District of Columbia: Issues Related to the Youngstown Prison Report and
Lorton Closure Process (Letter Report, 04/07/2000, GAO/GGD-00-86).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed issues related to the
closing of the Lorton correctional facilities that house felon inmates
from the District of Columbia and the transfer of these inmates to the
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), focusing on: (1) the D.C. Department of
Corrections' response to the Office of the Corrections Trustee's 1999
recommendations on the Youngstown prison facility; (2) BOP's efforts to
comply with the privatization requirements of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997; and (3) any
challenges concerning the closing of Lorton faced by the District of
Columbia and BOP as December 31, 2001, the statutory date for closing
all of Lorton, nears.
GAO noted that: (1) in its November 1998 report on problems at the
Youngstown facility, the Trustee made nine recommendations to D.C.
Corrections; (2) Trustee officials were generally satisfied with the
actions taken by D.C. Corrections to implement the recommendations; (3)
GAO found that as of March 3, 2000, D.C. Corrections had partially
implemented five of the Trustee's recommendations and fully implemented
the remaining four; (4) partially implemented were recommendations to
modify the existing contract so as to hold Youngstown more accountable
for adhering to contract provisions and to temporarily reduce the inmate
population at Youngstown until there were significant additional work
and educational opportunities for inmates; (5) fully implemented were
recommendations dealing with activating new contract facilities,
ensuring that these facilities have in place, before inmates arrive, a
sound screening and classification capability, removing from Youngstown
all inmates requiring separation from other inmates, and establishing a
contract monitoring unit at D.C. Corrections headquarters; (6) BOP did
not comply with the initial privatization requirement of the
Revitalization Act that it house at least 2,000 felons in private
contract facilities by December 31, 1999; (7) BOP began contracting for
2 private facilities to house these inmates 22 months in advance of the
date they were needed; (8) however, delays due to environmental and
legal issues, as well as security concerns partially arising from the
Trustee's report on Youngstown, resulted in neither facility being
operational on December 31, 1999; (9) as of that date, BOP had accepted
the transfer of 1,861 D.C. sentenced felon inmates, but none of the
inmates were in private facilities; (10) as of January 2000, BOP had not
begun to contract for the additional private facilities needed to comply
with the Revitalization Act's requirement to house at least half of
D.C.'s sentenced felon population in private correctional facilities by
September 30, 2003; and (11) although D.C. and BOP successfully
transferred some inmates and closed some facilities in Lorton, several
important challenges remain as the December 31, 2001, deadline
approaches, including: (a) continued increases in both D.C. Corrections'
and BOP's inmate populations; (b) concerns about the adequacy of funding
to operate D.C.'s correctional facilities during the period up to
December 31, 2001; (c) lack of space in BOP's facilities, particularly
low-to-high security facilities to which D.C. inmates are transferred;
and (d) a high rate of staff attrition within D.C. Corrections.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-86
TITLE: District of Columbia: Issues Related to the Youngstown
Prison Report and Lorton Closure Process
DATE: 04/07/2000
SUBJECT: Correctional facilities
Intergovernmental relations
Prisoners
Noncompliance
Internal controls
Strategic planning
Reporting requirements
Municipal governments
Privatization
IDENTIFIER: Youngstown (OH)
Lorton (VA)
District of Columbia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. **
** **
** 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. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-86
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III
Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
April 2000
GAO/GGD-00-86
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Issues Related to the Youngstown Prison Report
and Lorton Closure Process
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100
(182835)
Contents
Page 221GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Letter 1
Appendix I 24
Department of
Corrections' Responses
to the Trustee's
Recommendations
Appendix II 27
Comments From the D.C.
Department of
Corrections
Appendix III 29
Comments From the
Federal Bureau of
Prisons
Appendix IV 31
Comments From the Office
of the Corrections
Trustee
Tables Table 1: Revitalization Act 4
Requirements for BOP and the Dates
the Requirements Must Be Accomplished
Table 2: BOP's Efforts to Comply With 12
the Revitalization Act's
Privatization Requirements
Table 3: Lorton Facilities' Planned 14
and Actual Closing Dates
Table 4: Comparison of the District's 15
Sentenced Felon Inmate Population
From 1998 to 1999
Abbreviations
BOP Bureau of Prisons
DC District of Columbia
B-282741
Page 19GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngs
town Prison Report
B-282741
April 7, 2000
The Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III
Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report responds to your December 7, 1998,
request that we assess the D.C. Department of
Corrections' response to the recommendations made
by the Office of the Corrections Trustee for the
District of Columbia in its November 1998 report
on the disturbances at a contract prison facility
in Youngstown, Ohio. You also expressed interest
in issues related to the closing of the Lorton
facilities that house felon inmates from the
District of Columbia and the transfer of these
inmates to the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
In addition to requiring the closing of the
District's corrections facilities in Lorton,
Virginia, the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 19971 (the
Revitalization Act), among other things, required
that BOP house at least 2,000 of the District's
inmates in private contract facilities by December
31, 1999.
More specifically, you asked us to assess and
report on
� the D.C. Department of Corrections' response
to the Trustee's recommendations;
� the BOP's efforts to comply with the
privatization requirements of the Revitalization
Act; and
� any challenges concerning the closing of
Lorton faced by the District of Columbia and BOP
as December 31, 2001, the statutory date for
closing all of Lorton, nears.
Results in Brief
In its November 1998 report on problems at the
Youngstown facility, the Corrections Trustee made
nine recommendations to the D.C. Department of
Corrections. Corrections Trustee officials were
generally satisfied with the actions taken by the
Department to implement the recommendations. We
found that as of March 3, 2000, the Department had
partially implemented five of the Trustee's
recommendations and fully implemented the
remaining four. Partially implemented were
recommendations to modify the existing contract so
as to hold Youngstown more accountable for
adhering to contract provisions and to temporarily
reduce the inmate population at Youngstown until
there were significant additional work and
educational opportunities for inmates. Also
partially implemented were recommendations to
supplement the full-time monitor2 at Youngstown
with additional professional and clerical
assistance, adopt BOP's system for classifying
inmates, and define the criteria for transferring
inmates from D.C. Department of Corrections
facilities, including Lorton, to contract
facilities.3 Fully implemented were
recommendations dealing with activating new
contract facilities; ensuring that these
facilities have in place, before inmates arrive, a
sound screening and classification capability;
removing from Youngstown all inmates requiring
separation from other inmates; and establishing a
contract monitoring unit at D.C. Department of
Corrections headquarters.4
BOP did not comply with the initial privatization
requirement of the Revitalization Act that it
house at least 2,000 sentenced felons in private
contract facilities by December 31, 1999. BOP
began contracting for 2 private facilities to
house these inmates 22 months in advance of the
date they were needed. However, delays due to
environmental and legal issues, as well as
security concerns partially arising from the
Trustee's report on Youngstown, resulted in
neither facility being operational on December 31,
1999. As of that date, BOP had accepted the
transfer of 1,861 D.C. sentenced felon inmates,
but none of the inmates were in private
facilities. In a letter dated April 1999, BOP
notified Congress of its inability to comply with
this requirement. In February 2000, BOP modified
its contracting procedures in an effort to avoid
the environmental complications that delayed the
construction and operation of the two private
facilities. BOP believes that these modifications
will prevent a recurrence of the environmental
complications previously encountered. As of
January 2000, BOP had not begun to contract for
the additional private facilities needed to comply
with the Revitalization Act's requirement to house
at least half of the District's sentenced felon
population in private correctional facilities by
September 30, 2003.
Although the District of Columbia and BOP
successfully transferred some inmates and closed
some facilities at Lorton, several important
challenges remain as the December 31, 2001,
statutory date for closing Lorton and transferring
the remaining inmates approaches. These
challenges could potentially adversely affect the
operation of the District's correctional
facilities, including Lorton, and the transfer of
inmates. They include continued increases in both
the D.C. Department of Corrections' and BOP's
inmate populations; concerns about the adequacy of
funding to operate the District's correctional
facilities during the period up to December 31,
2001; lack of space in BOP facilities,
particularly low-to-high security facilities 5 to
which D.C. inmates are to be transferred; and a
high rate of staff attrition within the D.C.
Department of Corrections. According to
Corrections Trustee officials, increases in the
D.C. inmate population, which they attributed to
an increase in the number of D.C. parole
violators; a reduction in the number of felons
released as a result of a court decision; and
delays in the inmate parole hearing process, had
contributed to the delay in closing two Lorton
facilities by about a year after the date they
were originally scheduled to close. Despite the
transfer of 1,861 District sentenced felon inmates
from Lorton to BOP, the number of sentenced felon
inmates in the District's custody only decreased
by 13, and the total number of sentenced felons
transferred or in the custody of both the District
and BOP increased by 1,223. The Corrections
Trustee issued a revised closure plan for Lorton
in February 1999. After issuing this revised
plan, the D.C. Department of Corrections closed
three of the facilities scheduled for closure
either ahead of or slightly behind the revised
schedule. In February 2000, the Corrections
Trustee issued another closure plan to revise the
closure schedule.
Background
For several decades, the D. C. Department of
Corrections functioned as both a local and a state-
like system. As a typical municipal system, the
Department of Corrections detained pretrial,
presentence, and other inmates for the local
Superior Court; probation and parole violators;
and those misdemeanor or felony offenders
sentenced to relatively short terms. As a state-
like system, it housed convicted felons. The
latter have been held primarily in a 3,000-acre
prison complex consisting of 7 facilities located
on federally owned land in Lorton, Virginia. In
October 1995, the D.C. Department of Corrections
had custody of 9,222 inmates, including 6,814 at
Lorton.6
More recently, the D.C. Department of Corrections
also housed convicted felons in contract
facilities, primarily in Ohio and Virginia.7 From
May to October 1997, the Department transferred
1,700 inmates from District correctional
facilities to the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center, a medium security facility in Youngstown,
Ohio, owned and operated by the Corrections
Corporation of America. The Department's decision
to transfer inmates to the Youngstown facility
came about as a result of well-documented concerns
about the security, cost effectiveness, and
adequacy of the seven facilities located in the
aging Lorton complex. However, in its first 14
months of operation, the Youngstown facility
experienced a number of problems, including the
deaths of two inmates caused by other inmates and
an escape of six inmates.
The Revitalization Act requires the closing of the
District's correctional facilities in Lorton by
the end of 2001 and, in general, the transfer of
all sentenced felon inmates to penal or
correctional facilities operated or contracted for
by BOP. After Lorton is closed, the D.C.
Department of Corrections is to be responsible for
the operation of the D.C. Jail. The Department of
Corrections is also to be responsible for
overseeing the operation of the Correctional
Treatment Facility, which is privately operated,
as well as the halfway houses, several of which
are contract facilities. BOP is to be responsible
for the D.C. sentenced felon inmate population.
See table 1 for other Revitalization Act
requirements and the dates the requirements must
be accomplished.
Table 1: Revitalization Act Requirements for BOP
and the Dates the Requirements Must Be
Accomplished
Requirement Date
House at least 2,000 of December 31, 1999
the District's sentenced
felons in private
contract facilities
Assign all of the October 1, 2001
District's sentenced
felons to a penal or
correctional facility
Accept the transfer of December 31, 2001
all of the District's
sentenced felons
House at least half of September 30, 2003
the District's sentenced
felon inmate population
in private contract
facilities
Source: National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act, as amended.
The Revitalization Act established the District of
Columbia Corrections Trustee to serve as an
independent officer of the District government to
facilitate the closure of the Lorton facility. The
role of the Corrections Trustee is to
� allocate federal funding to the D.C.
Department of Corrections for continued housing of
District felon inmates at Lorton and District
contract facilities;
� provide financial oversight to the
Department;
� reimburse BOP for certain expenses related to
the construction of new facilities, as identified
by Congress;
� facilitate the closure of the Lorton complex
and the transfer of all sentenced felons to
federal custody by December 31, 2001; and
� ensure that the District develops and
maintains a viable correctional system.
In August 1998, the U.S. Attorney General asked
the Corrections Trustee to review and inspect the
security procedures, management practices, and the
inmates' work opportunities at the Youngstown
facility in response to the aforementioned
problems. The Corrections Trustee's report,
issued in November 1998, identified 19 major
findings and 24 major recommendations, 15 of which
were focused on the Youngstown facility. The
remaining nine recommendations focused on the D.C.
Department of Corrections, which according to
Corrections Trustee officials, was not required to
respond because the report was addressed to the U.
S. Attorney General.
Subsequent to the transfer of inmates to
Youngstown and the issuance of the Corrections
Trustee's report, the D.C. Department of
Corrections transferred additional inmates to
other contract facilities. From January to May
1999, the D.C. Department of Corrections
transferred 1,355 minimum to high security inmates
from District facilities, including Lorton, to two
Virginia state-run contract facilities-Sussex II,
a high security facility located in Waverly; and
Red Onion, one of two facilities for the state's
most dangerous inmates, located in Pound.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
To assess and report on the D.C. Department of
Corrections' response to the Trustee's
recommendations, we read the Trustee's November
1998 report, analyzed each of the recommendations,
and reviewed a response to the Youngstown report
prepared by the D.C. Department of Corrections.
We also reviewed the District's proposed
Youngstown contract modification incorporating
some of the Trustee's recommendations, as well as
the District's contract with the Virginia
Department of Corrections. We interviewed
officials from the D.C. Department of Corrections,
the Corrections Trustee, Department of Justice,
BOP, and the Virginia Department of Corrections.
We visited the Virginia Department of Corrections'
Sussex II contract facility but did not assess the
facility or its programs. We assessed whether the
Department took action to address each
recommendation but did not assess the quality of
the implementation. In this report, we use the
following terms to describe the Department's
implementation of the Trustee's recommendations:
� Fully implemented. The entire wording of the
recommendation has been fulfilled.
� Partially implemented. Only part of the
recommendation has been implemented. When the
wording of the recommendation had multiple parts,
if one part or a portion of a part had been
implemented (but not all parts), we categorized
the recommendation as "partially implemented."
� Not implemented. No part of the
recommendation was implemented. 8
To assess and report on BOP's efforts to comply
with the Revitalization Act's privatization
requirements, as well as the challenges concerning
the closing of Lorton faced by the District of
Columbia and BOP, we read several studies and
transcripts of congressional hearings, dating back
to 1987, dealing with the D.C. Department of
Corrections. We also interviewed officials from
the D.C. Department of Corrections, the
Corrections Trustee, BOP, the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority, and the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council for the District of Columbia.9 We
reviewed relevant statistical, financial, and
contractual data provided to us by these agencies,
as well as the applicable federal law requiring
the closing of Lorton. We requested comments on a
draft of the report from the Director of the
Department of Corrections, the Corrections
Trustee, and the Director of BOP. Their written
comments are discussed near the end of this
letter. We performed our work between February
1999 and April 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
D.C. Department of Corrections Had Not Fully
Implemented the Trustee's Recommendations
In its November 1998 report, the Corrections
Trustee noted problems with the District's
contract to house inmates in the Youngstown
facility and the screening and transfer of
sentenced felon inmates to that facility. The
report also indicated that the Youngstown facility
lacked appropriate work and education programs for
the inmates as required by the contract. In nine
of its recommendations, the Corrections Trustee
focused on the D.C. Department of Corrections, but
according to Corrections Trustee officials, the
Department was not required to respond to the
recommendations because the report was addressed
to the U.S. Attorney General. We found that the
D.C. Department of Corrections partially
implemented five and fully implemented the other
four recommendations. Corrections Trustee
officials told us that they were generally
satisfied with the actions taken.
In its report, the Corrections Trustee found that
the D.C. government rushed into an abbreviated
procurement process, resulting in a contract at a
somewhat inflated price with the Corrections
Corporation of America that, among other things,
lacked financial penalties in the event of
contractor noncompliance. In addition, the
Trustee found that there were few constructive
work or educational opportunities for most
inmates, in direct conflict with the terms of the
contract. The Trustee found that the Department
and the Youngstown facility failed to screen and
transfer inmates properly, resulting in the
transfer of (1) over 200 inmates requiring
separation from other inmates and (2) large
numbers of inmates who should have been classified
at a higher level than medium security. The
Trustee also found that the Department of
Corrections initially took little responsibility
for monitoring the operations at the Youngstown
facility until confronted with major problems, and
Youngstown was not adequately prepared for the
accelerated transfer of inmates-904 in 17
days-that occurred just after the contract was
signed.
In its report, the Corrections Trustee recommended
that the D.C. Department of Corrections
� modify the Youngstown contract to provide for
financial penalties in the event of contractor
noncompliance, add specific language to the
contract describing procedures for determining
noncompliance with the contract, and reevaluate
the justification for the pricing structure;
� reduce the inmate population to preferably
1,000 inmates until there were significant
additional opportunities for constructive daily
activities;
� supplement the full-time contract monitor at
Youngstown with additional professional and
clerical assistance;
� stabilize the process of classifying inmates
by adopting the BOP classification system as the
permanent system and properly training staff in
its use;
� clearly define the criteria for transferring
inmates to future contract facilities and allow
for sufficient time to screen transfers;
� ensure that any future activation of a
contract facility be well organized and gradual,
with feasible start-up schedules and on-site
monitoring;
� ensure that future contract facilities have
in place, before inmates arrive, a sound screening
and classification capacity to use as a basis for
assigning inmates to housing units;
� work with Youngstown to remove all existing
separation/enemy cases and ensure that no future
known separation cases were sent to Youngstown;10
and
� establish a contract monitoring unit at
headquarters responsible for developing and
administering oversight guidelines, coordinating
various forms of on-site monitoring, and ensuring
the proper implementation of plans of action or
imposition of penalties for noncompliance.
We found that the D.C. Department of Corrections
partially implemented five and fully implemented
the other four recommendations. Partially
implemented recommendations included the
recommendation to modify the contract with
Youngstown. The D.C. Department of Corrections
drafted a contract modification that would require
the Youngstown facility to (1) comply with the
standards set forth by the American Correctional
Association,11 the National Commission on
Correctional Health Care,12 and the State of Ohio
and (2) pay financial penalties of $1,200 per day
for failure to comply with the major contract
provisions. It also outlined procedures for
determining compliance with the contract.
However, at the time of our review, the
Department's draft modification of the Youngstown
contract was under negotiation with the
contractor. Further, Department officials did not
attempt to reevaluate the cost of the contract as
recommended by the Trustee.
The D.C. Department of Corrections temporarily
reduced the inmate population at Youngstown to
below 1,000. However, despite the July 1999
finding of a joint Corrections Trustee/Department
of Corrections review team that Youngstown still
lacked an industrial operation for employing
inmates, by September 1999, the Department had
increased the population of the facility to 1,436.
While the Department of Corrections had begun the
process of hiring supplemental professional and
clerical assistance for the on-site monitor at
Youngstown, the Department had not hired this
assistance. The Department also reclassified all
of the District's inmate felon population using
the BOP model, which the Department adopted in the
fall of 1997 as part of an initiative that
predated the Corrections Trustee's report.
However, two BOP reviews of 744 minimum security
inmate files (completed in December 1998 and March
1999, respectively) found classification errors in
about 40 percent of the files reviewed.13
According to D.C. Department of Corrections
officials, it has arranged for additional training
on the BOP classification system.
Also partially implemented was a recommendation to
clearly define the criteria for selection of
inmates for any future transfer to contract
facilities. With assistance from the Corrections
Trustee, the D.C. Department of Corrections
negotiated a contract with the Virginia Department
of Corrections to house felon inmates that
included, as the Corrections Trustee recommended,
clearly defined criteria for transferring inmates.
However, according to an October 1999 report
issued by the Corrections Trustee, the Department
still lacked written policies and procedures for
classifying and transferring inmates. This problem
was reported before and after the Corrections
Trustee's November 1998 report.
In October 1997, a study led by the National
Institute of Corrections reported that, of the 270
D.C. Department of Corrections' orders in effect,
at least 61 percent had been developed between the
1960s and 1980s, with no indication in most cases
that these policies had subsequently been reviewed
or updated.14 An internal assessment of the
Department's Case Management Services unit15 in
April 1999, found that the manual used, among
other things, to ensure a consistent application
of policies with regards to inmate classification,
transfer, and separation, had not been updated
since 1988. According to Corrections Trustee and
Department of Corrections officials, the
Department recently established an office to
develop and monitor internal controls, and was in
the process of updating its policies and
procedures.
Fully implemented recommendations were those
dealing with activating new contract facilities;
ensuring that these facilities have in place,
before inmates arrive, a sound screening and
classification capability; removing all inmates
requiring separation from other inmates; and
setting up a contract monitoring unit. The
contract with the Virginia Department of
Corrections included provisions to gradually
activate the new Sussex II facility, allow
sufficient time to screen and transfer inmates,
and select an on-site monitor to oversee the
transfer of inmates. The contract also
incorporated the recommendation that future
contract facilities have a sound screening and
classification capability. According to the D.C.
Department of Corrections, as of January 2000, all
inmates known to require separation at Youngstown
from other inmates had been removed except those
required by court order to stay there. The
Department of Corrections has established a
contract monitoring unit at headquarters. This
unit has conducted program reviews of all D.C.
Department of Corrections' contract facilities,
including smaller contract facilities in New
Mexico and Arizona. Appendix I provides a fuller
explanation of the D.C. Department of Corrections'
actions to implement each of the recommendations,
as well as an explanation of the factors affecting
the Department's response.
BOP Did Not Comply With the Revitalization Act's
Initial Privatization Requirement
BOP did not comply with the Revitalization Act's
initial privatization requirement to house at
least 2,000 District sentenced felons in private
contract facilities by December 31, 1999. To
comply with the act's initial requirement, BOP
accepted the transfer of 1,861 District sentenced
felon inmates and began contracting for two
private facilities to house 2,200 inmates 22
months in advance of the date they were needed.
However, the construction of both facilities was
delayed because of a number of issues, including
security, environmental, and legal issues. As of
December 31, 1999, none of the inmates were in
private facilities. BOP notified Congress of its
inability to comply with this requirement in April
1999. In February 2000, BOP modified its
contracting procedures in an effort to avoid a
recurrence of the environmental complications that
delayed the construction and operation of both
private facilities. According to BOP, these
modifications will require prospective contractors
to address environmental concerns as part of the
contracting process. BOP officials believe that
the modified contracting procedures will prevent a
recurrence of the environmental complications
previously encountered.
The Revitalization Act also requires BOP to house
at least half of the District's sentenced felon
inmate population in private contract facilities
by September 30, 2003. As of January 2000, BOP
had not begun to contract for the additional
private facilities needed to comply with the
Revitalization Act's requirement to house at least
half of the District's sentenced felon population
in private correctional facilities by September
30, 2003.
In February 1998, BOP issued an initial request
for proposals to house 2,200 inmates of various
classification levels; however, it revised this
request in November 1998, partially in response to
the release of the Trustee's report describing
security and other problems at Youngstown to
delete the requirement for 1,200 low security
beds. Prospective offerors were asked to revise
their proposals to encompass the remaining
requirement to house 1,000 male and female inmates
of various security classification levels. In
December 1998, BOP issued a second request for
proposals covering the 1,200 low security inmates.
In April 1999, BOP awarded a contract to Cornell
Corrections, Incorporated, for the management and
operation of a contractor-owned and operated
correctional institution in Pennsylvania for 1,000
male and female inmates of varying classification
levels. Groundbreaking for this facility took
place in May 1999. However, as a result of a
court challenge, BOP subsequently issued four
temporary stop-work orders to reevaluate the
environmental documentation used to support the
contract award. Also, in September 1999, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General issued a letter to
the contractor advising that since Pennsylvania
law does not specifically authorize the operation
of a privately owned and operated prison in
Pennsylvania, such prisons are prohibited.
Largely as a result of environmental concerns, BOP
delayed the awarding of a second contract until
October 1999, when it conditionally accepted
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation's proposal
(pending completion of an environmental impact
review) to build and operate a second facility in
North Carolina. As a result of these delays,
neither contract facility was operational as of
December 1999, and BOP was unable to begin the
transfer of inmates as planned. In March 2000,
BOP formally awarded the contract for the second
facility to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.
The first inmates are scheduled to arrive there in
March 2001. Table 2 shows a summary of BOP's
efforts to comply with the Revitalization Act's
privatization requirements.
Table 2: BOP's Efforts to Comply With the
Revitalization Act's Privatization Requirements
Actions taken by BOP Date
Issued a request for proposals to build and operate a February 1998
single private facility to house 2,200 inmates of
various classification levels.
Partially in response to the Corrections Trustee's November 1998 and
report on Youngstown, amended its initial request for December 1998
proposals to delete a requirement for 1,200 beds for
low security inmates. Prospective offerors were
requested to modify their proposals to reflect the
remaining requirement to house 700 male and 300
female inmates of various security classification
levels. In December, BOP issued a second request for
proposals to cover the 1,200 low security inmates.
Testified before Congress that it expected to have February 1999
operational contracts for the two facilities by
December 1999 and June 2000, respectively.
Awarded a contract for the management and operation April 1999 and May
of a contractor-owned and operated correctional 1999
institution in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, for 700
male and 300 female inmates of various security
classification levels. Groundbreaking for the
facility took place in May.
Issued a 90-day stop-work order in response to a June 1999
court challenge questioning the environmental
documentation used to support the contract award.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania September 1999
facility through December 1999. In a separate
development, the Pennsylvania Attorney General
informed the contractor that since state law does not
specifically authorize the operation of a privately
owned and operated contract prison in Pennsylvania,
such prisons are prohibited.
Conditionally accepted a proposal for the October 1999
construction and operation of a second private
facility in Winton, North Carolina, pending
completion of an environmental impact review. This
facility, when completed, will house 1,200 primarily
low security inmates.
Contracted with the Virginia Department of
Corrections to house 1,000 primarily low security
inmates at Virginia's Greensville Correctional Center
and began the transfer of inmates.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania December 1999
facility to continue until early March 2000.
As of December 31, 1999, had transferred a total of
596 inmates to the Virginia Department of
Corrections' Greensville Correctional Center.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania March 2000
facility to continue until early April 2000.
Formally awarded the contract for the second facility
to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.
Source: Documents provided by and interviews with
BOP officials.
Although BOP did not comply with the initial
privatization requirement of the Revitalization
Act, it accepted the transfer of 1,861 District
felon inmates by the end of 1999. Of these
inmates, 1,583 remained in custody as of December
31, 1999, including 596 at a state-run facility in
Virginia. BOP officials told us that the majority
of these inmates will eventually be transferred to
one of the two private facilities. BOP sent the
remainder of the inmates to various federal
correctional facilities.
D.C. and BOP Face Significant Challenges as the
Date for Closing Lorton Nears
Since the passage of the Revitalization Act,
the D.C. Department of Corrections and BOP have,
despite difficulties, successfully transferred
some inmates and closed some facilities at Lorton.
However, as the date for closing all of Lorton
nears, District of Columbia and BOP officials face
important challenges, including an unexpected
increase in the District's sentenced felon inmate
population, funding concerns, a lack of space in
BOP facilities, and staff attrition at the D.C.
Department of Corrections.
As of December 31, 1999, a total of 4,599
District felon inmates had been transferred from
Lorton to other correctional facilities. The D.C.
Department of Corrections had transferred 1,473
inmates to Youngstown and other private contract
facilities and 1,265 inmates to state-run contract
facilities in Virginia. BOP had accepted the
transfer of 1,861 inmates; of these, 1,583
remained in custody. A total of 2,827 inmates
remained in the Lorton complex. The D.C.
Department of Corrections had also closed three of
the seven Lorton facilities, but closed two of
these about 1 year after the date called for in
the original closure plan issued in October 1997.16
The slippage in the scheduled closings of these
two Lorton facilities was primarily attributable
to the Department's errors in inmate
classification and, according to Corrections
Trustee officials, an unexpected increase in the
inmate population. As a result of concerns about
past escapes noted in inmates' case files, BOP
reclassified a number of inmates as low security
after the Department had classified them as
minimum security inmates. Because of this
reclassification of inmates, BOP was initially
unable to transfer these inmates, as originally
planned, to work camps, which generally lack
perimeter fences, and they remained in the custody
of the D.C. Department of Corrections. The
Department of Corrections closed one of the Lorton
facilities, the Modular facility, in 1995 as a
result of budget cuts, but reopened it in May 1999
following an unexpected increase in the inmate
population.
In February 1999, the Corrections Trustee
issued a revised closure plan. Since issuing this
plan, the D.C. Department of Corrections has
closed two facilities-Occoquan and the Minimum
Security Facility. A third facility, the Youth
Facility, closed in January 2000. All three
facilities closed either ahead of or slightly
behind the revised schedule. In February 2000,
the Corrections Trustee revised its closure plan a
second time to reflect a decision to close the
Maximum Security Facility in March 2001, rather
than in December 2001, as called for in the
February 1999 revised closure plan. Table 3
provides for each of the seven Lorton facilities
the original scheduled closing date, the revised
scheduled closing date, and the actual closing
date.
Table 3: Lorton Facilities' Planned and Actual
Closing Dates
Facility Original Revised Actual date
planned closing closed
closing dateb
datea
Medium securityc Not Not September
applicable applicable 1997
Occoquan August 1998 April 1999 May 1999
Minimum security Summer 1998 September July 1999
1999
Youth December March 2000 January 2000
2001
Maximum security December March 2001
2001
Central December December
2001 2001
Modulard Not December
applicable 2001
a In October 1997, the National Institute of
Corrections led the study that contained the
original closure plan for Lorton.
bThe Corrections Trustee revised the closure plans
for Lorton in February 1999 and February 2000.
The major difference between these two plans
consists of moving the closure date for the
Maximum Security Facility from December 2001 to
March 2001.
cThis facility was closed before either of the
closure plans was prepared.
dThe D.C. Department of Corrections closed this
facility in 1995 and reopened it in May 1999 after
submission of the February 1999 revised closure
plan.
Sources: District of Columbia Department of
Corrections Management Reform Act: Phase II-
Recommended Improvement Projects, October 1997;
February 1999, and February 2000 closure plans
issued by the Office of the Corrections Trustee
for the District of Columbia.
District Felon Inmate Population Increase
Officials from the Department of Corrections, the
Corrections Trustee, and BOP agreed that a
continued increase in the District felon inmate
population could complicate the transfer of
inmates to BOP. D.C. Department of Corrections
and Corrections Trustee officials also agreed that
the sentenced felon population increase could
complicate the management and funding of the
Lorton complex until its closure on December 31,
2001. Although BOP accepted the transfer of 1,861
District sentenced felon inmates between April
1998 and December 1999, the number of sentenced
felon inmates in the District's custody only
decreased by 13, and the total number of sentenced
felons transferred or in the custody of both the
District and BOP increased by 1,223. The number
of inmates remaining in the Lorton facilities as
of December 31, 1999, also increased. According
to the Corrections Trustee, in fiscal year 1999
alone the sentenced felon inmate population
increased by more than 10 percent. The
Corrections Trustee attributed the population
increase, which was unexpected, to (1) an increase
in the number of parole violators, (2) a reduction
in the number of felons released as a result of a
court decision that disallowed credit for time
spent on parole prior to a parole violation, and
(3) delays in the inmate parole hearing process as
a result of the transfer of authority to grant
parole from the D.C. Board of Parole to the U.S.
Parole Commission. According to the Corrections
Trustee, the February 2000 closure plan, which
assumes a population increase of 400 inmates per
year, will require revision in the event the
Department's inmate population increases
significantly in excess of this level. Table 4
shows a comparison of the District's felon inmate
population in April 1998 versus December 1999.
Table 4: Comparison of the District's Sentenced
Felon Inmate Population From 1998 to 1999
Facility Number of inmates Number of inmates Difference
as of April 1998 as of
December 1999
Correctional Treatment Facility and Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail)
Correctional Treatment 583 445
Facility
Central Detention Facility 334 191
(D.C. Jail)
Total 917 636 -281
Lorton Facilities
Central 1,231 1,951a
Youth center 639 258
Maximum security 536 618
Occoquan 1,058 0
Minimum security 272 0
Medium security 0 0
Total 3,736 2,827 -909
Private Facilities contracted for by the District of Columbia
Youngstown, Ohio 1,561 1,227
Arizona, New Mexico, and 0 246
Tennessee
Total 1,561 1,473 -88
Virginia Department of Corrections facilities contracted for by the
District of Columbia
Sussex II 0 1,178
Red Onion 0 87
Total 0 1,265 +1265
Total sentenced felons in 6,214b 6,201c -13
the District's custody
Sentenced felons 625d 1,861e +1,236
transferred to BOP
Total number of District 6,839 8,062 +1,223
sentenced felons in
custody and transferred
aTotal includes the inmates in the Modular
facility, which was closed in 1995 as a result of
budget cuts and reopened in 1999 because of an
unexpected increase in the inmate population.
bTotal does not include 247 sentenced felon
inmates accused of possible parole violations and
inmates detained as a result of warrants issued by
other jurisdictions. Total also does not include
inmates in halfway houses.
cTotal does not include 42 inmates transferred to
the U.S. Marshals Service; 18 inmates housed in
state-run facilities under cooperative agreements
with Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland,
and Florida; and 208 inmates in halfway houses.
dBOP did not have information about the number of
inmates released and in custody as of April 1998.
eAs of December 31, 1999, BOP had in custody a
total of 1,583 sentenced felon inmates.
Sources: District of Columbia Department of
Corrections, Office of the Corrections Trustee for
the District of Columbia, and BOP.
Funding Concerns
District officials, at both the Department of
Corrections and the Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, were concerned
that a funding shortfall could complicate efforts
to operate Lorton until its closure. In fiscal
year 1999, the Department of Corrections reported
what it referred to as a projected funding
shortfall of approximately $26 million. This
projected shortfall was not resolved, according to
agency officials, until the Attorney General
waived an $11 million reimbursement from the
Corrections Trustee to BOP for expenses related to
the care of District inmates, the District
government reprogrammed $5 million in additional
funding, and the Department reduced its
expenditures. To bridge the gap, the District
government also applied the Corrections Trustee's
final fiscal year 1998 payment of $3.4 million.
D.C. Department of Corrections officials estimated
that a similar shortfall will occur in fiscal year
2000 and that the Department's ability to carry
out its mission will be adversely affected unless
it is able to obtain additional federal or local
funding, or a combination of the two. Regarding
1999, 2000, and 2001, Corrections Trustee and
District government officials did not agree on the
most appropriate mix of federal and local funding.17
As of January 2000, Corrections Trustee and
District officials had not agreed on an estimate
of the projected fiscal year 2000 funding
shortfall, but the Department had developed a plan
to reduce the projected shortfall, which includes
approximately $13 million in additional local
funding and approximately $13 million in spending
cuts. In January 2000, Department officials also
expressed concern about the fiscal year 2001
budget, but had not yet finalized the funding
figures.
Of the D.C. Department of Corrections' total
approved budget of $257 million for fiscal year
1999, the federal government, through the
Corrections Trustee provided approximately $185
million. The District of Columbia provided the
majority of the remainder, although a small amount
was also generated through a for-profit self-
supporting fund used to purchase items for sale to
inmates. The projected 1999 funding shortfall was
attributed to a combination of factors including
� the unexpected increase in the felon inmate
population;
� errors made by the District government in
allocating funding;
� underfunding on the part of either or both
the federal and District governments;
� the failure to appropriately fund the April
1998 pay raise for Department of Corrections
employees that was approved by the City Council;
� a failure to budget for operation of the
minimum security facility, which was originally
scheduled to close in the summer of 1998 and the
Modular facility that was reopened in 1999; and
� a failure on the part of the D.C. Department
of Corrections to budget for the Virginia contract
.
While District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
officials believed that the projected funding
shortfall was the result of inadequate funding
from the federal government, Corrections Trustee
officials believed that the level of federal
funding was sufficient, given the transfer of
inmates from the aging Lorton facilities to newer,
more cost effective contract facilities. In June
1998, the Corrections Trustee testified that his
fiscal year 1999 budget provided between $27,000
and $28,000 for each inmate, whereas the national
average cost for state systems was about $20,000.
However, in April 1999, the Corrections Trustee
indicated that a continuation of the inmate
population increase could put a severe strain on
the Corrections Trustee's ability to provide
adequate resources to manage the felon population.
Of the D.C. Department of Corrections' enacted
budget of approximately $243 million for fiscal
year 2000, the federal government, through the
Corrections Trustee, is to provide $173 million.18
Because of an increasing felon inmate population
and the failure to realize expected savings in the
health services budget when only a few of the
inmates with acute or chronic illnesses were
transferred to contract or BOP facilities, the
Department of Corrections believes that it will
again experience what it describes as a funding
shortfall of about $20 million to $26 million in
fiscal year 2000. Other factors that agency
officials believe will contribute to the projected
shortfall include a lack of (1) budget authority
for overtime; (2) operating funds for the Modular
facility; and (3) investment funds for
improvements in information technology, capital
improvements to the D.C. jail, and community
corrections.19 According to the Department's
fiscal year 2000 financial plan, the District
allocated less than $70 million in local funds for
the D.C. Department of Corrections' operations
that are to continue after Lorton is closed. The
Corrections Trustee estimated that the District
should allocate approximately $80 million to fund
these facilities. In March 2000, the Corrections
Trustee testified that Mayor Anthony Williams'
recently released fiscal year 2001 budget that was
sent to the City Council recommended a funding
level that was $20 million short of what the
District needs to provide to the Department of
Corrections to fund its local responsibilities.20
After Lorton is closed, the D.C. Department of
Corrections is to be responsible for the operation
of the D.C. Jail. The Department of Corrections
is also to be responsible for overseeing the
operation of the Correctional Treatment Facility,
which is privately operated, as well as the
halfway houses, several of which are contract
facilities.
Lack of Space in BOP Facilities
D.C. Department of Corrections and
Corrections Trustee officials were concerned about
BOP's lack of space for low, medium, and high
security inmates. This lack of space, combined
with increases in the inmate population
experienced by both the District and BOP, could
complicate the Department's efforts to transfer
the Lorton inmates. According to the Department
of Corrections' fiscal year 2000 financial plan,
the Department's transition to a more typical
municipal correctional system is contingent on
BOP's acceptance of medium and high security
inmates in the near future.
As of February 2000, about 91 percent of the
District's felon population was comprised of low,
medium, and high security inmates. All three of
BOP's plans for accepting the transfer of District
inmates-dated November 1997, December 1998, and
January 2000, respectively-acknowledged a lack of
space, particularly for low, medium, and high
security inmates, as a factor limiting BOP's
ability to accept the District inmates. BOP does
not plan to begin accepting the majority of medium
and high security inmates until January 2001. In
addition to the two private facilities under
contract, BOP plans to build seven facilities to
house the District inmates. However, the first of
these new facilities, a high security facility
located in Florida with space for 960 inmates, is
not to be activated until September 2001. The
remaining six facilities are scheduled to become
operational in 2002 and 2003.21 In March 2000, BOP
testified that the additional prison bed capacity
to absorb the District's sentenced felon inmates
will not be ready by the December 31, 2001, date,
but that it was taking other steps to comply with
the Revitalization Act's requirements. These
steps include adding space by expanding existing
BOP facilities, increasing the use of contract and
state-run facilities, and redistributing low and
minimum security inmates among existing BOP
facilities. 22
Also, BOP's ability to house the District's
remaining inmates is complicated by increases in
both the District's and BOP's inmate populations.
As discussed above, the District experienced an
unexpected inmate population increase and, in
fiscal year 1998, BOP experienced an increase of
10,000 inmates-the largest increase in BOP's
history. According to testimony presented by BOP
in March 2000, in fiscal year 1999 BOP experienced
a second year of large inmate population
increases, increasing its total inmate population
by more than 11,300. 23 BOP facilities are
reportedly 33 percent over capacity systemwide,
with medium and high security facilities at 54
percent and 52 percent over capacity respectively.
BOP has requested funding for additional inmate
housing, as well as greater discretion in the
placement of District sentenced felons to help
ensure that these inmates can be placed in private
facilities in accordance with their needs.
D.C. Department of Corrections' Staff Attrition
D.C. Department of Corrections officials were
concerned that staff attrition could adversely
affect the operation of Lorton until its closure
on December 31, 2001. Staff attrition, while much
reduced from previous levels, has been a
continuing problem partially as a result of the
announced closure of Lorton, which made it more
difficult for the D.C. Department of Corrections
to recruit and retain qualified staff. In October
1997, a study led by the National Institute of
Corrections reported that up to 20 Department of
Corrections' employees were resigning during each
2-week pay period. According to the Corrections
Trustee, staff attrition has more recently
averaged 9 per 2-week pay period. During the past
year, the closing of the three Lorton facilities
has permitted the reassignment of correctional
officers to fill vacancies at the remaining
District correctional facilities, including
Lorton, providing an adequate staffing complement.
However, no facilities are scheduled to close
between January 2000 and March 2001, and as of
January 15, 2000, the D.C. Department of
Corrections had an on-board strength of 1,761- 7
above the required staffing level of 1,754. 24
According to Corrections Trustee officials, staff
attrition will force the D.C. Department of
Corrections to continue to use overtime as a means
of filling court-ordered posts, as well as seeking
other alternatives to offset the loss of staff.
It may also result in an older, less
technologically capable workforce.
Agency Comments
The Corrections Trustee and BOP generally
agreed with the information in our report. They
and the Department of Corrections also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate. Their comments are reprinted in
appendixes II through IV.
As arranged with your office, unless you
publicly announce the contents of this report
earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30
days after the date of this report. At that time,
we will send copies of this report to
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking
Minority Member, House Committee on Government
Reform, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
as well as other interested congressional parties.
We will also send copies of this report to the
Honorable Anthony Williams, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia; and the Honorable Janet
Reno, the Attorney General. Copies will be made
available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions,
please call me or Brenda Bridges on (202) 512-
8777. Key contributors to this assignment were
David Alexander, Geoffrey Hamilton, Jose M. Pena,
III, and Barbara Stolz.
Sincerely yours,
Laurie Ekstrand,
Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
_______________________________
1 The National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 was enacted as
Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
Public Law 105-33.
2 The full-time monitor at Youngstown is employed
by the D.C. Department of Corrections. He is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms
of the contract.
3The BOP's classification system, like other
classification systems, classifies or subdivides
inmates into groups based on their security and
program needs.
4 For this report, screening refers to the process
of determining an inmate's fitness for placement
in a particular correctional facility based on
various factors, including security, program, and
medical needs.
5Correctional facilities are grouped into security
levels depending on the security needs of the
inmates. Under BOP's security classification
system, minimum security inmates require the least
amount of supervision; high security inmates
require the most. Moving from the lowest security
level to the highest, BOP uses the terms
"minimum," "low," "medium," and "high."
6 This figure does not include 781 inmates
assigned to community halfway houses and 517
inmates in the custody of BOP and the U.S.
Marshals Service.
7The D.C. Department of Corrections also placed
inmates in private contract facilities in Arizona,
New Mexico, and Tennessee.
8 We used similar definitions when reporting on
the Customs Service' implementation of
recommendations issued by a blue ribbon panel in
1991 (Customs Service: Status of the
Implementation of Blue Ribbon Panel
Recommendations (GAO/GGD-96-163, Sept. 3, 1996).
9The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the
District of Columbia coordinates the efforts of
both federal and District agencies that form part
of the District of Columbia's criminal justice
system. The Council's membership includes, among
others, representatives from the Metropolitan
Police Department, the D.C. Department of
Corrections, the U.S. Parole Commission, and the
Office of the Corrections Trustee for the District
of Columbia.
10Some inmates require separation from other
inmates within a correctional facility for various
reasons, including personal animosities, and
testimony provided against other inmates.
11The American Correctional Association is a
professional membership organization dedicated to
the improvement of corrections and the development
and training of correctional professionals. It
has been involved in the development of national
standards addressing operations, programs, and
services essential to effective correctional
management.
12The National Commission on Correctional Health
Care has developed standards addressing the
provision of health care at correctional
facilities.
13 In January 2000, D.C. Department of Corrections
officials told us that BOP had more recent
evidence showing that the Department of
Corrections had greatly reduced the number of
classification errors. However, BOP could not
provide data to support this claim.
14The National Institute of Corrections is an
agency within BOP that provides assistance to
federal, state, and local corrections agencies
working with adult offenders.
15 The Case Management Services Unit is responsible
for classifying, transferring, and separating
inmates.
16 A fourth facility, the medium security facility,
was closed in September 1997 prior to the
completion of the original closure plan.
17The disagreement focused on the responsibility
for funding inmates not ready for transfer to long-
term confinement facilities. The inmates in
question include those who were sentenced, served
terms of confinement as felons, returned to the
community on parole or under supervision, were
arrested for new crimes, and were being held in
local detention awaiting adjudication.
18 An additional $13 million is being requested
from District funds to address the projected
shortfall, bringing the revised estimate to $256
million. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for
the Office of the Corrections Trustee is
approximately $175 million; of which
approximately $3 million is for the Corrections
Trustee's administrative expenses.
19For this report, community corrections include
programs for pretrial detainees, sentenced
misdemeanants, work release program felons, and
halfway houses.
20 Statement of the Corrections Trustee, John
Clark, before the House Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of
Columbia, March 23, 2000.
21 These seven facilities are to also house inmates
from other jurisdictions.
22 Statement of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, before the House
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, March 2, 2000.
23 Statement of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, before the House
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, March 2, 2000.
24 Only includes staff at D.C. Department of
Corrections operated facilities, as well as
transportation staff. The total staffing level
is 2,224, which also includes medical staff,
facilities maintenance staff, and other
administrative positions.
Appendix I
Department of Corrections' Responses to the
Trustee's Recommendations
Page 26GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngs
town Prison Report
The Trustee recommended In response to the Status
that the D.C. Department Trustee's
of Corrections . . . recommendations, the
Department of Corrections
. . .
Modify the existing Drafted a provision to be Partially implemented.
contract to hold added to the Youngstown
Youngstown more contract for a $1,200 per However, at the time of
accountable for adhering day penalty in the event our review, Youngstown
to the contract of a major deficiency. had not agreed to the
provisions by including The Department also contract modifications,
specific procedures and proposed specific and the D.C. Department
penalties for language to be added to of Corrections had not re
noncompliance. The the contract requiring evaluated the
Department should add Youngstown to comply with justification for the
specific language to the standards set forth by contract's pricing
contract describing the the American Correctional structure, viewing the
procedures for Association, the State of contract as cost
determining whether the Ohio, the National effective.
contract facility Commission on
complied with the Correctional Health Care,
contract and include a court orders or consent
preset schedule of decrees specifically
financial penalties that applicable to the
attach to such contract Youngstown facility, and
breaches. The Department D.C. Department of
should also reevaluate Corrections policies. It
the justification for the also outlined procedures
pricing structure. for determining
compliance with the
contract.
Until there are Temporarily reduced, in Partially implemented.
significant additional the wake of the Trustee's
opportunities for report, the inmate Subsequent to the
constructive daily population at Youngstown reduction to below 1,000,
activities, reduce the to below 1,000. by September, 1999, the
population of the D.C. Department of
Youngstown facility, Corrections had increased
preferably to 1,000 the inmate population to
inmates, since a greater 1,436. In July 1999, a
number of idle inmates joint Trustee/Department
may result in serious review found that, while
problems. there was much less
evidence of inmate
idleness, Youngstown had
still not established an
industrial operation.
Supplement the current Started the process of Partially implemented.
full-time contract hiring additional staff.
monitor at Youngstown However, the D.C.
with additional Department of Corrections
professional and clerical had not yet hired the
assistance. The additional staff to
Department of assist the on-site
Corrections' subject monitor. According to
matter experts should D.C. Department of
provide assistance Corrections officials,
periodically to the local subject matter experts
monitor. have provided the on-site
monitor at Youngstown
with subject matter
expertise.
Stabilize the process of Adopted BOP's Partially implemented.
classifying inmates and classification model in
eliminate confusion by the fall of 1997, as a However, two BOP reviews
adopting BOP's model as result of an initiative of 744 D.C. Department of
the permanent model and that predated the Corrections minimum
properly train staff in Trustee's report. An security inmate case
its use. October 1999 Trustee files, completed in
review of the D.C. December 1998 and March
Department of 1999, found
Corrections' classification errors in
classification procedures about 40 percent of the
found that the cases reviewed. In
Department's adoption of January 2000, Department
the BOP model represented of Corrections officials
a major improvement in told us that BOP had more
the safety of its recent evidence showing
facilities. that the Department of
Corrections had greatly
reduced the number of
classification errors.
However, BOP could not
provide data to support
this claim. According to
the D.C. Department of
Corrections, it has
arranged for additional
training on the BOP
classification system.
Clearly define criteria Defined the criteria for Partially implemented.
for the selection of transfer in its contract
inmates for any future with the Virginia In October 1999, the
transfer to contract Department of Corrections Trustee found that the
facilities. Sufficient as a medium to maximum D.C. Department of
time should be allowed security inmate as Corrections lacked
for the (1) Department of determined by the written policies and
Corrections and the Virginia Department of procedures for
contract facility to Corrections' classifying and
screen referrals and classification system. transferring inmates.
determine if adequate Virginia Department of An April 1999 assessment
information is available Corrections, D.C. showed that the case
and (2) contractor to Department of management services
object to the transfer of Corrections, and Trustee manual-used, among other
any inmate not suitable officials agreed that things, to ensure a
under the terms of the sufficient time was consistent application of
contract. allowed for screening and policies with regards to
classifying inmates. classification, transfer,
Virginia Department of and inmate separation
Corrections officials procedures-had not been
told us that they updated since 1988. With
rejected the transfer of assistance from the
some inmates they deemed Corrections Trustee, the
unsuitable for their Department recently
facilities. established an office to
monitor internal
controls, and is in the
process of updating its
policies and procedures.
Ensure that any future Contracted to house 1,355 Fully implemented.
activation of a new inmates in two Virginia
contract facility be well Department of Corrections While the D.C. Department
organized and gradual, facilities-Sussex II and of Corrections had not
with feasible start-up Red Onion. Provided for developed internal
schedules, on-site the transfer of inmates policies and procedures
monitoring, and a to Virginia to begin for ensuring that all
willingness to alter approximately 5 months future contract
plans to adapt to the after the signing of the facilities are activated
realities of the contract in August 1998. in a gradual, organized
situation. Virginia used this period manner, as of January
to prepare its facilities 2000, the Department had
for the transfer of no plans to place
inmates. The first sentenced felon inmates
transfer actually in any other contract
occurred in January 1999, facilities.
and transfers continued
until May 1999. Inmates
were transferred at the
rate of 80 inmates each
week. The Department's
on-site monitor assumed
his position prior to the
transfer of the first
inmates.
Ensure that future Contracted with the Fully implemented.
contract facilities have Virginia Department of
in place, before inmates Corrections, which has a As of January 2000, the
arrive, a sound screening sound inmate screening D.C. Department of
and classification and classification Corrections had no plans
capacity to use as a capability, to house to house sentenced felon
basis for assigning 1,355 inmates. According inmates in any other
inmates to housing units, to Virginia Department of contract facilities.
identifying individual Corrections officials,
security needs, and they used their
directing inmate classification model to
involvement in work and assign inmates to housing
program activities. units and direct them
into work and program
activities.
Work with Youngstown to Removed all inmates at Fully implemented.
remove all existing Youngstown requiring
separation cases and to separation from other
ensure that no future inmates except those
known separation/enemy required by court order
cases are sent to to be at Youngstown.
Youngstown.
Establish a contract Established such an Fully implemented.
monitoring oversight unit office in its
in headquarters with the headquarters. This
responsibility of office is to coordinate
monitoring all contract the Department's efforts
facilities holding to monitor contract
Department of Corrections facilities and has
inmates. The unit should developed written rules
develop and administer and procedures, to guide
oversight guidelines, its operations. Since
coordinate various forms May 1999, this office has
of on-site monitoring, completed program reviews
and ensure the proper of all contract
implementation of plans facilities housing
of action or imposition District inmates,
of penalties for including smaller
noncompliance. contract facilities in
New Mexico and Arizona.
These program reviews
identified problems
related to the operation
of the contract
facilities and suggested
solutions.
Sources: National Institute on Corrections; D.C.
Department of Corrections; Office of the
Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia,
Bureau of Prisons, and the Virginia Department of
Corrections.
Appendix II
Comments From the D.C. Department of Corrections
Page 28GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngs
town Prison Report
Appendix III
Comments From the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Page 30GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngs
town Prison Report
Appendix IV
Comments From the Office of the Corrections
Trustee
Page 32GAO/GGD-00-86 District's Response to Youngs
town Prison Report
*** End of Document ***