Skip navigation
Prison Profiteers - Header

Tn Doc Performance Audit 2009

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Department of Correction
April 2009

Justin P. Wilson
Comptroller of the Treasury

State of Tennessee
Comptroller of the Treasury
Department of Audit
Division of State Audit

Arthur A. Hayes, Jr., CPA, JD, CFE
Director

Deborah V. Loveless, CPA, CGFM
Assistant Director

Diana Jones, CGFM

Kristy Carroll, CFE

Audit Manager

In-Charge Auditor

Ricky Ragan, CFE
Suzanne Sawyers, CFE
Aukosua Stokes, CFE

Amy Brack
Editor

Staff Auditors

Comptroller of the Treasury, Division of State Audit
1500 James K. Polk Building, Nashville, TN 37243-1402
(615) 401-7897
Performance audits are available on-line at www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/RA_SA/.
For more information about the Comptroller of the Treasury, please visit our website at
www.tn.gov/comptroller/.

STATE OF TENNESSEE

COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT
DIVISION OF STATE AUDIT
SUITE 1500
JAMES K. POLK STATE OFFICE BUILDING
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-1402
PHONE (615) 401-7897
FAX (615) 532-2765

April 9, 2009
The Honorable Ron Ramsey
Speaker of the Senate
The Honorable Kent Williams
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Jack Johnson, Chair
Senate Committee on Government Operations
The Honorable Susan M. Lynn, Chair
House Committee on Government Operations
and
Members of the General Assembly
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is the performance audit of the Tennessee Department of Correction.
This audit was conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-29-111, Tennessee Code
Annotated, the Tennessee Governmental Entity Review Law.
This report is intended to aid the Joint Government Operations Committee in its review to
determine whether the Tennessee Department of Correction should be continued, restructured, or
terminated.

Sincerely,

Arthur A. Hayes, Jr., CPA
Director
AAH/dlj
08-024

State of Tennessee

Audit Highlights
Comptroller of the Treasury

Division of State Audit

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
April 2009
_________

AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the audit were to (1) review the audit documentation of medical co-payments; (2) review
the pharmaceutical inventory process for each institution; (3) review health intake screenings at the four
reception centers; (4) review the GED program, vocational programs, and post-secondary educational
partnerships; (5) determine how the department manages the Security Threat Groups; (6) review correctional officer turnover; (7) review the pre-release program along with discharge planning; (8) determine
how the department tracks recidivism; (9) determine how the department monitors contract performance;
(10) determine the bed space and operating capacity for each institution over time; (11) review payments to
local jails; and (12) review department actions to comply with Title VI requirements.

FINDINGS
Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. Was Not in
Compliance With Some Contract Terms, and
the Contracts Did Not Address Consequences
for Non-performance of Contract
Requirements
The Department of Correction contracts with
Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. to provide a six- to
nine-month in-prison, comprehensive alcohol and
drug treatment program for incarcerated felony
drug offenders at the following facilities: Turney
Center, West Tennessee State Prison, Wayne
County Boot Camp, Tennessee Prison for Women,
Mark Luttrell Correctional Center, and Northwest
Correctional Complex.
Auditors found that
Spectrum had not complied with some contract
provisions.
In
addition,
we
found
miscommunication and confusion concerning
contract amendments, and that the contracts did
not include penalties, other than contract
termination, for contract noncompliance (page 13).

Based on a Review of Information in the
Department’s Tennessee Offender
Management Information System, the
Department Did Not Always Conduct Health
Intake Examinations for Inmates Within the
Required 14 Days of Arrival
Department of Correction Policy 113.20 states
that an intake health examination must be
completed within 14 calendar days of an
inmate’s arrival at a reception center. Auditors
selected a sample of health intake examinations
to review for fiscal years 2006 through 2008,
and compared the arrival date to the examination
date recorded in the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS). For
the sample reviewed, information in TOMIS
indicated that the department failed to conduct
the examination or did not conduct the
examination within the 14-day time frame over
50% of the time. Examinations were completed

late 33% of the time and were not completed
18% of the time. Failing to complete exams or
completing them late could lead to greater health
risks for newly arriving inmates, other inmates,
and staff, which could result in increased
healthcare costs (page 17).
Although the Department Has Been Tracking
Recidivism Since 2001, There Appear to Be
Weaknesses in the Methods Used by the
Department for Tracking and Measuring the
Recidivism Rate
Recidivism is defined by the department as a
permanent return to incarceration in any
Tennessee Department of Correction facility or
local jail after being released from a department
facility or local jail. According to management
of the department’s Policy, Planning and
Research Division, the Department of
Correction is not mandated to track recidivism;
however, the department began formally
tracking the recidivism rates in 2001. Auditors’
review of the tracking process found that the
measures the department used to calculate
recidivism and the frequency of publication of
the recidivism report impede the department’s
ability to determine an accurate recidivism rate
and may reduce the ability to determine the
effectiveness of the programs and services
offered (page 21).

As Reported in the 2003 Department of
Correction Performance Audit, the
Department Needs to Continue to Improve
the Pre-release Services for Inmates by
Developing Methods to Measure the
Effectiveness of Its Programs
According to Department of Correction Policy
511.02, Pre-Release Services, the department is
responsible for developing and maintaining a
uniform
statewide
pre-release
program
designed to facilitate a successful reentry into
the community and reduce recidivism.
Department Policy 513.02, Transition Center
Programming, establishes a program that
provides for structured release back into the
community. Since the September 2003 audit,
the department has continued to improve the
pre-release services offered. Despite these
improvements, the department has not yet
implemented a system to monitor the shortterm and long-term outcomes of the pre-release
programs, as recommended in the prior audit.
In addition, there appear to be weaknesses in
the department’s methods for tracking and
measuring the success of the pre-release
programs. According to Pre-Release Services
management, the pre-release programs were not
consistent across facilities in the past, which
made them hard to track. The department has
since implemented one pre-release program
that is offered at each correctional facility.
However, tracking of the program appears to be
a continuing issue (page 24).

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
The audit also discusses the following issues: contract monitoring, problems with timely submission of
county final cost settlements, the high rate of correctional officer turnover, educational opportunities for
inmates, TRICOR purchases, Security Threat Group management, review of medical co-payment
documentation, and the management of pharmaceuticals (page 30).

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION

1

Purpose and Authority for the Audit

1

Objectives of the Audit

1

Scope and Methodology of the Audit

2

Organization and Responsibilities

2

Inmate Population

9

Revenues and Expenditures

11

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13

1. Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. was not in compliance with some contract terms,
and the contracts did not address consequences for non-performance of contract
requirements

13

2. Based on a review of information in the department’s Tennessee Offender
Management Information System, the department did not always conduct health
intake examinations for inmates within the required 14 days of arrival

17

3. Although the department has been tracking recidivism since 2001, there appear
to be weaknesses in the methods used by the department for tracking and
measuring the recidivism rate

21

4. As reported in the 2003 Department of Correction performance audit, the
department needs to continue to improve the pre-release services for inmates
by developing methods to measure the effectiveness of its programs

24

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

30

Contract Monitoring

30

County Final Cost Settlements Are Still Not Submitted to the Department in a
Timely Manner

32

Department Facilities Continue to Experience a High Rate of Correctional
Officer Turnover

35

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Page
Educational Opportunities for Inmates

41

TRICOR Purchases

46

Security Threat Group Management

47

Review of Medical Co-Payment Documentation

51

Management of Pharmaceuticals

52

RECOMMENDATIONS

53

Administrative

53

APPENDIX

55

Title VI Information

55

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE AUDIT
This performance audit of the Tennessee Department of Correction was conducted
pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Entity Review Law, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title
4, Chapter 29. Under Section 4-29-229, the Department of Correction was scheduled to
terminate June 30, 2008, and is currently in wind-down, pending legislative action. The
Comptroller of the Treasury is authorized under Section 4-29-111 to conduct a limited program
review audit of the department and to report to the Joint Government Operations Committee of
the General Assembly. The audit is intended to aid the committee in determining whether the
Department of Correction should be continued, restructured, or terminated.

OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT
The objectives of the audit were
1. to review the audit documentation of medical co-payments;
2. to review the pharmaceutical inventory process for each institution;
3. to review health intake screenings at the four reception centers;
4. to review the General Educational Development (GED) program, vocational
programs, and post-secondary educational partnerships;
5. to determine how the department manages the Security Threat Groups;
6. to review correctional officer turnover;
7. to review the pre-release program along with discharge planning;
8. to determine how the department tracks recidivism;
9. to determine how the department monitors contract performance;
10. to determine the bed space and operating capacity for each institution over time;

1

11.

to review payments to local jails; and

12. to review department actions to comply with Title VI requirements.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE AUDIT
The audit reviewed the activities of the Tennessee Department of Correction for fiscal
years 2005 through 2008, with a focus on fiscal years 2005 through 2007. The audit was
conducted in accordance with the standards applicable to performance audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and
included
1. a review of applicable legislation and rules and regulations;
2. an examination of the department’s records, reports, documents, and policies and
procedures;
3. a review of prior performance audits and financial and compliance audit reports, and
a review audit reports from other states; and
4. interviews with department staff and other individuals relevant to the scope of the
audit.

ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Department of Correction was established in 1923 under the provisions of Title 4,
Chapter 3, Part 6, Tennessee Code Annotated. The department was created to manage and
govern the state penitentiaries. According to the department, its mission is to enhance public
safety in Tennessee through incarceration and rehabilitation of felony offenders.
The Department of Correction is supervised by a Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner,
and three Assistant Commissioners. (See the department’s organization chart on pages 3-4).
The department is fully accredited by the American Correctional Association, and houses adult
inmates in 16 facilities (see page 5). Thirteen of the facilities are owned and operated by the
State of Tennessee. Three of the facilities (South Central Correctional Facility, Hardeman
County Correctional Facility, and Whiteville Correctional Facility) are managed privately by
Corrections Corporation of America.

2

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organization Chart
July 2008
Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner

Administrative Assistant

Executive Assistant to the
Commissioner

Assistant to the
Commissioner/Legislation

General Counsel

Director
Internal Affairs

Communications Officer

Correspondence
Coordinator

Assistant to the
Commissioner
Employee Relations

Assistant to
the Commissioner
Special Projects

Assistant Commissioner of
Operations

Deputy Commissioner

Executive Secretary

Assistant to the
Deputy Commissioner

Assistant Commissioner
Rehabilitative Services

Assistant Commissioner
Fiscal and Administrative
Services

Medical Director
Clinical Services

Director Compliance

Director
Facilities

Superintendent Tennessee
Correction Academy

3

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organization Chart (Cont.)
July 2008
Assistant Commissioner
Operations

Executive Secretary

Assistants to the
Commissioner

Director
Sentence Management
Services

Inmate Grievances/
Disciplinary Appeals

Director
Classification and Central
Dispatch

Commissioner's Designees
for Privately Managed
Facilities

Security Compliance
Coordinators

Director Special Projects

Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex

Hardeman County
Correctional Center

Lois M. DeBerry
Special Needs Facility

Mark Luttrell
Correctional
Complex

Morgan County
Correctional Complex

South Central
Correctional Center

Northwest Correctional
Complex

Riverbend
Maximum Security
Institution

Northeast Correctional
Complex

Southeastern TN
State Regional Corr.
Fac.

Tennessee Prison for
W omen

Turney Center
Indus. Prison and
Farm

Wayne County W ork
Center

West TN State
Penitentiary

Charles Bass
Correctional Complex

Whiteville
Correctional Facility

4

Correctional Institutions

County
Bledsoe

Facility
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional
Facility (STSR)
Davidson
Charles Bass Correctional Complex (CBCX)
DeBerry Special Needs Facility (DSNF)
Riverbend Correctional Complex (RMSI)
Tennessee Prison for Women (TPFW)
Hardeman Hardeman County Correctional Facility (HCCF)
Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCFA)
Hickman
Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm (TCIP)
Johnson
Northeast Correctional Complex (NECX)
Lake
Northwest Correctional Complex (NWCX)
Lauderdale West Tennessee State Penitentiary (WTSP)
Morgan
Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex (BMCX)
Morgan County Correctional Complex (MCCX)
Shelby
Mark Luttrell Correctional Center (MLCC)
Wayne
South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF)
Wayne County Boot Camp and Annex (WCBC,
WANX))
System Total

Security
Level*
III

Fiscal Year
2008 Average
Daily
Population
945

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

1,041
727
709
738
1,994
1,512
1,215
1,807
2,326
2,485
533
975
407
1,651
376
19,441

*Security Level I–Minimum Direct/Trustee
Security Level II–Medium
Security Level III–Close
Security Level IV–Maximum
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Annual Report.
Detailed below are the department’s major programs as described in the Department of
Correction’s Annual Report.
Transition Centers
There are two transition communities (at the Charles Bass Correctional Complex and the
Tennessee Prison for Women) that are designed to prepare offenders to live successfully in the
free world. The primary goal of the nine-month program is to assist participants in changing
negative patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaviors that may predispose them to drug abuse,
criminal activities, and other anti-social behaviors.

5

Demographics by Facility
Fiscal Year 2008*
AGE
Facility
Brushy Mountain Correctional
Complex
Charles Bass Correctional
Complex
DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Hardeman County Correctional
Facility
Morgan County Correctional
Complex
Mark Luttrell Correctional
Center
Northeast Correctional
Complex
Northwest Correctional
Complex
Riverbend Correctional
Complex
South Central Correctional
Facility
Southeastern Tennessee State
Regional Correctional Facility
Turney Center Industrial Prison
and Farm
Tennessee Prison for Women
Wayne County Annex
Wayne County Boot Camp
Whiteville Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State
Penitentiary
System

RACE

GENDER

Average
Age

Black

White

Other/
Unknown

Male

Female

35

155

349

4

508

0

36
44

517
225

443
396

26
16

986
637

0
0

36

1,053

893

40

1,986

0

39

214

761

13

988

0

36

152

242

12

0

406

39

476

1,297

44

1,817

0

37

1,075

1,175

98

2,348

0

39

367

312

689

0

36

759

828

57

1,644

0

40

285

652

9

946

0

36
37
42
24
34

665
170
150
40
919

550
563
150
29
590

41
11
0
0
20

1,256
0
300
69
1,529

0
744
0
0
0

35
37

1,410
8,632

1,044
10,274

59
460

2,513
18,216

0
1,150

10

* Total population numbers in this table differ slightly from totals in above table. Above table gives
average daily population for the year. This table details population breakdown as of a specific date in
2008.

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Annual Report.

6

Substance Abuse Treatment
The department’s substance abuse programs are based on the idea that the program
participant is ultimately responsible for his or her recovery. Participants work closely with
counselors to develop individual treatment goals and strategies. Treatment focuses on individual
needs and does not have to be voluntary. Mandated treatment can result in longer stays in the
program, which are associated with more successful treatment outcomes.
Educational Services
Educational programs help create a correctional environment where inmates can be
constructive while incarcerated and productive when they are released. The department operates
as its own school system, recognized by the Department of Education, with the Commissioner
acting as the Superintendent. Approximately 20% of the eligible inmate population is enrolled in
either academic or vocational training. The Education division also oversees inmates
participating in college programs. This work is voluntary and at the expense of the inmate.
Pre-Release Services
Pre-release programming is offered at each department correctional facility as well as the
three privately managed facilities. Each facility has a designated Pre-Release Coordinator and
full-time paid program positions for inmates participating in the pre-release program.
The pre-release programs (a minimum of 50 days with 240 hours of classroom work and
30 to 60 hours of homework assignments and/or community service work) have all incorporated
a cognitive behavior program based on the National Institute of Correction’s “Thinking for a
Change” curriculum. The other components of the program concentrate on the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

life-skills, self esteem, and self evaluation;
decision-making and critical thinking;
access to healthcare;
anger management and coping skills;
parenting, family, and community reunification;
substance abuse and use;
job seeking and retention;
housing plans and options;
budgeting;
legal issues;
awareness of the impact of crime and its impact on victims; and
restoration of citizenship and voting rights.

7

Victim Impact Services
The Department of Correction is committed to assisting the victims of crime. In line with
that commitment, one of the department’s responsibilities is to keep victims and their family
members informed of an offender’s status, including any hearing dates and decisions, release dates,
movements to less secure institutions, and escapes. Victim impact classes are being integrated into
other inmate treatment programs and services. The classes, modeled from participation in the
national pilot study led by California, provide 36 hours of instruction for inmates.
Clinical Services
Clinical Services’ goal is to provide the required constitutional level of health and mental
health care in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible. Each prison has mental health
professionals who are responsible for specialty psychiatry and psychology services. Routine and
specialty services are dictated by the state, federal, and accreditation mandates. Health Services
sets policy standards for delivery of inmate health care and evaluates care provided throughout
the department’s system. A broad spectrum of services is provided including acute and chronic
medical, dental, diagnostic, and inpatient/outpatient services.
Volunteer Services
Roughly 97% of incarcerated individuals at a Department of Correction facility
eventually go back to the community. Volunteers are recruited from communities throughout the
state to deliver important services (such as tutoring, financial planning, and counseling services)
to inmates and their families. The department uses approximately 4,000 volunteers to provide
services within the institutions.
Religious Services
The Department of Correction recognizes the importance of religion in helping inmates
cope with incarceration and in preparing them for success after release. All institutions except
one have a full-time professional chaplain and numerous volunteer chaplains who minister to
inmates of all faiths. A Director of Religious Services position was created in September 2007
to serve as the central point of contact for all religious activity within the department.
Sex Offender Treatment
In Section 39-13-702, Tennessee Code Annotated, the General Assembly declared that
the “. . . comprehensive evaluation, identification, treatment and continued monitoring of sex
offenders who are subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system are necessary in order
to work toward the elimination of recidivism by the offenders.” In 1995, the General Assembly
created the Sex Offender Treatment Board in the Department of Correction and charged the
board with duties including
•

developing and prescribing a standardized procedure for the evaluation and
identification of sex offenders;

8

•

developing and implementing methods of intervention; and

•

developing guidelines and standards for a system of programs for the treatment of sex
offenders placed on probation, incarcerated in the Department of Correction, placed
on parole, or placed in community corrections.

Inmate Jobs
Inmate jobs teach inmates responsibility, encourage work ethic, and help develop
marketable skills. Jobs also promote stability within the institutions by reducing idleness and
reduce the institutions’ operational costs. More than 5,000 inmates work in support services
inside the prisons, performing jobs such as preparing food, cleaning the institutions, landscaping,
doing laundry, recycling, and maintaining the buildings and equipment. In 1994, the General
Assembly created the Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Correction (TRICOR) to put inmates
to work in real-life job settings. TRICOR is responsible for developing inmate jobs in
manufacturing, business services, and agriculture.
Community Service Work Crews
One of the primary work venues for minimum security inmates is community service
work. Approximately 900 inmates are assigned to work crews each month. Since 1998,
department work crews have completed more than 12 million hours of community service.
Although inmates are often associated with roadside clean-up, work crews are involved in a
variety of community service projects including Meals on Wheels, state park maintenance,
cemetery landscaping, and new construction of community buildings.

INMATE POPULATION
The Department of Correction’s operating capacity is set at 98% of total beds available.
Operating capacity indicates the population that should be assigned to the institution on a regular
basis. It excludes beds reserved for special purposes such as medical or mental health reasons,
disciplinary segregation, protective custody, and maximum security. A percentage of beds are
reserved to accommodate inmates that fall into these categories. According to staff, Department
of Correction facilities will most likely not operate at 100% capacity so that accommodations can
be made.
The Morgan County Correctional Complex is being expanded. According to staff,
Morgan County Correctional Complex has 1,013 beds, and the expansion will provide 1,428 new
beds, for a total of 2,441 beds. Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex is scheduled to close in
late 2009, and its 590 inmates will be transferred to Morgan County, resulting in a gain of 838
beds at the Morgan County Correctional Complex. Completion of the Morgan County expansion
is scheduled for February or March 2009.
The Department of Correction is considering expansion at the Southeastern Regional
State Correctional Facility site in Bledsoe County. The preliminary design phase has begun, and

9

the target completion date is late 2011. The proposed expansion is estimated to provide 1,444
additional beds—300 minimum custody beds, 1,024 medium custody beds, and 120
maximum/high custody beds. The renamed Bledsoe County Correctional Complex (sites 1 and
2) would have approximately 2,425 beds, and according to department staff, there are plans to
design the new facility with the possibility of future expansion of another 512 beds.
The County Correctional Incentive Act of 1981, as subsequently amended, provides
financial incentive to counties to house nondangerous felony offenders locally. Counties
participating in the County Correctional Incentive Program are reimbursed for housing convicted
felons (state prisoners). As of August 2008, there were 103 local facilities that housed state
felons. Several categories make up the local jail population:
•

Department of Correction backup–felons awaiting transfers to a department
institution

•

Local Felons–convicted felons serving time in a local jail because of a contract with
the Department of Correction and/or convicted felons serving a split confinement
sentence

•

Convicted Misdemeanants–inmates serving time with a misdemeanor conviction

•

Pre-trial Felons–inmates charged with a felony but not yet convicted

•

Pre-trial Misdemeanants–inmates charged with a misdemeanor but not yet
convicted

•

Other Convicted Felons–convicted felons awaiting sentencing or not yet ready for
transfer to the Department of Correction because of other pending charges. This
includes technical violators awaiting a probable cause, revocation, or rescission
hearing or awaiting adjudication of pending charges

•

Other–inmates held in local facilities for federal crimes, city ordinances, etc.

As of August 31, 2008, the total local jail population was 26,913 (46% Pre-trial
Detainees, 20% Convicted Misdemeanants, 20% Local Felons, 8% TDOC backup, 4%
Federal/Other, and 2% Other Convicted Felons). According to Tennessee Correction Institute
staff, overcrowding is a concern at local jails. The goal is one officer to 22 inmates; however,
with overcrowding, the ratio can be one officer to 60 inmates. Local jails are considered
overcrowded when there are more inmates than certified beds. This means that even though a
local jail may have a bed for each inmate, the jail may not have adequate square footage or
program space available for the bed to be certified.
The table below details the Tennessee average total felon population for fiscal years 2005
through 2008.

10

Average Total Felon Population in Tennessee
Fiscal Years 2005 Through 2008
Fiscal Year

Total Felon
Population

Felons Housed in
Local Jails*

2005
26,036
6,605
2006
26,323
6,917
2007
26,100
6,721
2008
26,801
7,372
* Total of Department of Correction back-up and locally sentenced felons.
Source: Tennessee Felon Population Update, August 2008.

Percentage of Total Felon
Population Housed in Local
Jails
25%
26%
26%
28%

Fiscal year averages of the incarcerated felon population are calculated using the inmate
count for the last day of each month. Division of Policy, Planning and Research staff stated that
they will report totals based on actual numbers beginning in fiscal year 2009.

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
The tables below summarize the department’s revenues and expenditures by category for
fiscal year 2008.

11

Revenues by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008
Title
Administration
State Prosecutions
Correction Academy
Major Maintenance
Sex Offender Treatment Program
Sentencing Act of 1985
Brushy Mountain Correctional
Complex
Tennessee Prison for Women
Turney Center Industrial Prison &
Farm
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass Correctional
Complex
Southeastern Tennessee State
Regional Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Riverbend Maximum Security
Institution
Northeast Correctional Complex
Northwest Correctional Complex
Morgan County Correctional
Complex
Wayne County Boot Camp
Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs
Facility

State
$16,694,600
$141,154,900
$5,597,700
$6,538,900
$248,900
$25,187,000

Federal
$677,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Other
$5,757,400
$0
$64,900
$2,067,107
$0
$0

Total
$23,129,100
$141,154,900
$5,662,600
$8,606,007
$248,900
$25,187,000

$13,312,338
$20,424,500

$0
$0

$3,241,400
$843,100

$16,553,738
$21,267,600

$25,748,366
$12,727,200

$0
$0

$984,500
$542,000

$26,732,866
$13,269,200

$28,310,800

$0

$1,131,800

$29,442,600

$22,645,500
$51,260,886

$0
$0

$788,100
$1,320,200

$23,433,600
$52,581,086

$23,982,530
$38,893,700
$47,255,800

$0
$0
$0

$426,900
$1,316,500
$1,732,400

$24,409,430
$40,210,200
$48,988,200

$30,177,366
$10,340,500

$0
$0

$1,004,000
$342,500

$31,181,366
$10,683,000

$39,515,100

$0

$397,400

$39,912,500

Hardeman County Incarceration
Agreement
Hardeman County AgreementWhiteville

$34,601,400

$0

$18,900

$34,620,300

$27,121,800

$0

$18,700

$27,140,500

South Central Correctional Center
Department Total
Percentage of Total

$24,591,700
$646,331,486
96.6%

$0
$677,100
0.1%

$18,700
$22,016,507
3.3%

$24,610,400
$669,025,093
100.0%

12

Expenditures by Category
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008
Title
Administration
State Prosecutions
Correction Academy
Major Maintenance
Sex Offender Treatment Program
Sentencing Act of 1985
Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex
Tennessee Prison for Women
Turney Center Industrial Prison & Farm
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex

Payroll
$14,404,800
$0
$3,988,600
$1,603,000
$0
$0
$11,703,200
$11,398,700
$14,802,900
$9,054,200
$17,935,000

Operational
$8,724,300
$141,154,900
$1,674,000
$7,003,007
$248,900
$25,187,000
$4,850,538
$9,868,900
$11,929,966
$4,215,000
$11,507,600

Total
$23,129,100
$141,154,900
$5,662,600
$8,606,007
$248,900
$25,187,000
$16,553,738
$21,267,600
$26,732,866
$13,269,200
$29,442,600

Southeastern Tennessee State Regional
Correctional Facility

$16,030,700

$7,402,900

$23,433,600

West Tennessee State Penitentiary

$33,333,300

$19,247,786

$52,581,086

Riverbend Maximum Security Institution

$15,548,500

$8,860,930

$24,409,430

Northeast Correctional Complex

$24,908,070

$15,302,130

$40,210,200

Northwest Correctional Complex

$31,040,000

$17,948,200

$48,988,200

Morgan County Correctional Complex

$17,909,400

$13,271,966

$31,181,366

Wayne County Boot Camp

$7,222,000

$3,461,000

$10,683,000

Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility

$24,371,600

$15,540,900

$39,912,500

Hardeman County Incarceration Agreement

$148,300

$34,472,000

$34,620,300

Hardeman County Agreement-Whiteville

$146,200

$26,994,300

$27,140,500

South Central Correctional Center

$163,400

$24,447,000

$24,610,400

$255,711,870

$413,313,223

$669,025,093

38.2%

61.8%

100%

Department Total
Percentage of Total

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. was not in compliance with some contract terms, and the
contracts did not address consequences for non-performance of contract requirements
Finding
The Department of Correction contracts with Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. to provide a
six- to nine-month in-prison, comprehensive alcohol and drug treatment program for incarcerated
felony drug offenders at the following facilities: Turney Center, West Tennessee State Prison,
Wayne County Boot Camp, Tennessee Prison for Women, Mark Luttrell Correctional Center,

13

and Northwest Correctional Complex. Auditors interviewed department and contract staff and
reviewed the contracts as well as monitoring instruments that the Department of Correction’s
monitoring staff use to ensure contractors are in compliance. We found that Spectrum had not
complied with some contract provisions. In addition, we found miscommunication and
confusion concerning contract amendments, and that the contracts did not include penalties,
other than contract termination, for contract noncompliance.
The contracts require Spectrum to provide treatment at all facilities listed, and according
to the contracts, each facility was required to have a specified number of staff:
•

Turney Center – one licensed substance abuse counselor and two non-licensed
counselors;

•

West Tennessee State Prison – one licensed substance abuse counselor;

•

Wayne County Boot Camp – one licensed substance abuse counselor and one nonlicensed counselor;

•

Tennessee Prison for Women – two licensed substance abuse counselors and two
non-licensed counselors;

•

Mark Luttrell Correctional Center – one licensed substance abuse counselor and one
non-licensed counselor; and

•

Northwest Correctional Complex – one licensed substance abuse counselor and one
non-licensed counselor.

The Spectrum counselors are responsible for conducting treatment services which are based on a
Therapeutic Community model and include the following phases: Phase I – Orientation, Phase II
– Main Treatment, and Phase III – Reintegration. During Phase III, the primary focus is on
addressing transitional issues to prepare offenders for community release or release to the
general prison population. The contracts began in 2006 and were to end on December 31, 2008.
Noncompliance With Contract Provisions
The auditors’ review found two major areas of contract noncompliance. First, there was
no Spectrum counselor at the West Tennessee State Prison (WTSP); Department of Correction
staff are providing the treatment services. The department’s Director of Substance Abuse stated
that the contract had been amended after a reassessment was done; however, there is nothing in
writing to support the removal of Spectrum staff from WTSP. According to the Director of
Substance Abuse and the Assistant Commissioner of Rehabilitative Services, the decision was a
verbal agreement, and nothing had been drafted and signed to reflect the changes. (Department
of Correction staff apparently just met with Spectrum staff and agreed that transitioning staff
from WTSP would be best.)
Second, Spectrum counselors at Wayne County Boot Camp did not conduct all required
treatment services. As stated in the contract, the Spectrum counselors were responsible for
conducting treatment services for all three phases of the program. However, the Spectrum
14

counselors had not provided treatment services for Phase III of the program. According to
program management, the department amended the Spectrum contract to eliminate the Spectrum
counselors from providing services in Phase III of the program. Although program management
was operating based on amendments to the Spectrum contract, the amendments had not been
signed and approved. (See section below on Miscommunication and Confusion Regarding
Contract Amendments.)
By contract, Spectrum submits monthly invoices, with supporting documentation, prior to
payment by the department. So if Spectrum staff were not on-site no payment would be made.
In the case of Wayne County Boot Camp, however, staff were on-site but were being paid even
though they were not delivering all services required under the terms of the contract.
Our review also raised concerns about the tracking of recidivism. Spectrum must, by the
contract terms, present the state (within 45 days from the date the contractor signs the contract) a
description of the procedures that will be used to track/evaluate program outcomes, which
include but are not limited to employment history and recidivism on all program participants
who successfully complete the program and who are subsequently released from the prison
facilities. In the department’s monitoring documents, monitoring staff noted that Spectrum had
complied with this requirement. However, based on interviews with contract staff, staff at some
facilities stated that they were tracking recidivism, while others stated that they were not. Based
on further discussions with department program management, the only way to track recidivism is
to check TOMIS for the participants’ identification numbers to see if they have returned to a
department facility. (This method has a weakness in that, if participants are reincarcerated but
are not returned to a department facility, there would be no record of that individual.) According
to program management, contract staff perform this TOMIS check once (or twice if requested)
per year.
Miscommunication and Confusion Regarding Contract Amendments
As mentioned above, there was confusion and miscommunication (both within the
Department of Correction and between Spectrum and the department) regarding changes in
services and whether such changes had been approved. Auditors were told by department
program management that the Spectrum contract had been revised in February 2008; that
Spectrum staff were operating under the contract as amended; and the Department of
Correction’s monitoring instruments had been amended to reflect the changes in the amended
contract. However, through additional interviews with department Administrative and Fiscal
Services staff, we found that, as of May 27, 2008, the amended contract had still not been
approved. On October 8, 2008, we received a copy of a signed, amended contract set to take
effect October 1, 2008, and end December 31, 2009.
Lack of Penalties for Contract Noncompliance
The Spectrum contracts contain a standard provision giving the department the right to
immediately terminate the contract without cause. However, the contracts do not provide other
penalties, such as liquidated damages, for contract noncompliance. According to the Director of

15

Substance Abuse, language in the October 1, 2008, contract was revised to more specifically
detail Spectrum’s responsibilities. He also stated that the department has discussed adding
liquidated damages provisions to future contracts.

Recommendation
The Commissioner should ensure that Department of Correction staff use the monitoring
process the department has in place and hold contractors accountable for meeting agreed-upon
contract provisions. Program staff should promptly report to upper management any departures
from the terms of a contract. Department management should take action against contractors
that repeatedly fail to meet contract requirements or do not correct an area of noncompliance in a
timely manner. If revisions to contract terms need to be made or are agreed upon with the
contractor, department staff should ensure that the changes are formalized and approved in
writing by all the appropriate parties before department monitoring instruments and contractor
responsibilities are modified.
Appropriate department management should review contracts and contract compliance
several months before expiration of the contract so that needed revisions to the contract can be
made and that, in the event the contractor is not meeting contract requirements, the department
will have sufficient time to seek out other vendors providing the same service.
Department management should ensure that future contracts with Spectrum (and other
similar contractors) include consequences, such as the assessment of liquidated damages, for
failure to meet contract requirements.

Management’s Comment
We concur. While the department systematically monitored the contract performance of
Spectrum Health Systems to ensure the terms of the contract were being adhered to, there were
no penalties in the contract for noncompliance with the terms of the contract except the
termination of the contract.
We also agree that there was confusion between the contractor and the department
created by departmental staff who were employed after the initiation of the contract. While the
staff involved were making an effort to improve the parameters of the service being provided, it
created confusion for the contractor and those monitoring the performance of the contract.
Proper procedures for changes in contract requirements were not understood and not followed.
To avoid such situations in the future, the department shall ensure the following steps are
taken:
•

All future program requests for proposals and/or ensuing contracts will include
methods of ensuring the state does not pay for services we did not receive and/or

16

there are reasonable penalties for inadequate performance wherever the contract
parameters set by other entities allow for such penalties.
•

All Central Office personnel shall be apprised of the proper procedures to follow
when contract modifications are reasonable and in the best interest of the state.

2. Based on a review of information in the department’s Tennessee Offender Management
Information System, the department did not always conduct health intake examinations
for inmates within the required 14 days of arrival
Finding
Department of Correction Policy 113.20 states that an intake health examination must be
completed within 14 calendar days of an inmate’s arrival at a reception center. Auditors selected
a sample of health intake examinations to review for fiscal years 2006 through 2008, and
compared the arrival date to the examination date recorded in the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS). The system maintains data on all major activities in
the correctional management process, beginning with pre-sentence investigation reports and
continuing through conviction and sentencing, incarceration, offender treatment, and parole and
probation management. For the sample reviewed, information in TOMIS indicated that the
department failed to conduct the examination or did not conduct the examination within the 14day time frame over 50% of the time. Examinations were completed late 33% of the time and
were not completed 18% of the time. Failing to complete exams or completing them late could
lead to greater health risks for newly arriving inmates, other inmates, and staff, which could
result in increased healthcare costs.
The four reception centers are the Tennessee Prison for Women, Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex, Charles Bass Correctional Complex, and the West Tennessee State
Penitentiary. Auditors randomly selected the sample from offenders assigned to the four
reception centers during the specified fiscal year and still assigned there as of June 1, 2008. A
total of 195 offenders were reviewed in TOMIS. The objective of the file review was to
determine if the department completed each health intake examination within 14 days of the
offender’s arrival. Table 1 on page 18 lists the status of each health intake examination
reviewed, whether it was completed on time (within 14 days), late (after 14 days), or incomplete
(no health intake examination since the offender’s last arrival date).
More than half (51.79%) of the health intake examinations reviewed were completed late
or were not completed at all. Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex, Charles Bass
Correctional Complex, and the West Tennessee State Penitentiary failed to conduct some
examinations and were late in 25 percent of the cases reviewed. The Tennessee Prison for
Women had completed all examinations for the sample reviewed; however, the examinations
were often late.

17

Table 1
Review of Health Intake Examinations

Brushy
Mountain
Correctional
Complex
Charles Bass
Correctional
Complex
Tennessee
Prison for
Women
West Tennessee
State
Penitentiary
Total

On-Time
Examinations

On-Time
Percentage

Late
Examinations

Late
Percentage

Incomplete

Incomplete
Percentage

Total

Total
Percentage

15

62.50%

6

25.00%

3

12.50%

24

100%

20

41.67%

12

25.00%

16

33.33%

48

100%

7

22.58%

24

77.42%

0

0.00%

31

100%

52
94

56.52%
48.21%

23
65

25.00%
33.33%

17
36

18.48%
18.46%

92
195

100%
100%

18

For those examinations in our sample that the department had completed, Table 2 details
the number of days between the offender’s arrival at the reception center and the health intake
examination.
Table 2
Number of Days before Completion of Health Intake Examination

Brushy Mountain Correctional
Complex
Charles Bass Correctional Complex
Tennessee Prison for Women
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Total

0-14
days

15-30
days

31-50
days

51-100
days

101 +
days

15
20
7
52
94

5
8
21
6
40

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
1
1
3

1
3
2
16
22

While Policy 113.20 states that an intake health examination must be completed within
14 calendar days of an inmate’s arrival, it also contains a provision for returning inmates. The
reception center is not required to perform a complete intake physical examination if an inmate
returns to Department of Correction custody within 90 days of release. Auditors were unable to
determine (in TOMIS) if an inmate had returned within 90 days of release. Therefore, the
number of inmates without a health assessment could be inflated. Each inmate in our sample had
received a health assessment. However, the inmates categorized as “incomplete” did not have a
recorded health assessment since their last arrival date. Although we do not believe that this
policy provision significantly impacted the outcome of our review, it is possible that the
percentages of “incomplete” examinations are somewhat inflated.

Recommendation
Department management should take appropriate action to ensure that all health intake
examinations are completed within 14 calendar days of an inmate’s arrival at the reception
center. If the department determines that health intake examinations are actually completed
within 14 days of arrival but that there is a delay in entering examination dates into TOMIS or
the dates entered were incorrect, management should work with data entry staff and Information
Systems staff to address these issues and ensure that data in TOMIS are accurate and entered
timely.

Management’s Comment
We concur in part. This particular policy requirement is very important to the health and
safety of the inmate population, the staff who work in our facilities, and, of course, the individual
who may enter our system with a significant health-related problem. Our annual inspection

19

process and the health/mental health monitors evaluate this requirement on a regular basis due to
its importance to maintaining a healthy environment for all concerned.
Our Compliance Section did an exploratory, additional evaluation of the medical
admission/examination process in order to identify any weakness that would result in the intake
physical not being conducted as required by the department’s policies and procedures. They
chose inmates from the audit period identified by the Comptroller’s Office and did the same type
review as the auditors from the Comptroller’s Office. They compared the date the inmate arrived
at the reception center with the date entered in our Tennessee Offender Management Information
System (TOMIS) in the examination date block. A significant number of the inmates were being
identified as not receiving their intake medical examination with 14 days. We were drawing the
same conclusions as reported in our Audit Report.
Upon further examination, we discovered the problem was not the date the examination
actually was completed, but rather, it was the date of the entry on TOMIS. As reflected by our
sample pulled at Tennessee Prison for Women, the “Exam Date” on TOMIS was not the actual
exam date we found in the inmate’s health record signed by the medical practitioner. The actual
exam date was one to five days before the date that had been entered on TOMIS. Therefore, all
of the exams were performed within 14 days. But if you only observed the date on TOMIS, none
of the exams were performed within 14 days.
When we questioned the staff at TPW concerning making the erroneous entries on
TOMIS, the staff explained and demonstrated the source of the problem. The TOMIS system
automatically populates the “Exam Date” field with the exact time and date the entry is made,
instead of the actual exam date. There is no “entry date” category so the programmers who
developed the information screen set that field (exam date) as one that would automatically
populate with the current date and secured it by not allowing the possibility of the entries in this
field being changed.
Many of our report and informational screens need this safeguard so the exact time/date
is recorded and cannot be altered by anyone. This particular screen needs to be adjusted to allow
the date to be entered that reflects the accurate date the exams are being conducted. This task
will be addressed by our MIS group.
There was also a problem with some of the exam dates not being entered at all on
TOMIS. While this was a much smaller number, this is an issue due to the exam not being
documented on TOMIS even though it was performed. We will address this situation through
the local supervisors at the reception centers to ensure all exams for all inmates are entered.

20

3. Although the department has been tracking recidivism since 2001, there appear to be
weaknesses in the methods used by the department for tracking and measuring the
recidivism rate
Finding
Recidivism is defined by the department as a permanent return to incarceration in any
Tennessee Department of Correction facility or local jail after being released from a department
facility or local jail. According to management of the department’s Policy, Planning and
Research Division, the Department of Correction is not mandated to track recidivism; however,
the department began formally tracking the recidivism rates in 2001. Auditors’ review of the
tracking process found that the measures the department used to calculate recidivism and the
frequency of publication of the recidivism report impede the department’s ability to determine an
accurate recidivism rate and may reduce the ability to determine the effectiveness of the
programs and services offered.
The department generates a recidivism report every three to five years. The first report
was completed in April 2001 and covered years 1993 to 1999. The more recent report was
finished in April 2005 and covered years 1999 to 2002. These reports did not include
information on the impact of department rehabilitative or pre-release programs on recidivism
rates. (See pages 29 and 32 for additional information on this issue.) The department is
currently compiling a recidivism report to be released in 2009, which will cover the years 2002
to 2006 and will include the recidivism data for the rehabilitative and pre-release programs.
According to management, the department is not able to create recidivism reports more
frequently because the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS) is limited
in the functions that it is able to perform. For example, TOMIS is not designed to capture data or
sort it in that specific manner. Therefore, the recidivism rates for the Department of Correction
are very dated. To ensure services and programs offered at the present time are effective, the
department should maintain an ongoing database that contains the measures of program
effectiveness based on recidivism rates and other outcome measures.

21

Table 3 below details the most current available recidivism rates for the department, as
reported in the department’s 2005 recidivism report, TDOC Release Trends and Failure Rates.
Table 3
Re-incarceration Rates by Release Type for January 1999 to December 2002
Number Returned in Years
Returned Rate in Years
Calendar Total
Year
Releases
1
2
3
1
2
Parole Releases
1999
3,207
737
1,291
1,546
23%
40%
2000
3,998
895
1,654
1,984
22%
41%
2001
3,193
799
1,314
25%
41%
2002 *
2,962
686
23%
Probation Releases
1999
4,857
1,184
1,955
2,281
24%
40%
2000
5,436
1,434
2,340
2,684
26%
43%
2001
5,228
1,421
2,289
27%
44%
2002 *
5,607
1,674
30%
Expiration Releases
1999
3,986
314
708
983
8%
18%
2000
3,981
310
674
966
8%
17%
2001
4,025
349
722
9%
18%
2002 *
4,408
336
8%
Total Releases
1999
12,050
2,235
3,954
4,810
19%
33%
4,668
2000
13,415
2,639
5,634
20%
35%
2001
12,446
2,569
4,325
21%
35%
2002 *
12,977
2,696
21%
*The remaining data for 2002 will be included in the recidivism report that is
scheduled for release in 2009.

3
48%
50%

47%
49%

25%
24%

40%
42%

The department used reincarceration as the primary measure of recidivism. Therefore,
the recidivism study does not include released offenders who may have been convicted of a new
crime and sentenced to probation or other community supervision. The recidivism calculation
strategy used by the department calculates the number of returns in relation to the number of
releases that occurred during the targeted 12-, 24-, or 36-month period rather than counting the
number of people who returned. The latter method (i.e., counting the number of people who
returned) is used by the Association of State Correctional Administrators. The report presents
one-, two-, and three-year failure rates from the time of release because failures typically peak
between 8 and 15 months following a release. Based on the methods used for calculating and
measuring recidivism, the recidivism rate appears to be understated as a result of reincarcerations
and overstated as a result of counting the number of releases. The department should consider

22

using more than one measure for calculating recidivism to ensure a more accurate recidivism
rate.
During this audit, we initially contacted eight Southeastern states to compare their
methods for measuring and tracking recidivism to Tennessee’s procedure. Of the states
contacted, however, only North Carolina and Florida responded. The North Carolina Sentencing
Policy and Advisory Commission is mandated by the North Carolina General Assembly to
conduct a recidivism study every two years. The commission uses rearrests as its primary
measure of recidivism, supplemented by information on reconvictions, technical probation
revocations, and reincarcerations to assess the extent of an offender’s repeat involvement in the
criminal justice system. The Florida Department of Correction’s Bureau of Research and Data
Analysis publishes a recidivism report every four years. The bureau uses two recidivism
measures: conviction for a new, serious offense (reoffense), and commitment to prison for a new
offense (reimprisonment). We were unable to compare the recidivism rates among states
because each state uses different calculation measures.
Data Reliability of Recidivism Reports
According to Department of Correction management, responsibility for reviewing
information and verifying the accuracy and completeness of data lies with the individual users of
the information, e.g., individual program directors. Auditors determined that the department
does conduct some data reliability testwork to detect and correct errors found in the data used.
The Sentence Management Services Division has a procedure to verify the releases and
supporting data for individuals with expiring sentences. This information is entered into TOMIS
from judgment orders, and would affect the recidivism rate if the information was not entered
correctly. According to management, staff have detected many errors in the information entered
into TOMIS by the county jail personnel. However, negative effects were limited because
Sentence Management Services staff reviewed data and corrected errors before the information
was used in recidivism calculations. Although the Sentence Management Services Division
appears to have procedures in place to verify the accuracy of sentence-related data, there is no
department policy requiring each division to implement procedures to detect and correct errors in
department data used in department reports and relied on for policy or program decisions.

Recommendation
The Policy, Planning and Research office should coordinate the collection of all data
necessary to create an expanded database for recidivism, containing offender information on
prior convictions, current conviction and sentence, program participation, and outcome
measures. To ensure a more accurate recidivism rate, the department should consider using more
than one calculation measure. (Although also tracking convictions in states other than Tennessee
would provide a more complete picture of recidivism, such tracking would be difficult and time
consuming.) The department should develop and implement a database to conduct ongoing
evaluations of the rehabilitative and pre-release programs. The database should include overall
measures of program effectiveness based on program outcomes, recidivism rates for program
participants, and costs of the programs. (Also see finding 4.) The department should also

23

develop and implement a policy to ensure that data reliability test work is conducted by each
relevant program director before the information is included in the recidivism database.

Management’s Comment
We concur in part. There is not a standardized definition of recidivism that has been
adopted nationwide. It would be good if we had the ability to track every inmate who was
released from our custody for a finite time. It would be very effective if we could identify all
criminal convictions of all offenders who were once incarcerated within the Tennessee
Department of Correction’s jurisdiction, regardless of where the conviction occurred and all
entities who tracked recidivism did the same. While we agree that inclusion of information
about convictions that have occurred outside our jurisdiction would give all a truer picture of
reoffending individuals, this capability is not currently available to the department; however, it is
an avenue that is being explored with other entities.
We agree that having different directors within our department and, at times, within one
division of our department constructing their own version of our department’s recidivism
numbers is problematic. This is counterproductive and lacks value to those trying to make shortand long-term strategic decisions.
We agree that Policy, Planning and Research should coordinate the collection of the data
necessary to create an expanded recidivism report and establish the parameters for that data in
concert with relevant divisions and work units within the department. Additionally, a
methodology in which successful program completers and a group of non-completers who are
similar on key characteristics will be developed to assess the contribution of rehabilitative
programs in relation to recidivism rates.
While there may still be discussion regarding the numbers in the recidivism report the
department creates, we will at least have the starting point of consistency and precise parameters
that can be understood by anyone reviewing the information.

4. As reported in the 2003 Department of Correction performance audit, the department
needs to continue to improve the pre-release services for inmates by developing
methods to measure the effectiveness of its programs
Finding
According to Department of Correction Policy 511.02, Pre-Release Services, the
department is responsible for developing and maintaining a uniform statewide pre-release
program designed to facilitate a successful reentry into the community and reduce recidivism.
Department Policy 513.02, Transition Center Programming, establishes a program that provides
for structured release back into the community.

24

The September 2003 performance audit reported that the Department of Correction
needed to continue its efforts to improve the pre-release services offered. The audit stated that
while the department had made improvements, the pre-release services offered by the department
were still insufficient based on the number of inmates who exited the system each year and the
problems inmates faced when attempting to readjust to life outside the correctional system. The
Department of Correction offered several types of pre-release programming; however, the
department lacked information on inmate participation in pre-release programs and on
performance outcomes and, therefore, on the effectiveness of the programs. We recommended
that the department continue to work toward implementing a comprehensive pre-release program
to address needs of inmates before they are released into the community. We also recommended
that the department develop a system to monitor short- and long-term outcomes, including
tracking recidivism rates, to help the department identify additional needs as well as the most
effective programs and program components. The department concurred in part and recognized
that there was room for improvement. The department stated that it had undertaken some
initiatives to address the needed improvements.
Since the last audit, the department has continued to improve the pre-release services
offered. Improvements include the following:
•

implementing two transition communities in Davidson County (the Genesis program
at the Charles Bass Correctional Complex and the New Start program at the
Tennessee Prison for Women), after the completion of the Tennessee Bridges
Program;

•

implementing a pre-release program at each of the department correctional facilities
as well as the three private facilities;

•

assigning pre-release coordinators at each of the correctional facilities and pre-release
facilitators at three of the facilities, Northwest Correctional Complex in Lake County,
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility in Bledsoe County, and
Whiteville Correctional Facility in Hardeman County;

•

creating quarterly reports to track the pre-release program participants; and

•

creating the Staying Home pilot program.

Based on information provided by the department’s Budget office, the department’s costs for
pre-release activities were $607,500 in fiscal year 2006, $683,500 in fiscal year 2007, and
$765,100 in fiscal year 2008.
Despite these improvements, the department has not yet implemented a system to
monitor the short-term and long-term outcomes of the pre-release programs, as recommended in
the prior audit. In addition, there appear to be weaknesses in the department’s methods for
tracking and measuring the success of the pre-release programs. According to Pre-Release
Services management, the pre-release programs were not consistent across facilities in the past,
which made them hard to track. The department has since implemented one pre-release program
that is offered at each correctional facility. However, tracking of the program appears to be a
continuing issue.

25

Pre-release Programs
The Tennessee Bridges (TNBR) program, which began in 2002 and ended in 2005, was a
three-year, three-phase federally funded program designed to assist inmates with successful
reentry into society. The department conducted a three-year recidivism rate study to measure the
effectiveness of the Tennessee Bridges Program. As of the last report created by the department
in November 2007, there had been a total of 261 participants paroled to the Tennessee Bridges
program. The recidivism rate was 66.80% for the participants of the Tennessee Bridges program
and 82.90% for the control group average. The control group consisted of (1) inmates who met
the TNBR criteria, and wanted to participate but were not referred; (2) inmates who met the
TNBR criteria but did not want to participate; and (3) inmates who met the TNBR criteria but
did not want to relocate to Knox, Shelby, or Davidson County.
After the completion of the Tennessee Bridges program, the Department of Correction
developed two transitional communities—Genesis, a 90-bed program for male inmates at the
Charles Bass Correctional Complex; and New Start, a 40-bed program for female inmates at the
Tennessee Prison for Women. The transitional center programs last for approximately nine
months and include the following three phases:
•

Phase I - assessment and program orientation;

•

Phase II - main treatment with a focus on community service; and

•

Phase III - re-entry preparation with the primary focus on employment, housing, and
relapse prevention.

The length of each phase is approximately three months; each phase must be successfully
completed before advancement to the next phase is granted.
The first group of participants for the Genesis program was the last class of participants
in the Tennessee Bridges program. As of June 30, 2008, the Genesis program had
•

a total of 319 program participants;

•

86 participants actively enrolled in the program;

•

168 participants who had graduated from the program; and

•

19 of the 168 graduates who had violated their release and returned to prison, for a
recidivism rate of 11%.

The New Start Program, which was contracted through the YWCA of Nashville and
Middle Tennessee, began on July 1, 2005, and ended on June 30, 2008. According to program
management, the contract was not renewed because of budget constraints; however, the program
will be continued under a new name with state staff and volunteers from a local agency, The
Next Door. The Next Door is a six-month residential transitional living program located in
downtown Nashville that provides recovery support services for women with an addiction to
alcohol and drugs. As of April 2008, the New Start program had 36 inmates actively enrolled, 3
graduates awaiting release, and 32 inmates who had completed the program.

26

The Department of Correction has partnered with the Shelby County Division of
Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole to create the Staying Home Initiative, which
is a three-year federal-grant pilot program. The Staying Home partners have received $450,000
in funding and have requested an additional $130,434. They chose the Memphis Leadership
Foundation as the initiative’s Faith-Based Community Organization partner, and the foundation
has been allocated $135,000. The program is focused on employment and has an initial target of
280 inmates, with a goal of 240 inmates to successfully complete the institutional component of
the program and 200 inmates who are still successful (i.e., have not returned to prison) at the end
of two years. The department was awarded money for this program in September 2007, and the
Board of Probation and Parole began selecting participants for this program in March 2008. As
of June 2008, the board had only selected two participants for the program.
The Department of Correction also implemented a 10- to 12-week classroom pre-release
program at each of the 16 correctional facilities, available to inmates who are within nine months
of release. Because of limited spaces in the program, priority is given to inmates who the Board
of Probation and Parole has mandated must complete the program before they are released on
parole, followed by inmates whose sentences are expiring or inmates who have a release date
already set by the Board of Probation and Parole. The Northeast Correctional Complex in
Johnson County has a pilot program that mandates the pre-release program for all inmates before
release; however, because of limited space available, the pre-release program is not mandatory at
the other correctional facilities (unless mandated for a particular inmate by the Board of
Probation and Parole). During the audit, auditors interviewed program management and 13 of
the 16 pre-release coordinators. Staff raised concerns about a lack of supplies (including pencils,
paper, etc.) and the availability of space at some of the facilities, such as the Northwest
Correctional Complex in Lake County and Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Davidson
County. However, program management was not aware of supply shortages at the facilities. A
lack of supplies and availability of space could hinder the effectiveness of the existing program
at a facility and limit the department’s ability to make the pre-release program available to more
inmates.
Weaknesses With Data Reliability and Verification
The department creates reports to track pre-release program participants, the number of
inmates released, and their participation in the program. We reviewed the database of prerelease program participants compiled by the pre-release coordinators and the director for fiscal
years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
The following information was provided by the department for fiscal years 2005 to 2007:
•

86% - 89% of the pre-release program participants graduated from the program, but
only 16% - 21% of the total inmates released from a correctional facility graduated
from the pre-release program;

•

41% - 46% of the total inmates released from a prison facility declined pre-release
services;

27

•

20% - 26% of the total inmates released from a prison facility received partial prerelease services; and

•

53% - 65% of the pre-release program participants were released from a prison
facility;

The table below provides information on pre-release program participants for fiscal years
2005 through 2008.

Table 4
Summary of Pre-Release Program Participants
Fiscal Years 2005 to 2008

Year
2005
2006
2007

Total
Available
Program
Slots for the
Year
1576
2039
2115

Program
Participants
1321
1790
1905

2008

2177

1910

Program
Graduates
1175
1536
1695

Program
Participants
Released
739
1162
1018

Program
Participants
Paroled
420
610
455

Program
Participants
Who Expired
Their Sentence
277
530
542

Other
Releases of
Program
Participants
42
22
21

1708

1030

454

550

26

Auditors’ review found that the department tracks the same information in two different
ways, by total inmates released and by program participants. However, based on the tracking
methods, the department cannot adequately determine an accurate success rate of the program.
For example, not all of the total inmates released participated in the pre-release program, and
some of the pre-release program participants were not released during the same year they
graduated from the program.
During the review, we also noted that some of the pre-release data published in the
Department of Correction’s annual reports for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 were not
consistent with the data from the pre-release spreadsheets created by program management.
Despite discussions with relevant Department of Correction staff, the discrepancies were not
explained. See Table 5 for some examples of discrepancies.

28

Table 5
Comparison of Pre-Release Database and Annual Report
Fiscal Years 2005 Through 2008
Percent of All Inmates Released
Who Participated in the PreRelease Program
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008

Annual
Report
24%
27%
30%
21%

Percent of Program Participants
Who Were Released into the
Community

Pre-Release
Spreadsheet
23%
29%
30%
29%

Annual
Report
63%
70%
53%
60%

Pre-Release
Spreadsheet
56%
65%
53%
54%

The program director compiles an annual report of the pre-release data that is submitted
to the Division of Policy, Planning and Research. This information is gathered from the
quarterly reports sent in by the pre-release coordinators. (According to management, there have
been instances where coordinators did not enter the correct codes into TOMIS, the department’s
Tennessee Offender Management Information System, which resulted in inaccurate calculations
in the reports.) The quarterly reports are reviewed by Pre-Release Services management for
errors and mistakes. If the review of data detects errors, the pre-release coordinator is informed
and asked to correct the errors in the report. The Division of Policy, Planning and Research
management does not check information submitted by the different program directors before
including it into the annual report. It appears that data reliability procedures in place are limited
in detecting and correcting errors entered into TOMIS by the pre-release coordinators.
Although the department has made efforts to track pre-release program data, the
weaknesses and discrepancies in the data captured and reported raise questions about the data’s
accuracy and hinder management’s ability to determine the effectiveness of pre-release
programs. In addition, the department did not track the recidivism rate for the pre-release
program and does not have a control group used to compare with the inmates enrolled in the prerelease program.

Recommendation
Pre-Release Services management should work with Division of Policy, Planning and
Research staff to develop a system to monitor the short-term and long-term outcomes of the prerelease programs, including tracking recidivism rates, to help the department identify additional
needs, as well as determine the most effective programs and program components. To that end,
the department should consider creating a control group of inmates not enrolled in the pre-release
and transitional programs to compare to those in the program. The department should also
develop a data reliability cross-checking system to verify accuracy of the data. The department
should ensure that all department correctional facilities, as well as the private facilities, have the
same supplies and materials to successfully prepare the inmates for reentry into the community.

29

Management’s Comment
We concur. We agree that the department has made progress in improving the
preparation for inmates being released from custody. We also agree that we can, and will, do
more to prepare inmates to transition back to our communities.
The department is in the process of implementing a validated assessment tool that will
assist us in better identifying needed transitional and pre-release services. When fully
implemented, the assessment process will establish a priority for service delivery to inmates prior
to release. Training for implementation of this assessment tool is ongoing. Further, it will
incorporate data coding that will provide comprehensive information about inmate program
completion. This will allow us to create control groups as well as identify inmates who have
received those services and establish long-term and short-term outcome data.
Currently, some programs are being tracked with stand-alone data entry that is separate
from our mainframe system. However, we agree that a comprehensive system is needed to better
identify outcomes. Utilizing the above assessment process, the department will establish a
comprehensive system to track recidivism rates for pre-release/transitional programs. The new
system will also provide a mechanism to cross-check and verify the accuracy of the data when
compared to stand-alone tracking systems already in place.
During the audit process, the issue of supplies and materials was brought to our attention.
The Rehabilitative Services section contacted all pre-release coordinators in the field, and the
problem has been corrected.

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

The topics discussed below did not warrant a finding but are included in this report
because of their effect on the operations of the Department of Correction and on the citizens of
Tennessee.

CONTRACT MONITORING
Contract Monitoring
According to Section 41-24-109, Tennessee Code Annotated, the department monitors
any contracts with prison contractors providing correctional services. The largest such contracts
for correctional services include management of a facility and the provision of services to
inmates such as health and rehabilitative services. Corrections Corporation of America, a private
corrections management firm, has contracts to manage South Central Correctional Facility in
Wayne County, and Whiteville Correctional Facility and Hardeman County Correctional Center
in Hardeman County. Each facility has a Department of Correction contract monitor on-site who
30

is responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance. The monitoring includes observing
and reporting on the day-to-day operational performance of the contractor regarding compliance
with all terms and conditions of the contract. There are 35 monitoring instruments, completed
either on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis, which assess the entire operation of each
facility. These instruments are reviewed by central office staff.
The largest health services contractor, First Medical Management, has three
comprehensive sites in Davidson County—Charles Bass Correctional Complex, Tennessee
Prison for Women, and Riverbend Correctional Complex—which the department monitors on a
monthly basis. Department staff monitor (on-site) all other facilities every other month.
However, if a facility is undergoing its annual inspection, the department will not monitor that
site during that particular month. (Teams of staff from the department’s facilities and the central
office annually inspect all facilities for policy compliance.) Department rehabilitative services
contracts are monitored once every six months, with a follow-up review within three months if a
corrective action plan was required. Auditors reviewed the department’s monitoring instruments
used for monitoring the compliance of First Medical Management and multiple rehabilitative
service contracts, and found that department staff monitor the contracts timely. (See page 60 for
a breakdown of department contracts for fiscal year 2008.)
First Medical Management Contract
We reviewed monitoring instruments for First Medical Management for January 2006
(when the contract began) through June 2008. According to the department’s internal records, in
that time period over $1.3 million in liquidated damages have been collected from First Medical
Management for noncompliances. (Total contract expenditures were $18.9 million in fiscal year
2006, $39.3 million in fiscal year 2007, and $39.7 million in fiscal year 2008.) Liquidated
damages were assessed for Staffing, CQI (Continuous Quality Care Improvement)/Infection
Control, Specialty Consults, Pharmacy Services, and Other (which refers to standards that did
not fall into the larger categories). (The September 2003 Department of Correction performance
audit found that the department had failed to assess liquidated damages against healthcare
providers for contract noncompliance, so there appears to be improvement in holding contractors
accountable.)
First Medical Management (FMM) Liquidated Damages
Calendar Year
2006
$80,475

Calendar Year
2007
$378,950

January Through
June 2008
$248,100

CQI/Infection Control

$19,200

$20,100

$7,200

Specialty Consults

$190,050

$252,750

$84,800

Pharmacy Services

$2,300

$16,800

$4,100

Other

$2,350

$10,700

$9,050

$294,375

$679,300

$353,250

Areas of Contract Noncompliance
Staffing

Grand Total

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction.

31

Rehabilitative Services Contracts
Auditors reviewed rehabilitative contracts as well as monitoring instruments that the
Department of Correction’s monitoring staff use to ensure contracts are in compliance. (Also see
finding 1 for a description of concerns we identified related to the Spectrum Health Services, Inc.
contract.) Based on our review of the department’s monitoring instruments, case management
has been a major issue. Most of the issues pinpointed in the contract monitoring instruments
address the fact that documents regarding the treatments offered and participants’ progress in the
treatment programs were missing or not recorded timely. Without complete documentation, the
department cannot determine whether the required services have been provided and the outcome
(at least the short-term outcome) of those services. Regarding longer-term outcomes, the
Spectrum contract was the only rehabilitative services contract that addressed tracking
recidivism.
The department should work with contractors to improve documentation and tracking of
rehabilitative services. The department should consider increasing rehabilitative contract
monitoring from once every six months to once every three months, or implementing some form
of timely supervisory review of data, to ensure needed documentation of services provided and
outcomes is maintained. The department should also consider including requirements to track
recidivism in all rehabilitative services contracts, to better measure programs’ effectiveness.
(Also see finding 3 regarding the tracking and measuring of recidivism rates.)

COUNTY FINAL COST SETTLEMENTS ARE STILL NOT SUBMITTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT IN A TIMELY MANNER
Under the County Correctional Incentives Program (CCIP), counties are reimbursed for
housing Tennessee Department of Correction inmates. During fiscal year 2007, reimbursements
to counties totaled over $103 million. Twenty-two county facilities either contract to house
inmates at a flat rate or participate via a resolution adopted by the county-governing body to
house inmates at a fixed rate. (See note to Table 6 for additional explanation.) Eighty-one
county facilities are reimbursed for housing state inmates using the Reasonable Allowable Cost
method. (Some counties have more than one facility housing state inmates.) For counties using
the Reasonable Allowable Cost method of reimbursement, the monthly reimbursement is based
on the county’s interim Inmate Day Rate and the inmate count from the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS). The interim Inmate Day Rate, in turn, is based on
the county’s Final Cost Settlement (actual daily inmate cost) from the previous fiscal year. (The
prior year’s actual cost per that settlement, limited to $35, is multiplied by 103% to account for
inflation. Then the interim rate is set at 90% of the calculated amount.) As reported in the
previous Department of Correction performance audit, county Final Cost Settlements are still not
submitted to the department in a timely manner, and a reasonable interim Inmate Day Rate
cannot be calculated for the subsequent fiscal year until the Final Cost Settlement is completed.
Although the prior year’s interim rate is used to pay the current year’s monthly jail bills in the
meantime, this practice can result in underpayments or overpayments to the counties.

32

Each month, the department sends jail bills to the facilities listing the state inmates
housed at the county’s institution according to TOMIS. The facilities are to review the jail bill,
note additions and deletions, and return the jail bill along with a Correction Facility Summary
Report (CFSR) for the month. The signed CFSR and the jail bill have to be returned in order to
process payment.
The Department of Correction does not see the actual inmate roster for each county;
instead, the department relies on periodic reviews performed by the Office of the Comptroller of
the Treasury’s Division of County Audit. County Audit staff review Final Cost Settlement
Reports (i.e., the report used to calculate the cost of housing inmates) for accuracy, and how the
facilities conduct their inmate counts (for consistency) to ensure that the information reported to
the Department of Correction (i.e., the number of days an inmate was housed) is correct. Board
bills are looked at specifically, as local jails are only reimbursed for housing state felons even
though the Final Cost Settlement includes all expenses. County Audit reviews at least 65% of
the total County Correctional Incentive Program budget each year, and looks at all 103 local
facilities at least once in a seven-year period; however, the largest counties (Davidson and
Shelby) are looked at every year. Five or six counties are chosen for review from each region
(i.e., West, Middle, Mid-East, and East). County Audit selects a sample of files for review, and
if significant errors are found the sample is increased.
Submission of Final Cost Settlements
To determine whether the timeliness of county submissions of Final Cost Settlements was
still a concern, we conducted a review of Final Cost Settlement (FCS) submittal dates for fiscal
years 2005, 2006, and 2007. According to the department’s Guidelines for Determining
Reasonable Allowable Cost for State Prisoners, Final Cost Settlements are to be submitted no
later than October 1 following the end of the fiscal year, June 30. This deadline is the only
requirement that is outlined for those counties that participate in the County Correctional
Incentives Program. Based on the review, a significant number of counties were late. Auditors
also found patterns in the counties that submitted Final Cost Settlements late. Thirty of the
participating counties submitted their Final Cost Settlements late in all of the three years
reviewed. Twenty-one of the participating counties submitted the Final Cost Settlements late in
two out of the past three fiscal years. It appears that the department has not made an effort to
resolve this issue. However, department staff stated that the pattern of turning in Final Cost
Settlements late is acceptable because staff would not be prepared to review them
simultaneously. Although there is no set date for following up with counties that have an
outstanding FCS, the department sometimes sends correspondence urging counties that are
outstanding to submit their FCS.
According to the submission dates provided by the department’s Judicial Cost
Accountant, of the 79 facilities that are to submit Final Cost Settlements, only 30 submitted their
Final Cost Settlements on time in fiscal year 2005, 22 submitted on time for fiscal year 2006, and
37 were on time for fiscal year 2007. The remaining counties submitted their Final Cost
Settlement late (see Table 6). As of October 8, 2008, the Judicial Cost Accountant had only
received 25 of the fiscal year 2008 Final Cost Settlements, 5 of which were received after
October 1, 2008.

33

Table 6
Review of County Submission of Final Cost Settlements
Final Cost Settlements
Submission of FCS
Early/On time
1-30 days late
31-60 days late
61-90 days late
91-120 days late
121-150 days late
151-200 days late
201-250 days late
> 250 days late

2005
30
19
10
4
1
7
6
2
0
79

Percent
37.97%
24.05%
12.66%
5.06%
1.27%
8.86%
7.59%
2.53%
0.00%
100.00%

2006
22
22
8
6
5
8
7
1
0
79

Percent
27.85%
27.85%
10.13%
7.59%
6.33%
10.13%
8.86%
1.27%
0.00%
100.00%

2007
37
17
3
5
6
5
2
2
2
79

Percent
46.84%
21.52%
3.80%
6.33%
7.59%
6.33%
2.53%
2.53%
2.53%
100.00%

Note: Some counties may submit one final cost settlement that includes more than one facility within that county.
Some counties are not required to submit a Final Cost Settlement because they are either contracted at a flat rate
or participate via a resolution. For resolution counties, the county governing body adopts a resolution for the
reimbursement rate of $18 or $20 per inmate day. The county and state determine a reasonable cost
reimbursement for counties that receive the contract flat rate and this flat rate is incorporated into the contract.
Since both the Resolution and Contract Flat Rate counties have a set rate applied, their actual costs are not
relevant and a Final Cost Settlement is not necessary.

Local Jail Resource Office
In late 2007, the department created the Local Jail Resource Office to improve upon the
issues listed above. The Local Jail Resource Office currently has three major functions intended
to correct the current issues:
•

Defining the status of inmates in the county jails (guilty/not guilty) and making the
determination of their category status (i.e., convicted, probation/parole violator,
misdemeanants, etc.).

•

Reviewing statutes in place and (if needed) updating them.

•

Improving how Jail Board Bills are handled and how corrections are made. The
current instrument in place (TOMIS) was never intended to be used as a payment
system/accountant. Currently it takes anywhere from three to seven months to make
corrections. The goal is to train county jail staff on the proper technique to complete
Jail Board Bills, as this will in turn hold them more accountable.

Recommendation
It is in the state’s interest to encourage timely submission of the Final Cost Settlement in
order to limit the state’s risk of underpayments and overpayments. The state should consider
implementing a more effective way to track underpayments and overpayments. In addition to its
cost-focused Guidelines for Determining Reasonable Allowable Cost for State Prisoners, the

34

department should implement formal policies and procedures regarding other aspects of the
CCIP program. Policies and procedures should include, at a minimum:
•

policies for submission of the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs;

•

procedures outlining timelines for review of jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs by
department staff;

•

procedures for corrections to the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs;

•

timeline for follow-up of FCS submission; and

•

implementation and assessment of penalties for late submittal and/or continuous late
submittal of jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs.

DEPARTMENT FACILITIES CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE A HIGH RATE OF
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TURNOVER
System-wide, for fiscal year 2008, the correctional officer turnover rate was 28.3%, an
increase of 0.8% from the fiscal year 2007 rate of 27.5%, which was already very high.
Correction staff interviewed acknowledged that correctional officer turnover is a concern. High
turnover rates contribute to a variety of problems for facilities, such as increased training and
recruitment costs and increased use of overtime. (Working extended hours in a setting that is
already stressful and potentially dangerous may negatively affect the efficiency and effectiveness
of an officer.) According to employee exit surveys, low pay is a major reason for turnover.
Comparisons of the department’s starting correctional officer salary with salaries in other states
and in Tennessee counties show that the department’s salary is lower than average.
The department’s employment recruiter stated that the average cost to recruit and train a
new correctional officer is approximately $10,000, and it takes the department approximately
three years to recover the cost. He also said that the department is basically a training facility for
local jails because an individual will be trained by the department, receive work experience, and
then leave for more money at a county sheriff’s office. Based on the department’s correctional
officer turnover report, 71.5% of correctional officers who left during fiscal year 2007 had two
years or less of employment with the Department of Correction.
According to the department’s 2007 annual report, there are six facilities with a
correctional officer turnover rate that is higher than the system-wide average. These facilities
include the Charles Bass Correctional Complex (37.40%), the DeBerry Special Needs Facility
(40.02%), the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution (49.63%), and the Tennessee Prison for
Women (49.15%) in Davidson County; the Northwest Correctional Complex (30.55%) in Lake
County; and the West Tennessee State Penitentiary (30.83%) in Lauderdale County. Table 7
details correctional officer turnover rates for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

35

Table 7
Trends in Correctional Officer
Turnover Rates by Institution
Fiscal Year 2007

Department of
Correction Facilities

Separations

Average
Number of
Correctional
Officers

Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex

38

Charles Bass Correctional
Complex

Fiscal Year 2008

Turnover
Rate

Separations

Average
Number of
Correctional
Officers

308

12.32%

30

228

13.2%

70

187

37.40%

89

187

47.7%

DeBerry Special Needs
Facility

65

162

40.02%

46

162

28.5%

Mark Luttrell Correctional
Facility

15

86

17.44%

29

86

33.7%

Northeast Correctional
Complex

43

291

14.78%

53

288

18.4%

Northwest Correctional
Complex

109

357

30.55%

89

357

24.9%

Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution

84

169

49.63%

98

177

55.4%

Southeastern TN State
Regional Facility

25

169

14.84%

33

172

19.2%

Tennessee Prison for
Women

65

132

49.15%

58

128

45.2%

Turney Center Industrial
Prison and Farm

45

170

26.50%

55

177

31.1%

Wayne County Boot Camp

4

67

5.98%

8

67

11.9%

West Tennessee State
Penitentiary

119

386

30.83%

132

395

33.4%

Morgan County
Correctional Complex

*

*

*

12

161

7.5%

System-wide

27.50%

Turnover
Rate

28.3%

* During fiscal year 2007, the Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex in Morgan County included the Morgan
County Correctional Facility.

Auditors reviewed correctional officer turnover rates reported in the Southern Legislative
Conference’s Adult Correctional Systems reports for fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
Tennessee’s turnover rates for correctional officers were higher each year than the 16-state
average, and when compared with the 15 other states, Tennessee ranked 14th in 2005, 12th in
2006, and 14th in 2007. See Table 8.

36

Table 8
Trends in Correctional Officer
Turnover Rates by State
Fiscal Year
2005

Fiscal Year
2006

Fiscal Year
2007

Alabama

8.9%

10.7%

9.8%

Arkansas

36.4%

34.6%

37.4%

Florida

13.6%

13.6%

18.0%

Georgia

21.5%

26.2%

26.3%

Kentucky

27.8%

21.0%

21.0%

Louisiana

22.0%

29.0%

27.0%

Maryland

13.3%

10.0%

14.0%

Mississippi

22.5%

23.9%

68.0%

Missouri

15.7%

14.6%

15.8%

North Carolina

5.6%

15.3%

15.5%

Oklahoma

13.9%

19.5%

16.2%

South Carolina

27.3%

27.3%

25.5%

Tennessee

27.5%

25.0%

27.4%

Texas

21.0%

23.0%

24.0%

Virginia

14.5%

17.7%

20.1%

West Virginia

17.0%

19.5%

19.0%

Average

19.3%

20.7%

24.1%

State

Source: Southern Legislative Conference, Adult Correctional System Reports.

Auditors reviewed exit surveys for 2005, 2007, and 2008 (staff could not locate any 2006
surveys). Each person terminating employment was asked to identify the three most important
reasons for departure. Low Pay was listed in the top three for each year. In 2005, the three most
common reasons given were Low Pay (57.89%), Dislike Working Conditions (28.95%), and
Poor Relationship with Supervisor (19.74%). In 2007, the three most common reasons given
were Poor Relationship with Supervisor (53.33%), Low Pay (35.56%), and Dislike Working
Conditions (33.33%). During the first five months of 2008, the top three reasons were Low Pay
(33.33%), Dissatisfaction with Department Policies (27.78%), and Personal Health/Family
Problems (22.22%). (Many department employees who leave never complete and return their
exit surveys. Therefore, the survey results do not present a complete picture of departing
employees.) Table 9 illustrates the survey results in greater detail.

37

Table 9
Department of Correction
Exit Interview Surveys
Calendar
Year 2005

Calendar
Year 2007

Calendar
Year 2008*

Concern for personal safety

14

5

3

Personal health

14

9

4

Family problems

7

3

4

Move from area

14

2

2

Receive an unsolicited job offer

5

1

1

Spouse is transferred

2

0

0

Pregnancy/birth of child

0

1

1

To remain at home

4

2

3

Dislike working conditions

22

15

3

Dislike schedule

12

6

1

Dislike assignments

5

2

2

Poor relationship with supervisor

15

24

3

Lack of advancement opportunity

7

4

1

Low pay

44

16

6

Inadequate benefits

7

0

0

Dissatisfaction with TDOC policies

10

7

5

Total Number of Surveys

76

45

18

Number of Surveys from COs

54

29

10

Reason

(Each survey requested the three most important reasons for leaving the department.)
* First five months of 2008.

Auditors’ review of the exit survey summary reports for the first five months of 2008
found that the reports for February, March, and April were blank. The note in the April
summary report stated, “There are no facilities that are doing exit interviews. If you want exit
interviews they must be made a priority.” (In interviews, staff also stated that these surveys need
to be taken more seriously.) The May summary report stated that a total of ten exit surveys had
been received (from eight institutions) along with the reasons for leaving.
We also reviewed correctional officer salaries reported in the Southern Legislative
Conference’s Adult Correctional Systems reports for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. When
compared with starting salaries for correctional officers in the other 15 conference states,
Tennessee ranked tenth in fiscal year 2003 (Oklahoma’s salary information was not available),
ninth in fiscal year 2004 (Florida’s and Oklahoma’s salary information was not available), eighth
in fiscal year 2005, eighth in fiscal year 2006, and ninth in fiscal year 2007. (See Table 10.)
38

Table 10
Correctional Officer Starting Salaries*
Fiscal Years 2003 Through 2007
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

Fiscal Year
2003
$23,917
$20,981
$25,243
$23,614
$19,855
$18,366
$26,958
$17,673
$23,076
$22,894
N/A
$20,044
$20,700
$22,772
$22,361
$20,124

Fiscal Year
2004
$23,221
$22,370
N/A
$23,614
$19,855
$18,366
$27,710
$17,673
$23,520
$24,450
N/A
$20,645
$21,324
$22,772
$22,864
$20,124

Fiscal Year
2005
$23,917
$27,026
$30,204
$23,614
$20,651
$18,366
$28,126
$19,623
$23,520
$25,301
$20,672
$22,709
$23,064
$21,792
$22,550
$20,124

Fiscal Year
2006
$25,354
$27,358
$30,204
$23,614
$22,595
$18,366
$34,313
$20,371
$25,248
$26,105
$23,472
$23,390
$23,748
$21,792
$24,257
$20,124

Fiscal Year
2007
$27,552
$29,024
$30,808
$23,614
$23,346
$24,357
$35,000
$22,006
$26,004
$26,209
$24,605
$24,091
$24,456
$22,446
$25,228
$20,124

16 State Average

$21,905

$22,036

$23,204

$24,394

$25,554

Tennessee Amount
Below Average
$1,205
$712
$140
$646
$1,098
* Salary data are based on base annual salary not including overtime, retirement, or other related benefits.
Source: Southern Legislative Conference, Adult Correctional System Reports.

Auditors also obtained salary information from sheriff offices in Davidson County, as
well as several other counties in the state. (See Table 11.)

39

Table 11
Correctional Officer Starting Salary
As of June 30, 2008
County

Beginning Salary

Davidson

$30,349

Cheatham

$25,514

Wilson ($13 per hour)

$27,040

Sumner

$21,000

Williamson ($10.10 per hour)

$21,008

Rutherford

$27,520

Montgomery

$30,431

Shelby

$30,859

Knox

$27,424

Hamilton

$30,544

10-County Average

$27,169

Tennessee Department of Correction

$24,456

Difference

$2,713

*Salaries using hourly rates assume a 40-hour week and being paid 52
weeks per year. Does not factor in overtime.

The comparison of Tennessee with 15 other states indicated that, as of July 1, 2007,
Tennessee paid newly hired correctional officers $1,098 below the average salary for the
Southern Legislative Conference states. The starting salary for Department of Correction
correctional officers is also not competitive with local jails in some counties in Tennessee. The
salary gap between the department and the ten county jails for which we obtained information
was $2,713, and the gap ranged from ($3,456) to $6,403. It appears that, given the salary
differential, the department will continue to have problems retaining employees.
The department should continue its efforts to upgrade correctional officer salaries in
order to remain as competitive as possible with local facilities, as well as with other states in the
region. The department should review the results of the exit surveys and seek additional
feedback from employees, as well as from correction officials in other states, to identify other
changes the department could make in order to help decrease turnover. The department should
implement policies and procedures for conducting these surveys. The department should
implement an employee satisfaction survey to find ways to improve before employees decide to
leave. The department should also begin training staff who interview correctional officers in
order to make better hiring decisions. Staff should strive to illustrate to potential job candidates
all of the duties and responsibilities that accompany being a correctional officer.

40

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES
The Department of Correction’s policies and procedures state that academic programs are
to be available at all department and privately managed facilities. Time-building institutions are
to provide full-time Adult Education programs and may provide part-time programs. Specialty
institutions and the reception centers must provide at least a part-time academic program.
General Educational Development (GED) Program
The Tennessee Department of Education recognizes the Department of Correction as its
own school system, with the commissioner acting as the superintendent. Inmates are given the
opportunity to take the General Educational Development (GED) test if they meet the following
eligibility requirements:
•

the inmate cannot have a high school diploma, equivalency diploma, or have
graduated from an accredited high school in the United States or Canada;

•

inmates must qualify each time the test is given by passing the most current edition of
the Official GED Practice Test;

•

inmates may only participate in GED testing a maximum of three times per calendar
year; and

•

inmates under the age of 17 are not allowed to take the GED test.

Table 12 details the number of inmates from each institution who took the GED
examination, the number who passed, and the percentage who passed for fiscal years 2006, 2007,
and 2008.
Vocational Programs
Department of Correction policy states that vocational programs are to be provided at all
department institutions with the exception of Charles Bass Correctional Complex, Wayne
County Boot Camp, Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex, and DeBerry Special Needs
Facility. (These facilities are not time-building facilities, and inmates typically don’t stay there
long enough to complete a vocational program.) The department is to administer vocational
programs to meet the needs of the inmate population, and at the discretion of the commissioner
or his designee.
For the following inmates, the department considers full- or part-time academic
placement before approving vocational placement:
•

inmates who do not possess a high school or an equivalency diploma,

•

inmates who do not possess the necessary reading and math skills to comprehend the
material presented in the program, or

41

Table 12
Inmate GED Test Results
Fiscal Years-2006, 2007, and 2008

Correctional Institution
Brushy Mountain Correctional
Complex
Charles Bass Correctional
Complex
DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Hardeman County Correctional
Facility
Mark Luttrell Correctional
Center
Morgan County Correctional
Complex
Northeast Correctional
Complex
Northwest Correctional
Complex
Riverbend Correctional
Complex
South Central Correctional
Facility
Southeastern Tennessee State
Regional Correctional Facility
Turney Center Industrial Prison
and Farm
Tennessee Prison for Women
Wayne County Boot Camp
West Tennessee State
Penitentiary
Whiteville Correctional Facility
System-wide Total

Fiscal Year 2006
Number Number Percentage
Tested
Passed
Passed

Fiscal Year 2007
Number Number Percentage
Tested
Passed
Passed

Number
Tested

Fiscal Year 2008
Number Percentage
Passed
Passed

40

29

73%

59

48

81%

19

16

84%

35
2

30
2

86%
100%

33
8

26
7

79%
88%

49
20

14
13

29%
65%

63

49

78%

49

43

88%

102

67

66%

13

12

92%

21

19

90%

12

10

83%

*

*

*

*

*

*

63

51

81%

36

26

72%

72

56

78%

61

47

77%

56

39

70%

127

100

79%

215

122

57%

40

18

45%

38

20

53%

58

37

64%

87

59

68%

111

70

63%

129

70

54%

33

25

76%

49

36

73%

73

58

79%

8
31
43

7
26
30

88%
84%
70%

46
56
66

40
44
46

87%
79%
70%

27
41
65

23
40
52

85%
98%
80%

96
71
654

62
50
464

65%
70%
71%

83
104
922

58
72
685

70%
69%
74%

154
90
1,178

96
70
786

62%
78%
67%

*Morgan County’s totals are included in Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex’s numbers.

42

•

inmates who lack the secondary school credits commensurate with the licensing
board requirements for entering and obtaining a license in the vocational trade being
proposed.

The Tennessee Department of Education awards certificates to inmates upon completion
of a vocational program. A select number of programs offer certification through the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Table 13 lists the vocational programs (with capacity) available at the institutions as of
October 15, 2008.
According to policy, the department will coordinate vocational programs with academic
programs when possible, to ensure relevancy of employment opportunities in the community job
market. The Director of Education must approve vocational programs being considered for
implementation. Table 14 lists the number of vocational certificates issued at each institution for
fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
Post-Secondary Education Programs
Qualified inmates may participate in college-level studies. The department must make
courses available to inmates, at least by correspondence. The financial responsibility is that of
the inmate. The warden or his/her designee must approve all correspondence courses.
Designated Department of Correction staff oversee an inmate’s participation and progress.
The Department of Correction has partnered with two universities to offer college-level
courses. David Lipscomb University, a private institution in Nashville, offers undergraduate
courses at the Tennessee Prison for Women (TPW) in Davidson County. TPW staff complete
the screening for participants, and review behavioral and academic criteria. The only Lipscomb
requirement is a high school diploma or GED. The courses have 15 women enrolled from the
TPW and can have up to an additional 15 “traditional” students from Lipscomb. Courses began
in spring 2007, with one course offered each semester. As of spring 2008, there has been a
100% retention rate for the TPW students.

43

Table 13
Vocational Programs Capacity
2008
Programs
Automotive Mechanical
Technology
Barbering
Barbering Instructor
Career Management for
Success
Core, Carpentry
Foundations of the
Hospitality Industry,
Culinary Arts

Minimum
Education
Required

Total
Class
Hours

10th Grade Level
Diploma/GED
Diploma/GED

1,500
1,500
450

9th Grade Level
9th Grade Level

480
2,500

9th Grade Level

3,000

Construction Core
Computer Applications
& Literacy
Cosmetology
Cosmetology Instructor
Trainee
Core, Electrical

9th Grade Level

500

Diploma/GED
Diploma/GED

1,500
1,500

Diploma/GED
Diploma/GED

500
2,500

HVAC & Refrigeration
Landscaping
/Horticulture/
Groundskeeping
Leisure Craft/Small
Engine Technology

Diploma/GED

2,500

9th Grade Level

1,200

Diploma/GED

1,200

9th Grade Level
10th Grade Level
9th Grade Level

2,500
2,500
2,000

Masonry
Plumbing
Welding
Total Positions
Available
No vocational
programming at DSNF,
CBCX, BMCX, and
WCBC. See page 5 for
facility acronyms.

HCCF

MCCX*

MLCC

NECX

NWCX*

RMSI

SCCF

22
15
3
40
80

20
40

20
20

20

60
60

40
100

30
15

20
20

40
40

20
11

20

20

20

WCFA

20
40

WTSP

22
47
3

60
20

390
466

20

120
80

1
40

20
20

20

20

140

20

20

20

20

20
15

20
16

5

3

20

200

20

20

20

15

20
20

20

345

118

157

132

Class has extra positions for Special Education students.

Class has been established but not yet started.

* Offers a certificate
through the U.S.
Department of Labor

Class is suspended. Instructor vacancy.

44

39

155

20

110

136
45
9
160

20

15

22
21
22

All programs offer a
Dept. of Education
certificate

20

40

20

55

Positions
Available

20

20
37

180

TPFW

20
20

14

20

TCIP

12

20

20

STSR

80

135
20

20

80

40

20

137
41
22

180

219

1,991

Table 14
Vocational Certificates Issued
Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008
Fiscal
Year
2004

Fiscal
Year
2005

Fiscal
Year
2006

Fiscal
Year
2007

Fiscal
Year
2008

Total

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Hardeman County Correctional
Facility
Mark Luttrell Correctional Complex
Morgan County Correctional Complex
Northeast Correctional Complex
Northwest Correctional Complex

232
30
51
129
99

471
44
11
147
138

263
17
65
63
80

167
22
21
83
147

169
23
53
114
267

1,302
136
201
536
731

Riverbend Maximum Security
Institution
South Central Correctional Facility

38
281

42
198

11
277

27
314

33
167

151
1,237

Southeastern Tennessee State
Regional Correctional Facility
Tennessee Prison for Women
Turney Center Industrial Prison
Wayne County Boot Camp
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Whiteville Correctional Facility
Total

37
67
107
0
63
300
1,434

33
34
115
0
107
425
1,765

44
29
71
0
120
433
1,473

59
31
102
0
118
274
1,365

109
27
132
0
135
113
1,342

282
188
527
0
543
1,545
7,379

Institution
Brushy Mountain Correctional
Complex
Charles Bass Correctional Complex
DeBerry Special Needs Facility

The other partnership is with the University of Tennessee at Martin, resulting from the
department’s receipt of an Incarcerated Youth Offenders grant from the U.S. Department of
Education. The $292,527 grant is for one year (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008), and two
subsequent years if funding is appropriated. (The department has received funding for fiscal
year 2009.) Participants must be age 25 or younger, incarcerated in a state prison, and within
five years of release or parole eligibility. Initial screening is done by the department. This
partnership began in spring 2008, and courses are offered at the Northwest Correctional Complex
in Lake County. Two courses were offered during the first semester, with 17 inmates enrolled in
one course and 13 inmates enrolled in the second course. Table 15 lists the number of inmates
who were enrolled in college courses during fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
Inmates may be awarded an Educational Good Time Credit, a one-time credit of 60 days
that may be given to an eligible prisoner who successfully receives a General Educational
Development diploma, a two- or four-year college degree, a two- or four-year certification in
applied sciences, or vocational certificates that comprise completion of a job cluster.

45

The Department of Correction provides a variety of educational opportunities for
inmates. As stated on its website, the department believes that education and training play a key
role in inmates’ rehabilitation, and that with additional education and training, an inmate will be
less likely to reoffend.

Table 15
Inmates Enrolled in College Courses
Institution
BMCX
CBCX
DSNF
HCCF
MCCX
MLCC
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
SCCF
STSRC
TCIP
TPFW
WCBC
WTSP
WCFA
Total

Fiscal Year
2005
33
0
12
14
0
9
74
0
20
21
0
34
8
46
3
2
276

Fiscal Year
2006
34
30
0
0
0
8
83
0
12
7
0
25
8
10
4
3
224

Fiscal Year
2007
30
21
0
0
0
16
*1
0
18
7
0
29
15
0
1
9
147

Fiscal Year
2008
0
10
5
7
25
27
75
17
17
22
0
33
34
0
1
1
274

* The department believes this number may be inaccurate.

TRICOR PURCHASES
The Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Correction (TRICOR) was created to provide
occupational and life skills training for Tennessee’s incarcerated population through job training,
program opportunities, and transitional services designed to assist offenders with their
reintegration into society. TRICOR is self-supporting, generating revenue through the sales of
products and services. The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which manages three of
the state’s adult correctional facilities, is to purchase inmate uniforms—which include shirts,
pants, and jackets—from TRICOR, pursuant to Section 41-21-234, Tennessee Code Annotated,
and CCA’s contract with the department. (Although CCA is strongly encouraged to purchase
other products, such as food products, from TRICOR, CCA is not required to purchase the other
products from TRICOR.) According to sales invoices provided by TRICOR, CCA purchases far
fewer inmate uniforms from TRICOR than comparable Department of Correction facilities (i.e.,
the Northwest and Northeast correctional facilities).
TRICOR staff supplied auditors with sales invoices that compared the CCA facilities—
South Central, Hardeman County, and Whiteville correctional facilities—with the comparable
46

department facilities, and there is a significant difference in purchases. (See Table 16.) The
major reason for the large difference in total purchase amounts is that the Department of
Correction facilities purchase significant amounts of TRICOR goods and services other than
inmate uniforms, such as staff uniforms, footwear, beverage and dairy products, bed linens and
blankets, and printing services. CCA facilities, in contrast, purchase very few items other than
the required inmate uniforms. Even when comparing only the purchases from TRICOR for
required inmate clothing, however, there is still a significant difference in purchase amounts.
Auditors’ review of a sample of Department of Correction monitoring documents found that,
according to department monitors, CCA had complied with requirements regarding the purchase
of TRICOR uniforms. Therefore, it appears that CCA simply purchases inmate uniforms less
often than the Department of Correction facilities.

SECURITY THREAT GROUP MANAGEMENT
In 1999, as a result of increasing gang activity in the prison population, the department
created the position of Security Threat Group Coordinator. Since then, the department has
developed a program focused on addressing gang-related activities. According to department
policies and procedures, a Security Threat Group (STG) includes any group, organization, or
association of individuals who possess common characteristics that distinguish them from other
groups or individuals, and who have been determined to be acting so as to pose a threat or potential
threat to staff, other inmates, the institution, or the community. A security threat group suspect
may be any inmate who has been investigated and found to have at least one established identifier
that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an association exists with a security threat
group but who has not yet met the ten-point criteria for confirmation. Each institutional STG
coordinator is responsible for identifying inmates who are STG suspects, members, leaders, and
those who wish to voluntarily renounce their STG status. The STG coordinator is also responsible
for gathering, accumulating, and disseminating information regarding inmate STG activity.
Once the inmate has been confirmed as an STG member, the warden may recommend to
the STG Hearing Committee that the inmate be placed in either the STG Phase Program at
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility (STSRCF) in Bledsoe County or
the STG Housing Unit at Northeast Correctional Complex (NECX) in Johnson County. Inmates
are sent to one of these two facilities in order to persuade them to renounce their gang
membership. Programming is offered and administered in a classroom setting at both facilities.
While inmates are participating in the STG program, staff more closely monitor phone calls and
mail, and perform searches regularly. After inmates have successfully completed their
programming and renounced their gang affiliation, they are taken back to a general population
setting and are tracked for a period of one year. This tracking ensures that the returning inmates
do not involve themselves with the gang again and provides a measure of the program’s
effectiveness.

47

Table 16
TRICOR Sales
Assigned
Population

Fiscal Year
2008 (2)

TRICOR Sales–
Mandated Inmate Clothing (3)
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
2007
2006

Fiscal Year
2005

Count (1)

Fiscal Year
2008 (2)

Total TRICOR Sales
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
2007
2006

Northeast Correctional Complex

1,800

$908,823.61

$911,296.56

$809,635.01

$312,153.15

$76,123.06

$94,534.15

$72,567.22

$47,444.50

Northwest Correctional Complex

2,338

$1,158,710.81

$1,087,147.80

$1,013,978.30

$432,380.34

$130,009.53

$126,048.66

$131,862.37

$122,949.61

CCA South Central Correctional Center

1,643

$12,432.32

$13,916.06

$8,923.10

$17,257.30

$9,765.13

$10,065.25

$8,747.90

$8,218.90

CCA Hardeman County Correctional Facility

1,998

$13,613.83

$14,563.22

$17,374.66

$18,582.31

$13,511.83

$13,712.01

$13,193.65

$17,955.25

CCA Whiteville Correctional Facility

1,513

$2,722.65

$3,150.72

$22,138.17

$3,775.47

$2,722.65

$2,947.68

$21,744.42

$3,425.10

Location

(1) Count as of May 15, 2008.
(2) Sales from July 1, 2007, through April 30, 2008.
(3) Includes inmate clothing required by statute, which consists of shirt, pants, and jacket.
Source: Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Correction (TRICOR).

48

Fiscal Year
2005

The STG Housing Unit Program at NECX was started on December 29, 2006, and is
capable of housing up to 128 STG inmates. The concept behind the STG Housing Unit is
containment. STG members at this facility are not required to participate in unit programs;
however, there is programming available to inmates assigned to this unit. Because participation
is voluntary, placement in the STG Housing Unit can be an indefinite assignment. If inmates
choose to participate in the unit programs, they must complete all programs, remain write-up
free, and obtain their GED or documentation stating that they have advanced as far as they can in
education. Afterwards, the inmates may renounce their gang affiliation and be placed on STG
Monitoring for one year in a general population setting. An inmate may also be discharged from
the STG Housing Unit at the discretion of the warden based on institutional needs.
Of the 189 inmates who participated in the STG Housing Unit through April 23, 2008, 97
inmates have the potential to successfully complete the program, assuming they do not violate
their one-year monitoring period. Table 17 details the number of inmates who have participated
in the Housing Unit Program at NECX.

Table 17
Security Threat Group Housing Unit at
Northeast Correctional Complex
December 29, 2006–April 23, 2008
Status
Inmate Appealed Placement and Was Removed From STG
Housing Unit

Number of Inmates
14

Sentence Expired/Paroled

19

Placed on Administrative Segregation

18

Placed on Protective Custody/Transferred Due to
Incompatibles

12

Removed From Housing Unit Due to Annex Eligibility

24

Violations From Monitoring

5

Placed on Monitoring From the Program

97

Total

189

The Security Threat Group Phase Program at STSRCF was started in Spring 2000 and is
capable of housing up to 94 inmates. The program at STSRCF is a behavior management
program geared toward inmates who tend to be problematic. This program is targeted toward
inmates who are stepping down from maximum custody following an STG incident or those who
have been involved in recent STG activity and have fallen just short of consideration for

49

maximum security placement. The programming at STSRCF is delivered in three 90-day phases
and uses in-cell workbooks and/or some small-group programming. As inmates successfully
complete each phase, some of the privileges that have been taken away from them are reinstated.
Participation in the STG Phase Program at STSRCF is mandatory, and there are
consequences if inmates refuse to participate. Those who fail to complete the program within 12
months or who exhibit an unwillingness to participate will receive a Class A disciplinary for
refusal to participate. Inmates involved in the STG Phase Program who are terminated for
refusing to participate or for receiving serious disciplinary infractions are either placed on
administrative segregation (maximum custody), or if circumstances warrant, may be transferred
to the STG Housing unit at the Northeast Correctional Complex, at the discretion of the STG
Program Supervisor. Inmates are currently given a maximum of two chances in order to
complete the programs. Once inmates have been given the opportunity twice and failed, they
will keep their STG status for the remainder of their incarceration and any future incarcerations.
Of the 106 inmates who participated in the STG Phase Program in fiscal year 2006, 54
inmates successfully completed the program, as well as the associated one-year monitoring
period. During fiscal year 2007, 45 of 97 inmates successfully completed the program and
monitoring period. Table 18 illustrates these results in greater detail.
Table 18
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility
STG Phase Program Information as of April 2008
Phase Program
Fiscal Year 2006
54 (a)

Phase Program
Fiscal Year 2007
45 (b)

Phase Program
Fiscal Year 2008
0

Successfully Completed Phase
Program and 1-year Monitoring
Finished Program But Violated
39
19
11
Terms of Associated 1-year
Monitoring
Terminated From the Program (c)
8
5
12
Expired Sentence or Was Paroled
4
9
2
Before Completion of 1-year
Monitoring
Monitoring Period Extended
1
3
4
Because of Disciplinary Activity
Currently on Monitoring
0
16
66
Total
106
97
95
Percentage of Inmates Who
50.9%
46.4%
Successfully Completed the
Program and 1-year Monitoring
Notes:
(a) Ten inmates (18.5%) later were returned to active STG status because of STG activity.
(b) Four inmates (4.4%) later were returned to active STG status because of STG activity.
(c) Inmate was then placed in administrative segregation or protective custody.

50

Total
99
69

25
15

8
82
298

It appears that although the Security Threat Group (STG) programs do not completely
impede inmate affiliations with gangs, they succeed by separating gang members and moving
them away from the general population. This disrupts the gangs’ communication system, their
ability to grow, and their ability to recruit new members. Currently, there are no written goals,
no defined percentages, and no up-to-date success/failure rates. Department management should
define goals that they wish to accomplish with each STG program, identify a percentage of
inmates that they intend to successfully convert from their gang affiliation, and maintain records
on inmates who later revert back into gang activity, in order to determine if the program is
effective.

REVIEW OF MEDICAL CO-PAYMENT DOCUMENTATION
According to Department of Correction Policy 113.15, when inmates initiate medical,
nursing, dental, or any other health services encounters, the department is to charge the inmates a
co-payment of $3.00 for all routine scheduled or non-scheduled encounters with healthcare staff.
The health administrator must periodically audit documentation to ensure that co-payment
charges are being made for all chargeable encounters, and that no charges are being assessed for
non-chargeable encounters. A chargeable visit is an encounter with institutional healthcare staff
that is provided for an inmate pursuant to the inmate’s request or initiation of a visit either
through sick call or an unscheduled walk-in visit. A non-chargeable visit is an encounter with
institutional healthcare staff generated by department or privately managed facility staff through
department policy, such as a documented health services staff-directed follow-up to a previously
identified condition, or because of a job-related injury.
Auditors requested co-payment documentation from all 16 state prisons for fiscal years
2005 through 2008. Not all institutions were able to produce co-payment documentation for the
entire time period. Since department policy only requires periodic co-payment audits,
institutions may determine how often to conduct audits. Documentation received from
institutions reflects daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly audits. The department does not
provide, or require institutions to use, standard audit forms. Consequently, information recorded
by the institutions is not uniform, and can vary significantly. Each institution, with the exception
of Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Facility (STSRF) in Bledsoe County provided a list of
co-payment charges that had been reviewed. STSRF only provided a memorandum stating that
co-payments had been reviewed for July 2008 and that everything was correct. Auditors
requested documentation of those reviews, but STSRF was unable to provide any documentation.
Auditors selected a random sample of ten co-payment charges from each institution
(except STSRF). We compared the documentation received from the institution with the
information recorded in the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS), in
order to determine if the documentation received from the institution is consistent with the
information in TOMIS. For the sample reviewed, the information in TOMIS appears to
accurately reflect the documentation received from the institution.

51

MANAGEMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS
Department of Correction Policy 113.70 states that the department must ensure
compliance with state and federal laws governing pharmaceuticals and promote management of
pharmaceuticals in accordance with professional standards of care and sound security practices.
All correctional facilities must regulate the handling of medication used within the facility in
accordance with professional standards of care, good security practice, and the appropriate state
and federal laws and procedures. Each pharmacist must conduct documented inspections at least
quarterly of all drugs and pharmaceutical materials kept in the institution, in accordance with
state laws. Each inspection includes a review of opened medications, expiration dates,
destruction of discontinued/outdated-controlled medications, and other important information.
Auditors reviewed the pharmaceutical inspection reports from each state prison for January 2006
through February 2008. From our review, it appears the inspection reports were completed as
required.
Department of Correction Policy 113.70 also states that each correctional institution must
have written procedures in its health services unit manual describing the control of medications.
Each institution must maintain a current list of controlled medications kept in stock. Licensed
nursing personnel are to administer all medications. Personnel are to administer controlled
medications and drugs considered to be of high abuse potential on a dose-by-dose basis only.
They may distribute non-controlled drugs that are not subject to abuse and non-psychotropic
medication in one month’s supply. Upon administration or distribution of prescribed medication,
personnel record all pertinent information on the Medication Administration Record, which
serves as a permanent record of medication administered/distributed to the patient. We requested
and reviewed the control of medication policy from each institution. Based on our review,
institutions have the appropriate, required policies in place.

52

RECOMMENDATIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE
The Tennessee Department of Correction should address the following areas to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
1. The Commissioner should ensure that Department of Correction staff use the
monitoring process the department has in place and hold contractors accountable for
meeting agreed-upon contract provisions. Program staff should promptly report to
upper management any departures from the terms of a contract. Department
management should take action against contractors that repeatedly fail to meet
contract requirements or do not correct an area of noncompliance in a timely manner.
If revisions to contract terms need to be made or are agreed upon with the contractor,
department staff should ensure that the changes are formalized and approved in
writing by all the appropriate parties before department monitoring instruments and
contractor responsibilities are modified.
2. Appropriate department management should review contracts and contract
compliance several months before expiration of the contract, so that needed revisions
to the contract can be made and that, in the event the contractor is not meeting
contract requirements, the department will have sufficient time to seek out other
vendors providing the same service.
3. Department management should ensure that future contracts with Spectrum (and
other similar contractors) include consequences, such as the assessment of liquidated
damages, for failure to meet contract requirements.
4. Department management should take appropriate action to ensure that all health
intake examinations are completed within 14 calendar days of an inmate’s arrival at
the reception center. If the department determines that health intake examinations are
actually completed within 14 days of arrival, but that there is a delay in entering
examination dates into TOMIS or the dates entered were incorrect, management
should work with data entry staff and Information Systems staff to address these
issues and ensure that data in TOMIS are accurate and entered timely.
5. The Policy, Planning and Research office should coordinate the collection of all data
necessary to create an expanded database for recidivism, containing offender
information on prior convictions, current conviction and sentence, program
participation, and outcome measures. To ensure a more accurate recidivism rate, the
department should consider using more than one calculation measure. (Although also
tracking convictions in states other than Tennessee would provide a more complete
picture of recidivism, such tracking would be difficult and time consuming.) The
53

department should develop and implement a database to conduct ongoing evaluations
of the rehabilitative and pre-release programs. The database should include overall
measures of program effectiveness based on program outcomes, recidivism rates for
program participants, and costs of the programs. The department should also develop
and implement a policy to ensure that data reliability testwork is conducted by each
relevant program director before the information is included in the recidivism
database.
6. Pre-Release Services management should work with Division of Policy, Planning and
Research staff to develop a system to monitor the short-term and long-term outcomes
of the pre-release programs, including tracking recidivism rates, to help the
department identify additional needs, as well as determine the most effective
programs and program components. To that end, the department should consider
creating a control group of inmates not enrolled in the pre-release and transitional
programs to compare to those in the program. The department should also develop a
data reliability cross-checking system to verify accuracy of the data. The department
should ensure that all department correctional facilities, as well as the private
facilities, have the same supplies and materials to successfully prepare the inmates for
reentry into the community.

54

Appendix
Tennessee Department of Correction
Title VI Information
All programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance are prohibited by Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from discriminating against participants or clients on the basis of
race, color, or national origin. In response to a request from members of the Government
Operations Committee, we compiled information concerning federal financial assistance
received by the Tennessee Department of Correction and the department’s efforts to comply with
Title VI requirements. The results of the information gathered are summarized below.
The department submitted its Title VI Implementation Plan (Title VI Plan) revision and
report for 2007-2008 to the Division of State Audit on February 22, 2008. According to the plan,
the department received federal funding (estimated) for adult institutions that included School
Lunch Program funding of $130,700; a Criminal Justice grant of $318,800; State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program funding of $231,800; an Educating Youthful Offenders grant of $100,000;
and a Prison Rape Elimination Act grant of $235,300.
Title VI Coordinator Responsibilities
The department’s Title VI Coordinator is responsible for monitoring compliance for the
department; scheduling annual Title VI training; maintaining a Title VI Implementation Plan and
submitting report and plan updates to the Division of State Audit by October 1 of each year; and
responding to Title VI correspondence referred to the department’s central office.
Each division in the department with administrative responsibility for correctional
facilities also appoints a division coordinator, and local coordinators are appointed for each
institution.
The Title VI Coordinator is assisted by a departmental coordinating committee appointed
by the commissioner. Committee members include the General Counsel, the Director of Policy,
Planning and Research; the Director of Compliance; the Executive Assistant to the
Commissioner; and representatives from the divisions of Institutional Operations and Fiscal and
Administrative Services, as well as representatives from other department divisions.
Reports
According to the Title VI Coordinator, the Department of Correction maintains a Title VI
Implementation Plan and submits the annual compliance report and plan updates to the Division
of State Audit by October 1 of each year. The department submitted its Title VI Plan revision
and report for 2008-2009 to the Division of State Audit on April 1, 2009.
Title VI Training
According to the Title VI Implementation Plan, employees receive information regarding
the obligations and rights under the Title VI program during new employee orientation. In

55

addition, refresher training is provided during annual in-service training. Employees are also
trained on procedures for handling complaints during new supervisor training. Inmates are
advised of Title VI information during institutional orientation. The local coordinators are
responsible for distributing policies, posters, and pamphlets to all facilities to inform employees,
visitors, and inmates of their Title VI obligations and rights. The local coordinators are also
responsible for ensuring that the information is available in Spanish or other foreign language
translations.
Compliance and Monitoring
The department monitors Title VI compliance at its facilities through annual inspections
conducted by the Compliance/Accreditation section. All entities or individuals contracting with
the department must sign a statement assuring compliance with Title VI.
According to the Title VI Implementation Plan, the department ensures Title VI
compliance by subrecipients providing services or benefits to inmates through the collection and
review of data concerning compliance and the completion of program participation – Title VI
Tracking CR-3546, that will be submitted on a quarterly basis by institutional staff to the
department Title VI Coordinator and submitted to the Director of Policy, Planning and Research
by the 15th day of January, April, July, and October.
Title VI Complaints
According to the Title VI Coordinator, the department receives the majority of
complaints from inmates. These complaints are referred to the institution for review through the
Grievance Procedure, TDOC Policy 501.01, to resolve a complaint alleging a violation under
Title VI. If the complaint is determined to be a Title VI complaint, a record of the complaint will
be entered into TOMIS by the institutional grievance chairperson. All other complainants submit
details of alleged violations via letter to the affected site administrator (e.g., warden, etc.).
According to the Title VI Implementation Plan, inmate grievances claiming
discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race or ethnicity are logged into TOMIS and are
flagged as Title VI complaints. Once a Title VI complaint is received and flagged, it is
considered a Title VI complaint until proven otherwise. The validity of a complaint flagged as a
Title VI complaint is determined through a review/investigation by the Title VI site coordinator.
If it found that the complaint does not meet the definition of a Title VI complaint, the Title VI
flag in TOMIS is removed and the complaint is handled accordingly, based on TDOC policy
501.01.

56

Title VI Inmate Grievances Filed by Region and Institution
For Fiscal Year 2008

EAST
Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex
Morgan County Correctional Complex
Northeast Correctional Complex
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional
Correctional Facility
EAST TOTAL
MIDDLE
Charles Bass Correctional Complex
Riverbend Correctional Complex
South Central Correctional Facility
DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm
Tennessee Prison for Women
Wayne County Annex
MIDDLE TOTAL
WEST
Hardeman County Correctional Facility
Mark Luttrell Correctional Center
Northwest Correctional Complex
Whiteville Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
WEST TOTAL
Combined Total

Grievances
Filed

Resolved
Locally

Appealed to
Commissioner

Pending

6
1
1

1
1
0

4
0
1

1
0
0

4
12

0
2

1
6

3
4

0
27
1
0
0
0
0
28

0
7
0
0
0
0
0
7

0
18
1
0
0
0
0
19

0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
1
16
0
5
22
62

0
1
11
0
2
14
23

0
0
4
0
3
7
32

0
0
1
0
0
1
7

Program Participation
The table on page 58 details participation by incarcerated offenders, by ethnicity, for the
following programs: Anger Management, Substance Abuse Treatment, Sex Offender Treatment,
Other Mental Health Programs, and Chapter 1 Education. (Other Mental Health programs
include basic skills; alternatives to violence; parenting; criminal thinking; life without crutches;
and step up/step down, a psychiatric transitional housing program.) It should be noted that not
all inmates are eligible for all programs.

57

Breakdown of Program Participants by Ethnicity
For Fiscal Year 2008
Ethnicity
Programs
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Anger Management
1,059
1,000
37
2
0
Substance Abuse
2,176
2,235
131
3
7
Sex Offender
48
170
7
0
0
Other Mental Health *
553
876
40
0
6
Chapter 1 Education
144
50
3
0
0
Total Participation
3,980
4,331
218
5
13
* Other mental health programs include Parenting, Aftercare, Step-up Step-down, Alternatives
to Violence, Life Skills, and Drug Education/Awareness programs.

Advisory Boards and Committees
According to the department’s Title VI Implementation Plan, the extent to which the
Department of Correction relies on planning boards or advisory committees is limited. The Sex
Offender Treatment Board is a statewide advisory body that provides assistance and guidance to
the department, as well as to other state and local agencies. Members of this board serve fouryear terms. Nine members are appointed by the Commissioner of Correction, with the Chief
Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation,
and the Commissioner of Children’s Services each appointing an additional member. The
presiding officer of the Sex Offender Treatment Board (who is appointed by the Commissioner
of Correction) appoints one member who is a representative of the Board of Probation and
Parole. See below for the breakdown of the board members by gender and ethnicity.
Sex Offender Treatment Board as of July 2008
Name
Jeanine C. Miller, PhD, Presiding Officer
J. Michael Adler, PhD
Pam Beck, JD
Jeanne Brooks, Program Specialist
Valda Cowan
David Doyle
P. Kirk Smith
Verna Wyatt
Sara Vardell, PsyD
Bonnie Beneke, LCSW
Bryce Coatney, JD, Counsel to the Board (Ex-Officio)
Judy Lambert, Fiscal Advisor to the Board (Ex-Officio)
Law Enforcement Representative (Vacant Position)
Judicial Branch Representative (Vacant Position)
District Attorney General (Vacant Position)

58

Gender
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female

Ethnicity
Black
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White

The Tennessee Community Resource Board is composed of 17 members. The Speakers
of the Senate and the House of Representatives appoint one member each from those legislative
bodies, with the remaining 15 members appointed jointly by the Commissioner of Correction and
the chairman of the Board of Probation and Parole. Statute requires that at least one of these
members must be age 60 or older, and at least one must be a member of a racial minority.
Members are to have experience as volunteers in the criminal justice field or in the academic
arena of criminal justice or a related field. Members serve for three years and are eligible for
successive reappointment. Below is a breakdown of the board members (and state officials who
work with the board) by gender and ethnicity. The department was not able to provide
information on those members of the board to be appointed by the Speakers of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
Tennessee Community Resource Board as of August 2008
Board Member
East Grand Division
Barbara Medley, PH.D
Timothy Dempsey (Chair)
Sheila Proffitt
Lee M. Ragsdale III (Treasurer)
Tom McConnell
Middle Grand Division
VACANT
Helen Cox
Linda Knott
Carole McDonald (Secretary)
Tom Hallquist
West Grand Division
Mario Allen (Vice Chair)
Barbara Dycus (WCD Chair)
Otis Maclin, Jr.
VACANT
Jeffrey Dockery
Department of Correction
Richard Dixon
Select Oversight Committee
Robert McKee
Board of Probation and Parole
Lisa Helton

Term Ends

Gender

Ethnicity

4/20/2010
4/30/2011
4/30/2009
4/30/2011
4/30/2010

Female
Male
Female
Male
Male

Black
White
White
White
White

4/30/2011
4/30/2011
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2010

Female
Female
Female
Male

White
White
White
White

4/30/2011
4/30/2009
4/30/2009
4/30/2010
4/30/2010

Male
Female
Male

Black
White
Black

Male

White

NA

Male

Black

NA

Male

White

NA

Female

White

Contracts
Below is a listing of the department’s contractors and a breakdown of department
employees by job title, gender, and ethnicity. The department’s staff members are 61% male,
39% female, 76% white, 22% black, and 2% from other minority groups.

59

Agency Contracts by Title, Services, Amount, Ethnicity
For Fiscal Year 2008
Contractor
American Correctional
Association
Ann Tucker Velazco
ATC Healthcare Services
Brandon Medical Group
Cardwell C. Nuckols &
Associates
Charlene Steen PHD
Correctional Counseling,
Inc.
Corrections Corporation
of America
Delson-Kokish Associates
Donna L. Moore
Donna L. Moore
First Medical
Management
Gerry D. Blasingame
Guardian Healthcare
Providers, Inc.
Hope of East Tennessee,
Inc.
International Center For
Health
James S. Walker
Life Counseling Services,
PC
Lisa Fontes
Lynn Robbins
Medtox Laboratories
Meetings.Com Event
Tech.

Service
Provided

Begin
Date

End Date

Expenditures

Accreditation
SOT Conference Speaker
Temporary Nursing
Services
Physicals
SOT Conference Speaker
SOT Conference Speaker
A&D Counseling and
Anger Management

4/25/2008

6/30/2008

$19,125.00

NFP

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$1,200.00

F

7/1/2004
1/1/2006

6/30/2009
12/31/2008

$25,723.99
$84,420.00

NM
S

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$3,564.86

NM

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$1,102.28

NM

3/1/2005

2/28/2010

$42,421.90

NM

Manage Institution
SOT Conference Speaker
Psychologist
Consulting Services
SOT Conference Speaker

7/1/2007

6/30/2010

$23,563,069.20

NM

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$3,168.65

S

1/2/2008

12/31/2010

$1,400.00

O

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$500.00

O

Health Services
SOT Conference Speaker
Temporary Nursing
Services
Community
Reintegration
SOT Conference Speaker
Treatment Review
Committee Psychology
Treatment Review
Committee Psychology
SOT Conference Speaker
SOTB Training/
Consultation
Confirmation Drug
Testing

1/1/2006

12/31/2008

$39,744,202.43

NM

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$2,452.00

NM

7/1/2004

6/30/2009

$261,980.33

NM

7/1/2006

6/30/2008

$78,486.00

NFP

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$1,960.53

S

5/1/2005

4/30/2010

$1,232.00

B

2/1/2004

1/31/2009

$974.40

F

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$2,454.04

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$223.22

7/1/2004

6/30/2009

$56,859.50

NM

6/1/2007

10/1/2007

$4,175.00

S

SOT Conference

60

Minority
Status*

NM
F

Contractor
MHM Correctional
Services, Inc.
Milestone Staffing
Services
National Toxicology
Specialist
Oklahoma Scoring
Services, Inc.
Oklahoma Scoring
Services, Inc.
Phil Rich
Phyllis Tarkington
Project Return, Inc.
Project Return, Inc.
Project Return, Inc.
PTS of America, LLC
Scott West, M.D.
Spectrum Health Systems,
Inc.
Spectrum Health Systems,
Inc.
Stop It Now!
The Sexual Recovery
Institute
William Scott West, MD
Workforce Essentials
You Have The Power
Young Women's
Christian Association
Total

Service
Provided
Comprehensive
Mental Health
Services
Temporary Nursing
Services
Alcohol/Controlled
Substance Test

Begin
Date

End Date

Expenditures

Minority
Status*

1/1/2007

12/31/2009

$5,444,160.71

NM

7/1/2004

6/30/2008

$61,277.73

NM

7/28/2004

7/27/2008

$525.00

NM

GED Essay Scoring

1/1/2007

12/31/2007

$2,228.70

F

GED Essay Scoring
SOT Conference Speaker
Library Training and
Consulting
Tennessee Bridges
Pre-release Program
Change Is Possible
Program
Case Management/
Facilitation Transition
Interstate Transportation of Inmates
Treatment Review
Committee Psychiatry
Therapeutic
Community
Therapeutic
Community
SOT Conference Speaker
SOT Conference Speaker
Mental Health
Treatment Review
Employee Drug
Testing
Victim Impact
Classes
New Start prerelease
training program

1/2/2008

12/31/2008

$1,712.00

F

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$2,800.00

NM

9/1/2004

8/31/2007

$95.90

11/1/2006

10/31/2007

$12,974.73

NFP

6/18/2007

6/30/2008

$89,957.61

NFP

11/1/2007

10/31/2008

$30,445.63

NFP

F

5/1/2006

6/30/2009

$2,993.44

NM

2/1/2004

1/31/2009

$5,400.00

NM

3/1/2006

12/31/2008

$272,408.42

NFP

7/1/2006

12/31/2008

$372,588.04

NFP

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$630.46

NM

8/5/2007

8/10/2007

$2,159.88

S

2/1/2004

1/31/2009

$5,400.00

NM

11/1/2006

10/31/2010

$191,650.25

NM

1/2/2008

12/31/2008

$17,276.11

NFP

7/1/2006

6/30/2007
42 contracts

$174,774.24
$70,592,154.18

NFP

* Contractor Minority Status: B - African American; O - Other Minority; S - Small Business; F - Female;
NM - Non-minority/no disadvantaged status; H - Handicapped/Disabled; NFP - Not-for-Profit Corporation.

61

Department of Correction Personnel by Title, Gender, Ethnicity
As of September 30, 2008
Gender
Title

Ethnicity

Male

Female

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

White

Other

Account Clerk
Accountant – Judicial
Cost

9

41

0

6

0

0

42

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Accounting Manager

7

1

0

0

0

0

8

0

Accounting Technician

2

33

1

4

0

0

30

0

Accountant

3

4

0

2

0

0

5

0

Assistant Commissioner

2

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

Administrative Assistant
Administrative Services
Assistant

4

12

0

3

0

0

13

0

7

17

0

7

1

0

16

0

0

25

0

4

0

0

21

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Administrative Secretary
Affirmative Action
Officer
Architect
Associate Warden –
Operations

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

5

2

0

0

0

0

7

0

Attorney

2

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

Auditor
Building Maintenance
Worker

3

2

0

1

0

0

4

0

62

0

0

4

0

1

57

0

8

0

0

0

0

1

7

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

Chaplain

11

1

0

1

0

0

11

0

Clerk

7

46

0

11

0

0

42

0

Commissioner

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Correctional Captain
Correctional Classification Coordinator –
Adult Services
Correctional Clerical
Officer

55

3

0

13

0

0

45

0

13

5

0

3

0

0

15

0

29

91

0

31

1

0

87

1

Correctional Counselor
Correctional
Compliance Manager
Correctional Contract
Monitor

98

72

0

38

1

0

131

0

2

11

0

2

0

0

11

0

2

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

Correctional Corporal

324

74

7

75

3

3

309

1

Boiler Operator
Boiler Operator
Supervisor
Budget Analyst
Coordinator
Budget Analyst –
Correction

62

Gender
Title

Ethnicity

Male

Female

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

White

Other

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

2

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Correctional Internal
Affairs Investigator

7

1

0

1

0

0

7

0

Correctional Instructor

17

2

0

0

0

0

19

0

Correctional Lieutenant

65

6

0

10

0

0

61

0

Correctional Officer
Correctional Program
Director
Correctional Program
Manager
Correctional Program
Support Coordinator

1654

688

12

537

17

7

1765

4

14

9

0

7

0

0

16

0

3

4

0

2

0

0

5

0

5

1

0

2

0

0

4

0

Correctional Principal

5

2

0

2

0

0

5

0

Correctional Sergeant

146

35

0

42

1

0

138

0

Correctional Teacher
Correctional Teacher
Supervisor
Correctional Unit
Manager

27

27

0

13

0

0

41

0

5

2

0

1

0

0

6

0

27

9

0

10

0

0

26

0

Correctional Facilities
Construction Director
Correctional Health
Administrator
Correctional Health
Director
Correctional Internal
Affairs Director

Custodial Worker
Custodial Worker
Supervisor

1

6

0

1

0

0

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Data Entry Operator

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

Dental Assistant

0

9

0

2

0

0

7

0

Deputy Commissioner

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Deputy Warden

9

2

0

5

0

0

6

0

Education Consultant

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Electronics Technician

4

1

0

1

0

0

4

0

Equipment Mechanic

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Executive
Administrative Assistant

2

7

0

2

0

0

7

0

Executive Secretary

0

15

0

0

0

0

15

0

Facility Administrator

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Facilities Construction
Assistant Director

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Facilities Construction

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

63

Gender
Title

Ethnicity

Male

Female

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

White

Other

Facilities Manager

12

0

0

1

0

0

11

0

Facilities Safety Officer

12

0

0

1

0

0

11

0

Facilities Supervisor
Food Service Assistant
Manager

10

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

5

9

0

4

0

0

10

0

Food Service Director

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Food Service Manager

12

4

1

4

0

0

11

0

Food Service Steward

47

110

1

45

1

0

109

1

Food Service Worker

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Fiscal Director

4

4

0

0

0

0

8

0

General Counsel
Heating and
Refrigeration Mechanic
Health Information
Manager
Human Resource
Analyst
Human Resource
Director
Human Resource
Manager
Human Resource
Technician
Human Resource
Training Supervisor

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

1

0

0

13

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

5

0

2

0

0

5

0

0

16

2

3

0

0

11

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

11

0

0

0

0

15

0

21

3

1

4

0

0

19

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

4

0

2

0

0

6

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

Specialist

Inmate Job Coordinator
Information Resource
Support Specialist
Information Officer
Information Systems
Analyst
Information Systems
Analyst Supervisor
Information Systems
Consultant
Information Systems
Director
Information Systems
Manager
Inmate Relations
Coordinator

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

42

35

0

16

3

1

57

0

Laundry Manager

4

3

0

1

0

0

6

0

Laundry Supervisor

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

64

Gender
Title

Ethnicity

Male

Female

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

White

Other

Laundry Worker

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Licensed Practical Nurse
Medical Records
Technician
Medical Records
Assistant
Mental Health
Program Specialist
Mental Health/Mental
Retardation Institutional
Program Director

20

137

1

51

0

0

103

2

0

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

15

0

0

0

0

15

0

9

15

0

9

0

0

14

1

3

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

Maintenance Carpenter

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

Maintenance Electrician

9

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

Maintenance Plumber

7

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

Nurse Assistant

0

5

0

2

0

0

3

0

Nurse Practitioner

3

7

1

2

0

0

6

1

Pharmacy Technician
Physical Therapy
Technician

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Physician

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Physician's Assistant

2

3

0

0

0

0

5

0

Program Analyst
Program Analyst
Supervisor

7

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Procurement Officer

7

11

1

1

0

0

16

0

Property Officer
Psychiatric Social
Worker

4

6

0

1

0

0

9

0

2

3

0

1

0

0

4

0

Psychologist

0

5

0

0

0

0

4

1

Psychologist Director

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Psychologist Examiner

14

9

0

1

0

0

22

0

Recreation Assistant

4

1

0

1

0

0

4

0

Recreation Specialist

14

2

0

7

0

0

9

0

Recreation Therapist

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Registered Nurse

22

103

5

39

2

0

76

3

Secretary

0

36

0

2

0

0

34

0

Security Guard
Sentence/Docking
Analyst

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

7

0

3

0

0

4

0

Sentence/Docking
Management Supervisor

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

65

Gender
Title

Ethnicity

Male

Female

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

White

Other

2

15

1

12

0

0

4

0

Sentence/Docking
Technician
Statistical Analyst
Supervisor
Statistical Program
Supervisor

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

Storekeeper

24

44

0

6

1

0

61

0

Stores Manager
Teacher Assistant –
Correction

10

6

0

0

0

0

16

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

Telephone Operator
Training Academy
Superintendent
Training and Curriculum
Director

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

Training Officer

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Training Specialist

3

8

0

2

0

0

9

0

Treatment Plant Operator
Vocational Instructor
Per Specialty
Vocational Instructor
FNL
Volunteer Services
Director

9

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

51

15

0

5

1

0

60

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Warden

9

2

0

3

0

0

8

0

Web Developer

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

X-Ray Technician

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

3,115

1,977

36

1,100

33

13

3,893

17

TOTALS

66

 

 

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
Prison Phone Justice Campaign