Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Georgia Audit Dept Report on Maintenance of State Prisons 2012

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Special Examination  11-38

February 2012

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts
Performance Audit Operations
Russell Hinton, State Auditor
Leslie McGuire, Director

Why we did this review
This special examination was
conducted at the request of the House
Appropriations Committee. The
Committee requested that we review
GDC’s provision of maintenance
services at its correctional facilities.
The objectives of the examination
were to:
 Determine if GDC has adopted
policies and procedures that
emphasize the completion of
preventive work.
 Document the frequency and
reasons that GDC uses contractors
and inmates for maintenance
activities.
 Determine whether GDC has
adequate information to manage
program operations.

Who we are
The Performance Audit Operations
Division was established in 1971 to
conduct in-depth reviews of state
programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to determine if programs
are meeting their goals and objectives;
provide measurements of program
results and effectiveness; identify
other means of meeting goals; evaluate
the efficiency of resource allocation;
and assess compliance with laws and
regulations.
Website: www.audits.ga.gov
Phone: 404-657-5220
Fax: 404-656-7535

Maintenance of State Prisons
Better performance information needed to
evaluate GDC’s maintenance efforts
What we found
The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) should improve
the data it collects to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of its
maintenance program. However, GDC does emphasize to facility
personnel the importance of preventive maintenance and conducts
quarterly and annual audits to check compliance with
maintenance schedules.
Regarding performance measurement, GDC should provide
additional guidance and training to facility staff who are
responsible for counting and classifying maintenance activities, as
well as staff responsible for classifying maintenance expenditures.
Current differences in how state prisons track these items make
the information unreliable for gauging performance. To better
manage operations, GDC should also collect additional
information, such as the frequency or cost of repairs to equipment,
the extent to which maintenance is outsourced to contractors,
maintenance expenditures per prison and per square foot, and the
level and cost of deferred maintenance.
The importance of preventive maintenance, which is expected to
reduce the need for repairs and prolong the life of assets, is
emphasized in GDC policies. According to management reports,
incomplete preventive maintenance comprised less than 1% of
work orders for four of five prisons1 reviewed. In addition, all six
prisons in our sample scored at least an 80 (of 100) on their most
recent audit, which measures whether preventive maintenance is
completed.
Although GDC has taken steps to prioritize preventive
maintenance, we found that it could better ensure that
maintenance staff is aware of equipment service requirements.
Three of the six sample prisons did not include detailed
1

The sixth prison reviewed was unable to provide details of its activity.

maintenance instructions in the work order management system, on the work orders given to staff, or on
the equipment itself. Additionally, none of the six prisons visited have a current inventory of parts and
supplies but instead rely on maintenance staff to indicate when parts are needed. This increases the risk
that parts are not readily available when maintenance is scheduled.
Our review of maintenance spending found that GDC paid a combined $41.6 million for routine
maintenance in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. A majority of the 29 prisons’ cost per square foot were near the
median cost of $2.20, though five had costs at least 20% lower and four had costs at least 20% higher.
The prisons’ maintenance staffing level, security level, and unique responsibilities appeared to contribute
to the cost variations. For example, some of the prisons with high costs are responsible for tasks other
than typical facility upkeep that would affect maintenance expenditures (e.g., maintaining water
treatment systems). It should be noted that high or low costs alone do not provide insight into a prison’s
long-term efficiency. Disregarding current maintenance needs can keep costs low in the short term but
lead to higher overall costs in later years. Therefore, maintenance spending measures must be reviewed in
concert with other measures of performance.
Finally, our review found that private contractors perform a small portion of prisons’ routine
maintenance and that inmates frequently assist maintenance staff. The precise distribution of
maintenance between state maintenance staff, contractors, and inmates is unclear because prisons are
not required to track or report the number of work orders completed with contractor and inmate
assistance. GDC officials indicated that contractors generally perform the work that exceeds the skill
level of a general craftsman and that inmates assist on most types of tasks, other than those that are
security related. A review of accounting records found that in-house costs (e.g., personnel, supplies)
made up at least 81% of routine maintenance costs, while contractor payments comprised about 19%.2
(Contractors also were paid virtually all of the $10.2 million spent by GDC on major repairs and
equipment replacement, which is consistent with GDC’s description of contractor usage.) Furthermore,
while the number of work orders completed with inmate assistance was unavailable, fiscal year 2011
prison activity data collected from all prisons indicated that inmates worked 62% of total maintenance
hours (461,000) compared to 38% (282,000) worked by staff.
GDC’s Response: “The Department agrees with the basic findings in the draft report. The report generally reflects the
current maintenance operations in the Department of Corrections.” Additional comments provided by GDC are included at
the end of each relevant finding. These comments include an acknowledgement that maintenance data could be improved, but
GDC added that it believes that it is the “only department to attempt this level of analysis” at an agency-level. GDC also
noted that a Computerized Maintenance Management System is the best method for facility maintenance but that such a
system is cost-prohibitive at this time.

2

We found payments of purchasing card invoices in expenditure accounts that should only include contractor payments.
According to GDC, the cards should only be used for supplies and materials. We did not determine the extent to which the
purchasing card payments were erroneously placed in the expenditure account, or if the cards were erroneously used to pay
contractor invoices.

Maintenance of State Prisons

i

Table of Contents
Purpose of the Special Examination

1

Background

1

GDC Overview

1

Providers of Maintenance Services

1

Types of Maintenance Activity

2

Maintenance Process

3

Financial Information

4

Requested Information
Information currently available does not allow for a thorough assessment of the
efficiency and effectiveness of state prison maintenance programs.

6

While GDC has made preventive maintenance a priority, certain elements of
preventive maintenance planning could be improved.

10

Maintenance costs per square foot are most affected by prisons' maintenance
staffing level, security level, and unique maintenance responsibilities.

12

Available information shows that contractors perform a small portion of the
prisons' routine maintenance and that inmates frequently assist maintenance staff.

14

Appendices
Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

17

Appendix B: Sample Monthly Maintenance Report

20

Appendix C: State Prison Performance Data Detail

22

Maintenance of State Prisons

ii

Maintenance of State Prisons

1

Purpose of the Special Examination
The purpose of this examination is to provide information requested by the House
Appropriations Committee. The Committee requested that we review Georgia
Department of Corrections’ (GDC) provision of maintenance services at its correctional
facilities. We reviewed the management controls that are in place to ensure that the
program is operating in an efficient and effective manner, with a focus on routine
maintenance and repairs. Our review focused on state prisons that were operating during
fiscal years 2010 and 2011, except for the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison
whose maintenance was provided via a statewide contract. A description of the
objectives, scope, and methodology used in this review is included in Appendix A.
The content of this report has been discussed with appropriate GDC staff, and a draft of
the report was provided to them for review. GDC was given an opportunity to provide a
written response, and responses have been included in this report as appropriate.

Background
GDC Overview
The Georgia Department of Corrections holds approximately 56,000 prisoners in a
variety of facilities, including state, county, and privately-run prisons, pre-release
centers, transitional centers, and probation detention centers. This review focuses on
maintenance at GDC state prisons, which can house a range of 200 to 2,500 inmates.
GDC maintains 10.2 million square feet of building space across all state prisons and 14
million square feet across all GDC state-owned facilities.
In addition to size, state prisons vary in security level, mission, function, and age. Most
state prisons operate at the medium security level, which is designated to house
minimum and medium custody level inmates. Other state prisons designated as close
security level house all types of offenders, including those who require close monitoring
and strict management of movement. Prisons may also have a special mission or purpose,
such as the provision of mental health services. Additionally, state prisons range in age
from 8 to 86 years old; according to GDC, the average age of all buildings is 25.7 years.

Providers of Maintenance Services
Prison facility maintenance is monitored by GDC’s Engineering and Construction
Services Division. The division provides technical expertise, project funding, and project
management skills to the various GDC facilities. The division has divided the state into
four regions, with each containing five to nine prisons and numerous smaller GDC
facilities. Each region is headed by a regional engineer, who monitors each facility’s
maintenance activity and conducts routine maintenance audits. The regional engineer is
also responsible for approving major purchases and managing an annual regional
maintenance budget that supplements the smaller maintenance budgets provided
directly to the prisons.
Facility maintenance is provided by GDC maintenance staff, external contractors, and
inmates. At the facility level, GDC employs approximately 280 maintenance staff,
including facility engineers, supervisors, craftsmen, and a limited number of mechanics.
The number of staff employed at a facility depends on its size but can range from as few
as one to as many as 19. Each prison has a facility engineer charged with monitoring the
condition of equipment and buildings and managing craftsmen. The facility engineer also

Maintenance of State Prisons

2

determines if a maintenance activity will be performed by in-house staff or a contractor.
Most facility engineers are assisted by a maintenance clerk, who is responsible for
administrative tasks such as data entry, ordering parts, and completing the maintenance
activity reports.
Routine maintenance is generally provided by in-house employees who, in some cases,
are assisted by inmates. Most facility maintenance employees are craftsmen, who
perform preventive maintenance and repairs that may require a moderate technical skill
level. Craftsmen are general tradesmen who are not required to hold a certification or
license, and they frequently work in multiple trades, such as plumbing; heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC); carpentry; and electrical.
Maintenance tasks that require less technical skill and security clearance may be
conducted by inmates. Inmates perform custodial duties and grounds maintenance, but
they also assist craftsmen with other maintenance activities. Inmates are not permitted
to perform any tasks related to security, lock and control, electronics, or complex
systems (e.g., fire protection, elevators).
Private contractors provide maintenance and repairs that require more technical skills or
more specialized equipment. This may include routine, preventive maintenance on
complex systems, such as elevators and boilers, which is provided through a Service
Maintenance Agreement. In other cases, the contractors make more complex repairs to
those systems or other systems and equipment. Additionally, they may be hired for major
repairs, such as new wells or sewage system upgrades. In some cases, work performed by
contractors must be performed by certified or licensed personnel.
It should also be noted that in 2009 GDC contracted with a private company, Carter,
Goble, and Lee (CGL), to provide maintenance at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Prison (GDCP) and Metro State Prison, which closed in April 2011. Initially, GDC
outsourced preventive maintenance in these facilities because preventive maintenance
was not being adequately conducted and GDC was having difficulty attracting and
retaining staff. However, GDC discontinued the contract in late 2011, asserting that the
cost exceeded estimates.

Types of Maintenance Activity
GDC policy outlines four categories of maintenance in the following priority order:
emergency, preventive, corrective, and facility projects.


Emergency – GDC policy defines emergency maintenance as “unanticipated repair
and/or replacement, which requires immediate action to restore and/or maintain
operation of the facility with respect to situations affecting life, health or safety.”
Emergency repairs must be completed within 24 hours of the event. The warden
or his or her designee makes the final decision as to whether or not a situation
constitutes an emergency. An emergency repair must be also approved by GDC
central purchasing.



Preventive – According to GDC, preventive maintenance is “routine, periodic
inspection, cleaning, adjustment, service and testing of buildings, systems and
equipment.” Examples include changing HVAC filters and preemptively cleaning
coils on a heating unit. The intervals in which preventive maintenance tasks
should be completed vary depending on the equipment but may be required

Maintenance of State Prisons

3

monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually. Each facility is required to
develop and implement a preventive maintenance program. According to the
Georgia State Construction Manual, breakdowns are substantially reduced or
avoided altogether by the proper care of equipment and systems.


Corrective – Corrective maintenance is defined as “timely and efficient repair of
buildings, systems and equipment.” Corrective repairs occur in response to a
request submitted by a facility employee or to something found during a routine
preventive maintenance inspection. Examples include repairing outlets and
working on fan motors. Maintenance staff are typically required to complete the
repair within 72 hours. These may be more complex than preventive
maintenance and require the use of an outside vendor.



Facility Projects – Facility projects include beautification, renovation, remodeling,
new construction projects, and change of use projects (projects which change
the use of existing square footage). These tasks are to be completed as scheduled
by the maintenance staff.

In addition to these four categories, the maintenance staff are responsible for
administrative and miscellaneous work. Among their administrative duties, maintenance
employees complete paperwork, participate in training, and travel to other facilities.
Additionally, they are often tasked with various maintenance assignments that are
neither preventive nor corrective. Examples include moving furniture, cleaning the
maintenance shop, and hanging pictures.

Maintenance Process
A large portion of the maintenance staff’s workload falls into the preventive and
corrective maintenance areas. While the exact processes for initiating work and
recording activity varies among prisons, the following provides an overview of the
processes generally used.


Preventive – Each facility is required to maintain an equipment list that includes a
schedule of the frequency of required preventive maintenance. Craftsmen, who
are typically assigned to a building or group of buildings, are expected to
complete any scheduled preventive maintenance for their area during the first
week of each month. Before the end of the month, craftsmen inform the facility
engineer or maintenance clerk of the status of the preventive maintenance work,
and the information is recorded in a Monthly Maintenance Report.



Corrective – The maintenance department creates corrective work orders in
response to written or phoned requests for repairs made by prison employees
(which include craftsmen). Usually via written order, the corrective work is
assigned to a craftsmen assigned to the building where the repair is needed.
Once completed, the facility engineer or maintenance clerk is notified, and the
information is recorded in a Monthly Maintenance Report.

GDC does not currently have a centralized data management tool to track these work
orders. Instead, it relies on each prison to track its activity locally and report it to
regional and division management. There are several systems used by state prisons across
the state to track activity data. The newest is the Preventive Maintenance Auditing
Program (PMAP), which tracks both preventive and corrective work orders in an Excel

Maintenance of State Prisons

4

template. Before the implementation of PMAP, GDC facilities used other computerbased data collection systems. Some prisons are still using these older programs, but the
programs are no longer supported by GDC information technology staff and are not
compatible with the agency’s current operating system.
Regardless of the medium used to collect activity data, all facilities complete a Monthly
Maintenance Report (MMR) for GDC regional and central management. The MMR
contains information such as an equipment count, amount of different types of
maintenance performed and not performed, total maintenance hours, and limited
expenditure information.

Financial Information
For fiscal year 2012, GDC was appropriated $1.1 billion, of which 96% was state funds.
The GDC central office sets the operating budget for each facility, which includes funds
for maintenance, and the warden decides how the operating funds will be spent in the
facility. The regional engineer is given additional funding from bonds to spend on major
equipment needs and repairs at prisons in the region. In recent years, the amounts have
ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 annually per region.
GDC does not capture all maintenance spending in a single account within the state
accounting system. Maintenance expenditures are part of facility operations, which
includes other types of facility spending such as utilities and employee travel. To
determine the amount GDC spent on maintenance and major repairs in fiscal year 2011,
we reviewed PeopleSoft financial data and identified relevant expenditure accounts.
Appendix A includes a complete list of accounts used to calculate the costs of
maintenance and major repairs.
As shown in Exhibit 1, in fiscal year 2011 GDC expended approximately $39.1 million on
the maintenance and major repairs of the facilities housing offenders and the perimeter
security crew. The amount does not include expenditures associated with GDC’s central
offices or other offices, such as those used for probation. The largest expenditures were
for ‘Repairs and Maintenance,’ which includes most of the payments to vendors, and
‘Personal Services,’ which includes salaries and benefits to GDC maintenance staff.
‘Supplies and Materials’ contains maintenance-related expenses for materials used by
GDC staff. It should be noted that similar expenditures may be placed in different
categories, depending on the practices of each facility’s business office.
Approximately 90% of the maintenance and major repair expenditures were funded by
state appropriations or bonds. Appropriations are used for typical maintenance
operations, while bond funds can be used for larger repairs and projects. The $10.5
million in bond funds in the exhibit represent repairs and equipment replacement that
do not meet the requirements to be capitalized. Capitalized projects are for new
facilities, major renovations, or other activities that meet a capitalization threshold
($100,000 for buildings) or are expected to increase the life or value of the building by at
least 25%.

Maintenance of State Prisons

5

Exhibit 1
GDC Maintenance and Major Repair Expenditures for Facilities Housing Offenders(1)
Fiscal Year 2011
Account
Repairs and Maintenance (2)
Personal Services

State
Appropriations

Federal

State
Bonds

Other
(Except Bonds)

Grand Total

%

-

$4,370,697

$10,211,767

$283,576

$14,866,040

38.0%

$4,288,571

$10,560,485

-

-

$14,849,056

37.9%

$1,795

$4,866,422

$233,056

$45,686

$5,146,958

13.2%

Contracts - Private Consultant (2)

-

$3,050,995

-

-

$3,050,995

7.8%

Motor Vehicles

-

$970,899

-

-

$970,899

2.5%

$139,696

-

$4,764

$144,460

0.4%

-

$54,327

$15,016

$850

$70,192

0.2%

-

$37,231

-

-

$37,231

0.1%

$4,290,366

$24,050,753

$10,459,838

$334,875

$39,135,832

Supplies and Materials

Equipment not Capitalized
Rents Other than Real Estate
Other Operating Expenses Testing and Certifications
Total

100.0%

Percent of Total
11.0%
61.5%
26.7%
0.9%
100.0%
Source: PeopleSoft financial records
(1) Exhibit includes expenditures for state prisons, pre-release centers, transitional centers, and probation detention centers. It also
includes expenditures for Engineering’s perimeter security crew.
(2) CGL was paid a total of $4,028,714 in fiscal year 2011. In addition to the $3,050,955 in the ‘Contracts-Private Consultant’ account, CGL
was paid $977,719 from a Repairs and Maintenance account ($23,607 in state funds and $954,112 in bond funds).
Note: Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

Maintenance of State Prisons

6

Requested Information
Information currently available does not allow for a thorough assessment of the
efficiency and effectiveness of state prison maintenance programs.
A shortage of reliable information makes it difficult to assess the quality of GDC’s
maintenance program. Information currently collected is often inconsistent among
prisons, and GDC does not collect all pertinent information useful for program
management.
In studies of federal government facilities, the National Research Council (NRC) has
noted the necessity of performance measures for the assessment of facility maintenance
and repairs. According to the NRC, determining how well the maintenance function is
being performed or how effectively maintenance funds are being spent requires welldefined measures. It points out that there is no single adequate measure of performance
and that measures used to evaluate facility performance should be varied.
Information Currently Collected
Prisons collect and report activity and financial information to regional and central office
management. Information collected includes the completed number of preventive and
corrective equipment work orders, miscellaneous corrective work orders, facility
projects, staff and inmate hours as well as maintenance costs. An example of a Monthly
Maintenance Report (MMR) used by state prisons can be found in Appendix B. GDC
management indicated that it may make decisions based on this data and explanations
provided by the regional engineer. For example, if a prison reports an increase in
corrective work orders, management may decide to redirect resources or rearrange staff.
We found significant data quality issues with the information reported by the six sample
prisons reviewed, including the following:


Inconsistent Count of Work Orders – The methods used to count work orders
vary across prisons. For example, some prisons indicated that they count work
completed on all 10 kitchen ovens as a single preventive maintenance work order
while other prisons would count this as 10 separate preventive maintenance
work orders. Also, some prisons count “training” or “filing paperwork” as a work
order while other prisons do not.



Inconsistent Classification of Work Orders – Prisons categorize work orders
differently. For example, some prisons classify daily inspections of mechanical
rooms as preventive maintenance while others consider these as miscellaneous
corrective tasks.



Different Versions of MMR – The MMRs used across regions capture different
information. Prisons in three regions are required to quantify the number of
incomplete preventive maintenance work orders while prisons in the remaining
region do not. Instead, they report total incomplete work orders, combining
preventive with other types of work.



Missing or Inconsistent Data in Reports – Some prisons have data
management issues such as information filed under the wrong month, missing
documentation, and incomplete or inconsistent detailed reports. For instance,
when electronic detail reports were available, they were often incomplete or did

Maintenance of State Prisons

7

not match the MMR submitted to management each month.
We also found that the MMRs include data fields for prisons to report
maintenance costs; however, one prison often left these fields blank. When
maintenance costs were reported by prisons, staff indicated that they typically
only included the costs for supplies and materials. Other maintenance costs such
as those for in-house labor and contactors were not included.


Inconsistent Maintenance Cost Accounting – Prisons are not consistent in
how they use PeopleSoft chart of accounts. As an example, we found purchases
for supplies classified in Repair and Maintenance accounts even though
PeopleSoft has designated accounts for supplies and materials.

The data quality issues are the result of inadequate guidance and training and a failure to
enforce stated policy. Prisons have not been given sufficient direction regarding
classifying and counting work orders. Also, administrative staff have not been adequately
trained on the skills needed and importance of maintaining quality information. Finally,
the use of different MMRs is the result of members of GDC management not reaching
agreement on the information that should be collected.
Additional Information Needed
While the information currently collected is a starting point for assessing performance,
there are additional performance measures that could be used to better manage
maintenance operations. We reviewed the Facility Management Handbook (a collection of
best practices recommended by facility management industry experts) and National
Research Council publications, other facility management industry standards, and
interviewed officials with the Georgia Building Authority, Georgia Department of
Juvenile Justice, Georgia Perimeter College, and the University of Georgia to identify
these additional measures. This information is summarized below.


Asset Measures – Tracking the number of work orders and spending per asset
allows management to monitor how resources are being allocated within the
prison and whether equipment may be in need of replacement. For example,
several maintenance staff may be assigned to work on the same HVAC unit each
month but management may not know this without being able to summarize the
types of maintenance being conducted. If equipped with this information,
management could use it to decide whether to continue to fix or replace the
HVAC unit.



Building and Trade Measures – Monitoring the number of work orders and
maintenance costs by building and trade allows management to determine if
staff is properly allocated within or across facilities and if the maintenance
department should acquire additional expertise in a particular trade. In addition,
tracking this information by building also may signal to management if certain
areas of the prison are experiencing an increase in maintenance needs.



Work Order Status/Timeliness Measures – By reviewing the number of
outstanding work orders each month, management can better measure
productivity and assign work. Tracking the status of work orders would also
allow management to determine timeliness of work order completion, which
allows management to better assess staff performance and determine whether it
is more efficient to have in-house staff or contractors complete certain jobs.

Maintenance of State Prisons

8



Use of Contractor Measures – Tracking the number, hours, and trade of work
orders completed by contractors, as well as the funds paid to them, allows
management to compare worked completed by in-house staff to that of
contractors to determine whether in-house staff is being fully utilized. This
information also allows management to determine whether prisons have an
appropriate skill mix of staff and whether it is more cost effective to hire a GDC
employee with a particular skill instead of paying a contractor.



Preventive to Corrective Measures – Comparing the amount of corrective
work required to the amount of preventive maintenance performed allows
managers to measure progress in the preventive maintenance program.
Determining this ratio could help determine how effectively prisons are being
maintained. For example, if the ratio improves, it may a signal a shift toward
planned maintenance and away from crisis maintenance.



Maintenance Expenditure Measures – Tracking the total maintenance costs,
costs per inmate, and costs per square foot allows management to measure
performance by comparing the current maintenance spending to historical
averages.



Deferred Maintenance Measures – Tracking the amount of deferred
maintenance allows GDC management to provide budget decision-makers with
important information about the condition of GDC facilities. Deferred
maintenance is defined as the estimated cost of bringing a facility up to a
minimum acceptable condition, and tracking deferred maintenance allows
management to determine if the condition of assets is improving or deteriorating
over time.
While prisons do not maintain lists of deferred maintenance, they do complete
annual capital outlay requests that can include major repair and maintenance
and projects.3 Our review of a sample of 199 such projects included in the 2010
requests found that 25 (13%) were still listed in 2013. According to GDC staff,
the other 174 projects may not have been requested in fiscal year 2013 because
they had been funded or because the prison had a shift in priorities. It should be
noted that a capital outlay request may not include all needed maintenance and
repairs, only those that the facility deems most pressing. In addition, unlike a
deferred maintenance list, capital outlay requests do not relate project costs with
the value of the building or indicate how the conditions of these facilities are
changing over time.

Regarding new performance measures, management may not need to collect all of these
additional measures but rather some combination. The additional benefit provided
would need to be balanced with the cost of collecting this information. We found that
the systems currently used could likely capture this additional activity data. For
example, when recording a corrective work order task (e.g., unstopping a clogged sink),
additional fields could note the trade (plumbing), whether a contractor was used, and, if
so, the contractor costs. In some cases, the necessary information is already entered into
prison data systems (e.g., work orders linked to a building or piece of equipment) but
staff do not report to consistently track this level of detail for management purposes.
3

Our designations of requests as repair and maintenance were impacted by limited information in the
capital outlay requests. In addition to maintenance and repairs, requests may also include conversions of
existing spaces.

Maintenance of State Prisons

9

As a result of data quality issues and failing to collect several important performance
measures, GDC management is limiting its ability to evaluate the efficiency and
effectiveness of prison maintenance programs. With more reliable and complete
information, management can make better informed decisions regarding how to direct
maintenance funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. GDC should ensure that all prisons are uniformly reporting the same information by
providing guidance and training related to counting and classifying work orders and
on how to maintain quality information.
2. GDC should require all prisons to use the same Monthly Maintenance Report
format.
3. GDC should provide additional guidance regarding classifying repair and
maintenance expenditures.

4. GDC should consider requiring prisons to track additional measures needed to

improve program management. For each potential measure, GDC should consider
the added benefit in relation to the costs of obtaining the data, with an emphasis on
amending existing tools to collect the needed information when possible.

GDC’s Response: “We believe the Department of Corrections is the only state agency (with multiple
facility locations) to attempt to monitor and verify preventative and corrective maintenance operations
at an agency-level. We do this through your yearly audit program, and through our monthly maintenance
reports (MMR). As you correctly pointed out, our MMRs clearly have room for improvement in both
accuracy and the types of maintenance data collected at the agency-level, but to our knowledge we are the
only department to attempt this level of analysis.”
GDC added that “best practices in modern facility maintenance include the use of a Computerized
Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for work order management, asset management, inventory
control, maintenance scheduling, maintenance reporting, equipment trending, and the allocation of
maintenance resources (manpower and dollars). The only way to do all these tasks effectively at an agency
level is with a web-based enterprise-wide CMMS.” GDC noted that its facilities currently use a variety of
dated CMMS programs but that this is not unique to GDC. GDC stated that the Georgia Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, the University System of Georgia, and the Technical
College System of Georgia use various CMMS software at their campuses and do not plan to implement
an enterprise-wide CMMS. GDC noted that “the cost of implementing an enterprise CMMS is prohibitive
in the current budget environment.”
Auditor’s Response: While a CMMS may be a best practice for facility management, we
believe that steps, such as written guidance or training, can be taken to improve the
information already collected by facilities. In addition, existing tools such as the
Preventive Maintenance Auditing Program (PMAP) can be used to capture several of the
additional performance measures identified in the report. As noted in the
recommendations, GDC should consider the added benefit of these additional measures
in relation to the costs of obtaining the data, with an emphasis on amending existing
tools to collect the needed information when possible.

Maintenance of State Prisons

10

While GDC has made preventive maintenance a priority, certain elements of
preventive maintenance planning could be improved.
GDC’s maintenance activity data, policies and procedures, preventive maintenance
audits, and management directives all indicate a focus on preventive maintenance.
However, the processes used to ensure adherence to manufacturer maintenance
requirements and to track necessary parts and supplies could be improved. Deficiencies
in the preventive maintenance program risk inadequate planning of future maintenance
needs and possible equipment failure.
Emphasis on Completing Preventive Maintenance
While GDC’s activity data is not ideal for assessing performance, the available
information indicates that the facilities reviewed are conducting preventive
maintenance. Monthly Maintenance Reports (MMRs) and preventive maintenance
audits show that preventive maintenance is completed in most cases.
The MMRs for five prisons4 visited by the audit team provide insight into the preventive
maintenance program. At four prisons, less than 1% (70 of 20,909) of work orders for
February-August 2011 were incomplete preventive maintenance. In the remaining prison,
22% (1,265 of 5,745) of work orders were incomplete preventive maintenance. In
addition, all prisons reported significantly more preventive work orders on equipment
compared to corrective work orders as seen in Exhibit 2 below. (Only one prison was
below 90% preventive.) This would indicate relatively few equipment repairs were
needed on items subject to GDC’s preventive maintenance plan.

Exhibit 2
Preventive and Corrective Work Orders Related to Equipment
February – August 2011
Facility
Hays
Coastal
Walker
Lee
Autry
Washington

PM Work
Orders
2,146
4,424
1,126
4,802
1,824
1,625

PM as % of
Total
91%
99%
97%
97%
93%
84%

CM Work
Orders
216
27
33
154
145
306

CM as % of
Total
9%
1%
3%
3%
7%
16%

Source: GDC Monthly Maintenance Reports

GDC also self-evaluates the rate of preventive maintenance completion in routine audits.
An audit is conducted quarterly in which 10% of the equipment in the prison is checked
for compliance to the preventive maintenance schedule. All of the prisons visited scored
over 80 (out of 100) on their most recent 10% audit; meaning that at least 80% of the
equipment checked had been serviced according to their schedule. Prisons are also
subject to a comprehensive audit each year (or when there is a warden change at a
facility) that evaluates prison functions such as security, medical, and preventive
maintenance services. All six of the prisons visited scored a 90 or higher (out of 100) on
their most recent comprehensive audit.

4

Six prisons were visited during the review, but only five prisons were able to provide the details of their
reported activity data.

Maintenance of State Prisons

11

Based on our review of policies and procedures and interviews with prison maintenance
staff, we found that GDC management emphasizes the importance of preventive
maintenance in several ways.


GDC’s Standard Operating Procedures for Plant Operations place preventive
maintenance as the second highest priority for facility maintenance staff. Only
emergencies take precedence over preventive work.



GDC has implemented a preventive maintenance auditing system. This system
includes the assignment of tags to each piece of equipment that requires
preventive maintenance, as determined by the facility engineer5. Equipment tags
are ‘punched’ each time a piece is serviced which allows facility engineers to
periodically check whether maintenance is being completed.



As previously mentioned, prisons are audited periodically to determine whether
preventive maintenance is being performed. The 10% quarterly audits and annual
comprehensive audits are intended to verify compliance with preventive
maintenance schedules and ensure that equipment is being serviced
appropriately.

Enhancing the Preventive Maintenance Program
Although GDC has taken some steps to prioritize preventive maintenance, there are
other factors related to preventive maintenance that could be improved. Enhancements
that are needed include ensuring staff have all of the information needed to maintain
equipment and maintaining an accurate account of parts and supplies.
Detailing Equipment Service Requirements
According to the State of Georgia Construction Manual, all major equipment and system
components requiring periodic inspection and service as recommended by the
manufacturers should be recorded in the preventive maintenance system. This ensures
that the information needed by the staff responsible for maintaining an asset is readily
available and increases the likelihood that the maintenance will be performed correctly.
All six prisons visited use systems that capture a listing of all major assets; however, the
three prisons that use the Preventive Maintenance Auditing Program (PMAP) do not
consistently provide manufacturer- or management-required service instructions to
maintenance staff. Instructions are not included on work orders or stored with the
equipment. Maintenance staff indicated that they can consult the manufacturer’s
equipment manual and often use their personal knowledge of the equipment to
determine how to maintain the equipment. In the remaining three prisons that use other
systems, service instructions are included on the work orders mitigating the risk of
improper maintenance.
Tracking Inventory of Supplies
According to the State of Georgia Construction Manual, an inventory system should be
used to stock frequently required items for maintenance work orders, thereby
eliminating delays due to acquiring materials, tools, and equipment. Maintenance
departments in other agencies stated that they keep an electronic record of parts and
supplies in stock, with supply removed from the stock room linked to a work order. Staff
5

The Regional and Facility Engineer will consult the manufacturer’s recommendation when determining the
service needs of the facility’s equipment.

Maintenance of State Prisons

12

indicated that the system averts delays in preventive maintenance completion and helps
calculate a true cost of maintenance.
While GDC recognizes the need for an up-to-date inventory (as required by its Plant
Operations Standard Operating Procedures), none of the six prisons visited maintain an
up-to-date inventory of parts and supplies. Instead, they generally rely on maintenance
staff to indicate when they are low on parts. If they do not receive proper advance notice,
preventive work may be delayed as staff must order the needed part or supply or travel to
a local store. Prison staff indicated that manually tracking inventory is very timeconsuming, and officials at five prisons stated a need for a computerized inventory
system.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.

GDC should require prisons to include manufacturer and management suggested
maintenance schedules and tasks either on preventive maintenance work orders or
on the equipment itself.

2. GDC should require prisons to maintain an accurate inventory of supplies and
materials.
GDC’s Response: GDC noted that a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
could be used for functions such as inventory control, maintenance scheduling, and asset management.
However, it is GDC’s position that, “the only way to do all these tasks effectively at an agency-level is
with a web-based enterprise-wide CMMS” and that “unfortunately, the cost of implementing an
enterprise CMMS is prohibitive in the current budget environment.”

Maintenance costs per square foot are most affected by prisons’ maintenance
staffing level, security level, and unique maintenance responsibilities.
Maintenance costs per square foot are similar across most state prisons, but several have
expenditures significantly higher or lower than the median. Higher cost prisons
generally have more maintenance staff, but other factors outside the control of
maintenance staff, such as responsibility for wastewater facility maintenance or other
unique facilities and the prison’s security designation, also affect maintenance spending.
Cost per square foot is a common measure of maintenance efficiency that recognizes that
larger facilities have higher overall maintenance costs. Exhibit 3 shows each of the 29
prisons’ per square foot maintenance costs for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.6 State prisons’
median cost per square foot was $2.20, with 20 prisons within 20% of that amount. Four
prisons had a cost per square foot at least 20% higher (above $2.64) than the median,
and five prisons had a cost at least 20% lower (below $1.76) than the median. It should
be noted that Long State Prison is exceptionally small and has only one maintenance
employee. At 31,000 square feet, it is approximately 10% as large as the median size for a
state prison (332,000 square feet).

6

Appendix A lists the accounts used to identify maintenance expenditures. Unlike Exhibit 1 on page 5, the
analysis of maintenance costs in state prisons excluded the bond expenditures used for major repairs and
equipment replacements. Prisons that were only open for a portion of the two-year period and Georgia
Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP) were also excluded.

Maintenance of State Prisons

13

Exhibit 3
Maintenance Cost per Square Foot
Fiscal Years 2010-2011
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00

Median Cost - $2.20
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00

Source: PeopleSoft financial records

Three interrelated factors expected to impact a prison’s maintenance costs are discussed
below. However, other factors that we were unable to measure (e.g., age of equipment in
the prison, employee turnover) are also likely to affect a prison’s maintenance
expenditures. (See Appendix C for details by prison.)


Number of Maintenance Staff – Many prisons with the highest cost per square foot
have lower ratios of square feet per staff. GDC has a system-wide ratio (prisons only)
of one maintenance staff member per 36,000 square feet. However, maintenance staff
at the four highest cost prisons are responsible for fewer square feet, ranging from
21,823 at Rogers State Prison to 34,130 at Macon State Prison. By contrast,
maintenance staff at the five prisons with the lowest costs are responsible for more
square footage. Maintenance staff at the lowest cost prison, Montgomery, are
responsible for 82,335 square feet, and those at the other four lowest cost prisons are
responsible for at least 41,000 square feet.
In 2010, a GDC staffing analysis recommended that maintenance staff be reduced at
several prisons, including Rogers, Macon, and Smith. GDC staff reported that the
recommended changes did not take place.



Unique Maintenance Responsibilities – Some state prisons are responsible for
maintenance tasks that are outside of typical facility upkeep which could potentially
affect maintenance expenditures. For example, maintenance staff at Rogers State
Prison are responsible for maintaining farms, three water tanks, as well as sewer and
drainage maintenance at both Georgia State Prison and Rogers. Smith staff maintain
a Georgia Correctional Industries plant and warehouse, and staff explained that
prisons such as Baldwin experienced major repairs during the review period due to
inmate destruction.

Maintenance of State Prisons


14

Prison Security Level – A prison’s security level appeared to be related to
maintenance costs, with a close security designation disproportionately represented
in the higher cost facilities. Close security prisons generally have more complex
security systems and more destructive inmates, thus potentially higher maintenance
costs. While only a third of all prisons (10 of 29) are close security, two of the four
costliest and five of the top 10 are close. Conversely, of the five lowest cost facilities,
only one was close security.

One factor expected to contribute to higher maintenance costs is facility age. However,
age did not equate to higher costs per square foot. While the median age of GDC’s
prisons is 23 years, only three of the 10 highest cost prisons exceeded the median. By
contrast, three of four prisons with the lowest costs were at least 33 years old. The lack
of a relationship between facility age and maintenance costs may be the result of facility
age not necessarily equating to the age of its equipment. Additionally, the maintenance
cost analysis does not include expenditures for major repairs paid with bond funds.
As discussed on page 6, no single measure should be used to evaluate a maintenance
program. Facilities with higher spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 may be maintaining
their facilities particularly well, which would result in lower costs in future years. While
those facilities incurring lower costs now may not be adequately maintaining facilities,
which would lead to higher costs in the future. For this reason, maintenance spending
measures must be reviewed in concert with other measures of performance.
GDC’s Response: While the GDC response did not directly address maintenance costs, it did describe
two projects in progress that are expected to “improve facility physical plant operations, or provide the
agency the ability to better manage utility use” in state prisons. First, GDC is using $6 million in ARRA
funds to retro-commission all of its prisons. The process includes identifying “low-cost operational and
maintenance improvements,” focusing on energy-using equipment and optimizing existing system
performance rather than rely on major equipment replacement. Additionally, GDC is using $8.1 million
in ARRA funds to sub-meter “electricity, natural gas, and water use in the major buildings in all GDC
prisons.” This allows “GDC headquarters to remotely monitor and compare real time energy use” within
and across prisons.

Available information shows that contractors perform a small portion of the
prisons’ routine maintenance and that inmates frequently assist maintenance staff.
The exact distribution of routine maintenance work among GDC staff, contractors, and
inmates is not clear. However, financial data show that contractors represent a small
portion of routine maintenance expenditures and a larger portion of major repairs and
equipment replacements. Additionally, inmates provide a significant number of man
hours to the facility maintenance program.
Contractor Use
GDC maintenance officials in the central office and state prisons visited stated that
contractors are used when a maintenance or repair task requires skills beyond those
possessed by the general craftsmen employed by the prison or when the task requires
specialized equipment. While GDC does not have a written policy detailing those tasks
that would typically be outsourced, we found no such policy at other agencies and
institutions that we contacted.

Maintenance of State Prisons

15

Although we did not find written direction to be typical, we found that industry best
practices and other agencies recommend monitoring the extent to which contractors are
used. However, as noted in the first finding, GDC’s MMRs do not capture the number of
work orders or hours completed by contractors or the amount paid to contractors. Since
this information was not readily available, we used PeopleSoft accounting records to
estimate payments made to contractors.
As shown in Exhibit 4, state prisons7 paid an estimated $41.6 million in routine
maintenance costs during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Due to inconsistencies in state
prisons’ methods to pay contractors and categorize expenditures, we are unable to
provide a precise breakdown between in-house and contractor spending. In-house
expenditures comprised at least 81% of the costs, though the portion could be higher. In
each year, up to $3.9 million – a two-year total of $7.8 million (18.7%) – may have been
paid to contractors.8 The expenditure accounts expected to show only payments to
contractors include $3.2 million in purchasing card transactions. According to GDC
administrators, purchasing cards should not be used to pay for contractor services. We
did not determine the extent to which the purchasing card payments were erroneously
placed in the expenditure account, or if the cards were erroneously used to pay
contractor invoices.

Exhibit 4
Estimated In-House and Contractor Expenditures for State Prisons(1)
Fiscal Years 2010-2011
Fiscal Year 2010

Fiscal Year 2011

Total

Routine Maintenance (No Bond Funds)
In-House
Personnel

$12,066,322

58.8%

$12,658,692

60.1%

$24,725,014

59.5%

Other

4,593,919

22.4%

4,484,377

21.3%

9,078,296

21.8%

16,660,241

81.2%

17,143,069

81.4%

33,803,310

81.3%

3,852,429

18.8%

3,924,420

18.6%

7,776,849

18.7%

$20,512,670

100.0%

$21,067,489

100.0%

$41,580,159

100.0%

In-House Total
Contractor Total
Total
In-House
Contractor
Total

(2)

Major Repairs (Bond Funds)
0.0%
$1,527
$67,770

1.4%

$69,297

0.7%

5,264,659

100.0%

4,885,414

98.6%

10,109,692

99.3%

$5,266,186

100.0%

$4,953,184

100.0%

$10,178,989

100.0%

Source: PeopleSoft financial records
(1) Prisons that were only open for a portion of the two-year period and GDCP were excluded.
(2) Contractor total includes purchasing card payments of $1.5 million in FY10 and $1.7 million in FY11. As stated
on page 15, a portion of these payments may not be for contractor services.

We attempted to determine if a prison’s contractor expenditures were related to the
number of in-house staff, the experience level of in-house staff, or the level of assistance
provided by inmates. However, the expenditure data could not be relied upon for these
analyses. Many of the prisons that appeared to have a high proportion of maintenance
expenditures paid to contractors also reported a high level of purchasing card payments
within the contractor accounts. It is possible that these prisons had not paid a large
7

Prisons that were only open for a portion of the year and Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison were
excluded.
8
Contractors are generally escorted by a GDC maintenance employee. The contractor expenditures do not
include the cost of the GDC employee’s time.

Maintenance of State Prisons

16

proportion of maintenance expenditures to contractors but had instead mistakenly
classified other maintenance and repair expenditures.
Exhibit 4 also shows that contractors were paid nearly all of the $10.2 million in bond
funds. As noted previously, the major repairs and equipment replacement funded by
bonds are the types of activities that require additional expertise within a particular
trade, and are the types GDC personnel stated were appropriate for contractor
personnel. It should be noted that agencies are not permitted to use bond funds for
routine maintenance or the salaries of maintenance employees.
Inmate Use
According to GDC policy, each inmate not enrolled in a full-time training or
rehabilitative program shall be assigned work based on his or her physical and mental
capacity and designated security level. According to state prison staff, upon an inmate’s
entry into a prison, counselors identify those who may be appropriate for a maintenance
work detail. Craftsmen are often assigned two to four inmates each day to assist with
maintenance and repairs (except locks). The exact type of assistance provided by an
inmate is dependent on skill level. In addition to assistance provided to craftsmen,
inmates also perform custodial and grounds maintenance.
The facility maintenance assistance provided by inmates appears substantial. While the
number of work orders completed with inmate assistance was not available, prisons 9
reported that inmates provided 461,000 hours in support of facility maintenance.
Combined with the 282,000 staff hours, inmates provided 62% of the total maintenance
hours. The percentage of hours provided by inmates ranged from 47% to 76% across
prisons. GDC staff stated that variations exist due to some prisons having more
maintenance in areas off-limits to work detail inmates and the skill level of inmates in
the prison.

9

Staff and inmate hours were unavailable for Long State Prison, and GDCP was not included in the analysis.

Maintenance of State Prisons

17

Appendix A
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The three primary objectives of this special examination were to:
1.

Determine if GDC has adopted policies and procedures that emphasize the
completion of preventive work.

2. Document the frequency and reasons that GDC uses contractors and inmates for
maintenance activities.
3. Determine whether GDC has adequate information to manage program
operations.
To achieve these audit objectives, the audit team conducted six site visits to prisons
across the state. Prisons visited were: Hays (North Region), Washington (Central
Region), Coastal (Southeast Region), Autry (Southwest Region), Walker (North
Region), and Lee (Southwest Region).
In most of the analysis included throughout this report, the audit team examined the 29
prisons open during all of fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Prisons that closed or were
reclassified during the time period were excluded. These include Bostick, Men’s, Metro,
and Scott state prisons. The audit team also did not include Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Prison because its maintenance was provided by a private contractor.
However, the following two analyses were conducted using information collected from
the sample prisons visited by the audit team. The prisons selected for review are not a
statistically valid sample of prisons. As a result, the data provided should be considered
representative of the sample prisons alone and not extrapolated to all state prisons.
Distribution of Preventive to Corrective Maintenance
To determine the rate at which preventive work was completed at the six sample
prisons, the team analyzed work orders and Monthly Maintenance Reports submitted in
February through August 2011.10 The team compared the number of reported incomplete
preventive work orders to the number of completed work orders to calculate the
percentage of work orders that involved incomplete preventive maintenance.
To evaluate the impact of preventive maintenance on the need for corrective repairs at
the six sample prisons, we compared the number of preventive maintenance work orders
to the number of corrective work orders completed on equipment.
To identify maintenance that has been deferred at state prisons, the capital outlay
requests submitted by each prison were reviewed. The audit team identified
maintenance related projects that were initially requested in fiscal year 2010 and still
requested in fiscal year 2013. Of these projects, the team calculated the number,
percentage, and estimated cost of maintenance projects that have remained unfunded.
Personnel Performing Maintenance
To document the frequency with which prisons use contractors and inmates to assist
with maintenance, we intended to use a count of work orders for each type of personnel.
However, the prisons do not track the number of work orders that are completed by
10

Due to a change in the work order management system used to collect activity data, reliable information
was not available prior to February 2011 from all sample prisons.

Maintenance of State Prisons

18

inmates and contractors. For inmates, we instead obtained the number of staff and
inmates hours reported in the management reports for all prisons in fiscal year 2011 (data
was unavailable for Long, and GDCP was not included in the analysis).
For contractors, we estimated the amount paid to contractors by obtaining financial data
for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 from PeopleSoft’s Combined Detail Report. GDC central
office maintenance staff indicated they used four PeopleSoft accounts to determine
maintenance spending (marked with an asterisk on the following page). After reviewing
other accounts in PeopleSoft, it was apparent that facilities use more accounts when
categorizing maintenance-related purchases. Therefore, the audit team conferred with
GDC management and created a list of those accounts that are also considered
maintenance-related in practice. All accounts considered in the individual facility
analysis are listed on the following page.
The team categorized each maintenance account as either “in-house” or “contractor.”
Using these categories, the team calculated the amount of funds paid to contractors for
repair and maintenance services in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. It should be noted that the
amount paid to contractors may be overstated. We found purchasing card transactions
in expenditure accounts that should only include contractor payments. According to
GDC, the cards should only be used for supplies and materials. We did not determine the
extent to which the purchasing card payments were erroneously placed in the
expenditure account, or if the cards were erroneously used to pay contractor invoices.
When we calculated spending for routine maintenance, we excluded any bond funds.
Bond funds are used for major repairs and the purchase of equipment. These
expenditures, when not capitalized, are part of a facility’s annual expenditures; however,
these types of expenditures do not allow for a comparison of the use of contractors for
routine maintenance. These bond expenditures are included in Exhibit 1 and are noted
separately from other funding sources in Exhibit 4.
GDC Management Information
The PeopleSoft financial data was also used to calculate the total amount spent by GDC
on repair and maintenance at all state prisons. The team calculated the total and average
maintenance costs and used the physical capacity and gross square footage of each prison
to calculate an average cost per inmate and average cost per square foot. These figures do
not include the expenditure of bond funds.
To assess GDC management information related to maintenance, the analysts collected
and reviewed several commonly used maintenance activity reports. In reviewing the
information currently used by GDC management, the team determined there were data
reliability issues preventing the use of much of the data. Efforts were made to rearrange
the data in a usable format for analysis. In some cases, the information available was
sufficient for our analysis; though generally, data issues were pervasive. In the review,
reliability issues were noted and are discussed at length in the first finding.
Additionally, the audit team reviewed performance measures used by management in
conjunction with their preventive maintenance program and identified additional
measures recommended by industry best practices that are not currently tracked. The
team researched the benefits this additional information could provide to GDC.
In addition to our review of maintenance activity and financial data, the audit team

Maintenance of State Prisons

19

reviewed legislation and regulations regarding facility maintenance and management,
conducted in-depth interviews with regional and facility engineers, and studied best
practices related to facility management. Also other state agencies’ maintenance
management practices were reviewed.

Maintenance and Major Repair Accounts
In-House Maintenance Accounts

Contractor Maintenance Accounts

Regular Salaries
Annual Leave Pay
Other Supplemental Pay
Overtime
FICA – Regular
FICA – Medicare
Retirement – ERS
Retirement – ERS GSEPS - Defined Contribution (401K)
Retirement - Unused Leave
Health Insurance
Motor Vehicle Expense – Oil, Grease and Fluids
Motor Vehicle Expense – Vehicle Repairs & Maintenance
Motor Vehicle Expense – Parts & Supplies
Supplies & Materials – Building/Maintenance Supplies*
Supplies & Materials – Other*
Supplies & Materials – Fertilizer, Seed, Animal Feed
Supplies & Materials – Fire Suppression/Protection
Supplies & Materials – Landscaping
Supplies & Materials – Perimeter Security
Supplies & Materials – Lock and Control
Supplies & Materials – Wastewater
Supplies & Materials – Floor Care
Supplies & Materials – Fire Station
Supplies & Materials – Employee Housing
Equipment on Inventory but not Capitalized
Equipment on Inventory but not Capitalized – Other
Equipment less than $5000
Equipment on Inventory but not Capitalized – FA
Numbered Equipment less than $5000
Rents Other Than Real Estate – Equipment
Rents Other Than Real Estate – Other
Other Operating Expenses – Testing and Certification

Repairs & Maintenance*
Repairs & Maintenance – Maintenance Agreements*
Repairs & Maintenance – Janitorial Services
Repairs & Maintenance – Other Radio Repairs
Repairs & Maintenance – GBA Services
Repairs & Maintenance – Pest Control
Repairs & Maintenance – Tractor Repairs
Repairs & Maintenance – Landscaping
Repairs & Maintenance – Perimeter Security
Repairs & Maintenance – Lock and Control
Repairs & Maintenance – Wastewater
Repairs & Maintenance – Floor Care
Repairs & Maintenance – Fire Station
Repairs & Maintenance – Laundry
Repairs & Maintenance – Employee Housing
Repairs & Maintenance – Recycling
Per Diem and Fees – Consultant
Per Diem and Fees – Engineers
Contracts – Private - Consultant

Note: Expenditures in these accounts were considered maintenance related when the fund source was anything
other than bonds. Bond expenditures in these accounts were considered to be major repairs.

Maintenance of State Prisons

20

Appendix B
Sample Monthly Maintenance Report
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
MONTHLY MAINTENANCE REPORT
WARDEN'S STARTING DATE:

WARDEN:

WARDEN'S ENDING DATE:

REPORT DATE:

FACILITY CALL SIGN:

INSTITUTION:

SECURITY LEVEL:

INMATE POPULATION:

TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE:

EQUIPMENT COUNT:

TOTAL LOCK COUNT:

TOTAL MAINTENANCE STAFF:
MAINTENANCE CRAFTSMEN :

MAINTENANCE SECRETARY/CLERK:

MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR

MAINTENANCE ENGINEER/SUPV.

PHONE:

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT:

INCOMPLETE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE:

CORRECTIVE PRVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ON EQUIPMENT:

INCOMPLETE CORRECTIVE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE:

COST FOR EQUIPMENT PREVENTIVE/CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE:

NOTE REASON FOR PM'S NOT COMPLETED:

Staff

Inmate

Staff

Inmate

MAN HOURS WORKED ON EQUIPMENT:

CORRECTIVE MISCELLANEOUS WORK ORDERS:

INCOMPLETE MISCELLANEOUS WORK ORDERS AT END OF MONTH:

COST OF MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE WORK ORDERS
MATERIALS AND CONTRACT LABOR ONLY:

MAN HOURS WORKED ON MISCELLANEOUS:

Maintenance of State Prisons

21

Appendix B
Sample Monthly Maintenance Report (continued)
TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS:

COST FOR PROJECTS:

Staff
MAN HOURS WORKED ON PROJECTS:

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE LOCKS:

CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE LOCKS:

COST FOR LOCKS PREVENTIVE/CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE:

MAN HOURS WORKED ON LOCKS (STAFF):

HOURS/MINUTES

T O T AL M AN HO URS W O RKE D O N E Q UIP ./M IS C./lO CKS ( S T AF F ) :

HOURS/MINUTES

TOTAL MAN HOURS WORKED ON EQUIP./MISC. (INMATES):

HOURS/MINUTES

AUDITS:

COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT SCORE:

FIRST QUARTER 10% AUDIT SCORE:

SECOND QUARTER 10% AUDIT SCORE:

THIRD QUARTER 10% AUDIT SCORE:

FOURTH QUARTER 10% AUDIT SCORE:

EMERGENCY CALL BACK
Number:
DATE:

EQUIPMENT NO. #

REASON FOR CALL BACKS

Inmate

$312,422.81
$715,804.93
$804,449.71
$956,536.33
$300,473.38
$965,850.89
$624,599.92
$794,927.36
$368,931.49
$953,083.38
$736,957.62
$680,043.91

Montgomery SP

Phillips SP

Pulaski SP

Rogers SP

Rutledge SP

Smith SP

Telfair SP

Valdosta SP

Walker SP

Ware SP

Washington SP

Wilcox SP

Source: PeopleSoft financial records

$20,512,669.56

$975,373.33

Macon SP

Totals

$97,236.23

Dooly SP

$463,679.99

$615,303.88

Dodge SP

Long SP

$591,104.76

Coastal SP

Lee SP

$786,244.80

Central SP

$691,195.22

$435,082.38

Calhoun SP

Johnson SP

$680,660.97

Burruss CTC

$881,596.22

$441,060.64

Baldwin SP

Hays SP

$524,041.79

Autry SP

$641,644.18

$760,920.01

Augusta SMP

$1,819,457.99

$735,413.77

Arrendale SP

Hancock SP

$1,158,571.67

Prison

Georgia SP

FY10
Expenditures

$21,067,489.52

$697,925.70

$779,116.05

$780,348.61

$368,040.87

$821,744.78

$723,291.73

$995,603.33

$318,777.20

$930,742.39

$790,396.59

$602,484.54

$282,390.08

$1,143,750.69

$119,789.53

$476,692.13

$816,018.06

$868,838.65

$845,372.02

$1,564,042.73

$731,470.95

$646,360.02

$792,766.80

$476,247.99

$707,266.28

$465,694.67

$588,454.59

$852,574.79

$739,902.04

$1,141,385.71

FY11
Expenditures

$41,580,159.08

$1,377,969.61

$1,516,073.67

$1,733,431.99

$736,972.36

$1,616,672.14

$1,347,891.65

$1,961,454.22

$619,250.58

$1,887,278.72

$1,594,846.30

$1,318,289.47

$594,812.89

$2,119,124.02

$217,025.76

$940,372.12

$1,507,213.28

$1,750,434.87

$1,487,016.20

$3,383,500.72

$1,346,774.83

$1,237,464.78

$1,579,011.60

$911,330.37

$1,387,927.25

$906,755.31

$1,112,496.38

$1,613,494.80

$1,475,315.81

$2,299,957.38

2 Year Total

$33,803,310.13

$1,173,604.65

$1,236,512.47

$1,481,153.33

$686,877.85

$1,278,105.99

$1,146,774.99

$1,569,588.43

$555,556.85

$1,603,110.22

$1,392,267.59

$1,167,286.78

$454,041.66

$1,629,372.34

$144,199.88

$746,360.17

$1,044,343.16

$1,288,498.35

$1,184,197.81

$2,676,571.88

$1,069,665.12

$961,172.45

$1,248,631.36

$715,858.54

$995,523.26

$738,587.84

$993,678.06

$1,249,559.30

$1,294,566.66

$2,077,643.14

2 Year
In-house Total

$7,776,848.95

$204,364.96

$279,561.20

$252,278.66

$50,094.51

$338,566.15

$201,116.66

$391,865.79

$63,693.73

$284,168.50

$202,578.71

$151,002.69

$140,771.23

$489,751.68

$72,825.88

$194,011.95

$462,870.12

$461,936.52

$302,818.39

$706,928.84

$277,109.71

$276,292.33

$330,380.24

$195,471.83

$392,403.99

$168,167.47

$118,818.32

$363,935.50

$180,749.15

$222,314.24

2 Year
Contractor
Total

Maintenance Expenditures

Appendix C
State Prison Performance Data Detail

79.6%

85.2%

81.6%

85.4%

93.2%

79.1%

85.1%

80.0%

89.7%

84.9%

87.3%

88.5%

76.3%

76.9%

66.4%

79.4%

69.3%

73.6%

79.6%

79.1%

79.4%

77.7%

79.1%

78.6%

71.7%

81.5%

89.3%

77.4%

87.7%

90.3%

%
In-house

20.4%

14.8%

18.4%

14.6%

6.8%

20.9%

14.9%

20.0%

10.3%

15.1%

12.7%

11.5%

23.7%

23.1%

33.6%

20.6%

30.7%

26.4%

20.4%

20.9%

20.6%

22.3%

20.9%

21.4%

28.3%

18.5%

10.7%

22.6%

12.3%

9.7%

%
Contractor

Maintenance of State Prisons
22

635,138
352,163
363,055
216,658
180,035
292,672
274,647
341,463
307,645
305,404
927,466
287,244
370,654
438,739
218,085
31,207
375,434
247,004
410,340
327,794
240,057
149,722
369,473
324,559
397,925
228,476
365,430
344,694
316,180
324,559

Arrendale SP

Augusta SMP

Autry SP

Baldwin SP

Burruss CTC

Calhoun SP

Central SP

Coastal SP

Dodge SP

Dooly SP

Georgia SP

Hancock SP

Hays SP

Johnson SP

Lee SP

Long SP

Macon SP

Montgomery SP

Phillips SP

Pulaski SP

Rogers SP

Rutledge SP

Smith SP

Telfair SP

Valdosta SP

Walker SP

Ware SP

Washington SP

Wilcox SP

Median

1,476

1,862

1,548

1,618

446

1,510

1,456

1,615

640

1,487

1,223

918

418

1,762

232

778

1,612

1,698

1,454

1,530

1,704

1,238

1,832

1,153

1,663

706

957

1,683

1,322

1,476

9

-

9 Medium

9 Medium

9 Close

5 Medium

8 Close

9 Close

12 Close

4 Medium

11 Medium

11 Medium

10 Close

3 Medium

11 Close

1 Medium

8 Medium

10 Medium

9 Close

9 Close

19 Medium

7 Medium

8 Medium

12 Medium

6 Medium

9 Medium

6 Medium

6 Close

10 Medium

11 Close

12 Medium

# Staff

Security
Level

Source: Files provided by GDC, GDC w ebsite, and PeopleSoft financial records

Gross Sq Ft

Prison

Physical
Capacity

Prison Characteristics
Region

23

-

18 Southwest

20 Central

22 Southeast

39 North

23 Southwest

20 Southeast

18 Southeast

35 Central

28 Southeast

17 Central

23 North

39 Southeast

18 Southwest

7 Southeast

33 Southwest

20 Central

22 North

21 Central

74 Southeast

18 Southwest

29 Central

30 Southeast

33 Central

18 Southwest

25 Central

35 Central

19 Southwest

29 North

85 North

Age

$535.32

$370.02

$489.69

$535.67

$826.20

$535.32

$462.87

$607.26

$483.79

$634.59

$652.02

$718.02

$711.50

$601.34

$467.73

$604.35

$467.50

$515.44

$511.35

$1,105.72

$395.18

$499.78

$430.95

$395.20

$417.30

$642.18

$581.24

$479.35

$557.99

$2.20

$2.18

$2.20

$2.37

$1.61

$2.03

$2.08

$2.65

$2.07

$3.93

$2.43

$1.61

$1.20

$2.82

$3.48

$2.16

$1.72

$2.36

$2.59

$1.82

$2.20

$2.01

$2.31

$1.66

$2.37

$2.52

$2.57

$2.22

$2.09

$1.81

Cost/
Sq Ft

229

170

223

226

512

264

223

229

234

161

268

447

591

213

135

280

272

218

198

606

179

249

186

238

176

255

226

216

266

430

Sq Ft/
Inmate

160

207

172

180

89

189

162

135

160

135

111

92

139

160

232

97

161

189

162

81

243

155

153

192

185

118

160

168

120

123

# Inmates/
Staff

Calculated Performance Measures

$779.12

Cost/
Inmate

Appendix C
State Prison Performance Data Detail (continued)

36,306

35,131

38,299

40,603

45,695

49,741

36,062

30,789

37,431

21,823

29,799

41,034

82,335

34,130

31,207

27,261

43,874

41,184

31,916

48,814

43,629

38,456

28,455

45,775

32,519

30,006

36,110

36,306

32,015

52,928

# Sq Ft/
Staff

Maintenance of State Prisons
23

For additional information or for copies of this report call 404-657-5220.
Or see our website:
http://www.audits.ga.gov/rsaAudits/

 

 

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600