Office of Performance Evaluations

Operational Efficiencies in Idaho's Prison System

Released January 2010

Report 10-01

The executive summary of the report is provided below. The full report with exhibits is available in PDF (see above), and a limited number of printed copies are available from the Office of Performance Evaluations (OPE). Specific questions about the report should be directed to OPE. General questions should be directed to the Department of Correction or the Idaho State Building Authority.

Executive Summary

Idaho's prison system has faced considerable challenges in recent years including budget reductions, outdated facilities, and limited staffing levels. Many prison facilities have outdated designs that do not meet national standards, are difficult to staff adequately, and are expensive to operate. Forecasted prison population growth will require policymakers to answer complex demands for expanded prison capacity and increased spending. Our report provides short- and long-term recommendations to improve the efficiency of prison facilities and staffing, and suggestions for how the state can prepare to address the needs of a growing prison population.

Idaho Faces Complex Challenges

The Department of Correction has taken commendable efforts to manage a complex prison system with limited resources. Idaho's state-operated prison infrastructure is aging, expensive to maintain, and in many cases inefficient due to outdated design. Nevertheless, the department has succeeded in keeping the system running while absorbing a 9 percent budget decrease between fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and a budget holdback of approximately $2.4 million in fiscal year 2010.

The department has pursued several initiatives to address budget cuts, such as closing two of its most expensive to operate housing units, bringing back inmates from expensive out-of-state placements, furloughing staff, and holding some vacant positions open. To be prepared for long-term challenges, the department has also engaged in important planning efforts that include a comprehensive evaluation of the condition of its facilities and the development of a System Master Plan that assessed short-term, intermediate, and long-term prison capacity needs.

The department is currently experiencing many challenges, which we anticipate will continue into the future:

• The current population forecast indicates additional capacity will be needed as the prison population is expected to grow from 7,283 in fiscal year 2009 to 8,608 in fiscal 2013—an increase of 18 percent. Based on cost estimates and the projected mix of inmate custody levels from the System Master Plan, accommodating population growth will require estimated construction and project costs of $213 million and ongoing operating costs of over $37 million.


• At the same time, the System Master Plan indicated that 15 percent of the total prison capacity in 2008 (883 out of 5,997 beds) had insufficient space and deficient physical features. All but one of Idaho's prisons were unable to accommodate the population being housed in ways that were compliant with nationally accepted standards for space and physical features. Taking the 883 noncompliant beds out of service and replacing them could cost an estimated $142 million.


• Idaho's aging prison facility infrastructure is in poor condition overall and is increasingly expensive to maintain. The current backlog of maintenance needs for the eight state-operated prisons is over $35 million. To simply maintain the poor condition of existing facilities will require the state to spend millions more per year.


• More than half of the housing units have insufficient staffing to provide continuous observation of inmates. National standards recognize that continuous observation of inmates is crucial for protecting the safety of inmates, staff, and the public.


• Given the risks associated with understaffed facilities, we agree with the department's assessment that furloughs and other emergency money-saving efforts at the state-operated prisons are not sustainable if the state is to continue to appropriately manage inmates.

The State of Idaho faces formidable challenges moving into the future. Although Idaho ranks among the lowest in the nation for the annual operating cost per inmate, the state may be achieving such a ranking at the expense of increased risks to safety and security. Nevertheless, both short- and long-term opportunities exist to address some of the most pressing staffing and facility issues, while recognizing the fiscal constraints facing state government.

Modernization of Prisons Is Essential for Reducing Risk and Improving Efficiency

Our analysis shows that those prisons in Idaho with obsolete or ad hoc designs, relatively small housing units, or high maintenance needs can increase risks to safety and security and be more expensive to operate. Replacing some of Idaho's inefficient physical prison infrastructure with smarter, more efficiently designed facilities would enhance safety and security. This report can help Legislators answer the following questions:

• If the inmate population increases, should Idaho replace less efficient prisons or housing units while also adding capacity to the system?


• If the inmate population stabilizes, should Idaho replace any prisons or housing units?


• If the inmate population decreases, should Idaho close any prisons or housing units?


• What should the design and layout, capacity, and staffing levels be in new prisons or housing units?

The System Master Plan developed for the department indicated that many state-operated prisons were out of compliance with American Correctional Association standards for space and physical features. Although the Department of Correction mandates that Idaho's privately-operated prison be accredited by the American Correctional Association, no state-operated prisons are accredited by the Correctional Association.

Building on the previous planning efforts of the department and working closely with correction staff and other state agencies, we have identified several opportunities to replace some of the most inefficient, ill-designed, and expensive to maintain facilities in the prison system. We estimate that, in the long-term, replacing inefficient facilities can result in savings due to lower maintenance costs, more efficiently designed housing units that reduce staffing needs, and other savings. The replacement projects we identified would net the state a cost savings of approximately $24.9 million if the money were in hand today, which translates into an annual savings of about $1.7 million for a period of 50 years.¹

We estimate that the state can use realized savings to replace over 1,100 inefficient beds found in those facilities with the most obsolete designs. The facility replacement options identified in this report are not only economically justified, but the replacement facilities could be designed to meet national square feet per inmate standards and requirements for continuous observation.

Idaho Is at Risk Because Many Prisons Cannot Provide Continuous Observation

Continuous observation of inmates is a standard that the American Correctional Association states is a fundamental requirement for maintaining prison safety and security. Most of Idaho's state-operated prisons struggle to continuously observe inmates due to staffing limitations and outdated facility design. As currently staffed, the department does not have the resources to place enough staff in these inefficient units to provide continuous observation. If all existing prisons were staffed to provide continuous observation, both the number of inefficient facilities that are candidates for replacement and the level of cost savings realized by replacing those prisons would increase considerably.

The increased staffing efficiencies achieved by replacing some of the least efficient facilities can lessen the need for additional staff. More efficient facilities can also help reduce the financial and legal risks currently associated with failure to meet staffing standards and can help address security staffing based on a systematic assessment of needs rather than budget constraints.

Our visits to each of the nine prisons found that the implementation of security staff furloughs to manage budget cuts has required the department to manage staffing resources through highly variable and piecemeal staffing patterns. The department has managed furloughs by accruing overtime, using administrative staff to fill key posts, designating some security posts as discretionary or, at times, leaving posts unstaffed. Although intended to save money in the short-term, we found that furloughs may not only cost the state more money, but they also may increase risks to safety and security.

Even without the current budget shortfalls that resulted in security staff furloughs, prison administrators indicate that facilities still would have fewer staff than are necessary for ensuring the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. Additionally, department staffing levels have generally lagged behind the levels recommended by a department-commissioned study conducted in 1999. We found that the department does not use a formalized process for determining the number of staff needed. Without a standardized staffing model to serve as a baseline, we were unable to quantify to what extent prison security staffing is limited. We recommend that the department develop a standardized staffing model that can systematically link facility design, staff duties, and necessary posts to better meet standards and limit risks to safety and security.

Idaho Should Be Prepared to Address the Needs of a Growing Prison Population

Although growth has slowed in recent years, forecasted inmate population increases will again call on the Department of Correction and policymakers to answer complex questions about how to manage the associated costs. Idaho's prisons are currently operating at or near capacity, which limits the department's ability to place inmates in the most appropriate setting or safely manage population increases. Without increasing the state's capacity, population growth will force the department to resort to other means of managing prison overflow, such as placing inmates in county jails or housing them out of state.

The Department of Correction continues to pursue ways to manage future growth through the construction of new prison bed space. However, state correctional officials agree that the most immediate way to control correctional spending is to reduce the number of offenders entering the system and the length of time they remain in prison. The use of alternative practices to reduce the size of the prison population can decrease the need for additional staff and facilities. Policymakers should continue working with the Department of Correction and other judicial stakeholders to explore alternative practices that can slow future population growth and reduce inmate lengths of stay without jeopardizing public safety. To explore alternative options, Idaho may wish to replicate efforts taken by the State of Washington to identify how evidence-based and cost-beneficial alternative options could affect future demand for prison capacity.

Idaho Can Pursue Both Short- and Long-Term Efforts to Improve Prisons

Our report provides the Department of Correction and the Legislature with a set of recommendations to continue moving forward with immediate and ongoing efforts to efficiently and effectively operate the prison system. We have identified a fiscally responsible approach to improving the operational efficiency of the prison system in a way that also reduces risks to safety and security, which includes four primary recommendations.

Develop a Statewide Standardized Staffing Model. The department should develop a standardized staffing model and should base the model on the operating philosophy of continuous staff observation of inmates to most effectively enhance safety and security.

Implement a Standardized Staffing Model Developed by the Department. Once a standardized staffing model has been developed, the Department of Correction should seek the support of the Legislature to implement those standards over time as the state economy recovers. Given the design of Idaho's prisons, implementation of a standardized model may require additional staff. However, the state could offset the cost of increased staffing levels by coordinating implementation of a standardized model with the replacement of inefficient facilities.

Use Shift Relief Factor Tool Effectively. Once a standardized staffing model is in place, the Department of Correction should update its shift relief factor calculation and seek legislative support to use the relief factor (or a similar tool) in a way that ensures prisons are allocated the security staff necessary to meet the demands of the standardized model.

Begin Planning for the Replacement of Inefficient Prisons or Housing Units. Idaho should begin preparing to replace those prisons or housing units that have outdated or ad hoc designs and, therefore, are inefficient to operate or maintain. Prison replacement projects should be a part of both capacity planning and the state's effort to standardize its approach to security staffing.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance we received from both Department of Correction officials and staff, as well as the assistance we received from the following entities: legislative Budget and Policy Analysis, the Division of Financial Management, the Idaho Judiciary, the Office of the Attorney General, the Division of Public Works, and the Idaho State Building Authority. We also appreciate the input received from the firm of Carter Goble Lee; VFA, Incorporated; Christopher Murray and Associates; the Washington Office of Financial Management; and the Washington Department of Corrections.

Carrie DeLong Parrish and Maureen Brewer of the Office of Performance Evaluations conducted this study. Margaret Campbell was copy editor and Brekke Wilkinson was desktop publisher.

Kathleen Sullivan, former professor and director of the Center for Education Research and Evaluation at the University of Mississippi, conducted the quality control review. Technical assistance was provided by three consultants:

• Michael Huddleston, Contract Auditor, Woodinville, Washington


• Bob Thomas, Robert C. Thomas & Associates and Senior Principal Management Auditor at the King County Auditor's Office, Seattle, Washington


• Robert Williams, Principal, Robert M. Williams & Associates, Clinton, Washington

_______________________________________________

¹ These figures are conservative estimates only and may not capture all potential savings.