Skip navigation
Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Header

Audit of the fBOP’s Contract with CoreCivic to Operate the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, MI, OIG, 2016

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Office of the Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ 

Contract with CoreCivic, Inc. to 

Operate the Adams County 

Correctional Center 

in Natchez, Mississippi 


Audit Division 17-08

December 2016

AUDIT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ CONTRACT 

WITH CORECIVIC, INC. TO OPERATE

THE ADAMS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER 

IN NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In April 2009, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awarded a contract to
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is now known as CoreCivic, Inc.,
to house up to 2,567 low-security, non-U.S. citizen adult male inmates in the
Adams County Correctional Center (Adams County).1 The BOP exercised the
contract’s second of three 2-year option periods in 2015, extending it through
July 2017 and increasing its value to about $468 million. As of June 2016, it was
the third largest Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) contract in terms of
dollars obligated since fiscal year (FY) 2009.
The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit, covering
the period April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2015, to: (1) assess CoreCivic’s
contract performance; (2) determine whether CoreCivic complied with the terms,
conditions, laws, and regulations applicable to the contract; and (3) assess the
BOP’s formation and administration of the contract. We found that CoreCivic’s
execution of the contract’s requirements did not fully accomplish the BOP’s program
goals in several respects.
In May 2012, an inmate riot at the facility resulted in a correctional officer’s
death and injuries to approximately 20 staff and inmates. The riot, according to a
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit, was a consequence of what inmates
perceived to be inadequate medical care, substandard food, and disrespectful staff
members. A BOP after-action report found deficiencies in staffing levels, staff
experience, communication between staff and inmates, and CoreCivic’s intelligence
systems. The report specifically cited the lack of Spanish-speaking staff and staff
inexperience.
Four years after the riot, we were deeply concerned to find that the facility
was plagued by the same significant deficiencies in correctional and health services
and Spanish-speaking staffing. In 19 of the 38 months following the riot, we found
CoreCivic staffed correctional services at an even lower level than at the time of the
riot in terms of actual post coverage.2 Yet CoreCivic’s monthly reports to the BOP,
1 CCA changed its name to CoreCivic, Inc. and began the process of modifying its federal
contracts to reflect that name in November 2016. Throughout this report we refer to the company as
CoreCivic.

A recent OIG audit identified similar concerns about post-riot health services staffing levels
at a BOP contract prison. That audit of the Reeves County Detention Center I/II found that while
correctional staffing levels were typically above contractually required post-riot minimum staffing
levels, that was not the case with health services staffing in 34 of 37 months we reviewed. U.S.
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract
No. DJB1PC007 Awarded to Reeves County, Texas, to Operate the Reeves County Detention Center
I/II, Pecos, Texas, Audit Report 15-15 (April 2015).
2

i

which were based on simple headcounts, showed that correctional staffing levels
had improved in 36 of those 38 months. With regard to Spanish-speaking staff,
while the BOP’s post-riot after-action plan recommended adding to the contract
minimum requirements for bilingual staff, we found that the BOP did not modify the
contract to include this requirement until June 2015, subsequent to the start of our
audit. Moreover, the contract modification does not define the level of speaking
proficiency required and has no deadline or target date for compliance. As of
July 2015, the facility’s inmate population consisted of approximately 2,300 aliens,
predominately Mexican-nationals, yet only 4 of 367 staff spoke fluent Spanish. By
February 2016, CoreCivic officials told us the number of fluent Spanish-speaking
staff actually dropped to three people, and CoreCivic’s January 2016 job
announcements for correctional officers stated no preference for bilingual
applicants. In addition, the BOP told us that it does not validate the contractor’s
staff for Spanish-speaking skills, and has not established any validation criteria for
doing so.
We also found lower qualification levels and significantly higher staffing
turnover rates for Adams County correctional officers and believe these factors
contributed to the facility’s lack of experienced staff, which the BOP identified in its
after-action report as a systemic problem in the area of safety and security at the
facility. We reviewed CoreCivic’s hiring practices and determined the facility
employs correctional officers with qualifications that would have been insufficient
for employment at BOP-managed institutions. For example, the BOP requires
entry-level correctional officers to have either a 4-year college degree or equivalent
work experience, while CoreCivic does not require education beyond high school.
Additionally, we found significantly higher turnover rates at the facility than those
at comparable BOP institutions and believe it likely results from the substantially
lower pay and benefits provided by CoreCivic. We found CoreCivic pays
significantly lower wages and offers less time off than the BOP, and provides fewer
career advancement opportunities. For example, the BOP pays entry-level
correctional officers $18.69 per hour, 48 percent higher than the $12.60 per hour
paid by CoreCivic. The State of Mississippi also offers its correctional officers more
generous wages and paid time off than CoreCivic. Furthermore, the BOP offers new
correctional officers noncompetitive promotion potential to $26.91 an hour, while
CoreCivic pays correctional officers, throughout their careers, only the required
prevailing wage rates set forth by the Department of Labor’s Service Contract Act
wage determinations. The BOP’s contract with CoreCivic does not address either
correctional officer qualification requirements or staff pay and benefits. We believe
the BOP should evaluate the extent to which employee qualification levels and
turnover rates impact safety and security concerns, and whether its contractual
terms should be modified to address those concerns.
In addition, while the BOP’s solicitation that resulted in the Adams County
contract required companies to develop a staffing plan that would illustrate the
“total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) for each position title,” based on our
discussions with BOP and CoreCivic officials, it became apparent that the contract
was vague about how staffing levels should be calculated. A 2011 contract
modification provided that staffing levels should not fall below a monthly average of
90 percent for Correctional Services and 85 percent for Health Services of the
ii

BOP-approved staffing plan. Both the BOP and CoreCivic told us they interpreted
the contract to allow the calculation of staffing levels to be based on headcounts
rather than FTE, and leave the determination of day-to-day staff assignments to the
discretion of CoreCivic. As a result, we found the staffing levels CoreCivic reported
to the BOP reflected neither actual staffing at the facility nor staffing insufficiencies.
Specifically, CoreCivic reported to the BOP simple headcounts of staff recorded on
payroll records, regardless of the hours each employee actually worked. When we
re-calculated correctional services staffing levels based on FTEs using time and
attendance records, we found that, throughout the 4-year period we reviewed,
staffing levels were lower than the levels represented by CoreCivic’s headcounts
and were frequently lower than the BOP’s minimum staffing threshold. We found
similar issues regarding CoreCivic’s reporting of health services staffing. Because
the BOP was unaware of these staffing insufficiencies, it was unable to assess the
adequacy of staffing levels at the facility. When we reported these issues and our
concerns about them to BOP officials, they told us CoreCivic’s reporting was
consistent with the contract. We found that had the contract clearly specified that
staffing levels should be measured using FTEs, between July 2011 and July 2015
the BOP could have taken $1,927,307 in invoice deductions as a result of
inadequate correctional and health services staffing levels. We believe this nearly
$2 million that the BOP expended could have been avoided with more precise
contract language and was wasteful.
We also found that, beginning in December 2012, CoreCivic excluded from its
required staffing reports the status of five critical health services positions identified
in the approved staffing plan, namely two dentists, two physicians, and one
advanced registered nurse practitioner. As a result, the BOP, which was not
notified of and did not identify the change, was unable to assess the effect of any
vacancies on service provision or invoice amounts. We believe that this gap in
oversight had a negative effect on CoreCivic’s ability to provide quality health care
at the Adams County facility. In fact, we found that between December 2012 and
September 2015, the Adams County facility was staffed with only a single physician
for 434 days (43 percent of the time) and a single dentist for 689 days (69 percent
of the time), resulting in inmate-to-provider ratios that were about double those
specified in BOP program statements.
Finally, we found several aspects of the BOP’s control and oversight of the
contract performance to be inadequate. The BOP structured this contract as a
performance-based acquisition, for which the Federal Acquisition Regulation
requires a performance work statement, measurable performance standards, and a
method of assessing contractor performance against those standards. However,
the BOP did not implement appropriate performance standards to measure and
evaluate CoreCivic’s performance. For example, the BOP’s oversight of staffing
levels is limited because the contract requirements do not sufficiently specify how
CoreCivic should measure and report facility staffing levels. We also found
CoreCivic inconsistently used industry-standard dietary guidelines to evaluate the
nutritional adequacy of food service offerings at the facility, an issue that may have
been avoided had the contract specified which standards CoreCivic should have
followed. Additionally, the BOP’s oversight of billings was inadequate in several

iii

ways, resulting in the BOP failing to identify instances where CoreCivic did not apply
mandatory invoice deductions.
In August 2016, the Deputy Attorney General directed the BOP to begin
reducing, and ultimately end, its use of privately operated prisons. Because this
order was issued after the close of our audit period, any analysis of its basis or
effect were outside of this audit’s scope.
This report makes 9 recommendations to assist the BOP in improving
operations under the Adams County contract and in addressing $42,300 we have
identified as questioned costs.

iv

AUDIT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ CONTRACT 

WITH CORECIVIC, INC. TO OPERATE

THE ADAMS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER 

IN NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
 
Background ........................................................................................ 1
 
The Federal Bureau of Prisons ...................................................... 1
 
The BOP’s Use of Contract Prisons ................................................. 1
 
CoreCivic, Inc............................................................................. 3
 
Adams County Correctional Center ................................................ 3
 
Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract Administration ........................... 4
 
OIG Audit Approach ............................................................................. 4
 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 6
 
Contract Performance ........................................................................... 6
 
Facility Staffing – Correctional Services .......................................... 7
 
Facility Staffing – Health Services ............................................... 13
 
Recruiting and Retention of Correctional Officers ........................... 15
 
Language Barrier ............................................................. 15
 
Correctional Officer Qualifications and Retention................... 17
 
Contract Compliance .......................................................................... 21
 
Compliance with Reporting Requirements for Facility Staffing Levels 21
 
Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute ....... 25
 
Contract Formation and Administration ................................................. 27
 
Performance-Based Contracting .................................................. 27
 
Inmate Grievance Processes .............................................. 28
 
Food Services .................................................................. 30
 

Contract Type .......................................................................... 31
 
Billing Procedures ..................................................................... 32
 
Contract Oversight .................................................................... 32
 
Recommendations ............................................................................. 35
 
STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS........................................................... 36
 
STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS ......................... 37
 
APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY................................. 38
 
APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS ............................... 42
 
APPENDIX 3: THE BOP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT .................. 43
 
APPENDIX 4: CORECIVIC’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT .............. 47
 
APPENDIX 5: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF 

ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ....................................... 60
 

AUDIT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ CONTRACT 

WITH CORECIVIC, INC. TO OPERATE

THE ADAMS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER 

IN NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the
Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) contract number DJB1PC010, awarded
April 1, 2009 to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is now known as
CoreCivic, Inc.3 The purpose of this contract is to provide for detention and
correctional services for up to 2,567 low-security, non-U.S. citizen inmates at the
Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi. The contract has a
fixed-price with the possibility of an award fee for quality performance. It has a
4-year base period beginning on August 1, 2009 and three 2-year option periods.
In July 2015, the BOP exercised the contract’s second option period, extending
contract performance through July 2017 and increasing the total contract value to
approximately $468 million. If the BOP exercises the third option period, the
contract will have an estimated value of about $580 million and extend through
July 2019. As of June 2016, the Adams County Correctional Center contract is the
third largest in the Department of Justice in terms of dollars obligated since fiscal
year (FY) 2009.
Background
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The BOP’s mission is to protect society by confining offenders in prisons and
community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, appropriately
secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist
offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. The BOP directly operates 122
government-owned facilities and utilizes 13 privately managed facilities. The BOP
provides administrative oversight and support through its central and regional
offices. As of April 7, 2016, the BOP was responsible for the custody and care of
196,285 inmates.
The BOP’s Use of Contract Prisons
As a strategy to help control prison overcrowding, the BOP places low
security, criminal aliens serving sentences for 90 months or less in contracted
facilities. These facilities are supported by Criminal Alien Requirement contracts,
which are fixed-price, performance-based service contracts for the management

CCA changed its name to CoreCivic, Inc. and began the process of modifying its federal
contracts to reflect that name in November 2016. Throughout this report we refer to the company as
CoreCivic.
3

1


and operation of correctional facilities housing low-security, non-U.S. citizen male
inmates in BOP custody.
The BOP began using Criminal Alien Requirement contracts after Congress
directed the BOP in 1996 to begin a 5-year prison-privatization demonstration
project at a federal prison in Taft, California; thereafter, the Taft Prison Facility
became the first fully-privatized federal correctional institution for which an outside
contractor would assume primary responsibility. Under the eighth Criminal Alien
Requirement solicitation, the BOP awarded contract number DJB1PC010 to CCA on
April 1, 2009, for the management and operation of the Adams County Correctional
Center, and CCA subsequently changed its name to CoreCivic.
In FY 2016, the BOP’s budget for contract confinement was $1 billion, and it
reports being the largest user of contract confinement in the United States. As
shown in Table 1, as of April 7, 2016, the BOP housed 22,646 inmates in privatelymanaged facilities, accounting for approximately 11.5 percent of the total BOP
inmate population.
Table 1
BOP’s Criminal Alien Requirement Privately-Managed Contract Facilities
as of April 7, 2016
Facility Name

Location

Security Level

Population

Adams County Correctional Center

Natchez, MS

Low

1,906

Big Spring Correctional Center

Big Spring, TX

Low

3,174

Cibola County Correctional Center

Milan, NM

Low

1,112

D. Ray James Correctional Facility

Folkston, GA

Low

2,016

Eden Detention Center

Eden, TX

Low

1,345

Giles W. Dalby Correctional Institution

Post, TX

Low

1,599

Great Plains Correctional Facility

Hinton, OK

Low

1,639

McRae Correctional Facility

McRae, GA

Low

1,613

Moshannon Valley Correctional Center

Philipsburg, PA

Low

1,608

Reeves County Detention Center I and II

Pecos, TX

Low

2,127

Reeves County Detention Center III

Pecos, TX

Low

1,170

Rivers Correctional Institution

Winton, NC

Low

1,132

Taft Correctional Institution

Taft, CA

Low and Minimum

2,205

Total Inmate Population

22,646

Source: BOP

2

In a memorandum dated August 18, 2016, the Deputy Attorney General
directed the BOP to begin reducing, and ultimately end, its use of privately
operated prisons. The memorandum concluded that private prisons “simply do not
provide the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources; they do
not save substantially on costs; and as noted in a recent report by the
Department’s Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same level of
safety and security.”4 Consequently, the Deputy Attorney General directed that, as
each private prison contract reaches the end of its term, the BOP “either decline to
renew that contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with
law and the overall decline of the Bureau’s inmate population.”
CoreCivic, Inc.
Founded in 1983, CoreCivic is a publicly-traded, for-profit private corrections
and detention company based in Nashville, Tennessee. The contractor manages
more than 70 correctional facilities that house nearly 70,000 inmates from federal,
state, and local jurisdictions. Of those 70 facilities, 4 are operated under contracts
from the BOP and 11 from the U.S. Marshals Service. During FY 2015, the federal
government spent approximately $535 million for CoreCivic contracted facilities, of
which about $467 million was spent by the Department of Justice. The name
CoreCivic, Inc. was adopted by the company in November 2016 as part of what it
characterized as a rebranding effort. Prior to that, the company was known as
Corrections Corporation of America or CCA.
Adams County Correctional Center
The Adams County Correctional Center (Adams County) is a contractorowned 75-acre correctional facility located in Natchez, Mississippi. The Adams
County facility contains seven housing units, food service and medical operations,
indoor and outdoor recreation areas, visitation space, and administrative buildings.
Constructed for CoreCivic at a cost of approximately $128 million, the Adams
County facility opened in 2009. The inmate population consists predominately of
Mexican-nationals.
In May 2012, the Adams County facility experienced an inmate riot that
resulted in the death of one correctional officer, injuries to approximately 20 other
staff members and inmates, and multiple convictions on murder and rioting
charges. According to an affidavit filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on
August 8, 2012, the disturbance was a consequence of what the inmates perceived
to be substandard food, inadequate medical care, and disrespectful staff members
at the Adams County facility.
The BOP performed a review of the event and issued an after-action report
making 15 recommendations. The report concluded that a lack of effective
intelligence operations directly contributed to the inability to prevent the
disturbance. The BOP found deficiencies in communication between staff and
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons, Evaluation and Inspections Report 16-06 (August 2016).
4

3


inmates, staffing, and CoreCivic’s intelligence systems. The report specifically
stated that a lack of Spanish-speaking staff and staff inexperience, particularly in
the Intelligence Office, had an adverse effect on communication and intelligence
gathering at the prison.
Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract Administration
The BOP’s administration, monitoring, and oversight responsibilities for its 13
privately operated correctional facilities are shared among 3 Divisions.
Within the BOP’s Administration Division, the Privatized Corrections
Contracting Section is responsible for both contract procurement and contract
administration, which it accomplishes through the assignment and supervision of an
Administrative Contracting Officer for each contract. Each Administrative
Contracting Officer typically appoints Contracting Officer’s Representatives, who
monitor contract performance on a daily basis and help the Administrative
Contracting Officer ensure that the contractor is adhering to the terms and
conditions of the contract.
Within the BOP’s Correctional Programs Division, the Privatization
Management Branch is responsible for managing and overseeing the operation of
secure contract facilities. The Privatization Management Branch maintains at least
two full-time staff at each private facility, including a Senior Secure Institution
Manager and a Secure Oversight Manager. These two managers are Contracting
Officer’s Representatives whose functions include conducting routine reviews of
critical performance areas at the Adams County facility and identifying possible
deficiencies or concerns. They are responsible for examining all areas of the
contract including health services, education, recreation, food service, correctional
services, correctional programs, safety, inmate services, and any other area in
which inmates voice concerns during interactions with BOP staff.
The Contract Facility Monitoring Section is located within the BOP’s Program
Review Division and it consists of a team of subject matter experts who perform
comprehensive reviews of the contract facilities to identify areas of concern with
respect to the vital contracted functions at the facilities.
OIG Audit Approach
The objectives of our audit were to: (1) assess CoreCivic’s contract
performance; (2) determine whether CoreCivic complied with the terms, conditions,
laws, and regulations applicable to the contract; and (3) assess the BOP’s formation
and administration of the contract. The scope of this audit, unless otherwise
stated, is the period of contract performance from April 1, 2012, through March 31,
2015.
To assess the contractor’s performance, we evaluated the effectiveness of its
efforts to fulfill the contract’s requirements and provide a safe and secure
environment for both staff and inmates. Specifically, we interviewed staff and
examined Adams County staffing levels in the areas of correctional services and

4


health services to determine if CoreCivic complied with the staffing plan that it
developed and the BOP approved. We also assessed the extent to which language
barriers exist and affect the safety and security of the Adams County facility.
Finally, we reviewed correctional officers’ qualifications to determine if the staff at
Adams County was comparably qualified to that of similar BOP-managed facilities.
To determine whether the contractor complied with the terms, conditions,
laws, and regulations applicable to the contract, we reviewed contract clauses
related to staffing and reporting requirements, billing procedures, and labor laws.
We also reviewed other applicable contract provisions. We then reviewed
supporting documentation from both the BOP and the contractor to determine
whether the services delivered complied with the applicable contract requirements.
To assess the BOP’s formation and administration of the contract, we
evaluated the effectiveness of the performance-based acquisition strategy at
achieving the goals of the BOP’s privatization program. Specifically, we assessed
whether the contract’s scope of work was effective at driving contractor
performance by describing the program requirements in terms of objectively
measurable goals. To accomplish this, we reviewed the BOP’s acquisition planning
documentation, contract performance requirements, and applicable oversight and
monitoring documentation. We then compared that documentation to standards
and guidance for the use of performance based service contracts.
A detailed explanation of the audit’s scope and methodology is available in
Appendix 1.

5


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CoreCivic’s performance did not fully accomplish BOP program goals
for maintaining adequate staffing levels and providing a safe and
secure environment.5 This occurred because the staffing levels at the
Adams County facility were frequently insufficient during the 4 years
we tested, even though systemic staffing deficiencies were cited as a
contributing factor to the riot that occurred in May 2012 during which
a correctional officer died. Our analysis found that CoreCivic staffed
correctional services at a full-time equivalent level that was lower than
at the time of the riot during 19 of the following 38 months. During
the same period, CoreCivic reported to the BOP that staffing levels,
based on simple staff headcounts, had improved during all but 2 of
those months. In addition, CoreCivic did not hire sufficient bilingual
staff, hired correctional officers who are less-qualified than comparable
BOP officers, and experienced higher staff turnover rates than at
comparable BOP facilities. Further, CoreCivic’s invoices did not reflect
actual staffing levels and, because of CoreCivic’s and the BOP’s shared
interpretation of the contract’s vague language pertaining to those
levels, the BOP did not take $1,927,307 in additional invoice
deductions that it could have taken had the contract been clearer.
CoreCivic also improperly calculated the necessary wage determination
fringe deductions for some invoices, resulting in about $42,300 in
unallowable billings. Finally, the BOP exercised inadequate control and
oversight for some aspects of CoreCivic’s performance under the
contract, including by failing to include objective metrics in the
contract by which to measure CoreCivic’s performance, and by failing
to detect the shortfalls of CoreCivic’s monthly staffing reports.
Contract Performance
CoreCivic’s performance under the contract did not fully accomplish the
program goals, which included maintaining adequate staffing levels and providing a
safe and secure environment for staff and inmates. This occurred because the
staffing levels at the Adams County facility were frequently insufficient during the
4 years we tested, and the levels reported to the BOP reflected neither the actual
staffing levels nor any staffing insufficiencies. Because the BOP was unaware of
these staffing insufficiencies, it was unable to assess the adequacy of staffing levels
at the facility. However, even when we reported these issues and our concerns
about them to BOP officials, they told us CoreCivic’s reporting was consistent with
the contract. We found that had the contract clearly specified that staffing levels
should be measured using FTEs, between July 2011 and July 2015 the BOP could
have taken $1,927,307 in invoice deductions as a result of inadequate correctional
and health services staffing levels. We believe this nearly $2 million that the BOP
After reviewing a preliminary draft of this report, CoreCivic asserted that this conclusion
regarding its accomplishment of the BOP’s program goals is not adequately supported by our findings.
We disagree. The bases for our conclusion are contained in the remainder of this report.
5

6


expended could have been avoided with more precise contract language and was
wasteful. In addition, more than 3 years after the BOP attributed a 2012 riot in
part to a lack of Spanish-speaking staff, the contractor employed only 4 fluent
Spanish speakers, none of whom worked in the Adams County facility’s intelligence
office, for a predominately Mexican-national inmate population of approximately
2,300 individuals. Finally, we found that correctional officers at the Adams County
facility had lower job qualifications and higher turnover than correctional officers at
comparable BOP facilities. We believe that the inadequate staffing levels, language
barriers, lower qualifications, and higher turnover of correctional officers have
reduced the safety and security of the Adams County facility.
Facility Staffing – Correctional Services
Consistent with the overall mission of the BOP, the Adams County contract
requires CoreCivic to provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates
through adequate staffing, communication of operational concerns, and effective
intelligence gathering. We examined the effectiveness of the contractor’s efforts by
evaluating the adequacy of correctional services staffing levels at the Adams
County facility over a 4-year period. Adequate staffing levels are fundamental to
providing a safe and secure environment, and the adequacy of the Adams County
facility’s staffing was emphasized in the BOP’s after-action report as a factor
contributing to the May 2012 riot.
When the Adams County contract was awarded in April 2009, it provided the
contractor with broad authority to develop and restructure the staffing plan. At
that time, the contractor was not required to seek BOP approval prior to making
any changes to the staffing plan. In April 2011, approximately 2 years after the
contract award, the BOP issued a modification requiring the contractor to obtain
approval from the BOP’s Administrative Contracting Officer for any future revisions
to the staffing plan. The contract modification also established minimum thresholds
for determining when performance would be considered nonconforming and billing
deductions would be imposed. According to that contract modification, CoreCivic is
required to maintain monthly average staffing levels of:
•

90 percent of the BOP-approved staffing plan for correctional services,

•

85 percent of the BOP-approved staffing plan for health services, and

•

85 percent of the BOP-approved staffing plan for all other departments.

The BOP intended these additional staffing controls to improve its oversight
of staffing at the Adams County facility, but we identified significant weaknesses in
the BOP’s implementation of the controls. Specifically, the contract does not
provide meaningful procedures for measuring and reporting staffing levels to the
BOP.
The BOP solicitation that resulted in the Adams County contract required all
companies responding to the solicitation to develop a staffing plan that would
clearly and concisely illustrate the “total number of full-time equivalents for each

7


position title.”6 The resulting staffing plan was based on a calculation of a certain
number of hours, for a certain number of shifts, for a certain number of days each
year. Because an employee is not available to perform job specific duties directly
related to job performance the entire time the employee is on duty, the calculated
number of hours included a “relief factor” to account for the time necessary to
cover such matters as leave, training, and other administrative duties. The total of
these calculated hours, incorporating the relief factor, was then converted to a
number of staff members required, thereby reflecting the number of “full time
equivalent” employees required to fulfill the function to be contracted. This purpose
of the staffing plan is to provide a reasonable estimate of the number of employees
needed to perform the duties under the contract. The actual use of staff to
accomplish the necessary functions may vary and may incorporate the use of
overtime or the use of part-time employees. For example, a smaller staff working
overtime could provide for the same functions as a larger staff without overtime.
Conversely, the use of part-time employees would require a larger staff working
fewer hours to fulfill the same functions. In either event, however, the use of
headcounts would not result in a true representation of the time spent performing
duties directly related to the contract services.
The contract was modified in April 2011 to provide a minimum staffing
threshold for enforcement of the staffing plan. Despite developing a staffing plan
based on full-time equivalents, officials from both CoreCivic and the BOP told us
that the threshold provision of the contract was intended to allow CoreCivic to use
headcounts when calculating and reporting staffing levels, and did not require
CoreCivic to calculate the actual FTEs necessary to adequately perform under the
contract.
Consequently, we found that CoreCivic reported staffing levels to the BOP for
each of the three categories as simple headcounts of staff recorded on payroll
records, regardless of the hours each employee was actually performing duties
directly related to contract requirements during the month. We discussed this with
an official from the BOP’s Privatization Management Branch who acknowledged that
payroll headcounts do not reflect actual staffing at the Adams County facility. The
official also noted that newly hired correctional officers were added to the
contractor’s headcounts as soon as their employment was approved by the BOP.
This was done despite the fact that new recruits spent their first full month in
training rather than covering posts required by the staffing plan. As a result, when
CoreCivic reported staffing levels to the BOP based on headcounts, they often
appeared to meet the BOP’s required thresholds even though they would not have if
staffing levels had been measured using full-time equivalents.

“Full-time equivalent” is a term used to translate staffing needs into the number of full-time
staff members needed to fill the required hours. For example, two individuals who each work halftime count as one “full-time equivalent.” In comparison, the headcount methodology for measuring
staffing levels used by CoreCivic counts individuals without regard for the hours they work; as a
result, two individuals would simply be counted as two staff members regardless of whether they work
half-time, full-time, or some other work schedule.
6

8


We believe the practice of measuring staffing levels using employee
headcounts rather than actual time spent filling a required position does little to
ensure appropriate staffing for a safe and secure facility. In the “Contract
Formation and Administration” section of this report, we discuss how the BOP’s
oversight of contract performance allowed this to happen.
We assessed the contractor’s actual staffing levels as supported by time and
attendance records. To determine the actual staffing levels, we included all of the
direct labor hours that CoreCivic employees charged, excluding leave, holidays, and
training. We then calculated the number of full-time equivalents represented by
those direct labor hours and compared the results to the minimum staffing
thresholds identified in the contract and the staffing headcounts reported by
CoreCivic. Figure 1 presents our comparison.
Figure 1

Correctional Services Staffing Levels at the Adams County 

Correctional Center


Source: OIG analysis of the BOP-approved staffing plans for Adams County and CoreCivic’s time and
attendance records, training records, and monthly staffing levels reported to the BOP.

Figure 1 illustrates that, throughout the 4-year period we reviewed, actual
time spent performing contract duties directly related to correctional services, as
supported by time and attendance records, was lower than the staffing levels
represented by CoreCivic’s headcounts. It was also frequently lower than the
staffing levels required under the established minimum staffing threshold. The
figure also shows that, at the time we initiated this audit in April 2015, staffing
levels had not significantly improved since the May 2012 riot. In fact, during 19 of
the 38 months following the May 2012 riot, CoreCivic staffed correctional services
at a level lower than it was at the time of the riot in terms of actual time spent

9


performing duties directly related to contract requirements. Meanwhile, and in
contrast, CoreCivic delivered headcount reports to the BOP that reflected improved
staffing levels during 36 of those 38 months. We believe that this history of
understaffing and ineffective oversight has had a direct effect on the safety and
security of the Adams County facility.
During this audit, we provided our staffing findings to both the BOP and
CoreCivic, and in May 2016 CoreCivic expressed several objections to our staffing
analysis methodology. CoreCivic managers told us that they viewed the
contractually-required staffing plan as a target pool of staff available for
deployment based on the anticipated needs of the facility and not as a list of posts
that CoreCivic should be required to staff at all times. CoreCivic managers also said
that CoreCivic, not the BOP, was responsible for determining which posts actually
needed to be staffed day-to-day based upon the real time needs of the Adams
County facility. The BOP managers said that it is not the intent of the BOP to
monitor the staffing of each post because, in the view of the BOP, it is the
contractor’s responsibility to determine the most appropriate use of staff on a daily
basis to maintain a safe and secure facility.
The BOP managers stated that giving CoreCivic control over the day-to-day
staffing levels has helped the contractor meet the contract’s performance
objectives. However, we found that CoreCivic staffed fewer than all of the agreedupon posts for 43 of the 46 months, or 93 percent of the time, prior to the start of
our audit. BOP managers also acknowledged that the purpose of introducing
minimum staffing levels was to strengthen their controls over staffing. However,
under the BOP and CoreCivic managers’ interpretations of the staffing
requirements, the BOP’s controls over actual post coverage are nominal, and actual
staffing levels within the Adams County facility remained for long periods at or
below the level of staffing at the time of the May 2012 riot. Under this
interpretation, the risk of inadequate staffing remained and there could be no
deductions so long as sufficient personnel were listed on CoreCivic’s payroll,
regardless of the number of hours worked or how many of the agreed-upon posts
were actually being covered day-to-day. For that reason, we do not believe the
contract is as explicit as it needs to be with regard to how CoreCivic’s staffing
performance must be accomplished or evaluated. We therefore recommend that
the BOP modify the contract to provide specific procedures for CoreCivic to follow
for measuring and reporting staffing levels based on full-time equivalents. In
making this modification, the BOP should ensure that it will be able to monitor the
extent to which required stations are actually covered.
The understaffing identified by our analysis should also have had a direct
effect on the amount the BOP paid to CoreCivic under the contract, as the contract
provides for invoice deductions whenever any contract requirements, including
staffing requirements, are not met. However, the reporting of staffing levels as
simple headcounts did not provide sufficient information for the BOP to recognize
the understaffing at the Adams County facility or to calculate the appropriate
invoice deductions. For example, during the period July 2013 through March 2015,
the contractor-reported headcounts reflected correctional services staffing levels
that were continually at or above the 90 percent minimum threshold, even though
10


the actual coverage of required stations only met or exceeded the threshold level
during 3 of those 21 months, or about 14 percent of the time.
We determined the total value of the invoice deductions to which the BOP
would have been entitled had its contract with CoreCivic more explicitly required
the measurement of staffing levels by full-time equivalents. We did this by
comparing the aggregate value of the actual deductions taken to the value of the
deductions that would have been taken if the contractor had reported its staffing
levels as full-time equivalents. In total, we concluded that the BOP could have
taken $1,632,190 in additional invoice deductions relating to correctional services
for the months July 2011 through July 2015 had the contract not allowed for
CoreCivic’s headcount-based staffing reports. Although we are not questioning this
amount in light of the vague contract language to which the BOP agreed, we
nevertheless believe that the additional amounts the BOP expended on this contract
could have been avoided and were wasteful.
In their May 2016 correspondence, CoreCivic managers also objected to our
comparison of the actual staffing level to the BOP’s minimum staffing thresholds.
CoreCivic managers stated that this comparison was not appropriate because our
analysis measured staffing levels in terms of direct labor hours while the targets in
the staffing plan were based on both direct and indirect labor hours represented by
a “relief factor.” We asked the BOP for its perspective on our analysis. The BOP
specifically did not agree with our analysis. BOP officials told us that CoreCivic is
responsible for submitting the current average monthly vacancy rate and indicating
any positions that have been vacant more than 30 days. The BOP officials said that
the relief factor is included in the overall staffing plan and the contractor is required
to maintain 90 percent staff for Correctional Services under the overall staffing
plan.
We recognize that the BOP-approved staffing plan includes additional staff
incorporated as a “relief factor” to help cover posts while other employees are on
leave, in training, or otherwise not available to work. The use of a relief factor may
be an effective way for CoreCivic to account for employees’ indirect time in setting
internal hiring targets. However, we believe that including in our analysis the
number of hours that CoreCivic employees spend on leave and in training would
obscure the measurement of actual post coverage. We also note that our analysis
compared the actual staffing levels at the facility to the BOP’s minimum staffing
thresholds, not the 100 percent level of the staffing plan that included relief factors.
We chose this methodology because the minimum threshold staffing levels provide
a reduction in the staffing plan that is roughly equivalent to the relief factors used
to account for indirect time. In fact, these BOP-specified minimum thresholds
provide an allowance that actually exceeds the relief factor, and they are so low
that, at this minimum threshold, CoreCivic would be incapable of filling every post
listed on the BOP-approved staffing plan even if every employee worked a full-time
schedule with no leave, holidays, or training. In other words, the minimum
threshold levels permitted by the BOP, on which we based our comparison, already
provide CoreCivic a level of flexibility beyond the buffer of additional staff built into
the staffing plan through the relief factors.

11


BOP officials told us they disagree with this approach, and in October 2016
BOP officials provided us with an alternative version to our correctional services
staffing chart (Figure 1 above), which we have included as Figure 2 below. In the
BOP’s alternative chart, the BOP proposed to us that the acceptable range of
staffing levels (the yellow shaded space in Figure 1) should be moved downward,
reflected in the gray box in Figure 2 below, to provide for both the relief factor and
the adjustment for a minimum threshold. We disagree with the BOP’s
interpretation and caution that such an approach would allow the contractor to
remain in a perpetually understaffed position with no contractual consequences.
And most significantly, using the BOP’s proposed approach, staffing levels at the
time of the May 2012 riot actually would have been adequate under the contract,
even though the BOP’s own after–action report characterized the staffing
deficiencies at that time as a “systemic problem” that was impacting performance.
Figure 2
The BOP’s Version of Correctional Services Staffing Levels
at the Adams County Correctional Center

Note: The BOP asserted to us that, for an analysis of staffing by direct labor hours, the acceptable
range of staffing levels (yellow band) should be moved downward to the position of the gray box.
Source: BOP

Moreover, the BOP and CoreCivic’s comments do not address the core issue
of our staffing finding, which is the effect that these insufficient staffing levels have
had on the safety and security of the Adams County facility. A 2005 analysis
performed internally by the BOP found a direct relationship between staffing levels
and institutional safety. The analysis noted that an increase of 1 inmate in an
institution’s inmate-to-custody-staff ratio increases the prison’s annual rate of
serious assaults by 4.5 per 5,000 inmates. During our review, five of the seven

12


CoreCivic correctional services staff we interviewed expressed concerns about the
low staffing levels at the facility, and two of those five also expressed concerns for
their own personal safety due to the low staffing levels.
Finally, BOP and CoreCivic managers asserted to us that the practice of
measuring staffing levels by simple headcount should be allowable since it is a
strategy endorsed by the American Correctional Association standards. We
acknowledge the American Correctional Association’s industry guidelines, but we
believe that use of a simple headcount without consideration of the fact that FTEs
were used as the basis for developing the staffing plan is unreasonable. Such an
approach also results in the BOP losing its ability to monitor actual contract
performance. The fundamental purpose of staffing a prison is to accomplish
necessary functions such as providing security, administering health care, and
offering correctional programs. However, the BOP’s current practice of monitoring
only the contractor’s hiring targets, and not the actual amount of time that critical
functions are actually staffed, does not provide for reliable oversight. In light of the
BOP’s own reports and the historical consequences of these staffing deficiencies, we
believe our analysis appropriately raises serious concerns about the safety and
security of the facility.
Facility Staffing – Health Services
BOP Program Statement 6031.04, Patient Care, states that “Insufficient
staffing will have an adverse effect on the quality, continuity, and cost-effectiveness
of health care,” and inmates’ perception of substandard medical care was cited as a
contributing factor to the May 2012 riot according to a Federal Bureau of
Investigation affidavit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi in August 2012. Staffing shortages in health units have also been cited
as a contributing factor in at least one inmate riot at other BOP contract prisons.7
The Adams County contract thus requires the contractor to provide inmates
with open access to quality health care from qualified personnel. We examined the
effectiveness of the contractor’s efforts in this regard by evaluating the adequacy of
health services staffing levels at the Adams County facility over a 4-year period. As
with correctional staffing, the contractor is required to achieve a minimum monthly
average staffing level for health services, and failure to meet that minimum
requirement results in deductions to the monthly invoice.
We found that the contractor’s procedures for measuring and reporting
staffing levels for health services contained flaws similar to those found in its
procedures for correctional services. Specifically, the contractor reports health
services staffing levels as simple headcounts of the number of staff recorded on the
contractor’s payroll records, regardless of the number of hours each employee
actually worked during the month.
We performed an analysis similar to the one for correctional services,
measuring the contractor’s actual health services staffing levels as supported by the
7

OIG, Reeves County Detention Center, 22.

13


contractor’s time and attendance records. Figure 3 summarizes the acceptable
range permitted by the established minimum thresholds in the contractor’s
approved staffing plan as compared to actual staffing of the prison, based on our
analysis of time and attendance records for the health services category of staff.
Figure 3

Health Services Staffing Levels at the Adams County

Correctional Center


Time and attendance records for five subsidiary employees were included in the OIG’s analysis of the
contractor’s actual staffing levels for health services.

a

For the period December 2012 through July 2015, CoreCivic’s reported figures did not account for
the staff members occupying five health services positions because those positions were staffed
through contractor subsidiaries. We added those employees back to the contractor’s reported figures
to provide a more accurate representation of its performance compared to the BOP-approved staffing
plan. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the “Contract Compliance” section of the report.
b

Source: OIG analysis of the BOP-approved staffing plans for the Adams County facility and CoreCivic’s
time and attendance records, training records, and monthly staffing levels reported to the BOP.

Figure 3 shows that, during July 2011 through July 2015, actual staffing
levels for health services at the Adams County facility, as supported by time and
attendance records, have often been close to the levels represented by the
contractor’s headcounts, particularly in the more recent months. However, there
were periods during which actual staffing levels were significantly lower than both
the reported headcounts and the 85 percent threshold for deductions. As illustrated
in Figure 3, in 25 of the 49 months we assessed, CoreCivic failed to meet the 85
percent minimum staffing level for health services units. However, for 13 of those
25 months, CoreCivic reported staffing levels that met or exceeded that minimum

14


threshold based on CoreCivic and the BOP’s interpretation of the staffing
requirements.8
We determined the total value of foregone invoice deductions that the BOP
should have been entitled to by comparing the aggregate value of the actual
deductions taken to the value of the deductions that should have been taken if the
contractor had reported its staffing levels in terms of full-time equivalents. In total,
we concluded that the BOP could have taken $295,117 in additional invoice
deductions relating to health services for the months July 2011 through July 2015
had the contract not allowed for CoreCivic’s headcount-based staffing reports.
Although we are not questioning this amount in light of the vague contract
language to which the BOP agreed, we nevertheless believe that the additional
amounts the BOP expended on this contract could have been avoided and were
wasteful.
Recruiting and Retention of Correctional Officers
We reviewed the adequacy of CoreCivic’s efforts to recruit and retain
correctional officers who have appropriate qualifications and experience to provide
security, care, and direct supervision of inmates at the Adams County Correctional
Center. We found that correctional officers at the Adams County facility lacked
necessary language skills to communicate effectively with the majority of the
inmate population. We also determined that correctional officers at the Adams
County facility had lower job qualifications and experienced higher turnover rates
than correctional officers at comparable BOP facilities.
Language Barrier
The BOP uses the majority of these contract facilities to confine sentenced
criminal aliens. Consequently, language barriers often exist between inmates and
staff, and they can pose a significant challenge for incarcerated criminal alien
populations. They can also impede a contractor’s ability to perform many vital
functions, including the following functions that are required under the Adams
County contract:
•	 Intelligence information related to security concerns must be gathered for
dissemination to the appropriate contractor and BOP staff.
•	 Staff must evaluate the needs of inmates and manage their program

participation. 

•	 Staff must be accessible and must communicate effectively with inmates to
promote positive institutional adjustment.

8 Of the 25 months for which our analysis showed that CoreCivic failed to meet the 85 percent
minimum staffing level for health services units, CoreCivic reported a compliant level of performance
(85 percent or above) for 13 of those months. Because Figure 3 depicts an adjusted CoreCivicreported staffing level to incorporate the vacancy status of five CoreCivic subsidiary positions, the
figure may not reflect the same number of compliant months.

15


•	 A program for inmate grievances must exist to provide for the expression
and resolution of inmate problems.
The ability of contractor staff to communicate effectively with the Adams
County inmate population, which is comprised mostly of Spanish-speaking Mexican
nationals, is critical to the contractor’s successful performance of the contract
requirements. The BOP’s after-action report for the May 2012 riot strongly
endorsed this assertion when it noted that language barriers had been a
contributing factor in the disturbance. The report makes the following statements:
	 “The contractor readily acknowledged that recruiting and retaining qualified
Spanish-speaking staff in the remote Natchez, Mississippi, area is one of its
greatest challenges.”
	 “The lack of Spanish-speaking staff in the [Intelligence] Office resulted in an
inability to effectively communicate with the inmate population. The
[Intelligence Office] staff expressed only a cursory understanding of how the
inmates have constructed their own hierarchy of authority.”
	 “The previous intelligence officer focused efforts on staff investigations and
failed to gather any meaningful intelligence with regard to the inmate
population.”
	 “[Adams County facility] administration did not grasp the severity and degree
of the Mexican national inmates’ intent to orchestrate a meeting with
approximately 1,700 Mexican national inmates and to escalate the situation
to include violence toward staff if their demands were not met. Had the
[Adams County facility] administration understood the inmates’ intentions, a
preventative lock down could have been initiated.”
	 “Specifically, the lack of Spanish-speaking staff, experienced staff, and
experienced staff in the Intelligence Office, negatively affected the flow of
communication and intelligence gathering.”
	 “Proper intelligence operations could have assisted in preventing this

disturbance.” 

To mitigate the effect of the language barrier at the Adams County facility,
the BOP after-action review team recommended adding minimum contract
requirements for bilingual staff. However, the BOP did not modify the contract to
implement minimum requirements for bilingual staff until almost 3 years after
issuance of the after-action report, and subsequent to the start of our audit.
The eventual contract modification, effective June 1, 2015, required that, “A
minimum of 5 percent of the overall staff complement must be Spanish speaking
and 50 percent of the Intelligence Office staff must be Spanish speaking.”
However, the modification does not define the level of speaking proficiency
required, and it specifically permits CoreCivic to meet the requirement through
staffing changes due to attrition, with no deadline or target date for compliance.
In July 2015, approximately 5 weeks after the modification was issued, the
contractor’s Chief of Security told us that, including himself, only 4 of the 367 staff
16


employed at the Adams County facility spoke Spanish. In addition, we found no
evidence that the contractor’s existing staff included any fluent Spanish-speaking
correctional officers or intelligence officers during our audit. At that time, the
inmate population consisted of approximately 2,300 criminal aliens.
By February 2016, more than 8 months after the modification became
effective, contractor officials told us that the employed staff had dropped to only 3
fluent Spanish-speakers. Contractor officials told us that 11 other Adams County
facility staff members could communicate in Spanish well enough to convey
messages and comprehend responses, but we received no evidence supporting
those assertions.9
In its monthly oversight report for December 2015, BOP officials
acknowledged that the contractor had made some progress by actively recruiting
Spanish-speaking staff and using an outside instructor to teach basic Spanish to
existing staff. However, we found that the contractor’s January 2016 job
announcements for correctional officers at the Adams County facility stated no
preference for bilingual applicants.
The actions taken by the contractor have not been sufficient to hire
additional Spanish-speaking staff and, consequently, the Adams County facility
remains at risk. To ensure that the contractor takes prompt action to hire bilingual
staff, we recommend that the BOP amend the contract modification that specified
minimum levels of Spanish-speaking staff to incorporate specific deadlines for
compliance, remedies for noncompliance, and the specific level of Spanish
proficiency desired.
Correctional Officer Qualifications and Retention
To further evaluate CoreCivic’s recruiting efforts, we reviewed the job
qualifications for entry-level correctional officers at the Adams County facility and
assessed whether the contractor’s minimum qualifications were equivalent to those
for entry-level correctional officers employed by the BOP and the State of
Mississippi. Table 2 provides the comparison.

9 These 11 employees were also employed at the Adams County facility in July 2015, when
the Chief of Security provided his own count of Spanish-speaking employees. The fact that the Chief
of Security did not include them in his count at least raises the question of whether these 11
employees would meet the level of proficiency envisioned by the BOP.

17


Table 2 

Minimum Qualifications for New Correctional Officers 

Qualifications

BOP

State of Mississippia

CoreCivic
High school diploma,
General Educational
Development
credential, or
equivalent

Education

4-Year degree (either the
education or experience
requirement must be met)

High school diploma,
General Educational
Development
credential, or
equivalent

Experience

3 years full-time general
experience, or 1 year
specialized experience (either
the education or experience
requirement must be met)

1 year experience
required in addition to
educational
requirement

No experience
required

Physical Fitness

Must be of sound health and
physically fit

Trainees must pass a
physical agility test
and perform occasional
lifting of loads

Must be able to
perform occasional
lifting and carrying of
loads

a The State of Mississippi employs five types of correctional officers, including a trainee position and
four levels of correctional officer positions with full responsibilities. We determined that the job
descriptions of the four correctional officer positions with full responsibilities were more comparable to
CoreCivic’s job description for correctional officers at Adams County. We therefore selected the
Correctional Officer I position as our point of comparison since it was the most conservative option
among the four.

Source: BOP qualifications obtained from a job announcement for GL-05 correctional officers. State
of Mississippi qualifications obtained from the Mississippi State Personnel Board’s job description for a
Correctional Officer I. CoreCivic qualifications obtained from its correctional officer job description.

As noted in the table, the BOP requires entry-level correctional officers to
have either a 4-year degree or equivalent work experience, while neither the State
of Mississippi nor the contractor require education beyond the high school level.
Similarly, the BOP requirement for prior experience exceeds that of Mississippi and
the contractor. The BOP also appears to have higher physical fitness requirements.
With the notable exception of the experience requirements, the contractor’s
qualifications for correctional officers are roughly equivalent to those of the State of
Mississippi for state-run facilities. Nevertheless, we question whether a sufficient
justification exists for why contract facilities under the BOP’s purview should adopt
hiring standards that are so clearly less stringent than the standards the BOP
employs for its own, BOP-managed facilities.
To evaluate CoreCivic’s correctional officer retention efforts, we reviewed the
turnover of correctional officers at the Adams County facility for the period
April 2012 through March 2015 and found that the turnover rate at the Adams
County facility was much higher than that of comparable BOP facilities. For our
comparison, we selected five BOP-managed facilities with similar features to the
Adams County facility, such as security level, inmate population characteristics, and
distance from major cities. Table 3 shows our comparison of turnover rates
between facilities.

18


Table 3
Comparison of Monthly Turnover Rates
for Correctional Officers
BOP Federal Correctional Institutions
Ashland
Monthly
Turnover

0.21%

Big Spring
2.00%

Safford

Sandstone

0.29%

Yazoo
City Low

0.32%

CoreCivic
Adams County
Correctional Center

0.26%

3.65%

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by the BOP and CoreCivic

The high turnover rate at the Adams County facility is not a new problem.
The BOP’s after-action report for the May 2012 riot stressed the importance of staff
continuity and noted that the BOP had previously cited the contractor’s high
turnover rates in Oversight Facility Summary reports as far back as April 2011.
Additionally, as recently as May 2016, CoreCivic acknowledged to us that
48 percent of its employees at the Adams County facility had been employed for
one year or less. As described below, we believe that the high turnover at Adams
County is the result of inadequate retention efforts, including lower wages, fewer
benefits, and a lack of advancement opportunities within the correctional officer
occupation.
We evaluated the wage rates and benefits offered to correctional officers by
CoreCivic by comparing the wages and paid time off to the BOP and the State of
Mississippi’s offerings. Table 4 presents the comparison.
Table 4 

Comparison of Pay Rates and Benefits for 

Entry-Level Correctional Officers


Pay Rate (2014)
Paid Time Off (days)a
a

Bureau of
Prisons

State of
Mississippi

CoreCivic

$18.69

$12.71

$12.60

36

40

30

Paid Time Off includes holidays, personal leave, and sick leave.

Source: BOP pay rate obtained from the 2014 Office of Personnel Management Law
Enforcement Officer locality pay table for “Rest of United States.” State of
Mississippi pay rate obtained from The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics program website at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/. Contractor pay rates obtained from payroll data. BOP
paid time off obtained from http://www.bop.gov. State of Mississippi paid time off
obtained from the Mississippi State Personnel Board’s job description for a
Correctional Officer I. Contractor paid time off obtained from its 2016 Benefits
Guidebook.

As the table above shows, the BOP offers entry-level correctional officers
48 percent higher wages and 20 percent more paid time off than CoreCivic, which
gives the BOP a strong relative advantage over the contractor in terms of both
recruiting and retention. The State of Mississippi also offers more generous wage
19


rates and paid time off than CoreCivic. Furthermore, in addition to the BOP offering
starting correctional officers 48 percent higher wages than its contractor, it also
offers noncompetitive promotion potential to $26.91 an hour, while CoreCivic
continues to pay correctional officers only the minimum wage rate required by the
Department of Labor throughout their careers.
The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, maintains an
Occupational Employment Statistics program that produces nationwide employment
and wage estimates annually for over 800 occupations, including correctional
officers and jailers. Table 5 and Table 6 provide the May 2014 Occupational
Employment Statistics summary of wage estimates for correctional officers and
jailers.
Table 5 

May 2014 Nationwide Employment Estimate and Mean Wage 

Estimates for Correctional Officers and Jailers

Employment

Mean Hourly
Wage

434,420

Mean Annual
Wage

$21.59

$44,910

Source: The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Occupational Employment Statistics program website at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/.


Table 6
May 2014 Nationwide Percentile Wage Estimates for
Correctional Officers and Jailers
Percentile
10%

50%
(Median)

25%

75%

90%

Hourly Wage

$13.12

$15.57

$19.12

$26.76

$34.99

Annual Wage

$27,280

$32,390

$39,780

$55,670

$72,790

Source: The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment Statistics program website at http://www.bls.gov/oes/.

The tables above show that the BOP provides starting correctional officers
just under the median hourly wage for correctional officers and jailers, and those
employees will be earning just above the 75th percentile wage rate by the end of
their careers. In comparison, correctional officers working for CoreCivic at the
Adams County facility begin their careers making less than the 10th percentile
wage rate and continue to earn that same rate of pay for as long as they remain at
the facility.
According to the BOP’s oversight report for the period April 2014 through
March 2015, the contractor has struggled with a significant number of correctional
staff with no previous corrections experience and a high turnover rate for
20


correctional officers. CoreCivic’s technical proposal for the contract stated, “To help
ensure that vacancies are filled in a timely manner, we use every available option
to recruit qualified employees.” While we acknowledge that the wage rates and
benefits offered by CoreCivic are permissible under the applicable Department of
Labor wage determination for these positions, and although the Adams County
contract does not require CoreCivic to impose education or work experience
requirements on prospective correctional officers, we believe and the BOP
confirmed to us that the lack of contract provisions results in the contractor hiring
correctional officers who would not be eligible for employment in BOP-managed
facilities, paying them lower wage rates, and providing them with fewer benefits.
We also believe that these conditions contribute to the contractor’s inability to hire
and retain the required number of correctional officers, and that they inhibit the
contractor’s ability to attract and retain qualified staff.
We believe that CoreCivic’s inability to retain qualified correctional officers
may have had a negative effect on the safety and security of the Adams County
facility. We recommend that the BOP evaluate the extent to which employee
qualification levels and turnover rates affect safety and security concerns, and
whether its contractual terms should be modified to address those concerns.
Contract Compliance
We found that CoreCivic did not always comply with contract requirements
related to billing. Specifically, the contractor’s invoices did not accurately report
staffing levels or include all Health Services positions listed in the BOP-approved
staffing plan, as required by the contract. Consequently, and because the BOP did
not otherwise detect the staffing shortages, the BOP lacked knowledge and
oversight of the vacancies for five critical health services positions and was
therefore unable to assess appropriate contractual deductions. We also believe the
frequent vacancies in these five medical positions had a negative effect on the
contractor’s ability to provide quality health care at the Adams County facility.
In addition, we found that CoreCivic’s invoices were noncompliant because
the contractor improperly calculated the necessary wage determination fringe
deductions for its February 2013 through November 2015 invoices. As a result, we
determined that CoreCivic understated wage determination fringe deductions by a
total of approximately $42,300.
Compliance with Reporting Requirements for Facility Staffing Levels
The Adams County contract requires the contractor to report its staffing
levels on a monthly average basis and to comply with minimum staffing thresholds
of 90 percent for Correctional Services, 85 percent for Health Services, and
85 percent for all other departments. We tested the contractor’s compliance with
the reporting requirement by reviewing invoices for the months July 2011 through
July 2015. As we described earlier in this report, we found that CoreCivic was
reporting its staffing levels using simple headcounts rather than full-time
equivalents, and that this method of calculation resulted in reporting higher than

21


actual staffing figures. As described below, we also identified other concerns
regarding CoreCivic’s compliance with other reporting requirements.
The contract requires CoreCivic to report each month’s staffing levels as a
monthly average, but we found that reported headcounts for the months prior to
December 2012 were all based on end-of-month figures. Using end-of-month
figures instead of monthly averages makes the staffing reports less reliable as a
gauge of actual staffing levels over the course of the month, and CoreCivic
acknowledged to us in December 2015 that those reports did not reflect monthly
averages as required by the contract. However, we determined that the staffing
levels reported on the December 2012 and later invoices were based on monthly
averages as required. The contractor attributed the improved reporting capability
to a new staffing report developed during 2012.
Additionally, for the Health Services staff category, we found that the
contractor did not always report its staffing levels for all the positions identified in
the approved staffing plan. Beginning with the December 2012 invoice, the
contractor began reporting its staffing levels using a target that was five positions
lower than the BOP-approved staffing plan at the time. CoreCivic officials told us
that the target was reduced because CoreCivic assigned responsibility for filling five
positions on the BOP-approved staffing plan to two of its subsidiaries, Correctional
Medicine Associates and Correctional Dental Associates. These positions were:


two dentists provided by Correctional Dental Associates,



two physicians provided by Correctional Medicine Associates, and



one advanced registered nurse practitioner provided by Correctional Medicine
Associates.

Because CoreCivic did not directly provide these five positions, the
employees were not captured in the staffing report that CoreCivic began using for
the December 2012 invoice. To account for the discrepancy caused by the staffing
report no longer capturing the same number of positions reflected in the staffing
plan, CoreCivic changed its reports to show, and the BOP accepted, a reporting
target that was five positions lower than the target specified in the staffing plan.
BOP officials told us in September 2015 that they had not consented to any change
to CoreCivic’s reporting requirements and that CoreCivic had not reported the
employment status of those five positions since December 2012.
CoreCivic’s solution of excluding these positions from its monthly staffing
reports was not allowable under the contract. The contract requires that staffing
levels be evaluated and compared to the BOP-approved staffing plan, and that
changes to the staffing plan be approved by the BOP’s Administrative Contracting
Officer. As the prime contractor, CoreCivic is responsible for ensuring compliance
with the entire staffing plan, not just the portions that it elects to fill directly rather

22


than through the use of subsidiaries.10 A more appropriate solution would have
been for CoreCivic to consolidate its own staffing reports with comparable reports
from each of its subsidiaries so that it could report the overall staffing levels to the
BOP in the manner specified by the contract.
We believe that CoreCivic’s change to its reports impaired the BOP’s
oversight, which resulted in a negative effect on the BOP’s ability to assess the
quality of health care provided, and may have resulted in the overstatement of
some of the contractor’s invoices. Specifically, from December 2012 through
September 2015, we identified multiple vacancies in these five critical positions that
would have cost the contractor approximately $651,591 to fill. Had the BOP been
aware of these vacancies, it could have considered invoice reductions.11
We note, however, that the amount of additional invoice reductions that the
BOP would have realized would have been much less than the cost to CoreCivic of
filling these five positions. This is because these five positions would have been
considered in the context of the overall staffing levels, and the marginal effect of
such a small number of vacancies on the overall staffing level calculation would
have been small. In comparison, the cost of filling these five positions, which are
among the most highly paid at the facility, would have been substantial. Moreover,
any additional reductions identified would have been calculated based on the
salaries and benefits of the positions that had been vacant the longest, not on the
salaries and benefits of these five subsidiary positions that represent some of the
highest paid staff at the facility. Consequently, even if CoreCivic had accurately
reported these vacancies to the BOP, or if the BOP had otherwise been aware of
them, CoreCivic would still have had a financial incentive to leave these positions
vacant and incur the deductions rather than fill the vacancies. Recommendation 8,
discussed later in the report, addresses this and other risks resulting from
undefined procedures for calculating invoice deductions.
We also found that, due to the nature of the jobs, the low staffing level of
77.6 percent for these five critical positions adversely affects patient care. BOP
Program Statement 6400.02 CN-1, Dental Services, states that “Generally, each
institution should have one dentist for every 1,000 inmates,” and BOP Program
Statement 6031.04, Patient Care, provides an example staffing plan that includes
one physician for a 1,000 inmate caseload. The BOP guidelines also state that
“Additional staffing will be required to provide health care services after hours and
on weekends.”
Between December 2012 and September 2015, the average daily inmate
population at the Adams County facility exceeded 2,000 inmates. Based on this
population, BOP guidelines indicate that the Adams County facility should be staffed
10 A prime contractor is the company with whom the government has a direct contract, and
who is obligated to deliver products or services. The prime contractor can typically hire one or more
subcontractors to assist with the work, but the ultimate responsibility to the government remains with
the prime contractor.

Our previous analysis of Health Services staffing levels already captured the dollar effect of
these missed invoice deductions.
11

23


with at least two dentists and two physicians, which is consistent with the levels
required by the BOP-approved staffing plan. However, we found that during that
same time, the Adams County facility was staffed with a single physician for
434 days (43 percent of the time) and a single dentist for 689 days (69 percent of
the time), meaning that for these time periods, the patient loads at the Adams
County facility were more than double those indicated by BOP guidelines.
We identified concerns regarding CoreCivic’s provision of Health Services.
During the January 2015 Contract Facility Monitoring assessment, the BOP’s
Program Review Division noted a significant finding related to the clinical care area
of health services. The monitoring team first noted a repeat deficiency in
CoreCivic’s completion of required preventative care baseline evaluations. The
team also reviewed five mortality cases and found that, in each case, CoreCivic had
not followed the applicable policies and standards of care in its management of
those inmates prior to their deaths. The BOP warned CoreCivic that inadequate
medical management can cause deterioration of inmates’ medical conditions, and
that “Corrective action and proper follow-up measures must be taken in order to
avoid additional deaths.” Further, during our interviews of Adams County inmates
in July 2015, 10 of the 12 inmates interviewed expressed concerns about the
quality of health care provided to them or other inmates. The concerns included
complaints about how difficult it was to see a physician.
We followed up on seven health care complaints expressed to us during
inmate interviews, one of which illustrated the cause for the concerns we heard.
Specifically, we learned that an Adams County inmate complained of a bump on his
wrist during a medical checkup in November 2013, at which time the attending
nurse ordered an X-Ray of the man’s wrist. However, the X-Ray was not
performed. We asked the Adams County facility’s Medical Services Administrator
why the X-Ray was never completed, but the Medical Services Administrator was
unable to provide an explanation and said that it must have been an oversight. As
of March 25, 2016, over 28 months after the original order, we confirmed that the
X-Ray still had not been performed.
We also assessed the timeliness of outpatient services provided offsite to
Adams County inmates by reviewing a sample of 93 such services provided during
January and February of 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. For each service, we
calculated the elapsed days from the physician’s order to the date the inmate
received the service. We then compared the average elapsed days for Adams
County inmates to the elapsed days for similar outpatient services provided offsite
to inmates at comparable BOP facilities. We found that outpatient services at the
Adams County facility were delivered approximately as timely as services delivered
at the comparable BOP facilities. We also noted several administrative omissions in
the records, including 11 missing consultation sheets, 5 undated consultation
sheets, and 2 missing physician order sheets, and we reported these omissions to
the BOP, which responded that this type of omission could be a cause for concern if
the number of discrepancies rises to the level of a deficiency. BOP officials also told
us that the Contract Facility Monitoring Section conducts annual reviews to identify
such deficiencies and recommend corrective action. Consequently, we make no
recommendation.
24


Accurate reporting and oversight of health services staffing levels is required
by the contract. It is also critical to the safety and security of the prison, as noted
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s assessment of the May 2012 riot, which
cited the inmates’ perception of inadequate medical conditions as a contributing
factor of the disturbance. We therefore believe the BOP’s lack of knowledge and
oversight of the true health services staffing levels at the Adams County facility has
diminished its ability to ensure that quality health services are provided by
CoreCivic and reduced the security of the prison. As such, we recommend that the
BOP ensure that CoreCivic reports the staffing levels for the entire staffing plan on
its monthly invoices, including positions filled by subcontractors and subsidiaries, as
required by the contract.
Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute
The Service Contract Labor Standards statute, previously known as the
Service Contract Act of 1965, requires that employees working on federal service
contracts in excess of $2,500 be paid at least the minimum wages and fringe
benefits required by law.12 The Adams County contract exceeds this award
threshold. Consequently, the contractor is required to pay employees the minimum
wages and health and welfare fringe benefits specified in the applicable wage
determination schedules issued by the Department of Labor. These wage
determinations list the minimum wage and fringe benefit rates for different classes
of laborers. The determinations are often adjusted over the term of a service
contract.
For multi-year contracts, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires
that the wage determinations be updated not less than once every 2 years.13 When
wage determinations are updated, the contractor becomes entitled to an equitable
adjustment to the contract price for the amount of any actual increases in the
contractor’s costs resulting from compliance with the revised wage
determinations.14
The contractor initiates the equitable adjustment process by calculating an
estimate of the annual increase in costs expected to result from the revised rates.
The estimate is sent to the Administrative Contracting Officer as a “request for
equitable adjustment,” and upon approving a request, the Administrative
Contracting Officer issues a contract modification to adjust the annual operating
prices of each future contract year by the amount of the equitable adjustment.
Increases of the contract price for equitable adjustments are estimates based
on contractor assumptions about future staffing levels. However, the FAR limits
these equitable adjustments to the amount of the contractor’s actual increases in
costs. Therefore, any time CoreCivic’s actual staffing levels fall below the levels
12 Effective May 2014, the Service Contract Act of 1965 was renamed the Service Contract
Labor Standards statute, 41 U.S.C. §§ 6702 to 6703 (2011).
13

FAR 52.222-41 (2014).

14

FAR 52.222-43 (2014).

25


that were anticipated when past equitable adjustments were calculated, the
contractor must make adjustments to the monthly invoice. The purpose of these
adjustments is to back out the portion of past equitable adjustments that CoreCivic
was not entitled to because the contractor’s actual increase in costs was less than
the increase expected. CoreCivic makes these adjustments to the monthly invoices
by reporting a type of deduction referred to as “wage determination fringe
deductions.”
We reviewed the contractor’s wage determination fringe deductions for a
selection of nine invoices between July 2012 and March 2015 and found several
errors. As previously mentioned, the amount of each equitable adjustment is
applied to the annual operating price of each remaining contract year.
Consequently, the annual operating price for later periods of performance will
include the cumulative effects of all equitable adjustments leading up to those
periods. However, for the February 2013 through November 2015 invoices, we
found that the contractor miscalculated the appropriate wage determination fringe
deductions in that it did not back out the full cumulative effect of all the previous
equitable adjustments. Instead, the contractor typically only deducted the
difference between the fringe benefit rate that was current at the time and the rate
that became effective in August 2012. Simply stated, the contractor was still
requesting payment for the full amount of the first four equitable adjustments, even
when there were staff vacancies for which adjustments should have been made.
CoreCivic’s use of the August 2012 fringe benefit rate had the effect of
reducing the amount of invoice deductions taken on the February 2013 through
November 2015 invoices, thereby overstating the invoices. We asked both
CoreCivic and the BOP why the August 2012 rate was used in these calculations.
Neither the contractor nor the BOP was able to provide a reason.
According to CoreCivic officials, wage determination fringe deductions did not
apply to any invoices until August 2010, after the end of the first contract year. We
therefore recalculated each of the contractor’s wage determination fringe
deductions reported on the August 2010 through November 2015 invoices. To do
this, we determined the total amount of equitable adjustments the contractor was
ultimately not entitled to because of staff vacancies that were not anticipated at the
time the equitable adjustments were calculated. We found that the wage
determination fringe deductions taken during this period were understated by a
total of approximately $42,300, which had the effect of overstating the invoices by
that amount. We therefore recommend that the BOP remedy $42,300 in
questioned costs related to overstated invoices submitted by the contractor for
August 2010 through November 2015.
We also found that for December 2012 and January 2013, CoreCivic did not
report any wage determination fringe deductions. CoreCivic managers told us in
March 2016 that wage determination fringe deductions were not applied to those
two invoices to prevent duplication of the deductions that had already been taken
for the staffing pattern vacancy deductions. However, we note that staffing pattern
vacancy deductions are only taken when and to the extent that staffing levels fall
below the minimum threshold levels specified by the BOP. In contrast, CoreCivic
26


should have been recognizing wage determination fringe deductions for all vacant
wage-determined positions. Therefore, wage determination fringe deductions
should have been reported to the BOP for December 2012 and January 2013. We
were unable to estimate the amounts that should have been deducted due to the
unavailability of essential records from those time periods.
Contract Formation and Administration
We found that the BOP exercised inadequate control and oversight for some
aspects of CoreCivic’s performance under the contract. As we describe below, this
occurred because the BOP structured the contract around a performance work
statement to encourage contractor innovation and cost savings, but it did not
implement appropriate performance standards for measuring the contractor’s
performance. For example, CoreCivic met its contractual requirement to set up an
inmate grievance program, but because the contract does not include adequate
performance measures, CoreCivic’s program affords inmates many fewer rights and
protections than are available to inmates at BOP-managed facilities. Similarly, the
contract allowed CoreCivic to inconsistently use industry-standard dietary guidelines
to analyze food service menu offerings at the Adams County facility.
In addition to the performance issues, the BOP lacked control over billings
because the contract did not adequately specify the procedures that the contractor
must follow to calculate invoice deductions for deficient performance. The lack of
predetermined billing procedures resulted in inconsistent billing practices from
month to month and a CoreCivic-adopted methodology for calculating invoice
deductions that allowed it—and in some cases created a financial incentive—to
maintain staff vacancies in critical positions without contractual penalty.
Performance-Based Contracting
The BOP’s Privatized Corrections Contracting Section developed the Criminal
Alien Requirement contracts as performance-based acquisitions. Performancebased contracts differ from traditional contracts in the use of a performance work
statement, which describes the agency’s requirements in terms of the desired
outcomes rather than how the contractor is required to accomplish the work.
Performance-based contracts are intended to reduce both costs and
performance risks by promoting contractor innovation. By specifying only the
outcomes that are actually required, a properly constructed performance work
statement can incentivize the contractor to find new and better ways of delivering
the required outcomes. Public Law 106-398, § 821 established an explicit
preference for these types of contracts, and that preference is contained in
FAR 37.102. The BOP’s use of performance-based contracts for its Criminal Alien
Requirement is consistent with the preference established by FAR 37.102.
However, we found issues with the BOP’s implementation of performance-based
contracting principles in the Adams County contract.
FAR 37.102 states that “Agency program officials are responsible for
accurately describing the need to be filled, or problem to be resolved, through

27


service contracting in a manner that ensures full understanding and responsive
performance by contractors.” A fundamental tenet of the performance-based
acquisition concept is that the performance work statement must describe the
agency’s requirements in terms of measurable outcomes that can be assessed
using established standards of performance. According to FAR 37.601, these
performance standards should be measures of quality, timeliness, quantity, or
similar attribute. Stating the contract requirements in terms of measurable
outcomes is essential to the success of this type of acquisition because it clearly
conveys the required performance to the contractor and allows for objective
assessments of that performance.
We reviewed the Adams County contract to determine if the BOP structured
it to allow for objective assessment of CoreCivic’s performance. We found that,
while the BOP generally stated in the contract CoreCivic’s performance obligations
and timeframes in a clear manner, it did not always describe in the contract how
CoreCivic’s efforts to meet those performance goals would be measured and
evaluated. This was a particular problem in the area of staffing vacancies, which
we described above, and in the areas of CoreCivic’s inmate grievance process and
food service obligations, which we describe below. CoreCivic’s contract procedures
would therefore benefit from more specific performance standards.
Inmate Grievance Processes
According to 28 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 542, Administrative
Remedy, federal inmates are allowed to seek formal review of an issue regarding
any aspect of their confinement. For BOP-managed institutions, this regulation is
met through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program. Under the program
guidelines, inmates are first given the opportunity to file formal complaints at the
institutional level. If an inmate is not satisfied by the resolution of their grievance
at the institutional level, the inmate can then appeal the decision up to the level of
the BOP General Counsel.
The Adams County contract requires that, “A program for inmate grievances
exists which provides for the expression and resolution of inmate problems.” We
reviewed the inmate grievance policies in place at the Adams County facility to
determine if the contract provided for a grievance program that is comparable to
those available to inmates at BOP facilities.
We found that CoreCivic clearly satisfied the requirement of establishing a
program and is therefore in compliance with the contract as currently written.
However, important differences between CoreCivic’s program and the program
offered at BOP-managed facilities do exist. Adams County inmates are allowed to
utilize the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program only when their grievances are
considered to be BOP-related, which is identified in BOP guidance as a matter
outside of CoreCivic’s scope of responsibility. An example of a BOP-related
grievance would be a complaint related to an inmate’s medical care provided at a
BOP-managed facility before the inmate was transferred to the Adams County
facility. All other grievances at the Adams County facility are only addressed at the
institutional level, which means that the Warden, who is a CoreCivic employee, is
28


the final decision-making authority. Consequently, and in contrast to inmates at
BOP-managed facilities, inmates at the Adams County facility are rarely able to
appeal their grievances to the BOP General Counsel, and rather the final decisions
on their grievances are made by the CoreCivic-employed Warden, without BOP
oversight.
We also found that CoreCivic policies allow inmates only 7 days to submit
their initial informal grievance. If necessary, subsequent formal grievances and
appeals are required to be completed by the inmate within 5 days of each CoreCivic
response. In contrast, inmates at BOP-managed facilities are allowed up to 20 days
to submit their initial formal grievance. Those inmates are then allowed another
20 days to file an initial appeal, and an additional 30 days to file their second
appeal. See Figure 4 below for a comparison of BOP and CoreCivic grievance
policies.
Figure 4 

Comparison of Grievance Policies at 

Adams County and BOP-Managed Facilities

Adams County
Submission
Deadline

BOP-Managed Facilities

Grievance Resolution
Authority

Submission
Deadline

General Counsel

¤

30 days

Regional Director

◊

20 days

•

20 days

○

Determined
Locally b

5 days

◊

Warden

5 days

•

Department Head

7 days

○

Any Staff Member

a

Grievance or Appeal
Submission Type

¤

◊
•
○

Second Appeal
First Appeal
Formal Grievance
Informal Grievance

For BOP-managed facilities, the submission deadline for formal grievances is 20 days from
the date of the basis for the grievance.

a

For BOP-managed facilities, submission deadlines for informal grievances, if imposed, are
determined at the local level.

b

Source: Adams County policies obtained from CoreCivic’s Policy Number 14-5. BOP
policies obtained from Program Statement 1330.18 and Code of Federal Regulations
Title 28, Section 542.10.

As Figure 4 illustrates, with the possible exception of the initial filing of
informal grievances, inmates at BOP-managed facilities are allowed significantly
longer to prepare their grievances and appeals than inmates at the Adams County
facility, and they may appeal adverse decisions about their grievances outside of

29


their particular facility’s management to the appropriate Regional Director or
beyond, to the BOP General Counsel.15
In April 2016, we spoke with the BOP’s National Inmate Appeals
Administrator about the differences in submission deadlines between BOP-managed
facilities and the Adams County facility. The National Inmate Appeals Administrator
was not able to identify any significant effect of the shorter deadlines at the
contract prison. Although the submission deadlines are shorter at the Adams
County facility, the Administrator noted that appeals were infrequently granted at
the General Counsel level, and successful appeals at that level were often based on
procedural errors. Consequently, the Administrator believed that the inmates at
the Adams County facility were still afforded an acceptable opportunity to submit
grievances.
We considered the perspective of the National Inmate Appeals Administrator,
but we do not believe that the value of a fair opportunity to appeal grievances to
the General Counsel level is diminished simply because the rate of granted appeals
is low. We believe that the disparities between Adams County and BOP-managed
facilities in both levels of appeal and time limits for appeals constitute unjustifiably
disparate treatment between the populations that the BOP places in BOP-managed
facilities and the populations it places in its contract prisons. Even if the frequency
of successful appeals at the BOP’s Regional Director and General Counsel levels is
relatively low, that does not diminish the requirement for offering inmates the
opportunity to appeal legitimate concerns to officials outside of their local facility’s
management. Consequently, we recommend that the BOP implement additional
administrative remedy procedures for its contract prisons to ensure that inmates
are afforded fair opportunities to appeal their grievances beyond the management
structure of the contractor to the BOP Regional Director and General Counsel, or
other equivalent BOP levels outside of the inmates’ local facilities.
Food Services
The BOP’s Food Service Manual is designed to ensure that inmates in BOP
custody are provided nutritionally adequate meals, which are prepared and served
in a manner that meets established government health and safety codes. The
Adams County contract expresses similar objectives, requiring that “Meals are
nutritionally adequate, properly prepared and attractively served.” CoreCivic
executes these requirements through a subcontractor, Trinity Services Group. We
reviewed the weekly cycle menus for calendar years 2012 through 2014 to

15 BOP officials told us that they are aware of the differences between the Adams County
grievance program and the grievance program operated in BOP-managed facilities, but they believe
the Adams County program is adequate. BOP officials said that the American Correctional Association
(ACA) standard for grievance programs requires only that a single level of appeal be offered to
inmates for a “reasonable” period of time. While that may be true, plainly the BOP and the
Department have put in place grievance procedures for BOP facilities that exceed those required by
the ACA standard and our finding addresses the disparate treatment of inmates who are under BOP
responsibility in contract facilities on the one hand, and inmates who are incarcerated in
BOP-managed facilities on the other hand.

30


determine if CoreCivic, through its subcontractor, was providing the inmates with
nutritionally adequate meals at the Adams County facility.
CoreCivic ensures that the meals served at the Adams County facility are
nutritionally adequate by requiring that the menus be approved by a registered
dietician at least annually in accordance with American Correctional Association
standards. We verified that the menus for 2012 through 2014 were approved by a
registered dietitian, but we noted that approximately 17 months elapsed between
the 2013 and 2014 certifications. The menu certifications were therefore out of
date for approximately 5 months during 2014, but we determined that this lapse
was not detrimental to the inmates’ nutritional offerings because the menu
offerings did not change during that time period.
To assess the nutritional adequacy of the Adams County menus, we
requested that a BOP dietician review the 2012 through 2014 weekly cycle menus
and the associated analysis by Trinity Services Group’s registered dietician. The
BOP’s dietician noted that the Adams County menu offerings contained somewhat
high levels of calories, cholesterol, and sodium but did not indicate that these levels
were causes for concern.
The dietician also found that, although the weekly menus remained
unchanged from 2012 through 2014, Trinity Services Group used industry-standard
dietary reference intake guidelines in an inconsistent fashion when conducting
nutritional analyses.16 Specifically, Trinity Services Group compared the first 2
weeks of the menu cycle to standards for a sedentary activity level, and it
compared the last 3 weeks of the menu cycle to standards for a lightly active
activity level. CoreCivic officials told us that the inconsistency was accidental, and
as a result of our questions, Trinity Services Group updated all of the weeks’ targets
to reflect a sedentary activity level in December 2015. Additionally, we found that
the menu offerings at Adams County would have been deemed satisfactory had the
appropriate dietary standards been used for each week’s menu. Although the
inconsistency has now been resolved, as discussed in the following section, we
believe that this mistake occurred because the Adams County contract does not
specify the particular standards that should be used to measure the contractor’s
performance.
Contract Type
We reviewed the contract type used for the contract and compared the
structure of the contract to the purposes and limitations of the various contract
types. We found that the BOP’s Privatized Corrections Contracting Section awarded
the contract as a fixed-price with award fee type of contract, but also intended to
establish the statement of work in keeping with performance-based contracting
methods. According to FAR 16.404, the fixed price with award fee contract type is
16 Dietary Reference Intakes are quantitative estimates of nutrient intakes to be used for
planning and assessing diets for healthy people. These standards are developed and published by the
Institute of Medicine and represent the most current scientific knowledge on the nutrient needs of
healthy populations.

31


only permitted for use when contractor performance cannot be measured
objectively. In contrast, performance-based contracts must specify the desired
outcomes in objectively measurable terms so that the contractor’s performance can
be assessed using established standards. These performance standards are
necessary to determine if the contractor has met the minimum standards of
performance and therefore earned the fixed price that was agreed upon. Any
incentive awarded as a part of the contract should be based on superlative
performance beyond the basic requirements of the contract. Accordingly, we
recommend that the BOP review all available guidance for performance-based
acquisitions and implement additional, objectively measurable performance
standards that can be effectively assessed for each contract requirement pertaining
to staffing, inmate grievances, and food services.
Billing Procedures
We also found that the contract lacks prescribed procedures for calculating
invoice deductions when staffing levels fall below the required thresholds. When
staffing levels are insufficient, CoreCivic’s current practice is to report an invoice
deduction for each position below the threshold, and the amount of the deduction is
equal to the salaries and benefits of the positions that have been vacant the
longest. For example, if the contract threshold required 205 full-time equivalents
and CoreCivic reported an actual staffing level of only 200 for the month, the
contractor would take 5 deductions for the assumed salaries and benefits of the 5
positions that had been vacant the longest. We believe that this methodology is
problematic in that it creates an opportunity for CoreCivic to ignore temporary
vacancies in the highest paid positions. This is because filling those positions would
result in higher salary costs than the invoice deductions that the contractor would
otherwise have to take for the vacancies. We also found that after December 2012,
when CoreCivic began reporting staffing levels as monthly averages, the
contractor’s handling of fractional staffing deficiencies became inconsistent. If the
monthly average staffing level in the above example was 200.5 instead of 200,
CoreCivic would inconsistently take either 4.5 deductions or 5 deductions.
Typically on fixed-price contracts, invoice review is a fairly straightforward
process because the prices are predetermined. However, for the Adams County
contract, invoice deductions are the norm rather than the exception, and the
deduction amounts are heavily dependent on the contractor’s calculations and
claims. We therefore recommend that the BOP develop and implement mandatory
procedures for calculating invoice deductions to ensure that deductions are
computed consistently and do not inappropriately allow unfavorable contractor
performance.
Contract Oversight
As previously mentioned, the BOP’s Privatization Management Branch is
responsible for day-to-day oversight of CoreCivic’s management of the Adams
County facility, while the Contract Facility Monitoring Section performs periodic,
comprehensive reviews of facility operations. In August 2016, the OIG issued
Report 16-06, which made four recommendations to improve the monitoring and
32


oversight of the BOP’s contract prisons.17 In addition to the findings in that report,
we considered the effectiveness of the BOP’s oversight of CoreCivic’s performance
on this contract and identified issues with the BOP’s oversight of billings.
The inadequate staffing identified earlier in this report could have been
identified earlier in the contract performance period through more robust oversight.
The BOP’s Privatization Management Branch has responsibility for reviewing facility
staffing levels in conjunction with each monthly invoice to ensure that CoreCivic is
meeting the minimum staffing thresholds discussed earlier in this report. However,
according to BOP officials in April 2016, these reviews were limited to comparing
the headcounts reported on the monthly invoice to a contractor-generated
personnel report. This validation procedure assumed that the personnel report was
accurate. It also assumed that every employee listed on the personnel report
worked a full-time schedule. This is because the staffing plan to which these
figures were being compared utilized full-time equivalents as its unit of measure.
Because the Privatization Management Branch’s reviews would have identified
discrepancies between only the invoice and CoreCivic’s personnel report, these
reviews did not adequately capture the actual staffing levels at the Adams County
facility.
We also reviewed the periodic oversight functions conducted by the BOP’s
Contract Facility Monitoring Section under its Contract Facility Quality Assurance
Plan to determine whether it conducted any thorough reviews of actual staffing
levels at the Adams County facility. We found that the Quality Assurance Plan
section titled “Adequate Staffing Levels are Maintained” provided for evaluations of
the contractor employees’ background investigations, professional credentials, and
mandatory trainings. However, it required neither in-depth review of actual
contractor staffing levels nor reviews of contractor procedures related to measuring
and reporting those staffing levels.
Additionally, we identified multiple instances in which the invoice deductions
reported by CoreCivic were inadequate based on the supporting documentation
delivered with the invoice. Between July 2011 and July 2015, we identified
differences between the number of staffing insufficiencies reported by the
contractor and the number of deductions actually taken for 19 of the 49 monthly
invoices, or 38.8 percent. These discrepancies remained uncorrected and were not
attributable to rounding errors. For example, in the July 2012 invoice, CoreCivic
reported a staffing level that was 10 positions below the 90 percent contract
staffing vacancy threshold for security, but deducted from the invoice the salary
and benefits of only 5 positions. When we inquired about the discrepancy, the
contractor told us “It is our understanding that the deduction was taken consistent
with discussions with the BOP at that time. All these invoices were approved by the
BOP.” BOP officials confirmed that the five deductions were taken in accordance
with the BOP’s interpretation of the contract language at the time. In total,
CoreCivic reported 156.9 monthly position insufficiencies for staffing levels that fell
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons, Evaluation and Inspections Report 16-06 (August 2016), iii.
17

33


below the minimum thresholds. During the same period, the contractor only
offered invoice deductions for 129.3 of those deficiencies, leaving 27.6 deficiencies,
or 17.6 percent, unsettled.
We selected a sample of nine monthly invoices between July 2012 and
March 2015 to perform a more detailed analysis of CoreCivic’s supporting
documentation. Within the 9 invoices, we identified 73 instances in which the
contractor did not report necessary wage determination fringe deductions for
positions that were listed on the monthly staff vacancy report. CoreCivic’s
explanation for 52 of the 73 instances was that its business manager at the time
was not aware that those positions were subject to a wage determination fringe
deduction. For the remaining 21 instances, CoreCivic again stated “It is our
understanding that the deduction was taken consistent with discussions with the
BOP at that time. All of these invoices were approved by the BOP.” We asked the
BOP for clarification as to why these 21 deductions were not taken, and BOP
officials were able to provide us with justification for 5 of the 21 missing
deductions. However, BOP officials were not able to locate any documentation
explaining why the remaining 16 deductions were not taken.
For two of the nine monthly invoices we analyzed further, CoreCivic reported
essential position vacancy deductions for four positions that were not listed as
vacant on the staff vacancy report for the corresponding month. CoreCivic officials
told us that the former business manager had used a different report to determine
which positions should be included in these deductions. However, after reviewing
the other reports, CoreCivic was unable to determine how the business manager
had determined which positions should be included.
Finally, we requested support for an invoice deduction of $12,787 related to
staffing deficiencies that occurred in October 2012. Although this amount
represents a reduction to the price that would otherwise have been owed to
CoreCivic, we requested support for the $12,787 to verify that the reduction should
not have been larger. However, CoreCivic officials stated that they could not
support the number of vacant hours used in their calculation of the $12,787. Given
that the BOP paid these invoices, we believe that this and the other unsupported
assertions that we identified in the contractor’s invoices are indicative of
weaknesses in the BOP’s invoice verification procedures. In consideration of these
weaknesses and the issue discussed earlier in this report in which CoreCivic stopped
reporting the vacancy status of five employees, we recommend that the BOP
implement additional invoice verification procedures to ensure that CoreCivic has
complied with all contract requirements related to billings and has accurately
calculated and reported all necessary deductions.

34


Recommendations
We recommend that the BOP:
1. Modify the contract to provide specific procedures for CoreCivic to follow for
measuring and reporting staffing levels so that the BOP will be able to monitor
the extent to which required stations are actually covered.
2. Amend the contract modification that specified minimum levels of Spanishspeaking staff to incorporate specific deadlines for compliance, remedies for
noncompliance, and the specific level of Spanish proficiency desired.
3. Evaluate the extent to which employee qualification levels and turnover rates
affect safety and security concerns, and whether its contractual terms should be
modified to address those concerns.
4. Ensure that CoreCivic reports the staffing levels for the entire staffing plan on its
monthly invoices, to include positions filled by subcontractors and subsidiaries,
as required by the contract.
5. Remedy $42,300 in questioned costs related to overstated invoices submitted by
the contractor for August 2010 through November 2015.
6. Implement additional administrative remedy procedures for its contract prisons
to ensure that inmates are afforded fair opportunities to appeal their grievances
to the BOP Regional Director and General Counsel, or other equivalent BOP
levels outside of the inmates’ local facilities.
7. Review all available guidance for performance-based acquisitions and implement
additional, objectively measurable performance standards that can be effectively
assessed for each contract requirement pertaining to staffing, inmate
grievances, and food services.
8. Develop and implement mandatory procedures for calculating invoice deductions
to ensure that deductions are computed consistently and do not inappropriately
allow unfavorable contractor performance.
9. Implement additional invoice verification procedures to ensure that CoreCivic
has complied with all contract requirements related to billings and has
accurately calculated and reported all necessary deductions.

35


STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
As required by Government Auditing Standards, we tested, as appropriate,
internal controls significant within the context of our audit objectives. A deficiency
in an internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent or detect in a timely manner: (1) impairments to the
effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in financial or
performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations. Our evaluation
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) administration of contract
number DJB1PC010 awarded to Corrections Corporation of America, which
subsequently changed its name to CoreCivic, Inc., to operate the Adams County
Correctional Center was not made for the purpose of providing assurance on their
internal control structures as a whole. The BOP’s and CoreCivic’s management are
responsible for the establishment and maintenance of internal controls.
As discussed in our report, the BOP needs to improve its internal controls to
ensure compliance with all rules, regulations, and guidelines related to the
administration of contract number DJB1PC010 with CoreCivic to operate the Adams
County Correctional Center. Specifically, the BOP needs to: (1) implement
objectively measurable performance standards for each contract requirement so
that contractor performance can be effectively assessed, (2) implement standard
procedures for calculating invoice deductions to ensure that deductions are
computed consistently and do not inappropriately incentivize unfavorable contractor
performance, and (3) implement additional invoice verification procedures to ensure
that CoreCivic has complied with all contract requirements related to billings and
has accurately calculated and reported all necessary deductions. The internal
control deficiencies noted in this report prevent the BOP from ensuring that the
CoreCivic’s performance is adequate and that the proper amounts are billed by the
contractor on each monthly invoice.
Because we are not expressing an opinion on the internal control structure of
the BOP as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information and use by
the BOP and CoreCivic. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of
this report, which is a matter of public record.

36


STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE 

WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

As required by Government Auditing Standards, we tested, as appropriate
given our audit scope and objectives, selected transactions, records, procedures,
and practices to obtain reasonable assurance that BOP and CoreCivic management
complied with federal laws and regulations for which non-compliance, in our
judgment, could have a material effect on the results of our audit. The BOP’s and
CoreCivic’s management are responsible for ensuring compliance with federal laws
and regulations. In planning our audit, we identified the following laws and
regulations that concerned the operations of the auditee and that were significant
within the context of the audit objectives:


Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 16, Types of Contracts



FAR Part 37, Service Contracting



FAR 52.222-43



29 Code of Federal Regulations § 4, Labor Standards for Federal Service
Contracts 




28 Code of Federal Regulations § 542, Administrative Remedy


Our audit included examining, on a test basis, the BOP’s and CoreCivic’s
compliance with the aforementioned laws and regulations that could have a
material effect on the BOP’s and CoreCivic’s operations. We interviewed auditee
personnel, assessed internal control procedures, and examined accounting records
and performance reports. As noted in the Findings and Recommendations section
of this report, we found instances where the BOP did not comply with the FAR and
Code of Federal Regulations provisions related to the establishment of measurable
performance standards for federal service contracts and equitable adjustments
under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute. Specifically, we found that the
BOP did not implement effective performance standards for the Adams County
Correctional Center contract and paid CoreCivic excessive amounts for equitable
adjustments that exceeded the amounts to which the contractor was entitled.

37


APPENDIX 1
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Audit Objectives
The primary objectives of our audit were to (1) assess CoreCivic’s contract
performance; (2) determine whether CoreCivic complied with the terms, conditions,
laws, and regulations applicable to the contract; and (3) assess the BOP’s formation
and administration of the contract.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
This was an audit of BOP contract number DJB1PC010, awarded to
Corrections Corporation of America, which subsequently changed its name to
CoreCivic, Inc. Our audit generally covered, but was not limited to the period
April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2015; and included 3 entities: (1) the BOP;
(2) CoreCivic; and (3) Trinity Services Group.
To ensure compliance with contract requirements regarding billings and
payments, we evaluated BOP payments of monthly invoices and award-fees to
CoreCivic and reviewed the accuracy and completeness of contract modifications
resulting in net increases or decreases of obligated funds. We also reviewed the
BOP’s and CoreCivic’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
requirements related to the payment of prevailing wages and benefits to staff based
on locality and CoreCivic’s compliance with contract requirements related to
minimum fringe benefit rates due to Adams County Correctional Center personnel.
To determine whether CoreCivic complied with contract staffing
requirements, we reviewed contract provisions related to staffing, compared
staffing information to timekeeping and payroll records, assessed whether Adams
County Correctional Center filled vacant positions in a timely manner as required in
the contract, compared staffing ratios for Adams County Correctional Center and
comparable BOP-managed facilities, determined how staffing shortfalls were
handled, and assessed the contractor’s methodology for calculating staffing-related
invoice deductions.
To assess the BOP’s and CoreCivic’s compliance with contract oversight and
monitoring requirements, we reviewed the contractor’s quality control program to
determine whether CoreCivic’s system of controls allowed it to ensure effective
performance and identify areas of improvement or non-compliance before
performance becomes unsatisfactory. We also reviewed the BOP’s ongoing
38


monitoring efforts and Quality Assurance Plan to ensure that the BOP’s oversight
mechanisms would identify any performance deficiencies or areas of
noncompliance.
Analysis of Billings
When we began this audit in May 2015, CoreCivic had submitted a total of 68
invoices to the BOP for contract performance during the months of August 2009
through March 2015. These invoices represented obligations of over $325 million.
Using professional judgment, we selected a nonstatistical sample of nine of those
invoices totaling $46 million for testing. We selected the March, July, and
November invoices from July 2012 through March 2015. We employed this
judgmental sampling design to identify a smaller number of invoices that we could
reasonably review in greater detail, given the resources available to us. We
reviewed each of the sample invoices to verify the completeness and accuracy of
the invoice deductions, the accuracy and appropriateness of the contractor’s
calculations, and the consistency of invoicing procedures over time. However, this
nonstatistical sample design does not allow for a projection of the sample results to
all invoices or internal controls and procedures.
Analysis of Staffing Levels
The purpose of our staffing analyses for correctional services and health
services was to determine the actual staffing level at the Adams County
Correctional Center over time and to compare actual staffing levels at the Adams
County facility to CoreCivic’s reported staffing levels and contract requirements.
The overall staffing targets in the BOP-approved staffing plan incorporate a “relief
factor” to account for the portion of time that employees would not be available to
work, such as time off, holidays, and training. However, our analysis focuses
specifically on the number of hours that contractor employees actually spent
covering required shifts. We believe that this is the most accurate and appropriate
way to evaluate actual staffing levels over time. Additionally, it is notable that the
BOP’s minimum staffing thresholds for correctional services (90 percent) and health
services (85 percent) are set below the staffing levels that would be necessary to
cover every required shift in the staffing plan, even if all of its employees were
working full-time schedules and taking no sick or personal time off, no holidays,
and no training whatsoever.
To determine the actual staffing levels at Adams County Correctional Center,
we compiled time and attendance data for CoreCivic’s hourly staff and payroll data
for CoreCivic’s salaried staff. For each month, we determined the total number of
full-time equivalents covering shifts required by the BOP-approved staffing plan as
follows:
For CoreCivic’s hourly staff, we first aggregated all regular and overtime
hours worked across all employees for each pay date. We then backed out hours
that these employees spent in training, since staff members attending training
courses were not covering shifts in the BOP-approved staffing plan.

39


The hours that CoreCivic employees spent covering shifts in the BOPapproved staffing plan was divided by 80, the number of hours a full-time
equivalent employee works in a biweekly pay period, to arrive at the total number
of full-time equivalents represented by the number of hours worked. Since the
contractor reports staffing levels on a monthly basis as part of its invoice support,
we then averaged the full-time equivalents for each month to obtain comparable
figures for presentation.
For CoreCivic’s salaried staff, the contractor was unable to provide detailed
time and attendance data showing the exact number of hours each employee
worked. Therefore, we used CoreCivic’s payroll data to identify the number of
salaried employees who were on staff during each month. Since salaried
employees are generally expected to work a full-time schedule, we considered each
of these employees to be a full-time equivalent for every month in which they were
paid at least once. For our health services staffing analysis, we incorporated the
five health services staff members that were employed by CoreCivic subsidiaries by
adding each of those employees back in as full-time equivalents for any month in
which the position was filled for at least 15 days.
To determine the total number of full-time equivalent employees CoreCivic
had covering shifts during a given month, we added together the hourly and
salaried full-time equivalents and compared the result to the BOP-approved staffing
plan and the staffing levels reported by CoreCivic.
Review of Correctional Officer Qualifications, Wages and Benefits
We reviewed the Adams County Correctional Center contract to identify any
specific qualifications that the BOP required of correctional officers working at the
Adams County Correctional Center. We then obtained information on the
qualifications required and the wage and benefit packages offered to entry-level
correctional officers at BOP-managed facilities, State of Mississippi correctional
facilities, and the Adams County Correctional Center to determine whether the
qualifications and offers were comparable. We obtained information on the BOP’s
correctional officers from a job announcement for GL-05 correctional officers that
was open between March 2015 and March 2016. We obtained information on the
State of Mississippi correctional officers from the Mississippi State Personnel Board’s
job description for the Correctional Officer I job title, and we obtained information
on CoreCivic correctional officers from the contractor’s own job description for
correctional officers. We compared and contrasted this data by employer, and we
compared the figures to national-level statistics reported by the Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Review of Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute
We assessed CoreCivic’s compliance with the Service Contract Labor
Standards statute by assessing whether contractor employees were paid the
requisite amounts of wages and fringe benefits, whether CoreCivic’s requests for
equitable adjustments to the contract price were accurate and justified, and
whether the BOP properly reviewed, approved, and monitored CoreCivic’s requests

40


for reimbursement. To accomplish this, we obtained payroll records for contractor
employees’ actual wages, information on the cost of fringe benefits offered to
employees, Department of Labor wage determinations containing the minimum
required wage and benefit rates, and the contractor’s requests for equitable
adjustments sent to the BOP.
To verify the amounts claimed in CoreCivic’s requests for equitable
adjustments, we first reviewed a sample of wage rate increases that were required
by revisions to the Department of Labor wage determinations and confirmed that
the contractor’s payroll records reflected the higher wage rates, effective as of the
beginning of the contract year. For fringe benefits, we confirmed that the cost of
CoreCivic’s contributions to a fringe benefit plan for each employee met the
required fringe benefit rates under the applicable wage determinations. We also
confirmed the funds were used for appropriate fringe benefit programs, including
health insurance, life insurance, retirement plans, and sick leave. In addition, we
confirmed that the contractor accurately calculated its reimbursement from the
BOP, and that the request for reimbursement was justified by actual increases in
costs resulting from revisions to the wage determinations.
Review of Inmate Grievance Programs
We assessed the adequacy of CoreCivic’s inmate grievance program for the
Adams County Correctional Center by comparing that program’s goals and
procedures to those in place for BOP-managed facilities. We also compared the
Adams County grievance program to applicable sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations and the BOP’s program statements.
Review of Food Services
We evaluated the adequacy of CoreCivic’s delivery of food services through
its subcontractor, Trinity Services Group, by reviewing weekly cycle menus for
calendar years 2012 through 2014 and confirming that the menus were each
approved by a registered dietician. We also evaluated the overall nutritional
adequacy by asking a BOP dietician to perform an independent review of those
menus and providing an opinion on them.

41


APPENDIX 2
SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS
Description

Amount

Page

$42,300

21

Questioned Costs18
Improperly Calculated Invoice Deductions
Unallowable Costs

$42,300

Net Questioned Costs

$42,300

TOTAL DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS

$42,300

18 Questioned Costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory or
contractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit, or
are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by offset, waiver, recovery of
funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.

42


APPENDIX 3
THE BOP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Ot/ia o{t!!?! Director

Wa.l"hillgloll. n.C 20534

November 30, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR JASON R. MALMSTROM
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
AUDIT DIVISION

FROM:

Thomas R. Kane, Acting Director

SUBJECT:

Response to the Office of Inspector General's (OIG)
FORMAL Draft Report: Audit of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons' Contract Awarded to Corrections
Corporations of America to Operate the Adams County
Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appreciates the opportunity to respond
to the open recommendations from the formal draft report entitled
Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Contract Awarded to
Corrections Corporations of America to Operate the Adams County
Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi.
Please find the BOP's response to the recommendations below:
Modify the contract to provide specific
procedures for CCA to follow for measuring and reporting staffing
levels so that the BOP will be able to monitor the extent to which
required stations are actually covered.

Recommendation 1:

The BOP agrees with this recommendation. We will modify
the contract, consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and

Response:

43


44


45


46


APPENDIX 4
CORECIVIC’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT

~ CoreCivic
N2tasha K. f1ftc 2tf
ViceP re>ideri, P8I1oorshipOevetpnfflt

November 23,2016

Jason R. Malmstrom
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite SODO
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Malmstrom:
Corrections Corporation of America, recently rebranded as CoreCivic, Inc. ("the Company") appreciates

the opportunity to review and comment on the Official Draft of the United States Department of Justice
(DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (GIG) audit ofthe BOP contract for the Adams County Correctional

Center (Adams or ACe] forthe period April!, 2012 through March 31, 2015 with the stated goals to: "(1)
assess CCA's contract performance; (2) determine whether CCA complied with the terms, conditions, laws,
and regulations applicable to the contract; and (3) assess the BOP's formation and administration of the
contract."
The Company. which provides a diverse range of government solutions. has worked in close partnership
with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at Adams for years, supporting the BOP's need to securely house
individuals convicted of federal felonies who are not United States citizens. In terms of this audit:
•

•

•

•

Since the tragic May 2012 incident at Adams, complementary internal and
external review processes have resulted in enhancements yielding significant
year-over-year improvements in safety and security at the facility, including
reducing violent incidents and inmate-on-inmate assau Its by nearly 40 percent.
The inappropriate staffing measurement methodology used by OIG in the audit
has never been used before and is not based on the contract, the BOP's staffing
sta nda rds for its own faci lities, 0 r genera I correctiona I staffing best practices. The
Company and the BOP have repeatedly objected to the OIG's approach.
The robust grievance process available to inmates at Adams and the facility's
qualifications and compensation for employees meet contract requirements and
are approved by the BOP.
Although we continue to work to meet certain requirements, significant progress
has been made regarding the recruitment and retention of facility staff and
facilitation of communication at the facility, including actively recruiting more
Spanish speaking staff.

The safety and security of our facilities, staff, and those entrusted to our care is our top priority, and we
reacted immediately to the tragic incident that occurred at Adams in May 2012, studying the incident and
redoubling our efforts to enhance and strengthen operations at the facility. Since implementing the BOP's

1

47


focused after action recommendations and additional comprehensive recommendations identified
through our own intensive review, the Company has complied with its contractual obligations and made
improvements that have resulted in increased safety for inmates, staff, and the public.
improvements are validated by a host of objective measures and independent reviews.

These

The Company respects the OIG's audit process as one of the many oversight and audit tools that the
Government employs to monitor contract performance and advance overall contracting processes and
procedures, and we appreciate the audit report's identification of areas for improvement. This audit
report, however, features prominently an OIG-devised staffing measurement methodology that the
contract does not contemplate, that neither the BOP nor the Company believes is consistent with the
contract, and to which both the BOP and the Company objected throughout the audit process. Adoption
of the OIG's approach would not be consistent with industry-wide corrections practices and would
retroactively impose an unwarranted and unprecedented new standard for measuring staffing on the BOP
and its contractors.
In addition, although the OIG recognizes that the Company's qualification and compensation for
employees and inmate grievance procedures meet contract requirements established by the BOP, the
audit report's analysis and recommendations focus on differences between the Company and the BOP.
This analysis and accompanying recommendations are appropriately characterized as suggestions for
changes to the BOP's formation and administration of contracts in the future because they go beyond the
assessment of the Company's adherence to and execution of existing contractual requirements.
The Company recognizes that it has experienced challenges in the recruitment and retention of staff,
including that it currently is continuing to work to meet a recently-added contract requirement mandating
that 5% of the facility's staff members be Spanish-speaking. Since the contract began, we have invested
in a variety of meaningful recruiting and retention programs, as well as other mechanisms to provide
Spanish translation and to provide temporary coverage for positions during the recruitment and training
process for permanent hires, and we continue to implement new approaches and strategies to recruit and
retain staff members and enhance communication between staff and inmates.
The Company remains dedicated to providing innovative solutions that benefit the public good, and looks
forward to continued partnership with the BOP to ensure the safe and effective administration of Adams.

I.

THE COMPANY

The Company was founded on January 28,1983 to create public-private partnerships for the management
and operation of correctional facilities. Today, the Company, a publicly traded real estate investment
trust, is a diversified government solutions company offering high quality corrections and detention
services, innovative real estate solutions, and a network of residential reentry centers to help tackle
America's recidivism crisis. The Company is proud of its decades-long record of serving as a critical tool to
help the BOP meet some of its most pressing needs.
The Company has worked since its founding to support the BOP in its stated mission "to protect society
by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are
safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement
opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens." The Company strives every day to
deliver services in a way that honors our values of having PRIDE in all we do: Professionalism, Respect,
Integrity, Duty, and Excellence.
In line with our values and obligations as a responsible federal contractor and our efforts to serve as a
reliable, dependable partner, the Company has invested in a robust ethics and compliance program and

2

48


system of internal compliance controls. The Company's culture of ethics and compliance starts at the top,
with our Board of Directors overseeing the ethics and compliance program in its work to promote
company-wide awareness and ethical responsibility. Further, management has made investments in
resources and technology to permit the Company to provide innovative and efficient services to its
government partners while maintaining compliance with our legal and contractual obligations. Recent
investments include the study and ongoing development of a new workforce management system to
better manage, monitor, and report on staffing levels at Company facilities; enhancing the Quality
Assurance Division's resources devoted to monitoring and auditing facility compliance with partner
contract requirements; and implementing an "ethics liaison" program to further embed the compliance
and ethics program at every Company facility.
II.

THE COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2012 INCIDENT

A.

Our Efforts to Understand the May 2012 Incident and Make the Facility Safer and
Stronger.

The May 2012 incident at Adams County was a tragedy and an aberration in the Company's years-long
record of safe facility administration. The Company's top priority has always been safety and security,
and we immediately began an internal review to understand the May 2012 incident and identify ways to
make the facility safer and stronger in the future. The review was ordered by, and conducted under the
guidance of, the Company's Office of General Counsel, and consisted of an intensive four-day, on-site
investigation conducted by a team of experienced corrections professionals. Through this review, the
Company identified a number of factors that contributed to the disturbance and developed fifteen
recommendations to improve the areas of emergency management, training, inmate communications,
intelligence gathering and sharing, and security. In October 2012, the Company shared a written report
documenting this after action review with the BOP, and presented the report to all facility staff members.
All strategies and action steps identified to implement the fifteen recommendations were completed.
Recognizing the opportunity for further emergency preparedness training and improvement across the
Company, we also commenced a months-long planning process for {(Operation Diamondback/' an exercise
designed to test Incident Command System-Command Post operations and incident management and
tactical team operations related to facility control, which we held in the fall of 2013. Representatives from
every Company facility participated, including wardens, assistant wardens, chiefs of security,
investigators, and Special Operations & Response Teams/Disturbance Control Teams. To prepare, all
participants first completed four separate National Incident Management Systems' courses, and technical
teams received and developed breaching plans specific to their facilities. The Company then hosted two
days of classroom activities and concluded the Operation with a scenario conducted over a 24-hour
period.
The BOP conducted a separate review of the 2012 incident. The Company cooperated fully with and
supported the BOP's review, but the full scope of the BOP's review and its findings were not provided to
the Company. On September 21, 2012, the BOP provided an After Actions Recommendations letter to
the Company, stating that the BOP had conducted "an After Action Review to assess [the facility's]
policies, procedures, and response to the incident/' and providing nine recommendations to the Company
based on that review. After reviewing and considering each recommendation carefully, on October 19,

1

The National Incident Management System is the comprehensive, nationwide, systematic approach to incident

management directed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3

49


2012, the Company responded to the BOP, confirming that it either had already implemented or would
implement each one:
o

"Recommend ACC staff use their Shift Activity Report for staff to document and
report signs of discord or their observations among the inmate population to the
[Special Investigative Services {SIS)}." The Company had already created an
intelligence-sharing {(Pass-On Worksheet/' trained personnel on the procedure,

and implemented daily submission of those sheets.
o

"Recommend ACCfoster team building, for example, the SIS can prepare training
lesson plans to educate staff on the proper procedures for recognizing and
reporting suspicious inmate behavior, to include [Security Threat Group (STG)]
specific tattoos, mail/phone monitoring and STG symbolism." The Company
acknowledged the importance of enhancing the facility's STG program and
committed to frequent training and weekly Inmate Profile Presentations at

department head meetings to review specific inmates of interest.
o

"Consider training to strengthen staff and inmate communication as it was
reported the inmates stated they only wanted to talk with administration." The
Company described its existing Unit Team Management approach to ensure staff
members are available to address inmate concerns and needs and existing
training regarding the importance of communications and responsiveness, and
set forth its successful efforts to recruit additional bilingual personnel to further
enhance communications.

o

"Recommend the contractor use the Automated Inmate Management System
(AIMS) as prescribed by the contract. {Contractual Requirement)." The Company
reiterated its previous notice to the BOP that technical problems had prevented
consistent use of the the BOP's AIMS since installation, but that AIMS was then
operational and in use.

o

"Recommend the contractor document and confirm confidential informants.
Currently no documentation exists to justify the credibility of any of the inmates
used." The Company indicated that all SIS staff members were trained on
establishing, managing, documenting, and maintaining confidential informants.

o

"Re-evaluate safe haven locations to ensure safety of staff" The Company stated
that it had already re-evaluated safe haven locations, modified one safe haven
and created additional locations, and scheduled training for staff.

o

"Consider reviewing state and local law enforcement's legal authority to enter a
private facility when responding to significant institution events. Specifically,
review the state and local law enforcement's legal ability to enter a private facility
in order to prevent serious injury or ioss of iife of federai inmates and contractors.
The Company indicated that it had identified no prohibition on the usual power
of state and local authorities during such an incident, and had applied its policy
consistent with that power during the incident.

o

"Consider strengthening inmate accountability procedures by implementing
controlled movement designed to contain inmates in controlled areas during non­
move periods. This allows for immediate containment of all areas throughout the

4

50


institution."

The Company notified the BOP that it had already modified
movement procedures to enhance immediate containment ability.

•

"Consider storage of less than lethal munitions, specifically, pyrotechnics CS, in
secured areas that are inaccessible to inmates." The Company advised that it had
always been in compliance with this recommendation.

The Company has since continued to improve safety and security at the facility. We have strengthened
staff and inmate communication by expanding the opportunities for productive interaction through,
among other things, holding open houses with key departments, increasing the number of supervisory
staff in the facility beyond the typical working day, distributing newsletters and informational posters, and
engaging department heads in inmate issue resolution. We conduct regular training with staff about
intelligence gathering and reporting, including through the creation and communication of educational
profiles on various high risk inmates, gang activity, and other STG specific information. We have further
enhanced inmate accountability procedures through additional physical and process safeguards
throughout the facility; these upgrades have been key components of our strategy to ensure optimal
facility security at all times. As always, we continue to work with the BOP to recognize and report
suspicious inmate behavior, uploading STG information into a BOP-approved database and providing
monthly intelligence reports and briefings.
B.

Documented Successes in Our Ongoing Efforts to Ensure Safety and Security at the
Facility.

Adams is subject to a variety of audits, internal reviews, surveys, and assessments that document success

in our ongoing efforts to ensure safety and security. Since January 2011, Adams has been continuously
accredited' by the independent American Correctional Association, the oldest and most prestigious
professional association in the United States that develops correctional standards based on valid, reliable
research and exemplary correctional practice. During the most recent reaccreditation survey conducted
in May 2016, the American Correctional Association audit team found the facility in compliance with 100%
of both the mandatory standards-those that address conditions or situations that affect the life, health,
and safety of offenders, staff, and/or the public-and 100% of the non-mandatory standards. The team
members commented favorably about the high levels of sanitation, the low number of inmate grievances,
and inmate reports that they feel safe and that staff members treat them with respect.
In November 2015, Adams underwent an audit of its compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) Commission standards with 100% compliance and certification. The visiting auditor noted that
100% of the inmates interviewed during the visit acknowledged receiving PREA training, and expressed if
they had to file a PREA complaint the facility would respond appropriately and that staff take all PREA
complaints very seriously.
During an internal audit conducted by the Company's Quality Assurance Division in March 2015, inmate
climate survey results indicated the inmates at Adams feel safe and have confidence in staff control over
disruptive behavior. In 25 of the 27 categories surveyed, Adams exceeded the overall Company's overall
average facility scores, with notable improvements since the last survey in areas related to staff control
over gang activity.
An internal tracking and comparison of incidents and contraband discoveries shows significant year-over­
year improvement in areas affecting public, staff, and inmate safety at Adams. For example, in the last

2

The accreditation process typically takes 12 to 18 months to complete, and maintaining continuous accreditation

is an ongoing task that requires integration of the established standards into day-to-day facility operations.

5

51


year alone, the total number of violent incidents decreased by 38%, and the number of weapons found
as a result of violent incidents dropped by 73.3% (2015 -15, 2016 year-to-date -4). In addition, inmate­
on-inmate assaults are down by 39%, inmate-on-staff assaults have reduced by 56%, and suicide attempts
have reduced from 5 in 2015 to none in 2016 to date.
In June 2016, the institution received a $277 ,723 award fee from the BOP for contract performance above
the acceptable level. This award fee reflects fewer negative audit findings, improvements in partnership
and responsiveness, and staff and inmate compliance with established policies that have enhanced facility
safety.

III.

AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A.

Our Adherence to the Contract's Staffing and Reporting Requirements, and Objection
to OIG's Unprecedented New Approach to Measure Staffing.

Facility Staffing and Reporting
Throughout the contract, the Company maintained and reported its staffing complement consistent with
industry standards and contract requirements.' During the performance period examined by the OIG's
audit, the contract provided that the Company was responsible for maintaining a contract staffing plan:
The number, type and distribution of staff described in the contract staffing plan shall be
maintained throughout the term of the contract. Written req uests to change the number,
type, and distribution of staff described in the staffing plan must be submitted to the CO
for approval prior to implementation. Staffing levels shall not fall below a monthly
average of 90% for Correctional Services, 85% for Health Services and 85% for all other
departments of the BOP approved staffing pattern. Staffing levels for all departments
other than Correctional Services and Health Services will be calculated in the aggregate.
Each month the contractor shall submit to the CO the current average monthly vacancy
rate, by department, and indicate any individual positions that have been vacant for more
than 30 days.
The approved contract staffing pattern for the facility is based on a correctional complement analysis that
is consistent with the American Correctional Association's Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions,
which dictate an analysis that accounts for holidays, regular days off, annual leave and average sick time.
The purpose of this complement analysis is to ensure that staffing levels are sufficient for management
to deploy personnel to the posts necessary to safely and securely operate the facility. Staffing levels are
not determined based on one employee per post. Instead, staffing for mandatory, constant posts must
be calculated to account for time off and non-productive time. Thus, the Company, like other correctional
systems, builds a "relief factor" into its staffing plans. Further, the contract's staffing level percentage
thresholds are negotiated allowances reflecting the parties' acknowledgement and understanding that
the staffing pattern is important to the management of the institution, but also that maintaining 100%
staffing at all times is not realistic given ordinary staff turnover and fluctuations in the labor market.
This correctional complement analysis is the accepted industry practice for analyzing prison staffing, and
is used by the Company for other contracts, including those with the u.S. Marshals Service, u.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and state correctional agencies. It is also the practice used by
the BOP in BOP-operated facilities. The Company followed the contract staffing plan to staff the facility

3

The Company addresses an oversight that resulted in our omission of five health services positions from the

staffing reports included with the Company's invoices below.

6

52


and has consistently reported to the BO P according to the contract's requirement to report staffing levels
based on the prescribed methodology-positions filled. In the few instances that the staffing fell short of
the requirements, the Company incurred and accepted appropriate deductions.
The audit report reflects an OIG-devised staffing measurement methodology developed for the first time
in the course of this audit that the contract does not contemplate and that neither the BOP nor the
Company believes is consistent with the contract. Although the OIG's approach may be one possible way
to estimate actual hours of post coverage, it is not consistent with either the industry understanding of a
staffing pattern or, even more importantly, the contract. Indeed, both the Company and the BOP have
repeatedly objected to the OIG's approach because its adoption would retroactively impose an
unprecedented new standard for measuring staffing on the BOP and its contractors.
Correctional facilities are dynamic environments. A staffing pattern establishes the pool of staff available
for deployment from which managers draw after determining in real time how to man the facility based
on actual circumstances, including which individual posts should be covered. A staffing pattern is not
designed as a list of posts that managers are required to fill at all times. Rather, a staffing pattern is a
prospective measurement of the resources the parties expect are necessary to allow for appropriate
management of the facility.
The OIG's comparison of the staffing pattern to direct hours recorded to posts is therefore an inapt
measurement of BOP oversight and contract compliance in two principal ways. First, the staffing
requirements in the contract are position requirements (i.e., staffing headcount or staffing level
requirements), not post coverage levels. This is clear from the language of the contract and the parties'
course of performance.

Second, to the extent the staffing pattern expresses a general intent regarding post coverage, the OIG's
methodology inflates the level of post coverage that would be required. In the OIG's analysis, the "BOP­
Approved Staffing Plan" (the post coverage compliance requirement) assumes that the staffing pattern
reflects a minimum full-time-equivalent count based upon 40 hours per week per position. The OIG's
analysis therefore includes the relief factor to calculate approved staffing levels, but removes the time
associated with the relief factor (i.e., staff leave and training time) to calculate actual post coverage. For
a comparison of like measurements, however, the relief factor must be excluded from both calculations.
To conduct this comparison of like measurements, the Company created a version of the contract staffing
plan excluding the relief factor and compared it to the "Actual Staffing Level (Full-Time Equivalents
Assigned to BOP Approved Posts)" used in the OIGls analysis. Based on this comparison} the Company

met or exceeded the Health Services staffing threshold for all 49 months analyzed and met or exceeded
the Correctional Services staffing threshold for 34 of the 49 months analyzed.
Ultimately, the contract defines staffing requirements based on positions filled, and the Company follows
the plan to staff the facility and report compliance to the BOP. OIG's analysis, by contrast, is an evaluation
of hours on post only, which may be useful in assessing the degree to which the contractual staffing
requirements have translated into post coverage levels, but is not a requirement of the BOP contract
itself. In the event that the BOP determines that it wishes to adopt a methodology similar to the one used
by the OIG, the Company welcomes discussions with the BOP regarding adjustments to the contract
staffing requirements. It is inaccurate, however, for OIG to retroactively employ a methodology that is
not based in the BOP-defined contract, the parties' course of dealing, or correctional staffing best

7

53


practices to make findings that suggest that the Company did not fulfill its contractual obligations when,
in fact, the Company did 4
The audit report defends OIG's methodology, asserting that the BOP and the Company's agreed-upon
contractual approach does not allow for the BOP to monitor contract performance. Again, the Company's
staffing and reporting was consistent with actual contract requirements. Moreover, BOP contracts are
staffed by on-site BOP contract monitors who provide the BOP with real-time visibility into staffing levels
and staff deployment. The BOP's monitoring of the Company's performance also includes a number of
periodic checks, like Contract Facility Monitoring reviews, to identify any performance issues and
recommend corrective actions.
The audit report asserts that the BOP and the Company have not addressed "the core issue" of the staffing
finding, "which is the effect" of staffing levels on safety and security. Other objective audit, survey, and
accreditation results discussed above, however, demonstrate that the Company does, in fact, maintain a
safe and secure facility despite the OIG's staffing perception. Efforts at every level of the Company
contributed to maintaining safety and security at Adams. We enhanced our disturbance control capability
at the facility through additional training and the purchase of new and additional emergency response
equipment and munitions, and continue to provide ongoing training to ensure staff's ability to manage
disruptive behavior. The Company conducts quarterly training with all staff assigned to the Special
Housing Unit (restrictive housing), and staff make frequent rounds through and conduct spot checks of
those important areas, both live and via closed-circuit TV monitoring. Facility management ensures
accountability at the highest levels by conducting live, on-site reviews of the facility's count time
procedures on all shifts, along with live roster checks, and mandating frequent training on the most
important security topics.
Nonetheless, we recognize that our efforts to enhance safety at the facility are continuing. Accordingly,
the Company has formed stronger partnerships with Federal, State, and Local law enforcement. These
improved relationships have resulted in, among other things, the filing of criminal charges against three
persons for the introduction into or possession of contraband within the facility. A subsequent increase
in the number of telephone calls made through the inmate telephone system suggests our efforts have
succeeded in reducing contraband like cellphones. In short, despite the OIG's inappropriate methodology
for assessing staffing, by a host of objective measures and independent reviews, the Company has
complied with its contractual obligations and made improvements that have resulted in increased safety
for inmates, staff, and the public.

Recruiting 0 nd Retention
The Company recognizes the importance of ensuring the facility is properly staffed for safe and secure
operations, and has continuously and aggressively recruited for the Adams facility. Specific recruitment
efforts at Adams have included advertising on numerous websites, posting flyers and handouts with the
Mississippi Department of Employment Security and the Workforce Investment Network (WI N) Job Center
in Natchez, participating in the Mississippi Law Enforcement Expo, and printing and distributing recruiting
cards for staff to disseminate within the community.
Beyond those efforts, the Company has attended job fairs at the local high school with Open Session
Foundation, a local mentoring and youth development program; fostered relationships at and conducted
recruitment visits at Alcorn State University, Mississippi Valley State University, and Copiah-Lincoln
Community College; provided a tour and presentation to members of the Natchez NOW Leadership

41t is particularly misleading for the audit report to include dollar figures to represent hypothetical invoice
deductions that are not tied to or based on the contract's actual requirements.

8

54


Development program and leveraged its memberships with the Chamber of Commerce, Natchez, Inc.,
Rotary Club, Kiwanis, and Community Advisory Board to give recruitment presentations. The Company
also partnered with agencies conducting force reductions for additional targeted recruiting efforts.
The audit report further compares the Company's employee qualifications and pay with BO P qualifications
and pay and argues that any differences are the reason for staffing challenges. This comparison, however,
falls outside of the audit's stated mission to assess the Company's contract performance and compliance.
The Company establishes employee qualifications and pay that are consistent with American Correctional
Association standards, industry standards, contract requirements, and regional conditions and factors
specific to the labor market, including-as the audit report acknowledges-specifically applicable wage
determinations published by the Department of Labor.

B.

Our Ongoing Efforts to Ensure Effective Communication Between Inmates and Staff and
Guarantee Productive Intelligence Gathering.

The BOP has defined the mission of Adams as the housing of Criminal Aliens, non-United States citizens
convicted of federal felonies. As a result, English is not the primary language of the vast majority of Adams
inmates, and there is often a language barrier between many of the inmates and staff. The Company is
committed to increasing effective communication between staff and inmates and has made significant
strides in increasing the number of Spanish-speaking staff at Adams that can facilitate communication and
guarantee productive intelligence gathering. Our general extensive recruiting efforts for Adams described
above include a display on site at the WIN Job Center of Mississippi and nationwide position vacancy
announcements aimed at Spanish-speaking applicants, and underscore our focus on recruiting and hiring
Spanish speakers.
Since the contract began, we have relied on a variety of strategies to facilitate communication, including
a translation service, Language Line Services, to conduct live, telephone translation for the inmate
population. By using trained professional interpreters} We can reduce miscommunication} eliminate
frustration} and ensure candid} open communication during medical examinations} investigative
interviews, crises intervention, and responding to requests for assistance. All department managers have
access to the language line, and recent expenditures on this service average $5,700 per month.
We have targeted the most critical needs for inmate management for recruitment and deployment of
Spanish-speaking staff. These include staff tasked with intelligence gathering like the Special Investigative
Supervisors area, in which three of the five staff members speak Spanish. We rely on these and other
Spanish-speaking staff, the Language Line, and online translation tools to assist us with translations as
needed, including during private interviews for intelligence gathering and assessment of written
submissions. In addition, our contacts at the Mexican Consulate, who maintain frequent contact with our
inmate population} serve as liaisons regarding inmate concerns} and our law enforcement contacts also
help us to translate sensitive written correspondence, analyze evidence, and interview inmates. These
contacts are one part of our multi-faceted intelligence gathering effort, which also includes, among other
things, review of CCTV footage, electronic monitoring solutions, collaboration with local law enforcement
and prosecutors to encourage prosecution of criminal activity that occurs within the facility and facilitate
enforcement operations, education and training for staff in contraband, and cultivating relationships with
inmate sources.
At this time, with a staff employment at 353, our 16 Spanish-speaking personnel, including a recently
recruited Learning and Development Manager, make up 4.5% of our staff, and we have recruited a
Spanish-speaking Unit Manager who will begin employment shortly and, again, increase the percentage
of staff that speaks Spanish. We also have Spanish speaking staff in the Health Services and Psychology
departments, the Education Department, recreation, security, and the institution's executive staff. We

9

55


are pleased to report that we meet the contract requirement, added in June 2015, for 50% of the
Intelligence Office Staff to be Spanish-speaking, but recognize that our total number of Spanish-speaking
staff currently falls slightly short of the separate requirement added at the same time for 5% of the overall
staffing complement to be Spanish-speaking.
As we work to meet that element of the contract requirement and our own goals for Spanish speaking
staff, we have taken several recent actions to boost recruiting and continue to promote communication.
First, we are currently actively recruiting bilingual personnel in Puerto Rico for employment at Adams,
including by offering to pay relocation expenses. Our position announcements for Adams now specify
that bilingual applicants are preferred. Second, we have held two Spanish Survival Skills for Correctional
Workers classes through Command Spanish, Inc., in October 2015 and March 2016; another class is
scheduled for November 28-29. At the same time, we continue to promote our English as a Second
Language program for inmates at the facility.
The Company is committed to meeting this latest contractual requirement. But bilingual communication
is} of course/ just one element of responsiveness and open} professional communication and problem
solving, and the Company is encouraged that the results of our internal Quality Assurance audit in March
2016 demonstrated inmates perceive Adams County staff as approachable, professional, responsive, and
effective at resolving concerns with scores in those measured areas exceeding Company averages.

c.

Our Delivery of Quality Health Services In a Challenging Environment.

The Company takes seriously its obligation to provide health services to inmates entrusted to its care, and
accordingly develops policies and procedures that meet or exceed the standards set by the American
Correctional Association and two organizations that devote their work specifically to improving the quality
of health services provided in corrections environments: the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations and/or the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
We acknowledge that we have encountered challenges in recruiting and retaining health services staff at
Adams. To combat those challenges, our health services team has aggressively recruited nurses and
providers and, when vacancies persisted, launched a variety of other efforts to ensure timely and quality
care to the inmates.
The facility is staffed with two physicians. Although physician turnover has occurred, we always
endeavored to minimize the impact to the patients by, as discussed below, endeavoring to recruit another
physician quickly and putting measures in place to supplement staffing in the meantime. Through our
efforts, turnover resulted in no more than a five-month gap between physicians during the audit period;
in several cases, as a physician left, another physician began prior to or immediately following that
departure.
Our recruitment and retention efforts have involved a wide range of approaches including increases to
pay and shift differentials for existing staff; recruitment through social media; vacancy postings on various
professional websites (e.g.; Health Callings; American Nurses Association; Nurses.com); local newspaper

advertising; participation in local college career fairs and community job fairs; direct mailings to licensed
health care professionals in the commuting area; and outreach to human resources staff in hospitals and
other entities that were closing or laying off staff.
When a permanent provider has not been immediately available to fill a vacancy, we have contracted for
locum tenens (i.e., temporary) providers to fill the position while continuing our recruitment efforts.
Locum tenens providers typically cost 50% to 100% more than a permanently placed provider per hour of
service, which the Company absorbs. In multiple cases, we have retained physician placement firms to

10

56


assist us with recruiting. Our commitment to identifying additional means of providing health services,
despite a higher cost, is further evidence of our commitment to providing necessary physician services to
the inmates at Adams without regard to cost and refutes the audit report's implication that the Company
might contemplate leaving positions vacant to avoid paying the salaries and benefits for those positions.
The Company never purposefully declined to recruit for or fill a position based on the hypothetical
manipulation of the vacancy deduction suggested in the report.
Moreover, in those periods when a physician position remained vacant, the Company ensured continuous
patient care by staffing Adams with an additional mid-level provider not required by the staffing plan.
Although the scope of practice of mid-level providers is not identical to physician providers, there is
considerable overlap in the capability of these professionals. The Company has also supplemented
services with other temporary mid-level provider coverage. To address nursing vacancies, the Company
has drav,tn in nursing personnel from other facilities on a temporary basis. Similarly, other allied health
positions (e.g., medical records) have served as a temporary resource for training and records corrective
action when needed.
We recognize the importance of ensuring that the inmates entrusted to our care receive the appropriate
health services, and we acted quickly and comprehensively to respond to the findings noted during the
January 2015 Contract Facility Monitoring assessment, including those related to the five mortality cases.
The Company implemented comprehensive corrective action to address each of the findings, including
changes to the medicine distribution process to better ensure patient privacy and confidentiality;
additional training, mock emergency drills, and the institution of an additional review process for
emergency responses and mortality cases; and a chart review and database revision to better track
preventative care baseline evaluations.
In addition, the Company's Headquarters & Facility Support Center (FSC) Compliance Coordinator, FSC
Clinical Director of Operations, and FSC Regional Director of Health Services conducted multiple site visits
to conduct chart reviews focused on assessing the effectiveness of processes, reviews, and compliance
with the corrective action and overall general clinical practice. The FSC Quality Assurance Department
also conducted a technical assistance visit at the facility to provide further guidance on addressing the
deficiencies as well as to complete a full audit and provide feedback regarding the facility's quality control
program. These efforts proved effective: In the October 2015 follow-up to the January 2015 assessment,
the BOP acknowledged that the significant finding in health services, as well as the repeat deficiency and
additional deficiency in health services, had been corrected.
The audit report identifies interviews of 12 inmates regarding the quality of healthcare S By contrast to
the concerns reported by that sample, Adams has recorded low numbers of health care and dental
grievances that have steadily decreased since 2012:
•

2011: 25 grievances filed; 2 found in favor of the inmate.

•

2012: 32 grievances filed; none found in favor of the inmate.

•

2013: 17 grievances filed; none found in favor of the inmate.

•

2014: 15 grievances filed; none found in favor of the inmate.

•

2015: 9 grievances filed; none found in favor of the inmate.

•

2016 (year to date): 3 grievances filed; none found in favor of the inmate.

To put this sample in context, the average daily populations at Adams last year and this year were 2,203 and
1,859 inmates, respectively.

5

11

57


Further, as the audit report itself reflects, outpatient services at Adams have been delivered
approximately as timely as services at comparable BO P facilities. An internal annual inmate climate survey
dating to 2012 reflects that inmate responses generally trended towards agreeing that they were able to
see medical staff in a reasonable period of time and believed that medical staff would respond quickly to
a life-threatening medical problem. Similarly, during the comprehensive questioning conducted by
American Correctional Association auditors in 2014, there were "few complaints about the food or
medical services."

During the audit timeframe, Adams was surveyed and re-accredited by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, an independent, not-for-profit organization that accredits and
certifies nearly 21,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. The Joint Commission
again visited the facility this month, with similar results reported at the survey outbriefing. We received
the Joint Commissionls written report confirming that Adams had even further improved against the
standards since the last survey in 2013, and expect confirmation of re-accreditation shortly.
D.

The Grievance Procedure Available to Inmates Is Consistent with the Goal of a Safe and
Secure Facility and the BOP's Administration of a Performance-Based Contract.

In the portion of the audit report devoted to review of the BOP's formation and administration of the
contract, OIG acknowledges that the Company clearly satisfied the contract requirement to establish a
grievance procedure that allows inmates to seek formal review of an issue regarding any aspect of their
confinement.
Although the OIG notes "important differences" between the BOP and Company
procedures, the grievance procedure available to Adams inmates nonetheless meets American
Correctional Association standards and is consistent with the goal of a safe and secure facility and the
BOP's administration of this performance-based contract.
First, the Company's procedure for any matter within the Company's scope of responsibility is to address
grievances at the institutional level. This includes a multi-layer review that, as with all grievances,
ultimately can be pursued through the federal courts. This grievance policy was specifically approved by
the BOP in 2006 and again when it was updated in 2014.
Second, as required by the contract, in addition to this grievance procedure, the Company has developed
procedures for inmates to file administrative remedy appeals for issues outside of the Company's scope
of responsibility-the bounds of which are determined by the BOP-to the BOP. These grievance
procedures reflect established, accepted divisions of responsibility between the Company and the BOP,
and provide an accessible and compliant procedure for inmates to express and resolve problems.
E.

Our Work to Improve Our Support for the BOP's Administration of This Performance­
Based Contract.

Nutrition
We are pleased that the audit found that the Company has been providing inmates with the nutritionally
adequate meals required by the contract, and appreciate the audit's identification of two areas that
presented opportunities for the Company to improve its internal controls and better support the BOP's
administration of the contract. Specifically, after reviewing the audit's finding regarding the one-time
lapse in the requirement to seek a registered dietician's approval of the menu on an annual basis, the
Company's subcontractor instituted electronic reminders to prompt the dietician to institute the
database-centered review and approval of the menu as scheduled. After reviewing the finding regarding
the inconsistent application of dietary reference intake guidelines, the Company's subcontractor rolled
out a new menu analysis program that better ensures application of the appropriate activity level.

12

58


Billing
The Company acknowledges that, for certain invoice deductions, our calculations did not always align
directly with the portion of Service Contract Act wage determination and fringe benefits adjustments the
OIG believes the Company shou ld have made as a result of staffing vacancies, resulting in a $42,300
invoice overstatement over the audit's five-yea r period . Th e Company will work with the BOP to ensure
that the BOP is credited appropriately.

The Company also acknowledges that it experienced a process failure regarding the inclusion of certain
health services provider positions listed in the BOP-approved staffing plan in the staffing reports included
w ith our invoices. This oversight stemmed from the Company's staffing of these positions through
separate professional corporations, whose employee data is not included in the Company's employee
information systems that are, in turn, the source of the staffing reports provided to the BOP.6 We disagree
that this admitted error in reporting meant that the BOP was unaware of staffing levels in Health Services,
because the BOP ha s a number of methods of ove rsight and quality assessment, including on-s ite contra ct
monitors and audits that include Health-Services-s pecific components. Regard less, we understand the
importance of reporting against the overa ll staffing plan, and the Company has corrected the reporting
process in order to avoid this error in the future. The Company also is evaluating whether there are other
opportunities for improvement in its reporting and billing processes, and looks forward to further study
of this issue and, if appropriate, working co llaboratively wit h the BOP to improve these processes in the
future .
IV.

CONCLUSION

We are dedicated to our mission to advancing corrections through innovative solutions that benefit and
protect all we serve, and appreciate the audit's efforts to identify areas for improvement in the execution
and administration of the cont ract in the future. The Company remains committed to con tin ued
partnership with the BOP to ensure the safe and effective administration of Adams.

As noted above, the audit report identifies an "incentive" for the Company to leave certain positions vacant
because of the way in which BOP calculates vacancy deductions based on the longest vacant position. To reiterate,
the Company never purposefully declined to recruit for or fill a position based on this hypothetical manipula tion of
the vacancy deduction.
6

13

59


APPENDIX 5
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided a draft of this audit report
to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and CoreCivic, Inc., formerly Corrections
Corporation of America or CCA, for review and official comment. The BOP’s
response is incorporated in Appendix 3 and CoreCivic’s response is incorporated as
Appendix 4. The BOP agreed with our recommendations and discussed the actions
it will complete to address the recommendations. As a result, the status of the
audit report is resolved. CoreCivic did not specifically address our
recommendations but objected to several aspects of the methodology we used to
assess staffing levels for Correctional and Health Services. The following provides
the OIG analysis of the responses and summary of actions necessary to close the
report.
Analysis of CoreCivic Response
While CoreCivic did not address our recommendations specifically, it
responded to our findings in the areas of staffing, language barriers, the provision
of health services, inmate grievance procedures, and the BOP’s contract
administration. In particular, CoreCivic reaffirmed its objection to the methodology
we used to measure staffing levels at Adams County, as previously discussed in the
report. CoreCivic asserted that the OIG’s methodology is unprecedented and
reiterated that the headcount-based reporting system in place is an industry
standard practice endorsed by the American Correctional Association (ACA).
CoreCivic also reemphasized that the OIG’s methodology is inconsistent with the
contract’s requirements.
The report recognizes that CoreCivic was often in compliance with the
contract staffing requirements as currently written and interpreted by both the BOP
and CoreCivic. We also present and fully discuss both the nature and implications
of the BOP’s and CoreCivic’s objections to our methodology.
However, none of those objections challenge the fact that, during 19 of the
38 months that followed the May 2012 riot, correctional services staffing at Adams
County was at an even lower level than at the time of the riot, or that during that
period CoreCivic delivered reports to the BOP that reflected improved staffing levels
for 36 of those 38 months. This situation reflects an obvious impairment to the
BOP’s oversight efforts. Given that the BOP noted systemic staffing deficiencies as
a contributing factor to the riot in May 2012, this impairment in oversight also has a
predictable and negative effect on the safety and security of the facility. Our
analytical approach allowed us to identify these risks because it provides for a more
accurate portrayal of actual staffing levels within the Adams County facility than
does a headcount methodology alone. We maintain that the approach of
monitoring a contractor’s staffing levels by focusing only on headcounts of
60


employed staff is insufficient to ensure adequate staffing, and that a monitoring
system that considers the hours actually worked in addition to headcounts would be
more effective.
In its response to the draft, CoreCivic asserted that its staffing plan was
developed consistent with ACA standards. We acknowledge the ACA’s roles in
establishing best practices for the correctional industry and providing accreditation
services for correctional facilities and programs. However, we also believe it is
clear that the BOP needs additional controls to ensure that its contractor maintains
staffing levels consistent with a safe and secure environment for both inmates and
staff.
Finally, CoreCivic also stated, inaccurately, that our recommendation that the
BOP modify the contract to improve the BOP’s ability to monitor staffing levels has
the effect of retroactively imposing a new standard. Our recommendation for
modification of the contract has no retroactive implications.
Recommendations for the BOP:
1. Modify the contract to provide specific procedures for CoreCivic to
follow for measuring and reporting staffing levels so that the BOP
will be able to monitor the extent to which required stations are
actually covered.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
modify the contract, consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and
subject to funds availability. The BOP stated that the modifications will
provide procedures for CoreCivic to follow in measuring and reporting staffing
levels so that the BOP can monitor coverage of required stations within the
prison.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but provided
comments related to its objection to the audit methodology as discussed
above.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has established specific procedures for measuring and reporting
staffing levels that reflect the actual extent to which the required stations are
covered.
2. Amend the contract modification that specified minimum levels of
Spanish-speaking staff to incorporate specific deadlines for
compliance, remedies for noncompliance, and the specific level of
Spanish proficiency desired.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will issue
an additional contract modification that specifies minimum levels of Spanishspeaking staff, deadlines for compliance, remedies for noncompliance, and
the level of Spanish proficiency desired. The BOP stated this modification will

61


be done consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and subject to
funds availability.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but
acknowledged that it currently falls short of the contractual requirement for
5 percent of the overall staffing complement to be Spanish-speaking. The
company also stated that it is continuing to actively recruit bilingual
personnel and that it is committed to meeting the contractual requirement.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has issued a contract modification that establishes specific deadlines
for compliance, remedies for noncompliance, and the specific level of Spanish
language proficiency desired.
3. Evaluate the extent to which employee qualification levels and
turnover rates affect safety and security concerns, and whether its
contractual terms should be modified to address those concerns.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
evaluate the extent to which employee qualification levels and turnover rates
affect safety and security concerns. It will also evaluate whether its
contractual terms should be modified to address those concerns.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and provided
no comments on how qualification levels and turnover rates affect
recruitment, retention, or ultimately the safety and security of the facility.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has determined the extent to which employee qualification levels
and turnover rates affect safety and security, determined the extent to which
contractual terms should be modified to address those concerns, and issued
any such modifications determined to be appropriate.
4. Ensure that CoreCivic reports the staffing levels for the entire
staffing plan on its monthly invoices, to include positions filled by
subcontractors and subsidiaries, as required by the contract.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
ensure that CoreCivic reports the staffing levels for the entire staffing plan on
its monthly invoices. The reports will include positions filled by
subcontractors and subsidiaries, as required by the contract.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but
acknowledged that it experienced a process failure regarding the inclusion of
certain positions in the staffing reports included with its invoices. CoreCivic
stated that it has corrected its reporting process.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has established procedures to ensure that CoreCivic reports the

62


staffing levels for all positions included in the staffing plan on each monthly
invoice.
5. Remedy $42,300 in questioned costs related to overstated invoices
submitted by the contractor for August 2010 through
November 2015.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
remedy $42,300 in questioned costs related to overstated invoices.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but
acknowledged that its calculations were at times inconsistent with the
Service Contract Act and resulted in an overstatement of $42,300 in its
invoices. The company stated that it will work with the BOP to ensure that
the BOP is credited appropriately.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has remedied the $42,300 in questioned costs related to overstated
invoices.
6. Implement additional administrative remedy procedures for its
contract prisons to ensure that inmates are afforded fair
opportunities to appeal their grievances to the BOP Regional Director
and General Counsel, or other equivalent BOP levels outside of the
inmates’ local facilities.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
implement additional administrative remedy procedures for contract prisons.
These procedures will ensure that inmates are afforded fair opportunities to
appeal grievances to the BOP Regional Director and General Counsel, or
other equivalent BOP levels outside of the inmates' local facilities.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but stated that
the company satisfied the contract requirement to establish a grievance
procedure. The company also stated that the grievance procedure available
to the Adams County inmates met ACA standards. However, the BOP has
established grievance procedures for BOP-operated facilities that exceed ACA
standards. This report highlights the disparate treatment of federal inmates
who are under BOP responsibility in contract facilities compared to inmates
who are incarcerated in BOP-managed facilities.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has implemented additional administrative remedy procedures for its
contract prisons to ensure that inmates are afforded fair opportunities to
appeal their grievances to the BOP Regional Director and General Counsel, or
other equivalent BOP levels outside of the inmates' local facilities.

63


7. Review all available guidance for performance-based acquisitions
and implement additional, objectively measurable performance
standards that can be effectively assessed for each contract
requirement pertaining to staffing, inmate grievances, and food
services.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
review all available guidance for performance-based acquisitions and
implement additional performance standards. These standards will permit
objective measurement of requirements for staffing, inmate grievances, and
food service. The BOP stated that if the standards require a contract
modification, the modification will be consistent with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation and pursuant to funds availability.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but
acknowledged the opportunities to improve its internal controls. The
company stated that, after reviewing the dietary finding, its subcontractor
began using a new menu analysis program that better ensures application of
the appropriate activity level.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has implemented additional, objectively measurable performance
standards that can be effectively assessed for each contract requirement
pertaining to staffing, inmate grievances, and food service.
8. Develop and implement mandatory procedures for calculating invoice
deductions to ensure that deductions are computed consistently and
do not inappropriately allow unfavorable contractor performance.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
develop and implement mandatory procedures for calculating invoice
deductions. These procedures will ensure that deductions are computed
consistently and do not inappropriately allow unfavorable contractor
performance.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation but suggested
the report implied that the company may have left positions vacant to avoid
paying the salaries and benefits for those positions and choosing to suffer a
lesser penalty of a vacancy deduction. The company stated that it had never
purposefully declined to fill a position based on any manipulation of vacancy
deductions. This report identified a risk based on weaknesses identified in
the procedures for calculating invoice deductions. However, the report
neither states nor implies that CoreCivic may have engaged in this type of
activity.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has implemented mandatory procedures for calculating invoice
deductions to ensure that deductions are computed consistently and do not
inappropriately allow unfavorable contractor performance.

64


9. Implement additional invoice verification procedures to ensure that
CoreCivic has complied with all contract requirements related to
billings and has accurately calculated and reported all necessary
deductions.
Resolved. The BOP concurred with the recommendation and said it will
implement additional invoice verification procedures to ensure that CoreCivic
has complied with all contract requirements related to billings and has
accurately calculated and reported all necessary deductions.
CoreCivic did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and provided
no related comments.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the BOP has implemented additional invoice verification procedures to ensure
that CoreCivic has complied with all contract requirements related to billings
and has accurately calculated and reported all necessary deductions.

65


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
(DOJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity
whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud,
abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and
to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s
operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ
OIG’s hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or
(800) 869-4499.

 
 
 
 

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
www.justice.gov/oig

 

 

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side
Advertise here
Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side