DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Issues Related to the

Youngstown Prison

Report and Lorton

Closure Process

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

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown 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.

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

 

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.

Results in Brief
B-282741

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

 

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.

3

The 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.
B-282741

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

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

 

5

Correctional 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.”

Background
B-282741

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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 welldocumented 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.

Requirement Date

House at least 2,000 of the District’s

sentenced felons in private contract facilities December 31, 1999

Assign all of the District’s sentenced felons

to a penal or correctional facility October 1, 2001

Accept the transfer of all of the District’s

sentenced felons December 31, 2001

House at least half of the District’s

sentenced felon inmate population in private

contract facilities September 30, 2003

Source: National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act, as amended.

 

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.

7

The D.C. Department of Corrections also placed inmates in private contract facilities in Arizona, New

Mexico, and Tennessee.

Table 1: Revitalization Act Requirements

for BOP and the Dates the Requirements

Must Be Accomplished
B-282741

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

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.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-282741

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

 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).

9

The 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.
B-282741

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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;

D.C. Department of

Corrections Had Not

Fully Implemented the

Trustee’s

Recommendations
B-282741

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

• 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.

 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.
B-282741

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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

 

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.
B-282741

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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 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

BOP Did Not Comply

With the Revitalization

Act’s Initial

Privatization

Requirement
B-282741

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.
B-282741

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Actions taken by BOP Date

Issued a request for proposals to build and operate a single private facility to house 2,200

inmates of various classification levels. February 1998

Partially in response to the Corrections Trustee’s report on Youngstown, amended its initial

request for 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. November 1998 and December 1998

Testified before Congress that it expected to have operational contracts for the two facilities by

December 1999 and June 2000, respectively. February 1999

Awarded a contract for the management and operation of a contractor-owned and operated

correctional institution in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, for 700 male and 300 female inmates of

various security classification levels. Groundbreaking for the facility took place in May. April 1999 and May 1999

Issued a 90-day stop-work order in response to a court challenge questioning the environmental

documentation used to support the contract award. June 1999

Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania 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. September 1999

Conditionally accepted a proposal for the 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. October 1999

Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania 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. December 1999

Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania facility to continue until early April 2000.

Formally awarded the contract for the second facility to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. March 2000

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.

Table 2: BOP’s Efforts to Comply With the Revitalization Act’s Privatization Requirements
B-282741

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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

 

16 A fourth facility, the medium security facility, was closed in September 1997 prior to the completion

of the original closure plan.

D.C. and BOP Face

Significant Challenges

as the Date for Closing

Lorton Nears
B-282741

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

scheduled closing date, the revised scheduled closing date, and the actual

closing date.

Facility

Original planned

closing datea

Revised closing

datebActual date closed

Medium securityc Not applicable Not applicable September 1997

Occoquan August 1998 April 1999 May 1999

Minimum security Summer 1998 September 1999 July 1999

Youth December 2001 March 2000 January 2000

Maximum security December 2001 March 2001

Central December 2001 December 2001

Modulard Not applicable December 2001

a In October 1997, the National Institute of Corrections led the study that contained the original closure

plan for Lorton.

b

The 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.

c

This facility was closed before either of the closure plans was prepared.

d

The 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 IIRecommended Improvement Projects, October 1997; February 1999, and February 2000 closure

plans issued by the Office of the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia.

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

Table 3: Lorton Facilities’ Planned and

Actual Closing Dates

District Felon Inmate Population

Increase
B-282741

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

Facility

Number of inmates as of

April 1998

Number of inmates as of

December 1999 Difference

Correctional Treatment Facility and Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail)

Correctional Treatment Facility 583 445

Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail) 334 191

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 Tennessee 0 246

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 the District’s

custody 6,214b6,201c-13

Sentenced felons transferred to BOP 625d1,861e+1,236

Total number of District sentenced felons in

custody and transferred 6,839 8,062 +1,223

a

Total 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.

b

Total 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.

c

Total 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.

d

BOP did not have information about the number of inmates released and in custody as of April 1998.

e

As 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.

Table 4: Comparison of the District’s Sentenced Felon Inmate Population From 1998 to 1999
B-282741

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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;

 

17The disagreement focused on the responsibility for funding inmates not ready for transfer to longterm 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.

Funding Concerns
B-282741

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

• 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

 

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.
B-282741

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

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

 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.

Lack of Space in BOP Facilities
B-282741

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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 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

 

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.

D.C. Department of Corrections’

Staff Attrition
B-282741

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

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.

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

 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.

Agency Comments
Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Contents

1 Letter

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

Table 1: Revitalization Act Requirements for BOP and the

Dates the Requirements Must Be Accomplished

4

Table 2: BOP’s Efforts to Comply With the Revitalization

Act’s Privatization Requirements

12

Table 3: Lorton Facilities’ Planned and Actual Closing

Dates

14

Table 4: Comparison of the District’s Sentenced Felon

Inmate Population From 1998 to 1999

15

Tables
Contents

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Abbreviations

BOP Bureau of Prisons

DC District of Columbia
Appendix I

Department of Corrections’ Responses to the

Trustee’s Recommendations

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.

Department of Corrections . . .

In response to the Trustee’s

recommendations, the Department of

Corrections . . . Status

Modify the existing contract to hold

Youngstown more accountable for

adhering to the contract provisions by

including specific procedures and

penalties for noncompliance. The

Department should add specific language

to the contract describing the procedures

for determining whether the contract

facility complied with the contract and

include a preset schedule of financial

penalties that attach to such contract

breaches. The Department should also

reevaluate the justification for the pricing

structure.

Drafted a provision to be added to the

Youngstown contract for a $1,200 per day

penalty in the event of a major deficiency.

The Department also proposed specific

language to be added to the contract

requiring Youngstown to comply with

standards set forth by the American

Correctional Association, the State of

Ohio, the National Commission on

Correctional Health Care, court orders or

consent decrees specifically applicable to

the Youngstown facility, and D.C.

Department of Corrections policies. It also

outlined procedures for determining

compliance with the contract.

Partially implemented.

However, at the time of our review,

Youngstown had not agreed to the

contract modifications, and the D.C.

Department of Corrections had not re

evaluated the justification for the

contract’s pricing structure, viewing the

contract as cost effective.

Until there are significant additional

opportunities for constructive daily

activities, reduce the population of the

Youngstown facility, preferably to 1,000

inmates, since a greater number of idle

inmates may result in serious problems.

Temporarily reduced, in the wake of the

Trustee’s report, the inmate population at

Youngstown to below 1,000.

Partially implemented.

Subsequent to the reduction to below

1,000, by September, 1999, the D.C.

Department of Corrections had increased

the inmate population to 1,436. In July

1999, a joint Trustee/Department review

found that, while there was much less

evidence of inmate idleness, Youngstown

had still not established an industrial

operation.

Supplement the current full-time contract

monitor at Youngstown with additional

professional and clerical assistance. The

Department of Corrections’ subject matter

experts should provide assistance

periodically to the local monitor.

Started the process of hiring additional

staff.

Partially implemented.

However, the D.C. Department of

Corrections had not yet hired the

additional staff to assist the on-site

monitor. According to D.C. Department of

Corrections officials, subject matter

experts have provided the on-site monitor

at Youngstown with subject matter

expertise.
Appendix I

Department of Corrections’ Responses to the Trustee’s Recommendations

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.

Department of Corrections . . .

In response to the Trustee’s

recommendations, the Department of

Corrections . . . Status

Stabilize the process of classifying

inmates and eliminate confusion by

adopting BOP’s model as the permanent

model and properly train staff in its use.

Adopted BOP’s classification model in the

fall of 1997, as a result of an initiative that

predated the Trustee’s report. An

October 1999 Trustee review of the D.C.

Department of Corrections’ classification

procedures found that the Department’s

adoption of the BOP model represented a

major improvement in the safety of its

facilities.

Partially implemented.

However, two BOP reviews of 744 D.C.

Department of Corrections minimum

security inmate case files, completed in

December 1998 and March 1999, found

classification errors in about 40 percent of

the cases reviewed. In January 2000,

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. According to the D.C.

Department of Corrections, it has

arranged for additional training on the

BOP classification system.

Clearly define criteria for the selection of

inmates for any future transfer to contract

facilities. Sufficient time should be

allowed for the (1) Department of

Corrections and the contract facility to

screen referrals and determine if

adequate information is available and (2)

contractor to object to the transfer of any

inmate not suitable under the terms of the

contract.

Defined the criteria for transfer in its

contract with the Virginia Department of

Corrections as a medium to maximum

security inmate as determined by the

Virginia Department of Corrections’

classification system. Virginia Department

of Corrections, D.C. Department of

Corrections, and Trustee officials agreed

that sufficient time was allowed for

screening and classifying inmates.

Virginia Department of Corrections

officials told us that they rejected the

transfer of some inmates they deemed

unsuitable for their facilities.

Partially implemented.

In October 1999, the Trustee found that

the D.C. Department of Corrections

lacked written policies and procedures for

classifying and transferring inmates. An

April 1999 assessment showed that the

case management services manual—

used, among other things, to ensure a

consistent application of policies with

regards to classification, transfer, and

inmate separation procedures—had not

been updated since 1988. With

assistance from the Corrections Trustee,

the Department recently established an

office to monitor internal controls, and is in

the process of updating its policies and

procedures.
Appendix I

Department of Corrections’ Responses to the Trustee’s Recommendations

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.

Department of Corrections . . .

In response to the Trustee’s

recommendations, the Department of

Corrections . . . Status

Ensure that any future activation of a new

contract facility be well organized and

gradual, with feasible start-up schedules,

on-site monitoring, and a willingness to

alter plans to adapt to the realities of the

situation.

Contracted to house 1,355 inmates in two

Virginia Department of Corrections

facilities—Sussex II and Red Onion.

Provided for the transfer of inmates to

Virginia to begin approximately 5 months

after the signing of the contract in August

1998. Virginia used this period to prepare

its facilities for the transfer of inmates.

The first transfer actually occurred in

January 1999, 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.

Fully implemented.

While the D.C. Department of Corrections

had not developed internal policies and

procedures for ensuring that all future

contract facilities are activated in a

gradual, organized manner, as of January

2000, the Department had no plans to

place sentenced felon inmates in any

other contract facilities.

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, identifying individual

security needs, and directing inmate

involvement in work and program

activities.

Contracted with the Virginia Department of

Corrections, which has a sound inmate

screening and classification capability, to

house 1,355 inmates. According to

Virginia Department of Corrections

officials, they used their classification

model to assign inmates to housing units

and direct them into work and program

activities.

Fully implemented.

As of January 2000, the D.C. Department

of Corrections had no plans to house

sentenced felon inmates in any other

contract facilities.

Work with Youngstown to remove all

existing separation cases and to ensure

that no future known separation/enemy

cases are sent to Youngstown.

Removed all inmates at Youngstown

requiring separation from other inmates

except those required by court order to be

at Youngstown.

Fully implemented.

Establish a contract monitoring oversight

unit in headquarters with the responsibility

of monitoring all contract facilities holding

Department of Corrections inmates. The

unit should develop and administer

oversight guidelines, coordinate various

forms of on-site monitoring, and ensure

the proper implementation of plans of

action or imposition of penalties for

noncompliance.

Established such an office in its

headquarters. This office is to coordinate

the Department’s efforts to monitor

contract facilities and has developed

written rules and procedures, to guide its

operations. Since May 1999, this office

has completed program reviews of all

contract facilities housing District inmates,

including smaller contract facilities in New

Mexico and Arizona. These program

reviews identified problems related to the

operation of the contract facilities and

suggested solutions.

Fully implemented.

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 27 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Appendix II

Comments From the D.C. Department of Corrections

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Appendix III

Comments From the Federal Bureau of

Prisons

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Appendix III

Comments From the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of the Corrections

Trustee

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report
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 touchtone 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:

info@www.gao.gov

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: fraudnet@gao.gov

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)