Skip navigation

Michigan Auditor Report on Prison Food Services 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF

PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

June 2008

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.
AUDITOR GENERAL

471-0621-07L

The auditor general shall conduct post audits of financial
transactions and accounts of the state and of all branches,
departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies,
authorities and institutions of the state established by this
constitution or by law, and performance post audits thereof.
– Article IV, Section 53 of the Michigan Constitution

Audit report information can be accessed at:
http://audgen.michigan.gov

Michigan

Off ice of the Auditor General
REPORT SUMMARY
Performance Audit
Prisoner Food Services
Department of Corrections

Report Number:
471-0621-07L

Released:
June 2008

Within the Department of Corrections (DOC), Correctional Facilities Administration is
responsible for facility operation, including prisoner food services operations. DOC's
goal is to provide the greatest amount of public protection while making the most
efficient use of the State's resources.

Audit Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of DOC's
efforts to manage food services costs.
Audit Conclusion:
We concluded that DOC's efforts to
manage food services costs were
moderately effective.
We noted two
material conditions (Findings 1 and 2) and
three reportable conditions (Findings 3
through 5).
Material Conditions:
DOC needs to consider additional ways to
reduce the costs of providing prisoner
meals (Finding 1).
DOC did not effectively monitor food
production (Finding 2).
Reportable Conditions:
DOC's correctional facilities did not
consistently ensure that they obtained food
commodities at the best price (Finding 3).

DOC did not ensure that its correctional
facilities had implemented sufficient
controls to safeguard food inventory stored
at the warehouses (Finding 4).
DOC did not ensure that its correctional
facilities correctly and consistently
classified prisoner food services wages in
the State's accounting records (Finding 5).

~~~~~~~~~~
Agency Response:
Our audit report includes 5 findings and 5
corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicates that it
agrees with all of the recommendations
and will comply with them.

~~~~~~~~~~

A copy of the full report can be
obtained by calling 517.334.8050
or by visiting our Web site at:
http://audgen.michigan.gov

Michigan Office of the Auditor General
201 N. Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General
Scott M. Strong, C.P.A., C.I.A.
Deputy Auditor General

STATE OF MICHIGAN

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48913
(517) 334-8050
FAX (517) 334-8079

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.
AUDITOR GENERAL

June 13, 2008

Ms. Patricia L. Caruso, Director
Department of Corrections
Grandview Plaza Building
Lansing, Michigan
Dear Ms. Caruso:
This is our report on the performance audit of Prisoner Food Services, Department of
Corrections.
This report contains our report summary; description of services; audit objective, scope,
and methodology and agency responses and prior audit follow-up; comment, findings,
recommendations, and agency preliminary responses; four exhibits, presented as
supplemental information; and a glossary of acronyms and terms.
The agency preliminary responses were taken from the agency's responses subsequent
to our audit fieldwork. The Michigan Compiled Laws and administrative procedures
require that the audited agency develop a formal response within 60 days after release
of the audit report.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us during this audit.
Sincerely,

Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General

471-0621-07L

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

4
471-0621-07L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Page
INTRODUCTION

Report Summary

1

Report Letter

3

Description of Services

7

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology and Agency Responses
and Prior Audit Follow-Up

9

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

Food Services

12

1.

Food Services Cost Savings Measures

12

2.

Food Production

16

3.

Food Commodity Purchases

19

4.

Warehouse Controls Over Food Inventory

21

5.

Prisoner Food Services Wages

24

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Exhibit 1 - Food Services Cost Per Prisoner Per Day

27

Exhibit 2 - Food Services Costs by Facility and Central Function

28

Exhibit 3 - Comparison of Michigan's Prisoner Food Services to
Selected Food Service Contracts

30

Exhibit 4 - Payments to Prisoner Food Services Workers by Facility

32

5
471-0621-07L

GLOSSARY

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

35

6
471-0621-07L

Description of Services

The Department of Corrections' (DOC's) goal* is to provide the greatest amount of
public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's resources. DOC
maintained 51 facilities (42 correctional facilities and 9 camps) located throughout the
State and was responsible for the custody and safety of 51,165 prisoners, on average,
during fiscal year 2006-07. Within DOC, Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA) is
responsible for facility operation, including prisoner food services operations. CFA
divided the facilities into three geographical regions. Each region has a regional prison
administrator who is responsible for overseeing the operations of the facilities within
their region. At the facility level, the wardens are responsible for overseeing daily
operations, including food services operations.
Food Services
The American Correctional Association (ACA) has developed national standards with
which correctional facilities must comply to achieve accreditation. Accreditation
standards help ensure that a correctional facility maintains a balance between
protecting the public and providing an environment that safeguards the life, health, and
safety of staff and offenders. ACA standards reflect practical up-to-date policies and
procedures and function as a management tool for correctional facilities. ACA
standards are either mandatory or nonmandatory. A correctional facility must comply
with 100% of the mandatory standards and at least 90% of nonmandatory standards to
be accredited. ACA mandatory standard 4-4316 requires correctional facilities to
maintain documentation that dietary allowances provided to prisoners are reviewed at
least annually to ensure that they meet the nationally recommended dietary allowances
for basic nutrition.
CFA has adopted a Statewide menu for correctional facilities based on the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The facilities are responsible for
implementing the menu and ensuring that prisoners receive nutritional meals. Facility
employees supervise prisoner workers who prepare and serve the meals. Although the
Statewide menu is pre-planned, CFA allows facilities the flexibility to deviate from the
Statewide menu for up to two meals per week as long as the meals are consistent with
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

7
471-0621-07L

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Facilities may also deviate from the Statewide
menu with food items of equal nutritional value. If the facilities substitute menu items,
they are required to report these substitutions to CFA annually. The menu is designed
to provide male prisoners with an average of 2,900 calories per day and female
prisoners an average of 2,600 calories per day.
The Department of Management and Budget (DMB), in conjunction with DOC, is
responsible for negotiating contracts that enable the correctional facilities to obtain
quality food commodities at the best possible price. Facilities are allowed to make
specialty purchases for contracted food commodities without using the DMB-approved
contract if the food price is cost beneficial to the State. However, not all food
commodities are included in the DMB contracts. Facilities are allowed to purchase
produce items directly from local produce vendors. In addition, facilities purchase milk,
juice, meat, and kitchen cleaning supplies from DOC's Michigan State Industries.
During fiscal year 2006-07, DOC expended $46.2 million on food purchases and $37.2
million on food services staff wages, resulting in a Statewide average prisoner food and
labor cost per day of $2.48 and $2.50, respectively (see Exhibits 1 and 2). In addition,
DOC's correctional facilities had 490 food services staff as of September 30, 2007.

8
471-0621-07L

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology
and Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up

Audit Objective
The objective of our performance audit* of Prisoner Food Services, Department of
Corrections (DOC), was to assess the effectiveness* of DOC's efforts to manage food
services costs.
Audit Scope
Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records related to prisoner food
services. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such
tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. Our audit procedures, conducted from July 2007 through February
2008, generally covered the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2007.
Specifically, we reviewed records related to food production, food procurement, food
contracts, food inventory, the Statewide menu, and prisoner pay for food services
employment at 13 correctional facilities (Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility, Earnest C.
Brooks Correctional Facility, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, Hiawatha
Correctional Facility, Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility, Kinross Correctional Facility,
Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility, Mound Correctional Facility, Muskegon Correctional
Facility, Oaks Correctional Facility, Pine River Correctional Facility, Pugsley
Correctional Facility, and Ryan Correctional Facility) and the Department of Corrections'
central office operations. We judgmentally selected and performed on-site visits at the
13 correctional facilities based on their geographical location, facility characteristics, and
other data.
Supplemental information was provided by the Department of Corrections and is
presented in Exhibits 1 through 4. Our audit was not directed toward expressing a
conclusion on this information and, accordingly, we express no conclusion on it.
Audit Methodology
Our audit methodology included a preliminary review of prisoner food services
operations. This review included interviewing various DOC staff and reviewing
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

9
471-0621-07L

applicable statutes, policies and procedures, DOC reports, legislative reports, and other
references. In addition, we visited one correctional facility to conduct additional
interviews with DOC staff and to review documents related to prisoner food services.
To accomplish our audit objective, we reviewed DOC food cost reports and food
production work sheets, documentation related to food commodity purchases,
Statewide food commodity contracts, and private vendor contracts for food services.
We also reviewed DOC's process for establishing, modifying, and monitoring the
Statewide menu.
During our visits to the 13 correctional facilities, we judgmentally selected two weeks of
food production work sheets for the lunch and dinner meals and evaluated the number
of main entrée items produced and meals served compared to the correctional facilities'
institutional count*. Based on the results of our analysis, we calculated potential
Statewide savings and cost estimates. These results can be found in Findings 1 and 2.
Also, we collected data on opportunity buys* and assessed controls over food inventory
in the facilities' warehouses. In addition, we analyzed a selection of food invoices from
the months of August 2006 and May 2007 to determine whether facilities were
complying with State contracts.
Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up
Our audit report includes 5 findings and 5 corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicates that it agrees with all of the recommendations and will
comply with them.
The agency preliminary response that follows each recommendation in our report was
taken from the agency's written comments and oral discussion subsequent to our audit
fieldwork. Section 18.1462 of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the State of Michigan
Financial Management Guide (Part VII, Chapter 4, Section 100) require DOC to develop
a formal response to our audit findings and recommendations within 60 days after
release of the audit report.
We released our performance audit of State Facilities' Food Service, Clothing, and Time
Reporting Practices (47-700-97) in February 1999. Within the scope of this audit, we
followed up 3 of the 6 prior audit recommendations as they related to DOC. DOC
complied with 1 of the 3 prior audit recommendations. The other 2 prior audit
recommendations were rewritten for inclusion in this report.
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

10
471-0621-07L

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

11
471-0621-07L

FOOD SERVICES
COMMENT
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Department of Corrections'
(DOC's) efforts to manage food services costs.
Audit Conclusion: We concluded that DOC's efforts to manage food services
costs were moderately effective. Our assessment disclosed two material conditions*.
DOC needs to consider additional ways to reduce the costs of providing prisoner meals
(Finding 1). Also, DOC did not effectively monitor food production (Finding 2).
Our assessment also disclosed three reportable conditions* related to food commodity
purchases, warehouse controls over food inventory, and prisoner food services wages
(Findings 3 through 5).

FINDING
1.

Food Services Cost Savings Measures
DOC needs to consider additional ways to reduce the costs of providing prisoner
meals. DOC lacks assurance that its food service operations budget ($92.9 million
for fiscal year 2006-07) is utilized efficiently. If DOC had a contracting arrangement
similar to other state's contracting arrangements, we estimate that it could
potentially realize significant annual savings in its food services program.
Reducing costs would assist DOC in achieving its goal to provide the greatest
amount of public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's
resources.
Our review disclosed:
a.

DOC should analyze the potential outcomes of hiring a private contractor to
provide prisoner meals at its correctional facilities.
Both the state of Florida and the state of Kansas utilize a private contractor for
food service operations. Florida has utilized a contractor for 6 years, and
Kansas has utilized a contractor for 10 years. We reviewed a copy of both

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

12
471-0621-07L

contracts and noted that the contractors are responsible for supervising the
preparation of prisoner meals and the procurement of all food items, cleaning
supplies, and paper products. Also, the contractors utilized prisoner workers
to prepare meals using the states' own correctional facility kitchens and
equipment. In addition, the contracts require that prisoner meals be prepared
using products on the respective states' approved food list and that meals
must follow the states' approved menu plans. Also, both contracts had
provision for the states to assign a contract monitor and to assess financial
penalties for contractor noncompliance (see Exhibit 3).
As of August 2007, Florida paid the private contractor an average of $2.65 per
prisoner per day for 86,000 prisoners and Kansas paid $4.14 per prisoner per
day for 8,400 prisoners. During fiscal year 2006-07, it cost DOC $4.68 per
prisoner per day to provide comparable services (total food services cost less
certain fixed costs, such as prisoner pay, central office administration,
equipment, and data processing charges) for 51,165 prisoners. Based on
these costs per prisoner per day, we estimate that Michigan could save from
$10.2 million to $38.0 million annually if it were able to negotiate the same
contracted rates as Kansas or Florida, respectively. DOC informed us that
there are many intangible and unknown issues that could impact the potential
savings that Michigan may realize from contracting food services. Some of
these intangible issues include the contracted rate that could be obtained in
Michigan based on competitive wage rates and food prices for Michigan (e.g.,
Buy Michigan First), the potential need for additional custody assignments, the
quality of food on the other states' approved food list, training costs and
turnover rates associated with contracted employees, and the economic
impact on the operations of DOC's Michigan State Industries. We recognize
that there are unpredictable factors that may offset the potential savings;
however, these factors are not likely to completely offset all of the potential
savings. Therefore, we believe that further evaluation of contracting DOC's
food services operations is warranted.
b.

DOC should continue to pursue the implementation of a computerized
identification card system to help identify prisoners trying to obtain more than
one meal at a time. We estimate that, with such a system, DOC could save
approximately $295,000 annually Statewide by eliminating excess prisoner

13
471-0621-07L

meals served. In addition, a computerized system could assist DOC in
forecasting future meal needs.
One three-facility complex had identified a computerized system that would
cost approximately $16,000 for it to implement. This complex projected that it
could save approximately $150,000 in food costs per year. However, DOC
central office denied the complex's original purchase request pending a pilot
project at another facility.
During our visits, we noted that 12 of the 13 correctional facilities served 3,488
prisoner meals in excess of the total prisoner counts for those facilities during
14 days in fiscal year 2006-07. Based on an average number of 19.2 excess
meals served per day per facility, with an average food cost per day of $2.48,
we estimate that DOC could save approximately $295,000 Statewide in food
costs if excess prisoner meals were eliminated.
c.

DOC had not analyzed whether it would be cost beneficial to use additional
supplements or other fortified or enhanced food products in prisoner menus.
As a result, DOC could not ensure that it had utilized resources efficiently.
We determined that other state and county correctional facilities served
vitamin-fortified drinks instead of milk and provided less fresh fruit and
vegetable options while still meeting the basic dietary allowances required by
American Correctional Association (ACA) standards. DOC stated that it
offered fresh fruit and vegetables to meet nutritional values and required
intakes, rather than using supplemented or fortified food products because it
felt that the use of natural foods* helped reduce future health care costs. DOC
also indicated that using the natural food options allows prisoners with
specialized needs to eat from the Statewide menu, eliminating the need for
special meal time accommodations. However, DOC had not completed an
analysis to determine if the cost of using a natural foods approach was
justified by health care savings and did not monitor to ensure that prisoners
with special diets actually chose the healthier options.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

14
471-0621-07L

d.

DOC should evaluate if its current standard of 2,900 and 2,600 calories per
day for male and female prisoners, respectively, is appropriate for the
demographics of its current prison population. If DOC could reduce the
number of calories per day for each prisoner, it could potentially see cost
savings in food purchases.
Adult Correctional Institutions, Fourth Edition, states that the dietary
allowances for prisoners, as adjusted for age, sex, and activity level, should
meet or exceed the recommended dietary allowances published by the
National Academy of Sciences.
DOC established its 2,900 and 2,600 calories per day menu standards using
recommended dietary allowances in 1990. However, based on the 2002
Dietary Reference Intakes established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the
National Academy of Sciences and DOC's population at the time of our audit,
DOC may be able to reduce its calorie standard by up to 400 calories for male
prisoners and by 400 to 600 calories for female prisoners.

e.

DOC should continue to evaluate more cost-effective methods of providing or
the possibility of eliminating Kosher religious meals. If eliminated, we estimate
that DOC could save approximately $272,000 annually in food costs.
DOC operating procedure 05.03.150A allows prisoners to participate in a
Kosher meal program when the prisoners' religious beliefs require a Kosher
meal diet. However, to offer a Kosher menu, DOC's correctional facilities must
purchase specific Kosher food and maintain separate work stations and
kitchen utensil inventories that cannot be used to prepare non-Kosher meals.
We reviewed DOC's analysis of Kosher meal menu costs for four correctional
facilities during April 2007 and noted that the average food cost was $8.18 per
day. This cost does not include any additional nonfood costs associated with
preparing a Kosher meal menu. Based on DOC's analysis, we estimate that
the total annual Kosher meal food expenditures were approximately $391,000
for 131 prisoners enrolled in the Kosher meal program. We further estimate
that the total annual food expenditures for these same 131 prisoners to
participate in the regular menu would have been $119,000.

15
471-0621-07L

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC consider additional ways to reduce the costs of providing
prisoner meals.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and will comply. DOC informed us that,
regarding part a. concerning hiring private contractors to provide prisoner meals at
its correctional facilities, DOC is taking steps to conduct a request for information
from private contractors. DOC indicated that, regarding part b. concerning a
computerized identification card system, DOC is taking steps to pilot such a
system. DOC also indicated that regarding part c. concerning the use of additional
supplements and fortified or enhanced food products, DOC will continue to follow
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. In addition, DOC indicated that,
regarding part d. concerning calorie standards, DOC will reduce the daily calorie
standard to the recommendations contained in the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2005. Finally, DOC indicated that, regarding part e. concerning Kosher
religious meals, DOC is continuing to evaluate the methods used to ensure
compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(RLUIPA), 42 USC 2000CC.

FINDING
2.

Food Production
DOC did not effectively monitor food production. As a result, DOC lacked the data
necessary to properly forecast food production needs, prepared and served excess
meals to prisoners and staff, and did not document the disposition of leftovers. In
addition, failure to effectively monitor food production may impair DOC's ability to
control food services costs. We estimate that the exceptions identified equated to
$1.2 million.
DOC policy directive 04.07.100 requires that each correctional facility document
the number of meals served to prisoners and staff on form CAJ-138. DOC policy
directive 04.07.102 requires the preparation of a food production work sheet for
each meal. The food production work sheet should document the menu items
prepared, the person responsible for preparation of each menu item, the expected
number of meals to be prepared, the quantity prepared for each menu item, the
appropriate serving size, the time and temperature of each menu item at the time
16

471-0621-07L

cooking was complete and at the time the item was served, and the amount and
disposition of leftovers. The policy states that facilities are to use this data to
develop historical information about the number of prisoners and employees who
have eaten a meal and then adjust it for the current prisoner population when
planning future meals. In addition, DOC policy directive 02.04.105 requires that
employees who eat a meal register in the dining hall.
We visited 13 correctional facilities and reviewed food production documentation
for 351 of the lunch and dinner meals for the periods January 14, 2007 through
January 20, 2007 and July 22, 2007 through July 28, 2007. We also reviewed the
number of meals served to prisoners and employees for the same periods. Our
review disclosed:
a.

Twelve (92.3%) of the 13 correctional facilities prepared main entrée items
(meat and vegetarian items) in excess of 110% of the facilities' institutional
count plus the average number of documented employee meals. We noted
that this occurred for 116 (33.0%) of the 351 meals reviewed. We estimate
the value of these excess entrées prepared to be $126,000, or approximately
$493,000 annually Statewide.
DOC management informed us that periodic review of meal consumption for
each menu item is necessary and, if properly done, will result in limiting
excess meals to within 105% of prisoner and staff populations. Production
excesses occurred because either DOC did not have historical data or its
historical data was inaccurate.

b.

Twelve (92.3%) of the 13 correctional facilities reported a total of 107
instances in which more main meals were served to prisoners than the
facilities' institutional count. These instances resulted in the reporting of 3,488
more prisoner meals served than the prisoner counts. Based on an average
number of 19.2 excess meals served per day per facility, with an average food
cost per day of $2.48, we estimate that the value of these meals was
approximately $295,000 Statewide. This estimate includes approximately
$47,000 related to the excess entrées identified in part a. of this finding.

c.

None of the 13 correctional facilities had documentation to support the
reported total number of employee meals served. Of the 11,907 employee

17
471-0621-07L

meals reported during the two-week period, the facilities provided support for
only 6,101 (51.2%) employee meals. In addition, one facility consistently
reported that 100% of its facility employees were served meals; however,
during our visit at the facility, we observed numerous facility employees eating
meals that were not prepared by the facility.
d.

The correctional facilities did not consistently complete the food production
work sheets. As a result, the facilities could not document whether leftovers
were properly handled and lacked information critical to forecasting the
production of meals.
Our review of the food production work sheets at the 13 correctional facilities
disclosed:
(1) Twelve (92.3%) of the 13 correctional facilities did not document on the
food production work sheets the number of meals to prepare for in 156
(44.4%) of the 351 meals reviewed.
(2) None of the 13 correctional facilities documented the disposition of
leftovers for 181 (51.6%) of the 351 food production work sheets
reviewed. The facilities were unable to explain if the leftovers were used
for future meals or discarded. We estimate that the value associated with
the unaccounted for leftovers is approximately $882,000 Statewide
annually. This estimate includes approximately $386,000 related to the
excess entrées identified in part a. of this finding.
DOC conducts annual compliance reviews of the food services operations at
each of the correctional facilities. DOC management informed us that these
compliance reviews include a review of the food production work sheets and
employee meal logs. However, for the 13 facilities that we visited, DOC noted
no issues with the food production work sheets and employee meal logs
during its compliance reviews.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC effectively monitor food production.

18
471-0621-07L

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and will comply. DOC informed us that it
will comply by clarifying its Statewide operating procedure and by revising
applicable forms.

FINDING
3.

Food Commodity Purchases
DOC's correctional facilities did not consistently ensure that they obtained food
commodities at the best price. As a result, facilities may have missed opportunities
to realize cost savings related to food purchases. DOC expended a total of $46.2
million for food commodities in fiscal year 2006-07.
DOC, in conjunction with the Department of Management and Budget (DMB),
established Statewide food commodity contracts with vendors in an effort to
provide the State with the best possible price. Statewide food commodity contracts
include language that permits DOC's correctional facilities to exercise exceptional
opportunity buys outside of the contract. Also, DMB Administrative Guide
procedure 0510.01 allows departments to purchase up to $25,000 in goods not
under a Statewide contract.
We visited 13 correctional facilities and reviewed purchasing invoices paid during
August 2006 and May 2007 for food commodities frequently used by the facilities.
Our review of the invoices disclosed:
a.

DOC, in conjunction with DMB, did not ensure that food commodity contracts
included clear and defined language related to opportunity buys. Our review
disclosed that 10 (76.9%) of the 13 correctional facilities were uncertain as to
when it was allowable to buy less expensive food commodities rather than
order from the Statewide food commodity contracts. DMB Business Services
Administration's Purchasing Operations informed us that opportunity buys
must be for nonrecurring type purchases, must be for food commodities that
were comparable in product quality to those commodities on the Statewide
food commodity contract, and must generate cost savings. However, the
contract language did not define these criteria for procuring opportunity buys.
The contract language also did not define how often facilities could take

19
471-0621-07L

advantage of exceptional opportunity buys and did not require the Statewide
food commodity contractor to offer an option to honor lower competitor prices.
In the absence of clear and defined contract language, the correctional
facilities established their own criteria for pursuing opportunity buys. We noted
that 2 facilities established a percentage of savings that must be realized
before taking advantage of an opportunity buy, 4 facilities ordered from a
competitive vendor any time a competitor offered food commodities at a price
less than the Statewide food commodity contracts, and 4 facilities did not
initiate opportunity buys unless they were certain the food commodity was a
different food commodity than one covered by the Statewide food commodity
contracts. Therefore, all facilities may not have taken advantage of opportunity
buys that were cost beneficial to the State.
b.

Correctional facilities did not monitor cost savings realized from pursuing
opportunity buys. As a result, DOC could not determine the best use of the
opportunity buy option. This type of information could assist DOC in
developing a clear and defined policy for the utilization of opportunity buys.
Our review disclosed that 5 (38.5%) of the 13 facilities that we visited
maintained documentation to track the total cost savings realized from taking
advantage of opportunity buys. The following table shows the documented
cost savings for fiscal year 2006-07 (as of the time of our visits in late August
and early September 2007):

Warehouse or Correctional Facility
Jackson Regional Warehouse
(includes 10 facilities)
Kinross Regional Warehouse
(includes Kinross and Hiawatha and 2 other facilities)
Oaks Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Total

$425,359
352,334
50,605
40,431
11,542
$880,271

20
471-0621-07L

Documented
Cost Savings

c.

DOC had not established a policy or a procedure related to produce
purchases. DOC's correctional facilities used their delegated authority to
purchase produce items. As a result, correctional facilities employed different
processes to identify vendors for produce purchases and may not have
obtained the lowest price for these purchases. In fiscal year 2006-07, DOC
expenditures for produce were $4.5 million.
During our visit to 2 facilities within close proximity, we noted that one facility
purchased each produce item from the vendor with the lowest price for that
individual item. The other facility purchased all produce items from the vendor
that could provide the lowest total price for all produce items needed. The
facility that ordered all produce from the same vendor paid as much as $3.25
more per case of produce than the facility that ordered the produce by the
lowest price per produce item.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC's correctional facilities consistently ensure that they
obtain food commodities at the best price.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and will comply. DOC informed us that its
Bureau of Fiscal Management will clarify opportunity buy parameters and provide
instruction for purchasing all food commodities including produce. The Bureau of
Fiscal Management will also take steps to adopt a Statewide opportunity buy
tracking system.

FINDING
4.

Warehouse Controls Over Food Inventory
DOC did not ensure that its correctional facilities had implemented sufficient
controls to safeguard food inventory stored at the warehouses. As a result, the
facilities could not provide assurance that errors, fraud, or theft related to food
inventories would be detected in a timely manner.
Part II, Chapter 12, Section 100 of the State of Michigan Financial Management
Guide indicates that each agency is required to implement and maintain an
inventory accounting system that provides adequate internal control over the
21
471-0621-07L

inventory. Adequate internal control over the inventory includes the separation of
duties between those responsible for maintaining the inventory, receipting the
inventory, and accounting for the inventory. Adequate internal control also includes
limiting access to inventory, requiring appropriate approvals for inventory
adjustments, and performing periodic inventory counts. In addition, Section 100
requires annual physical inventories of periodic inventory systems to ensure their
accuracy.
Our review of 9 warehouse operations disclosed:
a.

Of the 9 warehouses, 1 (11.1%) did not conduct an annual physical inventory
count during fiscal year 2006-07. As a result, the correctional facility had not
verified the accuracy of the $250,000 in revolving inventory.

b.

Of the 9 warehouses, 2 (22.2%) did not ensure that proper separation of
duties existed over the receipting of food commodities into the warehouse and
the accounting for food inventory. As a result, the facilities could not ensure
that physical inventory counts for $300,000 and $350,000 of revolving
inventory were proper and that any adjustments to inventory were warranted.
Both warehouses were responsible for verifying the receipt of food
commodities delivered to the warehouse and for conducting periodic counts of
the food inventory. Sound internal control practices require that a person
independent of warehouse operations conduct the inventory counts to ensure
that there is an appropriate verification of the inventory.

c.

For the 9 warehouses, 6 (66.7%) of the related business offices routinely
adjusted inventory accounting records to agree with the physical count without
independent verification of the adjustment.
For example, one correctional facility's warehouse requested that the
inventory of chicken legs and quarters be increased by 1,410 pounds based
on a physical inventory count conducted in April 2007. The facility's business
office processed this request without investigating how the understatement in
the inventory accounting system had occurred.
In August 2007, the
warehouse conducted another physical count and noted that the inventory of
chicken was short by 150 pounds. The warehouse again requested that the

22
471-0621-07L

facility's business office adjust the inventory records to match the physical
count. The facility's business office made the adjustment without investigating
the reason for the shortage.
d.

Of the 9 warehouses, 1 (11.1%) did not ensure that all items entered into the
inventory accounting system were entered correctly. For example, we noted
two instances in which warehouse staff converted cases of meatballs to
pounds using an incorrect weight per case. This resulted in the warehouse
inventory being understated by 1,600 pounds of meatballs.

e.

Of the 9 correctional facilities, 1 (11.1%) did not sufficiently secure its
warehouse. As a result, it could not properly monitor the activities of its
warehouse inventory or ensure that food items were not improperly removed
from the warehouse or its auxiliary freezer.
We noted:
(1) The warehouse is located where it is not visible to facility management
and does not have any type of electronic monitoring system.
(2) An auxiliary freezer is located in a maintenance building next to the
employee parking lot. The freezer is not secure and does not have any
type of electronic monitoring system. We observed that the building was
unlocked and was not monitored by either facility management or
warehouse staff during business hours.
The location and setup of this warehouse may have contributed to warehouse
inventory discrepancies noted in part c. of this finding. These circumstances
are particularly important as the facility indicated that DOC plans to convert
this warehouse into a regional warehouse that will be used to maintain a
significantly larger amount of inventory.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC ensure that its correctional facilities implement sufficient
controls to safeguard food inventory stored at the warehouses.

23
471-0621-07L

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and will comply. DOC informed us that its
Bureau of Fiscal Management will take steps to establish a Statewide operating
procedure to ensure that sufficient controls are established to safeguard food
inventory stored at the warehouses.

FINDING
5.

Prisoner Food Services Wages
DOC did not ensure that its correctional facilities correctly and consistently
classified prisoner food services wages in the State's accounting records. As a
result, DOC management could not identify the total cost of food services when
reporting costs or attempting to analyze costs to manage the program. DOC paid
prisoner wages of $4.0 million in both fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07 (see
Exhibit 4).
Our review of prisoner food services wages noted that 19 (38.8%) of the 49
facilities with prisoners working in food services recorded the total monthly prisoner
wages as administrative costs rather than food services costs in the Michigan
Administrative Information Network* (MAIN). As a result, DOC understated food
services expenditures by $1,822,682 and $1,853,442 in fiscal years 2005-06 and
2006-07, respectively.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC ensure that its correctional facilities correctly and
consistently classify prisoner food services wages in the State's accounting
records.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and will comply. DOC informed us that its
Bureau of Fiscal Management will initiate internal control procedures to ensure that
food service expenditures are recorded properly in the State's accounting records.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

24
471-0621-07L

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

25
471-0621-07L

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

26
471-0621-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 1
PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
Department of Corrections
Food Services Cost Per Prisoner Per Day

For Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2006-07

$4.98
$4.82

$4.81
$5.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
$2.44
$2.39
$2.48

Direct food cost per prisoner per day
Salary,
wage, benefit, CSS&M, and miscellaneous cost per
$4.50
prisoner per day
Total food services cost per prisoner per day

$2.36
$4.81

$2.43
$4.82

$2.50
$4.98

$4.00

Cost Per Prisoner Per Day

$3.50

$3.00
$2.36

$2.43

$2.50

$2.44

$2.50

$2.39

$2.48

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07

Fiscal Year

Direct food cost per prisoner per day
Salary, wage, benefit, CSS&M, and
miscellaneous cost per prisoner per day
Total food services cost per prisoner per day

Source: Michigan Administrative Information Network (MAIN).

27
471-0621-07L

PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
Department of Corrections
Food Services Costs by Facility and Central Function
For Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2006-07

Correctional Facility / Central Function
Correctional Facilities:
Cooper Street Correctional Facility
Ojibway Correctional Facility / Camp Ottawa
Parnall Correctional Facility
Pine River Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Special Alternative Incarceration Program (Cassidy Lake)
Western Wayne Correctional Facility (1)
Kinross Correctional Facility / Hiawatha Correctional Facility (2)
Lakeland Correctional Facility / Florence Crane
Correctional Facility / Camp Branch
Newberry Correctional Facility / Camp Manistique
Riverside Correctional Facility / Deerfield Correctional Facility
Chippewa Correctional Facility / Straits Correctional Facility
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Carson City Correctional Facility / Boyer Road Correctional Facility
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility / West Shoreline Correctional Facility
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility / Parr Highway Correctional Facility
Huron Valley Complex - Men / Huron Valley Complex - Women / Camp Valley (3)
Macomb Correctional Facility
Saginaw Correctional Facility
Robert Scott Correctional Facility / Camp White Lake
St. Louis Correctional Facility / Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility
Alger Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Cusino
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Kitwen
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Marquette Branch Prison
Standish Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Lehman
Mound Correctional Facility
Muskegon Correctional Facility
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
Ryan Correctional Facility
Thumb Correctional Facility (4)
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility
Oaks Correctional Facility (5)

At September 30, 2007
Security Facilty/Program
Level
Capacity

1826
1378
1633
1119
1158
360

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I, II

2899

I, II
I, II
I, II
I, II, III, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV, V
I, III, IV
I, V
I, V
I, V
I, V
I, V
II
II
II
II
II
II, IV
II, V
IV

3434
1246
2265
2250
1873
2347
2355
1826
2252
1694
1234
1476
1040
2345
849
1171
1849
1202
1084
1049
1333
1290
1052
1205
732
679
931

$

$
Central Functions:
Federal School Lunch Program
Jackson Area Support Services
Central office salaries and wages
Reconciling Items (see Finding 5)
Total fiscal year expenditures by cost category

$

Each cost category's percent of total expenditures

Fiscal Year 2004-05
Direct
CSS&M and
Food Costs
Miscellaneous

Salaries, Wages,
and Benefits

679,970
810,949
865,706
656,156
657,904
351,701
154,998
1,576,358

$

1,255,283
1,015,723
1,330,397
752,476
800,889
341,903
146,926
1,997,988

1,611,013
688,841
1,225,176
1,411,873
1,120,226
1,447,777
1,495,902
1,069,876
1,298,496
1,810,702
843,502
788,152
835,701
1,455,382
888,069
1,094,046
1,423,505
1,108,902
1,007,595
641,568
955,752
715,062
817,469
841,621
1,012,231
512,307
940,826
34,815,316

2,541,045
896,686
1,855,929
1,864,643
1,743,607
1,820,696
1,841,339
1,490,729
1,839,358
1,259,101
1,136,683
1,250,487
777,933
2,032,048
875,570
1,086,589
1,496,405
1,042,675
986,731
1,029,046
1,148,286
1,152,643
973,647
1,045,074
1,330,246
637,707
785,313
$ 43,581,801

210,268
112,475
161,357

177,797

35,299,416

$ 43,759,597

41%

51%

$

$

$

110,777
76,576
152,277
120,067
111,104
15,898
23,984
397,283

Total

$

291,062
148,277
278,284
376,901
377,267
144,161
212,665
132,917
158,592
446,674
235,051
230,281
195,998
297,754
203,055
234,010
237,372
212,734
170,014
167,983
280,739
177,265
220,872
93,801
153,427
153,484
101,455
6,940,059

4,443,120
1,733,803
3,359,389
3,653,416
3,241,100
3,412,634
3,549,906
2,693,523
3,296,446
3,516,477
2,215,235
2,268,920
1,809,632
3,785,184
1,966,694
2,414,645
3,157,282
2,364,311
2,164,341
1,838,596
2,384,777
2,044,970
2,011,988
1,980,497
2,495,904
1,303,498
1,827,594
$ 85,337,175

52,417

440,482
112,475
161,357

6,992,477

$ 86,051,490

8%

Total average prisoner population for fiscal year

100%
49,046

(1) Western Wayne Correctional Facility was closed on December 20, 2004.
(2) Camp Koehler was included in these figures for fiscal year 2004-05 only; it was closed on June 19, 2005.
(3) These figures include Camp Valley from March 2007 through September 2007 and Camp Brighton from October 2004 through March 2007. Camp Brighton was closed and
Camp Valley opended on March 25, 2007.
(4) Camp Tuscola was included in these figures for fiscal year 2004-05 only; it was closed on June 2, 2005.
(5) Camp Sauble was included in these figures for fiscal year 2004-05 only; it was closed on May 8, 2005.
Source: Michigan Administrative Information Network (MAIN).

28
471-0621-07L

2,046,031
1,903,248
2,348,380
1,528,700
1,569,897
709,501
325,909
3,971,628

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 2

Fiscal Year 2005-06
Direct
CSS&M and
Food Costs
Miscellaneous

Salaries, Wages,
and Benefits

$

$

793,387
897,441
861,831
736,839
718,955
295,405

$

1,199,718
1,149,562
1,341,036
964,115
886,641
489,102

$

114,506
103,535
134,353
137,966
121,029
18,711

$

2,107,611
2,150,538
2,337,220
1,838,921
1,726,624
803,218

$

798,332
926,353
887,322
818,400
750,363
276,534

$

1,162,791
1,219,831
1,288,428
948,257
836,435
455,784

$

109,141
87,630
145,802
140,167
110,877
4,567

Total

$

2,070,264
2,233,815
2,321,553
1,906,824
1,697,675
736,885

1,633,055

2,228,939

394,650

4,256,643

1,670,789

2,440,390

423,328

4,534,507

1,786,018
783,776
1,369,771
1,445,400
1,171,206
1,547,362
1,569,866
1,179,988
1,340,949
2,085,644
862,137
885,731
801,711
1,600,853
928,754
1,161,898
1,147,607
1,207,217
1,092,663
704,122
1,017,520
761,495
808,236
829,325
1,084,884
560,221
1,009,315
36,680,583

2,757,812
929,422
1,935,837
1,871,374
1,713,552
1,953,169
1,826,398
1,517,479
1,931,987
1,213,900
1,034,962
1,323,052
748,641
2,136,833
886,850
1,173,259
1,604,286
1,050,433
1,028,915
1,034,897
1,241,682
1,198,851
1,012,641
1,058,039
1,349,722
655,806
849,662
$ 45,298,573

336,102
145,809
338,237
310,362
388,662
148,319
177,343
123,370
162,301
508,355
231,450
205,051
192,043
329,571
184,517
255,579
241,961
211,687
183,695
221,050
137,628
228,716
225,716
92,495
175,785
187,829
92,303
7,060,686

4,879,932
1,859,008
3,643,844
3,627,136
3,273,420
3,648,850
3,573,607
2,820,837
3,435,237
3,807,900
2,128,549
2,413,834
1,742,396
4,067,257
2,000,120
2,590,735
2,993,854
2,469,337
2,305,273
1,960,069
2,396,831
2,189,063
2,046,593
1,979,859
2,610,392
1,403,856
1,951,280
$ 89,039,842

1,654,663
809,631
1,534,350
1,410,626
1,196,532
1,536,382
1,590,190
1,158,478
1,385,282
1,884,171
911,244
850,023
993,913
1,614,398
943,864
1,137,376
1,177,577
1,219,194
953,088
726,501
1,106,096
772,112
827,519
796,970
1,079,743
566,514
1,017,301
36,981,826

2,774,794
980,928
2,079,387
1,994,781
1,716,632
2,092,550
1,889,676
1,481,030
1,838,521
1,804,248
1,079,436
1,337,233
839,670
2,107,788
914,412
1,235,697
1,461,718
1,076,128
1,031,174
992,024
1,140,649
1,265,946
1,029,596
967,903
1,097,339
719,056
845,265
$ 46,145,496

365,327
140,212
312,954
305,445
371,033
151,502
241,527
75,716
208,827
451,520
297,251
250,978
210,298
315,519
199,155
263,594
292,019
201,838
183,630
223,271
132,707
199,638
220,307
95,492
134,373
172,975
89,722
7,128,343

4,794,784
1,930,771
3,926,691
3,710,852
3,284,197
3,780,433
3,721,393
2,715,224
3,432,630
4,139,938
2,287,931
2,438,234
2,043,880
4,037,705
2,057,431
2,636,667
2,931,314
2,497,159
2,167,892
1,941,797
2,379,452
2,237,695
2,077,421
1,860,364
2,311,455
1,458,545
1,952,287
$ 90,255,666

46,576

136,555

216,909
12

55,855

81,363

485,191

622,409

1,822,682

400,040
12
199,458
1,822,682

1,853,442

187,273
1,853,442

9,100,289

$ 91,462,035

9,466,975

$ 92,918,789

$

199,458

$

Total

Fiscal Year 2006-07
Direct
CSS&M and
Food Costs
Miscellaneous

Salaries, Wages,
and Benefits

36,926,618
40%

$ 45,435,128
50%

$

10%

100%

$

$

187,273

$

37,224,955
40%

51,980

$ 46,226,859
50%

$

10%

100%
51,165

29
471-0621-07L

PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Comparison of Michigan's Prisoner Food Services to Selected Food Service Contracts (1)

Number of locations serviced
Number of prisoners (2)
Cost per day per prisoner
Responsibility for
kitchen and equipment

Michigan DOC - Prisoner Food Services

Florida DOC - Contract

51 (including camps)

136

Kansas DOC - Contract
9

51,165

86,000

8,400

$4.68 (3)

$2.65

$4.14

DOC maintains kitchens and
equipment in its facilities.

Florida DOC is responsible for providing
kitchen space and equipment.

Kansas DOC is responsible for providing
kitchen space and equipment.

Contract monitor

Not applicable

Contract monitor and invoice auditing

Contract monitor

Financial penalties for noncompliance

Not applicable

Various penalties ranging from $250 to
$2,500 per instance of noncompliance
through termination of contract

$2,000 per day, if not corrected
within 30 days

Basis for menu

DOC offers a limited choice menu based
on dietary guidelines as noted under
"Required standards."

Contractor must serve Florida DOC's
master menu (included in contract).

Contractor must provide "limited choice"
menu as outlined in proposal, in addition
to meeting other nutritional requirements
and number of servings.

Required standards

DOC complies with ACA standards,
Dietary Reference Intakes, Dietary
Guidelines for Americans , and
Food Guide Pyramid. DOC also complies
with the Michigan Food Code and the
USDA HACCP Program.

Contractor must comply with ACA
standards and all federal and state laws,
statutes, rules, and regulations

Contractor required to keep
documentation for ACA and NCCHC for
accreditation audits and must meet all
federal requirements.

2,900 for males and 2,600 for females

Average calories per day were 3,100.
Males ranged from 2,200 to 2,800 and
females ranged from 1,800 to 2,200
(2,600 for pregnant females).

2,900 for males and 2,200 for females

30%, less than 10% saturated fat

30%

Less than 38%, less than 10% saturated fat

DOC correctional facilities are
responsible for all maintenance,
including cleaning, repairing,
and replacing equipment
as necessary.

Florida DOC is responsible for
maintenance of all equipment. However,
contractor is responsible for cleaning and
maintaining equipment in accordance
with manufacturer's instruction.
If contractor damages equipment,
contractor must replace equipment.

Contractor is required to clean and
maintain equipment. Contractor must
notify Kansas DOC if repair is needed.
Kansas DOC is responsible for repair.

DOC utilizes prisoner employees to
prepare and serve meals and
perform warehouse and
sanitation functions.

Contractor supervises inmates assigned
to food service, including preparation
and serving of meals, receipt of
deliveries, and sanitation.

Contractor must train and supervise prisoner
workers (Kansas DOC will not provide
additional security).

Inventory and food storage

DOC correctional facilities
are responsible for inventory
and food storage.

Contractor is responsible for ordering
and receiving all food necessary for
the preparation of meals.

Contractor owns inventory and must
store food, with the expectation of a
two-day supply, which is stored at the
respective facility.

Nonfood supplies
(paper products, cleaning supplies, etc.)

DOC correctional facilities are
responsible for purchasing
nonfood items.

Contractor is responsible for purchasing
most paper products, cleaning products,
and some kitchen utensils.

Contractor is responsible for paper and
cleaning supplies. Kansas DOC is
responsible for small wares and
cooking equipment.

DOC offers employee meals at no cost
to custody staff and food services
workers and to other employees at a
cost of $1.35 per meal.

Contractor provides meals to staff and
guests at a cost not to exceed
$1.00 per meal.

Contractor is required to provide
employee meals at a cost of
$1.00 per meal.

DOC uses a natural food approach
to menu planning. DOC also utilizes
government commodities and prisoner
garden produce. DOC provides bagged
meals for off-site prisoners and
provides meals to four county jails.

Contract includes formal performance
measures, including expected outcomes.
Also, contractor must purchase produce
from inmate garden program.

Contractor must utilize useable
government commodities and
departmental garden produce.

Required number of calories per day

Fat content in diet
Maintenance requirements

Utilization of prisoner workers

Employee meals

Special provisions

(1) This comparison presents selected aspects of Michigan DOC's food services program and compares those aspects to similar aspects of selected food service contracts.
This exhibit does not include all aspects of Michigan DOC's food services program or all aspects of the services provided by the selected food services contractors.
(2) The number of prisoners is the average number of prisoners for Michigan, Florida, and Kansas during fiscal year 2006-07. The number of prisoners is the capacity
for prisoners at Oakland County Jail and Grand Rapids Corrections Center.

30
471-0621-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 3

Oakland County Jail (Michigan) - Contract

Grand Rapids Corrections Center
(Michigan DOC) - Contract

7

1

1,840

160

$2.64

$6.37

Oakland County is responsible for
providing kitchen space and equipment.

Contractor is responsible for preparing
meals at its off-site kitchen and transporting
meals to the corrections center.

Audit clause in contract

Performance review and audit language

Standard indemnification clause

Penalties for various violations included
one-half of meal cost, $1.00 per meal, or
20% of meal charge.

Contractor must meet ACA standards, Food
and Nutrition Board of the National Academy
of Sciences' nutritional requirements for
inmates, and State standards. Sheriff
approves menu prior to meal service.

Contractor must meet Michigan Food Code,
HHS, and FDA requirements. Contractor
must also comply with DOC menu (sample
included with contract).

Contractor must comply with State and
federal laws, ACA standards, and the
Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Academy of Sciences requirements.

Contractor must meet all State and
federal statutes, rules, and regulations.

Average calories per day were 2,700.

2,900 for males and 2,600 for females

Monthly average 37% (4)

30%

County is responsible for building and
equipment maintenance.

Contractor responsible for preventative
maintenance; if not maintained, contractor
must pay to replace equipment.

County provides inmates for food
preparation and production, sanitation,
and storeroom functions.

Inmates utilized for meal service only.
Preparation is completed off site.

Contractor is responsible for all
food purchases.

Contractor is responsible for
food storage.

Contractor is responsible for all cleaning
supplies. County is responsible for
service ware trays and pots and pans.

Contractor is responsible for the purchase
of all nonfood products, including paper
products, cleaning products, and flatware.

Contractor provides employee meals
at a cost of $.88 per meal.

Contract does not address
employee meals.

No special provisions

Contractor must prepare bagged lunches
for off-site inmates and at least
two hot meals per day.

(3) This amount represents DOC's cost to provide services comparable to the contractors. Therefore, it excludes certain
fixed costs, such as prisoner pay, central office administration, equipment, and data processing charges.
(4) This fat content was calculated by DOC using Nutritionist Pro software to analyze one month of Oakland County's menu.
Source: Review of contract information provided by Michigan DOC, Florida DOC, Kansas DOC, and Oakland County.

31
471-0621-07L

PRISONER FOOD SERVICES
Department of Corrections
Payments to Prisoner Food Services Workers by Facility
For Fiscal Years 2005-06 and 2006-07

At September 30, 2007

Correctional Facility
Cooper Street Correctional Facility
Ojibway Correctional Facility / Camp Ottawa
Parnall Correctional Facility
Pine River Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Special Alternative Incarceration Program - Cassidy Lake
Kinross Correctional Facility / Hiawatha Correctional Facility
Lakeland Correctional Facility / Florence Crane
Correctional Facility / Camp Branch
Newberry Correctional Facility / Camp Manistique
Riverside Correctional Facility / Deerfield Correctional Facility
Chippewa Correctional Facility / Straits Correctional Facility
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Carson City Correctional Facility / Boyer Road Correctional Facility
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility / West Shoreline Correctional Facility
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility / Parr Highway Correctional Facility
Huron Valley Complex - Men / Huron Valley Complex - Women /
Camp Valley / Camp Brighton *
Macomb Correctional Facility
Saginaw Correctional Facility
Robert Scott Correctional Facility / Camp White Lake
St. Louis Correctional Facility / Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility
Alger Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Cusino
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Kitwen
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Marquette Branch Prison
Standish Maximum Correctional Facility / Camp Lehman
Mound Correctional Facility
Muskegon Correctional Facility
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
Ryan Correctional Facility
Thumb Correctional Facility
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility
Oaks Correctional Facility

*

Security
Level

Prisoner
Worker Hours

Prisoner
Wages

Total
Prisoner
Payments

Prisoner
Bonuses

I
I
I
I
I
I
I, II

1826
1378
1633
1119
1158
360
2899

268,127
249,489
245,194
174,407
187,562
417,513

111,302

66,915

178,216

I, II
I, II
I, II
I, II, III, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV

3434
1246
2265
2250
1873
2347
2355
1826
2252

1,046,335
209,222
357,000
390,467
483,220
409,902
430,691
638,473
379,349

213,184
52,902
89,755
101,207
130,470
108,688
119,099
83,818
106,730

112,808
26,333
50,930
48,303
37,637
65,651
69,742
49,660
61,966

325,992
79,235
140,685
149,509
168,106
174,339
188,840
133,478
168,696

I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV, V
I, III, IV
I, V
I, V
I, V
I, V
I, V
II
II
II
II
II
II, IV
II, V
IV

1694

423,431
283,949
312,026
171,227
414,985
118,124
213,126
240,036
180,570
172,841
210,024
303,786
191,621
210,013
226,582
276,496
188,108
180,232

112,247
76,147
78,100
46,396
106,261
40,742
65,967
70,332
47,448
45,919
57,563
87,238
75,926
57,242
65,519
81,700
45,611
62,234

57,042
46,440
46,848
21,230
55,681
16,460
29,078
18,144
27,675
24,491
36,954
45,308
27,124
34,809
39,334
36,752
22,044
12,078

169,289
122,587
124,948
67,626
161,943
57,202
95,045
88,476
75,123
70,411
94,517
132,546
103,050
92,051
104,853
118,452
67,656
74,311

10,204,128

$ 2,643,148

$ 1,347,536

$ 3,990,683

Camp Brighton was closed and Camp Valley opened on March 25, 2007.

Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

32
471-0621-07L

Faciltiy
Capacity

Fiscal Year 2005-06

1234
1476
1040
2345
849
1171
1849
1202
1084
1049
1333
1290
1052
1205
732
679
931

$

71,546
68,798
73,405
45,818
43,834

$

30,330
39,193
38,828
27,715
24,034

$

101,876
107,991
112,233
73,533
67,868

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 4

Fiscal Year 2006-07
Prisoner
Worker Hours
270,309
232,768
244,602
173,098
179,423

Prisoner
Wages
$

69,676
64,757
72,391
45,245
42,344

Total
Prisoner
Payments

Prisoner
Bonuses
$

29,124
37,507
38,282
28,647
23,590

$

98,800
102,264
110,673
73,892
65,935

416,292

110,397

64,445

174,842

1,106,697
195,852
370,557
395,698
510,302
430,063
422,311
653,698
398,414

216,719
49,478
96,290
102,794
137,782
113,146
117,702
84,594
111,115

119,478
24,458
50,154
48,900
32,225
69,245
67,997
49,104
62,154

336,197
73,936
146,443
151,694
170,007
182,391
185,699
133,698
173,269

364,682
281,188
316,083
185,482
425,324
119,188
214,895
248,316
182,173
192,584
195,648
309,061
236,017
192,025
228,772
286,059
202,779
183,734

105,732
75,710
77,841
51,672
107,646
41,902
67,219
63,096
47,005
51,558
55,423
85,863
94,293
54,457
63,316
78,914
48,568
65,169

54,615
45,670
44,633
24,175
55,764
17,738
32,242
13,716
28,987
29,089
36,214
50,229
33,532
29,434
37,992
39,790
22,891
9,410

160,348
121,380
122,474
75,847
163,410
59,641
99,461
76,812
75,991
80,648
91,637
136,092
127,824
83,890
101,308
118,704
71,458
74,579

10,364,092

$ 2,669,814

$ 1,351,429

$ 4,021,243

33
471-0621-07L

GLOSSARY

34
471-0621-07L

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

ACA

American Correctional Association.

CFA

Correctional Facilities Administration.

CSS&M

contractual services, supplies, and materials.

DMB

Department of Management and Budget.

DOC

Department of Corrections.

effectiveness

Program success in achieving mission and goals.

FDA

Food and Drug Administration.

goal

The agency's intended outcome or impact for a program to
accomplish its mission.

HACCP

Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points.

HHS

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

institutional count

Number of prisoners housed at the facility at the given time
that information is provided.

material condition

A reportable condition that could impair the ability of
management to operate a program in an effective and
efficient manner and/or could adversely affect the judgment
of an interested person concerning the effectiveness and
efficiency of the program.

35
471-0621-07L

Michigan
Administrative
Information Network
(MAIN)

The State's fully integrated automated administrative
management system that supports the accounting, payroll,
purchasing, contracting, budgeting, personnel, and revenue
management activities and requirements. MAIN consists of
four major components: MAIN Enterprise Information System
(EIS); MAIN Financial Administration and Control System
(FACS); MAIN Human Resource System (HRS); and MAIN
Management Information Database (MIDB).

natural foods

Non-imitation food that contains naturally occurring
substances including vitamins, minerals, carotenoids,
flavonoids, isoflavones, and protease inhibitors.

NCCHC

National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

opportunity buys

A purchase of a food commodity of similar quality at a
reduced price.

performance audit

An economy and efficiency audit or a program audit that is
designed to provide an independent assessment of the
performance of a governmental entity, program, activity, or
function to improve public accountability and to facilitate
decision making by parties responsible for overseeing or
initiating corrective action.

reportable condition

A matter that, in the auditor's judgment, represents either an
opportunity for improvement or a significant deficiency in
management's ability to operate a program in an effective
and efficient manner.

471-0621-07L

36
oag

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.
AUDITOR GENERAL

 

 

CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
Federal Prison Handbook - Side