District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in	 
Improving Facility Conditions (27-AUG-04, GAO-04-742).		 
                                                                 
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?		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-742 					        
    ACCNO:   A11954						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia Jail: Management Challenges Exist in
Improving Facility Conditions					 
     DATE:   08/27/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Administrative errors				 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Detention facilities				 
	     Facility maintenance				 
	     Facility management				 
	     Government facility construction			 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Municipal governments				 
	     Records (documents)				 
	     Records management 				 
	     Safety standards					 
	     Capital improvements				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-742

United States Government Accountability Office

      GAO	Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
                                Representatives

August 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL

          Management Challenges Exist in Improving Facility Conditions

GAO-04-742

Highlights of GAO-04-742, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives

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?

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 [email protected].

August 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL

Management Challenges Exist in Improving Facility Conditions

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.

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 1

3 5

6 13

19 23 23 24

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 43

Appendix VII
Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 45

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 62

GAO Contacts 62 Acknowledgments 62

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

14 32 41 43

Figures

Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 34 Figure 2: Vermin
Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between
March 2002 and April 2004 35

Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 36 Figure 4: Plumbing
Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between
March 2002 and April 2004 37 Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as
Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 38
Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 39

Abbreviations

CCA Corrections Corporation of America
CTF Correctional Treatment Facility
DoC Department of Corrections
DoH Department of Health
OIG Office of the Inspector General

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. However, 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.

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.1 In October 2002, a report
by the District's Office of the Inspector General (OIG)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.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

1The D.C. Jail is also known as the Central Detention Facility.

2Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, Number 02-00002FL,
District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General, October 2002.

3For 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.

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.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.

4GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).

  Results in Brief

To determine DoC's progress in improving the accuracy of inmate records at
the Jail and CTF,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.

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

5DoC's Records Office, located at the Jail, processes both the Jail's and
CTF's inmate admissions and releases.

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

Background

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.

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
prisongrade 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. 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. 7 In March 2003, the U.S. District Court for
the

6Among 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.

7The 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.

  Health and Safety Deficiencies at the Jail and Correctional Treatment Facility

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.8

CTF opened in 1992 and is an American Correctional Associationaccredited
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.

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

8The 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).

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.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

9A 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).

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).

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.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

10Individual inmate cells do not have showers.

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.

o  	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.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.12 Once a
maintenance-related problem is entered into this system,

11Daily 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.

12DoC 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.

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.

o  	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.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.

o  	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.

o  	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.14 CTF

13In one case, the air conditioning was malfunctioning; in the other case,
the heating was malfunctioning.

14In 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.

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.

o  	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.

o  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.

Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.15 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

15The 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.

  Capital Improvement Projects at the Jail

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.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, 2004.17

          Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District's Jail

Current working estimate, as of Projects by phase Description Fiscal year
July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June 1, 2004

Complete

Kitchen flooring and

  This project includes replacing the 2002 $1,911,907 Construction 100 percent
                                    complete

                           miscellaneous improvements

kitchen flooring and renovating the kitchen area.

Construction

a

Hot water system This project includes replacing all of

               2001 9,498,054 Construction 99 percent complete.b

the main water lines, converters, pumps, piping valves, and other
equipment associated with the hot water system throughout the Jail.

Heating, ventilation, This project includes replacing the 2001 See current
            Construction 99 percent complete.b and air conditioning

a

               system replacementexisting equipment in the Jail.

                            working estimate for the hot water system project

a

      Lighting upgrades This project includes replacing the 2001 2,960,943
                        Construction 35 percent complete

light fixtures, lightbulbs, and switches throughout the 18 cellblocks.

and estimated complete by October 2005.

16Substantial completion means that the project was completed enough to be
used by DoC for its intended purpose.

17Current working estimate represents the current estimate of total
project cost to provide a complete and usable facility.

Current working estimate, as of July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June
1, 2004

                   Projects by phase Description Fiscal year

a

Plumbing upgrades This project includes replacing the

                                2001 See current

Construction 35 percent complete and estimated complete by October 2005.

plumbing fixtures throughout the 18 cellblocks.

                           working estimate for the lighting upgrades project

Sally port and This project includes redesigning

c

adjoining areas	and reconfiguring the sally port and adjoining areas so
that inmates and vehicles can be processed more efficiently.

2000 858,120 	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.

     Energy      This project includes    2002 Not available  Construction is 
management         improvements                            ongoing as this 
                to the energy efficiency                     project is being 
     system          of the Jail's                             implemented in 
               building systems, such as                         phases.      
                          its                                
               electrical; plumbing; and                     
                        heating,                             
                  ventilation, and air                       
                      conditioning                           
               systems. This project will                    
                          also                               
                  include installing a                       
                      computerized                           
               energy management system.                     

Design

Central security

    This project includes installing a 2000 5,973,405 This project is being
                                  implemented

system 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. 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.

Cell doors and This project includes     2000 9,936,951 Design 100 percent 
                  demolishing all                                   complete, 
       motors        existing cell door                    construction       
                          operating                        contract not yet   
                  mechanisms and                                awarded.      
                  retrofitting all cell                    
                  doors throughout the 18                  
                  cellblocks.                              
     aElevators     This project includes   2000           Design 100 percent 
                         demolishing             2,123,005          complete, 
                  and replacing the Jail's                 construction       
                          existing                         contract not yet   
                         elevators.                             awarded.      

aEscalators   This project includes   2003  See current Design 100 percent 
                      demolishing                                   complete, 
               and replacing the Jail's       working      construction       
                       existing               estimate     contract not yet   
                      escalators.             for the           awarded.      
                                              elevators    
                                                   project 

Current working estimate, as of Projects by phase Description Fiscal year
July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June 1, 2004

Fire alarm and This project includes                    Design 100 percent 
     sprinkler    demolishing all         2000 1,766,795     complete on fire 
       system     remnants of the                        alarm and 95 percent 
                  existing fire alarm                                complete 
                   and sprinkler system                  on sprinkler system. 
                      and installing                     In process of        
                  a new, modern, and                             awarding the 
                  comprehensive                                  construction 
                                                                     contract 
                      fire alarm and                      for the fire alarm  
                     sprinkler system,                         system.        
                  including strategically                
                       located fire,                     
                      heat, and smoke                    
                        detectors.                       

Emergency power This project includes reconfiguring 2002 420,238 Design 80
percent complete. system the Jail's electrical distribution

system.

Other

Staff and visitors' This project includes redesigning, 2003 Not available
Not determinedd entrances expanding, and reconfiguring the

staff and visitors' entrances.

Inmate shower   This project includes   2004 Not available Not determinedd 
                        demolishing                           
renovations   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.                         

Exterior structural This project includes repairs to the 2004 Not
available Not determinedd refinishing Jail's exterior structure.

Total $35,449,418

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections and Office of Property Management.

aAccording 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.

cThe 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.

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.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 2003.19 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.20 For example, our work has noted
the importance of having written policies and procedures that can help

18According 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.

19According 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.

20GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices and Capital Decision-Making,
GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

project managers in planning and managing their projects.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.

21GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the Management
and Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823 (Washington, D.C.:
September 5, 2003).

  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.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,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

22The D.C. Corrections Trustee and the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency Trustee for the District of Columbia conducted these
reviews.

23DoC'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.

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.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.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.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

24According 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.

25For 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.

26Some problems identified in this report included the lack of policies
and procedures, inaccurate information in the computer system, and missing
official inmate files.

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.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.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.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

27According 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.

28Of 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
reapprehended 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.

29One 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.

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.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.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

30Time 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.

31In 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.

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

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

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:

o  	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:

  Agency Comments
  and Our Evaluation

o  	establish time frames for completing its work on developing and
implementing policies and procedures.

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.

o  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.

o  With respect to DoC's capital improvement projects:

1. 	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.

2. 	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.

3. 	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.

4. 	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.

o  With respect to release errors:

1. 	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.

2. 	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,

Cathleen A. Berrick
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.1

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.2 We did not directly observe record
processing to determine the causes for and the full range of errors made
by Records Office staff.

1GAO, 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).

2GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

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.1 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 Cost

                  Replace existing fire alarm system $125,000

                    Batteries and chargers for radios 30,000

                  Fabricate four noncontact visit cages 6,300

                           New perimeter truck 15,000

                      Replace cameras and monitors 25,000

                           Pave perimeter road 10,515

a

                    Switchgear preventive maintenance 27,252

a

                        Batteries for switchgear 12,850

                                  Ovens 11,795

                                Steamers 12,244

                       Two new chilled water coils 14,000

                                 Total $289,956

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Corrections Corporation of
America.

1CCA'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.

Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at the Correctional Treatment
Facility

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.

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

Deficiency type Extent of problem identified reported

Y = Yes N = No cb = cellblock(s)

S = Some
NA = Not applicable
M = Most

                              No airflow in cells

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

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

       Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

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

Main DryMice Rats Flies kitchen Dishwashing Loading storage Other
Showerdock

Y = Yes N = No NA = Not applicable

                              Vermin type reported

Kitchen areas

Shower areas

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

aOfficer dining area.
bBread storage area and hallway near canteen storage.

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.

       Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

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

                        Deficiency type        Extent of problem reported
                          identified        
                    Mar Aug Nov Apr Oct Apr Mar  Aug   Nov   Apr   Oct   Apr  
Deficiency type  02  02  02  03  03  04  02   02    02    03    03    04   
     Missing fire    N   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y  NA                            S   
    extinguishers                               1 cb  1 cb  1 cb  1 cb  
Improper storage                                         1 cb  1 cb        
       of fire                              NA  other other   &     &     S
    extinguishers    N   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y                  other other 
     Insufficient                               1 cb                          
    number of fire                          NA    &   other 1 cb  1 cb    S
    extinguishers    N   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y      other                   
Uninspected fire                         NA         16                     
    extinguishers    N   N   Y   N   N   N       NA   ext.   NA    NA    NA
         Fire                                                                 
    extinguishers                               1 cb  5 cb                    
with inaccurate   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   T    &     &     T         
      or missing                                other other       8 cb  
inspection dates                                                 &   cb &
      documented                                                  other other
        Broken       Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   N   7                           NA   
     flashlights                            cb  7 cb  7 cb  7 cb  7 cb  
Emergency lights  N   N   Y   N   N   N  NA   NA    1cb   NA    NA    NA   
     not working                                                        
     Exit lights                             1        1 cb  1 cb  1 cb  1 cb  
burnt out or not  Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y  cb  other   &     &     &     &   
       working                                        other other other other 
Smoke detectors                                     1cb                    
     not working     N   N   Y   Y   Y   N  NA   NA          3cb   3cb   NA
Smoke detectors                                                            
not connected to  N   N   Y   N   N   N  NA   NA    NR    NA    NA    NA
      electrical                                                        
        system                                                          
    Missing smoke                                                       3 cb  
      detectors      Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   S    S     S     S     S     &   
                                                                        other 

Y = Yes N = No	S = Some T = Throughout NR = Not reported NA = Not
applicable Other = Areas other than cellblock Ext = Extinguishers c =
cell(s) cb = cellblock(s)

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

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

Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

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

Deficiency type Extent of problem identified reported

Y = Yes N = No	S = Some c = cell(s) T = Throughout cb = cellblock(s) NR =
Not reported

Nonoperational plumbing fixtures

Cells without hot and/or cold water

Low water pressure

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

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

       Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

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

Deficiency type Extent of problem identified reported

                                 Y = Yes N = No

NA = Not applicable	c = cell(s) cb = cellblock(s)

      Showers did not work or were broken or could not be used because of
           malfunctioning Shower temperature was too hot or too cold

Shower knob leaking

                            Damaged floor treatment

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

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.

Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004

Deficiency type Extent of identified problem reported

Y = Yes N = No	T = Throughout c = cells(s) NR = Not reported cb =
cellblock(s)

Cells with damaged light fixtures

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of
Health inspection reports of the Jail.

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:

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

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.1 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 Program and service areas

Jail

Correctional Treatment Facility

Substance abuse treatment and education 	Academic and vocational education
   	Prerelease readiness 	Work detail 	Recreation 	Religion 	Mail 	Telephone
   	Visitation	Classification 	Case management 	Health and mental health
   	Food 	Sanitation and hygiene 	Substance abuse treatment and education
   	Academic and vocational education 	Prerelease 	Work detail 	Recreation 	

1In 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.

Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and the
Correctional Treatment Facility

                       Facility Program and service areas

Religion 	Mail 	Telephone 	Visitation	Classification 	Case management
   	Health and mental health 	Food 	Legal 	HIV/AIDS prevention education
   	Therapeutic community	Volunteer services 	Adjusting Our Attitude
Training	Barber science 	Graphic arts	

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of
America.

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 OIG recommendation

Deficiencies cited during the Department of Health (DoH) and That the
Director, DoC, direct the Warden Central Detention Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) Facility (CDF) / Compliance Officer and
Cellblock Officer(s) in inspections remain unabated in violation of the
stipulation charge to ensure that the deficiencies cited in inspections

a

following the Federal Appellate Court's decision in Campbell v. provided
by internal and external agencies are abated. MacGruder, 580 F. 2d 521
(D.C. Cir. 1978).

That the Director, DoC, direct staff to comply with DOC housekeeping
policies and procedures.

Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and That the Director, DoC,
establish policies and procedures to verify	recommendations for
improvements, its poor handling of inmate the accuracy of data in the Jail
and Community Corrections 	records and other information continues to
cause significant System (JACCS).	problems, including premature and
delayed release of inmates. 	

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.

That the Director, DoC, establish quality control policies and procedures
for use by the Records Office during quarterly reviews of information in
JACCS.

That the Deputy Warden for Programs immediately takes action to locate or
re-create all missing official inmate files.

That the Director, DoC, require the Deputy Warden for Programs to develop
a means of tracking inmate file folders.

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."

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.

Appendix VI: DoC's Implementation of the District of Columbia's Office of
the Inspector General's Recommendations

                         OIG finding 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, and CDF management request inspections of the CDF
by DC Occupational Safety and Health and the DC Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Department.

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management stack, secure, and properly
seal all materials up and away from the light fixtures and passageways.

  CDF management had not complied with federal law regarding That DoC and CDF
 management develop and implement a written written emergency evacuation plans.

emergency evacuation plan with a floor plan showing the routes of exit as
required by 29 CFR 1910.38 (a) (1) (2001).

Poor housekeeping practices and vermin contamination were That the
Director, DoC, and CDF management maintain and observed throughout the
CDF. enforce a daily general maintenance and cleaning program.

The ventilation and overall indoor air quality inside the CDF That the
Director, DoC, and CDF management install a heating

ranged from poor to inadequate. ventilation and air conditioning unit that
is properly equipped to filer out airborne contaminants, such as bacteria
and harmful viruses.

That the Director, DoC, request that DC Occupational Safety and Health
conduct an indoor air quality sampling at the CDF.

The floors, aisles, and passageways in the warehouse area of the That the
Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management complies 	CDF were blocked or
cluttered with miscellaneous items in with 29 CFR 1910.22 (2001) and keeps
all floors, aisles, and	violation of federal law regarding safe clearances
and passageways clear and in good repair. 	passageways. 	

Floors in the passageways to the cellblocks are not maintained in That the
Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management cleans,

a clean and sanitary condition as required by federal law.sanitizes, and
removes the chipped paint and mold from the floors.

Food spills on the floors impair safe movement. That the Director, DoC,
and CDF management repair the leaking pipes and broken floors in the
culinary unit.

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.	aCDF is also known as the D.C.
Jail.	

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Corrections

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Health

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Health

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of
Health

Appendix IX: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of the Inspector
General

                  Page 59 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

                  Page 60 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

                  Page 61 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

  GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(440228)

Cathleen A. Berrick, (202) 512-8777 Evi L. Rezmovic, (202) 512-2580

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.

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and

GAO's Mission 	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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
costObtaining Copies of is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each
weekday, GAO postsGAO Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
goTestimony to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected](202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***