Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2004 DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA JAIL 

Management 

Challenges Exist in 

Improving Facility 

Conditions 

GAO-04-742 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-742.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cathleen 

Berrick, (202) 512-8777 or berrickc@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-742, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

August 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL 

Management Challenges Exist in 

Improving Facility Conditions 

The District of Columbia’s Jail and 

Correctional Treatment Facility 

(CTF), which are the District’s 

detention facilities for 

misdemeanant and pretrial 

detainees, have been repeatedly 

cited for violations of health and 

safety standards. The Jail also has 

had problems with releasing 

inmates before or after their 

official release date, in part, 

because of inaccuracies in its 

electronic inmate records. As a 

follow-on to problems at the Jail 

reported in 2002 by the District’s 

Inspector General, GAO addressed 

the following questions: (1) What 

are the results of recent health and 

safety inspections? (2) What is the 

status of the Jail’s capital 

improvement projects, and what 

policies and procedures does the 

Department of Corrections (DoC) 

use in managing the projects? and 

(3) What progress has been made 

in improving electronic inmate 

records at the Jail? 

GAO made two recommendations, 

one concerning the specificity of 

reports about facility conditions; 

the other concerning time frames 

for developing and implementing 

guidance on managing projects. 

DoC and the Department of Health 

(DoH) agreed with our finding 

concerning the lack of specificity in 

inspection reports, and DoH agreed 

to implement our recommendation. 

The Office of Property 

Management did not comment on 

our second recommendation. 

Health and safety inspection reports for the Jail and CTF that were prepared 

from January 2002 through April 2004 by the District’s Department of Health 

consistently identified problems with air quality, vermin infestation, fire 

safety, plumbing, and lighting. Officials attributed some of the health and 

safety deficiencies to the age of the Jail and inmate behavior at both 

facilities. DoH inspection reports did not always document the specific 

locations where deficiencies were identified and did not document the date 

and time when the deficiencies were identified. For example, one report 

might identify a problem in a specific cell, while another report might state 

that the problem occurred in some locations, most locations, or throughout 

the Jail. This limits DoC’s ability to determine how prevalent the health and 

safety deficiencies are, whether problems are recurring in the same 

locations, or whether conditions changed over time. 

Of the 16 capital improvement projects for the Jail approved for fiscal years 

2000 through 2004, 1 project was completed and 15 were in various stages of 

development. In addition, the Office of Property Management lacked written 

policies and procedures concerning project management, which could be 

important tools in guiding project managers through the planning and 

management of projects. Although the Office of Property Management 

established a working group to develop standard operating procedures for 

managing projects, time frames had not been established for when the 

working group should complete this work. 

With respect to early and late inmate release errors, DoC has taken several 

steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in processing inmate records, 

but release errors continue to occur. DoC’s improvement efforts have 

included simplifying the workflow in the Records Office, issuing an 

operations manual, and developing additional guidance and training for staff. 

Additionally, DoC developed a database to capture detailed information on 

incidents that led to each inmate release error. DoC analyzed the 

information in this database to determine how frequently the incidents 

occurred. Based on this information, DoC has developed proposals for 

corrective action to reduce release errors. DoC officials attributed staff 

processing errors to limited staff resources and the large volume of 

documents that are continuously received in the Records Office. Because 

DoC did not have complete data on early and late inmate releases, DoC does 

not know the full extent to which the release errors occurred. Specifically, 

DoC may not discover an early release error until long after the inmate has 

been released. For late releases, DoC used an incomplete methodology, 

which led to an understated number of actual late releases. During our 

review, DoC modified this methodology to more accurately identify the 

number of late releases. 
Page i GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Health and Safety Deficiencies at the Jail and Correctional 

Treatment Facility 6

Capital Improvement Projects at the Jail 13

DoC Has Taken Steps to Improve Inmate Records, but Effects on 

Reducing Release Errors Are Difficult to Determine 19

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29 

Appendix II Capital Improvement Projects at the Correctional 

Treatment Facility 32 

Appendix III Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail 34 

Appendix IV Quality Controls DoC Implemented to Improve the 

Accuracy of Inmate Records 40 

Appendix V Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and the 

Correctional Treatment Facility 41 

Appendix VI DoC’s Implementation of the District of Columbia’s 

Office of the Inspector General’s Recommendations 43 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Appendix VII Comments from the District of Columbia, Department 

of Corrections 45 

Appendix VIII Comments from the District of Columbia, Department 

of Health 55 

Appendix IX Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of 

the Inspector General 58 

Appendix X Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of 

Property Management 59 

Appendix XI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 62 

GAO Contacts 62

Acknowledgments 62

Tables 

Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District’s Jail 14

Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during 

2003 32

Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in 

2003 41

Table 4: The District’s Office of the Inspector General’s Findings 

and Recommendations to the Department of Corrections 43

Figures 

Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 34

Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 35
Page iii GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 36

Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 37

Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 38

Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in 

Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 39

Abbreviations 

CCA Corrections Corporation of America 

CTF Correctional Treatment Facility 

DoC Department of Corrections 

DoH Department of Health 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

August 27, 2004 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

Committee on Government Reform 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The District of Columbia’s Jail, which is the District’s primary facility for 

misdemeanant and pretrial detainees, has repeatedly been cited for 

violations of health and safety standards and has been reviewed by other 

agencies for its management of inmate records.1

 In October 2002, a report 

by the District’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG)2

 noted numerous 

health and safety violations at the Jail, as well as problems with electronic 

inmate records that have resulted in errors in releasing inmates before or 

after their official release date.3

 The District’s Department of Corrections 

(DoC), the agency that manages and operates the Jail, has taken several 

actions, including implementing capital improvement projects, to address 

some of the problems that have been identified. The District’s other major 

detention facility—the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)—is managed 

and operated by a private company and has also been cited for health and 

safety violations. 

To assist in the oversight of certain management and operational issues at 

the District’s detention facilities, this report addresses the following 

questions: (1) What are the results of recent health and safety inspections 

conducted by the District’s Department of Health at the Jail and the 

Correctional Treatment Facility? (2) How many capital improvement 

projects were approved at the Jail during fiscal years 2000 through 

2004, what is their status, and what policies and procedures does DoC use 

in managing the projects? (3) What progress has been made in improving 

electronic inmate records at the Jail? Additionally, we are providing 

information on the Correctional Treatment Facility’s capital improvement 

 1

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

2

Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, Number 02-00002FL, District of 

Columbia Office of the Inspector General, October 2002. 

3

For the purposes of this report, the term “inmate” includes offenders who have been 

convicted of a crime as well as detainees who are awaiting trial or being held for 

questioning. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

projects during calendar year 2003 (see app. II), the annual costs for 

operating the detention facilities during 1999 through 2003, the types of 

programs and services that the detention facilities provided during 

2003 (see app. V); and recommendations relevant to our review that were 

part of the District’s 2002 Office of Inspector General report (see app. VI). 

To answer these questions, we held discussions with officials in DoC 

headquarters, the Jail and CTF, and OIG. We reviewed applicable laws and 

regulations, policies and procedures guiding operations at the Jail and 

CTF, and standards for internal control in the federal government.4

 We did 

not compare the conditions of the Jail or its records office with conditions 

at other detention facilities because this was outside the scope of our 

review. 

To obtain information on the results of health and safety inspections, we 

interviewed District Department of Health (DoH) officials, reviewed the 

American Correctional Association’s and American Public Health 

Association’s standards for health and safety conditions for correctional 

institutions, and reviewed inspection reports that the District’s DoH and 

Fire and Emergency Medical Services prepared during 2002 through 

2004. It was beyond the scope of this review to determine whether the 

DoH inspector applied the health and safety standards correctly, took 

accurate measurements, or accurately reported the inspection results. We 

also did not review the adequacy of any corrective actions taken at the Jail 

or the CTF. 

To determine the number and status of capital improvement projects at 

the Jail, we reviewed documentation and information provided by District 

officials on the estimated cost, scope, and schedule time frames for each 

capital improvement project that the District approved during fiscal years 

2000 through 2004. We did not assess the quality of work on projects that 

were in construction at the time of our review. Because the District’s 

Office of Property Management is the implementing agency for DoC’s 

capital projects, we interviewed the office’s Director, Deputy Director of 

Operations, and project management staff. 

 4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). 
Page 3 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

To determine DoC’s progress in improving the accuracy of inmate records 

at the Jail and CTF,5

 we reviewed DoC’s operations manual, internal 

controls for managing inmate records, and available data on the number of 

early and late inmate releases. We sought to determine the reliability of 

these data by reviewing DoC’s process for determining release errors and 

tracing reported figures to available source documentation. DoC’s data on 

errors in early and late inmate releases were not reliable enough for the 

purposes of this review since DoC may not discover an early release until 

long after it occurs. In addition, until March 2004, DoC was using an 

incomplete methodology to identify late releases. Therefore, DoC’s data 

on both early and late release errors may have understated the true 

number of errors. 

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., between June 2003 and July 

2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Appendix I provides more detailed information about the scope 

and methodology of our work. 

Department of Health inspection reports for the Jail and CTF prepared 

from January 2002 through April 2004 consistently identified health and 

safety deficiencies concerning air quality, vermin infestation, fire safety, 

plumbing, and lighting. A Jail official attributed some of the health and 

safety deficiencies to the age of the facility and inmate behavior. The 

inspection reports prepared by DoH were not consistently specific about 

the location within the facilities of the identified deficiencies and did not 

document the date or time the deficiencies were identified. This limits 

DoC’s ability to determine how prevalent the health and safety deficiencies 

were, whether problems recurred in the same locations, or whether 

conditions changed over time. 

Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail for fiscal 

years 2000 through 2004. As of June 1, 2004, 1 project had been completed 

and 15 were in various stages of development. The District’s Office of 

Property Management, the District agency responsible for managing the 

implementation of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, did not have 

information on what the final costs and schedule time frames would be for 

most of the 16 capital projects, as they were still subject to design and/or 

 5

DoC’s Records Office, located at the Jail, processes both the Jail’s and CTF’s inmate 

admissions and releases. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

scope changes. In addition, the Office of Property Management lacked 

written policies and procedures concerning project management, which 

could be important tools in guiding project managers through the planning 

and management of projects. However, in April 2004, the Office of 

Property Management established a working group to develop standard 

operating procedures for managing projects. As of May 2004, time frames 

had not been established for completing the work of the working group. 

DoC has taken several steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in 

processing inmate records, but release errors continued to occur. DoC’s 

improvement efforts have included simplifying the workflow in the 

Records Office, issuing an operations manual, and developing additional 

guidance and training for staff. Additionally, DoC developed a database to 

capture detailed information on incidents that led to each inmate release 

error. DoC analyzed the information in this database to determine how 

frequently the incidents occurred. Based on this information, DoC has 

developed proposals for corrective action to reduce release errors. DoC 

attributed staff processing errors to limited staff resources and the large 

volume of documents that are continuously received in the Records Office. 

Because DoC did not have complete data on early and late inmate 

releases, DoC does not know the full extent to which they occurred, and 

may not discover an early release error until long after the inmate has 

been released. With respect to late releases, DoC used an incomplete 

methodology and, therefore, may have understated the actual number of 

late releases. During our review, DoC modified the methodology to more 

accurately identify the number of late releases. 

To help improve facility operations, we are making two recommendations. 

First, we recommend that DoC work with the Department of Health to 

develop a format for inspection reports that would enable DoC to 

determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail and 

monitor changes in facility conditions over time. Second, toward the goal 

of strengthening management of capital improvement projects, we 

recommend that the Office of Property Management establish time frames 

for completing its work on developing and implementing policies and 

procedures. 

We provided a draft of this report to the District’s Department of 

Corrections, Department of Health, Office of the Inspector General, and 

Office of Property Management for comment. In response, DoC and DoH 

concurred with our finding that inspection reports did not consistently 

identify locations where deficiencies were found, and DoH agreed to 

implement our recommendation. The OIG affirmed that we accurately 
Page 5 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

portrayed the findings and recommendations contained in its October 

2002 inspection report on the Jail. The Office of Property Management did 

not comment on our recommendation. A copy of the comments from all of 

these agencies and offices is included as appendix VII, VIII, IX, and X 

respectively. 

The Jail opened in 1976 and is a maximum-security facility for males and 

females that is managed and operated by the District’s DoC. The Jail has 

over 1,700 heavily used cell doors and gates, approximately 1,500 prisongrade sink/toilet combinations, and security systems that are maintenance 

intensive. In addition, systems and jail areas that may require maintenance 

include the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; water 

systems; plumbing, electric wiring, piping, elevators, laundry equipment, 

and kitchen equipment, among others. According to the District’s fiscal 

year 2003 budget and financial plan, the Jail required significant structural 

repairs because it had not been well maintained. Inmates at the Jail are 

housed in 18 cellblocks that contain 1,380 cells. In fiscal year 2003, the 

average daily inmate population was 2,328. DoC’s policy states that the Jail 

is to be clean, sanitary, and environmentally safe, and that its equipment is 

to be maintained in good working order and meet all applicable codes, 

standards, and sound detention practices. The District of Columbia Jail 

Improvement Amendment Act of 2003, effective January 30, 2004, requires 

DoC to obtain accreditation by the American Correctional Association for 

the Jail by January 30, 2008. 6

 

The Jail has operated under court-ordered supervision for much of the 

past 28 years, largely because of court orders relating to class action 

lawsuits brought in the 1970s challenging the constitutionality of various 

conditions at the facility. 7 In March 2003, the U.S. District Court for the 

 6

Among other things, the act directs DoC to develop and implement a classification system 

and housing plan for inmates at the jail; mandates the establishment of weekend visiting 

hours at the jail; and requires an independent consultant to determine a population ceiling 

for the jail. 

7

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found certain conditions at the jail, 

such as those relating to severe overcrowding, inadequate health care, unsanitary 

conditions, and unsafe facilities, to be constitutionally impermissible, and through a series 

of decisions and orders, required the District to take corrective actions. See e.g., Campbell 

v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 106 (D.D.C. 1975); Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F. Supp. 

119 (1976); Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 111 (D.D.C. 1976); and Campbell v. 

McGruder, 580 F. 2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The Campbell and Inmates of D.C. Jail cases 

were eventually consolidated. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

District of Columbia terminated the remaining court orders and dismissed 

these cases on the basis that such court orders were no longer necessary 

to correct current and ongoing constitutional violations.8

CTF opened in 1992 and is an American Correctional Associationaccredited facility that has been managed and operated since 1997 by the 

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) under contract to the District’s 

DoC. As part of its contract with the District to manage CTF, Corrections 

Corporation of America undertakes capital improvements intended to 

improve operations at CTF or address issues that may affect security at 

the facility. (App. II provides information about projects completed at CTF 

during 2003 and the cost of each project.) CTF is a medium-security 

facility for male and female inmates and inmates with specialized 

confinement needs (e.g., pregnant women and inmates with physical 

disabilities). Since 2001, CTF has also served as an overflow facility for the 

Jail. Inmates in CTF are housed in 27 units consisting of between 16 and 

48 single cells each. In fiscal year 2003, CTF began placing two inmates per 

cell and had an average daily inmate population of 787 inmates. 

The most recent health and safety reports for the Jail and CTF indicated 

that they have similar areas of deficiencies. They included problems with 

air quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting. A DoC official 

attributed some deficiencies at the Jail and CTF to inmate behavior and 

deterioration of the physical plant over a number of years leading up to 

2000. The DoH reports did not consistently identify the specific locations 

in the Jail where the deficiencies occurred. The DoH reports also did not 

always include all of the deficiencies identified, particularly if the 

deficiency was repaired during the course of the inspection. As a result, 

DoC cannot determine (1) how prevalent the health and safety 

deficiencies were, (2) whether problems recurred in the same locations, or 

(3) whether conditions have improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse 

over time. Beginning September 2004, DoH intends to begin using a 

detailed inspection tool that will specify the location, severity, and 

frequency of occurrence of identified deficiencies. DoH inspections for the 

 8

The U.S. District Court took this action upon a motion by the defendants in these cases 

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 

(1996). The PLRA generally provides for the termination of certain court orders with 

respect to prison conditions upon a court finding that court-ordered relief is no longer 

necessary to correct any “current and ongoing” constitutional violations. The district court 

decision was upheld on appeal in January 2004. See Campbell v. McGruder, 2004 U.S. 

LEXIS 1069 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2004). 

Health and Safety 

Deficiencies at the 

Jail and Correctional 

Treatment Facility 
Page 7 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Jail and CTF cannot be used to compare conditions at these facilities 

because DoH applies American Correctional Association standards in its 

inspections of the Jail and American Public Health Association standards 

in its inspection of CTF. Beginning in September 2004, DoH plans to apply 

the American Public Health Association’s standards in its inspections of 

the Jail. 

Our review of all six inspection reports prepared by DoH between March 

2002 and April 2004 shows that DoH repeatedly identified the same types 

of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail. In its 2002 and 2003 annual 

inspections, the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services also found 

the same types of fire safety deficiencies at the Jail as DoH. These two 

district agencies, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services, are 

responsible for conducting inspections at the Jail to determine whether 

the facility meets health and safety standards.Legislation enacted by the 

District government in 2003 requires DoH to conduct environmental health 

and safety inspections of the Jail at least three times a year.9

 DoH has 

randomly inspected at least 20 cells per cellblock (or a minimum of 

360 cells) during each inspection at the Jail and has applied American 

Correctional Association standards, as well as other applicable local 

standards and codes, in these inspections. In conducting its inspections, 

DoH does not determine what, if any, corrective actions DoC may have 

taken in response to deficiencies that DoH reported previously. The 

inspections cover, among other things, inmate housing units, kitchen 

areas, inmate receiving and discharge, and emergency procedures 

including fire safety. Following completion of an inspection, DoH is to 

prepare a report of its findings. In accordance with District regulations, 

Fire and Emergency Medical Services conducts annual fire safety 

inspections of the Jail. Fire and Emergency Medical Services applies local 

fire and life safety codes and Building Officials’ Codes in its inspections. 

DoH inspections at the Jail are conducted over a period of time up to 

30 days. According to DoC officials, Jail maintenance staff accompany the 

DoH inspector during the inspection, and they are to repair identified 

deficiencies immediately, if possible. According to DoH officials, the 

inspection report may or may not include a deficiency that was repaired 

immediately. They told us that deficiencies that the DoH inspector 

 9

A series of three D.C. laws, both temporary and permanent, require DoH to conduct such 

inspections. See Central Detention Facility Monitoring Temporary Amendment Act of 2003 

(D.C. Law 15-30), Jail Improvement Emergency Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Act 15-188), 

and District of Columbia Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Law 15-62). 

Health and Safety 

Deficiencies Reported at 

the Jail 
Page 8 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

considers to be more significant or severe are more likely to be included in 

the inspection report, even if they are repaired on the spot. 

The DoH reports did not consistently identify the specific locations where 

the deficiencies occurred. For example, one DoH report would identify the 

specific cell where a health and safety problem occurred, while another 

report might state that the problem occurred “throughout” the Jail. 

According to a DoH official, when a deficiency is identified throughout the 

facility, it means that the problem was found in at least one cell in each of 

the 18 cellblocks inspected. According to DoC, specific information on 

such things as the location and prevalence of an identified problem and 

the time that it was identified would be more useful than generally 

characterizing deficiencies as occurring in “some” or “most” locations or 

“throughout” the Jail. DoC officials believe that if the inspection reports 

were more specific, the information could be used to determine if the 

deficiency was newly identified, was currently being corrected, or was 

already corrected. According to a DoH official, there are no explicit 

criteria for the level of specificity that should be included in inspection 

reports of the Jail or CTF. The following illustrates some of the identified 

deficiencies and how they were reported. (App. III provides additional 

information about the health and safety deficiencies reported by DoH). 

• Air quality deficiencies: This deficiency was identified in four of six 

DoH inspection reports. In these reports, DoH noted that at the time of an 

inspection, there was no measurable airflow coming out of the vents for 

the areas inspected. Recognizing the need to remedy the Jail’s heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning system problems, DoC sought and 

obtained approval in fiscal year 2001 for a capital improvement project 

that would replace the Jail’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

system. As of June 2004, construction on the project was 99 percent 

complete. DoC officials said that they expect most airflow problems to be 

eliminated once this project is completed. 

• Vermin: In three of six inspections, DoH found vermin in at least one of 

the following areas, the Jail’s main kitchen, loading dock, dry storage 

areas, and officers’ dining area. Mice and flies were the types of vermin 

DoH reported most frequently. However, DoH did not report the extent of 

the vermin problem identified. Recognizing that food and water lodged in 

the cracks and crevices of the Jail’s deteriorated kitchen floor contributed 

to the problem with vermin, DoC initiated a capital project to remedy the 

problem. The project was approved in fiscal year 2002 and completed in 

March 2004. DoH also reported evidence of vermin in the inmate shower 

areas in all six reports we reviewed. Specifically, flies were observed 
Page 9 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

coming through inmate shower drains at the time of five inspections. DoC 

recognizes that vermin control is continuously challenging because of the 

size, age, and location of the facility. To control for vermin, DoC 

administers pest control treatments throughout the year, including treating 

the housing units quarterly, common areas bimonthly, and culinary areas 

biweekly. According to a DoC official, DoC sprays for flies, cockroaches, 

and other insects and sets traps for rodents. Additionally, shower areas in 

cellblocks are steam cleaned and chemicals are applied to control for flies. 

DoC’s Environmental Safety and Sanitation manual dictates the time 

frames for these treatments. 

• Fire safety deficiencies: Problems with fire extinguishers and smoke 

detectors were identified in all six DoH reports and in Fire and Emergency 

Medical Services’ 2002 and 2003 annual reports. With respect to fire 

extinguishers, five of six DoH inspections reported that the Jail had an 

insufficient number of extinguishers. Five of six DoH inspections found 

that fire extinguishers were improperly mounted on the walls. The reports 

did not always state which locations in the Jail had this problem or how 

many extinguishers were improperly mounted. With respect to smoke 

detectors, each DoH inspection report, as well as Fire and Emergency 

Medical Services’ 2002 and 2003 inspection reports, noted that some of the 

Jail’s approximately 200 smoke detectors were missing or not working in 

each of the facility areas inspected. Neither DoH nor Fire and Emergency 

Medical Services specified in any inspection report how many smoke 

detectors were missing or not working. In April 2003, Fire and Emergency 

Medical Services conducted a re-inspection of the deficiencies it had 

identified in its January 2003 inspection and reported that the Jail had 

corrected all deficiencies. According to a DoC official, DoH’s October 

2003 and April 2004 findings that there were again missing smoke 

detectors was most likely due to inmate vandalism. 

• Plumbing deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH noted that 

(1) inmate cells had faulty plumbing fixtures, such as leaking toilet knobs 

or stuck faucets; (2) inmate cells throughout the facility lacked hot or cold 

water; (3) sinks and toilets in inmate cells had low water pressure; and 

(4) showers in some cellblocks could not be used because of 

malfunctioning.10 However, the reports were not consistent in reporting 

the problems identified. For example, in one of six inspections, DoH 

reported the specific number of cells without hot or cold water, whereas 

in the remaining five inspections, DoH reported that this occurred 

 10Individual inmate cells do not have showers. 
Page 10 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

throughout the facility. As part of its capital improvement program, DoC 

received approval in fiscal year 2001 to replace plumbing fixtures 

throughout the Jail’s 18 cellblocks. As of June 2004, construction on the 

plumbing fixture project was 35 percent complete. 

• Lighting deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH indicated that 

light fixtures were damaged. In three of the six inspection reports, the 

number of cells affected was not given; in the remaining three, between 

3 and 160 inmate cells were reported as having damaged light fixtures. As 

part of a capital improvement project that was approved in fiscal year 

2001, DoC intends to replace light fixtures throughout the Jail’s 

18 cellblocks. As of June 2004, construction on this project was 35 percent 

complete. 

In addition to being inspected by DoH, DoC conducts its own routine 

internal inspections. Both the DoH and DoC inspections address 

(1) maintenance-related problems; that is, problems whose remedy 

involves repairing a malfunction such as a broken toilet or a faulty air 

system, and (2) nonmaintenance-related problems; that is, those that 

involve sanitation conditions, such as improper storage of chemicals. DoC 

staff are to conduct daily and monthly health and safety inspections at the 

facility.11 DoC’s Environmental Safety and Sanitation Manual details the 

procedures to be used for reporting both maintenance- and 

nonmaintenance-related deficiencies. Additionally, the manual includes 

time frames for correcting maintenance-related deficiencies, but does not 

include time frames for correcting nonmaintenance-related deficiencies. 

For maintenance-related deficiencies, DoC has an automated system in 

which to record the deficiency, the corrective action to be taken, and 

whether the corrective action was completed. The system is designed to 

assign each maintenance-related problem to one of three priority levels 

according to the impact it may have on the health and safety of the 

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

 11Daily inspections are to include common areas of the Jail, shower areas, and cells, and 

monthly inspections are to include fire safety, pest control, and sanitation. 

12DoC requires that priority one deficiencies—those that affect inmate health and safety—

be corrected within 4 hours. If this is not possible, DoC staff are to determine if an inmate 

should be removed from a cell. Priority two deficiencies include problems such as broken 

light covers or other nonemergency maintenance projects. Priority three deficiencies 

include painting and other nonemergency projects. According to DoC’s Environmental 

Safety and Sanitation Manual, both priority two and three deficiencies are to be fixed 

within 24 hours. 
Page 11 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

a work ticket is to be generated and the status of the corrective action is to 

be monitored. DOC officials said that once the deficiency is entered, it 

remains active in the system until it is corrected. DoC noted that the 

number of maintenance calls ranges between 50 and 250 on any given day. 

For certain nonmaintenance-related deficiencies that are not corrected at 

the time of the DoH inspection and are later documented in the inspection 

report, DoC is to complete an abatement plan and document corrective 

actions taken, according to a DoC official. DoC officials noted that they do 

not have a formal mechanism for responding to nonmaintenance-related 

deficiencies identified in internal inspections. DoC officials said that their 

practice is to take immediate corrective action for fire safety violations 

identified by Fire and Emergency Medical Services to ensure compliance 

with applicable fire codes and regulations. 

At CTF, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services generally 

identified the same areas of health and safety deficiencies—that is, air 

quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting—as at the Jail. DoH and 

Fire and Emergency Medical Services are responsible for conducting 

health and safety inspections at CTF. According to a DoH official, twice a 

year, DoH conducts inspections at CTF applying the American Public 

Health Association’s standards for correctional institutions in its health 

and safety inspections at CTF. A Fire and Emergency Medical Services 

official said that the same fire safety codes are applied in its inspection of 

CTF as at the Jail. The available inspection data from DoH cannot be used 

to compare conditions at the Jail with those at CTF because (1) inspection 

reports for CTF did not document the prevalence or severity of the 

problems, and (2) DoH applied American Correctional Association 

standards in its inspection of the Jail and American Public Health 

Association standards in its inspection of CTF. Beginning in September 

2004, DoH will apply the same set of standards—American Public Health 

Association standards—in its inspections of the Jail and CTF. 

Three DoH reports prepared between September 2002 and May 2003—the 

most recent reports available—identified deficiencies related to air quality, 

vermin, fire safety, and lighting. DoH found plumbing deficiencies in its 

September 2002 inspection, but not in the two inspections conducted in 

2003. 

As was the case with the Jail, the DoH reports did not consistently identify 

the specific locations where the problems occurred. The following 

illustrates some of the reported deficiencies. 

Health and Safety 

Deficiencies Reported at 

CTF 
Page 12 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

• Air quality deficiencies: Deficiencies related to air quality included dirty 

vents and air temperatures above or below the required level. All three 

DoH inspection reports that we reviewed documented the presence of 

dirty vents. Two of the three inspection reports reported that the air 

temperature was below the required temperature of 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit.13 However, none of the reports indicated where the air quality 

deficiencies occurred at CTF. In its February 2003 inspection report, DoH 

noted that CTF corrections officials had offered to move inmates who 

were in cells with the low temperature, but the inmates chose to remain in 

the cells. The officials reportedly provided the inmates with extra blankets 

and clothing. 

• Vermin: This deficiency was identified in each DoH inspection report. 

None of the reports indicated the severity of the problem identified. DoH 

reported in September 2002 that at the time of its inspection, mice were 

observed in the trash compactor area entering and exiting through a wall 

that was missing rubber caulking. DoH’s February 2003 report noted that 

at the time of the inspection, outside cracks and crevices were repaired, 

with the exception of those located near the trash compactor area. 

Correctional standards state that facilities must be maintained to prevent 

vermin access. CTF’s abatement plan did not include information on 

planned or completed corrective actions for the cracks and crevices. 

However, DoH’s May 2003 report indicated that there continued to be 

evidence of vermin at CTF. Specifically, in May 2003 DoH reported a fly 

infestation problem. Although CTF was opened about 22 years ago, CTF 

officials said that cracks and crevices continue to develop because of the 

settling of the building. Under CCA policy, CTF is to have weekly pest 

exterminations conducted. According to CTF officials, since 1997 CTF has 

had a contract with a pest control company for pest extermination. CTF 

documentation showed that pest extermination is to be done on a weekly 

basis. 

• Fire safety deficiencies: Fire safety violations were reported in two of 

three DoH reports. Specifically, DoH found burnt electrical plugs, exposed 

electrical cables, and improperly placed fire extinguishers.14 CTF 

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

malfunctioning. 

14In 2002, the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services completed a follow-up 

inspection of violations previously cited in 2001. CTF officials said this follow-up 

inspection also served as the annual inspection. Fire and Emergency Medical Services did 

not prepare a report of findings because it did not identify any fire safety deficiencies in 

2002. Similarly, DoH did not identify any fire safety deficiencies in 2002.
Page 13 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

documentation did not show what, if any, corrective action was taken. 

DoH’s reports did not provide specific information about where these 

deficiencies were located. In a September 2003 fire safety inspection, Fire 

and Emergency Medical Services found, among other things, deficient exit 

signs. However, Fire and Emergency Medical Services reported in 

November 2003 that CTF had corrected these deficiencies. According to 

CTF records, deficient exit signs were corrected by replacing the 

lightbulbs. 

• Plumbing deficiency: In its September 2002 inspection, DoH found that 

three cells out of 1,014 had hot water temperatures above the maximum 

recommended temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of its 

inspection. DoH noted that this problem was corrected the following day. 

• Lighting deficiencies: Deficiencies with lighting were reported in each 

inspection report we reviewed. The problems included burnt lightbulbs 

and damaged light fixtures, switches, and fuses. Burnt lightbulbs were 

reported in DoH’s September 2002 and February 2003 reports. For 

example, DoH’s September 2002 report showed that some cells had one 

burnt light bulb. According to CTF officials, each cell is to have 

approximately three lightbulbs. Similarly, the February 2003 report 

showed that some cells had burnt-out lightbulbs, but all lightbulbs were 

replaced before the inspector left. 

In addition, CTF staff are to conduct daily, weekly, and monthly health and 

safety inspections of the facility. They are to document the deficiencies 

reported, including planned and completed corrective actions. 

Additionally, CTF has had a comprehensive maintenance program since 

July 1997. In 2003, 13,476 maintenance deficiencies were reported and 

corrected. 

Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail during 

fiscal years 2000 through 2004.15 Between 1976, when the Jail opened as a 

newly constructed detention facility, through the 1990s, capital 

improvements at the Jail primarily dealt with its heating, ventilation, and 

air conditioning system. By the late 1990s, the Jail had deteriorated and 

conditions had become unsanitary and unsafe for inmates and staff. To 

address these conditions and upgrade the facility’s infrastructure, DoC 

 15The District defines capital improvements as a permanent improvement to a fixed asset 

that is valued at $250,000 or more and with an expected life of more than 3 years.

Capital Improvement 

Projects at the Jail 
Page 14 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

began to request additional funding for capital improvements at the Jail in 

its fiscal year 2000 capital budget request. 

Of the Jail’s 16 capital improvement projects, 1 project—involving 

improvements to the kitchen flooring—was complete as of June 1, 2004. 

The remaining 15 projects were in various stages of construction or 

design: 6 were in the construction phase, 6 were in the design phase, and 

3 were in the predesign phase. Of the 6 projects in the construction phase, 

3 were at substantial completion.16 These projects included upgrading the 

hot water system and replacing the heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning system. Table 1 presents a description of each project, the 

fiscal year each project was approved, the project’s current working 

estimate as of July 13, 2004, and each project’s status as of June 1, 2004.17

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

Projects by phase Description Fiscal year

Current working 

estimate, as of 

July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June 1, 2004

Complete 

Kitchen flooring and 

miscellaneous 

improvements 

This project includes replacing the 

kitchen flooring and renovating the 

kitchen area. 

2002 $1,911,907 Construction 100 percent complete 

Construction 

Hot water systema This project includes replacing all of 

the main water lines, converters, 

pumps, piping valves, and other 

equipment associated with the hot 

water system throughout the Jail. 

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

Heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning 

system replacement a

This project includes replacing the 

existing equipment in the Jail. 

2001 See current 

working estimate 

for the hot water 

system project

Construction 99 percent complete.b

Lighting upgrades a This project includes replacing the 

light fixtures, lightbulbs, and 

switches throughout the 18 

cellblocks. 

2001 2,960,943 Construction 35 percent complete 

and estimated complete by October 

2005. 

 16Substantial completion means that the project was completed enough to be used by DoC 

for its intended purpose. 

17Current working estimate represents the current estimate of total project cost to provide 

a complete and usable facility. 
Page 15 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Projects by phase Description Fiscal year

Current working 

estimate, as of 

July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June 1, 2004

Plumbing upgradesa This project includes replacing the 

plumbing fixtures throughout the 18 

cellblocks. 

2001 See current 

working estimate 

for the lighting 

upgrades project

Construction 35 percent complete 

and estimated complete by October 

2005. 

Sally port and 

adjoining areasc

This project includes redesigning 

and reconfiguring the sally port and 

adjoining areas so that inmates and 

vehicles can be processed more 

efficiently. 

2000 858,120 Construction is ongoing as this 

project is being implemented in 

phases. Construction on the sally 

port parking and laundry is 100 

percent complete. Construction on 

the armory is 98 percent complete.b

Additional work, such as 

improvements to the guard tower 

and receiving and discharge, may 

be determined at a later date. 

Energy management 

system 

This project includes improvements 

to the energy efficiency of the Jail’s 

building systems, such as its 

electrical; plumbing; and heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning 

systems. This project will also 

include installing a computerized 

energy management system. 

2002 Not available Construction is ongoing as this 

project is being implemented in 

phases. 

Design 

Central security 

system 

This project includes installing a 

new, integrated, comprehensive 

security system, including door 

controls, cameras, motion 

detectors, card readers, duress 

alarm system and intrusion 

detection system; and refurbishing 

the existing control centers, 

including central command, floor 

control, and control bubbles. 

2000 5,973,405 This project is being implemented 

in phases. Installation of the closed 

circuit television is 35 percent 

complete, and estimated complete 

by October 2004. Design of the 

overall central security system is 

100 percent complete. Construction 

contract for the overall central 

security system project not yet 

awarded. 

Cell doors and 

motors 

This project includes demolishing all 

existing cell door operating 

mechanisms and retrofitting all cell 

doors throughout the 18 cellblocks. 

2000 9,936,951 Design 100 percent complete, 

construction contract not yet 

awarded. 

Elevators a This project includes demolishing 

and replacing the Jail’s existing 

elevators. 

2000 2,123,005 Design 100 percent complete, 

construction contract not yet 

awarded. 

Escalators a This project includes demolishing 

and replacing the Jail’s existing 

escalators. 

2003 See current 

working estimate 

for the elevators 

project

Design 100 percent complete, 

construction contract not yet 

awarded. 
Page 16 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Projects by phase Description Fiscal year

Current working 

estimate, as of 

July 13, 2004 Project status, as of June 1, 2004

Fire alarm and 

sprinkler system 

This project includes demolishing all 

remnants of the existing fire alarm 

and sprinkler system and installing 

a new, modern, and comprehensive 

fire alarm and sprinkler system, 

including strategically located fire, 

heat, and smoke detectors. 

2000 1,766,795 Design 100 percent complete on 

fire alarm and 95 percent complete 

on sprinkler system. In process of 

awarding the construction contract 

for the fire alarm system. 

Emergency power 

system 

This project includes reconfiguring 

the Jail’s electrical distribution 

system. 

2002 420,238 Design 80 percent complete. 

Other 

Staff and visitors’ 

entrances 

This project includes redesigning, 

expanding, and reconfiguring the 

staff and visitors’ entrances. 

2003 Not available Not determinedd 

Inmate shower 

renovations 

This project includes demolishing 

the shower stalls throughout the 18 

cellblocks and replacing them with 

new, prison-grade shower stalls, 

including new fixtures, piping, 

drains, and improvements to the 

floors and ceilings. 

2004 Not available Not determinedd

Exterior structural 

refinishing 

This project includes repairs to the 

Jail’s exterior structure. 

2004 Not available Not determinedd

Total $35,449,418 

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of Columbia’s Department of 

Corrections and Office of Property Management. 

a

According to Office of Property Management officials, work on these projects has been combined 

because of, among other things, similarities in the work to be performed. Specifically, combined 

projects include work on the following: (1) hot water system and heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning system replacement; (2) lighting upgrades and plumbing upgrades; and (3) elevators and 

escalators. 

b These projects are at substantial completion. 

c

The sally port is the area where all vehicles coming into the Jail are checked and processed. The 

adjoining areas are the guard tower, the external yard, receiving and discharge, and the laundry. 

d DoC and the Office of Property Management did not agree on the status of the project. According to 

DoC, the project was in the design phase; according to the Office of Property Management, the 

project was not yet in design because the scope of work had not yet been finalized. 

The District’s Office of Property Management is the implementing agency 

for the Jail’s capital improvement projects and manages the projects’ 

actual construction. Its responsibilities include monitoring the progress of 

the projects to ensure that (1) the original intent of the project is fulfilled, 

(2) financing is scheduled for required capital expenditures, and (3) DoC’s 

highest priority projects are implemented first. We sought to obtain 
Page 17 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

current working estimates for the Jail’s capital improvement projects from 

the Office of Property Management (see table 1). However, current 

working estimates were not available for four of the Jail’s capital 

improvement projects. This is because those projects were either ongoing 

and being implemented in phases—meaning that work was being 

completed in conjunction with the Jail’s other capital improvement 

projects, or the project did not have a fully defined scope of work.18

When managing the projects, Office of Property Management officials 

noted that such factors as unforeseen site conditions and unexpected 

events can affect the progress of implementing the projects and change 

their cost, scope, or schedule. As an example of an unforeseen site 

condition, Office of Property Management officials noted that while 

working on the Jail’s hot water system and heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning replacement projects, contractors discovered that the Jail’s 

cold water system had also deteriorated and needed to be replaced.As a 

result, DoC changed the scope of the projects to include upgrading the 

Jail’s cold water system. This, in turn, increased the projects’ construction 

costs from about $7.1 million to $9.1 million and extended the projects’ 

schedule from about 24 months to 34 months. As an example of an 

unexpected event, DoC further accelerated the installation of the closed 

circuit television portion of the Jail’s electronic security system project 

following a shooting incident in December 2003.19 This portion of the 

project was pulled out of the Jail’s larger central security systems project 

whose drawings had been completed prior to December 2003. As of June 

1, 2004, the installation of the closed circuit television portion of this 

project was 35 percent complete. 

Our work on capital improvement projects has noted that it is important 

that capital projects be well managed.20 For example, our work has noted 

the importance of having written policies and procedures that can help 

 18According to Office of Property Management officials, the process of defining the scope 

of work, among other things, is essential to the establishment of a reliable cost estimate. 

Thus, for those projects, no cost estimate was available. 

19According to DoC officials, the Department of Homeland Security provided DoC with a 

grant in August 2003 to help ensure that no breaches of security occur. Through this grant, 

DoC had already begun procuring security cameras that were to be part of this project. 

20GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices and Capital Decision-Making,

GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 
Page 18 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

project managers in planning and managing their projects.21 Typical 

policies and procedures that might be provided to project managers 

include policies that establish the roles and responsibilities of project staff 

and procedures that define how the project will be executed. When used, 

such policies and procedures help guide project execution and ensure 

overall project oversight. We did not systematically review the 

management of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, nor did we 

determine whether management issues may have contributed to increased 

costs or time frames for certain projects. Therefore, we have no 

information indicating that the Office of Property Management’s projects 

at the Jail were not well managed. However, during our review we noted 

that the Office of Property Management lacked written policies and 

procedures to guide its project managers through the planning and 

management of projects. 

Office of Property Management officials we interviewed acknowledged the 

importance of having written project management policies and procedures 

to guide its staff through the planning and management of projects. In 

April 2004, the Office of Property Management (1) established a project 

management working group, consisting of its Deputy Director of 

Operations, project managers, and other staff, to develop a standard 

operating procedure for managing projects, and (2) began revising its 

current reporting procedures for providing up-to-date information on, 

among other things, each project’s budget and schedule. However, at the 

time of our review the working group had not yet developed the guidance, 

and time frames for completing its work had not been established. Thus, it 

is too early to determine specifically what guidance this working group 

will develop and the extent to which it will assist project managers in 

planning and managing their projects. 

 21GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the Management and 

Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823 (Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003). 
Page 19 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve its 

efficiency and accuracy in processing inmate records, but release errors 

have continued to occur. Prior to 2002, errors in releasing inmates too 

early prompted the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to 

request that two agencies review DoC’s management of inmate records.22

These agencies identified problems with inmate record processing, 

including DoC’s lack of policies and procedures related to Records Office 

management. In response to some of the problems identified, in 2000 DoC 

implemented a new electronic record system as its primary case 

management and inmate record system. By the end of October 2002, DoC 

had simplified the workflow in the Records Office,23 issued an operations 

manual, developed a database to help track and resolve discrepancies in 

inmates’ court documents, and provided training for staff. (See app. IV for 

more information about these DoC improvement efforts.) 

To capture information on the sequence of events that led to each 

identified release error, in 2002 DoC established a new database, known as 

the Release Discrepancy database. This database is used to generate 

incident reports that contain information on release errors and to notify 

management of release errors. In general, DoC’s incident reports indicated 

that some inmates were released early or late because Records Office staff 

made such errors as (1) processing records without having all pertinent 

documents, (2) entering information incorrectly into the electronic record 

system, and (3) not processing documents quickly enough to avoid a 

release error. Actions that led to these types of errors included misfiling 

documents, placing documents in a duplicate file folder, placing 

documents in a pending folder, or filing documents before they were 

processed. In commenting on a draft of this report, DoC noted that it had 

analyzed 100 documented late releases in the Release Discrepancy 

database and used the results to propose corrective actions for reducing 

such errors. DoC found that in 39 percent of late releases, the cause was 

lack of timely document processing by Records Office staff. As a result of 

this analysis, which, according to a DoC official, was conducted in April 

 22The D.C. Corrections Trustee and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 

Trustee for the District of Columbia conducted these reviews. 

23DoC’s Records Office processes the legal documents that provide authority to move 

inmates into and out of the Jail and CTF. The Records Office’s primary functions are to 

receive, review, and maintain records from the courts in order to make sentence 

computations and process inmate admissions, releases, and transfers. 

DoC Has Taken Steps 

to Improve Inmate 

Records, but Effects 

on Reducing Release 

Errors Are Difficult to 

Determine 
Page 20 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

and May 2004, DoC has begun identifying and providing refresher training 

to staff that are frequently associated with late release errors. 

DoC officials further attributed errors in record processing to the large 

volume of documents received in the Records Office and limited staff 

resources.24 According to a DoC official, the Records Office receives an 

average of 300 to 400 documents a day, and Records Office staff process 

an average of over 1,500 intakes and releases each month. DoC officials 

noted that five additional Records Office staff had been hired, and they 

should help to improve the efficiency of records processing after they are 

trained. 

Although DoC’s quality control efforts were intended to improve the 

operations of its Records Office, DoC did not have sufficiently complete 

data to determine whether or to what extent these efforts may have 

reduced early and late releases.25 Therefore, it is difficult to determine if 

the intended effects of the improvement efforts were achieved or the 

extent to which progress has been made in improving electronic inmate 

records since the District’s Office of Inspector General’s October 

2002 report.26

With respect to early releases, DoC may not know the full extent to which 

this is a problem because DoC may not discover its error until after the 

fact, which may be after the inmate has been out of DoC custody for some 

time. Therefore, at a given point in time, DoC cannot be sure it has 

complete information on early releases. According to DoC records, 

22 inmates were released early between January 2002 and February 

 24According to an information technology official at the District of Columbia Courts, plans 

are being developed for transmitting information to DoC in an automated format, rather 

than in a hard copy format as is currently the case. The official said that if DoC received 

inmate case information more quickly, records-processing errors might decrease. The 

official said he expected the system to be implemented at the end of fiscal year 2005. 

25For the purposes of this report, we are using the terms “early” and “late” releases to refer 

to nonjustifiable, and therefore erroneous, releases of inmates. According to DoC officials, 

there are instances where inmates can be justifiably released before or after their official 

release date. For example, if the official release date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or 

holiday, an inmate may be released on the last business day before the weekend or holiday. 

As another example, an inmate who receives a court order to be assigned to a residential 

treatment facility could be released late if bed space is not immediately available in that 

facility. 

26Some problems identified in this report included the lack of policies and procedures, 

inaccurate information in the computer system, and missing official inmate files. 
Page 21 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

2004. Although these 22 identified cases may understate the true number 

of early releases, they are instructive for understanding how early releases 

can occur. According to incident reports completed by DoC, these early 

releases occurred because of such staff errors as computing the sentence 

incorrectly or failing to process incoming documents that extended the 

inmate’s detention before the inmate was released. Of the 22 inmates 

known to have been released early, 17 did not have a release date set 

because they had at least one legal matter that had not yet been resolved.27

Although a release date would not have been set for these 17 inmates, DoC 

defines them as early releases because they were released before the legal 

matters for which they were detained had been resolved. For example, 

some inmates were released before they were sentenced or before charges 

were dismissed. The remaining 5 inmates had received sentences. Of these 

5, 4 were released approximately 2 months before their release date and 

1 was released almost a year and a half early.28 

With respect to late releases, DoC did not have full information on the 

extent of its late releases because until recently, it was using a 

methodology to identify inmates who had been released late that produced 

incomplete results. In April 2004, we noted a discrepancy in which two 

late releases were documented in one set of reports and not in another 

report covering the same time period.29 This discrepancy prompted DoC to 

review the methodology it had used to identify late release cases in its 

electronic record system. DoC’s review revealed that its script—computer 

code that extracts specific data from a large set of data—had not been 

 27According to a DoC official, inmates may be admitted to DoC upon sentence, admitted 

and held until the matter is resolved, or admitted and held by DoC until other jurisdictions 

are able to place and process them. DoC defines an early release as a release that occurs 

before an inmate’s sentence is complete in the absence of a legal document authorizing the 

inmate’s release or a release that occurs before all matters have been legally resolved. 

28Of the 22 early release errors, 14 were discovered within a week of the error occurring, 6 

were discovered between 1 and 5 weeks, 1 was discovered approximately 2 months later, 

and DoC could not provide us with information on the remaining inmate. The information 

DoC provided shows that all 22 inmates identified as having been released early were reapprehended and taken into custody after the error was discovered. Eleven of these 

occurred within 2 weeks of the mistaken release, 6 occurred between 3 weeks and 9 

months later, 4 occurred between 11 and 20 months after the error was made, and one 

inmate released December 2003 remained at large as of May 2004. Three of the 22 inmates 

were taken into custody when they were charged with committing new misdemeanors. 

None of the other 19 inmates had been charged with committing new crimes while out of 

DoC custody. 

29One was a report that DoC used to identify late releases, and the second was a group of 

reports generated by DoC’s database to track the basis for the early and late release errors. 
Page 22 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

written to incorporate all of the relevant information in DoC’s automated 

record system. Specifically, DoC determined that three types of releases 

could occur for which different time rules for release apply.30 Prior to April 

2004, DoC’s methodology identified late releases based on a definition that 

incorporated primarily one category of release—those made pursuant to 

court orders. Subsequent to April 2004, the script also incorporated 

categories of release that were related to when an inmate’s sentence had 

expired, and to the length of time that the inmate had already served 

relative to his or her sentence length. For February 2004, the only month 

for which DoC retroactively applied its new methodology and for which 

data using both the old and new methodology were available, the number 

of late releases was revised upward from 1 to 18. For the period, February 

through June 2004, DoC has identified 65 late releases out of 5,112 inmate 

total releases. This is an error rate of 1.3 percent.31 We recognize that some 

level of human error is inevitable in an environment where staff handle 

300 to 400 documents per day. Although we do not know what an 

acceptable level of error may be, the consequences of such errors for 

individuals who are eligible to be released from detention are very real. 

DoC has taken other steps since March 2004 to try to improve the 

accuracy of the late release data. Specifically, DoC officials reported that 

they have streamlined the process for identifying late releases, added a 

review component to that process, and increased staff access to late 

release data. DoC officials believe that the involvement of more staff in 

maintaining and analyzing the data will facilitate quicker identification and 

resolution of data issues. Since we have not reviewed DoC’s record system 

or methodology, we do not know if DoC’s recent efforts to improve its 

script and processes will enable it to identify all late releases. DoC officials 

 30Time rules pertain to the time designated for DoC to process a release. For example, an 

inmate released pursuant to a court order is considered released late if released more than 

48 hours after the time the inmate returns to DoC from court. 

31In commenting on a draft of this report, DoC informed us that 67 out of 8,233 inmate 

releases between February and June 2004 were inappropriate. In subsequent 

communications with DoC, we learned that DoC had discovered an additional early release 

and that out of 68 inappropriate releases, 65 were late releases and 3 were early releases. 

Of the 8,233 total releases, 5,112 were releases that could have resulted in a late release 

into the community, while 3,121 were other types of release transactions, such as releases 

to the U.S. Marshal’s Service, releases to drug programs, and extraditions. We did not 

include early releases in our computation of the error rate because, as we note on page 20, 

data on early releases may be understated. We did not include the 2,121 cases involving 

other types of release transactions because they did not involve releasing inmates into the 

community. 
Page 23 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

told us, however, that DoC is monitoring the script’s ability to detect late 

releases to ensure that it is immediately modified if necessary.

DoH’s inspections produce important information on health and safety 

deficiencies that occur at the District’s detention facilities. DoC could 

further benefit from the information it receives from DoH if the 

information it receives in inspection reports contained the specific date, 

time, and location of each identified deficiency. This could help DoC 

determine the prevalence of the identified deficiency, whether it was new 

or recurring, if the deficiency had already been fixed, and if health and 

safety conditions at the facilities are generally improving, worsening, or 

staying the same over time. 

The Office of Property Management recognizes the importance of, and has 

begun to take steps toward, developing policies and procedures that will 

guide its project managers in planning and managing capital improvement 

projects. We commend the Office of Property Management for forming a 

working group to develop standard operating procedures for managing 

projects. However, as of June 2004, time frames for the working group to 

complete its assignment had not been established. We believe such time 

frames would be useful to the Office of Property Management for ensuring 

accountability and monitoring its desired pace of progress toward 

implementing policies and procedures against its actual pace of progress. 

Helping ensure that the work of the working group stays on schedule will 

also better position the Office of Property Management for effectively 

managing the implementation of the Jail’s capital improvement projects. 

To help DoC determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies at 

the Jail and monitor changes in facility conditions over time, we 

recommend that the Mayor direct the DoC Director to take the following 

action: 

• coordinate with the Director of DoH to develop an inspection report 

format that will provide DoC with specific information on the date, 

time, and location of each health and safety deficiency identified. 

To help strengthen management of capital improvement projects, we 

recommend that the Mayor direct the Director of the Office of Property 

Management to take the following action: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 24 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

• establish time frames for completing its work on developing and 

implementing policies and procedures. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the District’s DoC, 

DoH, Office of Property Management, and OIG. Between July 8 and July 

14, 2004, we received written comments on the draft report, and these are 

reproduced in full in appendixes VII through X. DoH concurred with our 

finding that inspection reports did not consistently identify locations 

where deficiencies were found and agreed to our recommendation that it 

develop a detailed inspection report format. In response to a comment by 

DoC, we dropped a recommendation in our draft report that DoC conduct 

an analysis of reasons why inmate release errors occurred and use the 

results to make data-based decisions on how to reduce staff errors. In its 

July 9 letter, DoC provided new information indicating that it had 

conducted such an analysis, and it was taking corrective action to reduce 

such errors. The Office of Property Management did not comment on our 

recommendation that it establish time frames for completing its work on 

developing and implementing policies and procedures to help strengthen 

the management of capital improvement projects. The OIG limited its 

comments to affirming that we accurately portrayed the findings and 

recommendations contained in its October 2002 inspection report on the 

Jail. DoC, DoH, and the Office of Property Management also made 

additional substantive comments, which we address below. Additionally, 

DoC, DoH, and the Office of Property Management provided additional 

context and clarifying information as well as technical comments, which 

we incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

• With respect to health and safety inspections: 

1. DoC noted that by addressing the lack of specificity in DoH inspection 

reports, we focused attention on a significant issue. DoC believes it 

would be useful for it to receive detailed inspection reports containing 

specific information on the location, severity, and frequency of 

occurrence of identified deficiencies. In response to our 

recommendation, DoH has indicated that it will have a new, detailed 

inspection tool ready for use in correctional facility inspections by 

September 1, 2004. Such a tool should help DoC’s concern that existing 

reports—which discuss deficiencies that may be minor or limited in 

extent—may produce an inaccurate overall picture of conditions at the 

Jail. 

2. DoH and DoC commented on our observation that inspections at the 

detention facilities were conducted using two different sets of 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 25 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

standards—American Correctional Association standards at the Jail 

and American Public Health Association Standards at CTF. Both DoH 

and DoC believe it would be preferable to use the same set of 

standards when inspecting the Jail and CTF. In contacts with DoH and 

DoC subsequent to our receipt of their comment letters, we learned 

that beginning September 2004, DOH intends to use American Public 

Health Association Standards in its Jail inspections, and that DoC 

welcomes this change. 

3. DoC said that our report highlighted specific DoH inspection results 

that were incorrect. DoC cited airflow, lighting, and fire safety as 

examples of areas in which DoH either used an erroneous standard or 

arrived at an inaccurate conclusion. We note on page 2 and in 

appendix I of the report that it was beyond the scope of this review to 

determine whether the DoH inspector applied the health and safety 

standards correctly, took accurate measurements, or accurately 

reported the inspection results. In compiling information on health and 

safety conditions at the Jail and CTF, we relied on DoH inspection 

reports because prior court orders and recently passed legislation 

require DoH to conduct environmental health and safety inspections of 

the Jail at least three times a year and prepare and provide a report to 

the District’s Council. DoH health and safety inspection reports 

represent the District’s official record of the Jail’s health and safety 

conditions. The Office of Inspector General’s October 2002 inspection 

report on the Jail similarly relied on DoH inspection reports. 

Pursuant to DoC’s comments, however, we reviewed the standards 

pertaining to airflow, lighting, and fire safety that DoC cited. For 

example, DoC stated that on numerous occasions, DoH applied the 

wrong metric or standard (that is, feet per minute rather than cubic 

feet per minute to measure airflow, and 30 foot-candles rather than 

20 foot-candles to measure lighting) in assessing whether an area being 

inspected was above or below the standard. DoC also believed that 

heat detectors, which were located in areas that DoH identified as 

having missing smoke detectors, provided fire protection, thereby 

obviating the need for smoke detectors in those locations. Further, 

DoC disputed DoH’s findings that smoke detectors in the Jail were not 

working or were missing. DoC maintained that in some instances, 

smoke detectors that were reported as not working were, in fact, 

working. 

Based on our review of the specific standards related to airflow, 

lighting, and fire safety, in conjunction with input from the DoH 

administrator responsible for inspections at the Jail, we determined 
Page 26 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

that DoC was correct in saying that there were specific instances in 

which the DoH inspector applied an incorrect standard. The DoH 

administrator told us that DoH is taking corrective action, including 

training inspectors on the application of the standards, to ensure that 

errors won’t happen again. We removed from the report any reference 

to DoH inspection results that cited feet per minute as a measure of 

airflow and foot -candles as a measure of lighting. However, we 

retained information that documented instances in which there was no 

airflow and problems with lighting fixtures in inmates’ cells. 

With respect to fire safety, a FEMS fire safety inspector told us that 

heat detectors do not meet local fire safety codes for residential areas 

such as cellblocks. Therefore, according to the inspector, heat 

detectors would not be an appropriate replacement for cellblocks that 

were reported as missing smoke detectors at the time of an inspection. 

Concerning DoC’s comment that DoH erroneously reported working 

smoke detectors as not working, it is impossible for us to know if 

smoke detectors were or were not working at a given point in time. 

• With respect to DoC’s capital improvement projects: 

1. DoC did not agree with the way we reported the status of the last three 

projects in table 1; that is, the staff and visitors’ entrances, inmate 

shower renovations, and exterior structural refinishing projects. Based 

on information from the Office of Property Management—the 

District’s implementing agency for the Jail’s capital improvement 

projects—we had listed the status of these three projects as being in 

the “process of finalizing scope of work with DoC.” According to DoC, 

however, these three projects are in the design phase. Pursuant to 

DoC’s comments, we contacted the Office of Property Management’s 

project manager for the Jail’s projects, and he maintained that these 

three projects were not yet in the design phase because their scope of 

work had not yet been finalized. We modified Table 1 to indicate that 

there exists a disagreement between DoC and the Office of Property 

Management concerning the status of these three projects. 

2. DoC took issue with a statement in our report in which we stated that 

following a shooting incident in December 2003, DoC accelerated the 

installation of the closed circuit television portion of the Jail’s 

electronic security system project. DoC commented that the closed 

circuit television project was initiated in August 2003, months before 

the shooting incident, and that there was no connection between these 

two actions. We did not intend to imply that closed circuit television 

project was initiated as a result of the shooting incident. Instead, we 
Page 27 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

cited this incident as an example of an unexpected event that caused 

an existing capital project to be accelerated. According to the Office of 

Property Management project manager who is responsible for 

implementing this project, he was asked to expedite the installation of 

the closed circuit television project after the shooting incident, and 

this was to take precedence over all other projects. Following receipt 

of DoC’s comment letter, DoC’s chief facilities manager told us that the 

closed circuit television project was already moving quickly toward 

construction in December 2003, but that the shooting incident further 

accelerated the project. We modified language in the report to reflect 

this information. 

3. In response to comments by DoC and the Office of Personnel 

Management concerning the availability of current working estimates 

and scheduled time frames for completing the projects, we 

incorporated this information into table 1. 

4. The Office of Property Management expressed concern that our draft 

report implied that its capital projects at DoC were not well managed. 

We did not assess the Office of Property Management’s management of 

the Jail’s capital projects, and we did not intend such an implication. 

We state in the report that we did not systematically review the 

management of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, nor did we 

determine whether management issues may have contributed to 

increased costs or time frames for certain projects. We added language 

to further clarify that we have no information indicating that the Office 

of Property Management’s projects at the Jail are not well managed. 

• With respect to release errors: 

1. DoC expressed concern that our report does not put the issue of 

release errors in proper perspective, and therefore casts DoC’s 

performance in this area in an undeservedly negative light. DoC 

pointed out that its Records Office staff manually processes large 

volumes of documents and that no workflow system is 100 percent 

error free. DoC further reported that between February and June 

2004, its rate of inmate release errors was only 0.81 percent, a rate that 

DoC believes is within the norm when compared with other manual 

work process systems. We agree with DoC that it is unreasonable to 

expect perfection when dealing with a manual, high-volume 

paperwork process. We do not know, however, what an acceptable 

error rate is for large-scale manual records-processing systems, 

particularly when the consequence of an error may be the erroneous 

release of a jail inmate. To illustrate that DoC’s error rate is within the 

norm, DoC directed us to a Web site containing two e-mail messages 
Page 28 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

indicating that industries with robust, data-driven cultures commit 3 to 

4.5 process errors per 1,000 opportunities. The e-mail messages do not 

contain sufficient information for us to determine their reliability or if 

they are comparable to DoC’s records data. Therefore, the 

appropriateness of using these reported error rates as a benchmark for 

DoC’s reported error rates is unclear. We note, however, that 3 to 

4.5 errors per 1,000 represent error rates of 0.30 and 0.45 percent, a 

fraction of DoC’s reported error rate. We added language to the report 

indicating that it is unrealistic to expect that a data entry system based 

on manual processing of large volumes of paperwork to be error free 

and that we have no basis for determining what an acceptable rate of 

error is. 

2. DoC felt that we should give it credit for publicly and routinely 

reporting release errors. DoC stated that few, if any, other correctional 

systems do this. We do not know how DoC compares with other 

systems in publicly reporting release errors because comparing DoC 

with other correctional systems was outside the scope of our review. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the District’s 

Mayor and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report 

are listed in appendix XI. If you or your staff have any questions 

concerning this report, contact Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, or me on 

(202) 512-8777. 

Sincerely yours, 

Cathleen A. Berrick 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the results of recent health and 

safety inspections at the Jail and Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), 

(2) the number and status of capital improvement projects at the Jail and 

issues related to the management of these projects, and (3) the progress 

made in improving electronic inmate records at the Jail. To address these 

objectives, we met with and obtained information from corrections 

officials at the District’s Department of Corrections (DoC) headquarters, 

the Jail, and CTF; interviewed officials at the District’s Office of the 

Inspector General; and reviewed applicable District laws and regulations. 

To determine the results of the health and safety inspections at the Jail 

and CTF, we interviewed officials at the District’s Department of Health 

(DoH) and Fire and Emergency Medical Services, reviewed DoC and 

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) policies and procedures, 

American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention 

Facilities and the American Public Health Association’s Standards for 

Health Services in Correctional Institutions. We also reviewed all 

available reports on DoH health and safety inspections of the Jail and CTF 

prepared between March 2002 and April 2004. We developed a data 

collection instrument to record the deficiencies reported by DoH. 

Through discussions with DoH officials, we obtained information on 

DoH’s methodology for conducting inspections and the standards applied 

to the Jail and CTF inspections. We did not assess the quality of how DoH 

completes its inspections, nor were we able to determine the prevalence, 

seriousness, or recurrence of deficiencies identified. This was because the 

DoH reports did not always record specific information on the location of 

each deficiency. Our data collection instrument captured information on 

those deficiencies that the District’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

reported in its October 2002 report. 

To report on the findings of fire safety inspections, we reviewed three Fire 

and Emergency Medical Services inspection reports—two for the Jail 

dated January 2002 and January 2003 and one for CTF dated September 

2003. In 2002, a follow-up inspection of violations previously cited in 

2001 was completed. This inspection also served as the annual inspection. 

Because deficiencies were not found, Fire and Emergency Medical 

Services did not issue a report of findings. We did not assess the quality of 

the fire safety inspections. However, through discussions with Fire and 

Emergency Medical Services officials, we gained an understanding of Fire 

and Emergency Medical Services’ methodology for conducting fire safety 

inspections and the fire safety codes applied. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

To determine the status of the Jail’s 16 capital improvement projects, we 

interviewed officials at the District’s Office of Property Management and 

its Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We also reviewed documentation, 

including project status reports. To obtain information on the scope of the 

Jail’s capital projects, we reviewed DoC’s Capital Improvements 

Program, as of August 2003. To identify management issues, we reviewed 

the Office of Property Management’s project management, but we did not 

conduct an in-depth evaluation on the effectiveness of its management. To 

observe the capital improvement projects under construction, we 

accompanied DoC officials on a tour of the Jail. We did not assess the 

quality of work on of the Jail’s projects that were in design or construction 

or that had been completed at the time of our review. To gain an 

understanding of construction best practices and capital projects, we 

reviewed industry resources from the Project Management Institute, 

Project Management Institute Standards Committee, A Guide to the 

Project Management Body of Knowledge, and prior GAO reports.1

 

To describe the changes that DoC has made to improve the accuracy of 

inmate records, we met with DoC officials, including its Records Office 

staff. We also reviewed DoC’s Operations Manual and policies, including 

internal controls for inmate records. To determine whether there had been 

an increase or decrease in the number of early or late releases, we 

obtained DoC summary data for inmates that had been mistakenly 

released before or after their official release date. Specifically, we 

reviewed early release data for the period January 2002 through February 

2004. Our review of late release data included inmates released in May 

2002 through February 2004 and total releases for the same time period. 

We also reviewed federal internal control standards to gain an 

understanding of the types of control activities that may be applied for 

information processing and staff training.2

 We did not directly observe 

record processing to determine the causes for and the full range of errors 

made by Records Office staff. 

 1

GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the Management and 

Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823 (Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003), 

and GAO, United Nations: Early Renovation Planning Reasonable, but Additional 

Management Controls and Oversight Will Be Needed, GAO-03-566 (Washington, D.C.: May 

30, 2003). 

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 31 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

To assess the reliability of release data, we reviewed the process by which 

DoC tracks these data and the extent to which each relevant data element 

is complete and accurate. To do this, we interviewed DoC staff about the 

processes used to capture early and late release errors, the controls over 

those processes, and the data elements involved. For late release errors, 

we also traced data to their corresponding source documents. We 

identified inconsistencies in the information, prompting DoC to review its 

methodology for identifying late releases. DoC’s review led it and us to 

conclude that its methodology had been incomplete and had produced an 

undercount of the true number of late releases. DoC modified its 

methodology in April 2004 to be more comprehensive. 

For capital improvement projects at CTF, we obtained relevant 

information for only those projects completed in 2003. We did not review 

the CCA’s project management for these projects because this was outside 

the scope of our review. To identify the types of programs and services 

that the Jail and CTF provide, and the facilities’ annual costs during 

1999 through 2003, we met with DoC and CTF officials and reviewed 

program descriptions. To determine the annual cost of these facilities, we 

reviewed DoC budget documents, including the costs of the Jail, and 

CCA’s summary reports on income and expenses for CTF for each year 

included in our review. 

We conducted our review from June 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at 

the Correctional Treatment Facility 

Page 32 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

As part of its contract with the District to manage CTF, CCA performs 

capital improvements at the facility that are intended to remedy current or 

potential breaches of security or improve the facility’s normal operations. 

CCA defines capital improvements as those valued at $5,000 or more and 

may include furnishings, equipment, vehicles, or alterations to the facility.1

As shown in table 2, during 2003, 11 capital improvement projects were 

completed at CTF at a total cost of $289,956. Of these 11 projects, 3 were 

designated emergency projects. These 3 projects (that is, the last 3 shown 

in table 2) were associated with CTF’s kitchen and were deemed by 

Corrections Corporation of America to be necessary in order to provide 

meals for the Jail’s inmates while the Jail’s kitchen was closed for 

renovation. 

Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during 2003 

Project Cost

Replace existing fire alarm system $125,000

Batteries and chargers for radios 30,000

Fabricate four noncontact visit cages 6,300

New perimeter truck 15,000

Replace cameras and monitors 25,000

Pave perimeter road 10,515

Switchgear preventive maintenancea 27,252

Batteries for switchgeara 12,850

Ovens 11,795

Steamers 12,244

Two new chilled water coils 14,000

Total $289,956

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

 1

CCA’s definition of a capital improvement differs from that of the District. The District 

defines capital improvements as a permanent improvement to a fixed asset that is valued at 

$250,000 or more with an expected life of more than 3 years. 

Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at 

the Correctional Treatment Facility 
Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at 

the Correctional Treatment Facility 

Page 33 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

a Corrections Corporation of America’s capital improvement projects do not include the day-to-day 

maintenance and general repair of existing equipment. These were improvements designed to extend 

the longevity of the equipment that helps distribute power coming into CTF from the District. 
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 34 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

This appendix provides information on the results of the District’s DoH 

health and safety inspection reports prepared between March 2002 and 

April 2004 for health and safety inspections of the Jail. We reviewed six 

inspection reports that included information on deficiencies identified for 

the following: (1) air quality, (2) vermin, (3) fire safety, (4) plumbing, and 

(5) lighting. 

As shown in figure 1, problems with air quality were reported in four of six 

inspection reports. Specifically, in four of the reports, DoH reported that 

at the time of an inspection, there was no airflow. According to a DoH 

official, “no airflow” included those instances in which there was no 

measurable airflow coming out of the vent during an inspection. For 

example, in October 2003, DoH reported that in general, all cellblocks had 

cells with no airflow. 

Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports 

Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 

DoH found evidence of vermin in all six inspections. DoH found vermin in, 

among other areas, the Jail’s main kitchen, loading dock, dry storage, and 

officer dining areas. Mice and flies were the types of vermin DoH found 

most frequently. For example, in its October 2003 report, DoH reported 

that bread loaves with holes and mice droppings were found in the bread 

Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Air Quality 

Vermin 

Deficiency type

identified

Extent of problem

reported

Mar 02

Aug 02

Nov 02

Apr 03

Oct 03

No airflow in cells

S = Some

NA = Not applicable

M = Most

cb = cellblock(s)

Apr 04

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

NA

S

10 cb

NA

18 cb

M

Y = Yes N = No

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 35 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

storage room. In each of its six inspections, DoH found evidence of flies, 

primarily in the inmate shower areas. In August 2002, showers in 

8 cellblocks were reported as having flies. In April and October 2003, DoH 

noted flies coming from under the showers in each of the 18 cellblocks 

inspected. DoH reported in April 2004 that flies were observed in shower 

areas, but the report did not specify the number of cellblocks affected. 

Figure 2 shows the vermin types identified in the kitchen areas and 

showers. 

Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 

a

Officer dining area. 

b

Bread storage area and hallway near canteen storage.

DoH found an insufficient number of fire extinguishers, smoke detectors 

that were either missing or not working, and other fire safety deficiencies 

at the Jail. Figure 3 identifies each of the deficiencies. In five of six 

inspections, fire extinguishers were reported as being improperly stored. 

For example, in August and November 2002, DoH reported that 

extinguishers were placed on the floor when they should have been 

mounted on the wall. All six reports noted that fire extinguishers 

throughout cellblocks inspected had inaccurate or missing documentation 

indicating that they been inspected. 

Fire Safety 

Main

kitchen Dishwashing Loading

dock

Dry

storage Other

NA

Y

N

Y

Y

N

NA

N

N

Y

Y

N

NA

Y

N

Y

Y

N

NA

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Ya

N

Yb

Yb

Yb

N

Mice Rats Flies

Y = Yes N = No NA = Not applicable

Aug 02

Nov 02

Apr 03

Oct 03

Vermin type reported

Kitchen areas

Apr 04

Mar 02

Shower

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Shower areas

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 36 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

DoH reported that in five of six inspections, there were cellblocks without 

the required number of fire extinguishers. According to the DoH reports, 

each cellblock is to have three extinguishers. Burnt-out or nonworking 

exit lights were also noted in all six inspection reports we reviewed. 

Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004 

DoH reports identified such plumbing deficiencies as (1) nonoperational 

plumbing fixtures, (2) unavailability of hot or cold water, (3) sinks and 

toilets with low water pressure, and (4) malfunctioning showers. For 

example, in its October 2003 inspection, DoH found that in all 

18 cellblocks inspected, there were faulty plumbing fixtures. The DoH 

inspector reported in April 2004 that at that time, there were fewer 

problems with plumbing fixtures than in October 2003. DoH found in all 

Plumbing 

Deficiency type Mar

02

Aug

02

Nov

02

Apr

03

Oct

03

Mar

02

Aug

02

Nov

02

Apr

03

Oct

03

Missing fire extinguishers N Y Y Y Y 1 cb 1 cb 1 cb 1 cb

Improper storage of fire

extinguishers NYYYY

1 cb &

other

other 1 cb &

other

other

Insufficient number of fire

extinguishers NYYYY 1 cb 1 cb

Uninspected fire extinguishers NNYNN 16 ext.

Fire extinguishers with 

inaccurate or missing 

inspection dates documented 

YYYYY T 5 cb &

other T 8 cb & 

other

Broken flashlights Y Y Y Y Y 7 cb 7 cb 7 cb 7 cb 7 cb

Emergency lights not working NNYNN 1cb

Exit lights burnt out or not 

working YYYYY 1 cb other 1 cb &

other

1 cb &

other

1 cb &

other

1 cb &

other

Smoke detectors not working N N Y Y Y 1cb 3cb 3cb

Smoke detectors not

connected to electrical system 

N N Y N N NR

Missing smoke detectors YYYYY SS SSS

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Y = Yes N = No S = Some

T = Throughout

NR = Not reported

NA = Not applicable

Other = Areas other than cellblock

Ext = Extinguishers

c = cell(s)

cb = cellblock(s)

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

Apr

04

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

Y

Apr

04

S

S

S

NA

cb &

other

NA

NA

NA

NA

Deficiency type identified Extent of problem reported

other

1 cb &

other

1 cb &

other

3 cb &

other
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 37 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

six of its inspections that inmate cells throughout the Jail lacked hot or 

cold water. 

Low water pressure affecting inmate sinks and toilets was noted in all six 

DoH reports. In each inspection report, low water pressure was reported 

as occurring in some instances throughout the 18 cellblocks inspected. In 

April 2003, DoH reported that there were some instances in which the 

water pressure was so low that it was impossible for the sinks to be used 

for hand washing. According to a DoC official, most water pressure 

problems in cellblocks had been caused by blockages caused by debris 

from old pipes and plumbing fixtures. Figure 4 presents plumbing-related 

deficiencies—other than those pertaining to showers—identified in DoH 

reports. 

Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared 

between March 2002 and April 2004 

In all six of its inspections, DoH found broken showers that could not be 

used. The number of cellblocks affected ranged from 1 to 8. All six reports 

also indicated that between 2 and 13 cellblocks had water temperatures 

above or below the suggested range for inmate safety and hygiene. The 

number of cellblocks affected ranged from 2 in March 2002 to 13 in April 

2003. Each inspection found showers with leaking knobs, affecting 

c = cell(s)

cb = cellblock(s)

Deficiency type

identified

Extent of problem

reported

Mar 02

Aug 02

Nov 02

Apr 03

Oct 03

Nonoperational plumbing fixtures

S = Some

T = Throughout

NR = Not reported

Cells without hot and/or cold water

Low water pressure

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

T

93 c

117 c

NR

18 cb

NR

T

T

T

T

T

30 c

S

S

S

S

S

S

Y = Yes N = No

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

Apr 04
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 38 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

between 1 and 2 cellblocks. Figure 5 presents the shower-related 

deficiencies identified in DoH reports. 

Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared 

between March 2002 and April 2004 

All six DoH inspections found problems with light fixtures, including 

burnt-out lightbulbs and damaged light fixtures. Figure 6 presents 

information on this deficiency. 

Lighting 

Deficiency type

identified

Extent of problem

reported

2 cb

5 cb

8 cb

4 cb

4 cb

1 cb

2 cb

13 cb

3 cb

13 cb

8 cb

3 cb

Mar 02

Aug 02

Nov 02

Apr 03

Oct 03

Showers did not work or were broken or could not be used because of malfunctioning

NA = Not applicable c = cell(s)

cb = cellblock(s)

Shower temperature was too hot or too cold

Damaged floor treatment

Shower knob leaking

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

4 cb

12 cb

4 cb

4 cb

4 cb

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y = Yes N = No

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

Apr 04

2 cb

1 cb

2 cb

2 cb

2 cb

1 cb

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety 

Inspections at the Jail 

Page 39 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared 

between March 2002 and April 2004 

Mar 02

Aug 02

Nov 02

Apr 03

Oct 03

T = Throughout

NR = Not reported

c = cells(s)

cb = cellblock(s)

Cells with damaged light fixtures

Deficiency type

identified

Extent of

problem reported

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

3 c/2 cb

160 c/15 cb

119 c/17 cb

T

T

NR

Y = Yes N = No

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

Apr 04
Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC 

Implemented to Improve the Accuracy of 

Inmate Records 

Page 40 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve the 

efficiency of records processing and the accuracy of inmate records. DoC 

simplified the workflow in the Records Office and implemented a number 

of quality controls over its inmate records processes by the end of October 

2002. For example, DoC sought to improve the handling of incoming 

paperwork by reorganizing the layout of the Records Office and changing 

the process for entering records into the system. Workstations were 

centralized to streamline the distribution of documents for processing. To 

minimize the possibility of misplacing paperwork, the process for entering 

records was changed so that a record transaction is handled from 

beginning to end by a single staff member rather than by several staff 

members as was previously done. Additionally, DoC implemented a 

number of quality control measures consistent with federal control 

standards that require agencies to (1) clearly document transactions, 

conduct edit checks of data entered into systems, and reconcile summary 

information to verify the completeness of the data and (2) train employees 

so they have the skills necessary to meet changing organizational needs. 

DoC took the following steps, among others, to improve the accuracy of its 

inmate records: 

• To clearly document how to conduct transactions, DoC issued an 

operations manual in August 2002. The manual details steps that are to 

occur during such records transactions as intake, transfer, court return, 

and temporary and permanent release of inmates. Since October 2002, 

DoC has been preparing incident reports containing information on how 

release errors have occurred. 

• To verify the completeness and accuracy of its data, DoC has also been 

generating numerous quality control reports. In addition, to reconcile 

discrepancies in inmates’ court documents, DoC has developed a database 

to help DoC track and subsequently resolve errors in these documents. 

For example, when a Records Office staff member encounters a 

discrepancy in these documents, he or she is to file a report and e-mail it 

to the DoC staff person responsible for contacting the courts.

• To improve guidance and training for employees, DoC officials developed 

a tool to identify those individuals with low productivity or those who 

worked on a record that resulted in a release error who may need 

additional guidance and training. Also, DoC provided training on the use of 

its operations manual in months following its initial release and additional 

training each time the manual has been updated to ensure that staff are 

familiar with the new procedures. 

Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC 

Implemented to Improve the Accuracy of 

Inmate Records 
Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided 

at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment 

Facility 

Page 41 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

For the period 1999 through 2003, the cost of operating and maintaining 

the Jail was about $195 million and about $121 million for CTF. At the time 

of our review, DoC and CTF officials told us that volunteers administer 

many of the inmate programs and services offered at these two facilities 

and that other programs and services are included in the operation costs 

for each facility. For example, food services are administered at both 

facilities through DoC’s contract with the ARAMARK Corporation and are 

therefore included in DoC’s contract costs.1

 We did not obtain cost 

information for those programs and services that DoC and CCA fund. As 

shown in table 3, in 2003 DoC and CCA provided a variety of programs and 

services for inmates housed in these facilities, including, among other 

things, work, health services, and education. 

Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in 2003

Facility Program and service areas 

Jail Substance abuse treatment and education 

 Academic and vocational education 

 Prerelease readiness 

 Work detail 

 Recreation 

 Religion 

 Mail 

 Telephone 

 Visitation 

 Classification 

 Case management 

 Health and mental health 

 Food 

 Sanitation and hygiene 

Correctional Treatment Facility Substance abuse treatment and education 

 Academic and vocational education 

 Prerelease 

 Work detail 

 Recreation 

 

 1

In April 2003, DoC entered into a contract with the ARAMARK Corporation to provide 

food services at the Jail and CTF, according to a DoC official. 

Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided 

at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment 

Facility 
Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided 

at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment 

Facility 

Page 42 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Facility Program and service areas 

 Religion 

 Mail 

 Telephone 

 Visitation 

 Classification 

 Case management 

 Health and mental health 

 Food 

 Legal 

 HIV/AIDS prevention education 

 Therapeutic community 

 Volunteer services 

 Adjusting Our Attitude Training 

 Barber science 

 Graphic arts 

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of Columbia’s Department of 

Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America. 
Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the 

District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector 

General’s Recommendations 

Page 43 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

In its Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, October 

2002, the Office of the Inspector General made a number of 

recommendations for the D.C. Department of Corrections. The table below 

identifies OIG’s findings and recommendations for issues pertinent to our 

review for which DoC and OIG agreed DoC needed to demonstrate 

compliance. While DoC has provided interim documentation of the 

progress being made to address OIG’s recommendations, an OIG official 

said that a final determination of compliance would be made when the 

OIG conducts its reinspection. The official said the reinspection date has 

not been scheduled. 

Table 4: The District’s Office of the Inspector General’s Findings and Recommendations to the Department of Corrections 

OIG finding OIG recommendation 

Deficiencies cited during the Department of Health (DoH) and 

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) 

inspections remain unabated in violation of the stipulation 

following the Federal Appellate Court’s decision in Campbell v. 

MacGruder, 580 F. 2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 

That the Director, DoC, direct the Warden Central Detention 

Facility (CDF) / Compliance Officer and Cellblock Officer(s) in 

charge to ensure that the deficiencies cited in inspections 

provided by internal and external agencies are abated. a

 

 That the Director, DoC, direct staff to comply with DOC 

housekeeping policies and procedures. 

Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and 

recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate 

records and other information continues to cause significant 

problems, including premature and delayed release of inmates. 

That the Director, DoC, establish policies and procedures to verify 

the accuracy of data in the Jail and Community Corrections 

System (JACCS). 

 That the Director, DoC, establish policies and procedures to 

ensure accurate sentence computations are entered into JACCS 

to ensure that inmates are not held beyond their release dates. 

 That the Director, DoC, establish quality control policies and 

procedures for use by the Records Office during quarterly reviews 

of information in JACCS. 

 That the Deputy Warden for Programs immediately takes action to 

locate or re-create all missing official inmate files. 

 That the Director, DoC, require the Deputy Warden for Programs 

to develop a means of tracking inmate file folders. 

 That the Director, DoC, complies with the Trustee, D.C. Court 

Services and Offender Supervision Agency, recommendation R22 to U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert, which states: “Grade 

enhancements—place high performing staff in lead Legal 

Instrument Examiner (LIE) and supervisory positions.” 

 That the Director, DoC, comply with all outstanding D.C Court 

Services and Offender Supervision Agency Trustee 

recommendations submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Royce 

Lambert in the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 

Trustee’s report on the release of Oscar Veal, Jr. 

Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the 

District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector 

General’s Recommendations 
Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the 

District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector 

General’s Recommendations 

Page 44 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

OIG finding OIG recommendation 

CDF management had not complied with federal law and Building 

Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International Inc. 

National Fire and Prevention Codes. 

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management request 

inspections of the CDF by DC Occupational Safety and Health 

and the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department. 

 That the Director, DoC, and CDF management stack, secure, and 

properly seal all materials up and away from the light fixtures and 

passageways. 

CDF management had not complied with federal law regarding 

written emergency evacuation plans. 

That DoC and CDF management develop and implement a written 

emergency evacuation plan with a floor plan showing the routes of 

exit as required by 29 CFR 1910.38 (a) (1) (2001). 

Poor housekeeping practices and vermin contamination were 

observed throughout the CDF. 

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management maintain and 

enforce a daily general maintenance and cleaning program. 

The ventilation and overall indoor air quality inside the CDF 

ranged from poor to inadequate. 

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management install a heating 

ventilation and air conditioning unit that is properly equipped to 

filer out airborne contaminants, such as bacteria and harmful 

viruses. 

 That the Director, DoC, request that DC Occupational Safety and 

Health conduct an indoor air quality sampling at the CDF. 

The floors, aisles, and passageways in the warehouse area of the 

CDF were blocked or cluttered with miscellaneous items in 

violation of federal law regarding safe clearances and 

passageways. 

That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management complies 

with 29 CFR 1910.22 (2001) and keeps all floors, aisles, and 

passageways clear and in good repair. 

Floors in the passageways to the cellblocks are not maintained in 

a clean and sanitary condition as required by federal law. 

That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management cleans, 

sanitizes, and removes the chipped paint and mold from the 

floors. 

Food spills on the floors impair safe movement. That the Director, DoC, and CDF management repair the leaking 

pipes and broken floors in the culinary unit. 

 That the Director, DoC, and CDF management clean and sanitize 

all areas of the floor in the culinary unit daily and as frequently as 

necessary to maintain cleanliness and sanitization. 

Source: GAO generated information based on the District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector 

General report. 

a

CDF is also known as the D.C. Jail. 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 45 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of 

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

Page 46 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 47 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 48 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 49 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 50 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 51 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 52 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 53 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections 

Page 54 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of 

Columbia, Department of Health 

Page 55 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of 

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

Columbia, Department of Health 

Page 56 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of 

Columbia, Department of Health 

Page 57 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix IX: Comments from the District of 

Columbia, Office of the Inspector General 

Page 58 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 

Appendix IX: Comments from the District of 

Columbia, Office of the Inspector General 
Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management 

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

Appendix X: Comments from the District of 

Columbia, Office of Property Management 
Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management 

Page 60 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management 

Page 61 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities 
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 62 GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facility

Cathleen A. Berrick, (202) 512-8777 

Evi L. Rezmovic, (202) 512-2580 

In addition to those named above, Leo Barbour, Chan My J. Battcher, 

Grace Coleman, Tanya Cruz, Wesley A. Johnson, Evan Gilman, Omar N. 

Beyah, Maria Edelstein, Elizabeth Eraker, and Geoffrey Hamilton made 

key contributions to this report. 

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 

(440228) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER