United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

Report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of
Representatives

August 2004

DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA JAIL
Management
Challenges Exist in
Improving Facility
Conditions

GAO-04-742

August 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL

Highlights of GAO-04-742, a report to the
Chairman, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives

The District of Columbia’s Jail and
Correctional Treatment Facility
(CTF), which are the District’s
detention facilities for
misdemeanant and pretrial
detainees, have been repeatedly
cited for violations of health and
safety standards. The Jail also has
had problems with releasing
inmates before or after their
official release date, in part,
because of inaccuracies in its
electronic inmate records. As a
follow-on to problems at the Jail
reported in 2002 by the District’s
Inspector General, GAO addressed
the following questions: (1) What
are the results of recent health and
safety inspections? (2) What is the
status of the Jail’s capital
improvement projects, and what
policies and procedures does the
Department of Corrections (DoC)
use in managing the projects? and
(3) What progress has been made
in improving electronic inmate
records at the Jail?

GAO made two recommendations,
one concerning the specificity of
reports about facility conditions;
the other concerning time frames
for developing and implementing
guidance on managing projects.
DoC and the Department of Health
(DoH) agreed with our finding
concerning the lack of specificity in
inspection reports, and DoH agreed
to implement our recommendation.
The Office of Property
Management did not comment on
our second recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-742.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Cathleen
Berrick, (202) 512-8777 or berrickc@gao.gov.

Management Challenges Exist in
Improving Facility Conditions

Health and safety inspection reports for the Jail and CTF that were prepared
from January 2002 through April 2004 by the District’s Department of Health
consistently identified problems with air quality, vermin infestation, fire
safety, plumbing, and lighting. Officials attributed some of the health and
safety deficiencies to the age of the Jail and inmate behavior at both
facilities. DoH inspection reports did not always document the specific
locations where deficiencies were identified and did not document the date
and time when the deficiencies were identified. For example, one report
might identify a problem in a specific cell, while another report might state
that the problem occurred in some locations, most locations, or throughout
the Jail. This limits DoC’s ability to determine how prevalent the health and
safety deficiencies are, whether problems are recurring in the same
locations, or whether conditions changed over time.
Of the 16 capital improvement projects for the Jail approved for fiscal years
2000 through 2004, 1 project was completed and 15 were in various stages of
development. In addition, the Office of Property Management lacked written
policies and procedures concerning project management, which could be
important tools in guiding project managers through the planning and
management of projects. Although the Office of Property Management
established a working group to develop standard operating procedures for
managing projects, time frames had not been established for when the
working group should complete this work.
With respect to early and late inmate release errors, DoC has taken several
steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in processing inmate records,
but release errors continue to occur. DoC’s improvement efforts have
included simplifying the workflow in the Records Office, issuing an
operations manual, and developing additional guidance and training for staff.
Additionally, DoC developed a database to capture detailed information on
incidents that led to each inmate release error. DoC analyzed the
information in this database to determine how frequently the incidents
occurred. Based on this information, DoC has developed proposals for
corrective action to reduce release errors. DoC officials attributed staff
processing errors to limited staff resources and the large volume of
documents that are continuously received in the Records Office. Because
DoC did not have complete data on early and late inmate releases, DoC does
not know the full extent to which the release errors occurred. Specifically,
DoC may not discover an early release error until long after the inmate has
been released. For late releases, DoC used an incomplete methodology,
which led to an understated number of actual late releases. During our
review, DoC modified this methodology to more accurately identify the
number of late releases.

Contents

Letter

1
Results in Brief
Background
Health and Safety Deficiencies at the Jail and Correctional
Treatment Facility
Capital Improvement Projects at the Jail
DoC Has Taken Steps to Improve Inmate Records, but Effects on
Reducing Release Errors Are Difficult to Determine
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

19
23
23
24

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

29

Appendix II

Capital Improvement Projects at the Correctional
Treatment Facility

32

Appendix III

Results of Health and Safety Inspections at the Jail

34

Appendix IV

Quality Controls DoC Implemented to Improve the
Accuracy of Inmate Records

40

Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and the
Correctional Treatment Facility

41

DoC’s Implementation of the District of Columbia’s
Office of the Inspector General’s Recommendations

43

Appendix V

Appendix VI

Page i

3
5
6
13

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII

Comments from the District of Columbia, Department
of Corrections
45

Appendix VIII

Comments from the District of Columbia, Department
of Health
55

Appendix IX

Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of
the Inspector General

58

Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of
Property Management

59

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

62

GAO Contacts
Acknowledgments

62
62

Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District’s Jail
Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during
2003
Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in
2003
Table 4: The District’s Office of the Inspector General’s Findings
and Recommendations to the Department of Corrections

14

Appendix X

Appendix XI

Tables

32
41
43

Figures
Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004

Page ii

34
35

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in
Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004

36
37
38
39

Abbreviations
CCA
CTF
DoC
DoH
OIG

Corrections Corporation of America
Correctional Treatment Facility
Department of Corrections
Department of Health
Office of the Inspector General

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.

Page iii

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

August 27, 2004
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The District of Columbia’s Jail, which is the District’s primary facility for
misdemeanant and pretrial detainees, has repeatedly been cited for
violations of health and safety standards and has been reviewed by other
agencies for its management of inmate records.1 In October 2002, a report
by the District’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG)2 noted numerous
health and safety violations at the Jail, as well as problems with electronic
inmate records that have resulted in errors in releasing inmates before or
after their official release date.3 The District’s Department of Corrections
(DoC), the agency that manages and operates the Jail, has taken several
actions, including implementing capital improvement projects, to address
some of the problems that have been identified. The District’s other major
detention facility—the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF)—is managed
and operated by a private company and has also been cited for health and
safety violations.
To assist in the oversight of certain management and operational issues at
the District’s detention facilities, this report addresses the following
questions: (1) What are the results of recent health and safety inspections
conducted by the District’s Department of Health at the Jail and the
Correctional Treatment Facility? (2) How many capital improvement
projects were approved at the Jail during fiscal years 2000 through
2004, what is their status, and what policies and procedures does DoC use
in managing the projects? (3) What progress has been made in improving
electronic inmate records at the Jail? Additionally, we are providing
information on the Correctional Treatment Facility’s capital improvement

1

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

2

Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, Number 02-00002FL, District of
Columbia Office of the Inspector General, October 2002.
3

For the purposes of this report, the term “inmate” includes offenders who have been
convicted of a crime as well as detainees who are awaiting trial or being held for
questioning.

Page 1

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

projects during calendar year 2003 (see app. II), the annual costs for
operating the detention facilities during 1999 through 2003, the types of
programs and services that the detention facilities provided during
2003 (see app. V); and recommendations relevant to our review that were
part of the District’s 2002 Office of Inspector General report (see app. VI).
To answer these questions, we held discussions with officials in DoC
headquarters, the Jail and CTF, and OIG. We reviewed applicable laws and
regulations, policies and procedures guiding operations at the Jail and
CTF, and standards for internal control in the federal government.4 We did
not compare the conditions of the Jail or its records office with conditions
at other detention facilities because this was outside the scope of our
review.
To obtain information on the results of health and safety inspections, we
interviewed District Department of Health (DoH) officials, reviewed the
American Correctional Association’s and American Public Health
Association’s standards for health and safety conditions for correctional
institutions, and reviewed inspection reports that the District’s DoH and
Fire and Emergency Medical Services prepared during 2002 through
2004. It was beyond the scope of this review to determine whether the
DoH inspector applied the health and safety standards correctly, took
accurate measurements, or accurately reported the inspection results. We
also did not review the adequacy of any corrective actions taken at the Jail
or the CTF.
To determine the number and status of capital improvement projects at
the Jail, we reviewed documentation and information provided by District
officials on the estimated cost, scope, and schedule time frames for each
capital improvement project that the District approved during fiscal years
2000 through 2004. We did not assess the quality of work on projects that
were in construction at the time of our review. Because the District’s
Office of Property Management is the implementing agency for DoC’s
capital projects, we interviewed the office’s Director, Deputy Director of
Operations, and project management staff.

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).

Page 2

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

To determine DoC’s progress in improving the accuracy of inmate records
at the Jail and CTF,5 we reviewed DoC’s operations manual, internal
controls for managing inmate records, and available data on the number of
early and late inmate releases. We sought to determine the reliability of
these data by reviewing DoC’s process for determining release errors and
tracing reported figures to available source documentation. DoC’s data on
errors in early and late inmate releases were not reliable enough for the
purposes of this review since DoC may not discover an early release until
long after it occurs. In addition, until March 2004, DoC was using an
incomplete methodology to identify late releases. Therefore, DoC’s data
on both early and late release errors may have understated the true
number of errors.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C., between June 2003 and July
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides more detailed information about the scope
and methodology of our work.

Results in Brief

Department of Health inspection reports for the Jail and CTF prepared
from January 2002 through April 2004 consistently identified health and
safety deficiencies concerning air quality, vermin infestation, fire safety,
plumbing, and lighting. A Jail official attributed some of the health and
safety deficiencies to the age of the facility and inmate behavior. The
inspection reports prepared by DoH were not consistently specific about
the location within the facilities of the identified deficiencies and did not
document the date or time the deficiencies were identified. This limits
DoC’s ability to determine how prevalent the health and safety deficiencies
were, whether problems recurred in the same locations, or whether
conditions changed over time.
Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004. As of June 1, 2004, 1 project had been completed
and 15 were in various stages of development. The District’s Office of
Property Management, the District agency responsible for managing the
implementation of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, did not have
information on what the final costs and schedule time frames would be for
most of the 16 capital projects, as they were still subject to design and/or

5

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

Page 3

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

scope changes. In addition, the Office of Property Management lacked
written policies and procedures concerning project management, which
could be important tools in guiding project managers through the planning
and management of projects. However, in April 2004, the Office of
Property Management established a working group to develop standard
operating procedures for managing projects. As of May 2004, time frames
had not been established for completing the work of the working group.
DoC has taken several steps to improve its efficiency and accuracy in
processing inmate records, but release errors continued to occur. DoC’s
improvement efforts have included simplifying the workflow in the
Records Office, issuing an operations manual, and developing additional
guidance and training for staff. Additionally, DoC developed a database to
capture detailed information on incidents that led to each inmate release
error. DoC analyzed the information in this database to determine how
frequently the incidents occurred. Based on this information, DoC has
developed proposals for corrective action to reduce release errors. DoC
attributed staff processing errors to limited staff resources and the large
volume of documents that are continuously received in the Records Office.
Because DoC did not have complete data on early and late inmate
releases, DoC does not know the full extent to which they occurred, and
may not discover an early release error until long after the inmate has
been released. With respect to late releases, DoC used an incomplete
methodology and, therefore, may have understated the actual number of
late releases. During our review, DoC modified the methodology to more
accurately identify the number of late releases.
To help improve facility operations, we are making two recommendations.
First, we recommend that DoC work with the Department of Health to
develop a format for inspection reports that would enable DoC to
determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail and
monitor changes in facility conditions over time. Second, toward the goal
of strengthening management of capital improvement projects, we
recommend that the Office of Property Management establish time frames
for completing its work on developing and implementing policies and
procedures.
We provided a draft of this report to the District’s Department of
Corrections, Department of Health, Office of the Inspector General, and
Office of Property Management for comment. In response, DoC and DoH
concurred with our finding that inspection reports did not consistently
identify locations where deficiencies were found, and DoH agreed to
implement our recommendation. The OIG affirmed that we accurately

Page 4

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

portrayed the findings and recommendations contained in its October
2002 inspection report on the Jail. The Office of Property Management did
not comment on our recommendation. A copy of the comments from all of
these agencies and offices is included as appendix VII, VIII, IX, and X
respectively.

Background

The Jail opened in 1976 and is a maximum-security facility for males and
females that is managed and operated by the District’s DoC. The Jail has
over 1,700 heavily used cell doors and gates, approximately 1,500 prisongrade sink/toilet combinations, and security systems that are maintenance
intensive. In addition, systems and jail areas that may require maintenance
include the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; water
systems; plumbing, electric wiring, piping, elevators, laundry equipment,
and kitchen equipment, among others. According to the District’s fiscal
year 2003 budget and financial plan, the Jail required significant structural
repairs because it had not been well maintained. Inmates at the Jail are
housed in 18 cellblocks that contain 1,380 cells. In fiscal year 2003, the
average daily inmate population was 2,328. DoC’s policy states that the Jail
is to be clean, sanitary, and environmentally safe, and that its equipment is
to be maintained in good working order and meet all applicable codes,
standards, and sound detention practices. The District of Columbia Jail
Improvement Amendment Act of 2003, effective January 30, 2004, requires
DoC to obtain accreditation by the American Correctional Association for
the Jail by January 30, 2008. 6
The Jail has operated under court-ordered supervision for much of the
past 28 years, largely because of court orders relating to class action
lawsuits brought in the 1970s challenging the constitutionality of various
conditions at the facility. 7 In March 2003, the U.S. District Court for the

6

Among other things, the act directs DoC to develop and implement a classification system
and housing plan for inmates at the jail; mandates the establishment of weekend visiting
hours at the jail; and requires an independent consultant to determine a population ceiling
for the jail.
7

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found certain conditions at the jail,
such as those relating to severe overcrowding, inadequate health care, unsanitary
conditions, and unsafe facilities, to be constitutionally impermissible, and through a series
of decisions and orders, required the District to take corrective actions. See e.g., Campbell
v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 106 (D.D.C. 1975); Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F. Supp.
119 (1976); Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 111 (D.D.C. 1976); and Campbell v.
McGruder, 580 F. 2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The Campbell and Inmates of D.C. Jail cases
were eventually consolidated.

Page 5

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

District of Columbia terminated the remaining court orders and dismissed
these cases on the basis that such court orders were no longer necessary
to correct current and ongoing constitutional violations.8
CTF opened in 1992 and is an American Correctional Associationaccredited facility that has been managed and operated since 1997 by the
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) under contract to the District’s
DoC. As part of its contract with the District to manage CTF, Corrections
Corporation of America undertakes capital improvements intended to
improve operations at CTF or address issues that may affect security at
the facility. (App. II provides information about projects completed at CTF
during 2003 and the cost of each project.) CTF is a medium-security
facility for male and female inmates and inmates with specialized
confinement needs (e.g., pregnant women and inmates with physical
disabilities). Since 2001, CTF has also served as an overflow facility for the
Jail. Inmates in CTF are housed in 27 units consisting of between 16 and
48 single cells each. In fiscal year 2003, CTF began placing two inmates per
cell and had an average daily inmate population of 787 inmates.

Health and Safety
Deficiencies at the
Jail and Correctional
Treatment Facility

The most recent health and safety reports for the Jail and CTF indicated
that they have similar areas of deficiencies. They included problems with
air quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting. A DoC official
attributed some deficiencies at the Jail and CTF to inmate behavior and
deterioration of the physical plant over a number of years leading up to
2000. The DoH reports did not consistently identify the specific locations
in the Jail where the deficiencies occurred. The DoH reports also did not
always include all of the deficiencies identified, particularly if the
deficiency was repaired during the course of the inspection. As a result,
DoC cannot determine (1) how prevalent the health and safety
deficiencies were, (2) whether problems recurred in the same locations, or
(3) whether conditions have improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse
over time. Beginning September 2004, DoH intends to begin using a
detailed inspection tool that will specify the location, severity, and
frequency of occurrence of identified deficiencies. DoH inspections for the

8

The U.S. District Court took this action upon a motion by the defendants in these cases
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66
(1996). The PLRA generally provides for the termination of certain court orders with
respect to prison conditions upon a court finding that court-ordered relief is no longer
necessary to correct any “current and ongoing” constitutional violations. The district court
decision was upheld on appeal in January 2004. See Campbell v. McGruder, 2004 U.S.
LEXIS 1069 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2004).

Page 6

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Jail and CTF cannot be used to compare conditions at these facilities
because DoH applies American Correctional Association standards in its
inspections of the Jail and American Public Health Association standards
in its inspection of CTF. Beginning in September 2004, DoH plans to apply
the American Public Health Association’s standards in its inspections of
the Jail.

Health and Safety
Deficiencies Reported at
the Jail

Our review of all six inspection reports prepared by DoH between March
2002 and April 2004 shows that DoH repeatedly identified the same types
of health and safety deficiencies at the Jail. In its 2002 and 2003 annual
inspections, the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services also found
the same types of fire safety deficiencies at the Jail as DoH. These two
district agencies, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services, are
responsible for conducting inspections at the Jail to determine whether
the facility meets health and safety standards. Legislation enacted by the
District government in 2003 requires DoH to conduct environmental health
and safety inspections of the Jail at least three times a year.9 DoH has
randomly inspected at least 20 cells per cellblock (or a minimum of
360 cells) during each inspection at the Jail and has applied American
Correctional Association standards, as well as other applicable local
standards and codes, in these inspections. In conducting its inspections,
DoH does not determine what, if any, corrective actions DoC may have
taken in response to deficiencies that DoH reported previously. The
inspections cover, among other things, inmate housing units, kitchen
areas, inmate receiving and discharge, and emergency procedures
including fire safety. Following completion of an inspection, DoH is to
prepare a report of its findings. In accordance with District regulations,
Fire and Emergency Medical Services conducts annual fire safety
inspections of the Jail. Fire and Emergency Medical Services applies local
fire and life safety codes and Building Officials’ Codes in its inspections.
DoH inspections at the Jail are conducted over a period of time up to
30 days. According to DoC officials, Jail maintenance staff accompany the
DoH inspector during the inspection, and they are to repair identified
deficiencies immediately, if possible. According to DoH officials, the
inspection report may or may not include a deficiency that was repaired
immediately. They told us that deficiencies that the DoH inspector

9

A series of three D.C. laws, both temporary and permanent, require DoH to conduct such
inspections. See Central Detention Facility Monitoring Temporary Amendment Act of 2003
(D.C. Law 15-30), Jail Improvement Emergency Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Act 15-188),
and District of Columbia Jail Improvement Amendment Act of 2003 (D.C. Law 15-62).

Page 7

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

considers to be more significant or severe are more likely to be included in
the inspection report, even if they are repaired on the spot.
The DoH reports did not consistently identify the specific locations where
the deficiencies occurred. For example, one DoH report would identify the
specific cell where a health and safety problem occurred, while another
report might state that the problem occurred “throughout” the Jail.
According to a DoH official, when a deficiency is identified throughout the
facility, it means that the problem was found in at least one cell in each of
the 18 cellblocks inspected. According to DoC, specific information on
such things as the location and prevalence of an identified problem and
the time that it was identified would be more useful than generally
characterizing deficiencies as occurring in “some” or “most” locations or
“throughout” the Jail. DoC officials believe that if the inspection reports
were more specific, the information could be used to determine if the
deficiency was newly identified, was currently being corrected, or was
already corrected. According to a DoH official, there are no explicit
criteria for the level of specificity that should be included in inspection
reports of the Jail or CTF. The following illustrates some of the identified
deficiencies and how they were reported. (App. III provides additional
information about the health and safety deficiencies reported by DoH).
•

Air quality deficiencies: This deficiency was identified in four of six
DoH inspection reports. In these reports, DoH noted that at the time of an
inspection, there was no measurable airflow coming out of the vents for
the areas inspected. Recognizing the need to remedy the Jail’s heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system problems, DoC sought and
obtained approval in fiscal year 2001 for a capital improvement project
that would replace the Jail’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
system. As of June 2004, construction on the project was 99 percent
complete. DoC officials said that they expect most airflow problems to be
eliminated once this project is completed.

•

Vermin: In three of six inspections, DoH found vermin in at least one of
the following areas, the Jail’s main kitchen, loading dock, dry storage
areas, and officers’ dining area. Mice and flies were the types of vermin
DoH reported most frequently. However, DoH did not report the extent of
the vermin problem identified. Recognizing that food and water lodged in
the cracks and crevices of the Jail’s deteriorated kitchen floor contributed
to the problem with vermin, DoC initiated a capital project to remedy the
problem. The project was approved in fiscal year 2002 and completed in
March 2004. DoH also reported evidence of vermin in the inmate shower
areas in all six reports we reviewed. Specifically, flies were observed

Page 8

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

coming through inmate shower drains at the time of five inspections. DoC
recognizes that vermin control is continuously challenging because of the
size, age, and location of the facility. To control for vermin, DoC
administers pest control treatments throughout the year, including treating
the housing units quarterly, common areas bimonthly, and culinary areas
biweekly. According to a DoC official, DoC sprays for flies, cockroaches,
and other insects and sets traps for rodents. Additionally, shower areas in
cellblocks are steam cleaned and chemicals are applied to control for flies.
DoC’s Environmental Safety and Sanitation manual dictates the time
frames for these treatments.
•

Fire safety deficiencies: Problems with fire extinguishers and smoke
detectors were identified in all six DoH reports and in Fire and Emergency
Medical Services’ 2002 and 2003 annual reports. With respect to fire
extinguishers, five of six DoH inspections reported that the Jail had an
insufficient number of extinguishers. Five of six DoH inspections found
that fire extinguishers were improperly mounted on the walls. The reports
did not always state which locations in the Jail had this problem or how
many extinguishers were improperly mounted. With respect to smoke
detectors, each DoH inspection report, as well as Fire and Emergency
Medical Services’ 2002 and 2003 inspection reports, noted that some of the
Jail’s approximately 200 smoke detectors were missing or not working in
each of the facility areas inspected. Neither DoH nor Fire and Emergency
Medical Services specified in any inspection report how many smoke
detectors were missing or not working. In April 2003, Fire and Emergency
Medical Services conducted a re-inspection of the deficiencies it had
identified in its January 2003 inspection and reported that the Jail had
corrected all deficiencies. According to a DoC official, DoH’s October
2003 and April 2004 findings that there were again missing smoke
detectors was most likely due to inmate vandalism.

•

Plumbing deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH noted that
(1) inmate cells had faulty plumbing fixtures, such as leaking toilet knobs
or stuck faucets; (2) inmate cells throughout the facility lacked hot or cold
water; (3) sinks and toilets in inmate cells had low water pressure; and
(4) showers in some cellblocks could not be used because of
malfunctioning.10 However, the reports were not consistent in reporting
the problems identified. For example, in one of six inspections, DoH
reported the specific number of cells without hot or cold water, whereas
in the remaining five inspections, DoH reported that this occurred

10

Individual inmate cells do not have showers.

Page 9

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

throughout the facility. As part of its capital improvement program, DoC
received approval in fiscal year 2001 to replace plumbing fixtures
throughout the Jail’s 18 cellblocks. As of June 2004, construction on the
plumbing fixture project was 35 percent complete.
•

Lighting deficiencies: In all six inspection reports, DoH indicated that
light fixtures were damaged. In three of the six inspection reports, the
number of cells affected was not given; in the remaining three, between
3 and 160 inmate cells were reported as having damaged light fixtures. As
part of a capital improvement project that was approved in fiscal year
2001, DoC intends to replace light fixtures throughout the Jail’s
18 cellblocks. As of June 2004, construction on this project was 35 percent
complete.
In addition to being inspected by DoH, DoC conducts its own routine
internal inspections. Both the DoH and DoC inspections address
(1) maintenance-related problems; that is, problems whose remedy
involves repairing a malfunction such as a broken toilet or a faulty air
system, and (2) nonmaintenance-related problems; that is, those that
involve sanitation conditions, such as improper storage of chemicals. DoC
staff are to conduct daily and monthly health and safety inspections at the
facility.11 DoC’s Environmental Safety and Sanitation Manual details the
procedures to be used for reporting both maintenance- and
nonmaintenance-related deficiencies. Additionally, the manual includes
time frames for correcting maintenance-related deficiencies, but does not
include time frames for correcting nonmaintenance-related deficiencies.
For maintenance-related deficiencies, DoC has an automated system in
which to record the deficiency, the corrective action to be taken, and
whether the corrective action was completed. The system is designed to
assign each maintenance-related problem to one of three priority levels
according to the impact it may have on the health and safety of the
inmate.12 Once a maintenance-related problem is entered into this system,

11

Daily inspections are to include common areas of the Jail, shower areas, and cells, and
monthly inspections are to include fire safety, pest control, and sanitation.

12

DoC requires that priority one deficiencies—those that affect inmate health and safety—
be corrected within 4 hours. If this is not possible, DoC staff are to determine if an inmate
should be removed from a cell. Priority two deficiencies include problems such as broken
light covers or other nonemergency maintenance projects. Priority three deficiencies
include painting and other nonemergency projects. According to DoC’s Environmental
Safety and Sanitation Manual, both priority two and three deficiencies are to be fixed
within 24 hours.

Page 10

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

a work ticket is to be generated and the status of the corrective action is to
be monitored. DOC officials said that once the deficiency is entered, it
remains active in the system until it is corrected. DoC noted that the
number of maintenance calls ranges between 50 and 250 on any given day.
For certain nonmaintenance-related deficiencies that are not corrected at
the time of the DoH inspection and are later documented in the inspection
report, DoC is to complete an abatement plan and document corrective
actions taken, according to a DoC official. DoC officials noted that they do
not have a formal mechanism for responding to nonmaintenance-related
deficiencies identified in internal inspections. DoC officials said that their
practice is to take immediate corrective action for fire safety violations
identified by Fire and Emergency Medical Services to ensure compliance
with applicable fire codes and regulations.

Health and Safety
Deficiencies Reported at
CTF

At CTF, DoH and Fire and Emergency Medical Services generally
identified the same areas of health and safety deficiencies—that is, air
quality, vermin, fire safety, plumbing, and lighting—as at the Jail. DoH and
Fire and Emergency Medical Services are responsible for conducting
health and safety inspections at CTF. According to a DoH official, twice a
year, DoH conducts inspections at CTF applying the American Public
Health Association’s standards for correctional institutions in its health
and safety inspections at CTF. A Fire and Emergency Medical Services
official said that the same fire safety codes are applied in its inspection of
CTF as at the Jail. The available inspection data from DoH cannot be used
to compare conditions at the Jail with those at CTF because (1) inspection
reports for CTF did not document the prevalence or severity of the
problems, and (2) DoH applied American Correctional Association
standards in its inspection of the Jail and American Public Health
Association standards in its inspection of CTF. Beginning in September
2004, DoH will apply the same set of standards—American Public Health
Association standards—in its inspections of the Jail and CTF.
Three DoH reports prepared between September 2002 and May 2003—the
most recent reports available—identified deficiencies related to air quality,
vermin, fire safety, and lighting. DoH found plumbing deficiencies in its
September 2002 inspection, but not in the two inspections conducted in
2003.
As was the case with the Jail, the DoH reports did not consistently identify
the specific locations where the problems occurred. The following
illustrates some of the reported deficiencies.

Page 11

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

•

Air quality deficiencies: Deficiencies related to air quality included dirty
vents and air temperatures above or below the required level. All three
DoH inspection reports that we reviewed documented the presence of
dirty vents. Two of the three inspection reports reported that the air
temperature was below the required temperature of 65 degrees
Fahrenheit.13 However, none of the reports indicated where the air quality
deficiencies occurred at CTF. In its February 2003 inspection report, DoH
noted that CTF corrections officials had offered to move inmates who
were in cells with the low temperature, but the inmates chose to remain in
the cells. The officials reportedly provided the inmates with extra blankets
and clothing.

•

Vermin: This deficiency was identified in each DoH inspection report.
None of the reports indicated the severity of the problem identified. DoH
reported in September 2002 that at the time of its inspection, mice were
observed in the trash compactor area entering and exiting through a wall
that was missing rubber caulking. DoH’s February 2003 report noted that
at the time of the inspection, outside cracks and crevices were repaired,
with the exception of those located near the trash compactor area.
Correctional standards state that facilities must be maintained to prevent
vermin access. CTF’s abatement plan did not include information on
planned or completed corrective actions for the cracks and crevices.
However, DoH’s May 2003 report indicated that there continued to be
evidence of vermin at CTF. Specifically, in May 2003 DoH reported a fly
infestation problem. Although CTF was opened about 22 years ago, CTF
officials said that cracks and crevices continue to develop because of the
settling of the building. Under CCA policy, CTF is to have weekly pest
exterminations conducted. According to CTF officials, since 1997 CTF has
had a contract with a pest control company for pest extermination. CTF
documentation showed that pest extermination is to be done on a weekly
basis.

•

Fire safety deficiencies: Fire safety violations were reported in two of
three DoH reports. Specifically, DoH found burnt electrical plugs, exposed
electrical cables, and improperly placed fire extinguishers.14 CTF

13

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

14

In 2002, the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services completed a follow-up
inspection of violations previously cited in 2001. CTF officials said this follow-up
inspection also served as the annual inspection. Fire and Emergency Medical Services did
not prepare a report of findings because it did not identify any fire safety deficiencies in
2002. Similarly, DoH did not identify any fire safety deficiencies in 2002.

Page 12

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

documentation did not show what, if any, corrective action was taken.
DoH’s reports did not provide specific information about where these
deficiencies were located. In a September 2003 fire safety inspection, Fire
and Emergency Medical Services found, among other things, deficient exit
signs. However, Fire and Emergency Medical Services reported in
November 2003 that CTF had corrected these deficiencies. According to
CTF records, deficient exit signs were corrected by replacing the
lightbulbs.
•

Plumbing deficiency: In its September 2002 inspection, DoH found that
three cells out of 1,014 had hot water temperatures above the maximum
recommended temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of its
inspection. DoH noted that this problem was corrected the following day.

•

Lighting deficiencies: Deficiencies with lighting were reported in each
inspection report we reviewed. The problems included burnt lightbulbs
and damaged light fixtures, switches, and fuses. Burnt lightbulbs were
reported in DoH’s September 2002 and February 2003 reports. For
example, DoH’s September 2002 report showed that some cells had one
burnt light bulb. According to CTF officials, each cell is to have
approximately three lightbulbs. Similarly, the February 2003 report
showed that some cells had burnt-out lightbulbs, but all lightbulbs were
replaced before the inspector left.
In addition, CTF staff are to conduct daily, weekly, and monthly health and
safety inspections of the facility. They are to document the deficiencies
reported, including planned and completed corrective actions.
Additionally, CTF has had a comprehensive maintenance program since
July 1997. In 2003, 13,476 maintenance deficiencies were reported and
corrected.

Capital Improvement
Projects at the Jail

Sixteen capital improvement projects were approved at the Jail during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.15 Between 1976, when the Jail opened as a
newly constructed detention facility, through the 1990s, capital
improvements at the Jail primarily dealt with its heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning system. By the late 1990s, the Jail had deteriorated and
conditions had become unsanitary and unsafe for inmates and staff. To
address these conditions and upgrade the facility’s infrastructure, DoC

15

The District defines capital improvements as a permanent improvement to a fixed asset
that is valued at $250,000 or more and with an expected life of more than 3 years.

Page 13

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

began to request additional funding for capital improvements at the Jail in
its fiscal year 2000 capital budget request.
Of the Jail’s 16 capital improvement projects, 1 project—involving
improvements to the kitchen flooring—was complete as of June 1, 2004.
The remaining 15 projects were in various stages of construction or
design: 6 were in the construction phase, 6 were in the design phase, and
3 were in the predesign phase. Of the 6 projects in the construction phase,
3 were at substantial completion.16 These projects included upgrading the
hot water system and replacing the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning system. Table 1 presents a description of each project, the
fiscal year each project was approved, the project’s current working
estimate as of July 13, 2004, and each project’s status as of June 1, 2004.17
Table 1: Capital Improvement Projects at the District’s Jail

Projects by phase

Fiscal year

Current working
estimate, as of
July 13, 2004

Project status, as of June 1, 2004

This project includes replacing the
kitchen flooring and renovating the
kitchen area.

2002

$1,911,907

Construction 100 percent complete

This project includes replacing all of
the main water lines, converters,
pumps, piping valves, and other
equipment associated with the hot
water system throughout the Jail.

2001

9,498,054

Construction 99 percent complete.

b

2001

See current
working estimate
for the hot water
system project

Construction 99 percent complete.

b

2001

2,960,943

Description

Complete
Kitchen flooring and
miscellaneous
improvements
Construction
a

Hot water system

Heating, ventilation, This project includes replacing the
and air conditioning existing equipment in the Jail.
a
system replacement
Lighting upgrades

a

This project includes replacing the
light fixtures, lightbulbs, and
switches throughout the 18
cellblocks.

Construction 35 percent complete
and estimated complete by October
2005.

16

Substantial completion means that the project was completed enough to be used by DoC
for its intended purpose.

17

Current working estimate represents the current estimate of total project cost to provide
a complete and usable facility.

Page 14

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Projects by phase
Plumbing upgrades

Description
a

Fiscal year

Current working
estimate, as of
July 13, 2004

Project status, as of June 1, 2004

This project includes replacing the
plumbing fixtures throughout the 18
cellblocks.

2001

See current
working estimate
for the lighting
upgrades project

Construction 35 percent complete
and estimated complete by October
2005.

This project includes redesigning
and reconfiguring the sally port and
adjoining areas so that inmates and
vehicles can be processed more
efficiently.

2000

858,120

Construction is ongoing as this
project is being implemented in
phases. Construction on the sally
port parking and laundry is 100
percent complete. Construction on
b
the armory is 98 percent complete.
Additional work, such as
improvements to the guard tower
and receiving and discharge, may
be determined at a later date.

Energy management This project includes improvements
system
to the energy efficiency of the Jail’s
building systems, such as its
electrical; plumbing; and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning
systems. This project will also
include installing a computerized
energy management system.

2002

Not available

Sally port and
c
adjoining areas

Construction is ongoing as this
project is being implemented in
phases.

Design
Central security
system

This project includes installing a
new, integrated, comprehensive
security system, including door
controls, cameras, motion
detectors, card readers, duress
alarm system and intrusion
detection system; and refurbishing
the existing control centers,
including central command, floor
control, and control bubbles.

2000

5,973,405

This project is being implemented
in phases. Installation of the closed
circuit television is 35 percent
complete, and estimated complete
by October 2004. Design of the
overall central security system is
100 percent complete. Construction
contract for the overall central
security system project not yet
awarded.

Cell doors and
motors

This project includes demolishing all
existing cell door operating
mechanisms and retrofitting all cell
doors throughout the 18 cellblocks.

2000

9,936,951

Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet
awarded.

This project includes demolishing
and replacing the Jail’s existing
elevators.

2000

2,123,005

Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet
awarded.

This project includes demolishing
and replacing the Jail’s existing
escalators.

2003

See current
working estimate
for the elevators
project

Design 100 percent complete,
construction contract not yet
awarded.

Elevators

a

Escalators

a

Page 15

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Fiscal year

Current working
estimate, as of
July 13, 2004

This project includes demolishing all
remnants of the existing fire alarm
and sprinkler system and installing
a new, modern, and comprehensive
fire alarm and sprinkler system,
including strategically located fire,
heat, and smoke detectors.

2000

1,766,795

This project includes reconfiguring
the Jail’s electrical distribution
system.

2002

420,238

Staff and visitors’
entrances

This project includes redesigning,
expanding, and reconfiguring the
staff and visitors’ entrances.

2003

Not available

Not determined

d

Inmate shower
renovations

This project includes demolishing
the shower stalls throughout the 18
cellblocks and replacing them with
new, prison-grade shower stalls,
including new fixtures, piping,
drains, and improvements to the
floors and ceilings.

2004

Not available

Not determined

d

Exterior structural
refinishing

This project includes repairs to the
Jail’s exterior structure.

2004

Not available

Not determined

d

Projects by phase

Description

Fire alarm and
sprinkler system

Emergency power
system

Project status, as of June 1, 2004
Design 100 percent complete on
fire alarm and 95 percent complete
on sprinkler system. In process of
awarding the construction contract
for the fire alarm system.

Design 80 percent complete.

Other

Total

$35,449,418
Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of Columbia’s Department of
Corrections and Office of Property Management.
a

According to Office of Property Management officials, work on these projects has been combined
because of, among other things, similarities in the work to be performed. Specifically, combined
projects include work on the following: (1) hot water system and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning system replacement; (2) lighting upgrades and plumbing upgrades; and (3) elevators and
escalators.
b

These projects are at substantial completion.

c

The sally port is the area where all vehicles coming into the Jail are checked and processed. The
adjoining areas are the guard tower, the external yard, receiving and discharge, and the laundry.

d
DoC and the Office of Property Management did not agree on the status of the project. According to
DoC, the project was in the design phase; according to the Office of Property Management, the
project was not yet in design because the scope of work had not yet been finalized.

The District’s Office of Property Management is the implementing agency
for the Jail’s capital improvement projects and manages the projects’
actual construction. Its responsibilities include monitoring the progress of
the projects to ensure that (1) the original intent of the project is fulfilled,
(2) financing is scheduled for required capital expenditures, and (3) DoC’s
highest priority projects are implemented first. We sought to obtain

Page 16

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

current working estimates for the Jail’s capital improvement projects from
the Office of Property Management (see table 1). However, current
working estimates were not available for four of the Jail’s capital
improvement projects. This is because those projects were either ongoing
and being implemented in phases—meaning that work was being
completed in conjunction with the Jail’s other capital improvement
projects, or the project did not have a fully defined scope of work.18
When managing the projects, Office of Property Management officials
noted that such factors as unforeseen site conditions and unexpected
events can affect the progress of implementing the projects and change
their cost, scope, or schedule. As an example of an unforeseen site
condition, Office of Property Management officials noted that while
working on the Jail’s hot water system and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning replacement projects, contractors discovered that the Jail’s
cold water system had also deteriorated and needed to be replaced. As a
result, DoC changed the scope of the projects to include upgrading the
Jail’s cold water system. This, in turn, increased the projects’ construction
costs from about $7.1 million to $9.1 million and extended the projects’
schedule from about 24 months to 34 months. As an example of an
unexpected event, DoC further accelerated the installation of the closed
circuit television portion of the Jail’s electronic security system project
following a shooting incident in December 2003.19 This portion of the
project was pulled out of the Jail’s larger central security systems project
whose drawings had been completed prior to December 2003. As of June
1, 2004, the installation of the closed circuit television portion of this
project was 35 percent complete.
Our work on capital improvement projects has noted that it is important
that capital projects be well managed.20 For example, our work has noted
the importance of having written policies and procedures that can help

18

According to Office of Property Management officials, the process of defining the scope
of work, among other things, is essential to the establishment of a reliable cost estimate.
Thus, for those projects, no cost estimate was available.

19

According to DoC officials, the Department of Homeland Security provided DoC with a
grant in August 2003 to help ensure that no breaches of security occur. Through this grant,
DoC had already begun procuring security cameras that were to be part of this project.

20

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices and Capital Decision-Making,
GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

Page 17

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

project managers in planning and managing their projects.21 Typical
policies and procedures that might be provided to project managers
include policies that establish the roles and responsibilities of project staff
and procedures that define how the project will be executed. When used,
such policies and procedures help guide project execution and ensure
overall project oversight. We did not systematically review the
management of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, nor did we
determine whether management issues may have contributed to increased
costs or time frames for certain projects. Therefore, we have no
information indicating that the Office of Property Management’s projects
at the Jail were not well managed. However, during our review we noted
that the Office of Property Management lacked written policies and
procedures to guide its project managers through the planning and
management of projects.
Office of Property Management officials we interviewed acknowledged the
importance of having written project management policies and procedures
to guide its staff through the planning and management of projects. In
April 2004, the Office of Property Management (1) established a project
management working group, consisting of its Deputy Director of
Operations, project managers, and other staff, to develop a standard
operating procedure for managing projects, and (2) began revising its
current reporting procedures for providing up-to-date information on,
among other things, each project’s budget and schedule. However, at the
time of our review the working group had not yet developed the guidance,
and time frames for completing its work had not been established. Thus, it
is too early to determine specifically what guidance this working group
will develop and the extent to which it will assist project managers in
planning and managing their projects.

21

GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the Management and
Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823 (Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003).

Page 18

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

DoC Has Taken Steps
to Improve Inmate
Records, but Effects
on Reducing Release
Errors Are Difficult to
Determine

DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve its
efficiency and accuracy in processing inmate records, but release errors
have continued to occur. Prior to 2002, errors in releasing inmates too
early prompted the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to
request that two agencies review DoC’s management of inmate records.22
These agencies identified problems with inmate record processing,
including DoC’s lack of policies and procedures related to Records Office
management. In response to some of the problems identified, in 2000 DoC
implemented a new electronic record system as its primary case
management and inmate record system. By the end of October 2002, DoC
had simplified the workflow in the Records Office,23 issued an operations
manual, developed a database to help track and resolve discrepancies in
inmates’ court documents, and provided training for staff. (See app. IV for
more information about these DoC improvement efforts.)
To capture information on the sequence of events that led to each
identified release error, in 2002 DoC established a new database, known as
the Release Discrepancy database. This database is used to generate
incident reports that contain information on release errors and to notify
management of release errors. In general, DoC’s incident reports indicated
that some inmates were released early or late because Records Office staff
made such errors as (1) processing records without having all pertinent
documents, (2) entering information incorrectly into the electronic record
system, and (3) not processing documents quickly enough to avoid a
release error. Actions that led to these types of errors included misfiling
documents, placing documents in a duplicate file folder, placing
documents in a pending folder, or filing documents before they were
processed. In commenting on a draft of this report, DoC noted that it had
analyzed 100 documented late releases in the Release Discrepancy
database and used the results to propose corrective actions for reducing
such errors. DoC found that in 39 percent of late releases, the cause was
lack of timely document processing by Records Office staff. As a result of
this analysis, which, according to a DoC official, was conducted in April

22
The D.C. Corrections Trustee and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Trustee for the District of Columbia conducted these reviews.

23

DoC’s Records Office processes the legal documents that provide authority to move
inmates into and out of the Jail and CTF. The Records Office’s primary functions are to
receive, review, and maintain records from the courts in order to make sentence
computations and process inmate admissions, releases, and transfers.

Page 19

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

and May 2004, DoC has begun identifying and providing refresher training
to staff that are frequently associated with late release errors.
DoC officials further attributed errors in record processing to the large
volume of documents received in the Records Office and limited staff
resources.24 According to a DoC official, the Records Office receives an
average of 300 to 400 documents a day, and Records Office staff process
an average of over 1,500 intakes and releases each month. DoC officials
noted that five additional Records Office staff had been hired, and they
should help to improve the efficiency of records processing after they are
trained.
Although DoC’s quality control efforts were intended to improve the
operations of its Records Office, DoC did not have sufficiently complete
data to determine whether or to what extent these efforts may have
reduced early and late releases.25 Therefore, it is difficult to determine if
the intended effects of the improvement efforts were achieved or the
extent to which progress has been made in improving electronic inmate
records since the District’s Office of Inspector General’s October
2002 report.26
With respect to early releases, DoC may not know the full extent to which
this is a problem because DoC may not discover its error until after the
fact, which may be after the inmate has been out of DoC custody for some
time. Therefore, at a given point in time, DoC cannot be sure it has
complete information on early releases. According to DoC records,
22 inmates were released early between January 2002 and February

24

According to an information technology official at the District of Columbia Courts, plans
are being developed for transmitting information to DoC in an automated format, rather
than in a hard copy format as is currently the case. The official said that if DoC received
inmate case information more quickly, records-processing errors might decrease. The
official said he expected the system to be implemented at the end of fiscal year 2005.

25

For the purposes of this report, we are using the terms “early” and “late” releases to refer
to nonjustifiable, and therefore erroneous, releases of inmates. According to DoC officials,
there are instances where inmates can be justifiably released before or after their official
release date. For example, if the official release date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or
holiday, an inmate may be released on the last business day before the weekend or holiday.
As another example, an inmate who receives a court order to be assigned to a residential
treatment facility could be released late if bed space is not immediately available in that
facility.

26

Some problems identified in this report included the lack of policies and procedures,
inaccurate information in the computer system, and missing official inmate files.

Page 20

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

2004. Although these 22 identified cases may understate the true number
of early releases, they are instructive for understanding how early releases
can occur. According to incident reports completed by DoC, these early
releases occurred because of such staff errors as computing the sentence
incorrectly or failing to process incoming documents that extended the
inmate’s detention before the inmate was released. Of the 22 inmates
known to have been released early, 17 did not have a release date set
because they had at least one legal matter that had not yet been resolved.27
Although a release date would not have been set for these 17 inmates, DoC
defines them as early releases because they were released before the legal
matters for which they were detained had been resolved. For example,
some inmates were released before they were sentenced or before charges
were dismissed. The remaining 5 inmates had received sentences. Of these
5, 4 were released approximately 2 months before their release date and
1 was released almost a year and a half early.28
With respect to late releases, DoC did not have full information on the
extent of its late releases because until recently, it was using a
methodology to identify inmates who had been released late that produced
incomplete results. In April 2004, we noted a discrepancy in which two
late releases were documented in one set of reports and not in another
report covering the same time period.29 This discrepancy prompted DoC to
review the methodology it had used to identify late release cases in its
electronic record system. DoC’s review revealed that its script—computer
code that extracts specific data from a large set of data—had not been

27

According to a DoC official, inmates may be admitted to DoC upon sentence, admitted
and held until the matter is resolved, or admitted and held by DoC until other jurisdictions
are able to place and process them. DoC defines an early release as a release that occurs
before an inmate’s sentence is complete in the absence of a legal document authorizing the
inmate’s release or a release that occurs before all matters have been legally resolved.
28

Of the 22 early release errors, 14 were discovered within a week of the error occurring, 6
were discovered between 1 and 5 weeks, 1 was discovered approximately 2 months later,
and DoC could not provide us with information on the remaining inmate. The information
DoC provided shows that all 22 inmates identified as having been released early were reapprehended and taken into custody after the error was discovered. Eleven of these
occurred within 2 weeks of the mistaken release, 6 occurred between 3 weeks and 9
months later, 4 occurred between 11 and 20 months after the error was made, and one
inmate released December 2003 remained at large as of May 2004. Three of the 22 inmates
were taken into custody when they were charged with committing new misdemeanors.
None of the other 19 inmates had been charged with committing new crimes while out of
DoC custody.

29

One was a report that DoC used to identify late releases, and the second was a group of
reports generated by DoC’s database to track the basis for the early and late release errors.

Page 21

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

written to incorporate all of the relevant information in DoC’s automated
record system. Specifically, DoC determined that three types of releases
could occur for which different time rules for release apply.30 Prior to April
2004, DoC’s methodology identified late releases based on a definition that
incorporated primarily one category of release—those made pursuant to
court orders. Subsequent to April 2004, the script also incorporated
categories of release that were related to when an inmate’s sentence had
expired, and to the length of time that the inmate had already served
relative to his or her sentence length. For February 2004, the only month
for which DoC retroactively applied its new methodology and for which
data using both the old and new methodology were available, the number
of late releases was revised upward from 1 to 18. For the period, February
through June 2004, DoC has identified 65 late releases out of 5,112 inmate
total releases. This is an error rate of 1.3 percent.31 We recognize that some
level of human error is inevitable in an environment where staff handle
300 to 400 documents per day. Although we do not know what an
acceptable level of error may be, the consequences of such errors for
individuals who are eligible to be released from detention are very real.
DoC has taken other steps since March 2004 to try to improve the
accuracy of the late release data. Specifically, DoC officials reported that
they have streamlined the process for identifying late releases, added a
review component to that process, and increased staff access to late
release data. DoC officials believe that the involvement of more staff in
maintaining and analyzing the data will facilitate quicker identification and
resolution of data issues. Since we have not reviewed DoC’s record system
or methodology, we do not know if DoC’s recent efforts to improve its
script and processes will enable it to identify all late releases. DoC officials

30

Time rules pertain to the time designated for DoC to process a release. For example, an
inmate released pursuant to a court order is considered released late if released more than
48 hours after the time the inmate returns to DoC from court.

31

In commenting on a draft of this report, DoC informed us that 67 out of 8,233 inmate
releases between February and June 2004 were inappropriate. In subsequent
communications with DoC, we learned that DoC had discovered an additional early release
and that out of 68 inappropriate releases, 65 were late releases and 3 were early releases.
Of the 8,233 total releases, 5,112 were releases that could have resulted in a late release
into the community, while 3,121 were other types of release transactions, such as releases
to the U.S. Marshal’s Service, releases to drug programs, and extraditions. We did not
include early releases in our computation of the error rate because, as we note on page 20,
data on early releases may be understated. We did not include the 2,121 cases involving
other types of release transactions because they did not involve releasing inmates into the
community.

Page 22

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

told us, however, that DoC is monitoring the script’s ability to detect late
releases to ensure that it is immediately modified if necessary.

Conclusions

DoH’s inspections produce important information on health and safety
deficiencies that occur at the District’s detention facilities. DoC could
further benefit from the information it receives from DoH if the
information it receives in inspection reports contained the specific date,
time, and location of each identified deficiency. This could help DoC
determine the prevalence of the identified deficiency, whether it was new
or recurring, if the deficiency had already been fixed, and if health and
safety conditions at the facilities are generally improving, worsening, or
staying the same over time.
The Office of Property Management recognizes the importance of, and has
begun to take steps toward, developing policies and procedures that will
guide its project managers in planning and managing capital improvement
projects. We commend the Office of Property Management for forming a
working group to develop standard operating procedures for managing
projects. However, as of June 2004, time frames for the working group to
complete its assignment had not been established. We believe such time
frames would be useful to the Office of Property Management for ensuring
accountability and monitoring its desired pace of progress toward
implementing policies and procedures against its actual pace of progress.
Helping ensure that the work of the working group stays on schedule will
also better position the Office of Property Management for effectively
managing the implementation of the Jail’s capital improvement projects.

Recommendations for
Executive Action

To help DoC determine the prevalence of health and safety deficiencies at
the Jail and monitor changes in facility conditions over time, we
recommend that the Mayor direct the DoC Director to take the following
action:
•

coordinate with the Director of DoH to develop an inspection report
format that will provide DoC with specific information on the date,
time, and location of each health and safety deficiency identified.

To help strengthen management of capital improvement projects, we
recommend that the Mayor direct the Director of the Office of Property
Management to take the following action:

Page 23

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

•

establish time frames for completing its work on developing and
implementing policies and procedures.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the District’s DoC,
DoH, Office of Property Management, and OIG. Between July 8 and July
14, 2004, we received written comments on the draft report, and these are
reproduced in full in appendixes VII through X. DoH concurred with our
finding that inspection reports did not consistently identify locations
where deficiencies were found and agreed to our recommendation that it
develop a detailed inspection report format. In response to a comment by
DoC, we dropped a recommendation in our draft report that DoC conduct
an analysis of reasons why inmate release errors occurred and use the
results to make data-based decisions on how to reduce staff errors. In its
July 9 letter, DoC provided new information indicating that it had
conducted such an analysis, and it was taking corrective action to reduce
such errors. The Office of Property Management did not comment on our
recommendation that it establish time frames for completing its work on
developing and implementing policies and procedures to help strengthen
the management of capital improvement projects. The OIG limited its
comments to affirming that we accurately portrayed the findings and
recommendations contained in its October 2002 inspection report on the
Jail. DoC, DoH, and the Office of Property Management also made
additional substantive comments, which we address below. Additionally,
DoC, DoH, and the Office of Property Management provided additional
context and clarifying information as well as technical comments, which
we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

•

With respect to health and safety inspections:
1. DoC noted that by addressing the lack of specificity in DoH inspection
reports, we focused attention on a significant issue. DoC believes it
would be useful for it to receive detailed inspection reports containing
specific information on the location, severity, and frequency of
occurrence of identified deficiencies. In response to our
recommendation, DoH has indicated that it will have a new, detailed
inspection tool ready for use in correctional facility inspections by
September 1, 2004. Such a tool should help DoC’s concern that existing
reports—which discuss deficiencies that may be minor or limited in
extent—may produce an inaccurate overall picture of conditions at the
Jail.
2. DoH and DoC commented on our observation that inspections at the
detention facilities were conducted using two different sets of

Page 24

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

standards—American Correctional Association standards at the Jail
and American Public Health Association Standards at CTF. Both DoH
and DoC believe it would be preferable to use the same set of
standards when inspecting the Jail and CTF. In contacts with DoH and
DoC subsequent to our receipt of their comment letters, we learned
that beginning September 2004, DOH intends to use American Public
Health Association Standards in its Jail inspections, and that DoC
welcomes this change.
3. DoC said that our report highlighted specific DoH inspection results
that were incorrect. DoC cited airflow, lighting, and fire safety as
examples of areas in which DoH either used an erroneous standard or
arrived at an inaccurate conclusion. We note on page 2 and in
appendix I of the report that it was beyond the scope of this review to
determine whether the DoH inspector applied the health and safety
standards correctly, took accurate measurements, or accurately
reported the inspection results. In compiling information on health and
safety conditions at the Jail and CTF, we relied on DoH inspection
reports because prior court orders and recently passed legislation
require DoH to conduct environmental health and safety inspections of
the Jail at least three times a year and prepare and provide a report to
the District’s Council. DoH health and safety inspection reports
represent the District’s official record of the Jail’s health and safety
conditions. The Office of Inspector General’s October 2002 inspection
report on the Jail similarly relied on DoH inspection reports.
Pursuant to DoC’s comments, however, we reviewed the standards
pertaining to airflow, lighting, and fire safety that DoC cited. For
example, DoC stated that on numerous occasions, DoH applied the
wrong metric or standard (that is, feet per minute rather than cubic
feet per minute to measure airflow, and 30 foot-candles rather than
20 foot-candles to measure lighting) in assessing whether an area being
inspected was above or below the standard. DoC also believed that
heat detectors, which were located in areas that DoH identified as
having missing smoke detectors, provided fire protection, thereby
obviating the need for smoke detectors in those locations. Further,
DoC disputed DoH’s findings that smoke detectors in the Jail were not
working or were missing. DoC maintained that in some instances,
smoke detectors that were reported as not working were, in fact,
working.
Based on our review of the specific standards related to airflow,
lighting, and fire safety, in conjunction with input from the DoH
administrator responsible for inspections at the Jail, we determined

Page 25

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

that DoC was correct in saying that there were specific instances in
which the DoH inspector applied an incorrect standard. The DoH
administrator told us that DoH is taking corrective action, including
training inspectors on the application of the standards, to ensure that
errors won’t happen again. We removed from the report any reference
to DoH inspection results that cited feet per minute as a measure of
airflow and foot -candles as a measure of lighting. However, we
retained information that documented instances in which there was no
airflow and problems with lighting fixtures in inmates’ cells.
With respect to fire safety, a FEMS fire safety inspector told us that
heat detectors do not meet local fire safety codes for residential areas
such as cellblocks. Therefore, according to the inspector, heat
detectors would not be an appropriate replacement for cellblocks that
were reported as missing smoke detectors at the time of an inspection.
Concerning DoC’s comment that DoH erroneously reported working
smoke detectors as not working, it is impossible for us to know if
smoke detectors were or were not working at a given point in time.
•

With respect to DoC’s capital improvement projects:
1. DoC did not agree with the way we reported the status of the last three
projects in table 1; that is, the staff and visitors’ entrances, inmate
shower renovations, and exterior structural refinishing projects. Based
on information from the Office of Property Management—the
District’s implementing agency for the Jail’s capital improvement
projects—we had listed the status of these three projects as being in
the “process of finalizing scope of work with DoC.” According to DoC,
however, these three projects are in the design phase. Pursuant to
DoC’s comments, we contacted the Office of Property Management’s
project manager for the Jail’s projects, and he maintained that these
three projects were not yet in the design phase because their scope of
work had not yet been finalized. We modified Table 1 to indicate that
there exists a disagreement between DoC and the Office of Property
Management concerning the status of these three projects.
2. DoC took issue with a statement in our report in which we stated that
following a shooting incident in December 2003, DoC accelerated the
installation of the closed circuit television portion of the Jail’s
electronic security system project. DoC commented that the closed
circuit television project was initiated in August 2003, months before
the shooting incident, and that there was no connection between these
two actions. We did not intend to imply that closed circuit television
project was initiated as a result of the shooting incident. Instead, we

Page 26

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

cited this incident as an example of an unexpected event that caused
an existing capital project to be accelerated. According to the Office of
Property Management project manager who is responsible for
implementing this project, he was asked to expedite the installation of
the closed circuit television project after the shooting incident, and
this was to take precedence over all other projects. Following receipt
of DoC’s comment letter, DoC’s chief facilities manager told us that the
closed circuit television project was already moving quickly toward
construction in December 2003, but that the shooting incident further
accelerated the project. We modified language in the report to reflect
this information.
3. In response to comments by DoC and the Office of Personnel
Management concerning the availability of current working estimates
and scheduled time frames for completing the projects, we
incorporated this information into table 1.
4. The Office of Property Management expressed concern that our draft
report implied that its capital projects at DoC were not well managed.
We did not assess the Office of Property Management’s management of
the Jail’s capital projects, and we did not intend such an implication.
We state in the report that we did not systematically review the
management of the Jail’s capital improvement projects, nor did we
determine whether management issues may have contributed to
increased costs or time frames for certain projects. We added language
to further clarify that we have no information indicating that the Office
of Property Management’s projects at the Jail are not well managed.
•

With respect to release errors:
1. DoC expressed concern that our report does not put the issue of
release errors in proper perspective, and therefore casts DoC’s
performance in this area in an undeservedly negative light. DoC
pointed out that its Records Office staff manually processes large
volumes of documents and that no workflow system is 100 percent
error free. DoC further reported that between February and June
2004, its rate of inmate release errors was only 0.81 percent, a rate that
DoC believes is within the norm when compared with other manual
work process systems. We agree with DoC that it is unreasonable to
expect perfection when dealing with a manual, high-volume
paperwork process. We do not know, however, what an acceptable
error rate is for large-scale manual records-processing systems,
particularly when the consequence of an error may be the erroneous
release of a jail inmate. To illustrate that DoC’s error rate is within the
norm, DoC directed us to a Web site containing two e-mail messages

Page 27

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

indicating that industries with robust, data-driven cultures commit 3 to
4.5 process errors per 1,000 opportunities. The e-mail messages do not
contain sufficient information for us to determine their reliability or if
they are comparable to DoC’s records data. Therefore, the
appropriateness of using these reported error rates as a benchmark for
DoC’s reported error rates is unclear. We note, however, that 3 to
4.5 errors per 1,000 represent error rates of 0.30 and 0.45 percent, a
fraction of DoC’s reported error rate. We added language to the report
indicating that it is unrealistic to expect that a data entry system based
on manual processing of large volumes of paperwork to be error free
and that we have no basis for determining what an acceptable rate of
error is.
2. DoC felt that we should give it credit for publicly and routinely
reporting release errors. DoC stated that few, if any, other correctional
systems do this. We do not know how DoC compares with other
systems in publicly reporting release errors because comparing DoC
with other correctional systems was outside the scope of our review.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the District’s
Mayor and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge
on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix XI. If you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report, contact Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, or me on
(202) 512-8777.
Sincerely yours,

Cathleen A. Berrick
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Page 28

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Our objectives were to determine (1) the results of recent health and
safety inspections at the Jail and Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF),
(2) the number and status of capital improvement projects at the Jail and
issues related to the management of these projects, and (3) the progress
made in improving electronic inmate records at the Jail. To address these
objectives, we met with and obtained information from corrections
officials at the District’s Department of Corrections (DoC) headquarters,
the Jail, and CTF; interviewed officials at the District’s Office of the
Inspector General; and reviewed applicable District laws and regulations.
To determine the results of the health and safety inspections at the Jail
and CTF, we interviewed officials at the District’s Department of Health
(DoH) and Fire and Emergency Medical Services, reviewed DoC and
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) policies and procedures,
American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention
Facilities and the American Public Health Association’s Standards for
Health Services in Correctional Institutions. We also reviewed all
available reports on DoH health and safety inspections of the Jail and CTF
prepared between March 2002 and April 2004. We developed a data
collection instrument to record the deficiencies reported by DoH.
Through discussions with DoH officials, we obtained information on
DoH’s methodology for conducting inspections and the standards applied
to the Jail and CTF inspections. We did not assess the quality of how DoH
completes its inspections, nor were we able to determine the prevalence,
seriousness, or recurrence of deficiencies identified. This was because the
DoH reports did not always record specific information on the location of
each deficiency. Our data collection instrument captured information on
those deficiencies that the District’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
reported in its October 2002 report.
To report on the findings of fire safety inspections, we reviewed three Fire
and Emergency Medical Services inspection reports—two for the Jail
dated January 2002 and January 2003 and one for CTF dated September
2003. In 2002, a follow-up inspection of violations previously cited in
2001 was completed. This inspection also served as the annual inspection.
Because deficiencies were not found, Fire and Emergency Medical
Services did not issue a report of findings. We did not assess the quality of
the fire safety inspections. However, through discussions with Fire and
Emergency Medical Services officials, we gained an understanding of Fire
and Emergency Medical Services’ methodology for conducting fire safety
inspections and the fire safety codes applied.

Page 29

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

To determine the status of the Jail’s 16 capital improvement projects, we
interviewed officials at the District’s Office of Property Management and
its Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We also reviewed documentation,
including project status reports. To obtain information on the scope of the
Jail’s capital projects, we reviewed DoC’s Capital Improvements
Program, as of August 2003. To identify management issues, we reviewed
the Office of Property Management’s project management, but we did not
conduct an in-depth evaluation on the effectiveness of its management. To
observe the capital improvement projects under construction, we
accompanied DoC officials on a tour of the Jail. We did not assess the
quality of work on of the Jail’s projects that were in design or construction
or that had been completed at the time of our review. To gain an
understanding of construction best practices and capital projects, we
reviewed industry resources from the Project Management Institute,
Project Management Institute Standards Committee, A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge, and prior GAO reports.1
To describe the changes that DoC has made to improve the accuracy of
inmate records, we met with DoC officials, including its Records Office
staff. We also reviewed DoC’s Operations Manual and policies, including
internal controls for inmate records. To determine whether there had been
an increase or decrease in the number of early or late releases, we
obtained DoC summary data for inmates that had been mistakenly
released before or after their official release date. Specifically, we
reviewed early release data for the period January 2002 through February
2004. Our review of late release data included inmates released in May
2002 through February 2004 and total releases for the same time period.
We also reviewed federal internal control standards to gain an
understanding of the types of control activities that may be applied for
information processing and staff training.2 We did not directly observe
record processing to determine the causes for and the full range of errors
made by Records Office staff.

1

GAO, Kennedy Center: Improvements Needed to Strengthen the Management and
Oversight of the Construction Process, GAO-03-823 (Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2003),
and GAO, United Nations: Early Renovation Planning Reasonable, but Additional
Management Controls and Oversight Will Be Needed, GAO-03-566 (Washington, D.C.: May
30, 2003).
2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

Page 30

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

To assess the reliability of release data, we reviewed the process by which
DoC tracks these data and the extent to which each relevant data element
is complete and accurate. To do this, we interviewed DoC staff about the
processes used to capture early and late release errors, the controls over
those processes, and the data elements involved. For late release errors,
we also traced data to their corresponding source documents. We
identified inconsistencies in the information, prompting DoC to review its
methodology for identifying late releases. DoC’s review led it and us to
conclude that its methodology had been incomplete and had produced an
undercount of the true number of late releases. DoC modified its
methodology in April 2004 to be more comprehensive.
For capital improvement projects at CTF, we obtained relevant
information for only those projects completed in 2003. We did not review
the CCA’s project management for these projects because this was outside
the scope of our review. To identify the types of programs and services
that the Jail and CTF provide, and the facilities’ annual costs during
1999 through 2003, we met with DoC and CTF officials and reviewed
program descriptions. To determine the annual cost of these facilities, we
reviewed DoC budget documents, including the costs of the Jail, and
CCA’s summary reports on income and expenses for CTF for each year
included in our review.
We conducted our review from June 2003 to July 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 31

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at
the Correctional Treatment Facility

Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at
the Correctional Treatment Facility
As part of its contract with the District to manage CTF, CCA performs
capital improvements at the facility that are intended to remedy current or
potential breaches of security or improve the facility’s normal operations.
CCA defines capital improvements as those valued at $5,000 or more and
may include furnishings, equipment, vehicles, or alterations to the facility.1
As shown in table 2, during 2003, 11 capital improvement projects were
completed at CTF at a total cost of $289,956. Of these 11 projects, 3 were
designated emergency projects. These 3 projects (that is, the last 3 shown
in table 2) were associated with CTF’s kitchen and were deemed by
Corrections Corporation of America to be necessary in order to provide
meals for the Jail’s inmates while the Jail’s kitchen was closed for
renovation.
Table 2: Capital Improvement Projects at CTF Completed during 2003
Project

Cost

Replace existing fire alarm system

$125,000

Batteries and chargers for radios

30,000

Fabricate four noncontact visit cages

6,300

New perimeter truck

15,000

Replace cameras and monitors

25,000

Pave perimeter road

10,515

Switchgear preventive maintenance

a

27,252

a

Batteries for switchgear

12,850

Ovens

11,795

Steamers

12,244

Two new chilled water coils

14,000

Total

$289,956

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Corrections Corporation of America.

1

CCA’s definition of a capital improvement differs from that of the District. The District
defines capital improvements as a permanent improvement to a fixed asset that is valued at
$250,000 or more with an expected life of more than 3 years.

Page 32

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix II: Capital Improvement Projects at
the Correctional Treatment Facility

a
Corrections Corporation of America’s capital improvement projects do not include the day-to-day
maintenance and general repair of existing equipment. These were improvements designed to extend
the longevity of the equipment that helps distribute power coming into CTF from the District.

Page 33

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

Appendix III: Results of Health and Safety
Inspections at the Jail
This appendix provides information on the results of the District’s DoH
health and safety inspection reports prepared between March 2002 and
April 2004 for health and safety inspections of the Jail. We reviewed six
inspection reports that included information on deficiencies identified for
the following: (1) air quality, (2) vermin, (3) fire safety, (4) plumbing, and
(5) lighting.

Air Quality

As shown in figure 1, problems with air quality were reported in four of six
inspection reports. Specifically, in four of the reports, DoH reported that
at the time of an inspection, there was no airflow. According to a DoH
official, “no airflow” included those instances in which there was no
measurable airflow coming out of the vent during an inspection. For
example, in October 2003, DoH reported that in general, all cellblocks had
cells with no airflow.
Figure 1: Air Quality deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports
Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Deficiency type
identified

Extent of problem
reported

Mar 02

N

NA

Aug 02

Y

S

Nov 02

Y

10 cb

Apr 03

N

NA

Oct 03

Y

18 cb

Apr 04

Y

M

Y = Yes N = No

S = Some
NA = Not applicable
M = Most

cb = cellblock(s)

No airflow in cells
Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.

Vermin

DoH found evidence of vermin in all six inspections. DoH found vermin in,
among other areas, the Jail’s main kitchen, loading dock, dry storage, and
officer dining areas. Mice and flies were the types of vermin DoH found
most frequently. For example, in its October 2003 report, DoH reported
that bread loaves with holes and mice droppings were found in the bread

Page 34

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

storage room. In each of its six inspections, DoH found evidence of flies,
primarily in the inmate shower areas. In August 2002, showers in
8 cellblocks were reported as having flies. In April and October 2003, DoH
noted flies coming from under the showers in each of the 18 cellblocks
inspected. DoH reported in April 2004 that flies were observed in shower
areas, but the report did not specify the number of cellblocks affected.
Figure 2 shows the vermin types identified in the kitchen areas and
showers.
Figure 2: Vermin Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004

Mice

Rats

Flies

Main
kitchen

Dishwashing

Loading
dock

Dry
storage

Other

Shower

Mar 02

Y

N

Y

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ya

Y

Aug 02

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Nov 02

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Apr 03

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Oct 03

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Apr 04

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Y = Yes N = No

b
b

b

Y
Y
Y
Y

NA = Not applicable

Vermin type reported
Kitchen areas
Shower areas
Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.
a

Officer dining area.

b

Bread storage area and hallway near canteen storage.

Fire Safety

DoH found an insufficient number of fire extinguishers, smoke detectors
that were either missing or not working, and other fire safety deficiencies
at the Jail. Figure 3 identifies each of the deficiencies. In five of six
inspections, fire extinguishers were reported as being improperly stored.
For example, in August and November 2002, DoH reported that
extinguishers were placed on the floor when they should have been
mounted on the wall. All six reports noted that fire extinguishers
throughout cellblocks inspected had inaccurate or missing documentation
indicating that they been inspected.

Page 35

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

DoH reported that in five of six inspections, there were cellblocks without
the required number of fire extinguishers. According to the DoH reports,
each cellblock is to have three extinguishers. Burnt-out or nonworking
exit lights were also noted in all six inspection reports we reviewed.
Figure 3: Fire Safety Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared between March 2002 and April 2004
Deficiency type identified

Extent of problem reported
Apr
03

Oct
03

Apr
04

1 cb

1 cb

1 cb

S

other

other

1 cb &
other

1 cb &
other

S

NA

1 cb &
other

other

1 cb

1 cb

S

N

NA

NA

16 ext.

NA

NA

NA

Y

Y

T

1 cb &
other

5 cb &
other

T

8 cb &
other

cb &
other

Y

Y

N

7 cb

7 cb

7 cb

7 cb

7 cb

NA

Y

N

N

N

NA

NA

1cb

NA

NA

NA

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

1 cb

other

1 cb &
other

1 cb &
other

1 cb &
other

1 cb &
other

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

1cb

3cb

3cb

NA

Smoke detectors not
connected to electrical system

N

N

Y

N

N

N

NA

NA

NR

NA

NA

NA

Missing smoke detectors

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

S

S

S

S

S

Mar
02

Aug
02

Nov
02

Apr
03

Oct
03

Apr
04

Mar
02

Aug
02

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

1 cb

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

Insufficient number of fire
extinguishers

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Uninspected fire extinguishers

N

N

Y

N

N

Fire extinguishers with
inaccurate or missing
inspection dates documented

Y

Y

Y

Y

Broken flashlights

Y

Y

Y

Emergency lights not working

N

N

Exit lights burnt out or not
working

Y

Smoke detectors not working

Deficiency type
Missing fire extinguishers
Improper storage of fire
extinguishers

Y = Yes N = No

Nov
02

S = Some
T = Throughout
NR = Not reported
NA = Not applicable
Other = Areas other than cellblock
Ext = Extinguishers

3 cb &
other

c = cell(s)
cb = cellblock(s)

Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.

Plumbing

DoH reports identified such plumbing deficiencies as (1) nonoperational
plumbing fixtures, (2) unavailability of hot or cold water, (3) sinks and
toilets with low water pressure, and (4) malfunctioning showers. For
example, in its October 2003 inspection, DoH found that in all
18 cellblocks inspected, there were faulty plumbing fixtures. The DoH
inspector reported in April 2004 that at that time, there were fewer
problems with plumbing fixtures than in October 2003. DoH found in all

Page 36

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

six of its inspections that inmate cells throughout the Jail lacked hot or
cold water.
Low water pressure affecting inmate sinks and toilets was noted in all six
DoH reports. In each inspection report, low water pressure was reported
as occurring in some instances throughout the 18 cellblocks inspected. In
April 2003, DoH reported that there were some instances in which the
water pressure was so low that it was impossible for the sinks to be used
for hand washing. According to a DoC official, most water pressure
problems in cellblocks had been caused by blockages caused by debris
from old pipes and plumbing fixtures. Figure 4 presents plumbing-related
deficiencies—other than those pertaining to showers—identified in DoH
reports.
Figure 4: Plumbing Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared
between March 2002 and April 2004
Deficiency type
identified

Extent of problem
reported

Mar 02

Y

Y

Y

T

T

S

Aug 02

Y

Y

Y

93 c

T

S

Nov 02

Y

Y

Y

117 c

T

S

Apr 03

Y

Y

Y

NR

T

S

Oct 03

Y

Y

Y

18 cb

T

S

Apr 04

Y

Y

Y

NR

30 c

S

Y = Yes N = No

S = Some
T = Throughout
NR = Not reported

c = cell(s)
cb = cellblock(s)

Nonoperational plumbing fixtures
Cells without hot and/or cold water
Low water pressure
Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.

In all six of its inspections, DoH found broken showers that could not be
used. The number of cellblocks affected ranged from 1 to 8. All six reports
also indicated that between 2 and 13 cellblocks had water temperatures
above or below the suggested range for inmate safety and hygiene. The
number of cellblocks affected ranged from 2 in March 2002 to 13 in April
2003. Each inspection found showers with leaking knobs, affecting

Page 37

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

between 1 and 2 cellblocks. Figure 5 presents the shower-related
deficiencies identified in DoH reports.
Figure 5: Shower Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared
between March 2002 and April 2004
Deficiency type
identified

Extent of problem
reported

Mar 02

Y

Y

Y

N

2 cb

2 cb

2 cb

NA

Aug 02

Y

Y

Y

Y

5 cb

13 cb

1 cb

4 cb

Nov 02

Y

Y

Y

Y

8 cb

3 cb

2 cb

12 cb

Apr 03

Y

Y

Y

Y

4 cb

13 cb

2 cb

4 cb

Oct 03

Y

Y

Y

Y

4 cb

8 cb

2 cb

4 cb

Apr 04

Y

Y

Y

Y

1 cb

3 cb

1 cb

4 cb

Y = Yes N = No

NA = Not applicable

c = cell(s)
cb = cellblock(s)

Showers did not work or were broken or could not be used because of malfunctioning
Shower temperature was too hot or too cold
Shower knob leaking
Damaged floor treatment
Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.

Lighting

All six DoH inspections found problems with light fixtures, including
burnt-out lightbulbs and damaged light fixtures. Figure 6 presents
information on this deficiency.

Page 38

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

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

Figure 6: Lighting Deficiencies at the Jail as Reported by DoH in Reports Prepared
between March 2002 and April 2004
Deficiency type
identified

Extent of
problem reported

Mar 02

Y

3 c/2 cb

Aug 02

Y

160 c/15 cb

Nov 02

Y

119 c/17 cb

Apr 03

Y

T

Oct 03

Y

T

Apr 04

Y

NR

Y = Yes N = No

T = Throughout
NR = Not reported

c = cells(s)
cb = cellblock(s)

Cells with damaged light fixtures
Source: GAO analysis of data collected from the District's Department of Health inspection reports of the Jail.

Page 39

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC
Implemented to Improve the Accuracy of
Inmate Records

Appendix IV: Quality Controls DoC
Implemented to Improve the Accuracy of
Inmate Records
DoC has taken several steps since the summer of 2002 to improve the
efficiency of records processing and the accuracy of inmate records. DoC
simplified the workflow in the Records Office and implemented a number
of quality controls over its inmate records processes by the end of October
2002. For example, DoC sought to improve the handling of incoming
paperwork by reorganizing the layout of the Records Office and changing
the process for entering records into the system. Workstations were
centralized to streamline the distribution of documents for processing. To
minimize the possibility of misplacing paperwork, the process for entering
records was changed so that a record transaction is handled from
beginning to end by a single staff member rather than by several staff
members as was previously done. Additionally, DoC implemented a
number of quality control measures consistent with federal control
standards that require agencies to (1) clearly document transactions,
conduct edit checks of data entered into systems, and reconcile summary
information to verify the completeness of the data and (2) train employees
so they have the skills necessary to meet changing organizational needs.
DoC took the following steps, among others, to improve the accuracy of its
inmate records:
•

To clearly document how to conduct transactions, DoC issued an
operations manual in August 2002. The manual details steps that are to
occur during such records transactions as intake, transfer, court return,
and temporary and permanent release of inmates. Since October 2002,
DoC has been preparing incident reports containing information on how
release errors have occurred.

•

To verify the completeness and accuracy of its data, DoC has also been
generating numerous quality control reports. In addition, to reconcile
discrepancies in inmates’ court documents, DoC has developed a database
to help DoC track and subsequently resolve errors in these documents.
For example, when a Records Office staff member encounters a
discrepancy in these documents, he or she is to file a report and e-mail it
to the DoC staff person responsible for contacting the courts.

•

To improve guidance and training for employees, DoC officials developed
a tool to identify those individuals with low productivity or those who
worked on a record that resulted in a release error who may need
additional guidance and training. Also, DoC provided training on the use of
its operations manual in months following its initial release and additional
training each time the manual has been updated to ensure that staff are
familiar with the new procedures.

Page 40

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided
at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment
Facility

Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided
at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment
Facility
For the period 1999 through 2003, the cost of operating and maintaining
the Jail was about $195 million and about $121 million for CTF. At the time
of our review, DoC and CTF officials told us that volunteers administer
many of the inmate programs and services offered at these two facilities
and that other programs and services are included in the operation costs
for each facility. For example, food services are administered at both
facilities through DoC’s contract with the ARAMARK Corporation and are
therefore included in DoC’s contract costs.1 We did not obtain cost
information for those programs and services that DoC and CCA fund. As
shown in table 3, in 2003 DoC and CCA provided a variety of programs and
services for inmates housed in these facilities, including, among other
things, work, health services, and education.
Table 3: Programs and Services Provided at the Jail and CTF in 2003
Facility

Program and service areas

Jail

Substance abuse treatment and education
Academic and vocational education
Prerelease readiness
Work detail
Recreation
Religion
Mail
Telephone
Visitation
Classification
Case management
Health and mental health
Food
Sanitation and hygiene

Correctional Treatment Facility

Substance abuse treatment and education
Academic and vocational education
Prerelease
Work detail
Recreation

1

In April 2003, DoC entered into a contract with the ARAMARK Corporation to provide
food services at the Jail and CTF, according to a DoC official.

Page 41

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix V: Programs and Services Provided
at the Jail and the Correctional Treatment
Facility

Facility

Program and service areas
Religion
Mail
Telephone
Visitation
Classification
Case management
Health and mental health
Food
Legal
HIV/AIDS prevention education
Therapeutic community
Volunteer services
Adjusting Our Attitude Training
Barber science
Graphic arts

Source: GAO analysis based on information provided by the District of Columbia’s Department of
Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America.

Page 42

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the
District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector
General’s Recommendations

Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the
District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector
General’s Recommendations
In its Report of Inspection of the Department of Corrections, October
2002, the Office of the Inspector General made a number of
recommendations for the D.C. Department of Corrections. The table below
identifies OIG’s findings and recommendations for issues pertinent to our
review for which DoC and OIG agreed DoC needed to demonstrate
compliance. While DoC has provided interim documentation of the
progress being made to address OIG’s recommendations, an OIG official
said that a final determination of compliance would be made when the
OIG conducts its reinspection. The official said the reinspection date has
not been scheduled.
Table 4: The District’s Office of the Inspector General’s Findings and Recommendations to the Department of Corrections
OIG finding

OIG recommendation

Deficiencies cited during the Department of Health (DoH) and
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)
inspections remain unabated in violation of the stipulation
following the Federal Appellate Court’s decision in Campbell v.
MacGruder, 580 F. 2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

That the Director, DoC, direct the Warden Central Detention
Facility (CDF) / Compliance Officer and Cellblock Officer(s) in
charge to ensure that the deficiencies cited in inspections
a
provided by internal and external agencies are abated.
That the Director, DoC, direct staff to comply with DOC
housekeeping policies and procedures.

Despite numerous studies of the Records Office and
recommendations for improvements, its poor handling of inmate
records and other information continues to cause significant
problems, including premature and delayed release of inmates.

That the Director, DoC, establish policies and procedures to verify
the accuracy of data in the Jail and Community Corrections
System (JACCS).
That the Director, DoC, establish policies and procedures to
ensure accurate sentence computations are entered into JACCS
to ensure that inmates are not held beyond their release dates.
That the Director, DoC, establish quality control policies and
procedures for use by the Records Office during quarterly reviews
of information in JACCS.
That the Deputy Warden for Programs immediately takes action to
locate or re-create all missing official inmate files.
That the Director, DoC, require the Deputy Warden for Programs
to develop a means of tracking inmate file folders.
That the Director, DoC, complies with the Trustee, D.C. Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, recommendation R22 to U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert, which states: “Grade
enhancements—place high performing staff in lead Legal
Instrument Examiner (LIE) and supervisory positions.”
That the Director, DoC, comply with all outstanding D.C Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency Trustee
recommendations submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Royce
Lambert in the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
Trustee’s report on the release of Oscar Veal, Jr.

Page 43

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VI: DoC’s Implementation of the
District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector
General’s Recommendations

OIG finding

OIG recommendation

CDF management had not complied with federal law and Building
Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International Inc.
National Fire and Prevention Codes.

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management request
inspections of the CDF by DC Occupational Safety and Health
and the DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department.
That the Director, DoC, and CDF management stack, secure, and
properly seal all materials up and away from the light fixtures and
passageways.

CDF management had not complied with federal law regarding
written emergency evacuation plans.

That DoC and CDF management develop and implement a written
emergency evacuation plan with a floor plan showing the routes of
exit as required by 29 CFR 1910.38 (a) (1) (2001).

Poor housekeeping practices and vermin contamination were
observed throughout the CDF.

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management maintain and
enforce a daily general maintenance and cleaning program.

The ventilation and overall indoor air quality inside the CDF
ranged from poor to inadequate.

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management install a heating
ventilation and air conditioning unit that is properly equipped to
filer out airborne contaminants, such as bacteria and harmful
viruses.
That the Director, DoC, request that DC Occupational Safety and
Health conduct an indoor air quality sampling at the CDF.

The floors, aisles, and passageways in the warehouse area of the That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management complies
CDF were blocked or cluttered with miscellaneous items in
with 29 CFR 1910.22 (2001) and keeps all floors, aisles, and
violation of federal law regarding safe clearances and
passageways clear and in good repair.
passageways.
Floors in the passageways to the cellblocks are not maintained in
a clean and sanitary condition as required by federal law.

That the Director, DoC, ensure that CDF management cleans,
sanitizes, and removes the chipped paint and mold from the
floors.

Food spills on the floors impair safe movement.

That the Director, DoC, and CDF management repair the leaking
pipes and broken floors in the culinary unit.
That the Director, DoC, and CDF management clean and sanitize
all areas of the floor in the culinary unit daily and as frequently as
necessary to maintain cleanliness and sanitization.

Source: GAO generated information based on the District of Columbia’s Office of the Inspector
General report.
a

CDF is also known as the D.C. Jail.

Page 44

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 45

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 46

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 47

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 48

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 49

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 50

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 51

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 52

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 53

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VII: Comments from the District of Columbia, Department of Corrections

Page 54

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Department of Health

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Department of Health

Page 55

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Department of Health

Page 56

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix VIII: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Department of Health

Page 57

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix IX: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Office of the Inspector General

Appendix IX: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Office of the Inspector General

Page 58

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management

Appendix X: Comments from the District of
Columbia, Office of Property Management

Page 59

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management

Page 60

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix X: Comments from the District of Columbia, Office of Property Management

Page 61

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facilities

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts

Cathleen A. Berrick, (202) 512-8777
Evi L. Rezmovic, (202) 512-2580

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Leo Barbour, Chan My J. Battcher,
Grace Coleman, Tanya Cruz, Wesley A. Johnson, Evan Gilman, Omar N.
Beyah, Maria Edelstein, Elizabeth Eraker, and Geoffrey Hamilton made
key contributions to this report.

(440228)

Page 62

GAO-04-742 D.C. Detention Facility

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go
to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders
should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice:
TDD:
Fax:

(202) 512-6000
(202) 512-2537
(202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:

Congressional
Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER