Skip to main content

Posts

Why Incremental Reform Fails Inside Systems Designed Not to Change

Every few years, reform becomes the headline. A new initiative. A task force. A revised policy. Updated language. More training. More programming. The public is told improvement is underway, that progress takes time, that change is happening behind the scenes. And yet the outcomes barely move. Arizona Department of Corrections does not resist reform loudly. It resists it structurally. That distinction matters. Because structural resistance doesn’t look like defiance. It looks like compliance with just enough adjustment to preserve the original design. Incremental reform fails when it leaves the incentive structure untouched. If authority, funding, promotion pathways, and evaluation metrics still reward control, then control remains the dominant operating principle — no matter how many new programs are layered on top. You can add programming to a control-based system, but if the system still measures success by compliance and incident reduction, then programming becomes decorative r...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

If AZDOC Wanted Different Outcomes, It Would Have to Change the Design — Not the Messaging

  At some point, the conversation has to move past identifying what’s broken and toward naming what would actually have to change. Because if outcomes haven’t improved despite decades of enforcement, rule revisions, and public messaging, the issue isn’t awareness. It’s architecture. Arizona Department of Corrections is structured around control. Everything flows from that premise. Authority is centralized. Compliance is prioritized. Consequences are immediate and visible. The system is highly effective at enforcing rules within a closed environment. What it has never been structured to do is build internal capacity that survives outside of it. If AZDOC wanted different outcomes, the design would have to shift from control-first to capacity-first. That doesn’t mean eliminating rules or pretending accountability doesn’t matter. It means recognizing that rules are scaffolding, not the structure itself. Scaffolding is temporary. The goal is what gets built underneath it. Right now...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why the Public Accepts a System That Doesn’t Work

At some point, the question stops being whether AZDOC is effective and starts becoming why the public continues to accept outcomes that clearly aren’t. Recidivism persists. Trauma is mishandled. Obedience is confused with growth. Release remains destabilizing. None of this is hidden. It’s documented, visible, and repeated. And yet the system remains largely unquestioned. Arizona Department of Corrections doesn’t operate in isolation. It operates with public permission. That permission is maintained through three powerful forces: language, fear, and distance. Language is the first shield. Words like “accountability,” “public safety,” and “corrections” create an assumption of purpose. The terminology implies improvement, responsibility, and protection. When those words are repeated often enough, they become accepted as proof of effectiveness—even when the outcomes contradict them. Most people don’t examine the gap between language and reality because the language feels reassuring. F...
Post a Comment
Read more

Real Accountability Would Require AZDOC to Hold Itself Responsible — And That’s the Line It Won’t Cross

  AZDOC demands accountability from everyone it controls, but it has never applied that standard to itself. That isn’t accidental. It’s structural. Accountability, when aimed inward, threatens the very power the institution relies on to operate unquestioned. Arizona Department of Corrections defines accountability almost exclusively as punishment for individuals. Miss a rule, face a consequence. React under pressure, escalate discipline. Fail after release, return to custody. Accountability flows in one direction only—downward—toward the people with the least power to challenge it. Real accountability looks different. It asks whether policies produce the outcomes they claim to pursue. It examines patterns instead of isolated incidents. It requires systems to change when evidence shows harm instead of improvement. That kind of accountability is uncomfortable because it can’t be satisfied with punishment alone. It demands redesign. If AZDOC were serious about accountability, it ...
Post a Comment
Read more

AZDOC Protects Its Image Better Than It Protects Outcomes

  At some point, repeated failure stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like a choice. When the same problems persist despite decades of evidence, reports, and lived experience, the issue is no longer a lack of information. It’s a lack of willingness to change what threatens the institution’s image. Arizona Department of Corrections is deeply invested in appearing effective. Metrics are polished. Language is carefully chosen. “Rehabilitation,” “accountability,” and “public safety” are repeated until they sound true, even when outcomes say otherwise. The system measures what makes it look functional, not what actually reduces harm. This is why surface-level compliance is celebrated while deeper failures are ignored. It’s why write-up numbers matter more than emotional regulation, and why recidivism is framed as individual weakness instead of institutional feedback. A system that prioritized outcomes would be forced to confront uncomfortable truths about trauma, skil...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recidivism Isn’t a Personal Failure — It’s a System Outcome AZDOC Refuses to Claim

  Once structure is removed without support, the outcome shouldn’t surprise anyone. Yet AZDOC continues to act as if recidivism is a moral defect instead of what it actually is: evidence that the system did exactly what it was designed to do—and nothing more. Arizona Department of Corrections talks about recidivism as if it’s a personal choice made in a vacuum. Someone “failed.” Someone “didn’t want it badly enough.” Someone “refused to change.” That framing is convenient, because it places responsibility entirely on the individual while shielding the institution from scrutiny. But recidivism doesn’t happen randomly. It follows patterns. Predictable ones. People are released from rigid control into instability with no meaningful internal capacity built to replace the structure that once governed every decision. Trauma has been punished, not treated. Obedience has been rewarded, not skill. Emotional regulation has been suppressed, not practiced. When those same survival behavior...
Post a Comment
Read more

Structure Isn’t Support — And Removing One Without Building the Other Is a Setup

  One of the most persistent lies in the AZDOC narrative is the idea that structure equals support. It sounds reasonable on the surface. Prisons are highly structured environments, and structure is often framed as a stabilizing force. The problem is that structure, by itself, doesn’t build capacity. It only controls behavior while it’s present. Arizona Department of Corrections relies heavily on structure and then acts surprised when people collapse the moment that structure disappears. That surprise is either willful ignorance or a refusal to look honestly at how human beings actually function. Inside prison, nearly every aspect of life is dictated externally. When to wake up. When to eat. Where to stand. When to speak. What consequences follow even minor deviations. That level of control can create the illusion of stability. Behavior appears regulated because choice has been removed. But regulation that only exists under constant supervision is not regulation at all. It’s comp...
Post a Comment
Read more