance of contracted prison facilities. The ADC Monitoring Team is comprised of:
Tara Diaz, Contract Beds Operations Director (oversees monitoring of all contract bed facilities)
Ron Credio, Contract Beds Deputy Bureau Administrator (oversees monitoring of all contract
bed facilities)
ASP-Marana Monitoring Team
Adam Bradley, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor
Katina Murphy, Lieutenant, Disciplinary Hearing Officer
Gabriella Cione, CO III, Programs Monitor
The ADC Assessment team reviewed the contract for MTC and the scope of work within
Department Order #106, Contract Beds, and Department Order #703, Security/Facility
Inspections for the bureau and assigned monitors.
The ADC monitors were interviewed and their performance was reviewed. The assessment also
included a review of the current contract, discussions with MTC staff, operational observations,
and document checks. After reviewing DO 703 GAR (Green-Amber-Red) inspection reports,
audit results, monthly reports, inmate disciplinary findings and classification decisions, the
assessment team determined the following:
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on the
policy. They are conducting their required monthly tours based on a review of; (MTC/Marana,
ADC 703 Reports, Exhibit #33) The ADC Monitoring Team completes their GAR and DO 703
monthly inspections appropriately. This is evident through GAR inspection results, tour
inspections reports and observations. GAR inspections and prison tours are conducted to
monitor the specific security operations and security devices at a prison unit and ensure that they
remain in good working condition, and that supervisory and other management personnel
conduct regular inspections and tours. The monitor team is known to the staff and the inmate
population. They tour frequently and conduct regular GAR inspections. There are a significant
number of GAR findings most months.
These tools (GAR, tours/inspections) do not ‘monitor’ the culture of a prison unit, to include the
interactions between inmates and staff, and the attitudes of each group. GAR inspections do not

ask questions about the quality or quantity of staff training, or how often officers see their
supervisors on the yard. To properly assess the culture of a prison unit, one needs to speak with
staff and inmates at length and observe their interactions. In depth town hall meetings (Forums)
with inmates should be observed routinely and the attitudes of both staff and inmates noted;
given the small size of this facility, ADC monitors are able to be involved more in-depth with
these listed activities.
The ADC Monitoring Team has established a process of addressing issues on the spot and
working with the MTC Administrators to correct them. DW Bradley monitors GAR corrective
action plans (CAPs) and at this time there are none pending. The assessment team noted no
delays in CAPs follow-up.
The team meets timeframes for the majority of their mandatory oversight and decision making
on their assigned inmate actions (classification, disciplinary, visitation, releases, correspondence,
etc.) and contractor clearances.
ADC monitors report that generally there is open communication between the MTC staff and
ADC Monitoring Team. MTC employees did not share any information with the assessment
team that would lead them to believe that they were told it was frowned upon to speak to ADC
staff.
The ADC Lead Monitor DW Bradley reported he has been monitoring in-service training. He
advised that he monitors percentage of completion of required courses and advised MTC
management of their training percentages in June. He said they improved them by the end of the
training year. Monitoring the quality of instruction, the compliance with curriculum
requirements, and the overall MTC approach to training is not included in written instructions to
the monitoring team and is not currently within the scope of their responsibility. Additionally,
the ADC Annual Inspection report, compiled by the Inspections Unit, only reports on findings of
completed training.
The Contract Beds Monitoring Team was each interviewed separately.
Deputy Warden Adam Bradley
DW Adam Bradley was interviewed on August 18, 2015. He has been assigned as the ADC Lead
Monitor over the GEO operated Phoenix West and MTC operated Marana facilities for over six
months. He has eighteen (18) years experience with the Department. He stated that he has a copy
of the contract and refers to it as needed. The contract for MTC is a separate contract from that of
GEO. He attended monitor training and was explained the expectations of the position upon
assignment.
DW Bradley was asked to detail his duties as a monitor and to describe his role. He stated that he
supervises the monitor team and is a member. He is a mediator between the team and private

prison management. He tours, monitors, conducts GAR inspections, reviews for policy and
contract compliance. He oversees most areas of the facility.
DW Bradley was asked if he observed training and monitored training percentages. He stated he
does. When asked if he was monitoring these prior to the Kingman riots, he said he was. He has
observed training classes at ASP-Marana and monitors training percentages. He advised MTC of
their completed training percentages in June and they improved them by the end of the training
year. He reported that ASP-Marana finished the year at 99% completion for in-service training
with 2 staff who did not complete self defense and 3 who still need Correctional Analysis and
Response to Emergencies (CARE; basic first aid with CPR).
DW Bradley reported that his relationship with the management team is professional. He
interacts well with the Warden and Unit Administrators. GAR was discussed and the fact that the
monitor team does enter a high number of GAR findings. He acknowledged that they do, but
they report what they find. There is an ebb and flow to the GAR findings and it has been worked
out. He reported there is no quota for GAR findings and the team does give warnings and use
findings as teachable moments.
DW Bradley reported that when he finds issues or when there are concerns he reports them to
DBA Credio and/or CBOD Diaz. He said that DBA Credio is who he goes to for clarification on
issues. He said he communicates well with and reviews issues with Warden Casey. He reports
low level issues directly to the Warden.
DW Bradley splits his time between Marana and Phoenix West. He determines his schedule by
need and it is not a set schedule. He attends the morning briefing of the facility he is at. He
attends the Phoenix West detention meeting when he can, but Marana does not have one as they
rarely have inmates in detention.
DW Bradley splits his graveyard tours between the two facilities, but does occasionally do more
than one per month at each. He monitors ingress/egress, crew turnouts, kitchens, and overall unit
operation on these tours. He is required to tour all offsite work crews one time per quarter and
the Captain is required to tour them monthly. DW Bradley stated that he had not been ensuring
that the Wardens complete their required meetings, but that he is now doing so. Due to the size
of the facilities he feels that he and his team have the ability to know and pick up on inmate and
staff morale issues and the culture of the units.
DW Bradley said he is notified of all significant issues, all SIRs, and anything urgent. He stated
that he typically gets a call from the COIII or Lieutenant first and then MTC management
contacts him.

Lieutenant Katina Murphy
Lt. Katina Murphy was on annual leave for the time of the Marana assessment. She was
interviewed on August 24, 2015 at approximately 1530 hours.
Lt. Murphy has been assigned to ASP-Marana as the ADC Monitor since October 2013. She
promoted from Sergeant into the Lieutenant position at Marana. She has a copy of the Marana
contract and refers to it as needed. She attended monitor training. She uses written guides- ADC
policy, contract, post orders, GAR to perform her duties. She stated that she learns by hands-on
training. The expectations of her position have been explained to her.
She described her duties as: monitoring/ensuring that MTC follows policy and contract, Inmate
Disciplinary, and Capital Equipment. Lt. Murphy reports that she sees her role as beneficial to
Marana staff. She said that they come to her and the team for questions and advise. She said that
her team is reported by Marana staff as being easy to talk to. She stated that ‘we consider
ourselves to be a team, their failure is our failure.’
Lt. Murphy described her touring by saying that she typically tours in the mornings. She walks
the horseshoe and sees Building 2. Daily, she checks inmate compliance and observes staff.
Murphy said many of her tours seem informal, but she is always observing and documenting.
She said each day she handles the inmate disciplinary as the Disciplinary Coordinator, and then
she does spot checks of different areas of the facility. She stated that her office is located in
Building 1 and when she goes to her office she conducts spot checks of the areas in Building 1
each day. She often monitors maintenance, disciplinary, and feeding. Lt. Murphy reported that
she does two graveyard shift tours per month. She usually completes these tours from 0400 to
0600. On these tours she checks on count, feeding, monitors food temperatures and kitchen
operations, watches pat searches and more. She is required to tour the offsite work crews one
time per month. Marana has approximately 10 to 12 crews that she checks. She reported that the
main issue she has had to address on these tours is civilian workers calling inmates by their first
names.
Lt. Murphy stated that because of the size of Marana she feels that she has adequate time in her
day and on her tours to assess the facility culture and staff and inmate morale. She feels her
personality makes this more possible because she is friendly and MTC staff members feel
comfortable talking to her and asking questions. She said the staff does come to her a lot. She has
never had an issue with MTC employees not talking to her. She gets along fine with the
administration. She said on occasion they dispute findings (GAR, etc.), but she shows them
policy and if there is still a question they go to her supervisor. She reported there is no animosity.
Lt. Murphy said under the previous ADC Lead Monitor DW Ed White they typically found 15 to
25 GAR findings per month. Under DW Bradley this has increased to 40 to 50. This was
reviewed with CBOD Diaz and she advised them to send emails to MTC staff and review the
issue with them before making the concern a GAR finding. Now they give warnings for small,

less serious issues, but serious concerns are still an immediate GAR finding. Because of this,
GAR findings have evened out. Lt. Murphy was asked what the MTC administration response to
the high number of GAR findings was. She said Warden Casey was frustrated and pointed out
the differences in each Lead Monitor’s evaluation methodology. She said Warden Casey was
never disrespectful and she took his frustration as a normal reaction to change. She said she has
never had any issues or problems talking to MTC management.
Lt. Murphy reported there are not a lot of inmate disciplinary violations issued at ASP-Marana.
She said there were 595 total tickets last year. The majority of tickets are for prison made
alcohol, some positive urinalysis tests, inmates who are late to class, or for inmates who are out
of place. She has not had any complaints from inmates about the inmate disciplinary process, and
has only processed one inmate disciplinary appeal in her time at Marana. She reported that her
methodology with discipline is firm and fair.
When asked if she was aware of any inmate concerns, Lt. Murphy said that all inmates want
consistency and there has been a bit of inconsistency from shift to shift at Marana. Each shift
handles inmate issues a little differently which can upset the inmates. She said the concerns are
over shaving waivers, inmates out of place, and inmates wearing shirts in the housing units. She
has addressed these issues with MTC management and feels that they have been resolved. She
said Marana inmates have good attitudes.
When asked if or how she monitors training, Lt. Murphy said in the past she had not done so.
She said DW Bradley has her monitoring training now and she reviewed to see if the staff
instructors are certified.
Lt. Murphy attends the daily briefings at Marana and feels communication is good.
COIII Gabriella Cione
On August 26, 2015, COIII Cione was interviewed concerning her scope of assigned duties at
the Department of Corrections (DOC) Monitor at ASP-Marana. COIII Cione has been the
programs monitor at ASP-Marana for approximately two (2) years. She keeps a copy of the
contract on hand and references it often. She attended the monitor training facilitated by the
Contract Beds Operations Director.
COIII Cione is responsible for monitoring inmate work programs, levels of supervision,
reclassification, inmate work crews, policy reviews, information report reviews, and completing
the monthly Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspection report.
She completes the monthly GAR inspection report in conjunction with Lt. Murphy, noting
deficiencies as necessary. COIII Cione completes tour memos, speaks directly with staff and
inmates, and will complete information reports as necessary. When needed, she will notify the
unit administrators of any concerns she has.

COIII Cione does not attend the morning meeting, as her assigned work schedule is from 09001700; morning meeting starts at 0830. She attends monitor team meetings facilitated by Lead
Monitor DW Bradley, and quarterly meetings with CBOD Diaz. She reported the unit does not
conduct a weekly detention meeting as most times there are no inmates in detention.
COIII Cione reported she monitors inmate recreation, feeding, and visitation. She completes
visitation file reviews, monitoring policy compliance, and completes GAR inspection findings
when applicable.
COIII Cione reported she interacts frequently with staff and inmates and the relationship with
MTC is good and getting better. MTC staff members are familiar with COIII Cione and stated
they can come to her for answers/assistance when needed.
She reported that Training Officer Huff is instrumental in training new staff and instills pride
with line staff. She has attended refresher training with officer Huff and he treats everyone with
respect. This sentiment was shared by several staff members during interviews.
Summary
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on
what is required in DO #106. They are conducting their required monthly tours and they
complete their GAR inspections appropriately. ADC monitors conduct detailed GAR
inspections, complete required paperwork, tours and inspections, and are determining if MTC
meets their contractual obligations and requirements. They are not monitoring pre-service
training or MTC employee discipline. The workload for the ADC Monitoring Team at ASPMarana is significantly less than the workload of the ADC Monitoring Team assigned to ASPKingman. This allows them to tour more frequently and to interact in a manner that affords them
the opportunity to assess staff, inmate morale, and the facility culture. The ADC Monitoring
Team is well known to MTC management, officers, and the inmate population.
Key Findings
•

•

•

The ADC ASP-Marana Monitoring Team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]
Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Four inmates not
properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification,
and Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound correctional
practice]
The team completes its GAR inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

•

The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

FINDINGS
Key Findings, listed by Objective
The following comprises a recap of all key findings associated with narratives contained in the
four (4) Objectives described in this report, as sorted by Objective. Per Contract 130052DC,
MTC shall follow all applicable Department Orders and Director’s Instructions, and only
findings associated with ADC policies that are applicable to MTC have been listed herein. Thus,
any violation of applicable ADC policy also constitutes a violation of Contract 130052DC.
Moreover, per the contract, MTC will ensure the compliance and performance of ADC policies
and directives, and correct any deficiencies.
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of MTC Leadership and Staff (page 10)
•

•

•

The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is not written within the guidelines of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The ERP does not contain emergency support
functions or annexes. There are
. [Violation of
Contract #130052DC, Section 1.8.8, Critical Incident Response Plan; and DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) and he does not include the results of these inspections in his
monthly DO 703 report. [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Inspections and DO
704, Inmate Housing Regulations]
.
[Operational concern and sound correctional practice]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
(page 18)
•

•
•

There was a picture posted which gave the inmates two options on how to make their
bed. Several inmates chose a different alternative and made their bed with just a sheet.
There was no uniformity as to how the inmates’ beds were prepared. [Violation of DO
704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The living areas are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in the
dormitories. [Operational Concern]
In the morning hours, over fifty percent of the inmate population was observed lying on
their assigned bunks. Over twenty percent were observed lying on their bunks during the
afternoon hours. This gave an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate

•

population. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, operational concern, sound
correctional practices]
Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Four inmates not
properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification,
and Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound correctional
practice]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training (page 21)
•

•

•

COTA cadets receive 8 hours of inmate supervision training; MTC academy cadets
receive 2 hours. [Violation of Contract #130052DC Section 1.10.7, Staff Training,
and DO 509, Employee Training and Education; operational concern, sound
correctional practices]
Some pre-service academy rosters could not be located in order to demonstrate that all
required course contact hours had been completed. [Violation DO 509, Employee
Training and Education; operational concern, sound correctional practices]
DART leader could not correctly identify
and is not
fully compliant with DART tactics. [Violation of DART Training Lesson Plan,
operational concern]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 4: ADC Monitoring Team (page 28)
•

•

•

•

The ADC ASP-Marana monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]
Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Four inmates not
properly logged in the detention report. [Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification,
and Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound correctional
practice]
The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements.
[Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]
The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

CONCLUSION
Based upon the observations and reviews of available materials, inmate interviews, staff contacts
and interviews, the Assessment Team concluded that the inmate population at ASP-Marana was

satisfied with their conditions of confinement. The overall conditions within the facility were
favorable. Staff members appeared to be content with their employer (MTC). Overall unit
sanitation was well above average.
The DART response was acceptable in their level of knowledge by both team members and
supervisory staff. The DART team could use additional drills to strengthen their knowledge of
DART protocols, and tactics for deployment onto the yard. Pre-service training requires followup attention to bring the training programs into full contract and policy compliance.
Overall, ASP-Marana presents a well-groomed, professional operational image. The relationship
between the ADC Monitoring Team, MTC management, line staff members, and inmates is
positive.

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
ASP-FLORENCE WEST
Operated by
GEO GROUP

OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff
The Assessment Team evaluated the staff and leadership of ASP-Florence West (GEO), to
include strengths and weaknesses, communications, decision making, and overall effectiveness
in operations of the prison.
Members of the ADC assessment team engaged in direct observation of unit management and
operational practices for three (3) days. They conducted over sixty-four (64) interviews with
GEO staff and interviewed over ninety (90) inmates. Interviews were conducted with the
majority of officers, sergeants, and lieutenants. GEO staff members appeared to be very candid
in their responses to the assessors.
From the interviews conducted with GEO staff members, only a few concerns were shared. Staff
cited the mandatory thirty (30) minute break as being an issue, since some believe the breaks are
not mandated for all staff on all shifts. Staff also cited low pay as a reason for staff turnover.
Overall, the staff morale was high and the majority of staff interviewed had positive opinions
about the unit administrators and the ADC monitors.
Warden Rick Mauldin
Warden Mauldin has been employed by GEO at ASP-Florence West since 2000. Following his
retirement from the Arizona Department of Corrections, he began working at this location as the
training manager for Correctional Services Corporation and worked his way up to his current
assignment as Warden. He served as the Programs Deputy Warden, the Operations Deputy
Warden, and promoted to Warden in October 2005. When asked to describe how he views his
role, Warden Mauldin reported he has had the same management style for all of his years in
corrections. He tries to be out on the yard every day. He said Florence West inmates have a high
turnover rate due to their short sentences.
Warden Mauldin was asked if he had any concerns following the contract or ADC policy. He
said he did not. He said that at times, we agree to disagree on some things. He said the ADC
monitors are personable, and he works well with the monitors, all of them.
Warden Mauldin was advised that GEO staff shared a concern with mandatory staff breaks that
is contributing to staff conflict and a decrease in morale. Officers reported the dayshift is not

1

required to take their mandatory breaks while the other shifts are made to do so. His response
was the contract does not address breaks.
Central Arizona Correctional Facility, also operated by GEO, (CACF) does not require their staff
to take breaks. Warden Mauldin said the breaks provide a shift overlap that allows his
supervisors to conduct daily shift briefings. He said he does not condone dayshift officers not
taking their breaks. He blamed low staffing levels, but said no one has brought this issue to him.
Warden Mauldin was asked if the facility would utilize support staff to facilitate dayshift staff
taking their breaks. He said yes he would. He was advised his staff is under the impression that
support staff members are not used to ‘break’ shift staff. Warden Mauldin stated he would
review and address this issue. When asked if his staff complain about working 8.5 hours while
the staff at CACF only work 8 hours, Mauldin replied, ‘CACF has a union. My staff members
have received a raise for the past three years, CACF has not.’ When advised that two members of
the assessment team sat in on a briefing and the supervisors were not very prepared, Mauldin
stated they were probably nervous due to the assessor’s presence.
Warden Mauldin was advised that staff members reported that Assistant Warden (AW) Duggan
made a statement in a Warden/CO meeting he held for the Warden that upset the staff. Mauldin
said the only meeting AW Duggan held for him was in August, 2015. When advised that staff
reported that AW Duggan’s response to a question about day shift not taking breaks was
something to the effect of, ‘swing shift needs to worry about swing shift and not worry about
days.’ Warden Mauldin said this would be an inappropriate statement. He said he would address
this and would go to briefing to talk to the staff about it.
Warden Mauldin was advised there are no meeting times on the Warden/CO meeting minutes
making it difficult to tell if the meetings are held at times for all three shifts to attend (GEO/Flo.
West, Warden/CO meeting minutes, Exhibit #1) Mauldin said he switches the meeting times up
and he comes in at 0500 to hold the meeting for graveyard staff.
Warden Mauldin was advised his May 2015, graveyard shift tour had a time of 0500 on it. With
graveyard shift leaving at 0530 this would only be a 30 minute tour. He was advised his June
graveyard tour had a time on it of 1500 hours. He stated the 1500 time was a clerical error and he
is on unit almost every day prior to 0500 hours and sees graveyard shift frequently. When asked
about his compliance with the staff meetings required in DO 112, Warden Mauldin reported he
has not been holding these meetings. He stated that he holds a monthly staff recall and all staff
attends, but he will start holding all meetings required by DO 112. (GEO/Flo. West, Staff Recall
minutes, Exhibit #2)
Warden Mauldin was asked if female staff members are allowed to conduct pat searches at
Florence West. He replied they do not, unless it is in an emergency situation. This was discussed
further and he said there is always a male staff member readily available to do the pat searches
2

and there has not been an emergency situation requiring females to do pat searches yet. He was
advised some staff reported that in the past (corrected now) staff was trained in the academy that
female officers could not restrain inmates. Warden Mauldin said he was not aware of this.
Warden Mauldin was asked if the ADC Monitoring Team tours and interacts with his team. He
stated that the monitors tour frequently. He said all three (DW, Captain, and the COIII) attend his
morning meeting when they are on site. He said all are fair in their approach to the GreenAmber-Red (GAR) inspections. He said he has no issues with GAR findings and he does not
take them personally. ADC is his family, he will not hide anything from ADC, and he will
always do what it takes to work well with ADC.
Warden Mauldin was asked how he would staff a tactical response to Florence West. He said the
response would
. He said
that CACF
, but when the Florence West contract was implemented, CACF did not
exist. He stated this is something that could be reviewed and changed in a contract update.
Mauldin said for Designated Armed Response Team (DART) and TSU deployments, they follow
the contract and have
. The assessor asked why a DART or
TSU
He agreed with the assessor; the
.
Warden Mauldin was advised that the facility’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) was well
written and easy to read, but it does not contain specific information regarding the activation and
deployment of DART.
Warden Mauldin completed all of his mandatory in-service training, and his facility completed
100% with the exception of the DART for Supervisors course. He said he would make this a
priority. DART drills were discussed. He said he sees the reports and they do drills at least one
time per month. He was advised that assessors found some of the drills occur in the main control
room as table top exercises, and other drills take place in the parking lot. Mauldin said all the
drills need to be held in the parking lot and for the team to really go over the information. He
said he has not conducted a live DART drill on the yard in his time at Florence West. ASPFlorence-West has a
. Warden Mauldin shared that a
DART is not meant to
.
DART is meant to
. He and his staff are leery of putting
a
DART
and perhaps
.
Discussion was held about the quality of the facility ingress/egress. Warden Mauldin was
advised that ingress/egress procedures are very good at the main point of entry.

3

Warden Mauldin discussed the level of inmate activity at Florence West. There are 409 inmates
working, according to the reports, but many idle inmates were observed throughout the
assessment. Mauldin said a lot of the work is part time and there is a high number of
programming opportunities. He said the majority of the inmate population is serving four month
sentences. He stated the Return To Custody (RTC) inmates are not required to be kept in
separate housing, but this came about because of fast track inmates being assigned to Florence
West when not a DUI or RTC. Fast track inmates are minimum custody and ninety (90) days
from release. Fast track inmates are only housed in the RTC building. In 2002 the decision was
made to separate the RTC/fast track from DUI inmates.
Warden Mauldin was advised the assessment team found the facility sanitation and inmate
Department Order (DO) 704 compliance to be sub-standard. His response was, “shame on me.”
He discussed that the RTC inmates have difficult attitudes and are harder to manage. He said this
is not an excuse and he will not make excuses.
Warden Mauldin was advised the inmate population is happy with the food quality. He was
advised the Food Service Manager and Assistant Manager are very dedicated and run a good
clean operation. It was then discussed that the facility laundry area is often unsupervised and
inmates were witnessed folding laundry for some inmates while other inmate’s laundry was left
in the bags (the approved procedure). Warden Mauldin will review this.
Assistant Warden Kirk Duggan
Assistant Warden (AW) Kirk Duggan has worked for GEO for approximately three (3) years.
AW Duggan retired from the Arizona Department of Corrections. AW Duggan stated he
attempts to tour the facility about three to four days a week. AW Duggan stated he usually tours
for ten hours a week, but some weeks he only completes about eight hours a week. AW Duggan
stated there are very few jobs and no programs available for the Return to Custody (RTC)
inmates that are housed in building 5. AW Duggan stated there are 409 inmates working at ASPFlorence West and 145 inmates programming. AW Duggan stated monthly community meetings
(Forums) are conducted with the DUI inmates. AW Duggan stated he has a good relationship
with the ADC monitors, and he can talk with them about problems.
AW Duggan discussed that DART drills are conducted in main control or the parking lot, and the
weapons are not loaded. AW Duggan stated he has never observed a live DART drill on the
Florence West yard. AW Duggan stated it would be difficult to deploy
DART
, but he would do it if he thought it would make the situation better. AW Duggan stated it
would probably take
Florence West. AW Duggan was asked if Florence West ever

4

AW Duggan stated security devices are repaired timely except if they have to order a part or rent
a scissor lift. AW Duggan explained that they will not rent a scissor lift if only one light is out.
AW Duggan was asked why work order 15SDWO-027 (perimeter light W4 is not working) was
listed on the January Security Device Inspection (SDI) Report by Captain Bryan Dennis as
pending repairs, but this security device does not appear on any of the consecutive reports as
being repaired. AW Duggan stated this is a clerical error and he produced documentation which
displayed that work order 15SDWO-027 was repaired on February 3, 2015. After reviewing
several months of SDI reports, the assessor determined that the security devices at Florence West
are being repaired in a timely manner. The assessment team did not observe any outstanding
security device problems during their tours.
AW Duggan discussed an allegation that he had made a comment in the August Warden/CO
meeting about ‘swing shift needs to worry about swing shift and not worry about days.’ AW
Duggan admitted he did say words to this effect. He stated dayshift has more operational issues
to deal with and more to do; they feed the inmate population twice. He stated the meeting in
which he made the comment was held on August 27, 2015 and he has not yet seen the minutes to
review them. When asked about use of the support staff to provide relief for breaks, he said
there is about 12 support staff available on dayshift. He said they can be used to ‘break’ dayshift
staff. Duggan said that he has not reviewed who is taking breaks and who is not. When asked
about the increase in facility ingress/egress traffic that the breaks create, he acknowledged this,
but stated management feels having the briefing time is worth the increased traffic.
AW Duggan said Florence West employees cannot work over 24 hours of overtime per week
without permission of the Warden Mauldin or AW Duggan. The Florence West Administrators
also said they attempt to give employees at least one day off during the week. AW Duggan
recently put out an email restricting the working of overtime and requiring staff to have one
regular day off per week (RDO) and to work no more than 24 hours per week.
Captain Fred Burch
Captain Fred Burch recently retired from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), and he
has worked for GEO for approximately six (6) weeks. Captain Burch stated he tours the facility
daily and he is learning how the facility works. Captain Burch is knowledgeable about DART
procedures, National Incident Management System (NIMS), ICS forms, WebEOC, and
Department Order 704, Inmate Regulations. Captain Burch was confident he could improve all
these procedures at Florence West. Captain Burch stated there are many retired or former ADC
employees working at Florence West and this is a benefit to GEO. Captain Burch said he
communicates with staff and inmates on a regular basis so he can prevent problems before they
happen. Captain Burch stated he has good relationship with the ADC monitors.

5

Captain Burch said he does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate housing areas
and he does not include the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703 report. Captain
Burch stated this was a recent audit finding and he will correct this finding in the near future.
Department Order 704, Inmate Housing Regulations states the Chief of Security or designee
shall conduct weekly inspections of all inmate living areas. These inspections shall be
documented, by exception, in the Chief of Security's Monthly Report in accordance with
Department Order #703, Security/Facility Inspections.
Captain Burch stated that he has completed MAG 300 and 400, Intermediate and Advanced
Incident Command System (ICS). Captain Burch said Florence West is utilizing WebEOC for
quarterly searches. Captain Burch said Florence West is only utilizing the ICS-214 Activity Log
when they activate WebEOC. Florence West is not utilizing any of the other required ICS forms.
Florence West is only partially utilizing the National Incident Management System (NIMS). In
the short time that Captain Burch has been in his role, he appears to have made a positive
impression on the staff.
Captain Burch was asked if there were sufficient restraints in the inventory to restrain the entire
population. He produced a memo which stated there are
leg irons, side restraints,
belly
chains,
flex cuffs, and
handcuffs (excluding the handcuffs that are already issued to staff).
.
Summary of observations and conclusions:
The ingress/egress procedures were thorough and policy compliant. Identification cards (IDs)
were checked, property was thoroughly searched, phones were checked, and all staff was logged
in/out. Ingress/egress was professional and compliant for the entire assessment period.
Staff reported one concern that is creating tension amongst staff. All three shifts are mandated to
take a 30 minute break each shift. It was reported and confirmed by GEO supervisors that
dayshift rarely meets this mandate and does not ‘break’ their staff. Swing shift and graveyard
shift officers are aware of this inequity and have calculated this financially and believe it equates
to dayshift getting shift differential pay. They calculated that if an officer does not take the
required breaks, it equals 5 hours of overtime per pay period. They said the average officer
makes $16.00 per hour, at time and a half this is $24.00 per hour. $24.00 time 5 hours equals
$120.00 per pay period, which would be $3,120 per year. With 9 officers on day shift this totals
$28,080 per year that it costs GEO to allow day shift to not take the mandated breaks.
There are a number of former and/or retired Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
employees employed at Florence West. Due to their experience in ADC run facilities, these staff
members appear to be having a positive impact on the facility operation. These former ADC
employees all spoke positively of the facility and the administration.
6

In all of the interviews conducted, commentary about Warden Mauldin was positive. He was
reported to tour frequently and to interact with staff daily. Many staff reported that he checks on
them, calls them on the phone or visits them to ask how they are doing.
The majority of staff interviewed was positive in their comments about Associate Warden
Duggan. Some felt that he is not approachable and it was mentioned that his demeanor is not as
friendly as the Warden’s. It was said the previous Associate Warden helped staff with their
duties and participated in yard operations in a more hands on manner. The comment attributed
to Duggan from the August Warden/CO meeting has damaged his reputation with many staff.
All staff reported that AW Duggan tours frequently.
Staff consistently reported they had completed their required in-service training and the preservice academy was productive and prepared them for the job.
Staff consistently reported the supervisors (Sgts and Lts) are readily available to them and they
tour frequently. Swing shift officers were especially complimentary of their supervisors.
Hiring information was reviewed and no issues were noted. (GEO/Flo. West, Employee
termination report, Exhibit #3, Employee transaction history, Exhibit #4) The facility does not
conduct exit questionnaires.
No employee discipline report was provided. Employment files were available for review. No
disciplinary cases of note were discovered or reviewed.
The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) at ASP-Florence West is professionally written and within
the guidelines of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Disturbance/Riot
Annex contained in the ERP at Florence West does not mention the Designated Armed Response
Team (DART). Department Order 706, Incident Management
for
Florence West and this information should be included within Disturbance/Riot Annex. Within
the ERP, the Disturbance/Riot Annex for Florence West also describes
Correctional
Emergency Response Team (CERT)
. This Annex has not
been adapted to the Florence West facility. ASP-Florence West
, nor
are they contracted
. CERT
Central Arizona Correctional
Facility (CACF), also operated by GEO,
. All GEO facilities are
using the same ERP which has not been tailored to apply to one facility. No other concerns were
noted with the ERP.
DART drills are conducted monthly on all three shifts. Captain Burch stated some of the DART
drills are conducted in main control and some are conducted in the parking lot. For the main
control drills, the DART participants dress out in the DART equipment, but they never leave
main control. Captain Burch stated this will be corrected and all DART drills will be conducted
in the parking lot.
7

Warden Mauldin said CACF has a
CACF

. Warden Mauldin was asked why

.
Warden Mauldin, AW Duggan, and Captain Burch stated Florence West employees cannot work
over 24 hours of overtime per week, without permission from Warden Mauldin or AW Duggan.
The Florence West Administrators also said they attempt to give employees at least one day off
per week. Payroll Clerk, Erin Maxson stated she does not pay the employee for excessive
overtime, unless she has a signed memo by Warden Mauldin or AW Duggan.
A long recognized and critical tool for effective prison management is frequent and consistent
tours by members of the management team, especially the unit administrators. The benefits in
terms of communication with staff and inmates; awareness firsthand of operational procedures
and programs; coaching, guiding and supporting staff in their efforts to do their job correctly;
and identifying problematic issues are just a few of the benefits. It has been noted by all staff
that were interviewed that Mr. Mauldin, Mr. Duggan, and Mr. Turner, the Correctional Programs
Supervisor (CPS), frequently tour the unit and speak with staff and inmates.
An experience level comparison in terms of years in job code was conducted relative to the staff
at GEO and like-positions within ADC. Additionally, a comparison of the length of time in a
qualifying pay grade/rank was completed with GEO Case Managers and ADC COIIIs, as well as
the Sergeants in ADC and GEO. The results of the total comparisons are listed below:
Position
CO
COIII
Sgt
Lt
Captain
COIV
ADW
Warden

ADC
6.4
4.96
3.75
3.81
3.14
4.11
1.26
2.77

Full Time Positions
Correctional Officer II
Sergeant
Lieutenant

ASPC Florence West
4.5
6.4 (Case Manager)
2.0
2.0
0.1
3 (Classification Manager)
2.0 (AW)
15
Allocated
56
03
05

Filled
54
03
05

Vacancy
02
00
00

ASP Florence West has a total of 109 positions to include Administration, Security, Clerical, and
Medical staff.
8

Overtime is used to reach required staffing. It was reported that the use of overtime is sporadic
and ebbs and flows based on needed medical coverage and staffing. The facility does limit the
amount of overtime worked per week to 24 hours. GEO policy does not mandate this, but the
facility recently implemented the restriction after review/direction from CBOD Tara Diaz. None
of the staff interviewed felt overtime was a negative issue. Staff report they are mandated to
work overtime infrequently and the majority of overtime worked is voluntary. The majority also
reported the system in place to track overtime status (bubble system) is fair and consistently
implemented.
During the weeks noted, the following staff worked in excess of 24 hours overtime:
Week Ending:
06/28/2015
07/12/2015
08/16/2015

Name and Hours of OT Worked in Excess of 24 Hours:
G. Munoz-31.25 hours
S. Castillo-30 hours
S. Veach-Lopez-26 hours

Posts are typically fully staffed without collapsing of posts. Overtime is used to fill vacant posts
on the roster. If a post needs to be collapsed in order to provide staffing for an emergency
medical transport, staff is called in from home to fill the collapsed post.
Key Findings
•
•

•
•

•

GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]
The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) and he does not include the results of these inspections in his
monthly DO 703 report. [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Inspections and DO
704, Inmate Housing Regulations]
There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of DO
706, Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The facility Emergency Response Plan Annex for Disturbance/Riot refers to
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT)
.
This Annex has not been adapted to the Florence West facility. Florence West
. [Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
Staff morale is negatively affected by day shift not taking their mandated 30 minute daily
break. [Operational concern]

•
. [Operational concern and sound correctional
practice]
9

OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
An initial tour of the unit was taken with Arizona Department of Corrections monitors
facilitating the tour. The tour was led by GEO management.
During the tour several initial observations were made to include the following; a large number
of the inmate population did not appear to be engaged in any programming, education or work
assignments, and there was an overall appearance of idleness among the inmate population.
Sanitation within the dorms requires closer attention to detail. Within the dorms, areas above eye
level (i.e. ceilings, window sills, lights, vents, etc.) were below standards with dirt and
significant presence of cobwebs (see photos below). There was evidence of inmates smoking in
the dorms due to cigarette butts and ashes on the window sills. The individual inmate living areas
all contain double bunks so the area appears congested. There was no ‘example pictures’
displayed of an inmate’s living area in compliance with Department Order 704, Inmate
Regulations. This would allow inmates to see how their living area should be maintained.
Underneath the bunks there were areas of large amounts of dust build up (see photo below). This
was noticed on the first day by AW Duggan and had not been addressed as of day two. When
brought to his attention on the second day the comment was “You can never be ready for a tour.”
Inmates responded politely when spoken to and presented a respectful demeanor. Interaction
with the inmates was positive.
Inmate grooming was below acceptable standards. Multiple inmates were witnessed in the open
yard with their ID cards fastened to their sleeves or to the bottoms of their shirts which is not
consistent with DO 704 requirements. GEO Staff did not address this issue.
The dorms are cooled with evaporative cooling and it was quite warm in the dorms. However,
large fans are mounted in several locations. The inmates also have fans in their living areas. The
evaporative coolers and the fans were covered in dust and were dirty.
Officers were observed in the dorms actively performing security checks.

10

Inmates were observed in the dining room seated by race. The mood of the inmates was good
and many inmates could be seen laughing and smiling. No inmates complained about the food,
and the inmates stated they enjoyed being served three hot meals. The majority of the inmates
entering the dining room were observed to be well groomed and wearing their inmate ID cards
on their chests.

11

Constituent Services:
A review of complaints from constituent services would indicate that ASP-Florence West is
within ADC standards and comparable to other ADC units of its size and custody level.
(GEO/Flo. West, FY 2015 Constituent Services Report, Exhibit #5)
Disciplinary:
Inmate disciplinary violation reports issued in Year 2012, Year 2013 and Year 2014 were
respectively 593, 840 and 806. Year over year for 2012 and 2013, there was an increase of 41%
in inmate disciplinary violations. For 2013 and 2014, there was an increase of 4% in inmate
disciplinary violations. As of 07/31/2015, there were 491 inmate disciplinary violation reports
issued. At the current trend, Year 2015 inmate disciplinary violation reports issued is projected to
increase 4% when compared to Year 2014. Regarding the ASP-Florence West, Return to
Custody inmates, the current trend indicates a 2% decrease compared to year end 2014.
(GEO/Flo. West, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Year to Date Discipline AIMS Print Out, Exhibit #6)
As of 07/31/2015 for Year 2015, 94.31% of inmate disciplines issued consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

01B - Aggravated Refusal (24.44%)
25B - Disobey Directive (16.50%)
11B - Disrupt Count (11.81%)
38B – Positive or Refuse (7.54%)
36B - Violating Department Instruction (7.13%)
34B - Theft/Posses (5.09%)
20B - Obstructing Staff (3.46%)
33B - Tattoo, Brands (3.26%)
23B - Promote Prison Contraband (2.85%)
09B – Criminal Damage (2.85%)
37B – Posses Drugs (1.63%)
16A – Possession of Communication Device (1.63%)
07A – Conspiracy to Commit (1.43%)
04C - Disrespect to Staff (1.43%)
10B – Disorderly Conduct (1.22%)
14C – Unauthorized Smoking (1.02%)
05C - Violating Grooming (1.02%)

As of 08/17/2015, inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
•
•
•

101 guilty major verdicts
232 guilty minor verdicts
113 informally resolved inmate disciplinary violations
45 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts
12

Grievances:
The number of formal inmate grievances filed at Florence West totaled one (1) for calendar year
2015. These numbers are within the average range when compared to similar custody ADC units
(ASPC-Winslow, Apache Unit and ASPC-Lewis, Eagle Point Unit) on a per capita basis. Food
was the one grievance issue at Florence West. (GEO/Flo. West, ASP Florence West, ASP
Phoenix West Grievance Logs, and ASPC-Winslow, Apache Grievance logs, Exhibit #7)
Classification:
A review of the classification actions with the general population inmates at Florence West
indicates that all actions with the exception of one inmate were completed within policy time
frames. (GEO/Flo. West, Florence West AIMS Classification Print Out, Exhibit #8)
Detention:
ASP-Florence West Detention holds up to 23 inmates in 11 double bunk cells and one single
bunk continuous watch cell. The detention review was based on the online detention report
generated on 08/13/2015 and 08/27/2015. A total of 21 inmates that were listed on the two
reports were reviewed. One inmate was identified as being classified with the wrong code
applied to classification action. The ADC COIII is responsible for the classification actions for
inmates assigned to detention. The Shift Commander did not forward the DO 805, Protective
Custody packet for an inmate who requested protective custody to the Deputy Warden within
one workday from when the review was initiated on 07/23/2015. The packet was forwarded to
the Deputy Warden on 07/27/2015. During a tour of the detention unit it was noted that the cells
were clean and the recreation areas had the required mister system and a platform to hold an
igloo water cooler. There were no inmates in recreation to view at the time. The individual
detention records reviewed indicate that the CPO’s and nurses make tours daily as required per
policy.
Visitation:
Visitation attendance at ASP-Florence West is higher when compared to a similar ADC Units.
For the month of July 2015, AIMS indicates there were 552 adult and minor visitors. ASPCSafford, Graham Unit visitation for the same month was 363. There are many contributing
factors to the high visitation numbers. The location of the prison, many first time convictions
and it is a low-level DUI unit. (GEO/Flo. West, Visitation Summary ASP Florence West &
ASPC Safford Graham Unit, Exhibit #9)

13

Inmate Programs
Education:
ASP-Florence West has two mandatory literacy classes and two GED classes for inmates who
have a need. Placement is determined utilizing the priority ranking report. There are two
instructors assigned to the unit. Instructor G. Chandler has been with GEO since July, 2007 and
Instructor D. Bell since January, 2012. They both teach one Functional Literacy and one GED
class. The assessor observed the classes and found the students were engaged and participating
in their groups. (GEO/Flo. West, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
Career Technical Education (CTE)
ASP-Florence West does not have a CTE program. When asked why not, it was stated that it is
not identified in the contract.
Substance Abuse Programs – Case Manager Programs:
ASP Florence West provides DUI and substance abuse counseling to all inmates assigned to the
facility; all general population inmates at Florence West are minimum custody and are serving
DUI sentences.
The program consists of a statutorily mandated 36 hour curriculum (referred to as levels 1 &2)
covering DUI treatment (20 hours) and education (16 hours). Each inmate is assigned to the
levels classes within 1 – 2 weeks of arrival at the facility.
Once completed with levels 1 & 2 curricula, inmates are then assigned to additional classes
covering the following:
•
•
•
•
•

Level 1 Substance Abuse Education
Level 2 Substance Abuse Education
Cognitive Restructuring
Re-Entry
Relapse Prevention / Coping

Each class is five weeks in length. When an inmate is 5-6 weeks from release they are placed in
a Pre-Release class.
The total amount of substance abuse programming an inmate receives depends on his sentence
length. A large number of inmates assigned to Florence West are serving four month sentences
as a condition of probation; others are serving up to five years. All of the substance abuse
programs are taught by a licensed counselor.
14

Case Managers teach ‘Thinking for a Change’ and re-entry programs. The inmates are assigned
based on their order of placement on the priority ranking report.
Case Managers also conduct office hours and are available daily to the inmate population. When
walking amongst the inmate population the assessors received a couple of questions regarding
case manager issues. There was a common theme that CM Shultz was the case manager to go to
if you need anything done.
The schedule of classes that the assessor reviewed did not match what was being taught. CM
Steelman is the only case manager teaching classes. He is scheduled to teach two classes twice a
week. The current report shows no inmates assigned to Cognitive Restructuring and 17 inmates
assigned to re-entry. When the case manager was asked when his next class was he advised that
it would be the next Thursday at 9:15 AM. This did not match what is listed on the schedule.
Additionally, with the amount of inmate idleness it would be beneficial for all case managers to
teach classes. This would reduce the amount of idleness on the unit. (GEO/Flo. West, Capacity
Report, Exhibit #10)
Inmates assigned to the return-to-custody, building 5, are offered no programming opportunities
as they have less than 90 days to serve until they are released.
Religious Services:
ASP-Florence West provides a number of religious program services. They provide an
Alcoholics Anonymous program that is religious based. The religious services calendar
indicates a wide range of programs and services for various religious groups and reflects a
service or meeting every day of the week.
(GEO/Flo. West, Religious Services Calendar,
Exhibit #11)
Library Operations:
The library is open seven days a week for four hours a day. Legal resources are available five
days a week for two hours a day. The library is open two nights a week for offsite work crew
inmates. The library was open and clean and inmates were utilizing the resources available to
them. The Return to Custody inmates have a small library on their side of the unit. The hours of
operation are four days a week for one hour and forty five minutes. (GEO/Flo. West, Library
Calendar, Exhibit #12)
Work Opportunities:
ASP-Florence West has a maximum population of 500 inmates assigned to the general
population/treatment section of the unit. There are two types of jobs available to the inmates at
Florence West, Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) employs 80 inmates, and Work Incentive
15

Pay Plan (WIPP) employs 331 inmates. The total number of employed inmates is 411 which is
an 82.2% rate of employment.
Most of the WIPP jobs are part time. For pay period ending 07/31/2015 there were 130 porters
assigned. Some of these porters are receiving as little as 5 hours every two weeks. When the
total hours worked is divided by the total inmates assigned porter jobs, the average hours worked
is 17.67 for a two week period. More utilization of WIPP jobs would result in less inmate
idleness on the yard.
When comparing the racial breakdown of the unit versus that of inmates working there is no
more than a 4% difference in racial parity. This indicates that jobs are assigned equally by race.
(GEO/Flo. West, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
Inmates assigned to the return-to-custody housing unit are offered little to no work opportunities
as they have less than 90 days until release.
Structured Recreation:
An effective management tool for correctional administrators when they are challenged with
keeping inmates occupied and engaged if meaningful jobs are lacking is to provide an ample
amount of recreational activities in both active and passive formats. Florence West was asked to
provide a recreation schedule. They provided a schedule of the open yard times. When Mr.
Turner, the Correctional Program Supervisor, was asked if they had structured tournaments he
advised that they have them every so often. There was no documentation available to back this
up. (GEO/Flo. West, Recreation Hours of Operation, Exhibit #13)
Intelligence Gathering/Sharing:
ADC Special Security Unit (SSU) staff reported to the Florence West facility for the purpose of
assessing and determining the current culture that exists among the inmate population and GEO
staff.
The designated GEO staff assigned to perform SSU duties and intelligence gathering was not
accessible to the inmate population during the ADC SSU assessment tour of the facility. A
request for them to assist with and facilitate inmate movement and interviews was met with some
resistance. This was due to them working other assignments that did not allow for full dedication
to the SSU position.
The GEO SSU staff members were interviewed. Both officers have limited opportunities to
conduct SSU duties due to their other duties. They are often unable to successfully respond to
inmate issues. Both Officers have only a limited understanding of the DO 806 STG policy and its
effectiveness in managing inmate Security Threat Groups (STG) /Criminal Street Gangs (CSG).
16

One of the officers is assigned to the Count Movement position. The officer stated if given the
choice of working Count Movement or assuming an SSU position full-time, her choice would be
to focus on Count Movement. The second SSU Officer is assigned as the Transportation/Work
Crew Supervisor. The officer stated his duties and responsibilities as an SSU/Intelligence Officer
are very limited. Both Officers acknowledged their functions involving intelligence gathering
and SSU duties primarily consist of following up on concerns brought forth by their
administration or after inmate issues arise.

A second concern identified by the assessment team was the limited access to and frequency of
the Corrections Program Officers (CPO) availability to address concerns for the inmate
population. Inmates complained that access to the CPO was very limited. Inmates stated
caseworkers would post ‘office hours’ then would not be present during these times. Different
inmates stated CPO Schultz was the only caseworker that understood her job. They also said her
availability to the inmate population was satisfactory. Some inmates stated, besides CPO
Schultz, the other caseworkers were only useful for “money checks” (inmate banking account
inquiries). Some inmates expressed they would often wait for CPO Schultz’ arrival to work
rather than be assisted by other caseworkers who may be on-site.
The Native American inmate population alleged that they are not allowed to participate in sweat
lodge or smudging activities. They said this was due to the inmate population being required to
pay for items associated with their religious observances; such as firewood and religious
ceremonial items. The Native American inmate population reported their religious activities are
not being fulfilled fairly. The Native Americans were concerned that their religious beliefs were
being challenged by Chaplain Richards. The Native Americans complained they are not allowed
to be in possession of their personal religious items (Sage, Feather, Medicine Bag, etc). This was
reported to Warden Mauldin who stated inmates are allowed to possess their religious articles in
accordance with ADC policy requirements.
The majority of inmates that were interviewed stated the GEO facility does benefit from the
retired Department of Corrections staff members that are employed at ASP-Florence West.
Inmates said the former ADC staff is proactive and respectful when dealing with the inmate
population.
During interviews of the inmate population in Buildings 3 and 4 (DUI inmates), several of the
inmates stated there was a group of GEO security staff members who are unprofessional. The
inmates stated these officers use profanity, talk down to people, and/or challenge inmates to get
involved in confrontations. Interviews with various inmates of different races identified four (4)
17

staff members as “Badge Heavy” officers. This term commonly refers to an officer who is on a
power trip, harassing, abusing authority, or threatening inmates. There were four staff members
who were routinely named by inmates. Several of these inmates identified one particular officer
as being the main instigator and constantly harassing or confronting others in an aggressive
physical manner. These four staff members were identified to Warden Mauldin for his review
and follow-up.
The inmates suspect that these staff members behave in this manner because they believe the
current inmate population is minimum custody and will not risk losing their Earned Release
Credits by reacting to the officers’ behavior. Inmates assigned to ASP-Florence West are close to
release and do not want to risk additional imprisonment for reacting to the unprofessional staff.
Several inmates mentioned an incident which occurred on 08/29/2015 between a Sergeant (Sgt)
and an inmate. Allegedly, the Sgt confronted the inmate regarding him having an unauthorized
cup holder. The inmate stated he felt he was being targeted by the Sgt because of past issues. On
this day when confronted by the Sgt, the inmate pointed out several other inmates in the vicinity
who all had similar cup holders, but were not addressed by any staff before the Sgt confronted
him. According to the inmate a verbal confrontation with profanity ensued and he alleged the Sgt
threatened him. The inmate perceived this as a challenge to a physical altercation. The inmate
further alleged he was then ordered to submit to restraints, and when he complied, he was
escorted to Medical before being placed into detention.
After being briefed by ADC SSU about the concern regarding this Sgt, GEO Captain Burch said
he was the On-Site Duty Officer on this day and he was aware of the incident. He said the
inmates’ allegations were false. Capt. Burch stated that he was notified of the incident after the
inmate in question had failed to comply with directives. Capt. Burch stated that he authorized the
inmate to be placed into detention. Captain Burch then stated that later in the day, it was the
Sgt’s decision that the inmate be removed from detention and returned to his housing
assignment.
The inmate population assigned to Building 5, identified as Return to Custody (RTC) inmates or
fast track inmates was interviewed regarding conditions of confinement. An emerging concern
was they are not afforded with sufficient employment opportunities. RTC inmates are not
allowed to participate in town hall meetings (forums) due to their short length of sentence. RTC
inmates shared their concerns with not being allowed to attend these forums.
Key Findings
•

Sanitation within the individual living areas, common areas, and restroom/showers was
below ADC standards. [Violation of DO 704, operational concerns, sound
correctional practice]
18

•

•

•
•

•

•

Inmate compliance with housing and personal grooming regulations was lacking and
required greater attention to detail. Multiple inmates were witnessed with their ID cards
fastened to their sleeves or to the bottoms of their shirts. Staff did not address this issue.
[Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]
Programming and WIPP are being underutilized. Florence West would benefit from
adding more programming classes to their schedule. The unit would benefit not only from
reducing inmate idleness, but also having a cleaner unit. [Operational concern, sound
correctional practice]
No structured recreation is being offered. [Violation of DO 906, Inmate
Recreation/Arts & Crafts, operational concern, sound correctional practice]
One inmate identified as being classified with the wrong code applied to classification
action. The ADC COIII is responsible for the classification actions for inmates assigned
to detention. [ Violation of DO 801, Inmate Classification]
The Shift Commander did not forward the DO 805, Protective Segregation packet for an
inmate who requested protective custody to the Deputy Warden within one workday from
when the review was initiated on 07/23/2015. The packet was forwarded to the Deputy
Warden on 07/27/2015. [Violation of DO 805]
Inmates reported that some staff were aggressive and/or unprofessional [Operational
concern, sound correctional practice]

19

OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training
The following is a summary of the Assessment Team’s review of staff training to include preservice, in-service and specialized courses for TSU, DART, and Emergency Management
(NIMS). Team members interviewed training staff, examined class rosters, course curricula, and
a multitude of training-related documents to better understand the learning process at ASPFlorence West. (GEO/Flo West, FY2015 Annual Training Plan, Exhibit #14)
In-service training was found to be non-compliant.
Supervisors training as required by ADC.

GEO failed to conduct DART for

In-Service Training:
The Florence West Training Officer conducts and coordinates in-service and new employee
orientation training for both Florence West and CACF. A sample of three months of in-service
rosters and FY15 spreadsheet of in-service training were reviewed. No findings of
noncompliance were discovered.
A review of rosters indicates that ADC required Supervisor Essentials FY2015 training was
completed for all assigned supervisors.
Firearms:
Review of twelve months of firearms rosters was completed. The training report indicates that
the GEO Security Staff are current in firearms qualifications. No findings of noncompliance
were found. Training Officer Johnson reported that all firearms training for Florence West
employees is completed through CACF.
Designated Armed Response Team (DART):
A review of reports for May, June, and July reveal that DART drills are completed minimally
once per month on each shift.
A DART response drill was conducted for the purposes of assessing and evaluating the team.
The Shift Commander, Lt. Ferrick, appeared apprehensive about initiating the drill and received
direction/prompting from one of her peers. The DART responders were slow to react and
responded in a very casual manner without demonstrating a sense of urgency. Once assembled,
team members were asked if they had been advised earlier in their shift that they were the
assigned DART. Two of the four team members were not previously advised. The team entered
Main Control, and continued with their casual approach while receiving their weapons and
ammunition. The DART marched onto the front parking lot and completed several formations.
Individual team members were asked what munitions they were carrying and how they would
deploy each munition. Officers answered correctly regarding proper deployment areas, but were
unsure about minimum deployment distances and whether they should be direct or indirectly
20

fired. The DART supervisor answered incorrectly how to deploy a flash-bang grenade, he stated
. The DART
leader was asked whether he would respond
. His response was,
. Officers assigned to the DART responded that the DART
.
All officers said that they complete DART training on the range at firearms qualification.
(GEO/Flo. West, DART Training Lesson Plan dated 04-19-2005 *Restricted, Exhibit 15),
(DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit 16), (Department Order 706,
Incident Management *Restricted, Exhibit 17)
Warden Mauldin stated a
. Captain Burch
stated he would
Warden Mauldin and
Captain Burch were both asked why they would not
. Florence West and CACF are both operated by GEO. Warden Mauldin stated, we may
, but it is not part of the contract. Captain Burch
stated he did not know
.
DART for Supervisors 2015 training was not completed for FY 2015. When advised of this
finding, Captain Burch said that they would get the training completed as soon as possible.
(GEO/Flo. West, DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit 16)
Pre-Service Training:
Pre-service training for Florence West is completed at Central Arizona Correctional Facility
(CACF).
As part of ADC Pre-Service training, a Field Training Officer Program (FTO) is to be in place to
afford cadets and newly graduated officers an opportunity to be mentored by a specifically
selected and experienced officer. The assessment confirmed that GEO does not utilize Field
Training Officers. After completion of the academy, cadets are paired up with senior officers to
complete a 40 hour On the Job Training (OJT). No formal FTO training is completed for the
senior officers.
Tactical Support Unit:
Florence West
(GEO/Flo. West, Florence West ADC Tactical Support
Agreement, Exhibit #18)

21

National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training:
Four Security Supervisors have not completed NIMS 200; Training Officer Johnson said the
employees had a deadline of September 30th for completion. *includes part time employees
Two security officers who have not completed NIMS 200 are currently on leave without pay.
(GEO/Flo. West, Florence West NIMS, Exhibit #19)
Munitions:
A comparison of less than lethal munitions at Florence West was compared to Apache Unit. In
each category Florence West had substantially fewer munitions on inventory than the Apache
Unit. This is due to the proximity of the GEO CACF facility next to Florence West and may not
be a significant issue. (GEO/Flo. West, Florence West, ASPC-Winslow-Apache Munitions,
Exhibit #20)
A few staff voiced concern that a non-security staff member (Commissary worker) was teaching
classes. This was reviewed and the Commissary worker only teaches CARE and she is certified.
Key Findings
•

•
•
•

DART for Supervisors 2015 was not completed for FY2015. [Violation of Contract
#020049DC Section 2.10.10 Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education; operational concern, sound correctional practices]
Florence West does not utilize Field Training Officers. [Sound correctional practice]
Four Security Supervisors have not completed all required NIMS courses. [Violation of
FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education]
The DART responders were slow to react and responded in a very casual manner without
demonstrating a sense of urgency. DART members and supervisor could not identify
proper deployment of assigned munitions. [Violation of DART Training lesson plan,
operational concern]

22

OBJECTIVE 4, ADC Monitoring Team
This segment encompasses a review of duties and functions of the on-site ADC staff assigned to
monitor the operations of ASP-Florence West staff and bridge the relationship between the
Department and ASP-Florence West.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs a cadre of full-time staff to monitor contract
compliance of contracted prison facilities. The ADC Monitoring Team is comprised of:
Tara Diaz, Contract Beds Operations Director (oversees monitoring of all contract bed facilities)
Ron Credio, Contract Beds Deputy Bureau Administrator (oversees monitoring of all contract
bed facilities)
ASP-Florence West Monitoring Team
Jeffery Freeland, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor
Terry Wiesinger, Captain, Disciplinary Coordinator, Monitor
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer (Assigned to Central Office-visits Florence
West)
Sherry Pergrem, COIII, Programs Monitor
The ADC Assessment Team reviewed the contract for GEO and the scope of work within
Department Order #106, Contract Beds, and Department Order #703, Security/Facility
Inspections for the bureau and assigned monitors.
The ADC monitors were interviewed and their performance was reviewed. The assessment also
included a review of the current contract, discussions with GEO staff, operational observations,
and document checks. After reviewing DO 703, Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspection reports,
audit results, monthly reports, inmate disciplinary findings and classification decisions, the
assessment team determined the following:
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on the
policy. They are conducting their required monthly tours based on a review of; (GEO/Flo West,
ADC 703 Reports, Exhibit #21) The ADC Monitoring Team completes their GAR and DO 703
monthly inspections appropriately. This is evident through GAR inspection results, tour
inspections reports and observations. GAR inspections and prison tours are conducted to
monitor the specific security operations and security devices at a prison unit and ensure that they
remain in good working condition, and that supervisory and other management personnel
conduct regular inspections and tours. The monitor team is known to the staff and the inmate
population. They tour frequently and conduct regular GAR inspections. These tools (GAR,
23

tours/inspections) do not ‘monitor’ the culture of a prison unit, to include the interactions
between inmates and staff, and the attitudes of each group. GAR inspections do not ask
questions about the quality or quantity of staff training, or how often officers see their
supervisors on the yard. To properly assess the culture of a prison unit, one needs to speak with
staff and inmates at length and observe their interactions. In depth town hall meetings (Forums)
with inmates should be observed routinely and the attitudes of both staff and inmates noted;
given the small size of this facility, ADC monitors have been able to be involved more in-depth
with these listed activities.
The ADC Monitoring Team has established a process of addressing issues on the spot and
working with the GEO Administrators to correct them. Deputy Warden (DW) Freeland monitors
GAR corrective action plans (CAPs) and at this time there are none pending. The assessment
team noted no delays in CAPs follow-up.
The team meets timeframes for the majority of their mandatory oversight and decision making
on the high volume of inmate actions (classification, disciplinary, visitation, releases,
correspondence, etc.) and contractor clearances. One inmate was found to be improperly
classified using the wrong classification code that was not actively followed up to facilitate
movement from detention to a general population facility.
ADC monitors report that generally there is open communication between the GEO staff and
ADC Monitoring Team. GEO employees did not share any information with the assessment team
that would indicate that they were told it was frowned upon to speak to ADC staff.
The Contract Beds Monitoring Team members were interviewed separately.
Jeffery Freeland, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor:
Deputy Warden Freeland was interviewed on September 11, 2015, concerning his role as Lead
Monitor at Florence West and CACF. DW Freeland has been assigned as the Lead Monitor for
approximately six (6) months. He attended the Monitor Training facilitated by CBOD Tara Diaz
and DBA Ron Credio, where he received both verbal and written instruction concerning his
assigned responsibilities. DW Freeland has copies of both contracts and refers to them as
necessary.
DW Freeland described his role as an overseer of both units. He enforces ADC policy and
procedures, and communicates with the unit Wardens to ensure said policies and the contracts
are followed. He communicates via telephone or email with the unit’s administration when
reporting concerns, and will complete the monthly GAR inspection report to note discrepancies.
When asked about the GAR, he responded that he will complete approximately 20 percent of the
monthly GAR inspections for each unit (CACF and Florence West). He rotates the GAR
24

assignments each month between each unit’s COIII and Captain/Lt. Each monitor will submit
GAR findings as necessary, and without needing to ‘clear’ the finding with DW Freeland first.
DW Freeland completes his required DO 703 tours each month at both CACF and Florence
West, and will complete on average one tour in visitation each month. COIII O’Driscoll is
scheduled to work Saturdays (his choice), and will complete tours in visitation each week. In
reviewing DW Freeland’s 703 tour reports, it was noted he completed two graveyard tours that
were less than an hour in length. When questioned, he reported he will occasionally come in at
the beginning of graveyard shift and not complete a report; and will be more cognizant about
completing longer tours. He does not require his COIII’s or Lieutenants to complete unit tours
on swing shift or graveyard shifts.
DW Freeland and his monitors attend the morning meeting at each facility and he encourages
transparency between his staff and GEO. He stated lines of communication between the two
groups is good and GEO staff report he is often on the yards interacting with both staff and
inmates. DW Freeland attends inmate/staff town hall meetings and is familiar to the inmate
population.
DW Freeland stated there is an ongoing dispute about staffing on the graveyard shift. DW
Freeland stated that Florence West, graveyard shift is only posting 7 officers and the ADC
contract states they should be posting 8 officers. DW Warden Freeland stated this disagreement
has not been settled at this time, and Warden Mauldin was issued a Discrepancy Notification
Letter on August 17, 2015 from Deputy Bureau Administrator, Ron Credio (GEO/Flo. West,
Discrepancy Notification Letter to Warden Mauldin from DBA, Ron Credio, Exhibit #22)
Terry Wiesinger, Captain:
Captain Terry Wiesinger was interviewed on Tuesday, September 1, 2015. He has been an
ADC monitor at ASP-Florence West for approximately six (6) weeks. He has not been to
monitor training, and his copy of the contract is at his residence. In speaking with Captain
Wiesinger, it was apparent that he has reviewed the contract and was able to reference several
sections in the contract. Captain Wiesinger described his duties as being responsible for
observing the GEO Group’s compliance with ADC policy and the contract without interfering
with their direct operation of the Florence West facility. He completes the Green-Amber-Red
(GAR) inspections according to policy, and acts as the Disciplinary Coordinator and Hearing
Officer.
Captain Wiesinger hears all minor disciplinary tickets at ASP-Florence West, and conducts
preliminary hearings for major rule violations. ADC Captain Adam Kraatz conducts major ticket
hearings for ASP-Florence West.

25

Captain Wiesinger conducts monthly DO 703 tours/inspections, and tours the yard and is in the
housing units daily. When he observes GEO staff not following ADC policy, he verbally
redirects them and notifies their supervisor. Based on the severity of the discrepancy, he
completes a GAR finding. He stated he attempts to be transparent with how he conducts his
tours/inspections and openly discusses his concerns with his supervisor and GEO management.
He meets frequently with ADC Lead Monitor DW Freeland and discusses issues or concerns,
and will notify DW Freeland of any GAR findings.
Captain Wiesinger was asked about a recent increase in disciplinary violations being written by
ASP-Florence West officers, and he stated it was due to officers holding inmates accountable for
DO 704 housing and grooming compliance. He attributed this to having a newly assigned GEO
Chief of Security, and himself being newly assigned as the ADC Monitor. A review of the
disciplinary violations showed an increase of 40 minor violations written in the month of August,
2015.
Captain Wiesinger attends the morning meeting with GEO management, ADC Programs
Monitor COIII Pergrem and DW Freeland. He attends the weekly detention meeting at CACF,
has observed an inmate substance abuse class and has sat in on inmate orientation. He monitors
inmate feeding and recreation and reportedly spends approximately fifty percent of his time on
the yards and in the housing areas, interacting with staff and inmates. GEO staff report they see
him daily and he is approachable and helpful.
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer:
Captain Adam Kraatz is the Contract Beds Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO). He works out of
the Central Office and covers all facilities as the relief captain. He has assigned to the Contract
Beds Bureau for one and a half (1.5) years and promoted into the position. He does not have
copies of the contracts because he has access to all of them at Central Office. His duties are:
DHO for Marana, Phoenix West, Florence West, CACF, and Red Rock. He travels to Kingman
one time per month to assist. He sets the schedule for the contract beds pre-audits. He views his
role as: Contract Beds is all one team; we work for the success of all. Inmate Disciplinary is his
primary role. He assesses operations everywhere while he tours and as he walks to and from
disciplinary offices. He pays attention to what is going on. If he finds any issues, he debriefs with
the private prison warden and the ADC Lead Monitor. He said he talks to staff. He said that
sometimes supervisors will hide issues or cover things up, but not the officers. They talk to him.
They will tell him if something is broken or if they need a key to somewhere.
Captain Kraatz said he starts his day at Central office where he checks his email and mail and
then heads to the facility that needs his coverage that day. He does not typically attend facility
meetings, but if he is covering for a Captain he does attend. He addresses issues on the spot when
warranted and raises them up to DBA Credio and CBOD Diaz as needed.
26

Sherry Pergrem, CO III, Programs Monitor:
COIII Pergrem has been an ADC Monitor for approximately six (6) years and has a copy of the
contract, an outline of her expected job duties, and has completed monitor training. She stated
she is responsible for reviewing inmate releases, classification, inmate work programs, banking,
ACJIS, inter-relation mail, and she reviews all inmate documentation going to DW Freeland.
She completes the GAR inspection report in concert with Captain Wiesinger, conducts tours and
inspections and attends required meetings. COIII Pergrem attends the daily morning meeting,
weekly detention meeting, inmate/staff town hall meetings, and inmate orientations. When
deficiencies are noted, she will discuss them with DW Freeland and complete GAR findings as
necessary.
GEO staff reported COIII Pergrem does not tour the yards or housing units regularly; several
staff members reported they believed she was the ‘administrative’ COIII.
Key Findings
•

•

•

•

The ADC ASP-Florence West monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]
One inmate identified as being classified with the wrong code applied to classification
action. The ADC COIII is responsible for the classification actions for inmates assigned
to detention. [ Violation of DO 801, Inmate Classification]
The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements. COIII Pergrem reportedly not spending adequate time
interacting with inmates and/or staff on the yards or in the housing units. [Operational
concerns, sound correctional practices]
The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

27

Key Findings, listed by Objective
The following comprises a recap of all key findings associated with narratives contained in the
four (4) Objectives described in this report, as sorted by Objective. Per Contract 020049DC,
GEO shall follow all applicable Department Orders and Director’s Instructions, and only
findings associated with ADC policies that are applicable to GEO have been listed herein. Thus,
any violation of applicable ADC policy also constitutes a violation of Contract 020049DC.
Moreover, per the contract, GEO will ensure the compliance and performance of ADC policies
and directives, and correct any deficiencies.
FINDINGS
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff (page 9-10)
•
•

•
•

•

GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]
The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) and he does not include the results of these inspections in his
monthly DO 703 report. [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Inspections and DO
704, Inmate Housing Regulations]
There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of DO
706, Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
The facility Emergency Response Plan Annex for Disturbance/Riot refers to
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT)
.
This Annex has not been adapted to the Florence West facility. Florence West
. [Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]
Staff morale is negatively affected by day shift not taking their mandated 30 minute daily
break. [Operational concern]

•
. [Operational concern and sound correctional
practice]
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
(page 20)
•

•

Sanitation within the individual living areas, common areas, and restroom/showers was
below ADC standards. [Violation of DO 704, operational concerns, sound
correctional practice]
Inmate compliance with housing and personal grooming regulations was lacking and
required greater attention to detail. Multiple inmates were witnessed with their ID cards
28

•

•
•

•

•

fastened to their sleeves or to the bottoms of their shirts. Staff did not address this issue.
[Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]
Programming and WIPP are being underutilized. Florence West would benefit from
adding more programming classes to their schedule. The unit would benefit not only from
reducing inmate idleness, but also having a cleaner unit. [Operational concern, sound
correctional practice]
No structured recreation is being offered. [Violation of DO 906, Inmate
Recreation/Arts & Crafts, operational concern, sound correctional practice]
One inmate identified as being classified with the wrong code applied to classification
action. The ADC COIII is responsible for the classification actions for inmates assigned
to detention. [ Violation of DO 801, Inmate Classification]
The Shift Commander did not forward the DO 805, Protective Segregation packet for an
inmate who requested protective custody to the Deputy Warden within one workday from
when the review was initiated on 07/23/2015. The packet was forwarded to the Deputy
Warden on 07/27/2015. [Violation of DO 805]
Inmates reported that some staff were aggressive and/or unprofessional [Operational
concern, sound correctional practice]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training (page 23)
•

•
•
•

DART for Supervisors 2015 was not completed for FY2015. [Violation of Contract
#020049DC Section 2.10.10 Staff Training, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education; operational concern, sound correctional practices]
Florence West does not utilize Field Training Officers. [Sound correctional practice]
Four Security Supervisors have not completed all required NIMS courses. [Violation of
FEMA/NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education]
The DART responders were slow to react and responded in a very casual manner without
demonstrating a sense of urgency. DART members and supervisor could not identify
proper deployment of assigned munitions. [Violation of DART Training lesson plan,
operational concern]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 4: ADC Monitoring Team (page 28)
•

•

The ADC ASP-Florence West monitoring team meets timeframes on the majority of the
required paperwork (e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate
correspondence). [Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]
One inmate identified as being classified with the wrong code applied to classification
action. The ADC COIII is responsible for the classification actions for inmates assigned
to detention. [ Violation of DO 801, Inmate Classification]

29

•

•

The team completes its GAR Inspections and tour requirements in accordance with ADC
policy and contract requirements. COIII Pergrem reportedly not spending adequate time
interacting with inmates and/or staff on the yards or in the housing units. [Operational
concerns, sound correctional practices]
The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

CONCLUSION
Based upon observations, reviews of available materials, inmate interviews, and staff contacts
and interviews, the Assessment Team concluded that the inmate population at ASP-Florence
West was satisfied with their conditions of confinement. The overall conditions within the
facility were acceptable. Staff members appeared to be content with their employer (GEO).
Overall unit sanitation was below average. Compliance with housing regulations requires closer
attention to detail.
The DART response was lacking in ‘sense of urgency’ and knowledge, by both team members
and supervisory staff. The DART could use additional drills to strengthen their knowledge of
DART protocols. GEO management is also apprehensive about utilizing DART on the yard,
because it is a modified team. Pre-service and in-service training requires follow-up attention to
bring the training programs into contract and policy compliance.
Overall, ASP-Florence West presents as an experienced and knowledgeable group of
administrators and staff. The relationship amongst the ADC Monitoring Team, GEO
management, line staff members, and inmates is mostly positive.

30

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
CENTRAL ARIZONA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Operated by
GEO GROUP

OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff
The Assessment Team evaluated the staff and leadership of Central Arizona Correctional Facility
(CACF; GEO), to include strengths and weaknesses, communications, decision making, and
overall effectiveness in operations of the prison.
Members of the ADC assessment team engaged in direct observation of unit management and
operational practices for three (3) days. They conducted over ninety (90) interviews with GEO
staff and interviewed over one-hundred and twenty (120) inmates. Interviews were conducted
with officers, sergeants, and lieutenants, as well as staff from the kitchen, maintenance, human
resources, and other areas. GEO staff members appeared to be very candid in their responses to
the assessors.
From the interviews conducted with staff, very few concerns were shared. Questions were asked
concerning the leadership approach of the management team. The only negative opinion voiced
was that the current rate of pay is too low. With the exception of complaints about pay, the staff
appears to be happy with their work and employer.
Warden Bennie Rollins
Warden Bennie Rollins has been employed at CACF as the Warden since February 2014. The
purpose of the assessment was discussed with Warden Rollins; he was informed the process was
not a ‘gotcha’ and that he would be made aware of any issues noted. Warden Rollins was advised
that the assessment team had found the facility to be exceptionally clean, the staff were
welcoming and professional, and our interviews had indicated he is highly visible and
approachable.
Warden Rollins was asked to describe what he feels his role is as the Warden at CACF. He said
it is his job to set a culture of effectiveness. He said private prisons can have a ‘silo’ culture. The
private facilities do not have 100 years of history, so he focuses on the ‘We are in the keeping
bad things from happening business’. He stated that he tells staff, ‘don’t use this as your
retirement’. This is not a place to retire; we cannot have that mindset here. He said, “CACF is
ADC-centric, we have a contract to follow. We shall do what ADC says to do.” He said he will
never be in opposition to that. Warden Rollins stated there is room for healthy discussion but
ultimately, CACF takes an ADC-centric approach. Warden Rollins said his philosophy is the
same as that of ADC: an inmate should be able to wake up in Yuma, move to Winslow and still
be in the same Department. He said it is the same at CACF, “Our inmates come from ADC; we
1

should have the same rules and same expectations.” He said he takes a hands-on approach to
management. CACF is small enough for him to be really engaged. He said he cannot manage
from his desk. His job is to prepare staff to handle issues and to be ready to handle the
unexpected.
At the quarterly staff recall meetings, he reviews the history of significant prison events (the
Santa Fe riot, Lewis hostage situation, Kingman escape, and now the Kingman riots, etc.) He
does this to keep staff aware of where we work. He said all of his staff, including him, has
windows of retirement they are considering and it is his job to ensure someone is ready to take
over.
Warden Rollins was asked about the Designated Armed Response Team (DART) drill that was
conducted earlier in the day. He said each shift is required to do at least one drill per month but
that more are encouraged and they try to do them more frequently. He said an Incident
Command System (ICS) packet is completed for each drill and he reviews them. Warden Rollins
advised that he has completed MAG 300, Intermediate Incident Command, and will soon take
MAG 400, Advanced Incident Command. He said he is ensuring all of his staff has completed
MAG 400 and he is the last to do so. He was asked who opened WebEOC for the DART drill,
since only the Captain and Lt. Dowling are trained. Warden Rollins said there is other staff
members trained, but they are not ready to ‘go solo’ yet. His secretary is trained, but she is out on
leave. He committed that CACF will have staff trained and prepared to operate WebEOC. He
discussed the need to have Section Chiefs who are to complete all of the required paperwork so
CACF can follow the ‘Planning P’ that is part of the ICS. Warden Rollins reported use of
WebEOC for quarterly searches and would use it for any planned events. He said there have not
been any prolonged events since his assignment to CACF.
Warden Rollins was advised the CACF Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is well written and
easy to follow. The ERP does contain information regarding Correctional Emergency Response
Team (CERT) call outs, but the ADC contract reflects that CACF has a Tactical Support Unit not
CERT. The ERP does not mention the Designated Armed Response Teams (DART) as an
option. Warden Rollins stated that DART is not scripted, it is reactionary but CACF can add
DART to the ERP. There was discussion about adding narratives for DART and to add language
that is specific to CACF as the ERP is now generic to all State of Arizona contracted GEO
facilities. The present CACF ERP is being utilized by all three GEO facilities and the plan has
not been tailored to the individual uniqueness of each facility.
Warden Rollins was asked about the contract agreement to have
. He stated this is in the contract and CACF has
. He stated that he sees this as a good thing. CACF
CERT and DART would respond to an incident
. He would call for the response and Tara Diaz, Ron Credio and DW
Freeland would all be involved and in the loop. Warden Rollins was asked who the CERT leader
2

is and he replied it is
who reports to the Support Lieutenant but ultimately to the CACF
Captain. There was discussion about the TSU training curriculum.
It was discussed that the contract calls for a 30 person CERT team, and the team only has 20
members. Warden Rollins stated they are working to fill the numbers and discussed that he has a
much smaller hiring pool for CERT than an ADC complex has for its TSU team.
Warden Rollins was asked about concerns with the perimeter zone system. He said the current
procedure is
. They submit a
Significant Incident Report (SIR), post a static perimeter officer, and they call for repairs. He
stated that CACF does perimeter checks per shift. They have redundant systems:
. (GEO/CACF, Deficiency notice from
CBOD Diaz, August 17, 2015, Exhibit #1)
Warden Rollins was briefed on some of the areas that were reviewed in the assessment. He was
advised again that the team found the sanitation of the facility to be excellent. It was shared that
the detention unit was extremely clean and organized. Warden Rollins was advised of the morale
issues noted in staff interviews. Pay was discussed and he advised he is aware of the staff’s
unhappiness with the lack of raises. He said a collective bargaining agreement is in place, and
that has impacted the opportunities for officers to receive pay raises. He discussed that pay does
affect the staff turnover as does the lack of promotional opportunities.
Warden Rollins was advised of the inconsistent approach to staff ingress that was witnessed. He
stated he has been monitoring and will continue to address this. He was advised the medication
‘watch swallow’ process was monitored and the officer assigned to this post did not inspect the
inmates’ mouths. He said this concerned him as he frequently works this post to model what is
expected. He was advised the staff had reported to the team that their Warden sometimes works
the medical window. He was also advised the inmates clearly knew that the specific officer
working the medical window would not check their mouths.
Warden Rollins was advised there is confusion over what exactly ‘bursts an officer’s bubble’,
reduces officer’s overtime tracking number for mandated overtime. He said he is aware of the
confusion and it was decided that working four hours when mandated does zero an officer’s
number out. He was advised his staff would like to have the overtime mandating process rules in
writing to clarify the procedure. He was advised that the supervisors are also confused. Rollins
stated he has been remiss, had intended to get a written procedure out to clarify this, and had not
done so yet. He said he would do so. Warden Rollins was advised some officers reported they
would like clarification of the staff disciplinary ‘point system’ and its implementation. He will
review this.
Warden Rollins was advised that, prior to his assignment as Warden at CACF, there were two
officers who were placed into the pre-service academy at the start of the fourth week and his
3

staff is now reporting they are being trained on post. He said he will review the report and follow
up.
Warden Rollins was asked if he was holding the quarterly meetings required in DO 112. He said
that due to the size of the facility and the frequency with which he meets with his staff, he had
not been doing so. He said this was brought to his attention by CBOD Diaz and he will now hold
these meetings. He stated he had not been holding the monthly Warden/CO meeting but will now
hold these meetings as well.
Warden Rollins was advised his monthly DO 703 reports were reviewed in detail and they were
complete but it was noted that he does not make any comments on the DO 703 form to justify his
scores or to tell the reader where he toured. He said he would review and correct this.
Warden Rollins was asked how long the Public Address (PA) system had been out of order. He
stated it has been down for a couple of months and it is being fixed and it should be operational
shortly after the part is received. He said if they could fix it with parts from Radio Shack and
other vendors, the PA system would be repaired sooner. However, it requires a part from the
original vendor and the part was expected to arrive soon.
Warden Rollins was advised there is confusion amongst the officers and the supervisors on the
posting of a second floor officer. He was advised that staff reported this as an issue and they feel
the unit is understaffed. It was discussed that this is currently under review with CBOD Diaz.
Warden Rollins stated this is being discussed at a higher level, but CACF will staff the second
floors when the shift staffing numbers allow them to do so.
Warden Rollins was asked about his relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team. He stated the
relationship is good and there are no issues. Warden Rollins said he tours the facility daily. He is
generally somewhere on the yard each day. He was advised his staff and the inmates confirmed
this.
Deputy Warden Lisa Brewer
Deputy Warden (DW) Lisa Brewer began her career with The GEO Group in 2005, and has been
assigned to CACF for approximately eighteen (18) months. Prior to her current assignment, she
was assigned as a DW at Phoenix West. She said she has no access to WebEOC and she has
been attempting to obtain access. DW Brewer was given the name of assigned staff member to
gain access to WebEOC. DW Brewer stated she completed MAG 300 and 400. DW Brewer
stated she tours the facility daily and tours more than 10 hours a week. DW Brewer said CACF
has a 30 person Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT). DW Brewer was asked if she
ever talked to CERT about rules of engagement and she said she talked to the team about this
once. DW Brewer stated she has a very positive relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team.
When asked about Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspections and findings, DW Brewer said, ‘GAR

4

means someone is telling me what is going on in my house.’ DW Brewer said she did not like
GAR findings, but she did not take them personally.
DW Brewer stated officers typically do not work more than 24 hours of overtime in a week and
they get at least one day off during the week. DW Brewer said all overtime is approved by
Warden Rollins. DW Brewer stated she has only had to collapse a security post twice, and staff
were called into work right after. DW Brewer said running the facility safely and securely is her
main concern. DW Brewer stated there has been no use of force in the last year. ‘Use of Force’
reports were reviewed; CACF has not had a Use of Force since October 2014.
Deputy Warden Brewer was asked about formal investigations being conducted in the facility by
the GEO corporate office personnel. Deputy Warden Brewer stated GEO has a phone number
where staff members can call and file formal complaints. These complaints are investigated by
GEO’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Deputy Warden Brewer said OPR
investigators have been at the facility four times in the last year and none of the charges were
sustained.
Captain Bryan Dennis
Captain Dennis retired from ADC after twenty five and a half (25.5) years. Captain Dennis has
been the Chief of Security at CACF for approximately two (2) months and he has a good
relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team. Captain Dennis stated he inspects the facility’s
security devices once a month and Lieutenant Gabriel Lagunas inspects the facility’s security
devices once a week. This was confirmed through the review of reports produced by Captain
Dennis. Captain Dennis said line staff inspects security devices at the beginning of all three shifts
daily. Captain Dennis was asked if he had any outstanding security devices repairs pending. He
said all security devices are repaired quickly at CACF, including perimeter alarms. Captain
Dennis stated the perimeter security system repair companies,
, are called
to the prison every time there are
. Captain Dennis
stated the only other problem at CACF is the Public Announcement System (PA) has not
functioned for almost two months. Captain Dennis stated the PA system needs a unique part to
be repaired and it has been ordered. Captain Dennis said some of the exterior lights are not
repaired until there are enough lights out to rent a scissor lift for Florence West and CACF.
Captain Dennis stated most of the exterior lights do not cause a problem because there is a bank
of lights. If one light is out, the one next to it is working.
Captain Dennis produced two months of security device reports for July and August, 2015. A
security device report for June could not be found. The former Captain did not produce a
monthly security device report. That Captain included the security device work order log on her
monthly Department Order (DO) 703 inspection report. Captain Dennis’s monthly security
device reports displayed that security devices at CACF were being repaired in a timely manner.

5

There were some minor clerical errors found on Captain Dennis’ monthly security device
reports, a few report numbers were mistakenly altered.
Captain Dennis said he recently began completing weekly reports for inspections of inmate
housing areas and he started including the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703
report. Captain Dennis stated this was a recent audit finding and he is working on correcting this.
Department Order 704, Inmate Housing Regulations states the Chief of Security or designee
shall conduct weekly inspections of all inmate living areas. These inspections shall be
documented, by exception, in the Chief of Security's Monthly Report in accordance with
Department Order #703, Security/Facility Inspections. The three weekly DO 704 reports written
by Captain Dennis were repetitive and generic in content. Each report stated, ‘All inmate living
areas have been inspected for the week with no discrepancies. There were minor violations
observed which were corrected immediately with verbal redirection.’ These reports were shown
to DW Brewer and Warden Rollins.
Captain Dennis stated he has completed MAG 300 and 400. He said Lt. David Dowling and
himself are the only staff members at CACF that have access to WebEOC. Captain Dennis stated
they open WebEOC for quarterly searches and significant events. Captain Dennis said Lt.
Dowling fills out most of the NIMS paperwork when WebEOC is opened. The Captain was
reminded the National Incident Management System (NIMS) paperwork is designed to be filled
out by the different section chiefs, not one person.
Captain Dennis said supervisors are also required to conduct emergency key drills, fire drills,
suicide response drills, cell extraction drills and regular ICS drills. Several line staff members in
control rooms were asked, when was the last time they
. Only one staff member stated
. The majority of the staff stated
. All of the staff knew

The Captain, DW, and Warden all shared that DART drills are conducted monthly on each shift.
Captain Dennis said he has personally observed four to five DART drills since his assignment at
CACF. Captain Dennis stated that CACF does not conduct any live fire DART drills. Captain
Dennis said it would

.
DW Brewer and Warden Rollins stated they
. The DART drill
conducted at CACF went well and the staff members were familiar with DART procedures.
Captain Dennis reported there were only
flex cuffs on inventory in the Main Control Room
for a population of 1280 inmates. Subsequent to this interview, Captain Dennis produced a report
6

stating CACF has the following restraints on the facility: -handcuffs,
chains,
-flex cuffs, and each staff member is issued handcuffs.

- leg irons,

-belly

.
Summary of observations and conclusions:
ADC assessors observed ingress search procedures of staff members in the front lobby. An
officer was allowed to walk into the facility without clearing the metal detector. If an officer’s
food could not clear the metal scanner, the food was placed in a plastic bin on the counter. The
ingress officer picked up the food item, visually inspected the item, and placed the food back in
the plastic bin. The food items were never opened, searched, and poured into a clear plastic
container. Food items that are manufacturer sealed have to clear the metal scanner prior to being
allowed into the facility. Staff was observed walking sideways through the metal scanner or they
waved their backpack back and forth through the metal scanner. If a backpack cleared the
scanner, the ingress officer occasionally did not search the backpack.
There are a number of CACF officers who are unhappy about the lack of raises and their pay. It
was repeatedly reported there have not been pay raises for approximately 3 years, and new staff
earn the same pay rate as seasoned staff. There is a collective bargaining agreement in place at
CACF and staff expressed that the lack of raises may be due to the union and they are being
penalized for voting it in. In spite of the pay issue and its effect on morale, the majority of staff
interviewed stated that they liked their jobs and the CACF administration.
There are a number of former and/or retired Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)
employees employed at CACF. These staff seem to have a positive impact on the facility
operation because of their experience, however, it was pointed out by several officers that they
feel these staff hinder their promotional opportunities and because these staff have already
retired once they do not view the lack of raises as an important concern. Several of the
supervisors to include the Correctional Program Supervisor (CPS) and the Captain are retired
from ADC and there is an individual who was hired directly into a Lieutenant position without
being an officer or sergeant at CACF first.
Throughout the interviews that were conducted, all commentary about Warden Rollins was
positive. He was reported to tour frequently and to interact with staff often. He knows the
officers by name and they appreciate his hands-on approach. Deputy Warden Brewer is also
viewed positively. It was reported that she tours very frequently and is approachable. There were
a very small number of staff who stated that she used to be in a Finance Administrative position
and is not fully knowledgeable of unit operations. In her position as Deputy Warden, Ms. Brewer
handles the employee discipline and this may account for the few negative comments about her.
DW Brewer was witnessed interacting positively and professionally with her staff.

7

A long recognized and critical tool for effective prison management is frequent and consistent
tours by members of the management team and especially the unit administrators. The benefits
in terms of communication with staff and inmates; awareness firsthand of operational procedures
and programs; coaching, guiding and supporting staff in their efforts to do their job correctly;
and identifying problematic issues are just a few of the benefits. It is evident that Warden Rollins
and DW Brewer are consistently touring their unit with members of the management team. Staff
and inmates are familiar with them and say they are on the yard regularly.
Captain Bryan Dennis is new to the unit having been assigned there since July. He has made a
positive impression on the staff and no one reported any negative first impressions. There were
comments made by several staff that this Administration (Rollins, Brewer, and Dennis) are more
hands-on and at times can be ‘micromanagers’. Captain Dennis was specifically mentioned for
this. It was noted by many that the former Captain and the former Warden were particularly ‘laid
back’.
Captain Dennis said if

.
Staff consistently reported the Sergeants and Lieutenants (Sgts and Lts) are readily available to
them and they tour frequently. The majority of staff reported that their supervisors were good
and they appreciated them. There were some negative comments about the graveyard Lt, and it
was reported by a small number of staff that he does not tour and he favors female staff. There
seems to be some discontent because this Lt was hired by CACF directly as a lieutenant and did
not have to work there as an officer first.
Employee disciplinary was reviewed and not viewed as excessive. One officer reported that he
had been disciplined two times for the same incident. His disciplinary record was reviewed and
this was not the case. Several staff mentioned a former employee who had crossed the line with
an inmate, her file was reviewed and she had resigned during investigation and CACF had listed
her as not eligible for rehire. CACF Human Resources staff was open to questions and shared
files and information freely. (GEO/CACF, HR reports, Exhibit #2)
Hiring information was reviewed and no issues were noted. CACF does lose staff to other
agencies with higher pay and/or better benefits and therefore does have a significant rate of
turnover.
An experience level comparison in terms of years in job code was conducted relative to the staff
at CACF and like-positions within ADC. Additionally, a comparison of the length of time in a
qualifying pay grade/rank was completed with CACF CPO’s and ADC COIIIs, as well as the
Sergeants in ADC and CACF. The results of the total comparisons are listed below:
8

Position
CO
COIII
Sgt
Lt
Captain
COIV
DW
Warden

ADC
6.4
4.96
3.75
3.81
3.14
4.11
1.26
2.77

Full Time Positions
Correctional Officer II
Sergeant
Lieutenant

CACF
3.46
2.0 (Correctional Programs Manager)
1.3
4.3
0.4
9.0 (Programs Manager Supervisor)
0.10
15
Allocated
154
09
06

Filled
148
09
06

Vacancy
06
00
00

CACF has a total of 251 positions to include Administration, Security, Clerical, and Medical
staff.
Overtime is used frequently to reach required staffing. The amount of overtime needed fluctuates
greatly and is directly affected by inmate medical issues, inmate’s in the hospital, and the need
for extra perimeter staffing. Staff mentioned that management tries to limit the overtime but
recently, due to the hospital and issues with the perimeter alarm system, there has been a lot of
overtime required and staff has been mandated to work overtime. The majority of staff
interviewed volunteer for overtime and view it as a positive factor of their job. They also
reported that whether one wants to work overtime or not, the tracking system is fair and
consistent and officers do have the ability to manage their ‘bubble number’. According to the
staff, CACF management recently implemented a rule that supervisors (Sgts and Lts) are not
permitted to earn overtime. Several staff voiced concern over this and felt it was unfair. The
supervisors expressed some concern about it but voiced that for the most part they can, and do,
flex any overtime they earn.
One issue that was raised repeatedly concerning overtime is there had been a recent change and
some staff believed that an officer’s bubble number was only ‘burst” if they were mandated to
work overtime for 8 hours, and staying for four hours or a partial shift when mandated did not
zero out their tracking number. Supervisors were also confused about this. When asked, Captain
Dennis reported that it was true, only working 8 hours when mandated would zero out the
tracking number. Warden Rollins was asked about this and he stated that working four hours
when mandated would zero out an officer’s number. He stated that he had been remiss in getting
something out in writing and he would do so.
During the weeks noted, the following staff worked in excess of 24 hours overtime:

9

Week Ending:
06/07/2015

06/14/2015

06/21/2015

Name and Hours of OT Worked in Excess of 24 Hours:
•
Rex Gardner-29 hours
•
Sheila Justis-24.75 hours
•
Mario Munoz-25 hours
•
Cedric Terrell-24.25 hours
•
Teresa Bowman-25 hours
•
Jackson Cabrera-24.75 hours
•
Rex Garner-27.50 hours
•
Sheila Justis-24.25 hours
•
Chance Madewell-26.25 hours
•
Bonita Marsh-29.50 hours
•
Tomas Melero-25 hours
•
Joseph Montijo-32.75 hours
•
Mario Munoz-27.25 hours
•
Sandra Nido-32.50 hours
•
Cedric Terrell-28.75 hours
•
Ramon Balderrama-30 hours
•
Michael Barnett-27.75 hours
•
Jackson Cabrera-27.25 hours
•
Latisha Clark-34.50 hours
•
Ava Espinoza-30.50 hours
•
Travis Froman-32 hours
•
Alicia Guevara-31.25 hours
•
Benjamin Heras-25.75 hours
•
Christopher Horen-24.50 hours
•
Victoria Jorgensen-25.25 hours
•
Sheila Justis-33 hours
•
Elizabeth Lopez-26.25 hours
•
Scott Loveland-32.50 hours
•
Chance Madewell-32.75 hours
•
Jose Malinao-31.75 hours
•
Patrick Marrufo-30.75 hours
•
Franklin Mathey-32.25 hours
•
Matthew Mercado-29.25 hours
•
Joseph Montijo-29.75 hours
•
Jared Oleski-26.50 hours
•
Cassandra Osgood-26 hours
•
Lorena Ramirez-30.25 hours
•
Erik Robles-31.25 hours
•
Ruben Saenz-26.75 hours
•
Robert Shifflett-26.50 hours
•
Neftali Tapia-Garcia-24.25 hours
•
Joseph Timmons-30 hours
10

06/28/2015

07/05/2015
07/12/2015

07/19/2015
07/26/2015

08/02/2015

08/09/2015

08/16/2015
08/23/2015
08/30/2015

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Marques Wyble-27.75 hours
Ana Zambrano-25 hours
Latisha Clark-27 hours
Sheila Justis-24.75 hours
Bonita Marsh-29.50 hours
Bonita Marsh-25.50 hours
Yolanda Bathan-24.75 hours
Clinton Dearman-25.50 hours
Rex Garner-24.25 hours
Sheila Justis-24.25 hours
Mario Munoz-24.50 hours
Sandra Nido-31 hours,
Sheila Justis-24.50 hours
Sandra Nido-24.25 hours
Clinton Dearman-26.25 hours
Anthony Dobos-29 hours
Rex Gardner-24.50 hours
Adam Johnson-27.75 hours
Bonita Marsh-27.50 hours
Jared Oleski-24.50 hours
Jesse Potts-24.50 hours
Yolanda Bathan-24.50 hours
Clinton Dearman-26.25 hours
Anthony Dobos-24.50 hours
Yolanda Bathan-24.25 hours
Latisha Clark-24.50 hours
Travis Froman-25 hours
Rex Gardner-25.25 hours
Rex Gardner-24.75 hours
Sheila Justis-24.50 hours
Teresa Bowman-24.25 hours
Victoria Jorgensen-24.25 hours

Posts are typically fully staffed without collapsing of posts. Overtime is used to fill vacant posts
on the roster. If a post needs to be collapsed in order to provide staffing for an emergency
medical transport, staff is called in from home to fill the collapsed post.
Key Findings
•

GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings].

11

•

Much of the GEO management is unfamiliar with/does not have access to WebEOC.
[Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, operational concern, sound correctional
practices].

•

There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of
Contract #0040176DC Section 8.9, Contracted Bed Procedures and Post Orders;
8.9.2.1 establish a Designated Armed Response Team (DART), Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

The facility Emergency Response Plan does not contain references to a CACF TSU.
CACF administrators made it clear they do not have TSU, they have CERT. The ADC
contract states CACF should have a thirty person TSU. Presently, CACF has a twenty
person CERT who is using ADC TSU curriculum to train the team. [Violation of
Contract #0040176DC Section Section 8.9, Contracted Bed Procedures and Post
Orders; 8.9.2.2 establish a thirty (30) person Tactical Support Unit (TSU), Violation
of DO 706, Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional
practices]

•

The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Housing Regulations]

•

An officer was observed to not follow required security procedures by not inspecting
inmate’s mouths to ensure that medications had not been concealed after receiving their
medications. [Violation of Unit Post Orders, operational concern, sound correctional
practice]

•
. [Operational concern and sound correctional
practice]

12

OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
An initial tour of the unit was taken with Arizona Department of Corrections monitors
facilitating the tour. The tour was led by GEO management.
Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF) presented a clean and well cared for image.
Inmate living areas were well maintained. Interactions between the staff, inmates and assessment
team were professional and polite. Many inmates were observed lying on their beds during the
day. The inmate regulation picture showed that inmates’ beds shall be made with a blanket as the
outer cover. Several inmate beds were made up with a blanket or sheet as the outer cover. There
was no uniformity. The shelves looked very organized in the single bunk areas. The double bunk
TV shelves appeared somewhat cluttered with pictures, hobby craft, and hygiene items. Overall,
the compliance with DO 704, Inmate Regulations was above average. The restroom and shower
areas were very clean, and inmates were observed cleaning throughout the entire facility. The
population for CACF was 1,278 inmates at the time of this assessment. It did appear that at least
half of the inmate population was idle at any given time.
ADC assessors observed a Class A tool, a pair of tin snips, checked out to an inmate in the
Arizona Correctional Industries (ACI) area. The tin snips were not located in possession of the
inmate. The tin snips were located outside of the office where the inmate was working on a cart.
The ACI area has sound tool control and inmate strip-search procedures. The ACI area is isolated
from the prison population. However, three to four inmate kitchen workers are escorted twice a
week through the ACI area to a sectioned off area where food service items are stored. These
inmates are escorted by a civilian food service worker and there are no strip-searches or patsearches conducted on those inmates entering or leaving. The inmates assigned to ACI are
directed to not interact with the kitchen workers. There are no tool inventory reconciliations or
searches conducted prior to the kitchen workers leaving the area. Potentially, this means a tool
could be taken out of ACI area by a kitchen worker and it would most likely not be detected for
several hours.
ADC assessors observed the two inmate dining rooms while the lunch meal was being served;
the inmate dining rooms were congested due to pizza being served. The inmate population is
satisfied with the food and there were no complaints about quality or quantity. The serving line
was long and very few inmates would sit in the first table closest to the serving line in both
dining rooms. The only inmates that would sit in the first table appeared to identify with the
LGBT community. The inmates were segregated by race except for the first table. Inmates were
constantly looking for an area to be seated, even though the first table had many available seats.
Kitchen sanitation was satisfactory.

13

Constituent Services:
A review of complaints from constituent services would indicate that Central Arizona
Correctional Facility is within ADC standards and comparable to other ADC units of its size and
custody level. (GEO/CACF, FY 2015 Constituent Services Report, Exhibit #3)
Disciplinary:
Disciplinary profiles for Year 2015 were based on data from 01/01/2015 to 08/31/2015. No
issues or notable trends observed from the data.
As of 08/31/2015 for Year 2015, 92.25% of inmate disciplinary violations issued consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

11B-Disrupt Count or
36B-Viol of Dept/Ins
25B-Disobey Verbal/W
C06-Fail Appearance
01B-Aggrvtd Refusal
34B-Theft/Possess St
13B-False Reporting
23B-Promot Prison Co
38B-Positive or Refu
10B-Disorderly Conduct
02C-Barter/Trade/Sell
33B-Tattoo,Brands,Pi
04C-Disrespect To Staff
40B-Fighting
02B-Assault on Inmate
08B-Conspiracy To Commit
37B-Possess Drugs or
39B-Threatening Or I
07B-Harassment

19.22%
12.27%
11.86%
6.13%
5.93%
4.70%
3.89%
3.89%
3.89%
3.48%
3.07%
2.86%
2.66%
2.66%
1.23%
1.23%
1.23%
1.23%
0.82%

As of 08/31/2015, inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
•
•
•

108 guilty major verdicts.
208 guilty minor verdicts.
45 informally resolved inmate disciplinary violations.
56 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts.

(GEO/CACF, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Year to Date Discipline AIMS Print Out, Exhibit #4)

14

Grievances:
The number of formal inmate grievances filed at CACF totaled 33 for calendar year 2015. These
numbers are within the average range when compared to similar custody ADC units (ASPCEyman, Cook Unit) on a per capita basis. The top grievance issues were medical and property.
(GEO/CACF, CACF and ASPC Eyman-Cook Unit Grievance logs, Exhibit #5)
Classification:
A review of the classification actions with the general population inmates at CACF indicates that
all actions, with the exception of two, were completed within policy time frames. The ADC CO
III is responsible for inmate classification actions. (GEO/CACF, CACF AIMS Classification
Print Out & DI59/61 Updates Over-Due, Exhibit #6)
Detention:
Reviewed online detention reports generated on 08/13/2015 and 09/09/2015. Total of 18 inmates
reviewed for disciplinary, classification and DO 805 process time frames. There were no
discrepancies observed. The length of inmate detention housing was within reason.
(GEO/CACF, Detention Report, Exhibit #7)
Visitation:
Visitation attendance at CACF is slightly higher when compared to a similar ADC Unit. For the
month of July, 2015, reports indicate there were 1,010 adult and minor visitors. ASPC- Eyman,
Cook Unit visitation for the month of July, 2015 was 817. The disparity is not an alarmingly
high number and is no cause for concern. (GEO/CACF, Visitation Summary CACF & ASPC
Eyman Cook Unit, Exhibit #8)
Inmate Programs
Education:
CACF has two mandatory literacy classes and two GED classes for inmates who have a need.
Placement is done utilizing the Priority Ranking Report. There are three instructors assigned to
the unit. Instructor M. Sherwood has been with GEO for 7 years, Instructor G. Chacon for 3
years and J. Hill for 9 months. They each teach Functional Literacy and GED classes. The
assessor observed the classes and found the students were engaged and participating in their
groups. The teachers all said they enjoyed working at the facility. (GEO/CACF, Inmate
Capacity Report CACF, Exhibit #9)
Career Technical Education (CTE):
CACF has a CTE program taught by a CACF employee. The instructor utilizes material from
various curricula to facilitate the course. Students learn basic business skills, basic computer
15

skills, and computer programs for Microsoft Excel, Power Point and Word. (GEO/CACF,
Inmate Capacity Report CACF, Exhibit #9)
Substance Abuse Programs – Correctional Programs Manager:
CACF provides Sex Offender Education and Treatment Program (SOETP) and substance abuse
counseling
the facility; all inmates at CACF are medium custody a
.
The SOETP program consists of four tiers that range from orientation to advanced maintenance.
This class is required by ADC. There are
inmates assigned to SOETP at any given
time.
The following are part of the SOETP curriculum:
•
•
•
•

Orientation, six sessions, total of 12 hours
Pretreatment, 24 sessions, total of 36 hours
Primary Treatment, 12 – 18 months, 3 hours a week
Advanced/Maintenance Therapy Groups, 6 – 12 months

The other programs available at CACF are:
•
•
•
•
•

Self Improvement
Re-Entry
Conflict Resolution
Domestic Violence
Cognitive Restructuring

Each class is five weeks in length. When an inmate is 5-6 weeks from release they are placed in
a Pre-Release class.
Case Programs Managers teach Thinking for a Change and Re-Entry programs. The inmates are
assigned based on their order of placement on the priority ranking report.
Case Programs Managers also conduct office hours and are available daily to the inmate
population. When walking amongst the inmate population the assessor did not receive any
questions regarding case manager issues. (GEO/CACF, Capacity Report, Exhibit #9)
Religious Services:
CACF provides a number of religious program services. The religious services calendar
indicates a wide range of programs and services for various religious groups showing a service
or meeting everyday of the week. (GEO/CACF, Religious Services Calendar, Exhibit #10)

16

Library Operations:
The library is open seven days a week. It is open four days a week for 3.5 hours and three days a
week for 2 hours. Legal resources are available five days a week, while the librarian is present.
The library is open one night a week for work crew inmates. The library was open and clean;
inmates were utilizing the resources available to them. (GEO/CACF, Library Calendar, Exhibit
#11)
Work Opportunities:
CACF has a maximum population of 1270 inmates assigned to the unit. There are two types of
jobs available to the inmates at CACF, Arizona Correctional Industries (ACI) employs 50
inmates and Work Incentive Pay Plan (WIPP) employs 614 inmates. Of the 614 inmates
employed by WIPP 219 are porter jobs. Total employed inmates are 664 at the unit which is a
52.28% rate of employment.
Most of the WIPP jobs appear to be full time with a few inmates receiving low hours. This could
be due to new hires mid payroll.
When comparing the racial breakdown of the unit versus that of inmates working there is no
more than a 1% difference in any race, indicating that jobs are shared equally by racial
composition. (GEO/CACF, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
Structured Recreation:
An effective management tool for correctional administrators when they are challenged with
keeping inmates occupied and engaged if meaningful jobs are lacking is to provide an ample
amount of recreational activities in both active and passive formats. CACF has a full schedule of
events. While touring the unit there was a plethora of inmate activity in the recreation areas.
(GEO/CACF, Recreation Schedule, Exhibit #12)
Intelligence Gathering/Sharing:
ADC Special Security Unit (SSU) reported to the Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF)
for the purpose of assessing and determining the current culture that exists among the inmate
population and GEO staff. Inmates of all races were interviewed to include those who are
associated with Security Threat Groups (STG) and Criminal Street Gangs CSG). An initial tour
was conducted with GEO management for the purpose of orienting to the physical layout of the
institution. Approximately one hundred and twenty (120) inmates were interviewed.
Sanitation within the institution appeared to be a priority among the staff and inmate population.
A significant portion of the inmate population was observed to be involved in programming,
education and working throughout the facility.

17

A good portion of the inmate population stated that the GEO Administration and Supervisors are
present on the yard and make themselves available in addressing issues and concerns. The
inmates were familiar with titles and names of GEO management and the ADC Monitoring
Team.
Inmates stated a majority of the line staff are professional and perform their duties in a manner
that addresses inmate concerns and issues. Two staff members were identified by several inmates
as performing their duties in a manner that is disrespectful. The Correctional Program Supervisor
was identified as being unapproachable and difficult to deal with. The Librarian was also
identified as being unapproachable and demonstrating a poor demeanor towards the inmate
population. Some inmates alleged that the Librarian researches different inmates’ criminal
charges and unprofessionally expresses her opinions to others regarding certain inmates.
An emerging theme among the inmate population is that the mattresses provided to the inmate
population are refurbished and of poor quality. The complaints are that the mattresses are old and
worn to the point that they do not provide any comfort. This issue was brought up by inmates
from all races. CACF has an Arizona Correctional Industries (ACI) building located on its
property and it employs inmates assigned to CACF. ADC SSU determined these complaints can
be attributed to the inmates assigned to ACI advising the rest of the inmate population of the
newer mattresses being made at ACI. These inmates are under the impression that the newer
mattresses are fabricated strictly for ADC inmates at other ADC facilities. The information is
inaccurate, but it has been circulating throughout the inmate population. The inmate population
believes they are not being provided the same mattresses as other inmates at ADC complexes.
GEO Warden Rollins stated the facility purchases approximately 40 mattresses every quarter
with the budget they are provided. The inmate population views this as a slow process of
replacements for the poor quality mattresses.
The GEO staff assigned to perform Special Security Unit (SSU) duties are not
.
is the
supervisor for the SSU and is also assigned as the
supervisor.
is assigned
to fulfill most of the intelligence gathering and to oversee SSU duties for the facility. He has
staff members who assume these duties in his absence;
is assigned as a
Support supervisor and
are assigned to Support services.
is assigned as
the inmate movement officer and
is assigned as the work crew supervisor.
ADC SSU staff determined that due to the unit’s custody level and type of inmate housed there,
is performing sufficiently in monitoring inmate activities and overseeing this area of
responsibility. The inmate population stated
makes himself accessible to
address inmate needs and concerns, and has developed a good rapport with the inmate
population.

18

Key Findings
•

Ingress search procedures for ADC employees not up to standards. As previously noted
in the May 2015, GAR, GEO staff did not conduct proper ingress search procedures on
two GEO staff (Searches finding #12). [Violation of DO 708, Searches, operational
concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

Inmate kitchen workers were allowed to enter the ACI area where inmates were utilizing
Class A and B tools without being searched entering or leaving [Operational concern,
sound correctional practices]

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to two inmate classification
actions. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. [Violations of DO 801,
Inmate Classification, and Classification Technical Manual]

19

OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training
The following is a summary of the Assessment Team’s review of staff training to include preservice, in-service and specialized courses for TSU, DART, and Emergency Management
(NIMS). Team members interviewed training staff, examined class rosters, course curricula, and
a multitude of training-related documents to better understand the learning process at Central
Arizona Correctional Facility. (GEO/CACF, 2015 Annual Training Plan, Exhibit #13)
Training was found to be deficient in some areas. GEO had reduced or failed to conduct some of
the classes as required by ADC, both pre-service and in-service.
In-Service Training:
A sample of 12 months of in-service rosters and a spreadsheet of in-service training for FY15
were reviewed. No findings of noncompliance were discovered. However, during interviews
with staff, the assessor was informed that training was being conducted in control rooms from
printed slide shows. Training Officer (TO) Hopkins was questioned about this and he did verify
this had been a practice in the past due to low staffing levels, but is no longer being done. The
delivery of training in this format was deficient due to a lack of instructor materials and various
media normally used for training e.g. video, power-point presentations etc. A classroom setting
is required delivery of curriculum that is not in a computer based training (CBT) format. This
allows for proper instructor preparation, as well as creating an interactive setting where students
can learn from each other as well as from the instructor. Staff consistently reported they had
completed all of their required annual in-service training and the unit conducts DART drills
often.
A review of rosters indicated that Supervisor Essentials FY 2015 training was completed for all
assigned supervisors.
A review of twelve months of firearms rosters and firearms tracking lists was completed with no
discrepancies found.
The CACF Senior Firearms Instructor (SFI) is Officer David Goff. Goff’s recertification was
completed by Steve Owens, the Senior Firearms Instructor from ASP-Phoenix West.
(GEO/CACF, CACF Annual Senior Firearms Recertification, Exhibit #14) SFI Owens
received an Unsatisfactory/Noncompliance Evaluation from the ASPC-Phoenix Senior Firearms
Instructor. Officer Goff has since been recertified by the ASPC-Eyman SFI in September, 2015.
Designated Armed Response Team (DART):
A review of reports for May, June, July 2015 reveals that DART drills were competed on each
shift, at least once per month.

20

A DART drill was conducted for the purposes of this assessment team evaluation: The DART
response was quick and efficient. DART members were proficient in the execution of formations
and the leader was well-versed in commands. Individual team responders were asked what
munitions they were carrying and how they would deploy each type of munitions. Officers
responded correctly regarding what munitions they were carrying. They described proper
deployment areas and aiming points. It appeared DART drills are being conducted frequently
and properly.
Training Officer Hopkins was asked if the DART for Supervisors 2015 course was being taught.
He confirmed that it was and produced the relevant training records for this course.
Pre-Service Training:
A review of the training curriculum for GEO’s Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA)
was compared with the curriculum of ADC’s Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA).
Two GEO Correctional Officer Training Academy pre-service schedules and three academy
classes rosters were reviewed and compared with an ADC pre-service 280 academy matrix
(GEO/CACF, CACF 280 hour academy comparisons, Exhibit #15) The review showed the
training for GEO is shorter primarily in the areas of Use of Force, and Conflict and Crisis
Management. Pre-service rosters for 2/2015 were provided but no hours were logged for each
class. There is no way to verify if the required training hours were met. Training Officer Hopkins
was asked about the disparities and responded that some class times may be shortened due to
small class sizes. Some training hours, such as self-defense training and restraint practice, are not
listed on his academy schedule but they do have additional practice sessions delivered
throughout the academy.
Training Officer Hopkins said the required four hour block for Use of Force was not being
delivered for pre-service training. He said it was a misunderstanding as he believed that the same
one hour Use of Force class for in-service training was to be delivered to cadets during Firearms
qualification week. He said he would take actions to correct the discrepancy. ADC has
determined that Crisis Intervention is a critical course and it is to be instructed only by Grade 20
personnel (Captain or COIV) or above. ADC spends 13 contact hours with this course instructing
cadets in conflict resolution, non-violent crisis intervention, and professional staff/inmate
communications. It is taught through lesson delivery and scenario-based learning. GEO delivers
the course in 12 hours, one hour shorter than ADC.
The majority of staff that was interviewed viewed the pre-service academy as productive and
effective. There was a report of two officers who were hired when the pre-service academy was
already in session and that these two employees were placed into the academy at the start of
Week 4. It was reported they were given study guides and told to read them and take the first 3
week’s quizzes. The two officers have worked at CACF for about eighteen months. Training
Officer Hopkins stated this did occur in June of 2014, and provided the officers names. He said
that this was no longer authorized.
21

To verify correct curriculum was being used, Training Officer Hopkins was asked to provide the
DART for Supervisor curriculum and other pre-service courses. He provided the correct inservice courses and COTA curriculum.
As part of ADC Pre-Service training, a Field Training Officer Program (FTO) is in place to
afford cadets and newly graduated officers an opportunity to be mentored by a specifically
selected, experienced officer. The assessment confirmed that GEO does not utilize Field Training
Officers. After completion of the academy, cadets are paired up with senior officers to complete
a 40 hour On the Job Training (OJT). No formal FTO training is completed for the senior
officers.
Tactical Support Unit:
CACF is required to have a thirty (30) person Tactical Support Unit (TSU) (GEO/CACF,
ADC/GEO Contract 040176DC page 21, Exhibit #16) to respond to emergency situations, as
described in DO 706, Incident Management. Information for the TSU is identified by
Specification #4. CACF does have a Tactical Support Unit (TSU), which is referred to as a
Corrections Emergency Response Team (CERT). The CERT Commander is Officer David Goff.
Officer Goff stated that he supervises a 20 person team. Goff said this team was reduced in size
and limited to a 20 person team when John Gay was the Warden. (GEO/CACF, CERT Roster,
Exhibit #17)
The CACF CERT does complete eight hours of tactical/chase training per month. Officer Goff
stated that he uses ADC curriculum but was unaware of an ADC Tactical Training Schedule.
(GEO/CACF, ADC TSU Training Calendar, Exhibit #18) He said he will make necessary
changes.
CACF does not maintain all equipment listed in Specification #4. Team equipment such as entry
tools, Negotiator equipment and protective panels for vests are not in inventory for tactical use.
CACF also does not issue pagers or cell phones to tactical officers for rapid call back to respond
to the unit. Officer Goff stated they use a phone tree type system for call outs. (GEO/CACF,
ADC/GEO Contract NO. 040176DC pages103, 104, Exhibit #19/ TSU equipment/contract
comparison, Exhibit #20)

. (GEO/CACF, TSU Agreement, Exhibit #21)
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training:
TO Hopkins completed a training file audit; two security staff have not completed or turned in
required NIMS training for IS100, IS700, or IS800. Five Security Supervisors have not
completed or turned in IS200 certificates. (GEO/CACF, FEMA Certificates email, Exhibit #22)

22

Additionally Warden Rollins has not completed MAG 400; Captain Dennis stated that Warden
Rollins is actively trying to schedule a class. Training Officer Hopkins has attended both MAG
300 and 400 and CACF has sent additional Lieutenants to MAG 300 and MAG 400.
Munitions:
CACF size and population are unique in that a comparison with an equivalent ADC stand-alone
unit could not be completed. ASPC-Winslow, Apache Unit and ASPC-Safford were used for
comparison. There are currently no minimum standards established for munitions inventories
within ADC. (GEO CACF, ADC – Private Prison- Munitions Comparison, Exhibit #23)
Key Findings
•

The CACF Warden has not completed MAG400. Five security supervisors and two staff
have not completed the required NIMS training. [Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocol,
and DO 509, Employee Training and Education]

•

GEO failed to deliver some in-service classes in a classroom setting by providing training
that was being conducted in control rooms from printed slide shows. [Violation of
Contract #040176DC, Section 10.14, In-Service Training, Violation of DO 509,
Employee Training and Education, operational concern]

•

GEO failed to deliver some pre-service courses as required by ADC by making
unauthorized reductions in classroom hours in several critical areas; Use of force,
transportation and restraints, Non Violent Crisis Intervention. It was confirmed that in
June, 2014, at least two employees had been placed into the academy at Week 4 and was
provided curriculum from first three weeks to catch up. [Violation of Contract
#040176DC, Section 10.13, Pre-Service Training, Violation of DO 509, Employee
Training and Education]

•

The Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) does not have the required filled
positions or minimum equipment required by contract for Tactical Support Unit (TSU).
Tactical Training is not conducted in accordance with the ADC Tactical Training
Schedule. [Violation of Contract #040176DC, Section 8.9.2.2 Tactical Support Unit,
Violation of DO 706, Incident Management, sound correctional practice]

•

CACF does not utilize Field Training Officers. [Sound correctional practice]

23

OBJECTIVE 4: – ADC Monitoring Team
This segment encompasses a review of duties and functions of the on-site ADC staff assigned to
monitor the operations of CACF staff and bridge the relationship between the Department and
GEO.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs a cadre of full-time staff to monitor contract
compliance of contracted prison facilities. The ADC Monitoring Team is comprised of:
Tara Diaz, Contract Beds Operations Director (oversees monitoring of all contract bed facilities)
Ron Credio, Contract Beds Deputy Bureau Administrator (oversees monitoring of all contract
bed facilities)
CACF Monitoring Team
Jeff Freeland, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer
Jesus Valles, Lieutenant, Disciplinary Coordinator
Joseph O’Driscoll, CO III, Programs Monitor
The ADC Assessment Team reviewed the contract for GEO and the scope of work within
Department Order #106, Contract Beds, and Department Order #703, Security/Facility
Inspections for the bureau and assigned monitors.
The ADC Monitors were interviewed and their performance was reviewed. The assessment also
included a review of the current contract, discussions with GEO staff, operational observations,
and document checks. After reviewing DO 703 GAR (Green-Amber-Red) inspection reports,
audit results, monthly reports, inmate disciplinary findings and classification decisions, the
assessment team determined the following:
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on the
policy. They are conducting their required monthly tours based on a review of; (GEO/CACF,
ADC 703 Reports, Exhibit #24) The ADC Monitoring Team completes their GAR and DO 703
monthly inspections appropriately. This is evident through GAR inspection results, tour
inspections reports and observations. GAR inspections and prison tours are conducted to
monitor the specific security operations and security devices at a prison unit and ensure they
remain in good working condition, and that supervisory and other management personnel
conduct regular inspections and tours. The monitor team is known to the staff and the inmate
population. They tour frequently and conduct regular GAR inspections. There are a limited
number of GAR findings most months.

24

These tools (GAR, tours/inspections) do not ‘monitor’ the culture of a prison unit, to include the
interactions between inmates and staff, and the attitudes of each group. GAR inspections do not
ask questions about the quality or quantity of staff training, or how often officers see their
supervisors on the yard. To properly assess the culture of a prison unit, one needs to speak with
staff and inmates at length and observe their interactions. In depth town hall meetings with
inmates should be observed routinely and the attitudes of both staff and inmates noted; given the
small size of this facility, ADC monitors have been able to be involved more in-depth with these
listed activities.
The ADC Monitoring Team has established a process of addressing issues on the spot and
working with the GEO Administrators to correct them. DW Freeland monitors GAR corrective
action plans (CAPs) and at this time there are none pending. The assessment team noted no
delays in CAPs follow-up.
The team meets timeframes for the majority of their mandatory oversight and decision making
on the high volume of inmate actions (classification, disciplinary, visitation, releases,
correspondence, etc.) and contractor clearances. A review of the classification actions with the
general population inmates at CACF indicates that all actions, with the exception of two, were
completed within policy time frames. (GEO/CACF, CACF AIMS Classification Print Out &
DI59/61 Updates Over-Due, Exhibit #6)
ADC monitors report that generally there is open communication between the GEO staff and
ADC Monitoring Team. GEO employees did not share any information with the assessment team
that would lead them to believe that they were told it was frowned upon to speak to ADC staff.
The ADC Lead Monitor DW Freeland reported he has not been monitoring in-service training.
The Contract Beds Monitoring Team members were interviewed separately.
Jeff Freeland, Deputy Warden
DW Jeff Freeland has been assigned as the lead monitor over CACF and Florence West since
February 2015. He has a copy of the contract for both facilities and refers to them often. His
contracts were viewed and they are tabbed for ease of use.
DW Freeland was asked about the staffing requirements for the CACF contract. He advised that
the current staffing is 29 officers required for dayshift, 29 officers required for swing shift, and
18 officers required for graveyard shift. It was discussed that there is confusion amongst the
officers whether a second floor officer is required for the housing units at CACF. DW Freeland
said he is aware of the issue and reported that CBOD Diaz is working on this concern and it is
under review. (GEO/CACF, Deficiency letter, DBA Ron Credio, August 17, 2015, Exhibit #25)

25

DW Freeland was asked if the expectations of his position were explained to him. He said they
were, in writing and verbally. He has attended the ADC Monitor Academy.
DW Freeland reported that there were four expectations explained to him and they are: Ensure
the contract is followed and enforce ADC Policy, submit all of his reports on time, build his
team, and he could not recall the fourth item.
DW Freeland was asked to describe his role as the lead monitor. He said that his position is kind
of like a Complex Warden. He doesn’t directly supervise the private prison Wardens, but he does
give directives, meets with them, has dialogue with them when issues arise, and then they make
things happen. He said he has not had any issues so far in which they (Wardens) have disagreed
with him. Currently, the staffing at CACF is under review.
DW Freeland was asked how he conducts his tours. He said that he tries to complete 1 or 2 tours
per week at each facility. This does not always happen as he can get backed up with paperwork.
He does not tour everyday but does tour the required ten hours per week. He said he always tours
when CBOD Diaz and/or DBA Credio tour the facilities. He changes the specific locations of his
tours within the facilities each day.
DW Freeland said he and his teams rotate the GAR duties monthly. He assigns them equitably
and they all complete their assigned components. Each team member typically is assigned 40
GAR components per month and he assigned himself 20 components at each facility for a total
of 40. DW Freeland said they all help each other.
DW Freeland was asked if he and/or his team work weekends or have weekend duty. He said
they do not but COIII O’Driscoll works Saturdays at CACF. This was discussed and it is due to
O’Driscoll’s personal needs but works very well for the team and the facility.
DW Freeland was asked who on his teams is required to conduct graveyard tours. He said the
COIIIs and the Lieutenant are not required. The Captain and he are required to do them. DW
Freeland was asked how he conducts his graveyard shift tours. He said he is required to do two
graveyard tours per month; one at each facility. Sometimes he comes in the evening and
sometimes he comes in early in the morning. He was advised on 07/31/15 he conducted a grave
shift tour at 0430 at CACF. The CACF shift change is at 0500 so this was only thirty minutes
with grave shift. It was discussed that the purpose of the tours is to get to know the officers and
to know the operation of the unit on each shift. DW Freeland acknowledged he could spend more
time on grave shift. He said this is not the norm for him but there has been a lot going on and he
would change this. (GEO/CACF, 703 Reports for May and July 2015, Exhibit #23)
DW Freeland was asked about his relationship with both management teams (CACF and
Florence West). He stated both relationships are good and there are no issues.

26

When asked about the GEO management’s reactions to GAR findings, DW Freeland reported no
concerns. He stated that Florence West averages about 2 to 6 findings per month and CACF
averages 10 to 12 per month. They typically do not argue and they address the finding. He
discussed a recent finding at CACF (
)
and it is being fixed. DW Freeland said both facilities are current on GAR corrective action
plans.
DW Freeland was asked if he feels that he has time to assess the culture of the two facilities and
he replied that he does. He stated that he is a “people kind of guy” and he builds relationships.
DW Freeland was advised that his strategy does seem to be working as the commentary at both
units regarding him and his team was positive and everyone said that they are approachable.
DW Freeland was asked about meeting attendance. He reported that he is able to attend the
morning meetings at both units and does so daily. The rest of his team attends with him at their
assigned units. The meetings are held at 0800 and 0830 respectively, so he can attend both. DW
Freeland was asked if he felt there is good open communication between the facility
administrations and his team. He said he does feel the communication is good. GEO
administrators have a separate meeting after the morning meeting involving ADC monitors, but
they are open with him and if he asks questions they answer them. He said there are no
communication problems. DW Freeland stated both facilities Human Resources (HR)
departments are open with him and if he asks for information they provide it.
DW Freeland was asked about inmate disciplinary due to the fact that staff at both units had
reported that disciplinary violations were on the rise. He said he had not reviewed this but there
has been a renewed focus on DO 704 enforcement at CACF, and this may have lead to this
perception. He said he has not seen any trends regarding inmate discipline.
DW Freeland stated that he attends the inmate town hall meetings at both units. He said he
monitors the food and eats at both units and there haven’t been any issues. DW Freeland was
asked about scheduled recreation and he stated that he has not been monitoring this but will start.
DW Freeland was asked if he was aware of any issues due to the union at CACF. He said he
does not know much about the union.
DW Freeland was advised to monitor the ingress procedures at CACF due to the observations of
the assessment team. He said he will do so.
DW Freeland was asked about his monitoring of facility sanitation. He was advised that there is
clearly a significant difference in the sanitation of the two facilities. CACF is very clean and
Florence West is not. He was asked if this has been addressed with him by his supervisors due to
the obvious differences when the facilities are compared and he said it had not. DW Freeland
said he tends to focus more on security. He said Warden Rollins focuses on sanitation and this is

27

something he needs to focus on more himself. He said this is a failure on his part and he will
address it.
The results of the 2014 Annual Inspection (audit) were reviewed. CACF had a score of 93.2%.
The facility recently was audited again for 2015. DW Freeland reported the number of findings
increased from 55 (2014) to 68 initial findings (2015). (GEO/CACF, 2014 audit results, Exhibit
#26) DW Freeland was asked if these scores were acceptable. He reviewed his notes from CBOD
Diaz and said that a score of 95% or higher is the score to strive for and facilities should improve
their score each year. DW Freeland advised they had conducted pre-audits to help prepare for the
audits and he will continue to follow up through use of the GAR.
Jesus Valles, Lieutenant, Disciplinary Coordinator:
Lieutenant Valles has been an ADC Monitor for four (4) years. He attended the initial monitor
training facilitated by the former division director and former CBOD. He has a copy of the
contract and a written description of his assigned duties. He described his role as completing
inmate disciplinary duties daily, touring and inspecting the yard and housing units several days
each week. He ensures the GEO administrators are aware of policy and contractual obligations,
and the expectations are being met.
Lt. Valles said he completes approximately 40 percent of the GAR inspection report monthly and
is free to mark Amber findings. Prior to marking a Red finding, Lt. Valles said he will notify his
supervisor, DW Freeland. When he notes minor deficiencies, he will speak directly with the
staff member or to the supervisor. Lt. Valles said he follows up these discussions with an email
to DW Freeland.
Lt. Valles attends the daily Warden’s meeting, detention meetings, and inmate town hall
meetings. He monitors visitation through the GAR inspection report, will observe inmate
recreation, and typically eats in the inmate chow hall 1-2 times per week.
He is responsible for completing the Disciplinary Coordinator functions at CACF, and attributes
the low number of tickets to frequent presence of GEO management. He believes in being
transparent with his supervisor and with GEO management, and stated that communication
between GEO and the ADC monitors is good. Lt. Valles is often on the yard and in the housing
units, but does not complete, and is not required to complete DO 703 tour reports, due to being a
Lieutenant.
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer:
Captain Adam Kraatz is the Contract Beds Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO). He works out of
the Central Office and covers all facilities as the relief captain. He has assigned to the Contract
Beds Bureau for 1.5 years and promoted into the position. He does not have copies of the
contracts because he has access to all of them at Central Office. His duties are: DHO for
Marana, Phoenix West, Florence West, CACF, and Red Rock. He travels to Kingman one time
28

per month to assist. He sets the schedule for the contract beds pre-audits. He views his role as;
Contract Beds is all one team, we work for the success of all. Inmate Disciplinary is his primary
role. He assesses operations everywhere while he tours and as he walks to and from disciplinary
offices. He pays attention to what is going on. If he finds any issues, he debriefs with the private
prison warden and the ADC Lead Monitor. He said he talks to staff. He said that sometimes
supervisors will hide issues or cover things up but not the officers. They talk to him. They will
tell him if something is broken or if they need a key to somewhere.
Captain Kraatz starts his day at Central office where he checks his email and mail and then heads
to the facility that needs his coverage that day. He does not typically attend facility meetings but
if he is covering for a Captain he does attend. He addresses issues on the spot when warranted
and raises them up to DBA Credio and CBOD Diaz as needed.
Joseph O’Driscoll, CO III, Programs Monitor:
COIII O’Driscoll has been an ADC Monitor for approximately three and a half years (3.5). He
attended the Monitor training class facilitated by the former Lead Monitor and former CBOD,
where he was given written directives of his job duties/expectations. He keeps a copy of the
contract on hand and refers to it as needed.
He described his role as being responsible for inmate reclassification, reviewing Maximum
Custody and Protective Custody packets, WIPP, completing GAR inspection reports, and
ensuring that GEO management is aware of ADC policy and the contract obligations. He stated
he was responsible for ensuring ‘the state gets what it is paying for.’
COIII O’Driscoll said he completes approximately 40 percent of the GAR inspection report each
month and is free to make Amber findings when necessary. He said he will notify DW Freeland
if a Red finding is necessary. He typically will give a staff member a verbal warning for minor
infractions, and if observed a second time, he will make it a GAR finding. COIII O’Driscoll
reported communication between GEO management and the monitor team is good, and he will
often discuss GAR findings with Warden Rollins.
COIII O’Driscoll is not required to complete 703 tour reports, but tours the yard at least once per
day. Staff report he is often on the yard and frequently interacts with staff and inmates.
He attends the daily Warden’s meeting, weekly detention meeting, and monitor team meetings.
COIII O’Driscoll reported that he has split days off (Sunday and Wednesday) by choice, and
inspects the inmate visitation area every Saturday. He does not monitor inmate feeding or
schedules, but will informally observe the staff and inmates on the yard during his daily tours.
COIII O’Driscoll stated there are no communication issues and reported the unit appears to be
well-run and that the state is getting what it pays for.

29

Summary
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on
what is required in DO #106. They are conducting their required monthly tours and they
complete their GAR inspections appropriately. ADC Monitors conduct detailed GAR
inspections, complete required paperwork, tours and inspections, and are determining if GEO
meets their contractual obligations and requirements. They are not monitoring pre-service
training or GEO employee discipline. The workload for the ADC Monitoring Team at CACF is
significantly less than the workload of the ADC Monitoring Team assigned to ASP-Kingman.
This allows them to tour more frequently and to interact in a manner that affords them the
opportunity to assess staff and inmate morale and the facility culture. The ADC Monitoring
Team is well known to GEO management and officers.
CACF staff consistently reported that they know the ADC Monitors and they see them touring.
The majority of staff reported that they feel comfortable talking to the monitors and they are
approachable.
Key Findings
•

The ADC Monitoring Team meets timeframes on the majority of the required paperwork
(e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate correspondence).
[Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

The Lead Monitor DW Freeland has conducted graveyard shift tours at the end of the
graveyard shift which do not allow him time to get to know the staff or the facility
operation [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Operations, sound correctional
practice]

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to two inmate classification
actions. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. [Violations of DO 801,
Inmate Classification, and Classification Technical Manual]

•

The team completes its GAR Inspections and most tour requirements in accordance with
ADC policy and contract requirements. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

•

The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

30

Key Findings, listed by Objective
The following comprises a recap of all key findings associated with narratives contained in the
four (4) Objectives described in this report, as sorted by Objective. Per Contract 040176DC,
GEO shall follow all applicable Department Orders and Director’s Instructions, and only
findings associated with ADC policies that are applicable to GEO have been listed herein. Thus,
any violation of applicable ADC policy also constitutes a violation of Contract 040176DC.
Moreover, per the contract, GEO will ensure the compliance and performance of ADC policies
and directives, and correct any deficiencies.
FINDINGS
Key Findings: OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of GEO Leadership and Staff (page 11-12)
•

GEO Warden has not been holding all required staff meetings [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings].

•

Much of the GEO management is unfamiliar with/does not have access to WebEOC.
[Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocols, operational concern, sound correctional
practices].

•

There is no reference to DART in facility Emergency Response Plan. [Violation of
Contract #0040176DC Section 8.9, Contracted Bed Procedures and Post Orders;
8.9.2.1 establish a Designated Armed Response Team (DART), Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

The facility Emergency Response Plan does not contain reference to the CERT/TSU.
Within the CERT, twenty out of thirty positions are filled. [Violation of Contract
#0040176DC Section Section 8.9, Contracted Bed Procedures and Post Orders;
8.9.2.2 establish a thirty (30) person Tactical Support Unit (TSU), Violation of DO
706, Incident Management, operational concern, sound correctional practices]

•

The Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate
housing areas (DO 704) [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Housing Regulations]

•

An officer was observed to not follow required security procedures by not inspecting
inmate’s mouths to ensure that medications had not been concealed after receiving their
medications. [ Violation of Unit Post Orders, operational concern, sound correctional
practice]

•
. [Operational concern and sound correctional
practice]
31

Key Findings: OBJECTVE 2, Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication (page
19)
•

Ingress search procedures for ADC employees not up to standards. As previously noted
in the May, 2015, GAR, GEO staff did not conduct proper ingress search procedures on
two GEO staff (Searches finding #12). [Violation of DO 708, Searches, operational
concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

Inmate kitchen workers were allowed to enter the ACI area where inmates were utilizing
Class A and B tools without being searched entering or leaving [Operational concern,
sound correctional practices].

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to two inmate classification
actions. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. [Violations of DO 801,
Inmate Classification, and Classification Technical Manual]

Key Findings: OBJECTIVE 3, Staff Training (page 23)
•

The CACF Warden has not completed MAG400. Five security supervisors and two staff
have not completed the required NIMS training. [Violation of FEMA/NIMS protocol,
and DO 509, Employee Training and Education]

•

GEO failed to deliver some in-service classes in a classroom setting by providing training
that was being conducted in control rooms from printed slide shows. [Violation of
Contract #040176DC, Section 10.14, In-Service Training, Violation of DO 509,
Employee Training and Education, operational concern]

•

GEO failed to deliver some pre-service courses as required by ADC by making
unauthorized reductions in classroom hours in several critical areas; Use of force,
transportation and restraints, Non Violent Crisis Intervention. It was confirmed that in
June, 2014, at least one employee had been placed into the academy at Week 4 and was
provided curriculum from first 3 weeks to catch up. [Violation of Contract
#040176DC, Section 10.13, Pre-Service Training, Violation of DO 509, Employee
Training and Education]

•

The Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) does not have the required filled
positions or minimum equipment required by contract for Tactical Support Unit (TSU).
Tactical Training is not conducted in accordance with the ADC Tactical Training
Schedule. [Violation of Contract #040176DC, Section 8.9.2.2 Tactical Support Unit,
Violation of DO 706, Incident Management, sound correctional practice]

•

CACF does not utilize Field Training Officers. [Sound correctional practice]

32

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 4: ADC Monitoring Team (page 30)
•

The ADC Monitoring Team meets timeframes on the majority of the required paperwork
(e.g., classification, visitation, disciplinary, releases, inmate correspondence).
[Operational concerns, sound correctional practices]

•

The Lead Monitor DW Freeland has conducted graveyard shift tours at the end of the
graveyard shift which do not allow him time to get to know the staff or the facility
operation [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Operations, sound correctional
practice]

•

Errors in classification actions and documentation in regard to two inmate classification
actions. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. [Violations of DO 801,
Inmate Classification, and Classification Technical Manual]

•

The team completes its GAR Inspections and most tour requirements in accordance with
ADC policy and contract requirements. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

•

The team only monitors in-service training completion, not pre-service training, nor the
quality/curriculum content of the training. [Operational concerns, sound correctional
practices]

CONCLUSION
Based upon observations, reviews of available materials, inmate interviews, and staff contacts
and interviews, the Assessment Team concluded that the inmate population at CACF was
satisfied with their conditions of confinement. The overall conditions within the facility were
favorable. Staff members appeared to be content with their employer (GEO). Overall unit
sanitation was above average.
The DART response was proficient in knowledge by both team members and supervisory staff.
Pre-service and in-service training requires follow-up attention by ADC and GEO management
to bring the training programs into contract and policy compliance. Tactical Support Unit
operations also require follow up attention by ADC and GEO management for contract and
policy compliance.
Overall, CACF presents a well groomed image. The relationship amongst the ADC Monitor
Team, GEO management, line staff members, and inmates is positive.

33

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT
RED ROCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Operated by
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION of AMERICA (CCA)
Objective 1: Assessment of CCA Leadership and Staff
The Assessment Team evaluated the staff and leadership of Red Rock Correctional Center
(CCA), to include strengths and weaknesses, communications, decision making, and overall
effectiveness in operations of the prison.
Members of the ADC Assessment Team engaged in direct observation of unit management and
operational practices for five (5) days. They conducted over one hundred and thirty (130)
interviews with CCA staff and interviewed over one hundred and fifty (150) inmates. Interviews
were conducted with the majority of officers, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. CCA staff
members appeared to be very candid in their responses to the assessors.
From the interviews conducted with staff, few concerns were shared. The only negative opinion
voiced was a perception that there is no post rotation and a few staff members believed
supervisors were displaying favoritism by posting certain officers in favorable posts. The staff
appeared to be happy with their employer and work environment.
Warden Bruno Stolc
Warden Bruno Stolc has been assigned to the Red Rock facility since 2008. He has worked in the
Corrections field for thirty five (35) years. He started in Colorado in 1980 and has worked in
both the public and private sectors. Bruno Stolc has been a Warden since 1999. When asked to
describe how he views the role of Warden, Stolc responded that he sees himself as the ‘Mayor of
the town.’ He oversees the entire facility from the day-to-day operations to the finances. He
stated that he empowers the people who work for him to make decisions. He also stated that the
Assistant Warden needs to be able to fill in for him without there being any change in the
operation.
Warden Stolc was advised that the assessment team found the facility to be in good shape. The
overall sanitation was excellent and the facility presents well. He was advised that the inmate
compliance with housing regulations was lacking and that the team had found multiple concerns
with the cell sanitation and compliance. Employee interviews also indicated the Red Rock
Administration is well known to the staff and inmates and is viewed as caring, approachable, and
responsive.
In reference to Department Order (DO) 704 compliance, Warden Stolc was advised that the
housing units populated with former ASP-Kingman inmates were the most problematic. It was
discussed that the inmates are washing their laundry in their sinks and are openly hanging
1

clothing and linens to dry. Warden Stolc said he is trying to purchase dryers and there are clothes
hooks ready to be installed.
Warden Stolc was advised that many of his staff discussed having concerns about the facility
housing three separate population types (Sex Offenders/Protective Custody/General Population).
He was told that rather than this being a negative issue, his staff seemed to be taking the
approach that they must be extra careful and to take steps to ensure no errors are made. The
assessment team felt that the staff are aware of the issue and are taking steps to monitor their
own compliance with yard movement was a positive sign. Red Rock staff also indicated
communication is good and they are aware of changes and updates. Overall, the message from
Red Rock staff was they are doing well and plan to continue to improve. Warden Stolc was
advised that several of his staff asked questions about the construction taking place adjacent to
the Red Rock facility, and there was some concern that the facility might gain a fourth
population. Stolc replied that the construction near Red Rock demonstrates that CCA is being
proactive and adding 450 beds.
Warden Stolc was advised that the Red Rock officers talked with pride about the emergency
intake of the ASP-Kingman inmates in July. They felt their work had been good and Red Rock
management had recognized and rewarded them for their hard work. Officers mentioned they
were fed (BBQ Ribs) and were given new hats to recognize their work. Warden Stolc said he
was very proud of his team as they completed the Kingman intake with no issues. His staff was
assisted by six (6) Special Operations Response Teams (SORT) from neighboring CCA
facilities, and the operation went well.
Warden Stolc was advised that many of his staff expressed that they wished the facility
. Stolc replied he wished this as well and stated he will review this
with Contract Beds Operations Director (CBOD) Diaz.
The staffing ‘Card System’ for security staff was discussed with Warden Stolc. He was advised
most staff members viewed it in a favorable light and saw it as a fair staffing system. He was
advised the general consensus about overtime use is positive. Staff members appreciate the
opportunity to work overtime and feel it is managed consistently and effectively. It was
discussed that the CCA policy on overtime is vague and does not contain regulations for control
of the overtime hours worked. Warden Stolc agreed and stated he attempts to limit the amount of
overtime worked to 20 hours per week or 40 hours per pay period. He was advised that officers
had reported it was 25/50 and he said he would clarify that information. Warden Stolc said he
does not like for staff to work a double shift (16 hours). He limits the overtime to four hours as
much as possible. He said there are some posts (perimeter, etc.) that he does not like for staff to
work for 12 hours straight and does not feel working 16 hours is effective. (CCA/Red Rock,
Card System, Exhibit #1/ Overtime policy, Exhibit #2)

2

Post rotation was discussed with Warden Stolc. ADC policy specifically states that private
prisons are not required to have 90 day post rotation. Stolc was advised that there were a few
staff who mentioned there is favoritism in the posting patterns. Warden Stolc advised that the
Captains do place staff where they perform best. He said the supervisors do encourage cross
training, but the staff member who is most proficient at a post is placed there.
Warden Stolc was told his Chief of Security had confirmed that emergency escape hatch drills
are not being conducted. He was aware of this and of the plan to implement drills. The facility
has begun to address this with security challenges to familiarize staff with the keys to escape
hatches.
Warden Stolc was asked about the facility Annual Inspection (audit) and how this year compared
to last year. He stated that an audit was recently completed. He discussed that the contract with
ADC is still fairly new and they (CCA) are learning. The 2015 audit had fewer findings than the
2014 audit and the score is expected to improve. The 2014 audit score was 91.1% compliance.
Warden Stolc was asked about his relationship with the ADC Monitoring Team. He stated, “We
agree to disagree in some instances, but the relationship is very good.” He stated the monitoring
team is a good resource when they (CCA staff) have questions. He stated the team does not take
a ‘gotcha’ approach. They take an approach of “we are all in this together.” Warden Stolc said
they all make a concerted effort to make Red Rock the best facility ever. Stolc stated that there
are some differences with interpretations of policy, but his team and the monitoring team work it
out. Warden Stolc said his team and the monitoring team have discussions daily.
Warden Stolc was advised that his monthly and quarterly meetings were reviewed. He is holding
regular meetings and does meet with all of his staff. Although his meetings do meet the
communication intent of policy they are not compliant with ADC policy. DO 112 requires the
Warden to meet with staff groups separately: for example, Sergeants should not be at the
Warden/CO meeting as this impedes the officers’ ability to talk without fear of retaliation. The
requirement to meet with the Sergeants and Lieutenants separately and to only have officers
present at the Warden/CO monthly meetings was discussed. Warden Stolc committed to
reviewing DO 112 and scheduling his meetings in compliance with it. He did share that the
facility also holds ‘Staff Recall’ meetings and all staff attend. There is food, awards and
communication at these Recalls. (CCA/Red Rock, COII Meeting minutes, Exhibit #3)
Warden Stolc was advised that the Use of Force reports were reviewed and did not indicate any
problems. An incident resulting in a use of force that occurred Friday, September 18, 2015 was
discussed. Warden Stolc advised that the officer involved in that incident was being addressed
and the incident had been determined to be an unjustified use of force. He stated it can be hard to
‘Monday Morning Quarterback’, but he felt the officer was too ‘quick on the trigger’. This was
in reference to the officer in question using OC spray on an inmate during a verbal altercation.

3

It was shared with Warden Stolc that the Designated Armed Response Team (DART) drill
initiated by the Assessment Team had not gone well. Warden Stolc said they will train staff until
it becomes second nature. He said staff members are still getting used to this system
(ADC/DART/ICS). Warden Stolc stated he would like ADC to offer on-site instruction to his
DART instructors.
Assistant Warden, Kevin Johnson
Assistant Warden (AW) Kevin Johnson retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) after
twenty five (25) years. AW Johnson has worked for CCA for fifteen (15) months and has been
assigned to Red Rock for five (5) months. AW Johnson stated he supervises Programs Manager
Degard, and Chief Ashford, as well as maintenance and food service. AW Johnson said he
believes that he completed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) training- MAG
300 and 400 while he was with BOP, but he needs to find his training records. AW Johnson said
he has access and is able to work with the WebEOC on-line incident management operating
system.
AW Johnson shared his belief that Red Rock
proposal to CBOD Diaz. If Red Rock

and they are going to submit a

.
AW Johnson stated DART drills have been conducted at least once a shift for the last couple of
months. AW Johnson said the DART dresses out in their gear and they go to the briefing room
for weapons and munitions familiarization. AW Johnson said the DART is not allowed to bring
weapons or munitions onto the yard for training drills. AW Johnson stated his belief that it is
critical to train with weapons when it comes to DART training.
AW Johnson said staff members are allowed to work no more than 24 hours of overtime a week.
AW Johnson stated the overtime at Red Rock is being managed well and there is very little
overtime worked over the 24 hours. AW Johnson said he tours the facility daily and he likes
working for CCA. AW Johnson shared that he has a good relationship with the ADC Monitoring
Team and the staff at Red Rock.
Chief of Security, Frank Ashford
Chief of Security Frank Ashford worked for ADC for fourteen (14) years and has worked for
CCA for the last fourteen (14) years. Chief Ashford has completed MAG 300, MAG 400, and
HSEEP (Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program) FEMA classes. HSEEP provides
a set of guiding principles for emergency exercise programs, as well as a common approach to
exercise program management, design and development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement
planning. Chief Ashford stated he and the Red Rock Command Staff have access to, and can
4

work with, the WebEOC system. Chief Ashford stated Assistant Warden Johnson, Program
Manager Degard, Assistant Chief Snow, Captain Reyes, Captain Sites, Captain Lewis, Captain
Cartwright, and Captain Hansen can all utilize WebEOC. Chief Ashford said the command staff
members are familiar with WebEOC, but they could always use more training.
Chief Ashford said each shift is required to complete at least one DART drill every month. Chief
Ashford shared that each shift completed daily DART drills in June of 2015 because staff
members were not familiar with the weapons or formations. He said they are not allowed to
conduct DART drills with munitions inside the facility. Chief Ashford said they were previously
allowed to conduct DART drills on yards 4 and 5 because they were vacant, but this stopped
after the Kingman inmates arrived. Chief Ashford stated that during drills, DART will assemble
with their gear and move to the briefing room for weapons familiarization. Chief Ashford
requested the assistance of an expert from ADC to train some of his staff on DART procedures.
Chief Ashford shared that all five Captains are required to conduct one security drill, one
emergency key drill, and one medical emergency drill every month. He said he tours the facility
daily. Chief Ashford stated Lieutenants and Captains are required to inspect every post during
their assigned shift.
Chief Ashford said Red Rock
. He
said he
and they (Red Rock) received a finding in their
American Correctional Association (ACA) audit
.
Chief Ashford said he would
. Chief
Ashford stated
. Ashford said he would

nothing
would

. Chief Ashford stated he would
. Chief Ashford stated he is not going to sit and do
. Chief Ashford said he

. Chief Ashford stated some of his staff members are having difficulty transitioning
from the California Alarm Response Team (ART) to DART. Chief Ashford stated ART was
.
Chief Ashford was asked how security device repairs are completed. He replied that security
devices are repaired timely at Red Rock. Chief Ashford stated maintenance staff members are on
site six days a week at Red Rock. The assessment team did not observe any unrepaired security
devices at Red Rock, and Chief Ashford produced several monthly security device inspection
reports which displayed compliance with requirements for repairing of security devices.
Chief Ashford shared that Red Rock received a finding during the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) audit resulting in the female staff members now having to ‘knock and announce’ when
5

they enter inmate living areas. Chief Ashford stated CCA policy requires staff to search every
cell each month. He said the quarterly search is treated as an extra search and they use WebEOC
for incident management of these searches. Chief Ashford confirmed there is also a targeted
search list which must be completed every month.
Chief Ashford reported that he has a good relationship with the ADC monitors and he is here to
please the customer (ADC). Chief Ashford said he is a little confused about how to best handle
non-compliance with DO 704, Inmate Regulations. He expressed concern that if too many
disciplinary reports are written for non-compliance with DO 704, the disciplinary reports remain
unprocessed. If staff members physically enforce compliance with DO 704, they will be viewed
as being too aggressive.
Chief Ashford said he does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate housing areas
and he does not include the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703 report. Ashford
declared this was a recent audit finding and he will correct this finding in the near future.
Department Order 704, Inmate Housing Regulations states the Chief of Security or designee
shall conduct weekly inspections of all inmate living areas. These inspections shall be
documented, by exception, in the Chief of Security's Monthly Report in accordance with
Department Order #703, Security/Facility Inspections.
Chief Ashford submitted a report which stated Red Rock has the following restraints in their
inventory:
handcuffs,
leg restraints,
belly chains, and
flex cuffs.
.
Assistant Chief of Security, Jason Snow
Assistant Chief (AC), Jason Snow has worked for CCA for sixteen (16) years, and has been the
Assistant Chief for ten (10) months. AC Snow has prior experience with the military and Kearny
Police Department. AC Snow said he completed MAG 300 and 400 FEMA training, and he feels
comfortable working with WebEOC. AC Snow shared he is also familiar with all National
Incident Management System (NIMS) forms and which forms each section chief is responsible
for. AC Snow said he has had some emergency preparedness training and he has worked as a
controller/evaluator for NIMS emergency exercises. AC Snow stated he and Chief Ashford are
the only members of management that have completed MAG 300 and 400 training. Snow said
AW Johnson has not produced any certificates showing completion of MAG 300 and 400. AC
Snow said the five Captains and Warden Stolc also have not attended MAG 300 and 400.
AC Snow was advised that the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for Red Rock is well written
and in the correct format. The Red Rock ERP is a good initial plan. However, the ERP is missing
the following required annexes:
The ADC contract with CCA states the private prison shall provide a detailed incident
management plan addressing inmate disturbances, employee work stoppages, strikes, or other
6

serious events in accordance with the Department Order relating to the significant incidents
(section 1.9.7.3.4).
AC Snow advised that supervisors are completing DART drills once a month on every shift. AC
Snow shared that supervisors conducted a DART drill every day in June, 2015. He said some of
the staff members are having a hard time transitioning from ART to DART. AC Snow stated the
DART training is ‘hit and miss’ because
. AC
Snow said DART drills are conducted on the yard with no munitions. AC Snow shared his belief
when the facility is locked down, staff should be able to drill in the center yard with munitions
and weapons. AC Snow said he has not completed DART for Supervisors training. AC Snow
stated he
, and CCA is willing to meet the TSU standards
set by ADC and ACA.
AC Snow is involved in staff training and he instructs Use of Force, Incident Command System
(ICS), Professionalism and Ethics, and Emergency Response classes. He said he tours the facility
daily and loves working at Red Rock. AC Snow said staff working at Red Rock are allowed to
work up to 24 hours of overtime weekly and must take at least one day off weekly. AC Snow
stated inmates have to wear their shirts in their assigned cells, and he could not explain why
some Captains and line-staff believed inmates are allowed to be in their cells without shirts on.
AC Snow said he has a good relationship with the ADC monitors
Programs Manager Theresa Degard
Theresa Degard is the programs manager for the CCA Red Rock Correctional Center. Programs
Manager Degard was asked to provide an overview of her duties with CCA. She advised that she
oversees the programs department, education, substance abuse, vocational education, mail and
property, laundry and the religious department. Her focus is for her team to engage the inmate
population in pro-social behaviors; to teach classes that will prepare them for entry back into
society.
Programs Manager Degard has been employed by CCA for four (4) years and nine (9) months.
While at CCA she was a Case Manager then promoted to Unit Manager. She then promoted to
her current position as Programs Manager. Programs Manager Degard was asked if she had
support from her Warden. She advised that Warden Stolc is very helpful and supportive. She
said he is there to guide and mentor her. Programs Manager Degard has a good working
relationship with the ADC monitors and fosters open lines of communications.
Captain Raul Reyes
Captain Raul Reyes has worked with CCA for five and a half (5.5) years and worked as a police
officer for eighteen and a half (18.5) years prior to working at CCA. Captain Reyes reported he
is comfortable with DART and he is proficient with WebEOC. Captain Reyes said he has
completed DART for Supervisors training, but he has not completed MAG 300 and 400 FEMA
7

classes. Captain Reyes shared he completed the Samberg Leadership class. He said the Red Rock
staff members need more weapons and munitions training so they can become more proficient.
Captain Reyes stated staff members are only allowed to work 24 hours of overtime a week.
When they are mandated to work overtime, officers typically work an additional 4 hours. Captain
Reyes said he tours the Juliet and Echo buildings everyday when he works, and then he
randomly tours the other buildings. He spends more time in Juliet and Echo buildings because
the inmates that were involved in the Kingman riots are housed there. Captain Reyes stated he
has a good relationship with his administration and the ADC monitors.
Captain Ron Hansen
Captain Ron Hansen has worked with CCA for eight (8) years, and he has been a Captain for
five (5) months. Captain Hansen stated most staff work about 10 to 15 hours a week of overtime.
Staff is limited to 25 hours of overtime each week, and they can work 4 hours of overtime in a
day. Captain Hansen shared that he likes working at CCA and the ADC contract is the best he
has ever worked. Captain Hansen stated he teaches self defense classes for CCA. Captain Hansen
said he completes one DART drill, one security drill, and one medical drill every month. Captain
Hansen reported that he completed DART for Supervisors training. Captain Hansen stated he is
not allowed to take weapons or munitions on the yard for a DART drill. He said staff dress out
for DART drills and report to the briefing room for weapons familiarization. Captain Hansen
stated he tours the entire facility 95% of the time when he is assigned to shift. Captain Hansen
stated he has a good relationship with his administration and the ADC monitors.
Captain Richard Sites
Captain Richard Sites has worked with CCA for six (6) years and he has been a Captain for five
(5) months. Captain Sites has eight (8) years of experience working with ADC. Captain Sites
stated he instructs DART, Chemical Agents, Firearms and Van Driver classes. Captain Sites said
he completed the DART for Supervisors Class. Captains Sites reported he has finished all his
NIMS classes except for MAG 300 and 400. Captain Sites believes that every good correctional
supervisor wants more training especially weapons familiarization training. Captain Sites stated
staff members work an average of about 16 hours a week of overtime and they are limited to 25
hours a week. Captain Sites said he tours every post. Captain Sites stated he has a good
relationship with his administration and the ADC monitors.
Captain Amy Lewis
Captain Lewis has worked for CCA for ten (10) years. She has previously worked in Washington
DC, La Palma-Eloy, and Red Rock. She has been a Captain since 2010. She was an officer for
two and a half (2.5) years, a Sergeant for six (6) months, and a Lieutenant for two (2) years prior
to promoting to Captain. She said she has completed all required training, and will attend MAG
300 and MAG 400 soon. She shared that she was the SORT commander for 2 years. She
attended Samberg Leadership class. Captain Lewis reported that she is actively involved in
8

DART Drills and she oversees the drills and practices. She stated that she and the
sergeants/lieutenants have adequate time on the yard to monitor staff and inmates, and to work
with and mentor staff. She said that she makes it a practice to be very involved with her staff.
Captain Lewis reported that she sees her Administration frequently and that they all play a role in
unit management. She said that they ‘lead from the front’. Lewis reported that she sees the ADC
monitors frequently and feels comfortable talking and interacting with them. When asked about
the Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspection instrument, she said she has no issues with it, but that
Monitor Bayles goes straight to making formal entries into GAR without discussion first. She
said he (Bayles) follows policy, but Captain Carpenter talks to CCA staff first and works with
them more. Captain Lewis reports that she has no issues and feels the yard is running well.
Captain James Cartwright
Captain Cartwright has worked for CCA for approximately eighteen (18) years, and has been a
Captain for nine (9) of those years. He has been through Samberg Leadership class, and was
assigned as the unit SORT leader. As the graveyard supervisor, Captain Cartwright and his
supervisory team tour the yard and housing units daily. He added that they meet with subordinate
staff and provide redirection when appropriate. Captain Cartwright stated he sees the Warden
and Associate Warden approximately twice per month, and notes that they will speak with staff
and inmates during their tours. He also reported seeing the ADC Monitoring Team
approximately twice per month. He was familiar with DW White, Captain Carpenter, and COIV
Bayles. Captain Cartwright said he has a good working relationship with the monitoring team,
and has no issues with how things are running at Red Rock.
Summary of observations and conclusions:
Red Rock management cooperated very well with the assessment team. They ensured that staff
and inmates were readily available for interviews and addressed any delays immediately.
Staff morale was high and the officers are happy with their work and their employer. Pay
(wages) was not mentioned except in a positive way.
Red Rock has a ‘card system’ for managing officers’ schedules- regular days off (RDOs) and the
assignment of overtime. The system is viewed as fair and consistently implemented. Staff was
very positive about the ‘card system’ and the way overtime is managed. The system does away
with permanently assigned regular days off (RDOs) and results in staff being assigned to ‘cards’
with rotating days off. All officers have two full weekends off per month. Two weeks of the
month, they work six-day work weeks. One week they have three RDOs and one week they have
four. (CCA/Red Rock, Card System rosters, Exhibit #1)
The facility has operated under contract to ADC for approximately 20 months. The management
team is still learning ADC policy and procedure, but is taking the learning process seriously.
Many officers reported being cautious due to having to safely manage the three separate inmate
9

populations housed at Red Rock, and to taking steps to learn and understand the ADC ways.
Interviews indicated that Red Rock management is keeping the officers informed and updated on
changes.
Throughout the interviews with staff, all commentary about Warden Stolc was positive. He was
reported to tour frequently and to interact with staff daily and positively. The same was true for
Assistant Warden Johnson. Staff reported that he tours daily, knows them and the inmates and is
always available and responsive. He was reported to always be in a good mood and to be highly
engaged with all. The Chief of Security and the Assistant Chief of Security were also viewed as
engaged, available and responsive.
Staff consistently reported that they had completed their required annual training and the preservice academy was productive and prepared them for the job. Staff consistently reported that
the supervisors (Sgts, Lts, and Captains) are readily available to them and they tour frequently.
Red Rock has a high number of sergeants and at times each housing unit has a sergeant assigned.
An inconsistency was noted between Captains as to whether inmates needed to remain in
grooming compliance (wearing t-shirts) once inside their assigned cells. This inconsistency
causes confusion amongst the line-staff and inmates.
DO 703 reports were reviewed. The reports are complete and thorough. No concerns were noted
in the tours of the Red Rock staff.
An experience level comparison in terms of years in job code was conducted relative to the staff
at CCA and like-positions within ADC. Additionally, a comparison of the length of time in a
qualifying pay grade/rank was completed with CCA CO III’s and ADC COIIIs, as well as the
Sergeants in ADC and CCA. The results of the total comparisons are listed below:
Position
CO
COIII
Sgt
Lt
Captain
COIV
AW
Warden

ADC
6.4
4.96
3.75
3.81
3.14
4.11
1.26
2.77

CCA
3.69
2.36 (Case Manager)
2.43
3.27
3.41
1.90 (Program Manager)
1.31
16.49

Full Time Positions
Allocated
Correctional Officer II 192
Sergeant
23
Lieutenant
5

Filled Vacancy
136
56 (18 are in training)
21
2 (both in training)
5
0
10

CCA has a total of 328 positions to include Administration, Security, Clerical, and Medical staff.
Overtime is used frequently to reach required staffing. CCA policy is vague about overtime and
does not address how often or how many hours staff can work. Warden Stolc has implemented a
four hour rule and for the most part staff members only work a four hour shifts for overtime. On
rare occasions staff members work a double shift. Staff consistently reported that overtime is not
an issue. It is viewed positively and is well managed and consistently assigned. Even staff who
reported that they did not want to work overtime spoke positively about the implementation of
the Overtime Card system.
During the pay periods noted, the following staff worked in excess of 48 hours overtime:
Pay Period Ending
05/02/2015
05/16/2015
06/13/2015
06/27/2015
07/11/2015

07/25/2015
08/08/2015

Employees who worked in excess of 48 hours overtime
Justin Turner-55.02 hours
Vicente Tarango-50.23 hours
Lerrill West-74.60 hours
Jessica Brito-58.32 hours
Yusuf Abdi-50.13 hours, Edgar Bernal-66.12 hours,
Ronald Duran Jr.-51.53 hours, Jose Loza Bernal-66.32 hours,
Julian Nunez-53.98 hours, Eddie Padilla-101.90 hours,
Vicente Tarango-54.63 hours, Justin Turner-77.28 hours
Stephen Bergeron-55.78 hours, Jessica Brito-55.42 hours,
Daniel Escobedo-51.05 hours, Vicente Tarango-64.10 hours

Posts are typically fully staffed without collapsing security posts. Overtime is utilized to fill
vacant posts on the roster. CCA Administrators have temporarily assigned line-staff from other
CCA facilities to Red Rock to fill temporary posts due to the addition of 568 inmates from the
ASP-Kingman.
Key Findings:
•

CCA Warden has not been holding all required staff meeting. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]

•

Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate housing
areas and he does not include the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703
report. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

CCA Warden, Assistant Warden, and Captains have not attended all required NIMS
courses. [Violation of NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education]

11

•

CCA Captains were allowing inmates to not wear shirts inside their assigned cells.
[Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, sound correctional practice, operational
concern]

•

The ERP does not contain the following required annexes:
. [Violation of Contract
#120088DC, Section 1.9.7, Critical Incident Response Plan, Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, sound correctional practice]

12

OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
An initial tour showed the facility to be clean and well cared for. The staff members looked
professional and well groomed.
A majority of the inmate population was observed wearing their ADC inmate ID cards and their
shirts were tucked in. There were several inmates displaying sculpted beards and goatees.
Assessment team members observed some inmates smoking tobacco in their assigned cells.
The dayrooms and showers in the housing units were exceptionally clean. The housing units
presented a clean, well maintained appearance. However, many individual cell windows were
covered with paper, cardboard, etc. There were magazine pictures of scantily dressed women
displayed inside the cells. There were clotheslines, sheets and towels hanging from the top bunk
which concealed the inmate on the bottom bunk. Assessors observed covered security lights, and
unmade beds. Inmates were observed covered with blankets or sheets in the middle of the day.
Inmates covered the cell door window when use the restroom, and security staff members would
walk by the windows without taking any action. Inmates were observed shirtless inside their
cells and security staff members were not redirecting inmates. Two of the CCA Captains stated
inmates were allowed to not wear shirts inside their cells. DO 704, Inmate Regulations states,
‘When in the run or cell, inmates shall not be in any state of undress, unless preparing for bed or
immediately upon return from the shower.’ Enforcement of DO 704 was observed to be
inconsistent. Inmate compliance with DO 704 requires greater attention by management.
Examples of inconsistent enforcement of inmate regulations:

13

Female staff members who work as floor officers have to ‘knock and announce’ their presence
prior to entering an inmate housing area. This is due to the Red Rock facility receiving a finding
during their PREA audit. Female staff members at ADC facilities do not knock and announce
due to enforcement of inmate regulations with regards to inmates not being in any state of
undress.
Most inmates expressed how pleased they were to be housed at Red Rock and that they have
continuous access to the administration. The inmates were happy about being housed in a facility
which is cooled with air conditioners. The inmate population had no complaints about the food at
Red Rock. The food is prepared by the same vendor utilized by ADC, (Trinity). Some of the
inmates who are temporarily housed at Red Rock from ASP-Kingman asked why the Protective
Custody and Sex Offenders were treated so much better than they were. They implied that
General Population inmates should be treated better than Protective Custody and Sex Offenders.
Constituent Services:
A review of complaints from constituent services shows that Red Rock has had no complaints
filed. (CCA/Red Rock, Email from J. Gunn, Exhibit #4)
Disciplinary:
Disciplinary profiles were reviewed separately for Protective Custody inmates (M90) and Sex
Offender inmates (M80) as these are two separate types of inmate population. There were small
amounts of data available to compare inmates transferred in from Kingman. To date, 15 major
violations and 59 minor violations have been logged for the Kingman inmate population.
(CCA/Red Rock, Inmate Discipline AIMS Print Out, Exhibit #5)
Red Rock

:

Red Rock was activated on January 2014. The
was activated
with an initial population of
. In January, 2015, the
. There were 412 inmate disciplinary violations issued in 2014. As of
08/31/2015, there have been 314 inmate disciplinary violations issued for 2015 thus far. If this
current trend continues, Year 2015 inmate discipline is projected to increase 14% as compared to
Year 2014.
As of 08/31/2015 for Year 2015, 54.78% of inmate disciplinary violations issued consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•

25B - Disobey Directive (21.02%)
11B - Disrupt Count (16.56%)
01B - Aggravated Refusal (7.01%)
36B – Violation of Department Rules (6.69%)
04C - Disrespect to Staff (3.50%)
14

As of 08/30/2015, inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
71 guilty major verdicts
•
105 guilty minor verdicts
•
103 informally resolved inmate disciplines
•
33 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts
•
2 pending
Red Rock

:

Red Rock was activated on January 2014. The
was
activated with an initial population of
. In January, 2015, the
. There were 238 inmate disciplinary violations issued in 2014.
As of 08/31/2015, there have been 605 inmate disciplinary violations issued for Year 2015 thus
far. If this trend continues, Year 2015 inmate discipline is projected to increase 281% as
compared to Year 2014.
As of 08/31/2015 for Year 2015, 67.11% of inmate disciplinary violations issued consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•

11B - Disrupt Count (31.24%)
25B - Disobey Directive (16.53%)
01B - Aggravated Refusal (13.72%)
04C - Disrespect to Staff (3.14%)
36B – Violation of Department Rules (2.48%)

As of 08/30/2015, inmate disciplinary violations were finalized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

116 guilty major verdicts
175 guilty minor verdicts
247 informally resolved inmate disciplines
66 Dismissed or Not Guilty verdicts
1 pending

Grievances:
Thus far for calendar year 2015, the number of formal inmate grievances filed at Red Rock
totaled 163. These numbers are within the average range when compared to similar custody
ADC units (ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit and ASPC-Lewis, Barchey Unit) on a per capita basis.
Inmate Personal Property was the main grievance concern at Red Rock, which is common
throughout ADC. (CCA/Red Rock, ASPC Lewis – Barchey, and ASPC Eyman – Cook
Grievance logs, Exhibit #6)

15

Classification:
A review of the classification actions for the inmates at Red Rock indicates that all classification
actions are within time frames. (CCA/Red Rock, AIMS Classification Print Out, Exhibit #7)
Detention:
Red Rock detention unit holds up to 56 inmates. Currently there are 31 inmates housed in
detention. The individual detention records indicate that the Shift Commanders and Program
Officers visit detention on a regular basis, and that inmates receive recreation and showers on
regular basis. There are key findings in detention as it relates to Protective Segregation Review,
Disciplinary follow up, and classification reviews being completed. Two inmates remained in
detention following completion of the disciplinary process. Updates were not entered into the
Adult Inmate Management System (AIMS) when an inmate was placed into detention for
refusing to house. (CCA/Red Rock, Detention Report Exhibit #8)
Visitation:
Visitation at Red Rock is consistent when compared to visitation with ASPC-Eyman, Cook Unit
and ASPC-Lewis, Barchey Unit. The visitation area presented a well groomed and cared for
visitation room. (CCA/Red Rock, Visitation Summary, ASPC Eyman - Cook Exhibit #9)
Inmate Programs
Education:
Red Rock has four teachers that instruct mandatory literacy and GED classes.
There are currently 21 inmates enrolled in functional literacy and 110 inmates enrolled in GED.
(CCA/Red Rock, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
Career Technical Education (CTE)
Red Rock has a Construction Trades CTE course; this is a certificate course through National
Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER). There are two classes with a
maximum of 18 inmates per class.
Red Rock also has a ‘Master Gardener’ class; this is a certificate through the University of
Arizona. There are two classes with a maximum capacity of 18 inmates per class.
Substance Abuse Programs – Case Manager Programs
Red Rock has four addiction treatment counselors, a program facilitator and an addictions
treatment manager assigned to the unit. In addition to the treatment counselors there are also 14
case managers.
16

Inmates are assigned to treatment and programs based on their order of ranking on the priority
ranking report. The below listed classes are offered by the treatment counselors:
•
•

Moderate Treatment
Intensive Treatment

The below classes are taught by case managers or program facilitator:
•
•
•
•

Cognitive Thinking For A Change
Re-Entry
Impact of Crimes on Victims Class (ICVC)
Parenting

All of the substance abuse programs are taught by a licensed counselor.
Case Managers also conduct office hours and are available daily to the inmate population. When
walking amongst the inmate population one does not receive a lot of questions regarding case
management issues. This is indicative of inmates being able to meet with a case manager
regularly.
Reviews of classes show the counselors and case managers are actively teaching and engaging
the inmates during class. (CCA/Red Rock, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
Religious Services:
Red Rock provides a number of religious program services. They also provide an Alcoholics
Anonymous program that is religious based. The religious services calendar indicates a wide
range of programs and services for various religious groups showing a service or meeting every
day with the exception of the Sunday and Monday. (CCA/Red Rock, Religious Services
Calendar, Exhibit #11)
Library Operations:
The library is open five days a week for six hours a day. Legal services are available to the
inmates at this time. General Population inmates utilize the library based by utilizing check out
requests and a library cart system. There is a cart with books placed in the day room of their
building and inmates can request a specific book through the check out system. (CCA/Red
Rock, Library Calendar, Exhibit #12)
Work Opportunities:
Red Rock has a population of 1,000 regular use beds and up to 562 special use / emergency beds
assigned to the unit. There are currently Work Incentive Pay Plan (WIPP) jobs available for
inmates at Red Rock. There are currently 1,191 inmates employed by WIPP; 832 are employed
as porters.
17

Most of the WIPP jobs appear to be full time with inmates receiving full time hours. (CCA/Red
Rock, Capacity Report, Exhibit #10)
When comparing the racial breakdown of the unit versus that of inmates working, there is no
more than a 2% difference in any race, indicating that jobs are shared equally by racial
composition.
Structured Recreation:
An effective management tool for correctional administrators when they are challenged with
keeping inmates occupied and engaged if meaningful jobs are lacking is to provide an ample
amount of recreational activities in both active and passive formats. Red Rock has a full time
recreation coordinator who is present Monday through Friday. He has scheduled recreation
tournaments monthly. Inmates are actively engaged in recreational activities when the yard is
open for recreation. (CCA/Red Rock, 2015 –2016 Recreation Calendar, Exhibit #13)
Intelligence Gathering/Sharing:
ADC Special Security Unit (SSU) staff reported to the CCA Red Rock facility for the purpose of
assessing and determining the current culture that exists among the inmate population and CCA
staff.
An initial tour of the facility was conducted with the CCA administration staff and the ADC
Monitoring Team. The Warden introduced his management team and provided the assessment
team with a handout of the facility to include the physical layout of the facility, programming
and education afforded to the inmate population, and biographies of the administration staff.
The tour of the facility showed that a majority of the inmate population was actively involved in
recreation, programming and education. Sanitation of the unit was acceptable to include the
housing unit common areas and the recreation yards. Enforcement of DO 704, Inmate
Regulations, in the individual inmate cells could use some attention to detail.
Line staff was observed to be engaged with the inmate population in addressing concerns and
being proactive in sound correctional practices.
The designated CCA staff members assigned to perform SSU duties were interviewed for the
purpose of establishing their understanding of prison dynamics, prison cultures, Security Threat
Groups (STG) /Criminal Street Gangs (CSG) and the Department Order (DO) 806 policy. This
group consists of two staff members, Sergeant John Meyer and Investigator Ian Denham.
Sergeant Meyer is the assigned SSU Officer and he reports to Investigator Denham, who handles
matters related to criminal acts. Investigator Denham, although he is not a certified peace officer,
fulfills duties similar to ADC Criminal Investigator’s Unit (CIU) for the facility. Both staff
members have a good understanding of the STG/DO 806 policy. Both have prior experience in
18

law enforcement which increases their effectiveness in intelligence gathering and proper inmate
management.
Approximately 150 inmates from throughout the inmate population, to include all races, were
interviewed regarding conditions of confinement. Interviews were also conducted with inmates
identified as suspected Criminal Street Gang (CSG) members and/or suspected Security Threat
Group (STG) members. Three different inmate populations are housed at Red Rock; Sex
Offenders, Protective Custody and General Population inmates. All populations were
interviewed. Also interviewed were inmates that were transferred from the ASP-Kingman after
the July 4, 2015 prison riots that took place there.
The overall outcome of these interviews revealed that the prison facility is conducting
appropriate monitoring of the inmate population and effective information sharing is occurring.
This helps to alleviate issues before major concerns arise. The inmate populations are familiar
with the Intelligence/SSU staff members and know Sgt. Meyer and Inv. Denham by name. The
CCA Intelligence staff is proactive and makes themselves accessible to the inmate population.
Protective Custody Population (PC)
A majority of the inmate population stated that their conditions of confinement are ideal and that
overall they have no major concerns. Inmates stated that they are highly satisfied with the CCA
staff, programming, education, housing assignments and meals. Interaction with the line staff and
management is acceptable. A majority of the inmate population stated that they are familiar with
the management staff and they are very approachable. Inmates concluded by stating that staff
members are accessible and inmates are able to successfully communicate their concerns/issues.
Sex Offender Population (SO)
This portion of the inmate population reinforced and confirmed that their conditions of
confinement are ideal and overall they have no major concerns. Their one concern is that the Red
Rock facility is currently housing three different types of inmate populations (Protective
Custody, Sex Offenders and General Population). The controlled inmate movement causes
challenges and difficulties in the day-to-day activities (i.e. recreation periods, work programs,
visitation, etc.). Inmates stated overall they are satisfied with the programming and education
offerings. Inmates stated that management staff is visible and approachable.

General Population (GP)
This portion of the inmate population reinforced and confirmed that their conditions of
confinement are ideal and overall they have no major concerns. Inmates assigned in this custody
were transferred to the Red Rock facility as a result of the riots at ASP-Kingman. Inmates stated
overall they are satisfied with the programming and education offerings. Inmates stated that
19

management staff is accessible and approachable. These inmates who were previously housed at
the ASP-Kingman, Hualapai Unit stated that there are major differences that they observed firsthand when comparing CCA staff members to the MTC staff assigned at Kingman. Inmates said
the CCA staff and administrators are respectful and professional. They also stated that the CCA
staff is willing to address issues/concerns which was not what they encountered at Kingman.
One concern was brought to SSU’s attention by the Native American inmate population (GP).
The Native American inmates said they have not been afforded proper religious activities (i.e.
talking circle, sweat lodge, etc.) This information was shared with Warden Stolc for his review
and follow up.
During inmate interviews, two (2) staff members were mentioned frequently. These two
individuals were reported to be employees who lack professionalism. The two staff members
were alleged to be disrespectful and to engage in unprofessional communication when
interacting with the inmate population. The two staff members identified to Warden Stolc for his
review and follow up. With the exception of these two staff members, the inmate population
praised the CCA staff at Red Rock as being fair, firm, and consistent.
Key Findings:
•

Inmate compliance with housing and personal grooming regulations was lacking and
required greater attention to detail. Two CCA Captains were allowing inmates to not
wear shirts inside their assigned cells. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

Two inmates remained in detention following completion of the disciplinary process.
[Violation of DO 804, sound correctional practice, operational concern]

•

Updates were not entered into AIMS when an inmate was placed into detention for
refusing to house. [Violation of DO 805, sound correctional practice]

•

Inmates reported that two staff members were aggressive and/or unprofessional
[Operational concern, sound correctional practice]

20

Objective 3: Staff Training
The following is a summary of the Assessment Team’s review of staff training to include preservice, in-service and specialized courses for TSU, DART, and Emergency Management
(NIMS). Team members interviewed training staff, examined class rosters, course curricula, and
a multitude of training-related documents to better understand the learning process at Red Rock.
(CCA/Red Rock, 2015 Annual Training Plan, Exhibit #14)
Training was found to be deficient in some areas. CCA had reduced or failed to conduct some of
the classes required by ADC, in both pre-service and in-service training.
In-Service Training:
A sample of 12 months of in-service rosters and a spreadsheet of in-service training for FY15
were reviewed. Three employees, two on FMLA and one transfer out of state were listed as
having not completed training for FY 2015.
A review of rosters indicated that ADC required Supervisor Essentials training and DART for
Supervisors 2015 training was not offered nor completed.
A review of twelve months of firearms rosters and a firearms tracking list was completed with no
discrepancies found. CCA is not required to firearms qualify all security staff. One hundred and
eleven staff members are listed as being both 9mm pistol and 12 gauge shotgun qualified.
(CCA/Red Rock, Red Rock firearms requirement, Exhibit #15)
The Red Rock Senior Firearms Instructor is Captain Sites. Captain Sites’ recertification was
completed by the Senior Firearms Instructor from ASPC-Tucson. Captain Sites received a
satisfactory evaluation. (CCA/Red Rock, Red Rock Annual Senior Firearms Recertification,
Exhibit #16)
Designated Armed Response Team (DART):
A review of reports for May, June, and July 2015, reveals that DART drills were competed on
each shift, at least once per month. Fifty one DART drill reports were completed in June 2015.
Captain Carpenter (ADC Monitor) said that DART drills had been completed nearly every day to
correct deficiencies that had been identified in earlier DART responses.
A DART drill was conducted for the purpose of the assessment team’s evaluation. The scenario
was
. Responders arrived in approximately
and were fully dressed out in
. Responding officers were unfamiliar
with formations and one team member was a ‘temporary assignment’ officer from a neighboring
unit, adding to the confusion. A scenario inject was given and in response to it the team leader
. The team was
brought back together for a debriefing. Individual team responders were asked what munitions
21

they were carrying and how they would deploy each type of munitions. Officers responded
correctly regarding what munitions they were carrying. Officers answered incorrectly when
asked to describe proper deployment areas, aiming points and deployment distances. (CCA/Red
Rock, Red Rock DART cross-fire pictures, Exhibit #17)
. (CCA/Red Rock, DART Training Lesson Plan dated 04-19-2005 *Restricted, Exhibit
#18), (DART for Supervisors Lesson Plan FY15, *Restricted, Exhibit #19), (Department Order
706, Incident Management *Restricted, Exhibit #20)

Pre-Service Training:
One Correctional Officer Training Academy (COTA) pre-service schedule and three academy
class rosters were reviewed and compared with an ADC pre-service academy matrix. (CCA/Red
Rock, Red Rock academy schedule, Exhibit #21/280 hour Pre-service training comparison,
Exhibit #22) Minimal disparities of training hours in some courses were found. When asked
about the disparities, Training Officer, Bobbie Joe Roscoe, responded that some training hours,
such as restraint practice and report writing practicals are completed, however, rosters are not
done for the practice sessions that are delivered throughout the academy. She stated that other
disparities may be due to the small class sizes which are often five or fewer cadets.
To verify that Red Rock is utilizing the correct curriculum, Training Officer Roscoe was asked to
provide courses from both in-service and pre-service. She provided the correct curriculum in
each instance. Presentation of curriculum was observed and found to be professionally presented
to the students
As part of ADC Pre-Service training, a Field Training Officer Program (FTO) is in place to
afford cadets and newly graduated officers an opportunity to be mentored by a specifically
selected, experienced officer. The assessment confirmed that Red Rock does have a Field
Training Officer Program (FTO) as part of pre-service training. CCA implements its own FTO
program along with the ADC FTO curriculum. CCA completes a 40 hour On Job Training (OJT)
after COTA.
22

Tactical Support Unit:

(CCA/Red Rock, Red Rock
ADC Tactical Support Agreement, Exhibit #23)
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training:
Training Officer Roscoe provided a training file audit; two security staff have not completed or
submitted the required NIMS training for IS100, IS700, or IS800. Eleven Security Supervisors
have not completed or submitted IS200 certificates. The Warden has not completed MAG 300
or 400. He reports he is actively trying to schedule a class. The Assistant Warden has not
completed 100, 200, 700, 800 or MAG 300 & 400. (CCA/Red Rock, Red Rock NIMS Tracking,
Exhibit #24)
Munitions Comparison:
Munitions: CCA Red Rock size and populations are unique in that a comparison with an
equivalent ADC standalone unit could not be completed. ASPC-Winslow, Apache Unit which is
a minimum custody unit was used for comparison, however, it houses only one third of the Red
Rock population. (CCA/Red Rock, ADC Private Prisons, Munitions Comparison, Exhibit
#25)
Key Findings
•

CCA Supervisors were not trained in ADC required courses for Supervisor Essentials and
DART for Supervisors 2015. [Violation of Contract #120088DC, Section 1.11.7, Staff
Training, Violation of DO 509, Employee Training and Education, operational
concern, sound correctional practice]

•

During a DART deployment, the DART leader demonstrated poor tactics,
. The
majority of the team did not correctly answer questions regarding proper deployment of
munitions. When directed to
. [Violation of DO 706, Incident
Management, Violation of DART Training Lesson Plan, Violation of Dart for
Supervisors Lesson Plan, sound correctional practice, operational concern]

•

Fifteen (15) CCA staff including eleven (11) supervisors, and the Assistant Warden and
Warden (identified in Objective 1) have not completed all required NIMS courses.
[Violation of NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and Education]
23

Objective 4 – ADC Monitoring Team
This segment encompasses a review of duties and functions of the on-site ADC staff assigned to
monitor the operations of Red Rock staff and bridge the relationship between the Department
and CCA.
The Arizona Department of Corrections employs a cadre of full-time staff to monitor contract
compliance of contracted prison facilities. The ADC Monitoring Team is comprised of:
Tara Diaz, Contract Beds Operations Director (oversees monitoring of all contract bed facilities)
Ron Credio, Contract Beds Deputy Bureau Administrator (oversees monitoring of all contract
bed facilities)
Red Rock Monitoring Team
Ed White, Deputy Warden – Lead Monitor
Reed Carpenter, Captain, Assistant Lead Monitor
Adam Kraatz, Captain, Disciplinary Hearing Officer
Patricia Barr, CO III, Programs Monitor
The ADC Assessment team reviewed the contract for CCA and the scope of work within
Department Order #106, Contract Beds, and Department Order #703, Security/Facility
Inspections for the bureau and assigned monitors.
The ADC monitors were interviewed and their performance was reviewed. The assessment also
included a review of the current contract, discussions with CCA staff, operational observations,
and document checks. After reviewing DO 703 GAR (Green-Amber-Red) inspection reports,
audit results, monthly reports, inmate disciplinary findings and classification decisions, the
assessment team determined the following:
The ADC Monitoring Team is meeting their statutory and contractual requirements based on the
policy. They are conducting their required monthly tours based on a review of; (CCA/Red Rock,
ADC 703 Reports, Exhibit #26) The ADC Monitoring Team completes their GAR and DO 703
monthly inspections appropriately. This is evident through GAR inspection results, tour
inspections reports and observations. GAR inspections and prison tours are conducted to
monitor the specific security operations and security devices at a prison unit and ensure they
remain in good working condition, and that supervisory and other management personnel
conduct regular inspections and tours. The monitor team is known to the staff and the inmate
population. They tour frequently and conduct regular GAR inspections. There are a limited
number of GAR findings most months.

24

These tools (GAR, tours/inspections) do not ‘monitor’ the culture of a prison unit, to include the
interactions between inmates and staff, and the attitudes of each group. GAR inspections do not
ask questions about the quality or quantity of staff training, or how often officers see their
supervisors on the yard. To properly assess the culture of a prison unit, one needs to speak with
staff and inmates at length and observe their interactions. In-depth town hall meetings with
inmates should be observed routinely and the attitudes of both staff and inmates noted; given the
small size of this facility, ADC monitors have been able to be involved more in-depth with these
listed activities.
The ADC Monitoring Team has established a process of addressing issues on the spot and
working with the CCA Administrators to correct them. DW White monitors GAR corrective
action plans (CAPs) and at this time there are none pending. The assessment team noted no
delays in CAPs follow-up.
The team meets timeframes for the majority of their mandatory oversight and decision making
on the high volume of inmate actions (classification, disciplinary, visitation, releases,
correspondence, etc.) and contractor clearances. A review of the classification actions with the
inmates at Red Rock indicates that all actions, with the exception of five (5), were completed
within policy time frames. (CCA/Red Rock, AIMS Classification Print Out, Exhibit #7)
ADC monitors report that generally there is open communication between the CCA staff and
ADC Monitoring Team. CCA employees did not share any information with the assessment team
that would lead them to believe that they were told it was frowned upon to speak to ADC staff.
The Contract Beds Monitoring Team was each interviewed separately.
Deputy Warden, Ed White- Lead Monitor
Deputy Warden (DW) Ed White was interviewed as part of the Red Rock assessment. He has
been assigned as a private prison Lead Monitor for approximately eighteen (18) months. He was
previously assigned to Marana/Phoenix West for eleven (11) months and has been assigned to
Red Rock for seven (7) months. DW White has attended the monitor’s academy. He has a copy
of the contract and refers to it as needed; it is tabbed and highlighted.
Upon his assignment as an ADC Lead Monitor, the expectations of the position were explained
to DW White. He stated that he was advised he is not here to run the prison for the contractor. He
said his instructions were to ensure they follow the contract and ADC policies. He was told that
he is not just to be a monitor. He is still a Deputy Warden and to do that job. He said he is
expected to conduct tours and follow DO 703. DW White shared the different methods of
accountability that he utilizes with the contractor. He said he uses emails, letters, deficiency
letters, GAR, off-set letters, etc. When off-set letters are needed they are done by CBOD Diaz,
but he conducts the research and data collection.

25

DW White described his duties as: ensuring policy and contract compliance, conducting GAR
inspections, ensuring that inmates get what they are entitled to, providing guidance to the
Warden on why and how ADC does things, utilize Data Collection Instruments (DCI’s), GAR,
and audits to review policy compliance, and to walk and talk. He is to inspect the facility as a
whole and he inspects it daily.
DW White said he tours most days for a couple of hours. He takes an occasional ‘office day’ to
catch up on paperwork. He said he consistently meets the required minimum of 10 hours of
touring per week. He stated that he tours more now that the Kingman inmates are at Red Rock as
they have had lots of questions. DW White said he is required to tour on the weekend at least
once per quarter. He does so and tours visitation, checks on the meal, etc. DW White said that he
completes his two graveyard tours per month. He said he typically does one AM and one PM
tour. He said he monitors ingress/egress procedures, walks through the housing units, inspects
count procedures, checks on grooming and staff morale. DW White was advised that one of his
graveyard tours in July was conducted at 0430 and the shift ends at 0500. He stated that this
would be unusual for him. (CCA/Red Rock, July DO 703 tour report, Exhibit #26)
When asked about how many GAR findings Red Rock receives each month, DW White stated
that the facility averages about 6-8 findings. There have only been one or two Red GAR findings
since he has been assigned to Red Rock. DW White advised that the Red Rock Administration is
current on GAR Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) and although he has had to send a few back for
more detail, they are good overall.
It was discussed that the Assessment Team had observed poor cell sanitation and inmate
compliance with DO 704. DW White said that he is aware of this and has been addressing it.
This issue was addressed in DW White’s Bi-Monthly Tour Memorandums to Warden Stolc
(August & October, 2015). (CCA/Red Rock, Bi-Monthly Tour Memos, Exhibit #27)
DW White discussed the results of the recent audit. He stated that the facility improved this year
and had fewer findings than in 2014. He stated that the staff members are getting to know the
systems and they are improving and progressing.
DW White and the monitor team attend the Warden’s morning meeting, weekly detention
meetings, monthly inmate Town hall meetings, and he conducts bi-monthly monitor team
meetings.
DW White described his relationship with CCA as non-adversarial with open lines of
communication. CCA management and staff are ‘transparent’ in dealings with ADC, and are
willing to admit shortcomings and deficiencies when discovered. When the ADC monitors
become aware of deficiencies, DW White said he reports them directly to Warden Stolc for
corrective actions. Overall, DW White reported he and his staff have a good working
relationship with all CCA staff and the administrators are receptive to redirection.
26

Captain Reed Carpenter
Captain Reed Carpenter has been assigned as a monitor for 3 years. He has been at Red Rock
since it opened approximately eighteen (18) months ago. He said he started at Marana and
Phoenix West. He said he promoted to Captain as a monitor. He was a Lieutenant for six (6)
years. He has attended the monitor academy and he has a copy of the Red Rock contract and
refers to it as needed.
Captain Carpenter said that the expectations of this assignment were explained to him; first by
former CBOD Profiri and then by CBOD Diaz. He said he is to ensure that Red Rock follows
policy and procedures to a ‘T.’ He has high expectations from them and he holds them to task
due to the requirements of the contract. He said he expects the contractor to be honest and
forthright with him. He stated that the working relationship with CCA is good.
Captain Carpenter said that handling the inmate disciplinary workload takes up the biggest part
of his day. He said he gets that done and then tours for the remainder of the day. He is the
Disciplinary Coordinator for Red Rock, and sometimes functions as the Disciplinary Hearing
officer (DHO) at other private prisons. He said he works with COIII Barr and they cover the
inmate discipline together. Carpenter said CO III Barr is certified as a Disciplinary Coordinator
(confirmed). He said Captain Kraatz is at Red Rock 1 or 2 times per week as a DHO. Captain
Carpenter conducts preliminary hearings on disciplinary violations for Red Rock inmates, who
will then be seen by Captain Kraatz. Captain Carpenter typically schedules his tickets to be
heard by building. Once he has completed the tickets, he then tours that building. He schedules
his work so that he changes the areas he tours daily. Captain Carpenter said that DW White also
sets tours and they tour as a team.
Captain Carpenter reported that the entire monitoring team typically goes to the morning meeting
each day. There is always at least one member of the team in attendance. He stated that the
meetings are productive. They review the incident reports and significant incident reports. He
stated that the monitors verify the incident reports with the log and he asks for concerns to be
documented in an incident report rather than memorandums. He feels that there is open
communication. He stated that the Red Rock Warden and Assistant Warden seem to talk openly
about staff issues and he does not feel that they are hiding things.
Captain Carpenter was asked to describe how he sees his role as a monitor. He said that Inmate
Disciplinary takes up his time, but his job is to be a Chief of Security (COS). He oversees Red
Rock’s security and he works with their Chiefs of Security (COS). He stated that he was not
pleased with the staff’s performance in the DART drill because they had failed in DART in the
pre-audit, so they had been focusing on DART and conducting practice drills.
Captain Carpenter was asked about the officers who are not weapons qualified. He said that they
can only participate on DART as the camera operator and they do not work armed posts. He
stated that the staffing rosters designate which staff members are weapons qualified and this has
27

not caused any problems with DART response. Carpenter stated that he will renew his focus on
DART training.
Captain Carpenter was asked if he performs weekend duty. He said he does not, only DW White
is required to come in on the weekends. He stated that he works Monday to Friday, 0700 to
1500. He completes two graveyard tours per month. He said he typically comes in at 0200 or
0300 in the morning and reviews gate procedures, ingress/egress procedures, tours the kitchen,
talks to staff, and talks to the shift commander.
Captain Carpenter stated that the team works together on GAR inspections. He said he often
takes on the weapons, perimeter, and DART components, but there is no set process. He said at
times the team completes GAR inspections together. He said COIV Bayles also assists with
GAR. When asked about the typical number of findings each month, Carpenter stated that this
has been getting better. He said he reviews the findings and checks on them again the next month
as follow up and he checks the findings to see if they are a repeat issue. He stated that GAR is
not a problem at Red Rock. Captain Carpenter was advised that a few staff had mentioned that
COIV Bayles does a lot of GAR findings. He said that is most likely because Bayles is not
assigned to Red Rock. Since he, Captain Carpenter, is assigned to Red Rock he works more with
the staff and uses GAR to teach before entering a finding. Carpenter stated that Warden Stolc
accepts GAR and knows it is a legitimate review. Red Rock recently completed their 2015 audit
and had fewer findings this year.
Captain Carpenter was asked if he felt that in the course of his duties he had time to assess the
culture and staff morale at Red Rock. He stated that for the most part he does have time. He
stated that the arrival of the five hundred (500) inmates from Kingman has impacted that ability
as his workload has increased. He stated that he walks and talks daily and that the impact of the
new arrivals has been leveling out and getting better. He said he goes out of his way to talk to
staff.
Captain Carpenter said he attends the inmate town hall meetings. Due to the mixed populations
Red Rock holds a meeting for each population. These have recently increased and are now held
each month for each area. Captain Carpenter said that a member of the monitoring team and
sometimes all of them attend inmate graduation ceremonies. He said there is a lot of
programming at Red Rock.
Captain Carpenter said a part of his job he talks to the Intel officer daily. CCA staff members
attend the Florence Complex weekly Intel meeting. The facility holds a weekly detention review
meeting and the monitoring team attends. Captain Carpenter said that he participates and teaches
classes at Red Rock training. He said he assists with the report writing class and helps with the
training for new contractors and the annual in-service training. He occasionally sits in on classes
and believes the quality of the instruction is good.

28

Captain Carpenter stated that he knows the DO 704 housing compliance of the inmates from
Kingman is not good. He stated that the cells do not have lockers or clothes hooks. He said
overall it is improving. There is still an issue with inmates smoking in their cells especially on
swing shift and graveyard shift. CCA staff members are addressing this through the inmate
disciplinary process.
Captain Carpenter said his relationship with CCA Administration overall is good. They do what
they are supposed to do and they are forthright and responsive.
The interview ended with Captain Carpenter being advised that the Red Rock staff had reported
that he is ‘out and about’ often and that he is available, approachable and responsive to them.
Red Rock Programs Monitor COIII – Patricia Barr
COIII Barr was interviewed concerning the scope of her assigned duties as the Programs Monitor
at Red Rock. COIII Barr has been the programs monitor at Red Rock, for approximately
eighteen (18) months. She has been a monitor for over five years. COIII Barr keeps a copy of
the contract on hand and references it as needed. She said she attended the initial monitor
training held in 2012.
COIII Barr is responsible for monitoring inmate work programs, levels of supervision,
reclassification, WIPP (inmate pay), policy reviews, information report reviews, and completing
the monthly Green-Amber-Red (GAR) inspection report. She described her duties as ensuring
the Red Rock staff follow the contract, while guiding them in how to do their jobs better.
She said she completes the monthly GAR inspection report in conjunction with Captain
Carpenter and DW Ed White, noting deficiencies as necessary. COIII Barr reported that she
speaks directly with staff and inmates, and will complete information reports as necessary. She
added she will notify the unit administrators when she has any concerns.
COIII Barr attends the morning meeting, the weekly detention meeting, inmate Town hall
meetings, and monthly kitchen tours. She also attends monitor team meetings facilitated by Lead
Monitor, DW White.
COIII Barr reports she interacts daily with staff and inmates and the relationship with CCA is
good. All CCA staff interviewed is familiar with COIII Barr and stated they can come to her for
answers/assistance whenever needed.
Key Findings
•

The Red Rock Monitoring team tours frequently and is known to the staff and inmates.
[Sound Correctional Practice]

29

•

DW White completed all of his required tours but one July 2015 grave yard tour was only
30 minutes long. [Violation of DO 703]

•

Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Three inmate
classifications not properly initiated. Two inmate 805 (Protective Custody) reviews
initiated past time frames.[Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification, and
Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound correctional practice]

FINDINGS
Key Findings, listed by Objective
The following comprises a recap of all key findings associated with narratives contained in the
four (4) Objectives described in this report, as sorted by Objective. Per Contract 120088DC,
CCA shall follow all applicable Department Orders and Director’s Instructions, and only
findings associated with ADC policies that are applicable to CCA have been listed herein. Thus,
any violation of applicable ADC policy also constitutes a violation of Contract 120088DC.
Moreover, per the contract, CCA will ensure the compliance and performance of ADC policies
and directives, and correct any deficiencies.
Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of CCA Leadership and Staff (pages 11-12)
•

CCA Warden has not been holding all required staff meeting. [Violation of DO 112,
Department Meetings]

•

Chief of Security does not complete a weekly report for inspections of inmate housing
areas and he does not include the results of these inspections in his monthly DO 703
report. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

CCA Warden, Assistant Warden, and Captains have not attended all required NIMS
courses. [Violation of NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee Training and
Education]

•

CCA Captains were allowing inmates to not wear shirts inside their assigned cells.
[Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations, sound correctional practice, operational
concern]

•

The ERP does not contain the following required annexes:
. [Violation of Contract
#120088DC, Section 1.9.7, Critical Incident Response Plan, Violation of DO 706,
Incident Management, sound correctional practice]
30

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 2: Inmate Management, Supervision and Communication
(page 20)
•

Inmate compliance with housing and personal grooming regulations was lacking and
required greater attention to detail. Two CCA Captains were allowing inmates to not
wear shirts inside their assigned cells. [Violation of DO 704, Inmate Regulations]

•

Two inmates remained in detention following completion of the disciplinary process.
[Violation of DO 804, sound correctional practice, operational concern]

•

Updates were not entered into AIMS when an inmate was placed into detention for
refusing to house. [Violation of DO 805, sound correctional practice]

•

Inmates reported that two staff members were aggressive and/or unprofessional
[Operational concern, sound correctional practice]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 3: Staff Training (page 23)
•

Majority of the Red Rock Administration has not completed required NIMS training
including MAG 300 or 400. [Violation of NIMS protocols, and DO 509, Employee
Training and Education]

•

CCA Supervisors were not trained in ADC required courses for Supervisor Essentials and
DART for Supervisors 2015. [Violation of Contract #120088DC, Section 1.11.7, Staff
Training, Violation of DO 509, Employee Training and Education, operational
concern, sound correctional practice]

•

During deployment of a DART drill, the DART leader demonstrated poor tactics,
.
[Violation of DO 706, Dart for Supervisors, Sound Correctional Practice]

Key Findings, OBJECTIVE 4: ADC Monitoring Team (page 28)
•

The Red Rock Monitoring team tours frequently and is known to the staff and inmates.
[Sound Correctional Practice]

•

DW White completed all of his required tours but one July 2015 grave yard tour was only
30 minutes long. [Violation of DO 703, Security/Facility Inspections]

•

Errors in a classification action and documentation in regard to detention bed
management. The ADC COIII is responsible for classification actions. Three inmate
classifications not properly initiated. Two inmate 805 (Protective Custody) reviews

31

initiated past time frames.[Violations of DO 801, Inmate Classification, and
Classification Technical Manual; operational concern, sound correctional practice]
CONCLUSION
Based upon observations, reviews of available materials, inmate interviews, and staff contacts
and interviews, the Assessment Team concluded that the inmate population at Red Rock was
satisfied with their conditions of confinement. The overall conditions within the facility were
acceptable. Staff members appeared to be pleased with their employer (CCA). Overall unit
sanitation was above average. Compliance with housing regulations requires closer attention to
detail.
The DART response was lacking in knowledge, by both team members and supervisory staff.
The DART could use additional drills to strengthen their knowledge of DART protocols. Preservice and in-service training requires follow-up attention to bring the training programs into
contract and policy compliance
Overall, the Red Rock Correctional Center presents as an experienced and knowledgeable group
of administrators and staff. The relationship amongst the ADC Monitoring Team, CCA
management, line staff members, and inmates is positive; staff members have a ‘teamwork’
approach which is evident in the relationship between ADC and CCA.

32

Section 3 (Exhibits) is available
as a separate file download on
the ADC website.