This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-742
entitled 'District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in
Improving Facility Conditions' which was released on September 27,
2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2004:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL:
Management Challenges Exist in Improving Facility ConditionsD.C.
Detention Facilities:
GAO-04-742:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-742, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The District of Columbia’s Jail and Correctional Treatment Facility
(CTF), which are the District’s detention facilities for misdemeanant
and pretrial detainees, have been repeatedly cited for violations of
health and safety standards. The Jail also has had problems with
releasing inmates before or after their official release date, in part,
because of inaccuracies in its electronic inmate records. As a
follow-on to problems at the Jail reported in 2002 by the District’s
Inspector General, GAO addressed the following questions: (1) What are
the results of recent health and safety inspections? (2) What is the
status of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, and what policies
and procedures does the Department of Corrections (DoC) use in
managing the projects? and (3) What progress has been made in improving
electronic inmate records at the Jail?
What GAO Found:
Health and safety inspection reports for the Jail and CTF that were
prepared from January 2002 through April 2004 by the District’s
Department of Health consistently identified problems with air quality,
vermin infestation, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting. Officials
attributed some of the health and safety deficiencies to the age of the
Jail and inmate behavior at both facilities. DoH inspection reports did
not always document the specific locations where deficiencies were
identified and did not document the date and time when the deficiencies
were identified. For example, one report might identify a problem in a
specific cell, while another report might state that the problem
occurred in some locations, most locations, or throughout the Jail.
This limits DoC’s ability to determine how prevalent the health and
safety deficiencies are, whether problems are recurring in the same
locations, or whether conditions changed over time.
Of the 16 capital improvement projects for the Jail approved for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004, 1 project was completed and 15 were in various
stages of development. In addition, the Office of Property Management
lacked written policies and procedures concerning project management,
which could be important tools in guiding project managers through the
planning and management of projects. Although the Office of Property
Management established a working group to develop standard operating
procedures for managing projects, time frames had not been established
for when the working group should complete this work.
With respect to early and late inmate release errors, DoC has taken
several steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in processing
inmate records, but release errors continue to occur. DoC’s improvement
efforts have included simplifying the workflow in the Records Office,
issuing an operations manual, and developing additional guidance and
training for staff. Additionally, DoC developed a database to capture
detailed information on incidents that led to each inmate release
error. DoC analyzed the information in this database to determine how
frequently the incidents occurred. Based on this information, DoC has
developed proposals for corrective action to reduce release errors. DoC
officials attributed staff processing errors to limited staff resources
and the large volume of documents that are continuously received in the
Records Office. Because DoC did not have complete data on early and
late inmate releases, DoC does not know the full extent to which the
release errors occurred. Specifically, DoC may not discover an early
release error until long after the inmate has been released. For late
releases, DoC used an incomplete methodology, which led to an
understated number of actual late releases. During our review, DoC
modified this methodology to more accurately identify the number of
late releases.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO made two recommendations, one concerning the specificity of reports
about facility conditions; the other concerning time frames for
developing and implementing guidance on managing projects.
DoC and the Department of Health (DoH) agreed with our finding
concerning the lack of specificity in inspection reports, and DoH
agreed to implement our recommendation. The Office of Property
Management did not comment on our second recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-742.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cathleen Berrick, (202)
512-8777 or berrickc@gao.gov
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Health and Safety Deficiencies at the Jail and Correctional Treatment
Facility:
Capital Improvement Projects at the Jail:
DoC Has Taken Steps to Improve Inmate Records, but Effects on Reducing
Release Errors Are Difficult to Determine:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at the Correctional Treatment
Facility:
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail:
Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC Implemented to Improve the Accuracy
of Inmate Records:
Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and the
Correctional Treatment Facility:
Appendix VI: DoC's Implementation of the District of Columbia's Office
of the Inspector General's Recommendations:
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Health:
Appendix IX: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of the
Inspector General:
Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property
Management:
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District's Jail:
Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during 2003:
Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in 2003:
Table 4: The District's Office of the Inspector General's Findings and
Recommendations to the Department of Corrections:
Figures:
Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
Abbreviations:
CCA: Corrections Corporation of America:
CTF: Correctional Treatment Facility:
DoC: Department of Corrections:
DoH: Department of Health:
OIG: Office of the Inspector General:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 27, 2004:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The District of Columbia's Jail, which is the District's primary
facility for misdemeanant and pretrial detainees, has repeatedly been
cited for violations of health and safety standards and has been
reviewed by other agencies for its management of inmate
records.[Footnote 1] In October 2002, a report by the District's Office
of the Inspector General (OIG)[Footnote 2] noted numerous health and
safety violations at the Jail, as well as problems with electronic
inmate records that have resulted in errors in releasing inmates before
or after their official release date.[Footnote 3] The District's
Department of Corrections (DoC), the agency that manages and operates
the Jail, has taken several actions, including implementing capital
improvement projects, to address some of the problems that have been
identified. The District's other major detention facility--the
Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)--is managed and operated by a
private company and has also been cited for health and safety
violations.
To assist in the oversight of certain management and operational issues
at the District's detention facilities, this report addresses the
following questions: (1) What are the results of recent health and
safety inspections conducted by the District's Department of Health at
the Jail and the Correctional Treatment Facility? (2) How many capital
improvement projects were approved at the Jail during fiscal years 2000
through 2004, what is their status, and what policies and procedures
does DoC use in managing the projects? (3) What progress has been made
in improving electronic inmate records at the Jail? Additionally, we
are providing information on the Correctional Treatment Facility's
capital improvement projects during calendar year 2003 (see app. II),
the annual costs for operating the detention facilities during 1999
through 2003, the types of programs and services that the detention
facilities provided during 2003 (see app. V); and recommendations
relevant to our review that were part of the District's 2002 Office of
Inspector General report (see app. VI).
To answer these questions, we held discussions with officials in DoC
headquarters, the Jail and CTF, and OIG. We reviewed applicable laws
and regulations, policies and procedures guiding operations at the Jail
and CTF, and standards for internal control in the federal
government.[Footnote 4] We did not compare the conditions of the Jail
or its records office with conditions at other detention facilities
because this was outside the scope of our review.
To obtain information on the results of health and safety inspections,
we interviewed District Department of Health (DoH) officials, reviewed
the American Correctional Association's and American Public Health
Association's standards for health and safety conditions for
correctional institutions, and reviewed inspection reports that the
District's DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services prepared during
2002 through 2004. It was beyond the scope of this review to determine
whether the DoH inspector applied the health and safety standards
correctly, took accurate measurements, or accurately reported the
inspection results. We also did not review the adequacy of any
corrective actions taken at the Jail or the CTF.
To determine the number and status of capital improvement projects at
the Jail, we reviewed documentation and information provided by
District officials on the estimated cost, scope, and schedule time
frames for each capital improvement project that the District approved
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004. We did not assess the quality of
work on projects that were in construction at the time of our review.
Because the District's Office of Property Management is the
implementing agency for DoC's capital projects, we interviewed the
office's Director, Deputy Director of Operations, and project
management staff.
To determine DoC's progress in improving the accuracy of inmate records
at the Jail and CTF,[Footnote 5] we reviewed DoC's operations manual,
internal controls for managing inmate records, and available data on
the number of early and late inmate releases. We sought to determine
the reliability of these data by reviewing DoC's process for
determining release errors and tracing reported figures to available
source documentation. DoC's data on errors in early and late inmate
releases were not reliable enough for the purposes of this review since
DoC may not discover an early release until long after it occurs. In
addition, until March 2004, DoC was using an incomplete methodology to
identify late releases. Therefore, DoC's data on both early and late
release errors may have understated the true number of errors.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C., between June 2003 and July
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides more detailed information about the
scope and methodology of our work.
Results in Brief:
Department of Health inspection reports for the Jail and CTF prepared
from January 2002 through April 2004 consistently identified health and
safety deficiencies concerning air quality, vermin infestation, fire
safety, plumbing, and lighting. A Jail official attributed some of the
health and safety deficiencies to the age of the facility and inmate
behavior. The inspection reports prepared by DoH were not consistently
specific about the location within the facilities of the identified
deficiencies and did not document the date or time the deficiencies
were identified. This limits DoC's ability to determine how prevalent
the health and safety deficiencies were, whether problems recurred in
the same locations, or whether conditions changed over time.
Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail for
fiscal years 2000 through 2004. As of June 1, 2004, 1 project had been
completed and 15 were in various stages of development. The District's
Office of Property Management, the District agency responsible for
managing the implementation of the Jail's capital improvement projects,
did not have information on what the final costs and schedule time
frames would be for most of the 16 capital projects, as they were still
subject to design and/or scope changes. In addition, the Office of
Property Management lacked written policies and procedures concerning
project management, which could be important tools in guiding project
managers through the planning and management of projects. However, in
April 2004, the Office of Property Management established a working
group to develop standard operating procedures for managing projects.
As of May 2004, time frames had not been established for completing the
work of the working group.
DoC has taken several steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in
processing inmate records, but release errors continued to occur. DoC's
improvement efforts have included simplifying the workflow in the
Records Office, issuing an operations manual, and developing additional
guidance and training for staff. Additionally, DoC developed a database
to capture detailed information on incidents that led to each inmate
release error. DoC analyzed the information in this database to
determine how frequently the incidents occurred. Based on this
information, DoC has developed proposals for corrective action to
reduce release errors. DoC attributed staff processing errors to
limited staff resources and the large volume of documents that are
continuously received in the Records Office. Because DoC did not have
complete data on early and late inmate releases, DoC does not know the
full extent to which they occurred, and may not discover an early
release error until long after the inmate has been released. With
respect to late releases, DoC used an incomplete methodology and,
therefore, may have understated the actual number of late releases.
During our review, DoC modified the methodology to more accurately
identify the number of late releases.
To help improve facility operations, we are making two recommendations.
First, we recommend that DoC work with the Department of Health to
develop a format for inspection reports that would enable DoC to
determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail
and monitor changes in facility conditions over time. Second, toward
the goal of strengthening management of capital improvement projects,
we recommend that the Office of Property Management establish time
frames for completing its work on developing and implementing policies
and procedures.
We provided a draft of this report to the District's Department of
Corrections, Department of Health, Office of the Inspector General, and
Office of Property Management for comment. In response, DoC and DoH
concurred with our finding that inspection reports did not consistently
identify locations where deficiencies were found, and DoH agreed to
implement our recommendation. The OIG affirmed that we accurately
portrayed the findings and recommendations contained in its October
2002 inspection report on the Jail. The Office of Property Management
did not comment on our recommendation. A copy of the comments from all
of these agencies and offices is included as appendix VII, VIII, IX,
and X respectively.
Background:
The Jail opened in 1976 and is a maximum-security facility for males
and females that is managed and operated by the District's DoC. The
Jail has over 1,700 heavily used cell doors and gates, approximately
1,500 prison-grade sink/toilet combinations, and security systems that
are maintenance intensive. In addition, systems and jail areas that may
require maintenance include the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning system; water systems; plumbing, electric wiring, piping,
elevators, laundry equipment, and kitchen equipment, among others.
According to the District's fiscal year 2003 budget and financial plan,
the Jail required significant structural repairs because it had not
been well maintained. Inmates at the Jail are housed in 18 cellblocks
that contain 1,380 cells. In fiscal year 2003, the average daily inmate
population was 2,328. DoC's policy states that the Jail is to be clean,
sanitary, and environmentally safe, and that its equipment is to be
maintained in good working order and meet all applicable codes,
standards, and sound detention practices. The District of Columbia Jail
Improvement Amendment Act of 2003, effective January 30, 2004, requires
DoC to obtain accreditation by the American Correctional Association
for the Jail by January 30, 2008.[Footnote 6]
The Jail has operated under court-ordered supervision for much of the
past 28 years, largely because of court orders relating to class action
lawsuits brought in the 1970s challenging the constitutionality of
various conditions at the facility.[Footnote 7] In March 2003, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia terminated the remaining
court orders and dismissed these cases on the basis that such court
orders were no longer necessary to correct current and ongoing
constitutional violations.[Footnote 8]
CTF opened in 1992 and is an American Correctional Association-
accredited facility that has been managed and operated since 1997 by
the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) under contract to the
District's DoC. As part of its contract with the District to manage
CTF, Corrections Corporation of America undertakes capital improvements
intended to improve operations at CTF or address issues that may affect
security at the facility. (App. II provides information about projects
completed at CTF during 2003 and the cost of each project.) CTF is a
medium-security facility for male and female inmates and inmates with
specialized confinement needs (e.g., pregnant women and inmates with
physical disabilities). Since 2001, CTF has also served as an overflow
facility for the Jail. Inmates in CTF are housed in 27 units consisting
of between 16 and 48 single cells each. In fiscal year 2003, CTF began
placing two inmates per cell and had an average daily inmate population
of 787 inmates.
Health and Safety Deficiencies at the Jail and Correctional Treatment
Facility:
The most recent health and safety reports for the Jail and CTF
indicated that they have similar areas of deficiencies. They included
problems with air quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting.
A DoC official attributed some deficiencies at the Jail and CTF to
inmate behavior and deterioration of the physical plant over a number
of years leading up to 2000. The DoH reports did not consistently
identify the specific locations in the Jail where the deficiencies
occurred. The DoH reports also did not always include all of the
deficiencies identified, particularly if the deficiency was repaired
during the course of the inspection. As a result, DoC cannot determine
(1) how prevalent the health and safety deficiencies were, (2) whether
problems recurred in the same locations, or (3) whether conditions have
improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse over time. Beginning
September 2004, DoH intends to begin using a detailed inspection tool
that will specify the location, severity, and frequency of occurrence
of identified deficiencies. DoH inspections for the Jail and CTF cannot
be used to compare conditions at these facilities because DoH applies
American Correctional Association standards in its inspections of the
Jail and American Public Health Association standards in its inspection
of CTF. Beginning in September 2004, DoH plans to apply the American
Public Health Association's standards in its inspections of the Jail.
Health and Safety Deficiencies Reported at the Jail:
Our review of all six inspection reports prepared by DoH between March
2002 and April 2004 shows that DoH repeatedly identified the same types
of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail. In its 2002 and 2003
annual inspections, the District's Fire and Emergency Medical Services
also found the same types of fire safety deficiencies at the Jail as
DoH. These two district agencies, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical
Services, are responsible for conducting inspections at the Jail to
determine whether the facility meets health and safety
standards.Legislation enacted by the District government in 2003
requires DoH to conduct environmental health and safety inspections of
the Jail at least three times a year.[Footnote 9] DoH has randomly
inspected at least 20 cells per cellblock (or a minimum of 360 cells)
during each inspection at the Jail and has applied American
Correctional Association standards, as well as other applicable local
standards and codes, in these inspections. In conducting its
inspections, DoH does not determine what, if any, corrective actions
DoC may have taken in response to deficiencies that DoH reported
previously. The inspections cover, among other things, inmate housing
units, kitchen areas, inmate receiving and discharge, and emergency
procedures including fire safety. Following completion of an
inspection, DoH is to prepare a report of its findings. In accordance
with District regulations, Fire and Emergency Medical Services conducts
annual fire safety inspections of the Jail. Fire and Emergency Medical
Services applies local fire and life safety codes and Building
Officials' Codes in its inspections.
DoH inspections at the Jail are conducted over a period of time up to
30 days. According to DoC officials, Jail maintenance staff accompany
the DoH inspector during the inspection, and they are to repair
identified deficiencies immediately, if possible. According to DoH
officials, the inspection report may or may not include a deficiency
that was repaired immediately. They told us that deficiencies that the
DoH inspector considers to be more significant or severe are more
likely to be included in the inspection report, even if they are
repaired on the spot.
The DoH reports did not consistently identify the specific locations
where the deficiencies occurred. For example, one DoH report would
identify the specific cell where a health and safety problem occurred,
while another report might state that the problem occurred "throughout"
the Jail. According to a DoH official, when a deficiency is identified
throughout the facility, it means that the problem was found in at
least one cell in each of the 18 cellblocks inspected. According to
DoC, specific information on such things as the location and prevalence
of an identified problem and the time that it was identified would be
more useful than generally characterizing deficiencies as occurring in
"some" or "most" locations or "throughout" the Jail. DoC officials
believe that if the inspection reports were more specific, the
information could be used to determine if the deficiency was newly
identified, was currently being corrected, or was already corrected.
According to a DoH official, there are no explicit criteria for the
level of specificity that should be included in inspection reports of
the Jail or CTF. The following illustrates some of the identified
deficiencies and how they were reported. (App. III provides additional
information about the health and safety deficiencies reported by DoH).
* Air quality deficiencies: This deficiency was identified in four of
six DoH inspection reports. In these reports, DoH noted that at the
time of an inspection, there was no measurable airflow coming out of
the vents for the areas inspected. Recognizing the need to remedy the
Jail's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system problems, DoC
sought and obtained approval in fiscal year 2001 for a capital
improvement project that would replace the Jail's heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning system. As of June 2004, construction on the
project was 99 percent complete. DoC officials said that they expect
most airflow problems to be eliminated once this project is completed.
* Vermin: In three of six inspections, DoH found vermin in at least one
of the following areas, the Jail's main kitchen, loading dock, dry
storage areas, and officers' dining area. Mice and flies were the types
of vermin DoH reported most frequently. However, DoH did not report the
extent of the vermin problem identified. Recognizing that food and
water lodged in the cracks and crevices of the Jail's deteriorated
kitchen floor contributed to the problem with vermin, DoC initiated a
capital project to remedy the problem. The project was approved in
fiscal year 2002 and completed in March 2004. DoH also reported
evidence of vermin in the inmate shower areas in all six reports we
reviewed. Specifically, flies were observed coming through inmate
shower drains at the time of five inspections. DoC recognizes that
vermin control is continuously challenging because of the size, age,
and location of the facility. To control for vermin, DoC administers
pest control treatments throughout the year, including treating the
housing units quarterly, common areas bimonthly, and culinary areas
biweekly. According to a DoC official, DoC sprays for flies,
cockroaches, and other insects and sets traps for rodents.
Additionally, shower areas in cellblocks are steam cleaned and
chemicals are applied to control for flies. DoC's Environmental Safety
and Sanitation manual dictates the time frames for these treatments.
* Fire safety deficiencies: Problems with fire extinguishers and smoke
detectors were identified in all six DoH reports and in Fire and
Emergency Medical Services' 2002 and 2003 annual reports. With respect
to fire extinguishers, five of six DoH inspections reported that the
Jail had an insufficient number of extinguishers. Five of six DoH
inspections found that fire extinguishers were improperly mounted on
the walls. The reports did not always state which locations in the Jail
had this problem or how many extinguishers were improperly mounted.
With respect to smoke detectors, each DoH inspection report, as well as
Fire and Emergency Medical Services' 2002 and 2003 inspection reports,
noted that some of the Jail's approximately 200 smoke detectors were
missing or not working in each of the facility areas inspected. Neither
DoH nor Fire and Emergency Medical Services specified in any inspection
report how many smoke detectors were missing or not working. In April
2003, Fire and Emergency Medical Services conducted a re-inspection of
the deficiencies it had identified in its January 2003 inspection and
reported that the Jail had corrected all deficiencies. According to a
DoC official, DoH's October 2003 and April 2004 findings that there
were again missing smoke detectors was most likely due to inmate
vandalism.
* Plumbing deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH noted that
(1) inmate cells had faulty plumbing fixtures, such as leaking toilet
knobs or stuck faucets; (2) inmate cells throughout the facility lacked
hot or cold water; (3) sinks and toilets in inmate cells had low water
pressure; and (4) showers in some cellblocks could not be used because
of malfunctioning.[Footnote 10] However, the reports were not
consistent in reporting the problems identified. For example, in one of
six inspections, DoH reported the specific number of cells without hot
or cold water, whereas in the remaining five inspections, DoH reported
that this occurred throughout the facility. As part of its capital
improvement program, DoC received approval in fiscal year 2001 to
replace plumbing fixtures throughout the Jail's 18 cellblocks. As of
June 2004, construction on the plumbing fixture project was 35 percent
complete.
* Lighting deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH indicated
that light fixtures were damaged. In three of the six inspection
reports, the number of cells affected was not given; in the remaining
three, between 3 and 160 inmate cells were reported as having damaged
light fixtures. As part of a capital improvement project that was
approved in fiscal year 2001, DoC intends to replace light fixtures
throughout the Jail's 18 cellblocks. As of June 2004, construction on
this project was 35 percent complete.
In addition to being inspected by DoH, DoC conducts its own routine
internal inspections. Both the DoH and DoC inspections address (1)
maintenance-related problems; that is, problems whose remedy involves
repairing a malfunction such as a broken toilet or a faulty air system,
and (2) nonmaintenance-related problems; that is, those that involve
sanitation conditions, such as improper storage of chemicals. DoC staff
are to conduct daily and monthly health and safety inspections at the
facility.[Footnote 11] DoC's Environmental Safety and Sanitation Manual
details the procedures to be used for reporting both maintenance-and
nonmaintenance-related deficiencies. Additionally, the manual includes
time frames for correcting maintenance-related deficiencies, but does
not include time frames for correcting nonmaintenance-related
deficiencies.
For maintenance-related deficiencies, DoC has an automated system in
which to record the deficiency, the corrective action to be taken, and
whether the corrective action was completed. The system is designed to
assign each maintenance-related problem to one of three priority levels
according to the impact it may have on the health and safety of the
inmate.[Footnote 12] Once a maintenance-related problem is entered into
this system, a work ticket is to be generated and the status of the
corrective action is to be monitored. DOC officials said that once the
deficiency is entered, it remains active in the system until it is
corrected. DoC noted that the number of maintenance calls ranges
between 50 and 250 on any given day.
For certain nonmaintenance-related deficiencies that are not corrected
at the time of the DoH inspection and are later documented in the
inspection report, DoC is to complete an abatement plan and document
corrective actions taken, according to a DoC official. DoC officials
noted that they do not have a formal mechanism for responding to
nonmaintenance-related deficiencies identified in internal
inspections. DoC officials said that their practice is to take
immediate corrective action for fire safety violations identified by
Fire and Emergency Medical Services to ensure compliance with
applicable fire codes and regulations.
Health and Safety Deficiencies Reported at CTF:
At CTF, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services generally
identified the same areas of health and safety deficiencies--that is,
air quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting--as at the
Jail. DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services are responsible for
conducting health and safety inspections at CTF. According to a DoH
official, twice a year, DoH conducts inspections at CTF applying the
American Public Health Association's standards for correctional
institutions in its health and safety inspections at CTF. A Fire and
Emergency Medical Services official said that the same fire safety
codes are applied in its inspection of CTF as at the Jail. The
available inspection data from DoH cannot be used to compare conditions
at the Jail with those at CTF because (1) inspection reports for CTF
did not document the prevalence or severity of the problems, and (2)
DoH applied American Correctional Association standards in its
inspection of the Jail and American Public Health Association standards
in its inspection of CTF. Beginning in September 2004, DoH will apply
the same set of standards--American Public Health Association
standards--in its inspections of the Jail and CTF.
Three DoH reports prepared between September 2002 and May 2003--the
most recent reports available--identified deficiencies related to air
quality, vermin, fire safety, and lighting. DoH found plumbing
deficiencies in its September 2002 inspection, but not in the two
inspections conducted in 2003.
As was the case with the Jail, the DoH reports did not consistently
identify the specific locations where the problems occurred. The
following illustrates some of the reported deficiencies.
* Air quality deficiencies: Deficiencies related to air quality
included dirty vents and air temperatures above or below the required
level. All three DoH inspection reports that we reviewed documented the
presence of dirty vents. Two of the three inspection reports reported
that the air temperature was below the required temperature of 65
degrees Fahrenheit.[Footnote 13] However, none of the reports indicated
where the air quality deficiencies occurred at CTF. In its February
2003 inspection report, DoH noted that CTF corrections officials had
offered to move inmates who were in cells with the low temperature, but
the inmates chose to remain in the cells. The officials reportedly
provided the inmates with extra blankets and clothing.
* Vermin: This deficiency was identified in each DoH inspection report.
None of the reports indicated the severity of the problem identified.
DoH reported in September 2002 that at the time of its inspection, mice
were observed in the trash compactor area entering and exiting through
a wall that was missing rubber caulking. DoH's February 2003 report
noted that at the time of the inspection, outside cracks and crevices
were repaired, with the exception of those located near the trash
compactor area. Correctional standards state that facilities must be
maintained to prevent vermin access. CTF's abatement plan did not
include information on planned or completed corrective actions for the
cracks and crevices. However, DoH's May 2003 report indicated that
there continued to be evidence of vermin at CTF. Specifically, in May
2003 DoH reported a fly infestation problem. Although CTF was opened
about 22 years ago, CTF officials said that cracks and crevices
continue to develop because of the settling of the building. Under CCA
policy, CTF is to have weekly pest exterminations conducted. According
to CTF officials, since 1997 CTF has had a contract with a pest control
company for pest extermination. CTF documentation showed that pest
extermination is to be done on a weekly basis.
* Fire safety deficiencies: Fire safety violations were reported in two
of three DoH reports. Specifically, DoH found burnt electrical plugs,
exposed electrical cables, and improperly placed fire
extinguishers.[Footnote 14] CTF documentation did not show what, if
any, corrective action was taken. DoH's reports did not provide
specific information about where these deficiencies were located. In a
September 2003 fire safety inspection, Fire and Emergency Medical
Services found, among other things, deficient exit signs. However, Fire
and Emergency Medical Services reported in November 2003 that CTF had
corrected these deficiencies. According to CTF records, deficient exit
signs were corrected by replacing the lightbulbs.
* Plumbing deficiency: In its September 2002 inspection, DoH found that
three cells out of 1,014 had hot water temperatures above the maximum
recommended temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of its
inspection. DoH noted that this problem was corrected the following
day.
* Lighting deficiencies: Deficiencies with lighting were reported in
each inspection report we reviewed. The problems included burnt
lightbulbs and damaged light fixtures, switches, and fuses. Burnt
lightbulbs were reported in DoH's September 2002 and February 2003
reports. For example, DoH's September 2002 report showed that some
cells had one burnt light bulb. According to CTF officials, each cell
is to have approximately three lightbulbs. Similarly, the February 2003
report showed that some cells had burnt-out lightbulbs, but all
lightbulbs were replaced before the inspector left.
In addition, CTF staff are to conduct daily, weekly, and monthly health
and safety inspections of the facility. They are to document the
deficiencies reported, including planned and completed corrective
actions. Additionally, CTF has had a comprehensive maintenance program
since July 1997. In 2003, 13,476 maintenance deficiencies were reported
and corrected.
Capital Improvement Projects at the Jail:
Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.[Footnote 15] Between 1976, when the
Jail opened as a newly constructed detention facility, through the
1990s, capital improvements at the Jail primarily dealt with its
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. By the late 1990s,
the Jail had deteriorated and conditions had become unsanitary and
unsafe for inmates and staff. To address these conditions and upgrade
the facility's infrastructure, DoC began to request additional funding
for capital improvements at the Jail in its fiscal year 2000 capital
budget request.
Of the Jail's 16 capital improvement projects, 1 project--involving
improvements to the kitchen flooring--was complete as of June 1, 2004.
The remaining 15 projects were in various stages of construction or
design: 6 were in the construction phase, 6 were in the design phase,
and 3 were in the predesign phase. Of the 6 projects in the
construction phase, 3 were at substantial completion.[Footnote 16]
These projects included upgrading the hot water system and replacing
the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. Table 1 presents
a description of each project, the fiscal year each project was
approved, the project's current working estimate as of July 13, 2004,
and each project's status as of June 1, 2004.[Footnote 17]
Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District's Jail:
Projects by phase: Complete: Kitchen flooring and miscellaneous
improvements;
Description: This project includes replacing the kitchen flooring and
renovating the kitchen area;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $1,911,907;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction 100 percent complete.
Projects by phase: Construction: Hot water system[A];
Description: This project includes replacing all of the main water
lines, converters, pumps, piping valves, and other equipment
associated with the hot water system throughout the Jail;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $9,498,054;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction 99 percent complete.
[B].
Projects by phase: Construction: Heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning system replacement[A];
Description: This project includes replacing the existing equipment in
the Jail;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: See current working
estimate for the hot water system project;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction 99 percent
complete.[B].
Projects by phase: Construction: Lighting upgrades[A];
Description: This project includes replacing the light fixtures,
lightbulbs, and switches throughout the 18 cellblocks;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $2,960,943;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction 35 percent complete
and estimated complete by October 2005.
Projects by phase: Construction: Plumbing upgrades[A];
Description: This project includes replacing the plumbing fixtures
throughout the 18 cellblocks;
Fiscal year: 2001;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: See current working
estimate for the lighting upgrades project;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction 35 percent complete
and estimated complete by October 2005.
Projects by phase: Construction: Sally port and adjoining areas[C];
Description: This project includes redesigning and reconfiguring the
sally port and adjoining areas so that inmates and vehicles can be
processed more efficiently;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $858,120;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction is ongoing as this
project is being implemented in phases. Construction on the sally port
parking and laundry is 100 percent complete. Construction on the armory
is 98 percent complete.[B] Additional work, such as improvements to the
guard tower and receiving and discharge, may be determined at a later
date.
Projects by phase: Construction: Energy management system;
Description: This project includes improvements to the energy
efficiency of the Jail's building systems, such as its electrical;
plumbing; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. This
project will also include installing a computerized energy management
system;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: Not available;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Construction is ongoing as this
project is being implemented in phases.
Projects by phase: Design: Central security system;
Description: This project includes installing a new, integrated,
comprehensive security system, including door controls, cameras,
motion detectors, card readers, duress alarm system and intrusion
detection system; and refurbishing the existing control centers,
including central command, floor control, and control bubbles;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $5,973,405;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: This project is being implemented
in phases. Installation of the closed circuit television is 35 percent
complete, and estimated complete by October 2004. Design of the overall
central security system is 100 percent complete. Construction contract
for the overall central security system project not yet awarded.
Projects by phase: Design: Cell doors and motors;
Description: This project includes demolishing all existing cell door
operating mechanisms and retrofitting all cell doors throughout the 18
cellblocks;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $9,936,951;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet awarded.
Projects by phase: Design: Elevators[A];
Description: This project includes demolishing and replacing the
Jail's existing elevators;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $2,123,005;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet awarded.
Projects by phase: Design: Escalators[A];
Description: This project includes demolishing and replacing the Jail's
existing escalators;
Fiscal year: 2003;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: See current working
estimate for the elevators project;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet awarded.
Projects by phase: Design: Fire alarm and sprinkler system;
Description: This project includes demolishing all remnants of the
existing fire alarm and sprinkler system and installing a new, modern,
and comprehensive fire alarm and sprinkler system, including
strategically located fire, heat, and smoke detectors;
Fiscal year: 2000;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $1,766,795;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Design 100 percent complete on
fire alarm and 95 percent complete on sprinkler system. In process of
awarding the construction contract for the fire alarm system.
Projects by phase: Design: Emergency power system;
Description: This project includes reconfiguring the Jail's electrical
distribution system;
Fiscal year: 2002;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $420,238;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Design 80 percent complete.
Projects by phase: Other: Staff and visitors' entrances;
Description: This project includes redesigning, expanding, and
reconfiguring the staff and visitors' entrances;
Fiscal year: 2003;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: Not available;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Not determined[D].
Projects by phase: Other: Inmate shower renovations;
Description: This project includes demolishing the shower stalls
throughout the 18 cellblocks and replacing them with new, prison-grade
shower stalls, including new fixtures, piping, drains, and improvements
to the floors and ceilings;
Fiscal year: 2004;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: Not available;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Not determined[D].
Projects by phase: Other: Exterior structural refinishing;
Description: This project includes repairs to the Jail's exterior
structure;
Fiscal year: 2004;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: Not available;
Project status, as of June 1, 2004: Not determined[D].
Total;
Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004: $35,449,418.
Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections and Office of Property Management.
[A] According to Office of Property Management officials, work on these
projects has been combined because of, among other things, similarities
in the work to be performed. Specifically, combined projects include
work on the following: (1) hot water system and heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning system replacement; (2) lighting upgrades and
plumbing upgrades; and (3) elevators and escalators.
[B] These projects are at substantial completion.
[C] The sally port is the area where all vehicles coming into the Jail
are checked and processed. The adjoining areas are the guard tower, the
external yard, receiving and discharge, and the laundry.
[D] DoC and the Office of Property Management did not agree on the
status of the project. According to DoC, the project was in the design
phase; according to the Office of Property Management, the project was
not yet in design because the scope of work had not yet been finalized.
[End of table]
The District's Office of Property Management is the implementing agency
for the Jail's capital improvement projects and manages the projects'
actual construction. Its responsibilities include monitoring the
progress of the projects to ensure that (1) the original intent of the
project is fulfilled, (2) financing is scheduled for required capital
expenditures, and (3) DoC's highest priority projects are implemented
first. We sought to obtain current working estimates for the Jail's
capital improvement projects from the Office of Property Management
(see table 1). However, current working estimates were not available
for four of the Jail's capital improvement projects. This is because
those projects were either ongoing and being implemented in phases--
meaning that work was being completed in conjunction with the Jail's
other capital improvement projects, or the project did not have a fully
defined scope of work.[Footnote 18]
When managing the projects, Office of Property Management officials
noted that such factors as unforeseen site conditions and unexpected
events can affect the progress of implementing the projects and change
their cost, scope, or schedule. As an example of an unforeseen site
condition, Office of Property Management officials noted that while
working on the Jail's hot water system and heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning replacement projects, contractors discovered that the
Jail's cold water system had also deteriorated and needed to be
replaced.As a result, DoC changed the scope of the projects to include
upgrading the Jail's cold water system. This, in turn, increased the
projects' construction costs from about $7.1 million to $9.1 million
and extended the projects' schedule from about 24 months to 34 months.
As an example of an unexpected event, DoC further accelerated the
installation of the closed circuit television portion of the Jail's
electronic security system project following a shooting incident in
December 2003.[Footnote 19] This portion of the project was pulled out
of the Jail's larger central security systems project whose drawings
had been completed prior to December 2003. As of June 1, 2004, the
installation of the closed circuit television portion of this project
was 35 percent complete.
Our work on capital improvement projects has noted that it is important
that capital projects be well managed.[Footnote 20] For example, our
work has noted the importance of having written policies and procedures
that can help project managers in planning and managing their
projects.[Footnote 21] Typical policies and procedures that might be
provided to project managers include policies that establish the roles
and responsibilities of project staff and procedures that define how
the project will be executed. When used, such policies and procedures
help guide project execution and ensure overall project oversight. We
did not systematically review the management of the Jail's capital
improvement projects, nor did we determine whether management issues
may have contributed to increased costs or time frames for certain
projects. Therefore, we have no information indicating that the Office
of Property Management's projects at the Jail were not well managed.
However, during our review we noted that the Office of Property
Management lacked written policies and procedures to guide its project
managers through the planning and management of projects.
Office of Property Management officials we interviewed acknowledged the
importance of having written project management policies and procedures
to guide its staff through the planning and management of projects. In
April 2004, the Office of Property Management (1) established a project
management working group, consisting of its Deputy Director of
Operations, project managers, and other staff, to develop a standard
operating procedure for managing projects, and (2) began revising its
current reporting procedures for providing up-to-date information on,
among other things, each project's budget and schedule. However, at the
time of our review the working group had not yet developed the
guidance, and time frames for completing its work had not been
established. Thus, it is too early to determine specifically what
guidance this working group will develop and the extent to which it
will assist project managers in planning and managing their projects.
DoC Has Taken Steps to Improve Inmate Records, but Effects on Reducing
Release Errors Are Difficult to Determine:
DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve its
efficiency and accuracy in processing inmate records, but release
errors have continued to occur. Prior to 2002, errors in releasing
inmates too early prompted the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to request that two agencies review DoC's management of inmate
records.[Footnote 22] These agencies identified problems with inmate
record processing, including DoC's lack of policies and procedures
related to Records Office management. In response to some of the
problems identified, in 2000 DoC implemented a new electronic record
system as its primary case management and inmate record system. By the
end of October 2002, DoC had simplified the workflow in the Records
Office,[Footnote 23] issued an operations manual, developed a database
to help track and resolve discrepancies in inmates' court documents,
and provided training for staff. (See app. IV for more information
about these DoC improvement efforts.)
To capture information on the sequence of events that led to each
identified release error, in 2002 DoC established a new database, known
as the Release Discrepancy database. This database is used to generate
incident reports that contain information on release errors and to
notify management of release errors. In general, DoC's incident reports
indicated that some inmates were released early or late because Records
Office staff made such errors as (1) processing records without having
all pertinent documents, (2) entering information incorrectly into the
electronic record system, and (3) not processing documents quickly
enough to avoid a release error. Actions that led to these types of
errors included misfiling documents, placing documents in a duplicate
file folder, placing documents in a pending folder, or filing documents
before they were processed. In commenting on a draft of this report,
DoC noted that it had analyzed 100 documented late releases in the
Release Discrepancy database and used the results to propose corrective
actions for reducing such errors. DoC found that in 39 percent of late
releases, the cause was lack of timely document processing by Records
Office staff. As a result of this analysis, which, according to a DoC
official, was conducted in April and May 2004, DoC has begun
identifying and providing refresher training to staff that are
frequently associated with late release errors.
DoC officials further attributed errors in record processing to the
large volume of documents received in the Records Office and limited
staff resources.[Footnote 24] According to a DoC official, the Records
Office receives an average of 300 to 400 documents a day, and Records
Office staff process an average of over 1,500 intakes and releases each
month. DoC officials noted that five additional Records Office staff
had been hired, and they should help to improve the efficiency of
records processing after they are trained.
Although DoC's quality control efforts were intended to improve the
operations of its Records Office, DoC did not have sufficiently
complete data to determine whether or to what extent these efforts may
have reduced early and late releases.[Footnote 25] Therefore, it is
difficult to determine if the intended effects of the improvement
efforts were achieved or the extent to which progress has been made in
improving electronic inmate records since the District's Office of
Inspector General's October 2002 report.[Footnote 26]
With respect to early releases, DoC may not know the full extent to
which this is a problem because DoC may not discover its error until
after the fact, which may be after the inmate has been out of DoC
custody for some time. Therefore, at a given point in time, DoC cannot
be sure it has complete information on early releases. According to DoC
records, 22 inmates were released early between January 2002 and
February 2004. Although these 22 identified cases may understate the
true number of early releases, they are instructive for understanding
how early releases can occur. According to incident reports completed
by DoC, these early releases occurred because of such staff errors as
computing the sentence incorrectly or failing to process incoming
documents that extended the inmate's detention before the inmate was
released. Of the 22 inmates known to have been released early, 17 did
not have a release date set because they had at least one legal matter
that had not yet been resolved.[Footnote 27] Although a release date
would not have been set for these 17 inmates, DoC defines them as early
releases because they were released before the legal matters for which
they were detained had been resolved. For example, some inmates were
released before they were sentenced or before charges were dismissed.
The remaining 5 inmates had received sentences. Of these 5, 4 were
released approximately 2 months before their release date and 1 was
released almost a year and a half early.[Footnote 28]
With respect to late releases, DoC did not have full information on the
extent of its late releases because until recently, it was using a
methodology to identify inmates who had been released late that
produced incomplete results. In April 2004, we noted a discrepancy in
which two late releases were documented in one set of reports and not
in another report covering the same time period.[Footnote 29] This
discrepancy prompted DoC to review the methodology it had used to
identify late release cases in its electronic record system. DoC's
review revealed that its script--computer code that extracts specific
data from a large set of data--had not been written to incorporate all
of the relevant information in DoC's automated record system.
Specifically, DoC determined that three types of releases could occur
for which different time rules for release apply.[Footnote 30] Prior to
April 2004, DoC's methodology identified late releases based on a
definition that incorporated primarily one category of release--those
made pursuant to court orders. Subsequent to April 2004, the script
also incorporated categories of release that were related to when an
inmate's sentence had expired, and to the length of time that the
inmate had already served relative to his or her sentence length. For
February 2004, the only month for which DoC retroactively applied its
new methodology and for which data using both the old and new
methodology were available, the number of late releases was revised
upward from 1 to 18. For the period, February through June 2004, DoC
has identified 65 late releases out of 5,112 inmate total releases.
This is an error rate of 1.3 percent.[Footnote 31] We recognize that
some level of human error is inevitable in an environment where staff
handle 300 to 400 documents per day. Although we do not know what an
acceptable level of error may be, the consequences of such errors for
individuals who are eligible to be released from detention are very
real.
DoC has taken other steps since March 2004 to try to improve the
accuracy of the late release data. Specifically, DoC officials reported
that they have streamlined the process for identifying late releases,
added a review component to that process, and increased staff access to
late release data. DoC officials believe that the involvement of more
staff in maintaining and analyzing the data will facilitate quicker
identification and resolution of data issues. Since we have not
reviewed DoC's record system or methodology, we do not know if DoC's
recent efforts to improve its script and processes will enable it to
identify all late releases. DoC officials told us, however, that DoC is
monitoring the script's ability to detect late releases to ensure that
it is immediately modified if necessary.
Conclusions:
DoH's inspections produce important information on health and safety
deficiencies that occur at the District's detention facilities. DoC
could further benefit from the information it receives from DoH if the
information it receives in inspection reports contained the specific
date, time, and location of each identified deficiency. This could help
DoC determine the prevalence of the identified deficiency, whether it
was new or recurring, if the deficiency had already been fixed, and if
health and safety conditions at the facilities are generally improving,
worsening, or staying the same over time.
The Office of Property Management recognizes the importance of, and has
begun to take steps toward, developing policies and procedures that
will guide its project managers in planning and managing capital
improvement projects. We commend the Office of Property Management for
forming a working group to develop standard operating procedures for
managing projects. However, as of June 2004, time frames for the
working group to complete its assignment had not been established. We
believe such time frames would be useful to the Office of Property
Management for ensuring accountability and monitoring its desired pace
of progress toward implementing policies and procedures against its
actual pace of progress. Helping ensure that the work of the working
group stays on schedule will also better position the Office of
Property Management for effectively managing the implementation of the
Jail's capital improvement projects.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help DoC determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies
at the Jail and monitor changes in facility conditions over time, we
recommend that the Mayor direct the DoC Director to take the following
action:
* coordinate with the Director of DoH to develop an inspection report
format that will provide DoC with specific information on the date,
time, and location of each health and safety deficiency identified.
To help strengthen management of capital improvement projects, we
recommend that the Mayor direct the Director of the Office of Property
Management to take the following action:
* establish time frames for completing its work on developing and
implementing policies and procedures.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the District's
DoC, DoH, Office of Property Management, and OIG. Between July 8 and
July 14, 2004, we received written comments on the draft report, and
these are reproduced in full in appendixes VII through X. DoH concurred
with our finding that inspection reports did not consistently identify
locations where deficiencies were found and agreed to our
recommendation that it develop a detailed inspection report format. In
response to a comment by DoC, we dropped a recommendation in our draft
report that DoC conduct an analysis of reasons why inmate release
errors occurred and use the results to make data-based decisions on how
to reduce staff errors. In its July 9 letter, DoC provided new
information indicating that it had conducted such an analysis, and it
was taking corrective action to reduce such errors. The Office of
Property Management did not comment on our recommendation that it
establish time frames for completing its work on developing and
implementing policies and procedures to help strengthen the management
of capital improvement projects. The OIG limited its comments to
affirming that we accurately portrayed the findings and recommendations
contained in its October 2002 inspection report on the Jail. DoC, DoH,
and the Office of Property Management also made additional substantive
comments, which we address below. Additionally, DoC, DoH, and the
Office of Property Management provided additional context and
clarifying information as well as technical comments, which we
incorporated into the report as appropriate.
* With respect to health and safety inspections:
1. DoC noted that by addressing the lack of specificity in DoH
inspection reports, we focused attention on a significant issue. DoC
believes it would be useful for it to receive detailed inspection
reports containing specific information on the location, severity, and
frequency of occurrence of identified deficiencies. In response to our
recommendation, DoH has indicated that it will have a new, detailed
inspection tool ready for use in correctional facility inspections by
September 1, 2004. Such a tool should help DoC's concern that existing
reports--which discuss deficiencies that may be minor or limited in
extent--may produce an inaccurate overall picture of conditions at the
Jail.
2. DoH and DoC commented on our observation that inspections at the
detention facilities were conducted using two different sets of
standards--American Correctional Association standards at the Jail and
American Public Health Association Standards at CTF. Both DoH and DoC
believe it would be preferable to use the same set of standards when
inspecting the Jail and CTF. In contacts with DoH and DoC subsequent to
our receipt of their comment letters, we learned that beginning
September 2004, DOH intends to use American Public Health Association
Standards in its Jail inspections, and that DoC welcomes this change.
3. DoC said that our report highlighted specific DoH inspection results
that were incorrect. DoC cited airflow, lighting, and fire safety as
examples of areas in which DoH either used an erroneous standard or
arrived at an inaccurate conclusion. We note on page 2 and in appendix
I of the report that it was beyond the scope of this review to
determine whether the DoH inspector applied the health and safety
standards correctly, took accurate measurements, or accurately reported
the inspection results. In compiling information on health and safety
conditions at the Jail and CTF, we relied on DoH inspection reports
because prior court orders and recently passed legislation require DoH
to conduct environmental health and safety inspections of the Jail at
least three times a year and prepare and provide a report to the
District's Council. DoH health and safety inspection reports represent
the District's official record of the Jail's health and safety
conditions. The Office of Inspector General's October 2002 inspection
report on the Jail similarly relied on DoH inspection reports.
Pursuant to DoC's comments, however, we reviewed the standards
pertaining to airflow, lighting, and fire safety that DoC cited. For
example, DoC stated that on numerous occasions, DoH applied the wrong
metric or standard (that is, feet per minute rather than cubic feet per
minute to measure airflow, and 30 foot-candles rather than 20 foot-
candles to measure lighting) in assessing whether an area being
inspected was above or below the standard. DoC also believed that heat
detectors, which were located in areas that DoH identified as having
missing smoke detectors, provided fire protection, thereby obviating
the need for smoke detectors in those locations. Further, DoC disputed
DoH's findings that smoke detectors in the Jail were not working or
were missing. DoC maintained that in some instances, smoke detectors
that were reported as not working were, in fact, working.
Based on our review of the specific standards related to airflow,
lighting, and fire safety, in conjunction with input from the DoH
administrator responsible for inspections at the Jail, we determined
that DoC was correct in saying that there were specific instances in
which the DoH inspector applied an incorrect standard. The DoH
administrator told us that DoH is taking corrective action, including
training inspectors on the application of the standards, to ensure that
errors won't happen again. We removed from the report any reference to
DoH inspection results that cited feet per minute as a measure of
airflow and foot -candles as a measure of lighting. However, we
retained information that documented instances in which there was no
airflow and problems with lighting fixtures in inmates' cells.
With respect to fire safety, a FEMS fire safety inspector told us that
heat detectors do not meet local fire safety codes for residential
areas such as cellblocks. Therefore, according to the inspector, heat
detectors would not be an appropriate replacement for cellblocks that
were reported as missing smoke detectors at the time of an inspection.
Concerning DoC's comment that DoH erroneously reported working smoke
detectors as not working, it is impossible for us to know if smoke
detectors were or were not working at a given point in time.
* With respect to DoC's capital improvement projects:
4. DoC did not agree with the way we reported the status of the last
three projects in table 1; that is, the staff and visitors' entrances,
inmate shower renovations, and exterior structural refinishing
projects. Based on information from the Office of Property Management-
-the District's implementing agency for the Jail's capital improvement
projects--we had listed the status of these three projects as being in
the "process of finalizing scope of work with DoC." According to DoC,
however, these three projects are in the design phase. Pursuant to
DoC's comments, we contacted the Office of Property Management's
project manager for the Jail's projects, and he maintained that these
three projects were not yet in the design phase because their scope of
work had not yet been finalized. We modified Table 1 to indicate that
there exists a disagreement between DoC and the Office of Property
Management concerning the status of these three projects.
5. DoC took issue with a statement in our report in which we stated
that following a shooting incident in December 2003, DoC accelerated
the installation of the closed circuit television portion of the Jail's
electronic security system project. DoC commented that the closed
circuit television project was initiated in August 2003, months before
the shooting incident, and that there was no connection between these
two actions. We did not intend to imply that closed circuit television
project was initiated as a result of the shooting incident. Instead, we
cited this incident as an example of an unexpected event that caused an
existing capital project to be accelerated. According to the Office of
Property Management project manager who is responsible for implementing
this project, he was asked to expedite the installation of the closed
circuit television project after the shooting incident, and this was to
take precedence over all other projects. Following receipt of DoC's
comment letter, DoC's chief facilities manager told us that the closed
circuit television project was already moving quickly toward
construction in December 2003, but that the shooting incident further
accelerated the project. We modified language in the report to reflect
this information.
6. In response to comments by DoC and the Office of Personnel
Management concerning the availability of current working estimates and
scheduled time frames for completing the projects, we incorporated this
information into table 1.
7. The Office of Property Management expressed concern that our draft
report implied that its capital projects at DoC were not well managed.
We did not assess the Office of Property Management's management of the
Jail's capital projects, and we did not intend such an implication. We
state in the report that we did not systematically review the
management of the Jail's capital improvement projects, nor did we
determine whether management issues may have contributed to increased
costs or time frames for certain projects. We added language to further
clarify that we have no information indicating that the Office of
Property Management's projects at the Jail are not well managed.
* With respect to release errors:
8. DoC expressed concern that our report does not put the issue of
release errors in proper perspective, and therefore casts DoC's
performance in this area in an undeservedly negative light. DoC pointed
out that its Records Office staff manually processes large volumes of
documents and that no workflow system is 100 percent error free. DoC
further reported that between February and June 2004, its rate of
inmate release errors was only 0.81 percent, a rate that DoC believes
is within the norm when compared with other manual work process
systems. We agree with DoC that it is unreasonable to expect perfection
when dealing with a manual, high-volume paperwork process. We do not
know, however, what an acceptable error rate is for large-scale manual
records-processing systems, particularly when the consequence of an
error may be the erroneous release of a jail inmate. To illustrate that
DoC's error rate is within the norm, DoC directed us to a Web site
containing two e-mail messages indicating that industries with robust,
data-driven cultures commit 3 to 4.5 process errors per 1,000
opportunities. The e-mail messages do not contain sufficient
information for us to determine their reliability or if they are
comparable to DoC's records data. Therefore, the appropriateness of
using these reported error rates as a benchmark for DoC's reported
error rates is unclear. We note, however, that 3 to 4.5 errors per
1,000 represent error rates of 0.30 and 0.45 percent, a fraction of
DoC's reported error rate. We added language to the report indicating
that it is unrealistic to expect that a data entry system based on
manual processing of large volumes of paperwork to be error free and
that we have no basis for determining what an acceptable rate of error
is.
9. DoC felt that we should give it credit for publicly and routinely
reporting release errors. DoC stated that few, if any, other
correctional systems do this. We do not know how DoC compares with
other systems in publicly reporting release errors because comparing
DoC with other correctional systems was outside the scope of our
review.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the District's Mayor and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI. If you or
your staff have any questions concerning this report, contact Evi
Rezmovic, Assistant Director, or me on (202) 512-8777.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cathleen A. Berrick:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) the results of recent health and
safety inspections at the Jail and Correctional Treatment Facility
(CTF), (2) the number and status of capital improvement projects at the
Jail and issues related to the management of these projects, and (3)
the progress made in improving electronic inmate records at the Jail.
To address these objectives, we met with and obtained information from
corrections officials at the District's Department of Corrections (DoC)
headquarters, the Jail, and CTF; interviewed officials at the
District's Office of the Inspector General; and reviewed applicable
District laws and regulations.
To determine the results of the health and safety inspections at the
Jail and CTF, we interviewed officials at the District's Department of
Health (DoH) and Fire and Emergency Medical Services, reviewed DoC and
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) policies and procedures,
American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention
Facilities and the American Public Health Association's Standards for
Health Services in Correctional Institutions. We also reviewed all
available reports on DoH health and safety inspections of the Jail and
CTF prepared between March 2002 and April 2004. We developed a data
collection instrument to record the deficiencies reported by DoH.
Through discussions with DoH officials, we obtained information on
DoH's methodology for conducting inspections and the standards applied
to the Jail and CTF inspections. We did not assess the quality of how
DoH completes its inspections, nor were we able to determine the
prevalence, seriousness, or recurrence of deficiencies identified. This
was because the DoH reports did not always record specific information
on the location of each deficiency. Our data collection instrument
captured information on those deficiencies that the District's Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) reported in its October 2002 report.
To report on the findings of fire safety inspections, we reviewed three
Fire and Emergency Medical Services inspection reports--two for the
Jail dated January 2002 and January 2003 and one for CTF dated
September 2003. In 2002, a follow-up inspection of violations
previously cited in 2001 was completed. This inspection also served as
the annual inspection. Because deficiencies were not found, Fire and
Emergency Medical Services did not issue a report of findings. We did
not assess the quality of the fire safety inspections. However, through
discussions with Fire and Emergency Medical Services officials, we
gained an understanding of Fire and Emergency Medical Services'
methodology for conducting fire safety inspections and the fire safety
codes applied.
To determine the status of the Jail's 16 capital improvement projects,
we interviewed officials at the District's Office of Property
Management and its Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We also
reviewed documentation, including project status reports. To obtain
information on the scope of the Jail's capital projects, we reviewed
DoC's Capital Improvements Program, as of August 2003. To identify
management issues, we reviewed the Office of Property Management's
project management, but we did not conduct an in-depth evaluation on
the effectiveness of its management. To observe the capital improvement
projects under construction, we accompanied DoC officials on a tour of
the Jail. We did not assess the quality of work on of the Jail's
projects that were in design or construction or that had been completed
at the time of our review. To gain an understanding of construction
best practices and capital projects, we reviewed industry resources
from the Project Management Institute, Project Management Institute
Standards Committee, A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge, and prior GAO reports.[Footnote 32]
To describe the changes that DoC has made to improve the accuracy of
inmate records, we met with DoC officials, including its Records Office
staff. We also reviewed DoC's Operations Manual and policies, including
internal controls for inmate records. To determine whether there had
been an increase or decrease in the number of early or late releases,
we obtained DoC summary data for inmates that had been mistakenly
released before or after their official release date. Specifically, we
reviewed early release data for the period January 2002 through
February 2004. Our review of late release data included inmates
released in May 2002 through February 2004 and total releases for the
same time period. We also reviewed federal internal control standards
to gain an understanding of the types of control activities that may be
applied for information processing and staff training.[Footnote 33] We
did not directly observe record processing to determine the causes for
and the full range of errors made by Records Office staff.
To assess the reliability of release data, we reviewed the process by
which DoC tracks these data and the extent to which each relevant data
element is complete and accurate. To do this, we interviewed DoC staff
about the processes used to capture early and late release errors, the
controls over those processes, and the data elements involved. For late
release errors, we also traced data to their corresponding source
documents. We identified inconsistencies in the information, prompting
DoC to review its methodology for identifying late releases. DoC's
review led it and us to conclude that its methodology had been
incomplete and had produced an undercount of the true number of late
releases. DoC modified its methodology in April 2004 to be more
comprehensive.
For capital improvement projects at CTF, we obtained relevant
information for only those projects completed in 2003. We did not
review the CCA's project management for these projects because this was
outside the scope of our review. To identify the types of programs and
services that the Jail and CTF provide, and the facilities' annual
costs during 1999 through 2003, we met with DoC and CTF officials and
reviewed program descriptions. To determine the annual cost of these
facilities, we reviewed DoC budget documents, including the costs of
the Jail, and CCA's summary reports on income and expenses for CTF for
each year included in our review.
We conducted our review from June 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at the Correctional Treatment
Facility:
As part of its contract with the District to manage CTF, CCA performs
capital improvements at the facility that are intended to remedy
current or potential breaches of security or improve the facility's
normal operations. CCA defines capital improvements as those valued at
$5,000 or more and may include furnishings, equipment, vehicles, or
alterations to the facility.[Footnote 34] As shown in table 2, during
2003, 11 capital improvement projects were completed at CTF at a total
cost of $289,956. Of these 11 projects, 3 were designated emergency
projects. These 3 projects (that is, the last 3 shown in table 2) were
associated with CTF's kitchen and were deemed by Corrections
Corporation of America to be necessary in order to provide meals for
the Jail's inmates while the Jail's kitchen was closed for renovation.
Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during 2003:
Project: Replace existing fire alarm system;
Cost: $125,000.
Project: Batteries and chargers for radios;
Cost: $30,000.
Project: Fabricate four noncontact visit cages;
Cost: $6,300.
Project: New perimeter truck;
Cost: $15,000.
Project: Replace cameras and monitors;
Cost: $25,000.
Project: Pave perimeter road;
Cost: $10,515.
Project: Switchgear preventive maintenance[A];
Cost: $27,252.
Project: Batteries for switchgear[A];
Cost: $12,850.
Project: Ovens;
Cost: $11,795.
Project: Steamers;
Cost: $12,244.
Project: Two new chilled water coils;
Cost: $14,000.
Project: Total;
Cost: $289,956.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Corrections Corporation
of America.
[A] Corrections Corporation of America's capital improvement projects
do not include the day-to-day maintenance and general repair of
existing equipment. These were improvements designed to extend the
longevity of the equipment that helps distribute power coming into CTF
from the District.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail:
This appendix provides information on the results of the District's DoH
health and safety inspection reports prepared between March 2002 and
April 2004 for health and safety inspections of the Jail. We reviewed
six inspection reports that included information on deficiencies
identified for the following: (1) air quality, (2) vermin, (3) fire
safety, (4) plumbing, and (5) lighting.
Air Quality:
As shown in figure 1, problems with air quality were reported in four
of six inspection reports. Specifically, in four of the reports, DoH
reported that at the time of an inspection, there was no airflow.
According to a DoH official, "no airflow" included those instances in
which there was no measurable airflow coming out of the vent during an
inspection. For example, in October 2003, DoH reported that in general,
all cellblocks had cells with no airflow.
Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Vermin:
DoH found evidence of vermin in all six inspections. DoH found vermin
in, among other areas, the Jail's main kitchen, loading dock, dry
storage, and officer dining areas. Mice and flies were the types of
vermin DoH found most frequently. For example, in its October 2003
report, DoH reported that bread loaves with holes and mice droppings
were found in the bread storage room. In each of its six inspections,
DoH found evidence of flies, primarily in the inmate shower areas. In
August 2002, showers in 8 cellblocks were reported as having flies. In
April and October 2003, DoH noted flies coming from under the showers
in each of the 18 cellblocks inspected. DoH reported in April 2004 that
flies were observed in shower areas, but the report did not specify the
number of cellblocks affected. Figure 2 shows the vermin types
identified in the kitchen areas and showers.
Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Officer dining area.
[B] Bread storage area and hallway near canteen storage.
[End of figure]
Fire Safety:
DoH found an insufficient number of fire extinguishers, smoke detectors
that were either missing or not working, and other fire safety
deficiencies at the Jail. Figure 3 identifies each of the deficiencies.
In five of six inspections, fire extinguishers were reported as being
improperly stored. For example, in August and November 2002, DoH
reported that extinguishers were placed on the floor when they should
have been mounted on the wall. All six reports noted that fire
extinguishers throughout cellblocks inspected had inaccurate or missing
documentation indicating that they been inspected.
DoH reported that in five of six inspections, there were cellblocks
without the required number of fire extinguishers. According to the DoH
reports, each cellblock is to have three extinguishers. Burnt-out or
nonworking exit lights were also noted in all six inspection reports we
reviewed.
Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Plumbing:
DoH reports identified such plumbing deficiencies as (1) nonoperational
plumbing fixtures, (2) unavailability of hot or cold water, (3) sinks
and toilets with low water pressure, and (4) malfunctioning showers.
For example, in its October 2003 inspection, DoH found that in all 18
cellblocks inspected, there were faulty plumbing fixtures. The DoH
inspector reported in April 2004 that at that time, there were fewer
problems with plumbing fixtures than in October 2003. DoH found in all
six of its inspections that inmate cells throughout the Jail lacked hot
or cold water.
Low water pressure affecting inmate sinks and toilets was noted in all
six DoH reports. In each inspection report, low water pressure was
reported as occurring in some instances throughout the 18 cellblocks
inspected. In April 2003, DoH reported that there were some instances
in which the water pressure was so low that it was impossible for the
sinks to be used for hand washing. According to a DoC official, most
water pressure problems in cellblocks had been caused by blockages
caused by debris from old pipes and plumbing fixtures. Figure 4
presents plumbing-related deficiencies--other than those pertaining to
showers--identified in DoH reports.
Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In all six of its inspections, DoH found broken showers that could not
be used. The number of cellblocks affected ranged from 1 to 8. All six
reports also indicated that between 2 and 13 cellblocks had water
temperatures above or below the suggested range for inmate safety and
hygiene. The number of cellblocks affected ranged from 2 in March 2002
to 13 in April 2003. Each inspection found showers with leaking knobs,
affecting between 1 and 2 cellblocks. Figure 5 presents the shower-
related deficiencies identified in DoH reports.
Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Lighting:
All six DoH inspections found problems with light fixtures, including
burnt-out lightbulbs and damaged light fixtures. Figure 6 presents
information on this deficiency.
Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC Implemented to Improve the Accuracy
of Inmate Records:
DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve the
efficiency of records processing and the accuracy of inmate records.
DoC simplified the workflow in the Records Office and implemented a
number of quality controls over its inmate records processes by the end
of October 2002. For example, DoC sought to improve the handling of
incoming paperwork by reorganizing the layout of the Records Office and
changing the process for entering records into the system. Workstations
were centralized to streamline the distribution of documents for
processing. To minimize the possibility of misplacing paperwork, the
process for entering records was changed so that a record transaction
is handled from beginning to end by a single staff member rather than
by several staff members as was previously done. Additionally, DoC
implemented a number of quality control measures consistent with
federal control standards that require agencies to (1) clearly document
transactions, conduct edit checks of data entered into systems, and
reconcile summary information to verify the completeness of the data
and (2) train employees so they have the skills necessary to meet
changing organizational needs. DoC took the following steps, among
others, to improve the accuracy of its inmate records:
* To clearly document how to conduct transactions, DoC issued an
operations manual in August 2002. The manual details steps that are to
occur during such records transactions as intake, transfer, court
return, and temporary and permanent release of inmates. Since October
2002, DoC has been preparing incident reports containing information on
how release errors have occurred.
* To verify the completeness and accuracy of its data, DoC has also
been generating numerous quality control reports. In addition, to
reconcile discrepancies in inmates' court documents, DoC has developed
a database to help DoC track and subsequently resolve errors in these
documents. For example, when a Records Office staff member encounters a
discrepancy in these documents, he or she is to file a report and e-
mail it to the DoC staff person responsible for contacting the courts.
* To improve guidance and training for employees, DoC officials
developed a tool to identify those individuals with low productivity or
those who worked on a record that resulted in a release error who may
need additional guidance and training. Also, DoC provided training on
the use of its operations manual in months following its initial
release and additional training each time the manual has been updated
to ensure that staff are familiar with the new procedures.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and the
Correctional Treatment Facility:
For the period 1999 through 2003, the cost of operating and maintaining
the Jail was about $195 million and about $121 million for CTF. At the
time of our review, DoC and CTF officials told us that volunteers
administer many of the inmate programs and services offered at these
two facilities and that other programs and services are included in the
operation costs for each facility. For example, food services are
administered at both facilities through DoC's contract with the ARAMARK
Corporation and are therefore included in DoC's contract
costs.[Footnote 35] We did not obtain cost information for those
programs and services that DoC and CCA fund. As shown in table 3, in
2003 DoC and CCA provided a variety of programs and services for
inmates housed in these facilities, including, among other things,
work, health services, and education.
Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in 2003:
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Substance abuse treatment and education.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Academic and vocational education.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Prerelease readiness.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Work detail.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Recreation.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Religion.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Mail.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Telephone.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Visitation.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Classification.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Case management.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Health and mental health.
Facility: Jail;
Program and service areas: Food.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Sanitation and hygiene.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Substance abuse treatment and education.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Academic and vocational education.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Prerelease.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Work detail.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Recreation.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Religion.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Mail.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Telephone.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Visitation.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Classification.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Case management.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Health and mental health.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Food.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Legal.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: HIV/AIDS prevention education.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Therapeutic community.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Volunteer services.
Program and service areas: Adjusting Our Attitude Training.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas: Barber science.
Facility: Correctional Treatment Facility;
Program and service areas; Graphic arts.
Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of
America.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: DoC's Implementation of the District of Columbia's Office
of the Inspector General's Recommendations:
In its Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, October
2002, the Office of the Inspector General made a number of
recommendations for the D.C. Department of Corrections. The table
below identifies OIG's findings and recommendations for issues
pertinent to our review for which DoC and OIG agreed DoC needed to
demonstrate compliance. While DoC has provided interim documentation
of the progress being made to address OIG's recommendations, an OIG
official said that a final determination of compliance would be made
when the OIG conducts its reinspection. The official said the
reinspection date has not been scheduled.
Table 4: The District's Office of the Inspector General's Findings and
Recommendations to the Department of Corrections:
OIG finding: Deficiencies cited during the Department of Health (DoH)
and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) inspections
remain unabated in violation of the stipulation following the Federal
Appellate Court's decision in Campbell v. MacGruder, 580 F. 2d 521
(D.C. Cir. 1978);
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, direct the Warden Central
Detention Facility (CDF) / Compliance Officer and Cellblock Officer(s)
in charge to ensure that the deficiencies cited in inspections provided
by internal and external agencies are abated.[A].
OIG finding: Deficiencies cited during the Department of Health (DoH)
and Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) inspections
remain unabated in violation of the stipulation following the Federal
Appellate Court's decision in Campbell v. MacGruder, 580 F. 2d 521
(D.C. Cir. 1978);
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, direct staff to comply
with DOC housekeeping policies and procedures.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, establish policies and
procedures to verify the accuracy of data in the Jail and Community
Corrections System (JACCS).
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, establish policies and
procedures to ensure accurate sentence computations are entered into
JACCS to ensure that inmates are not held beyond their release dates.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, establish quality control
policies and procedures for use by the Records Office during quarterly
reviews of information in JACCS.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Deputy Warden for Programs immediately
takes action to locate or re-create all missing official inmate files.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, require the Deputy Warden
for Programs to develop a means of tracking inmate file folders.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, complies with the Trustee,
D.C. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, recommendation
R-22 to U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert, which states: "Grade
enhancements--place high performing staff in lead Legal Instrument
Examiner (LIE) and supervisory positions."
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: CDF management had not complied with federal law
and Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International
Inc. National Fire and Prevention Codes. That the Director, DoC,
comply with all outstanding D.C Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency Trustee recommendations submitted to U.S. District
Court Judge Royce Lambert in the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency Trustee's report on the release of Oscar Veal, Jr.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates; OIG finding: CDF
management had not complied with federal law and Building Officials
and Code Administrators (BOCA) International Inc. National Fire and
Prevention Codes;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, and CDF management request
inspections of the CDF by DC Occupational Safety and Health and the DC
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: CDF management had not complied with federal law
regarding written emergency evacuation plans.: That the Director, DoC,
and CDF management stack, secure, and properly seal all materials up
and away from the light fixtures and passageways.
OIG finding: CDF management had not complied with federal law
regarding written emergency evacuation plans;
OIG recommendation: That DoC and CDF management develop and implement
a written emergency evacuation plan with a floor plan showing the
routes of exit as required by 29 CFR 1910.38 (a) (1) (2001).
OIG finding: Poor housekeeping practices and vermin contamination were
observed throughout the CDF;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, and CDF management
maintain and enforce a daily general maintenance and cleaning program.
OIG finding: The ventilation and overall indoor air quality inside the
CDF ranged from poor to inadequate;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, and CDF management install
a heating ventilation and air conditioning unit that is properly
equipped to filer out airborne contaminants, such as bacteria and
harmful viruses.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: The floors, aisles, and passageways in the
warehouse area of the CDF were blocked or cluttered with miscellaneous
items in violation of federal law regarding safe clearances and
passageways.: That the Director, DoC, request that DC Occupational
Safety and Health conduct an indoor air quality sampling at the CDF.
OIG finding: The floors, aisles, and passageways in the warehouse area
of the CDF were blocked or cluttered with miscellaneous items in
violation of federal law regarding safe clearances and passageways;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management
complies with 29 CFR 1910.22 (2001) and keeps all floors, aisles, and
passageways clear and in good repair.
OIG finding: Floors in the passageways to the cellblocks are not
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition as required by federal
law;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management
cleans, sanitizes, and removes the chipped paint and mold from the
floors.
OIG finding: Food spills on the floors impair safe movement;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, and CDF management repair
the leaking pipes and broken floors in the culinary unit.
OIG finding: Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate records
and other information continues to cause significant problems,
including premature and delayed release of inmates;
OIG recommendation: That the Director, DoC, and CDF management clean
and sanitize all areas of the floor in the culinary unit daily and as
frequently as necessary to maintain cleanliness and sanitization.
Source: GAO generated information based on the District of Columbia's
Office of the Inspector General report.
[A] CDF is also known as the D.C. Jail.+
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
Office of the Director:
July 9, 2004:
Ms. Cathleen A. Berrick:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G. Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Berrick:
This transmittal constitutes the D.C. Department of Corrections' (DOC)
response to the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report
entitled, "Management Challenges Exist In Improving Facility Conditions
and Inmate Records." At the outset let me say that the Department of
Corrections benefited significantly from your recent process review.
Chief among the benefits was needed clarification in the definition of
"late release" and development of a more comprehensive approach to
selecting records for post release review. In addition, the report
focuses on long-standing, unresolved issues related to external
inspections, especially the need to specify deficiencies as to
location, severity and frequency of occurrence. The report also makes
an important contribution by documenting the existence of conflicting
standards. Clearly, there is an obvious need to apply standards
appropriate for the inspection of correctional facilities.
I do have a few major concerns regarding the content of the report,
which are set forth below. These concerns are in the areas of
Environmental Deficiencies, Release Errors, and the Capital
Improvements Program. The comments that follow are intended to put
selected findings in proper perspective, and correct a few erroneous
statements.
1. The report highlights environmental deficiencies that are based on
erroneous standards historically applied in Central Detention Facility
(CDF) inspections:
Specific examples include airflow and lighting. Numerous inspection
reports state that the airflow at the facility was found to be above
the American Corrections Association (ACA) standard of 75 feet per
minute. This is inaccurate because airflow is properly measured in
units of volume per time (e.g., cubic feet per minute), and not in
terms of units of velocity, i.e., feet per minute. The ACA standard for
minimum airflow is 15 cubic feet per minute (CFM) [3-ALDF-2D-07], not
75 CFM. The reports also state incorrectly that the ACA maximum airflow
standard is 400 CFM. In fact, there is no such ACA standard. In the
case of lighting, the inspection reports state that the ACA minimum
lighting standard is 30 foot-candles. The applicable ACA minimum
lighting standard is, in fact, 20 foot-candles [3-ALDF-2D-02].
2. The fire safety and vermin deficiencies noted in the report are both
inaccurate and overstated.
The GAO referenced an inspection report, which noted, "... some areas
of the institution [CDF] were missing smoke detectors." The areas noted
are not missing smoke detectors. Smoke detectors were never installed
in those areas because heat detectors, which are working fine, provide
fire protection. Maintenance personnel checked the smoke detectors in
S3, N2 and N3, which were reported as not working; they were found to
be working fine. Additionally, the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Department's Fire Investigator inspected the facility on April
21, 2003 and found the entire facility to be in compliance with all
fire safety procedures and codes. The Department of Corrections has
developed a project within its Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to
install a comprehensive upgrade of the fire alarm system at the
facility. This will significantly enhance fire safety at the
institution.
Minor observations of vermin (e.g., 2 flies) were routinely reported as
deficiencies in various inspection reports. Vermin control is a
continuous challenge because of the nature and size of the facility,
its age, and its physical location. DOC administers pest control
treatments on a year-round basis. Housing units are treated quarterly,
common areas bimonthly, and culinary biweekly. In each inspection it
was noted that flies were in the shower areas of some cellblocks.
Shower areas in cellblocks are steam cleaned and appropriate chemicals
are applied to control the flies. DOC's environmental manual dictates
the time frames for these treatments.
3. The repackaging of random and non-specific deficiency data conveys a
distorted view of actual conditions at the Central Detention Facility.
The narrative regarding maintenance problems at the facility does not
point out the limited extent of these problems. Moreover, most airflow,
vermin, fire safety, plumbing and lighting problems cited by inspection
reports referenced by the GAO are addressed by CDF maintenance staff on
a daily basis.
The scope of the maintenance task in such a large, complex and heavily
utilized facility has to be kept in perspective. The D.C. Jail is a
half million square foot facility located on a ten-acre lot. Inmate
housing areas are comprised of eighteen cellblocks containing 1380
cells and a dormitory. Because of the nature of the business conducted
in it, the building systems of the facility are inherently much more
complex than those of a normal building. In addition to the usual
building systems, the facility has over 1700 heavily used cell doors
and gates, approximately 1500 prison-grade sink/toilet combinations,
and elaborate security systems, which are very maintenance intensive.
The population of the institution is such that building system
components and equipment are subjected to considerable abuse and
misuse.
The facility is currently undergoing a major infrastructure renovation
as part of DOC's ambitious Capital Improvements Program with upgrades
and replacement of the HVAC system, domestic water and hot water
systems, plumbing and electrical wiring. Old pumps, piping, valves, air
handlers, blowers, heaters, ducts, controls and other equipment are
being demolished and new system components are being installed by
contractors' crews all over the facility. This causes disruptions in
utility conveyance channels on a fairly regular basis.
Given the circumstances noted above, maintenance work in the
institution is quite challenging. The Department's maintenance
personnel answer anywhere from 50 to 250 service calls on any given
day, completing most of the priority one calls within an hour of their
being reported. In addition, the facility maintenance staff complete
second and third tier maintenance work requests, perform routine
preventive maintenance tasks, maintain 'back-end' areas such as the
penthouse and six other large mechanical rooms, and services elevators,
laundry equipment, kitchen equipment, and the like. And day-to-day
coordination of construction activities throughout the facility is yet
another responsibility of the CDF's facility maintenance staff.
Given the above, it is easy to see that if one were to walk into the
facility at any given time, one would readily find maintenance issues
such as plumbing leaks, low water pressure in sinks, low air flow,
temperature anomalies, etc. in the process of being addressed. This is
normal business routine in correctional facilities. Generally, an
external inspector is in and out of the facility over the course of 30
days conducting inspections. During that time, Facilities Management
personnel respond to over 3,000 service calls.
4. Factual errors exist in the Capital Improvements Proiect Section.
In the section titled "Capital Improvement Projects at CDF", in Table
1, page 16, the status of the last three projects is said to be, `in
process of finalizing the scope of work with DOC.' The actual status of
all the three projects is that they are in design; the scope of work
was finalized in May 2004.
In the same section, "Capital Improvement Projects at CDF", on page 17,
a reference is made to a shooting incident in December 2003, relating
it to the CCTV project. There is no connection between the shooting
incident and the CCTV project. The CCTV project was initiated as an
emergency project back in August 2003, months before the shooting
incident.
In the section entitled, "Results in Brief," on page 3, and again in
the section entitled, "Capital Improvement Projects at CDF," page 16,
GAO reported that it was unable to get the working estimates and the
schedule time frame for completion for 13 out of the 16 projects from
Office of Property Management (OPM) officials. DOC has accurate working
estimates for all 16 projects, as well as schedules for at least 13 of
16 projects, for which design work has been completed. DOC provided
this information during the review process; and, in its October 2004
submission referred GAO to the publicly available web based source
documentation at the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer's
website. [NOTE 1] Working estimates and schedules are, in fact,
accurate because Architectural/Engineering studies were done on most
projects. Sometimes the scope of a project needs to be modified,
however, this is an exception rather than the rule.
5. The report does not put the issue of release errors in proper
perspective and thus casts DOC's performance in this area in an
undeservedly negative negative light.
Several points are worth making here. First, DOC's records processing
environment is distinguished by its complexity and heavy workload
volumes. Records Office personnel manually process 300 - 400 inmate
documents daily, resulting in an average of over 1500 intakes and
releases each month.
Legal source documents are handwritten and cannot be recorded in the
offender management system without significant interpretation by Legal
Instrument Examiners. A many to one relationship exists between data
contained in a variety of legal source documents and a single inmate
booking. The more complex and voluminous the documentation, the more
human intervention required and the greater the opportunity to
introduce two kinds of errors. The first kind of error is a data entry
error that may result from incorrect computations for example. The
second kind is interpretation error. The combined effect of these
errors is to slow down records processing and diminish accuracy.
Physical errors in documents handling or file keeping occur in all
systems. And no workflow system is 100% error free; incoming documents
containing new commitment information are sometimes processed only
after the inmate has been released. DOC's Records Office must balance
accuracy in records processing, i.e. records quality, with process
efficiency in the course of daily operations.
The GAO report fails to give reviewers any perspective on errors in
relation to total releases processed. If it did, it would show that out
of 8,233 releases between February and June 2004, 67 were
inappropriate, for a combined error rate of just 0.81% (See Figure 1).
This displays excellent progress, especially given the more
comprehensive approach used to detect release problems and the limited
control DOC has over the quality and timeliness of source data.
The e-mail referenced in the footnote below 2documents error levels
measured in manual data entry processes. Two of the e-mail respondents
indicate 3 to 4.5 process errors committed per 1000 opportunities for
error in industries that have very robust and mature data driven
cultures. DOC's error rate is well within this norm.
Lastly, the GAO report fails to give DOC any credit for doing something
few, if any other correctional systems in the world do, namely,
publicly and routinely report release errors. It's not done because
most organizations are wary of publicly reporting errors. In a
litigious society faced with potential financial liability, they simply
don't collect the data. Therefore, DOC has established itself as the
benchmark for accountability and performance in this functional area.
Figure 1. Appropriate and inappropriate release rates for releases
between February 2004 and June 2004, post-implementation of the
comprehensive records identification logic.
Inappropriate Releases 0.83%:
Appropriate Releases 99.17%:
6. The report's fording that DOC has not fully analyzed the release
discrepancy database to ascertain whether and how the data may be
improved is incorrect. This finding is important because it provides
the basis for GAO's records mana g ment recommendation.
GAO was provided a written response in June 2004 that included a
corrective action plan, Table 1. The table was based upon a frequency
analysis of the contents of the release discrepancy database. Many of
the actions proposed had already been implemented as of May 2004, and
contributed to a further reduction of release error rates. In June
2004, there were 4 late releases and 1 early release out of 1741 total
releases, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the corrective
actions implemented.
The results of a frequency analysis of causes associated with 100
documented late releases are shown in Figure 2 below. Document
processing delays were the most frequent cause of late releases,
accounting for almost 40%. An overlooked document was the underlying
cause in approximately 20% of late releases. Another 16% were due to
case documents being improperly filed. Incorrect computations occurred
in 14% of cases. And finally, a lack of timely inmate transfer and
document interpretation errors each accounted for 5% of late releases.
Most of the errors can be traced to resource limitations and systems
breakdowns. Additional staffing and process modifications reported to
GAO have begun to remedy these problems. Periodic refresher training
will also help by reinforcing policies and processing procedures
currently in effect. DOC is working with its software vendor to
implement changes that will ensure the accuracy of a wide range of
sentence computations. The feasibility of automating jail credit
tallies is yet another enhancement DOC is pursuing. The combined effect
of these initiatives will be further reduction in DOC's already small
release error rate.
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of causes associated with 100 Late
Releases documented in the release discrepancy database.
Late Release Error Frequency:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Late releases are theoretically 100% detectable and preventable. Early
releases are not detectable when they occur. Early releases occur
because they pass through all process checks at the time of release. In
18 of 24 cases, 75%, the release occurred because an incoming
commitment order or other detaining document was not documented in the
offender management information system at the time the release was
processed (See figure 3). The Department of Corrections will be
requesting that its software vendor make modifications that would allow
users to document date and time of inmate records receipt in the
database.
A variety of factors contributed to the remaining 6 early releases.
Incorrect computations resulted in the release error in two cases (8%
of early releases). Records procedures were correctly followed in a
third, but complex inmate transfer issues resulted in an erroneous
release. Non-receipt of a court order contributed to the fourth early
release. A mis-interpreted document caused the fifth; and, in the final
case, a document was improperly filed and not detected prior to
release.
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of causes leading to Early Releases
for the 23 early releases discovered since January 2002.
Frequency of Early Release:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to this frequency analysis, DOC analyzed late release
errors by staff member and shift. This full spectrum of information was
then used to construct the table referred to below that outlined
deficiencies detected, corrective actions proposed, and status of
implementation as of May 2004. GAO was forwarded the staff member and
shift analysis as well as the corrective action table in June 2004.
Table 1. Process deficiencies, corrective actions, and state of
implementation as of May 2004.
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
7. Several factual corrections related to CTF are outlined below.
Upon review of the final draft of the GAO report CCA/CTF noted a few
additions as follows:
Page S Background first paragraph:
(add) The Correctional Treatment underwent a mission change from,
"Adult Correctional Institute," to an "Adult Local Detention Facility."
This mission change has created a more transient population.
Page 6 Background last paragaph:
In fiscal year 2003 CTF began double celling and had an average inmate
population of 787 inmates.
Page 12 Vermin:
Under CCA policy, CTF (remove) is to have (add) conducts weekly pest
exterminations contracted with an outside agency.
Page 12 Plumbing deficiencies:
DOH found that three cells out of 1, 014 had hot water temperatures
above the maximum recommended temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of the inspection.
Page 13 Concluding paragraph:
(add) It should be noted that CTF has a comprehensive maintenance
program in place since July of 1997. According to statistics for the
year 2002, 12,665 maintenance deficiencies were reported and 12,665
were corrected. For the year 2003, 13,476 maintenance deficiencies were
reported and 13,476 were corrected. Currently in 2004 1,702 maintenance
deficiencies were reported, 1,684 were corrected and 17 were deferred
and are awaiting parts. In addition, the Correctional Treatment
Facility is audited annually by its Corporate Office, as well as, the
District of Columbia Department of Corrections.
Page 38 Table 3:
(add)
Classification
Mail
Telephone
Case management
Volunteer Services
AOAT
Barber Science
Graphic Arts.
I am extremely proud of the D.C. Department of Corrections performance
in reconfiguring this agency from a state prison to a local detention
system as mandated by the Revitalization Act of 1997. We are the only
system in the nation to have done this, and we performed this charge
especially well. Since November 2001, we have continued to roll out
improvements in a broad range of areas, all of which serve to
strengthen the department's foundation for the future. We genuinely
welcome outside scrutiny and objective criticism, because we recognize
both provide needed fuel for continuous improvement. And more work will
be done as the D.C. Department of Corrections strives to attain best
practice levels in all areas of operation. At the same time, I want to
ensure that external reviews report accurate facts and a balanced
perspective in assessing this department. Hopefully, our mutual needs
will have been met as a consequence of this review.
If you have any further questions or need further clarification
regarding this document, please contact me at 202-671-2128 or Brenda
Baldwin-White, Deputy General Counsel, at 202-671-2042.
Signed by:
Odie Washington:
Director:
cc: Robert Bobb:
City Administrator/Deputy Mayor:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Health:
Office of the Director:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Department of Health:
July 8, 2004:
Cathleen A. Berrick:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N. W. Room 6Q26:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Berrick:
The Department of Health, Health Regulation Administration (DOH/HRA)
appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the United States
General Accounting Office ("GAO") draft report D.C. Detention
Facilities (GAO 74-742) based upon a retrospective review of DOH health
and safety inspection reports for the time period March 2002 thru April
2004. HRH's response will track the report by using the same topical
headings in the GAO's report. As shown below, HRA agrees with the
recommendations suggested in your report.
The following responds to issues raised in the GAO report about health
and safety inspections and deficiencies cited at the Jail and
Correctional Treatment Facility.
1. DOH inspection reports did not:
* Consistently identify the specific locations in the jail where
deficiencies occurred; and:
* Always include all the deficiencies identified, particularly if the
deficiency was corrected during the course of the inspection.
DOH Response: DOH agrees that the inspection reports did not
consistently identify locations where deficiencies were found. However,
first note that a Department of Corrections (DOH) representative
accompanied the surveyor during the inspection with the understanding
that he or she is making the same observations that the surveyor is
making. Second, the surveyor always conveys all relevant information to
the Department of Corrections (DOC) during an exit conference held at
the end of each inspection. These exit conferences are attended, at a
minimum, by the inspector(s), the court monitor (when under court
order) and a representative of the Department of Corrections (DOC). At
the exit conference, DOC and the court monitor were told where the
specific problems were and if any problems were found and repaired but
not noted in the report.
At this point, DOH is in the process of revising the inspection forms
so that the inspector can indicate specifically, e.g. by cell and
building where the deficiencies are observed. The inspector will
indicate all deficiencies on the form, including ones that are
corrected during the survey. DOH plans to have developed this new
inspection tool so that it can be used in correctional facility
inspections by September 1.
2. DOH Reports repeatedly identified the same types of health and
safety deficiencies at the jail.
DOH Response: DOH acknowledges that in many instances the same types of
deficiencies were cited in different inspections. It is important to
note that the buildings in question are aging, overcrowded, under-
equipped and understaffed, especially in the maintenance area. We
continue to recommend that DOC institute an on-going preventive
maintenance program.
DOH does not have enforcement authority and cannot address DOC's
corrective actions or lack thereof. DOH's responsibility is and has been
to inspect and report. Originally inspections were conducted and
reports submitted to the correctional facilities and court monitor in
accordance with court order(s). Now the reports are submitted to the
correctional facilities and the District of Columbia Council pursuant
to the District of Columbia Jail Improvement Act of 2003, D.C. Law 15-
62.
3. Inspectors apply standards from the American Correctional Association
to Jails and standards from the American Public Health Association to
the CTF.
DOH Response: DOH used the standards for its inspections that the court
monitor, whose job it was to assess the report outcomes, recommended
for use at the time. Now that the inspections no longer take place
under court order, DOH has changed its policy so that each facility
will be inspected in accordance with the Standards for Health Services
in Correctional Institutions (3rd Edition), published by the American
Public Health Association (APHA), which are the industry standards for
state and local government inspections of correctional facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this report. Should you
have any questions or need additional information, please don't
hesitate to contact Ms. Denise S. Pope, RN, MSN, Administrator, Health
Regulation Administration at (202) 442-4747.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Herbert R. Till Interim:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of the
Inspector General:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Office of the Inspector General:
July 14, 2004:
Cathleen A. Berrick:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
United States General Accounting Office Room 2440A:
441 G St. NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Berrick:
Thank you for providing the District of Columbia Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) with a copy of the General Accounting Office
report District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in
Improving Facility Conditions and Inmate Records. Our Inspections and
Evaluations Division has determined that your report accurately
reflects the findings and recommendations contained in our October 2002
Report of Inspection on the Central Detention Facility.
We have no additional comments and appreciate the opportunity provided
to review the report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Austin A. Andersen:
Interim Inspector General:
AW/lnd:
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property
Management:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
OFFICE OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT:
Carol J. Mitten:
Director:
July 13, 2004:
Ms. Cathleen A. Berrick:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Re: Draft Report: GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives:
District of Columbia Jail, Management Challenges Exist in Improving
Facility Conditions and Inmate Records:
Dear Ms. Berrick:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned draft report.
I know your staff has had extensive discussions with Peter May, Deputy
Director of OPM and Bijoy Isaac, OPM Project Manager for the Department
of Corrections capital projects, including the D.C. Jail.
These comments apply equally to the Results in Brief section of the
report (page 3) and the Capital Improvements section of the report
(pages 13-18), although I focused on the latter section because of its
greater level of detail.
Cost and Schedule Issues:
In order to accurately communicate the capital improvements process, I
think a few sentences describing the budgeting process would be
appropriate. It is important for a reader of the report to understand,
particularly in light of the original budget allocations reported at
pages 14 and 15, that receiving dollars in the capital budget is the
first step in a longer process. At the time that capital dollars are
first allocated, projects are rather ill-defined. No detailed program
has been identified nor has a schedule for completion been established.
It is only after the specific program is defined, funds are put in
place, and the scope of work described in detail that design work can
commence.
Because the process of defining the scope of work and finalizing the
design are essential to the establishment of a reliable cost estimate
and construction schedule, no schedule or construction cost projection
can be known until the program is defined in detail by the client
agency. It is for this reason, as was explained to GAO representatives,
that no schedule for completion is available for the three projects in
the pre-design phase, as mentioned on page 16. Further (in response to
GAO's statement on page 16 that, "...OPM officials stated that they
could not provide a current working estimate for the 13 of the 16
projects that were not complete or nearly complete."), working cost
estimates for the remaining 10 projects for which designs are complete
were never requested. The information is provided in the attachment.
It should also be noted that the working cost estimates for those
projects for which construction contracts have not been awarded, but
where the design is complete, reflect the architect's cost estimate.
The actual costs, once the projects go out for bid, may be higher or
lower.
Proiect Management Issues:
The report on page 17 includes the following observations: "Our work on
capital improvements projects has noted that it is important that
capital projects be well managed.... However, during our review, we
noted that the Office of Property Management lacked written policies
and procedures to guide its project managers through the planning and
management of projects." (Similar statements are also made on page 22.)
These statements infer that OPM capital projects, specifically DOC
projects, are not well-managed. The GAO has no basis for this
conclusion. What is true, and what the working group has been formed to
address, is the fact that OPM lacks standardized project management
procedures.
On page 26 of the report, the GAO states, "To identify management
issues, we reviewed the Office of Property Management's project
management [procedures], but we did not conduct an in-depth evaluation
of the effectiveness of its management." This statement reinforces the
fact expressed above that the GAO has no basis for its conclusion that
OPM's project management has not been effective. In fact, OPM has a
very experienced project manager handling all DOC projects, and he is
supported by other OPM staff with significant expertise. They have
served DOC very well by working with the agency to understanding their
needs, maximizing the use of limited resources, being flexible in
responding to changing circumstances and priorities, and delivering
projects that serve DOC's mission.
At present, OPM cannot be judged based on its project managers' ability
to adhere to specific, standardized rules and procedures - there are no
such procedures. What OPM can be judged on is its ability to deliver
capital projects timely and within a prescribed budget. There has been
no mechanism in this GAO review on which to base conclusions in this
latter regard.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If
I can be of any further assistance, please call.
Respectfully,
Signed by:
Carol J. Mitt:
Director:
Attachments:
cc: Robert Bobb, City Administrator:
Herbert R. Tillery, Acting Director,
DOH Peter May, Deputy Director, OPM:
[End of section]
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Cathleen A. Berrick, (202) 512-8777 Evi L. Rezmovic, (202) 512-2580:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Leo Barbour, Chan My J. Battcher,
Grace Coleman, Tanya Cruz, Wesley A. Johnson, Evan Gilman, Omar N.
Beyah, Maria Edelstein, Elizabeth Eraker, and Geoffrey Hamilton made
key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The D.C. Jail is also known as the Central Detention Facility.
[2] Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, Number 02-
00002FL, District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General, October
2002.
[3] For the purposes of this report, the term "inmate" includes
offenders who have been convicted of a crime as well as detainees who
are awaiting trial or being held for questioning.
[4] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
[5] DoC's Records Office, located at the Jail, processes both the
Jail's and CTF's inmate admissions and releases.
[6] Among other things, the act directs DoC to develop and implement a
classification system and housing plan for inmates at the jail;
mandates the establishment of weekend visiting hours at the jail; and
requires an independent consultant to determine a population ceiling
for the jail.
[7] The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found certain
conditions at the jail, such as those relating to severe overcrowding,
inadequate health care, unsanitary conditions, and unsafe facilities,
to be constitutionally impermissible, and through a series of decisions
and orders, required the District to take corrective actions. See e.g.,
Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 106 (D.D.C. 1975); Inmates of D.C.
Jail v. Jackson, 416 F. Supp. 119 (1976); Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.
Supp. 111 (D.D.C. 1976); and Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F. 2d 521 (D.C.
Cir. 1978). The Campbell and Inmates of D.C. Jail cases were eventually
consolidated.
[8] The U.S. District Court took this action upon a motion by the
defendants in these cases pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) of 1995, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 (1996). The PLRA
generally provides for the termination of certain court orders with
respect to prison conditions upon a court finding that court-ordered
relief is no longer necessary to correct any "current and ongoing"
constitutional violations. The district court decision was upheld on
appeal in January 2004. See Campbell v. McGruder, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1069
(D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2004).
[9] A series of three D.C. laws, both temporary and permanent, require
DoH to conduct such inspections. See Central Detention Facility
Monitoring Temporary Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Law 15-30), Jail
Improvement Emergency Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Act 15-188), and
District of Columbia Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Law
15-62).
[10] Individual inmate cells do not have showers.
[11] Daily inspections are to include common areas of the Jail, shower
areas, and cells, and monthly inspections are to include fire safety,
pest control, and sanitation.
[12] DoC requires that priority one deficiencies--those that affect
inmate health and safety--be corrected within 4 hours. If this is not
possible, DoC staff are to determine if an inmate should be removed
from a cell. Priority two deficiencies include problems such as broken
light covers or other nonemergency maintenance projects. Priority three
deficiencies include painting and other nonemergency projects.
According to DoC's Environmental Safety and Sanitation Manual, both
priority two and three deficiencies are to be fixed within 24 hours.
[13] In one case, the air conditioning was malfunctioning; in the other
case, the heating was malfunctioning.
[14] In 2002, the District's Fire and Emergency Medical Services
completed a follow-up inspection of violations previously cited in
2001. CTF officials said this follow-up inspection also served as the
annual inspection. Fire and Emergency Medical Services did not prepare
a report of findings because it did not identify any fire safety
deficiencies in 2002. Similarly, DoH did not identify any fire safety
deficiencies in 2002.
[15] The District defines capital improvements as a permanent
improvement to a fixed asset that is valued at $250,000 or more and
with an expected life of more than 3 years.
[16] Substantial completion means that the project was completed enough
to be used by DoC for its intended purpose.
[17] Current working estimate represents the current estimate of total
project cost to provide a complete and usable facility.
[18] According to Office of Property Management officials, the process
of defining the scope of work, among other things, is essential to the
establishment of a reliable cost estimate. Thus, for those projects, no
cost estimate was available.
[19] According to DoC officials, the Department of Homeland Security
provided DoC with a grant in August 2003 to help ensure that no
breaches of security occur. Through this grant, DoC had already begun
procuring security cameras that were to be part of this project.
[20] GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices and Capital Decision-
Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).
[21] GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the
Management and Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823
(Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003).
[22] The D.C. Corrections Trustee and the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency Trustee for the District of Columbia conducted these
reviews.
[23] DoC's Records Office processes the legal documents that provide
authority to move inmates into and out of the Jail and CTF. The Records
Office's primary functions are to receive, review, and maintain records
from the courts in order to make sentence computations and process
inmate admissions, releases, and transfers.
[24] According to an information technology official at the District of
Columbia Courts, plans are being developed for transmitting information
to DoC in an automated format, rather than in a hard copy format as is
currently the case. The official said that if DoC received inmate case
information more quickly, records-processing errors might decrease. The
official said he expected the system to be implemented at the end of
fiscal year 2005.
[25] For the purposes of this report, we are using the terms "early"
and "late" releases to refer to nonjustifiable, and therefore
erroneous, releases of inmates. According to DoC officials, there are
instances where inmates can be justifiably released before or after
their official release date. For example, if the official release date
falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, an inmate may be released on
the last business day before the weekend or holiday. As another
example, an inmate who receives a court order to be assigned to a
residential treatment facility could be released late if bed space is
not immediately available in that facility.
[26] Some problems identified in this report included the lack of
policies and procedures, inaccurate information in the computer system,
and missing official inmate files.
[27] According to a DoC official, inmates may be admitted to DoC upon
sentence, admitted and held until the matter is resolved, or admitted
and held by DoC until other jurisdictions are able to place and process
them. DoC defines an early release as a release that occurs before an
inmate's sentence is complete in the absence of a legal document
authorizing the inmate's release or a release that occurs before all
matters have been legally resolved.
[28] Of the 22 early release errors, 14 were discovered within a week
of the error occurring, 6 were discovered between 1 and 5 weeks, 1 was
discovered approximately 2 months later, and DoC could not provide us
with information on the remaining inmate. The information DoC provided
shows that all 22 inmates identified as having been released early were
re-apprehended and taken into custody after the error was discovered.
Eleven of these occurred within 2 weeks of the mistaken release, 6
occurred between 3 weeks and 9 months later, 4 occurred between 11 and
20 months after the error was made, and one inmate released December
2003 remained at large as of May 2004. Three of the 22 inmates were
taken into custody when they were charged with committing new
misdemeanors. None of the other 19 inmates had been charged with
committing new crimes while out of DoC custody.
[29] One was a report that DoC used to identify late releases, and the
second was a group of reports generated by DoC's database to track the
basis for the early and late release errors.
[30] Time rules pertain to the time designated for DoC to process a
release. For example, an inmate released pursuant to a court order is
considered released late if released more than 48 hours after the time
the inmate returns to DoC from court.
[31] In commenting on a draft of this report, DoC informed us that 67
out of 8,233 inmate releases between February and June 2004 were
inappropriate. In subsequent communications with DoC, we learned that
DoC had discovered an additional early release and that out of 68
inappropriate releases, 65 were late releases and 3 were early
releases. Of the 8,233 total releases, 5,112 were releases that could
have resulted in a late release into the community, while 3,121 were
other types of release transactions, such as releases to the U.S.
Marshal's Service, releases to drug programs, and extraditions. We did
not include early releases in our computation of the error rate
because, as we note on page 20, data on early releases may be
understated. We did not include the 2,121 cases involving other types
of release transactions because they did not involve releasing inmates
into the community.
[32] GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the
Management and Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823
(Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003), and GAO, United Nations: Early
Renovation Planning Reasonable, but Additional Management Controls and
Oversight Will Be Needed, GAO-03-566 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[33] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
[34] CCA's definition of a capital improvement differs from that of the
District. The District defines capital improvements as a permanent
improvement to a fixed asset that is valued at $250,000 or more with an
expected life of more than 3 years.
[35] In April 2003, DoC entered into a contract with the ARAMARK
Corporation to provide food services at the Jail and CTF, according to
a DoC official.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: