Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona Department of Corrections

Prison receivership: Who is up to the task?

Key Points: 
  • Judge must choose qualified candidate to serve as prison health care receiver 
  • Plaintiffs, department submit candidates with extensive corrections experience 
  • Prison advocates stress need for independence, authority, balance in receiver 

A court order placing the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry’s health care system under independent receivership has left state officials with one important question: Who is up to the task? 

Attorneys for the incarcerated submitted their short list of candidates on April 20, with the department offering up a single candidate to assume control of prison health care operations. 

With credentials, resumes and relevant background for each candidate now in the court record, a judge must now decide what makes a good receiver, and who is the right fit to assume control of the health of more than 25,000 people incarcerated by the state. 

“It definitely is going to involve someone who is not afraid to stand up to possibly strong opposition, or even political intervention,” Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, said. “It’s going to have to be someone who’s immune to those influences and who will do their job and report and understand that their boss is the judge, not the Department of corrections or the governor or the Arizona Legislature.” 

After 14 years of litigation and a string of court orders finding repeated failures to significantly improve health care delivery in the state prison system, federal district Judge Roslyn Silver granted a motion to appoint a receiver. 

In March, the parties submitted proposals on the scope, powers and duties of a prospective receiver. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued a receiver should assume the same access and powers over administration, management, operations, staffing and financing as the department’s director, including over the department’s private health care vendor, NaphCare. 

Plaintiffs further asserted a need for the receiver to participate in the state budgeting process, though with a pathway to override a lack of funding from the Legislature via a court order if necessary. 

Per the department’s proposal, the receiver would participate in the budgeting process, undergo annual audits and submit reports on progress every four months. 

Silver directed the parties to submit up to five receiver candidates each. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs put up two. 

Kellie Wasko started in correctional health more than 25 years ago as a registered nurse in the Idaho Department of Corrections. 

She spent 16 years as a health services administrator, an associate warden, a warden, an assistant director of prisons, a clinical director and health authority before serving as the deputy executive director and health authority in the Colorado Department of Corrections. 

Wasko then spent about three years as the chief executive officer and president of Correctional Health Partners, a private company providing medical management and administration to jails and correction agencies. 

She then served as secretary of corrections for the South Dakota Department of Corrections — on appointment from former governor turned former U.S. Department of Health Services Secretary Kristi Noem — where she oversaw operations of eight prisons, 14 parole officers, 1,100 staff, 3,900 inmates and 4,000 parolees. 

Wasko resigned in October amid controversy over the construction of a proposed new $650 million, 1,500-bed prison. She also caught criticism from a South Dakota state lawmaker and former secretary of corrections for an alleged “degradation of staff and inmate safety systemwide” during her term. 

In her resignation letter, Wasko centered achievements during her time at the helm, including an increase in officer pay, a decrease in officer vacancy rates and improved health care. 

“I’m proud of the work that has been done,” Wasko wrote. 

Since departing her role as secretary, Wasko has worked as an independent consultant in health care and a subject matter expert in court. 

The plaintiffs’ second candidate, Leann Bertsch, led the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 15 years. During her time at the prison she focused on long-term rehabilitation, and she has since been recognized nationally and internationally for her work reforming the state’s prisons. 

She now works as senior vice president for the Corrections Division of the Management and Training Corporation, a private company overseeing management and operation of contracts across international, federal, state and county governments. 

“Both candidates have extensive experience working in, reorganizing, and leading complex correctional systems,” Sophie Hart, an attorney for Prison Law Office, wrote. “Both have expressed their willingness to serve as Receiver in this matter.”

The department recommended Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the current director of criminal justice for Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. 

In propping up Chambers-Smith, the department made note of her work to resolve a 2003 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care in Ohio prisons. 

Over the course of a five-year settlement agreement, Chambers-Smith, then chief of the bureau of medical services, worked to implement required reforms to medical staffing, training, medication and mortality reviews. 

Attorneys for ADCRR noted her ability to work with private vendors in Ohio and experience transitioning private health care staff to public health care staff. 

Beyond working in health care at the state prisons, Chambers-Smith also served as the deputy director of administration, in which she handled prison budgets, and as the chief operating officer and general manager for payment services for JPay Inc, or Securus, a major corrections communication and financial services vendor. 

“I am confident in my ability to serve as a trusted agent of the court, providing independent oversight, (identifying) risks, and supporting ADCRR in achieving and sustaining compliance,” Chambers-Smith wrote in her cover letter to the court. “I am committed to ensuring that systems not only meet legal requirements but also deliver safe, effective, and humane care.” 

Plaintiffs and the department now have ten days to respond to the other’s proposed candidates, with a court assessment to follow. 

The department is already pursuing an appeal of the order granting the motion for a receiver but agreed to pause any proceedings in the 9th Circuit until Silver issues an order on appointing a receiver and defining powers and duties. 

In a recent filing to the appellate court, attorneys for the department made clear an intent to appeal future orders appointing and further defining the receivership. 

As Silver now reviews candidates and proposed scopes, Hamm noted the need for any prospective receiver to have a strong hold on the health care delivery in prison and to generally keep an even keel approach to the position’s inherent power. 

“Obviously you don’t want someone that will abuse the power, but you also don’t want anyone who will be afraid to use it,” Hamm said. “There’s gonna have to be a very informed balance.” 

Hamm said her “measuring stick” for any receiver’s performance will be the number of complaints sent in from inmates and their families on health care concerns, noting at present, the organization is averaging around 20 to 30 complaints a week. 

“Right now, it’s a big wait and see, and we absolutely remain hopeful,” Hamm said. 

Arizona prisons face growing number of health care complaints

Key Points: 
  • Inmate lawsuits allege systemic prison health care failures
  • Class action Jensen v. Thornell underpins some individual claims
  • Success in litigation mixed but complaints keep coming 

Slanted cursive or a stilted print fills the pages — scrawled in pen or pencil, scribbled on lined paper, boxes checked and lines traced. Lawsuits filed over the past 14 years, most handwritten, continue to flag failures in the state prison health care system. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, and its rotating vendors have been tied up in a class action lawsuit over inadequate health care since 2012 in the case now dubbed Jensen v. Thornell. 

But as the court record grows, the number of individual inmates pursuing their own relief and damages expands, too. 

As of April 9, more than 250 cases in Arizona District Court named the department’s current health care vendor, NaphCare, as a defendant. 

Some complaints date back to prior vendors, but the throughline comes via a long list of claims related to untreated or inadequately addressed ailments — cancer, hepatitis C, hernia, lost vision, brain bleeds, waning mental health, infected surgical wounds, seizures, chronic pain, denied or discontinued medication.

“My life will end long before I might receive medical treatment,” one inmate wrote. 

The success of these complaints is mixed. Many are dismissed early on for technical failures in filing or for falling short in arguments and evidence, especially as those incarcerated represent themselves. Some end in sealed settlements. 

But in lawsuits new and old, inmates lean on findings from the class action to support their cases. Each claim illustrates the minutiae of how the health care system continues to fail inside Arizona’s prisons. 

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Prison Law Office and Disability Rights Arizona first filed the complaint against the Arizona Department of Corrections on behalf of all people incarcerated in the state prison system in 2012, claiming systemic failures had led to suffering and death. 

Federal judges have issued three orders now finding unconstitutional care and levied three contempt sanctions against the department, totaling $2.5 million.

Over the past 14 years, the class action has sought changes to the policies and practices of the Department of Corrections. But attorneys for the plaintiffs do not seek any monetary damages on behalf of its class, leaving inmates to pursue it for themselves. 

Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, assists and advocates for inmates’ health care needs. And though she works to refer cases to pro bono attorneys, she acknowledged many inmates go to court on their own behalf.

Though it’s rare, some judges do seek out and appoint pro bono attorneys, but inmates are not entitled to court-appointed counsel in civil matters. 

And, while securing a judgment on one’s own isn’t impossible, it isn’t easy, Hamm said. 

“It’s difficult to get depositions, to get evidence. Sometimes the evidence miraculously disappears, or it’s never produced,” Hamm said. “The department is very, very skilled at making life difficult for a civil litigant.”

Individual cases appear against the backdrop of Jensen v. Thornell, which provides ample case law for inmates to rely on. 

Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project and an attorney for the plaintiffs in Jensen v. Thornell, said the interplay between the class action and individual cases typically occurs when judges weigh deliberate indifference — or whether prison staff knowingly disregarded the risk of harm. 

“One of the big defenses that the department can make in these individual cases is, ‘we weren’t aware of the problems,’” Kendrick said. 

Kendrick noted cases are often brought to the department’s attention either through plaintiffs’ counsel or through court monitors in the class action.

“It’s hard for them to say in an individual case later on, ‘we didn’t realize that this person had a problem,’ because there’s evidence of it,” Kendrick said. 

Gary Jerome Harper sued the department in 2018 claiming treatment, or lack thereof, for his bladder dysfunction, thyroid disorder and history of Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In 2020, a federal judge rejected an attempt to dismiss the case by the Arizona Department of Corrections and Corizon, the health care vendor at the time. Judge David Campbell found deliberate indifference by the department and its health care provider. 

He cited Harper’s own requests for help, unfulfilled follow-ups and referrals from medical staff and letters from Rita Lomio, an attorney on the health care class action, who raised the issue of Harper’s continued inadequate treatment in multiple letters to then-ADCRR Director Charles Ryan’s counsel. 

A similar sequence played out in a later case filed by David Shores, an inmate, who claimed inadequate treatment by the department and its new vendor, Centurion, for excessive prostate pain. 

As in Harper’s case, an attorney for the Prison Law Office Thomas Nosewicz wrote multiple letters to the department’s counsel flagging the need for medical care.

Campbell denied the department’s motion for summary judgment. 

As of 2026, individual damage cases remain at various stages. 

Tyson Anderson started his lawsuit alone, but the court has since appointed pro bono counsel to represent him. 

Anderson was first incarcerated in 2018. He was designated as seriously mentally ill given a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis and a history of self harm and suicide risk. He also has a seizure disorder.

Over the course of his incarceration, Anderson was primarily housed in a unit where he was required to use the stairs to get to his cell. He requested a transfer, claiming a threat to his physical safety — a threat that actualized when Anderson had a seizure and fell down the stairs. 

Anderson lost his job due to lack of disability accommodations and spent more and more time in isolation. Then, a nurse discontinued his seizure medication after claiming he was faking. 

He had two more seizures. In one instance, he woke up face down in a pool of blood from a head injury. His mental state continued to worsen, he was still in solitary confinement when he raised concerns with court monitors in Jensen v Thornell. 

In July 2021, Anderson attempted suicide by cutting his arm and ingesting sharp metal. After being bandaged up, officers put Anderson in gloves and a helmet. He burned, claiming the gear was doused with pepper spray. He was then taken to the hospital for an emergency surgery to remove the shrapnel in his stomach. 

After an initial pro bono appointment was unsuccessful, Anderson secured steady counsel in August 2024 after attorneys Kaitlin Dimaggio and Allie Hakala took on his case. 

Dimaggio and Hakala noted that a judge continuing to seek pro bono counsel for Anderson stood as a feat in itself. 

“We see so many prison clients. We know how extraordinarily rare it is on the criminal side or the civil side, for an incarcerated person to get even the tiniest first step of a win,” Hakala said. 

In February, Judge Diane Humetewa denied the department and defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling a reasonable jury could find harm to Anderson and deliberate indifference to his condition. 

“She just wrote out exactly what our client experienced and went through,” Dimaggio said. “It went far beyond medical neglect. It was active abuse.” 

A list of cases like Anderson’s remain ongoing but many have either settled or been dismissed by a judge outright. Settlements obscure the dollar amount of damages and allow the department and its vendor to avoid admitting fault. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry did not respond to a request for comment on the total of pending individual health care damages lawsuits, nor the associated expense incurred in past litigation. 

Still, complaints continue to appear on the federal court docket, most handwritten

Dangerous isolation: Attorneys claim lapse in care for prisoners with mental illness

Key Points: 
  • Attorneys say seriously mentally ill inmates kept in isolation 
  • Plaintiffs allege staff threats, violence discourage recreation time
  • Motion seeks more out-of-cell time, training and staff accountability

Inmates with serious mental illnesses in state prisons are stuck in isolation due to limited and illegitimate offers to leave their cells and threats and violence by staff, according to a new filing by attorneys in the long-running health care and conditions lawsuit. 

A court injunction bars the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry from keeping inmates with serious mental illness in isolation for more than 22 hours a day, given an “elevated risk of harm.” 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim mental health housing units are effectively functioning somewhere close to solitary confinement, in direct violation of the court’s order. 

“They should be being treated like they’re in mental health units, not like they’re in punitive units,” said Maria Morris, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project. “It harms people intensely, and we’re talking about people who are extremely vulnerable to those harms.”

Though improvement in the department’s health care system may be on the horizon with a court-ordered receivership, problems pertaining to conditions fall outside the scope, leaving plaintiffs counsel to continue to monitor, report and push for compliance. 

A March 2 motion-to-enforce shows the issue of isolation falls primarily to three housing units across two complexes. 

Arizona State Prison Complex Lewis Rast houses 19 inmates and Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Browning, with two units, has 53. The vast majority of the population across all three units consists of people designated as having a serious mental illness. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim at Rast, inmates are allegedly offered less than an hour and a half of out-of-cell time each day on average. 

Reporting from the department corroborates the claim, and shows the average daily out-of-cell time in the unit ranged from 38 minutes to about an hour and 15 minutes, with recreation and showers frequently cancelled due to a lack of staff. 

Morris points out, too, that inmates are not receiving confidential mental health care, with reports showing no offers or instances of inmates attending mental health programming or attending individual counseling. 

“When people commit suicide, it’s usually in isolation, it’s very disproportionately in isolation. One of these housing units is specifically for people who engage in self harm,” Morris said. “You’re putting people who have a mental illness that leads them to engage in self-harm into a setting that is, among all the harms of being in prison, the place that’s most likely to result in people killing themselves.”

In Browning, staff offer more than two hours, but counsel argues the offer is not “legitimate,” as inmates face an “extraordinary threat of violence by staff if they leave their cells, and they are routinely deemed to have refused recreation when, in fact, they have not done so.” 

Declarations from inmates reveal fear of the officers tasked with escorting people to and from recreation. 

After one inmate failed to line up fast enough, he was sent back to his cell, and his foot got caught in the door. In declarations from those housed in Browning, inmates reported staff allegedly slamming people to the ground, banging heads into walls, choking inmates and using pepper spray and slurs. 

The filing also noted staff would find violations to bar an inmate from recreation, dissuade them from going to recreation or offer extra food in exchange for refusing recreation. 

Refusal rates for recreation in the two units averaged 73% and 76%, respectively. 

“People want to get out of those cells, they’re confined in these little, tiny cells all day long, and they want that time out,” Morris said. “The fact that there were these extremely high rates of refusals of recreation indicated that they weren’t real offers of recreation that in some way or another, people were being discouraged from taking these offers if they were being made at all.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are now asking the court to order a remedial plan, with a minimum of four hours of “legitimately” offered out-of-cell time every day for those with serious mental illness and two hours of “tier time” in which inmates are allowed out of their cells and into a common area. 

The motion also pushes for specialized training for those working in units housing people designated as seriously mentally ill and the removal of any staff found to commit misconduct. 

As the court and the department consider the motion to enforce the injunction, parties are also preparing additional briefing on the health care receivership, with forthcoming motions on the proposed duties, powers and authorities of the receiver, and lists of potential candidates to take the job. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

A broken lifeline: Failing tablets stall Arizona prisoner care, emergency services

Key Points 
  • Tablets in state prison remain central for inmates despite lack of access
  • Inmates report months-long delays for repairs and replacements
  • Health care lawsuit claims emergency, medical access failure follow 

Every inmate at the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry is issued a tablet. The black screen, encased in clear plastic, becomes the world. 

An inmate needs a table to request medical assistance, report an emergency, make phone and video calls, send or receive emails or physical mail, to bank, access education and rehabilitation programs and legal resources, raise a grievance, buy food, clothes, hygiene products from commissary, to parse through job listings before release, and to access any type of media.

But many go without – for weeks or months on end.

Neither the Department of Corrections, nor Securus Technologies, the department’s communications vendor, could give a firm number of outstanding requests to repair or replace broken tablets across the state’s prisons. 

But in monitoring visits to two units, attorneys involved in the long-running health care class action lawsuit reported dozens of inmates lacking access to a functioning tablet. And complaints over tablet technical difficulties from family members and inmates across the state “constantly” stream into an advocacy group’s inbox.

“It is a major component of functioning within the Department of Corrections for an inmate. When it doesn’t work, you don’t have any other option … you’re stuck,” Donna Hamm, founder and executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, said. “You’re at the mercy of either the Department of Corrections … or the company that they contract with, if the department can be depended on to get on top of problems that may be caused by the contractor.” 

The Department of Corrections, contracting with vendor Securus Technologies, created the inmate tablet program in April 2020. 

Applications and features rolled out gradually, starting with media, email, ecards, department communications, video visits, banking, education programs and employment listings. 

Then came the addition of health needs, grievance management and inmate commissary. By August 2024, Securus had rolled out a feature allowing inmates to make phone calls. And, now the department has moved to digitize all general mail, allowing inmates a scan, not a physical copy. 

But, according to advocates, attorneys, families and a former inmate, a working tablet can be hard to come by. 

A former inmate recently released into community supervision spoke on the condition of anonymity. He remembers the tablet roll-out as faulty from the start. 

“The disappointment started in the beginning, and it was one after another, after another, after another. And granted, it’s really nice to be able to have this stuff that’s on there, but if the system is failing?” 

The inmate estimates he shuffled through two dozen replacement tablets in four years. He remembers dealing with faulty hardware and persistent network connectivity issues, which complicated his access to medical care and his ability to pursue higher education. 

And when he or fellow inmates would put in a support ticket to request a repair, they’d be met with a form response, and no real fix. 

“Quite often, they can’t seem to figure out what the problems are … The system is basically put together with nothing but Band Aids.” 

Hamm said Middle Ground “constantly” fields complaints from inmates’ families, with months-long waiting periods for replacements. 

In one instance, an inmate continually asked for a new tablet, and then, when he got his replacement, it malfunctioned. Hamm said it took about two months to finally get a working tablet, but noted some inmates had waited much longer. 

“We begged repeatedly … He had no way to submit commissary, he couldn’t submit his HNR forms, he couldn’t call his family. I repeatedly had to go all the way up to the director’s office,” Hamm said. “It’s ridiculous that I have to take it to that level to get someone to respond.” 

Corene Kendrick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, said the decision by the department to import key functions onto the tablets, as opposed to the prior paper-form system, now intersects with the long-running health care class action, Jensen v. Thornell. 

The court’s injunction does not require the department to use tablets, but because the department has chosen to utilize tablets as a means of compliance for health care requests and an emergency call button, it’s become a key issue. 

Kendrick said the facilities are supposed to have paper forms as a back-up, though in past visits, when she asked, the paper forms are not immediately available. 

“That’s obviously extremely problematic, because with a broken tablet and long delays and getting them repaired or replaced. It means people can’t request medical care or mental health care,” Kendrick said. 

In a visit to Arizona State Prisons Complexes Lewis and Eyman, Kendrick spoke of the scope of tablet access. In one unit of 70 people, she estimated 35 to 40 inmates reported having a broken tablet or lacking one entirely. 

“More than half in one building said that their tablets were broken, not working at all, or had been stolen or destroyed,” Kendrick said. 

In a report to the court in December, co-counsel Maria Morris raised the fact that inmates reported that, “ despite repeated requests, they had been without a working tablet for weeks or months.

“Many showed us their tablets and demonstrated that they were not working. Numerous people informed us that they had been told there is a three- to six-month waitlist for new or replacement tablets, along with a fee of $150 or more for a replacement,” Morris wrote. 

In a letter to the court monitors, ACLU counsel David Fathi said the injunction portal on the app did not work and the creation of an emergency call button for more isolated housing units failed to allow “immediate contact” with staff, as required by the injunction. 

“(W)e do not believe that even a functioning tablet allows the ‘immediate’ contact required by the Injunction, given the need to turn the tablet on, wait for it to activate, and then carry out the several steps required to submit an emergency call,” Fathi wrote. “It is simply not plausible that a person being assaulted or experiencing an acute medical crisis would be able to timely carry out these multiple steps, in sequence, in order to submit an emergency call.” 

Declarations from inmates submitted to the court backed up the claims across the board. One incarcerated person called tablet access “horrible.” Another said it would sometimes take staff 20 to 30 minutes for staff to respond to a medical emergency and claimed the tablet lacked an emergency call feature. 

“The officers are not always staying at their posts, and we would have to bang on windows and doors to try to get someone to respond,” another declaration read. “The tablet has a way to make calls, but we would have to call our families to get them to call 911.” 

Kendrick said when counsel has brought up the issue before on monitoring visits, attorneys have submitted lists of people lacking tablets, and the department has acknowledged the problem, sought lists of people lacking a tablet and said they would take it up with the vendor. 

The department could not immediately provide data on the number of outstanding tablet requests, nor did Securus. 

A statement from the department read,“Recognizing that, similar to any electronic device, inmate tablets may experience issues from time to time, had nothing significant to report regarding the inmate tablet system that is outside its expected functionality or availability to inmates.” 

It continued, “ADCRR understands the importance of tablets to the individuals in our custody. As such, inmate tablets are distributed, repaired, and/or replaced as efficiently as possible.”

Federal judge orders takeover of Arizona prison health care system

Key Points: 
  • Federal judge orders prison health care receivership
  • Court finds persistent unconstitutional medical failures
  • Receiver to overhaul Arizona prison system

After nearly a decade and a half of litigation, a federal judge has cleared the way for a court-ordered takeover of medical and mental health care at the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, citing chronic, persistent constitutional violations.

The order will effectively take the health care system out of the state’s hands and place it under the care of a third party to address and alleviate insufficient staffing and health care delivery. 

“Plainly, only the imposition of the extraordinary can bring an end to this litigation and the reasons it was brought,” Judge Roslyn Silver wrote. “An end to unconstitutional preventable suicides. An end to unconstitutional preventable deaths. An end to unconstitutional failures to treat those in severe pain. The Motion for a Receiver will be granted.”

The class-action lawsuit came to the court in 2012, claiming inadequate medical, dental and mental health care, excessive isolation and insufficient conditions. 

Two years later, the parties reached a settlement agreement detailing 103 required health care and maximum custody improvements, approved by the court in 2015. 

Over the next six years, the court would field twelve motions to enforce the agreement. The department would be held in contempt twice and ordered to pay millions in fines for failure to comply with the stipulation. 

The court then rescinded the settlement agreement and initiated a fifteen-day bench trial in 2022 as well as a preliminary, then permanent, injunction identifying “persistent, unconstitutional” conduct within Arizona’s corrections facilities. 

“The Court identified the overarching failures in the delivery of healthcare as seriously insufficient staffing, inappropriate use of nurses beyond the scope of their licensure, failure to manage complex patients or employ a differential diagnosis approach, substantially inadequate mental health treatment, and a deficient electronic health care record system,” Silver wrote. “All these critical deficiencies were found to exist at every one of Defendants’ complexes, rendering the healthcare delivery systemically unconstitutional.” 

Since the final order in April 2023, the department has been under the keen watch of both court monitors and the plaintiffs, with accounts of insufficient medical and correctional staff persisting, and monitors ultimately finding patient care to be “wholly inadequate.” 

In one example, poor mental health treatment led to suicides. In another case, one inmate was found to have spent “fifteen minutes banging his head on a wall,” requiring emergency services. 

More broadly, observers found correctional facilities suffered from a variety of health care staffing issues. Nurses and nurse practitioners filled in for physicians, health care staff failed to diagnose serious and sometimes fatal diseases and conditions, and delays in patient care and the administration of medications remained frequent in facilities. 

Plaintiffs then asked the court to appoint a receiver, a court-ordered takeover of all health care systems housed in the Department of Corrections. 

The department asked the court for more patience, claiming a receivership would be premature less than two years after the injunction, two years into the contract with NaphCare and under the purview of current director Ryan Thornell. 

In mulling a receivership, the court must consider whether there is “grave and immediate” harm to the plaintiffs, whether all other remedies have been exhausted, a lack of leadership, repeated failure to implement change, wasted resources, and continued confrontation and delay in response to pushes for compliance. 

And, a judge must weigh whether a receiver is likely to provide a “relatively quick and efficient remedy.”

In weighing these factors, Silver relied on court monitor reports. She noted the department had initially been receptive to meeting with and accepting monitors’ recommendations. 

But communication lines began to break down, with the department rejecting or ignoring monitors’ recommendations and then claiming that their credibility and qualifications failed to comply with federal rules. 

“Either the Defendants are amnestic, or duplicitous, or both,” Silver wrote. “The Monitors’ reports are thorough, amply supported, and their reasoning is fully explained. Defendants’ contentions to the contrary border on bad faith.”

Silver starts with harm to the plaintiffs, noting that monitors found the department noncompliant with 131 of the 154 health care benchmarks. 

“(T)hese violations were not then, and are not now, abstract. They are brought to life—or death—by the individuals who experienced profound delays in receiving treatment or who failed to receive treatment at all,” Silver wrote. 

She then turns to mortality review, which she called “appalling in their illustration of the callous, inhumane indifference displayed on a regular basis.” And she claimed the department failed to identify or correct problems in care. 

One patient with a stroke and seizure disorder had his antiseizure medication discontinued. He died shortly after. 

Another patient’s recommended one week follow-up appointment for a heart condition wasn’t scheduled until more than two months later, at which point he had been dead for a month. 

A third had developed lung cancer. It was not diagnosed until it metastasized to his brain. The man needed a critical surgery “within minutes to hours,” and defendants took no action on the recommendation until two days later.

The list goes on, with reported failure to timely and properly examine, diagnose and refer people for care. 

“Defendants have shown a complete inability or unwillingness, or both, to recognize and correct their failures, exacerbating the grave and continuing threat of harm and actual harm suffered by inmates,” Silver wrote. 

Silver went on to find several instances of attempted compelled compliance, failure to respond or make improvements in line with monitors’ recommendations. She noted a lack of leadership and efforts to undermine the monitors.

As for the contention that the receiver would be a waste of money, Silver pointed out that, despite spending more than $1 billion per year and millions toward inmate health care, the department “have proven completely incapable of reaching constitutional compliance, resulting in more than a decade of litigation without appreciable effect on the provision of healthcare.”

She found it has been more than enough time, both since the dawn of litigation and the most recent permanent injunction in 2023, to get in line. 

The order requires the parties to each submit five receiver candidates within 60 days and to submit proposals on the scope of duties, powers and authorities of the receiver within 30 days. 

Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, has been working on the case since the investigative phase in 2011. 

“Over the past 15 years, I would say we’re well into the hundreds of people who have passed away due to deficiencies in the medical care or the mental health care,” Kendrick said. 

John Fabricius, director of Praxis Initiative, reflected on his time incarcerated, before and while the class action is underway. He reflected on watching people die, lose limbs, go blind and commit suicide.

“All preventable,” Fabricus said. 

Fabricius called the order “historic.” Kendrick called it “significant” and “rare.” And in turning to the next steps, the hope is to push for streamlined hiring of vital health care personnel and to correct the system writ large. 

She notes the need, too, to push to cut a state law requiring the department to use private health care contractors, given the failure of about four companies over the past twelve years. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections did not respond to a request for comment. 

Gov. Katie Hobbs said she was “disappointed” in this decision, which fails to recognize the immense strides” of the department and that her office had “inherited a decade of neglect and mismanagement.”

“My administration has consistently made improvements, and we have worked in good faith to do so,” Hobbs said. 

Execution protocol under scrutiny after inmate’s autopsy report

Key Points:
  • Autopsy of death row inmate shows IV insertion trouble but no fluid in lungs 
  • Concerns linger given history of IV difficulties, possibility of pulmonary edema 
  • Procedure and protocol at forefront as state prepares to execute inmate in March 

An autopsy of Richard Djerf, the most recent inmate executed by the state, showed the medical staff of the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry ran into trouble in properly laying IV lines, with one needle failing to puncture a vein and leaving fluid in the surrounding tissue. 

Difficulty with setting IV lines is not new in the state, as medical teams in the majority of inmates executed between 2010 and 2025 struggled to properly insert IVs in both arms and resorted to insertion in places like the hand, or the femoral artery, located near the groin.

Though the autopsy revealed failure with the injections, Djerf showed no signs of acute pulmonary edema, a sudden build-up of fluid in the lungs causing a sensation akin to drowning, which is common in lethal injection and a key constitutional concern for capital defense attorneys and death penalty scholars. 

Execution protocol and procedure remain at the forefront as the state moves to execute a third inmate in March. 

“Arizona’s secrecy around the execution process, specifically the qualifications of the executioners and the source of the lethal injection drugs, prevents any definitive conclusions about ADCRR’s current practices,” Dale Baich, former capital defender, said. 

Djerf, the second death row inmate to be executed after another pause on executions, was convicted for the 1993 murder of four members of the Luna family. He was executed on Oct. 17, 2025. 

According to witnesses, the execution process started with some difficulty inserting the IV, with medical personnel having to make a handful of punctures to start. 

Despite this, witnesses said there were no obvious signs of pain and described the execution as “clinical.”

The autopsy report, signed and submitted by Pinal County’s chief medical examiner, Dr. John Hu, found four needle puncture marks on the left arm and three on the right.

Examiners found the needle tip in the left arm “does not appear to be in the vein” and there was a “small amount of clear fluid present” in the layer of fat just below the skin. 

Dale Baich, a former capital defense attorney, noted the multiple IV insertion attempts and the apparent failure to puncture a vein were “problematic and consistent with ADCRR’s history of having difficulty setting IV lines for executions.” 

Baich noted that in 11 of the 16 executions between 2010 and 2022, medical teams, after multiple failed attempts to place IVs in the arm, resorted to the femoral artery, located near the groin.

“In at least six of those cases, the femoral line itself required multiple attempts. These difficulties continued during the three executions conducted in 2022, and they continue today,” Baich said. 

In the 2022 execution of Clarence Dixon, the first inmate put to death since the botched execution of Joseph Wood in 2014, media witnesses reported medical staff spending 25 minutes to insert IVs, while Dixon’s attorneys put the time closer to 40 minutes. 

After failure to insert IVs in his arms, the medical team resorted to the femoral artery. 

In Frank Atwood’s case, witnesses reported Atwood advised the executioners to try inserting the IV into his hand after they failed to secure a connection in his right arm. 

Murray Hooper also had to have an IV inserted into his femoral artery. 

But in a departure, Aaron Gunches, the first inmate executed after another pause on capital punishment, saw no trouble with IV insertion into both of his arms. 

Beyond insertion, acute pulmonary edema remained a key concern as the state resumed executions. 

Ahead of Gunches’ execution, Corinna Barrett Lain, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, flagged the potential for lethal injection giving way to acute pulmonary edema, which she described as “excruciatingly painful, causing individuals to experience the sensation of being waterboarded as they drown in their own fluids.” 

She cited a 2020 study, which found 84%, or 49 of 58 executions using a one-drug pentobarbital protocol, showed acute pulmonary edema. 

Examinations of both Gunches and Djerf showed no excess fluid in their lungs, and the examiner concluded there was no significant pulmonary edema in either case. 

“Either ADCRR was unusually fortunate, or it changed its execution practices during last year’s executions,” Baich said. 

According to a letter from the department to the governor in November 2024, there have, in fact, been some changes. 

Before the state resumed capital punishment and before the governor cut short an external review by a former federal judge, Thornell briefed Gov. Katie Hobbs on internal changes to department orders and the current level of preparedness for an execution. 

For one, the department doubled the size of the medical and IV team from two to four, with two medical doctors and one phlebotomist, and increased training from a minimum of one training session to quarterly training, with live insertion of an IV catheter. 

The department also added health assessments of inmates in holding cells and provided the medical and IV team with necessary health information ahead of the execution. 

In his letter to the governor, Thornell acknowledged that the department had “faced criticism in relation to the medical decisions made and differing communication between the Director and medical/IV team throughout the execution process, including types of IV placements and reasons for medical protocols.” 

Thornell addressed the femoral cut in particular. 

There is inconsistency in the record about if and why this procedure was used in the last three executions, indicating unclear documentation, inconsistent expectations, and differing communication between the previous Director and the medical/IV team,” Thornell wrote. “Nonetheless, the Department has now clearly identified the Director’s role in decision-making and the role of the medical/IV team leader in informing the Director to aid this.” 

Thornell said he would not make decisions without the advice of a trained and qualified medical and IV team. 

The state’s next execution will soon get underway, with a motion for a warrant of execution for Leroy McGill, a man convicted of murder and attempted murder, due from the state on Jan. 16.

Arizona prisons to digitize inmate mail, citing concerns over contraband

Key Points:
  • State prison system digitizes letters, greeting cards, drawings sent to inmates
  • Department hopes to stop flow of illicit drugs, contraband, bring greater safety
  • Families, former inmates warn loss erodes human connection, rehabilitation

For years, Valerie Barsevich, a retired educator, has kept in touch with one of her elementary school students. She taught her brother, too. She watched her grow up, and she became a close friend of the family. 

Her former student is now incarcerated at Arizona State Prison Complex Perryville. Since her former student’s incarceration, Barsevich has regularly sent handwritten notes and words of support.  And though occasional delivery delays have been a bit cumbersome, Barsevich said the letters have been a lifeline. 

But now, as the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry moves to digitize all general mail sent to inmates, Barsevich’s letters will no longer end up in her student’s hand. 

Instead, Barsevich’s letters will be sent to Texas, transcribed, scanned, uploaded to a tablet and eventually destroyed. 

In a recent message, Barsevich’s student said the change took away the last shred of feeling human. 

 “It’s just tragic to think she doesn’t even have those little things to hold on to, to know my loved one touched this, and a part of them has come to me,” Barsevich said. 

Effective Dec. 15, the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry will no longer deliver inmates’ physical general mail, meaning all handwritten letters, drawings, photos and greeting cards must be sent to a processing facility for scanning, transcription and delivery digitally. 

The department makes the case for safety and security by switching from physical mail to scans, which blocks one entry point for contraband and illicit drugs. 

Meanwhile, criminal justice reform advocates and those close to people currently incarcerated brace for the change, carrying concerns over complete, timely and correct delivery of correspondence and inmate access amid limited tablets and kiosks. 

But beyond implementation, there is the fear that the loss of one of the last tangible connections to the outside – the handwritten letters, greeting cards, drawings and photos from friends and family – will worsen already low morale.

“They have so little that they can cling to,” Barsevich said.

Mail scanning has been on the department’s radar for some time now. 

The first two budget requests submitted under Director Ryan Thornell identified funding an off-site mail scanning program as a top priority, as contraband coming in through parcels or via paper saturated with liquified drugs put both staff and inmates in harm’s way.

A budget allocation never materialized, but in September, the department amended contracts with companies handling inmate communications and tablets – Securus Technologies and JPAY – to wrap in digital mail scanning services at no extra out-of-pocket cost.  

Under the agreement, all non-privileged mail will be forwarded to a P.O. Box in Dallas, Texas, collected every weekday morning and transported to a processing center.  

Contractor staff then vets for illegal substances and contraband, scans and transcribes all envelopes and contents into digital text. 

The contract also requires Securus to create customized watch lists to flag certain words, recipients and senders for additional review, with any problem communications selected for further evaluation. 

All cleared mail is uploaded for review and distribution to inmate tablets and kiosks. Per the contract, all mail should be processed and digitally delivered within 48 hours of receipt from the post office, and will be destroyed after a 90 day retention period.

The public first got wind of the coming change in November at the tail end of a press release. 

Four women at Perryville San Carlos Unit were hospitalized for “seizure-like” symptoms brought on by illicit drug use, painting a clear example of the “negative consequences of drug-soaked paper being trafficked into prison units from outside sources via the U.S. mail.” 

Though the department did not provide a specific number of cases of contraband entering through the mail, the latest monthly data report showed that drugs accounted for the majority of contraband cases, averaging around 252 instances per month between October 2024 and 2025. 

And this year, the department reported 13 overdoses under self-injurious behavior and three as suicide attempts. 

The department segued the incident at Perryville into a plan to “modernize and digitize general mail.”An official announcement followed on Nov. 25, with a plan instructing senders to re-route to Texas starting Dec. 15, with a one-month grace period.

Criminal justice advocates already anticipate problems in implementation.

For one, not all inmates have a tablet.

In the ongoing health care class action lawsuit against the department, plaintiffs’ counsel recently visited Arizona State Prison Complexes Lewis and Eyman and reported speaking with dozens of people who lacked a functioning tablet, with a wait list now stretching anywhere from three to six months and a replacement carrying at least a $150 fee. 

“Many reported that, despite repeated requests, they had been without a working tablet for weeks or months. Many showed us their tablets and demonstrated that they were not working,”  Maria Morris, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, wrote in a report to the court. 

Barsevich noted, too, that though her loved one has a functioning tablet, she can go days without hearing back due to internet connectivity and technical issues. 

“I don’t hear a lot from her, not because she’s not wanting to respond to me,” Barsevich said. 

The department plans to provide kiosks to inmates without tablets, but advocates noted that staffing considerations accompany access, too. 

Per the latest monthly report, the number of correctional officer vacancies are slowly decreasing, but the department is still down about 832 positions as of October 2025.  

Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, said that if visiting kiosks require a correctional officer to escort and monitor each visit, limited personnel and high inmate populations could curtail the ability to receive mail in a timely manner. 

“How often are they going to escort an inmate out in chains, if he’s in maximum custody or if he’s in detention? Are they going to do it once a week? Are they going to do it once a month?”  Hamm said. “Does he have to go back to his cell and memorize everything that was in a five page letter from his grandmother or his wife?”

The department clarified it would provide black-and-white print-outs if kiosks or tablets were unavailable. 

But even if all goes smoothly, even if an inmate timely receives a complete scanned letter, drawing or photo on their tablet, through a kiosk, or as a printed piece of paper, advocates, inmates and their loved ones say it’s not the same as holding a message in hand. 

John Fabricius, executive director of criminal reform group Praxis Initiative, spent 15 years incarcerated and said mail delivery could either be the best or worst part of the day depending on whether the correctional officer stopped by your bunk. 

He still has letters from his late brother and mother, who he lost when he was incarcerated. He remembers how crucial the connection was to his rehabilitation.

“That’s your only beacon of hope,” Fabricius said. “If you’re by yourself, if you don’t have a way to pick up the phone or have a visitation, that mail is everything. It’s your connection to society. It’s your connection to your family. It’s your connection to the world.” 

Despite the change to digital, Barsevich said she would continue to send letters. 

“I don’t want her to give up. I want her to keep that clean record while she’s serving. I want her safety. I want her mental health and physical well being… I will continue sending it just because she’s got to have that contact,” Barsevich said. 

“Most people need something that gives them hope. And I think contact gives you hope, because people can inspire one another to do great things. That’s what I will do for her as long as I can.”

A new era for Arizona prisons – now our progress is at risk

Ryan Thornell

I have the privilege of working alongside more than 10,000 dedicated staff and contracted partners as director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR). Together, we carry out our core mission of protecting public safety while providing essential services, care, and rehabilitation opportunities for the more than 35,000 people in our custody.

Since 2023, we have pursued a new mission and vision that replaces outdated mindsets and ineffective systems with modern correctional practices throughout Arizona. Across our 15 prison complexes, we are building a safety-centered culture that empowers our staff to be more effective and ensures every individual is treated with respect, attention, and care.

Things haven’t always been this way. The department’s history includes serious challenges and failures, particularly in health care. Past mismanagement led to years of litigation and, in 2022, a court ruling that found ADCRR’s health care unconstitutional.

Over the past two and a half years, the department has undergone a transformation that is measurable, collaborative, and consistent. We are committed to building lasting change. To date, we have:

  • Increased health care staffing 68%.
  • Tripled the number of physicians on staff.
  • Increased mid-level providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) 93%.
  • Increased mental health staff 40%.
  • Doubled health care expenditures to over $458 million in FY2026.

We have also strengthened our infrastructure and access to care: opening 160 new skilled nursing beds, 172 inpatient mental health beds, and a new palliative care unit; upgrading HVAC systems across prison complexes, expanding telehealth and transportation services for off-site care; and launching our medication-assisted treatment program for substance use disorder that now serves more than 7,000 patients statewide.

Without question, the collective efforts and collaboration of our contracted health care provider, NaphCare, have helped turn commitments into sustained results.

Beyond health care, we have prioritized safety and security in our prisons by deploying body-worn cameras, redesigning the Correctional Officer Training Academy, creating new leadership training, and implementing increased pay incentives for existing staff. This, coupled with an intense focus on recruitment of new officers, has improved staff vacancy rates at many of our prisons.

We’ve also significantly expanded rehabilitation and workforce initiatives, developing four apprenticeship programs and certifying 375 individuals as peer support specialists, collaborating with Banner Health and MercyCare to open therapeutic art and healing studios, and launching our In2Work culinary training program with Aramark, graduating 67 participants since it began eight months ago.

Each of these efforts aims to help people leave prison healthier, more employable, and better prepared to contribute to their communities. That is the foundation of true public safety. Many thought such big change in such short order wasn’t possible. But we proved that it was.

Despite this significant progress, a federal takeover of our prison health care system, commonly called a receivership, is now being considered. A federal receivership is an extreme, last-ditch action reserved only for systems that are unwilling or incapable of reform. This is not the case in Arizona. In practice, receiverships often extend for decades and cost taxpayers tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, including in California and, to some extent, our own Maricopa County. A receivership replaces local accountability with layers of federal bureaucracy without any guarantee of faster or better outcomes.

ADCRR recognizes the seriousness of these challenges, and we share the court’s goal of achieving timely and permanent improvements in prison health care. But the evidence shows that meaningful progress is already underway. A receivership would not only add delay and expense, but it would also risk derailing the tangible reforms we have put in place. It’s wrong in principle and it’s wrong on policy.

Transformation is built with sustained leadership, transparency, and integrity. Our correction system is not perfect, but it is changing for the better. And that change is happening faster, smarter, and with greater accountability than ever before.

Ryan Thornell is director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry.

State prison system still lacking in health care, receivership considered

Key Points: 
  • Federal court mulls appointing receiver over prison health care 
  • Plaintiffs claim continued harm, inadequate care necessitates takeover 
  • Department of Corrections asks for more time to reach compliance 

A federal judge is considering whether to place the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry’s health care system under receivership after more than a decade of litigation and two years after the court set a final bar for compliance. 

The hearing on Sept. 10 came after another report from court-appointed monitors found continued systemic failings in the delivery and quality of health care to the state’s incarcerated population. 

“A receiver is the only option with a realistic chance of success,” said Sophie Hart, an attorney with Prison Law Office, who represents the plaintiffs. 

Judge Roslyn Silver told parties at the start of the hearing that she had departed from her typical practice by declining to issue a proposed opinion prior to the hearing. 

But, she still wanted to give the parties “at least a few ideas” on where she stood on a receivership and sent a list of specific questions to address at the hearing instead. 

Silver asked the plaintiffs for specific duties to be taken over by the receiver, the cost to the state and the potential or need for the receiver to suspend state laws in the name of compliance. 

Hart told Silver a receiver would take on duties parallel to those of a similar California prison class action — Plata v. Newsom — which includes authority over staff, contracts and budgets, and a mandate to bring the department’s medical care into compliance with constitutional standards. 

As for the cost of receivership, Hart referred to the Plata case, putting the figure at about $3 million a year, with the caveat being that the court would determine the approval of costs and salaries of any prospective receiver. 

There was also the question of whether the receiver planned to suspend state law, specifically a measure that requires the privatization of carceral health care. 

Since the start of litigation, the department has had a revolving door of health care contractors and most recently contracted with NaphCare. 

Hart said the plaintiffs are not yet asking for the court to affirmatively grant a waiver of state law, but a receiver could petition the court in the future if it became necessary. 

The defendants, meanwhile, answered inquiries on the specific outcomes of increased expenditure on health care, the true weight of “new leadership” under Director Ryan Thornell and actions by the department to enforce NaphCare’s compliance with the contract.  

“I have a little trouble understanding how those sums of money, as they’ve increased every year, have improved health care,” Silver said, “We are many millions of dollars in, and, so, of that additional number of millions of dollars, what has that paid for?” 

Mary O’Grady, attorney for the department said that, as a general matter, “it’s hard to say here’s a dollar, here’s a better outcome.” Though she did point to some examples, including an increase in the number of health care providers, expanded programs and added capacity for care for the special needs unit. 

O’Grady said the department would continue to advocate for additional funding, with dollars going to additional full-time employees to comply with staffing portions of the injunction. 

As it stands now, the department’s FY2027 budget request asks for $9.5 million to comply with the injunction requirements, with a placeholder for hiring contracted staff.

O’Grady added that the work is far from complete, but the department is continuing to do it. 

“We are not in a state of paralysis in Arizona,” O’Grady said. 

In turning to the question of the state’s confidence in Thornell, O’Grady said, “Why should the court accept this promise now? They are committed to complying with this court’s order, they are committing to doing this work to comply with the court’s order. They are maybe two years older and wiser in how complex and challenging this work is.”

Silver pressed on whether the department was holding NaphCare accountable by way of sanctions and reported contract violations. O’Grady said the department would follow up in writing. 

In wrapping up her argument, O’Grady argued against a receivership, noting it to be a “last resort when nothing else works,” nor a “quick fix.”

Silver acknowledged as much, but again pointed out that the permanent injunction, which required immediate compliance, has been in place for two years, with a long way to go from compliance. 

Hart, throughout her argument and in closing, pulled from a long list of incarcerated patients who were denied adequate care and lost their lives as a result. She referred, too, to the continued string of reports from court monitors finding systemic failings in care. 

In the most recent quarterly report, lead monitor Marc Stern found the department “remains non-compliant with the vast majority, with slow (or little) progress toward achieving substantial compliance” and found “striking evidence of how multiple system level failings in ADCRR’s health care operations persist and how preventable errors likely contributed to the deaths.”

The report found the department failed to recognize and fix errors in health care delivery, continues to experience understaffing in medical and custody personnel and has not significantly moved the needle in adopting the patient-centered care model. 

“The system changes required by the Injunction to protect human life and limb and prevent suffering are still broken, and ADCRR is still struggling to identify and prioritize the changes it needs to make, let alone actually make those changes,” Stern wrote.

Silver similarly noted past mortality reports showed “significant problems” and stressed the need to see compliance across the board.

“It’s not just a matter of numerical compliance,” Silver said. “That’s not going to do it, it has to be 100%.” 

Silver took the matter under advisement. 

Arizona expands educational opportunities in state prisons amid scrutiny

Key Points: 
  • Enrollment grows in Arizona prison education programs, completion dips
  • Multi-agency collaborations target growth in postsecondary, vocational training
  • One university shows promise in growing degree attainment 

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry released a list of efforts it made to address heightened legislative scrutiny of state prisons, including its work to expand the ecosystem of educational opportunities available to inmates. 

The state carceral system continues to find its footing in regulating and reporting on its education programs, especially as postsecondary and vocational training become the focus of two multi-agency and multi-state collaborations to assess and improve programs currently in place. 

The Department of Corrections runs a long list of education programs, starting from functional literacy, to general education development, or GED programs, high school diplomas, career and technical programs and postsecondary degrees. 

According to a recent report from the Auditor General’s Office, the department is making some headway in enrollment across the board but has seen a slight increase in noncompletion. 

The department enrolled a total of 12,717 inmates in education programs in fiscal year 2024, with 5,531 completions, 6,275 non-completions and a total of 811 participating. 

Participation in programming increased from the prior two fiscal years, but completion took a slight dip, with a 2% decrease in the number of program completions and a 15% increase in non-completions, a statistic the auditor general wrote could be “potentially resulting in inmates not receiving programs’ intended benefits.” 

As the department continues to increase enrollment in prison education programs, conversations around how to find gaps in access, ensure completion and provide degrees and workforce training into successful reentry have followed — with a specific focus on career training and postsecondary education. 

In April, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order establishing Arizona’s Reentry 2030 program, which focuses on expanding apprenticeship and vocational programs. 

In May, the Department of Corrections entered a one-year initiative with the Arizona Board of Regents and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, to first assess the current failings in the department’s postsecondary options and then expand access and address pitfalls. 

In any postsecondary program, the Department of Corrections serves as a conduit to connect incarcerated learners with the range of education programs currently available. 

According to a database prepared by the Alliance for Higher Education in Prison, Arizona has 13 higher education prison programs, housed across public universities, community colleges and private institutions.

One such program, at Ashland University, a private university offering virtual education programming through tablets, got off the ground in Arizona in 2020 through a partnership with the Department of Corrections. 

Ashland runs programming at Douglas, Eyman, Lewis, Perryville, Safford and Tucson, offering associate and bachelors degrees in communications, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary studies and organizational leadership and development. 

Shawn Orr, dean of Ashland and senior adviser to the president for non-traditional learning, stated that Ashland has expanded its program to 433 active students. As of the spring of 2025, the university has seen 500 students complete their degrees.

“We aspire to develop the whole person — academically, spiritually and morally — so our students can live productive lives in society,” Orr said. 

Orr acknowledged challenges persist in working in an incarcerated environment, including internet restrictions, quiet and dedicated study space and the interruptions that can follow lock downs or facility transfers. 

There is also a continued learning curve in regulating a private education program inside prison walls. Ashland University, as a private university, falls under the purview of the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. 

Kevin LaMountain, executive director of the board, said the board has adapted to comply with the statutory licensing structures in the state. 

LaMountain recounted substituting inspections and blueprints with a sketch of where students would participate in educational programs, in-person fire inspections for fire inspection reports, and securing information on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

All in all, though, he sees the effort as successful, and he hopes for continued efforts across the board to expand postsecondary education programs operating inside prison walls. 

“We’ve learned a lot. I think we’re going to learn a lot more going forward,” LaMountain said. “I certainly hope … that more and more institutions would be looking at ways that we can make a better life for an inmate that eventually, hopefully, will get back into society and make a change in their life and in the world.”

Arizona’s 290-Year sentence was a failure of justice

Gary W Hardy

Gov. Katie Hobbs recently denied clemency to Carl Buske, a man serving a 290-year sentence in Arizona for possession of child sexual abuse material. I want to be clear from the outset: the offense is serious and deserving of accountability. But 290 years? For a non-contact crime? That is not justice. That is vengeance disguised as law.

Mr. Buske’s case is well known to those who have followed Arizona’s sentencing patterns. Even the judge who sentenced him — bound by law to impose 10-year minimums on each of 29 counts, served consecutively — acknowledged at the time how extreme the outcome was. The original prosecuting attorney agreed. And most recently, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency voted unanimously to recommend his release. A consensus like that among the judge, prosecutor and clemency board is virtually unheard of. Yet Hobbs rejected the recommendation.

This denial isn’t just a disappointment. It’s a missed opportunity to affirm what Arizona’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry claims to stand for: rehabilitation and reentry. Mr. Buske has served over eighteen years in prison. He has maintained a clean record, completed all programming available to him, and aged into a low-risk category by any standard. If this man is not eligible for a second chance, who is?

Clemency exists precisely for cases like this — when mandatory sentencing laws produce outcomes so disproportionate that they violate basic notions of fairness. Arizona’s laws tied the judge’s hands. The clemency board exists to untie them. And the governor’s office, as the last safeguard, is supposed to ensure that justice is not merely legal, but humane. In this case, that system failed.

Gov. Hobbs had to do only one thing to let clemency take effect: nothing. She didn’t have to endorse Mr. Buske. She didn’t have to issue a press release. She simply had to allow the board she appointed to exercise the judgment she entrusted to them. Instead, she chose to overrule them — without providing a public explanation and against the advice of every professional who had handled the case.

What kind of message does this send to those trying to rebuild their lives behind bars? To their families? To Arizonans who believe in second chances?

We rank near the top in the nation for incarceration per capita and near the bottom in education. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a policy. It’s also a moral failure. If Arizona insists on calling it a Department of Rehabilitation, then rehabilitation must mean something. Clemency must mean something. Otherwise, these are just hollow words.

I supported Gov. Hobbs. I believed she would bring balance and compassion to Arizona’s justice system. I believed we were turning a corner. But today, I join a growing chorus of citizens, faith leaders, professionals, and justice advocates who are tired of watching rehabilitation denied in favor of political calculation.

Mr. Buske’s sentence was extreme. His rehabilitation is real. And the decision to keep him imprisoned indefinitely is neither just nor defensible.

Gov. Hobbs had the chance to do the right thing. She did not take it.

But the people of Arizona still can — and will.

Gary W Hardy, PhD, is a volunteer for Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws (AZRSOL).

Push for new prison oversight office stalls with governor

Key Points: 
  • A bipartisan proposal to create an independent prison oversight office stalls 
  • Despite broad legislative support, governor and corrections still have concerns
  • Lawmakers continue to push proposal and attached appropriation in budget 

A proposal to create an independent oversight office to monitor and report on the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry hit a wall at the governor’s office despite broad bipartisan support throughout the session. 

Oversight advocates and a slate of lawmakers have long been pushing for another set of eyes on the state’s carceral system, and this year, they came closer than ever before.

However, reservations from the governor and the Department of Corrections stalled the bill’s momentum, resulting in two chamber budget proposals that lacked the $1.5 million appropriation to create the office. 

Some legislators were still pushing to get it in the budget as of June 19. But, if all else fails, stakeholders say there is still hope to pass the underlying policy and funding down the line. 

Senate Bill 1507, sponsored by Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, would create an oversight body to monitor conditions of confinement, investigate complaints, provide information on inmate rights and submit annual reports to the Legislature. 

Similar legislation, sponsored by Democrats and Republicans alike, has been introduced for the past five sessions, often with little success in securing a committee assignment.

This session, however, both Bolick and Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, put up legislation, with Bolick’s bill going the distance. 

“We’ve tried getting this across the finish line, and this is about as far as it’s ever gotten,” Bolick said. 

Lawmakers passed SB1507 near-unanimously through the Senate’s Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency and Appropriations committees, and the House’s Government Committee. However, the bill’s fate hinges on the budget — given a $1.5 million appropriation is necessary to support getting the body off the ground. 

Bolick said the bill had full support from leadership and the vast majority of both caucuses in both chambers. 

Then came concerns from the Corrections Department and the governor’s office. 

The department remained neutral on the bill throughout but did warn lawmakers in committee hearings that the proposal could result in duplicative work done internally at the agency and externally by the new office. 

But lawmakers and those advocating for the bill continued to stress the need for oversight all around.

“Our belief is this is not conflicting with any internal efforts. In fact, it bolsters those efforts,” Lauren Krisai, executive director of Justice Action Network, a criminal justice and public safety reform group, said. “Real accountability and real transparency comes when you have both internal and external oversight.” 

Bolick said the governor’s office then came with requests to walk back the responsibilities, powers and scope of the proposed office. 

“There’s such bipartisan support for this that no one is interested in watering the bill down,” Bolick said. “We want to know what the issues are. We want to know what we need to address. We want to make sure that the individuals who are working there and being housed there are obviously in the safest possible environment.” 

Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, added that the Democratic caucus continues to be supportive of the bill, too. And as far as pushback from the governor’s office, Ortiz gestured back to her time on the Gov. Katie Hobbs’ Independent Prison Oversight Commission. 

The commission was tasked with inspecting prison facilities and records, and speaking with staff and inmates on mental health and medical care, drug treatment programs, access to nutrition, medicine, sanitary products and staffing levels and returning a report. 

The commission returned one major recommendation to the governor: create and fund a permanent oversight committee. 

“Having served on that commission, and knowing all of the other hard working people who volunteered their time to be on that commission to produce this report for the governor, it feels like a complete disservice,” Ortiz said. “It feels like a completely disrespectful stance.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to comment. The Corrections Department also declined to comment. 

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.