Skip to main content

Posts

What Real Incentive Disruption Would Actually Require — And Why It’s So Rare

It’s easy to say a system needs new incentives. It’s much harder to explain what that would actually demand in practice. Incentives aren’t just policies. They’re funding structures, authority hierarchies, political comfort zones, and long-standing cultural assumptions about crime and punishment. Arizona Department of Corrections operates within a framework that rewards operational stability above all else. As long as facilities run without visible chaos, as long as populations are contained, and as long as public fear is managed, the institution is considered effective. Changing that would mean tying success not to containment, but to what happens long after someone walks out the gate. Real incentive disruption would start with measurement. Funding and evaluation would need to hinge on long-term stability metrics—reduced returns, improved mental health outcomes, sustained employment, community integration. Not six months after release. Years. That kind of measurement shifts accounta...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Systems Like AZDOC Don’t Collapse From Failure — They’re Stabilized By Incentives

When an institution produces the same negative outcomes for decades and still remains intact, the explanation isn’t mystery. It’s incentives. Arizona Department of Corrections doesn’t survive because it’s flawless. It survives because its incentives are aligned with preservation, not transformation. Stability inside the system matters more than effectiveness outside of it. Most people assume that if something isn’t working, it will eventually be forced to change. That assumption only holds true when failure threatens the institution’s core incentives. In AZDOC’s case, it rarely does. Funding isn’t primarily tied to long-term rehabilitation success. Authority isn’t granted based on post-release stability. Promotions aren’t structured around reduced recidivism years down the line. Instead, incentives are tied to maintaining order, managing populations, and avoiding visible crises. As long as the prison operates without major disruption, the system is considered functional. This is w...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

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