MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

December 2008

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

471-0623-07L

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

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

Michigan

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

Report Number:
471-0623-07L

Released:
December 2008

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

Audit Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of DOC's
efforts to manage prisoner transportation
costs.
Audit Conclusion:
We concluded that DOC's efforts to
manage prisoner transportation costs were
moderately effective.
We noted five
reportable conditions (Findings 1 through
5).
Reportable Conditions:
DOC had not developed a standardized
method to identify, account for, document,
and report prisoner transportation activity
(Finding 1).
DOC had not fully implemented its
computerized
prisoner
transportation
system to prioritize, schedule, route, and
coordinate its prisoner transportation
services (Finding 2).

DOC had not established a central
transportation coordinator, with the
appropriate level of authority, to work with
the regional transportation hubs, the
individual facility transfer coordinators, and
the medical and records office staff at each
facility (Finding 3).
DOC should continue to seek the
cooperation
of
the
State
Court
Administrative Office and its medical
service providers to fully use existing
technology to conduct videoconferencing
for court and medical appointments
(Finding 4).
DOC had not fully implemented DOC's
internal
control
assessment
recommendations, DOC's transportation
committee recommendations, or the prior
Office of the Auditor General audit report
recommendations (Finding 5).

~~~~~~~~~~

Agency Response:
Our audit report includes 5 findings and 5
corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicated that it
agrees at least in part with all of the
recommendations and that it has complied
or is in the process of complying with
them.

~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

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

December 30, 2008

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

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

471-0623-07L

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

4
471-0623-07L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Report Summary

1

Report Letter

3

Description of Services

7

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

9

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES
Prisoner Transportation

12

1.

Transportation Activity and Costs

12

2.

Computerized Prisoner Transportation System

15

3.

Central Coordination of Transportation Activity

17

4.

Videoconferencing

20

5.

Implementation of Recommendations

22

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit 1 - Transportation Costs by Facility

27

Exhibit 2 - Transportation Personnel Costs by Facility

28

Exhibit 3 - Reported Vehicle Miles for Prisoner Transportation by Facility

31

Exhibit 4 - Summary of Site Visit Testing

32

5
471-0623-07L

GLOSSARY
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

35

6
471-0623-07L

Description of Services

The Department of Corrections' (DOC's) goal* is to provide the greatest amount of
public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's resources. As of
September 30, 2007, DOC had 51 facilities (42 correctional facilities and 9 camps)
located throughout the State and was responsible for the custody and safety of 51,165
prisoners, on average, during fiscal year 2006-07. Within DOC, the Correctional
Facilities Administration (CFA) is responsible for facility operation, including prisoner
transportation services. The Field Operations Administration (FOA) is responsible for
parole and probation oversight, including requesting parolee* and probationer*
transportation. CFA divided the facilities into three geographical regions*. Each region
has a regional prison administrator who is responsible for overseeing the operations of
the facilities within the respective regions. At the facility level, the wardens are
responsible for overseeing daily operations, including prisoner transportation services.
CFA transports prisoners for four major reasons: interfacility transfers*, off-site medical
appointments, court appointments, and FOA transportation for parolees and
probationers. CFA created three regional transportation hubs* to facilitate prisoner
transportation in its three regions: Kinross Correctional Facility in Kinross, Riverside
Correctional Facility in Ionia, and Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center in
Jackson. These regional transportation hubs employed 84 full-time equated corrections
transportation officers (CTOs) during fiscal year 2006-07. In addition to the three
regional transportation hubs, 19 correctional facilities had 135 full-time equated CTOs
as of September 30, 2007 (see Exhibit 2, presented as supplemental information).
CTOs at the regional hubs work 8-hour shifts on Monday through Friday; custody
officers transport prisoners when the CTOs are not available to complete the transport.
CFA dictates when interfacility transfers take place based on programming needs,
security level, and classification of prisoners. The Bureau of Health Care Services and
a private contractor dictate the time and location of medical appointments, and the
courts dictate the time and date of court appointments. FOA dictates parole violators'
transfers on an as-needed basis from local or county jails or from parole and probation
centers.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

7
471-0623-07L

During fiscal year 2006-07, the cost of prisoner transportation was $23.6 million.
Transportation costs included salaries and wages, equipment purchases, uniforms, dry
cleaning, meals, lodging, telephone charges, office supplies, vehicle lease payments
(including insurance and mileage), and other miscellaneous costs. DOC used 292
vehicles for prisoner transportation during fiscal year 2006-07.

8
471-0623-07L

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

Audit Objective
The objective of our performance audit* of Prisoner Transportation, Department of
Corrections (DOC), was to assess the effectiveness* of DOC's efforts to manage
prisoner transportation costs.
Audit Scope
Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records related to prisoner
transportation. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly,
included such tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our audit procedures, conducted from July 2007
through July 2008, generally covered the period October 1, 2004 through July 31, 2008.
Specifically, we reviewed records related to prisoner transfer scheduling, prisoner
medical appointment scheduling, vehicle usage, overtime hours, and prisoner
transportation costs and other related records at DOC central office, the three regional
transportation hubs (Kinross Correctional Facility in Kinross, Riverside Correctional
Facility in Ionia, and the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center in Jackson),
three transportation cadres* (the Muskegon cadre; the St. Louis cadre; and the Ryan
Regional cadre, which is located in Detroit), and nine correctional facilities (Bellamy
Creek, Earnest C. Brooks, G. Robert Cotton, Hiawatha, Kinross, Mid-Michigan,
Muskegon, Ryan, and St. Louis Correctional Facilities). We judgmentally selected and
performed on-site visits at the nine correctional facilities based on their geographical
location, facility characteristics, and other data.
Supplemental information was provided by DOC and is presented in Exhibits 1 through
4. Our audit was not directed toward expressing a conclusion on this information and,
accordingly, we express no conclusion on it.
Audit Methodology
Our audit methodology included a preliminary review of prisoner transportation. This
included interviewing DOC staff and reviewing applicable statutes, DOC policy
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

9
471-0623-07L

directives, operating procedures, the Transportation Manual, and DOC's transportation
committee minutes and recommendations. In addition, we visited a correctional facility
and a regional transportation hub to conduct additional interviews with DOC staff and to
review documents related to prisoner transportation activity.
To accomplish our audit objective, we interviewed Correctional Facilities Administration
staff, including staff at the DOC central office, all three regional transportation hubs, and
nine correctional facilities. We examined DOC's process for identifying, collecting,
analyzing, monitoring, and reporting prisoner transportation activity and costs. We
analyzed selected daily transportation activity for two weeks of our audit period,
including corrections transportation officer and custody officer overtime and vehicle
usage. We also assessed the accuracy of transportation costs as recorded in the
accounting records.
Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up
Our audit report includes 5 findings and 5 corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicated that it agrees at least in part with all of the
recommendations and that it has complied or is in the process of complying with them.
The agency preliminary response that follows each recommendation in our report was
taken from the agency's written comments and oral discussion subsequent to our audit
fieldwork. Section 18.1462 of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the State of Michigan
Financial Management Guide (Part VII, Chapter 4, Section 100) require DOC to develop
a formal response to our audit findings and recommendations within 60 days after
release of the audit report.
We released our performance audit of Prisoner Transfers and Transportation,
Department of Corrections (47-390-95), in May 1996. Within the scope of this audit, we
followed up 11 of the 12 prior audit recommendations. DOC complied with 4 prior audit
recommendations. The other 7 prior audit recommendations that we followed up were
combined and repeated in this report.

10
471-0623-07L

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

11
471-0623-07L

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
COMMENT
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Department of Corrections'
(DOC's) efforts to manage prisoner transportation costs.
Audit Conclusion: We concluded that DOC's efforts to manage prisoner
transportation costs were moderately effective. Our assessment disclosed five
reportable conditions* related to transportation activity and costs, the computerized
prisoner transportation system, central coordination of transportation activity,
videoconferencing, and implementation of recommendations (Findings 1 through 5).

FINDING
1.

Transportation Activity and Costs
DOC had not developed a standardized method to identify, account for, document,
and report prisoner transportation activity. As a result, DOC's ability to monitor
prisoner transportation was limited and its actual prisoner transportation costs were
misclassified in DOC's accounting records.
During fiscal year 2006-07, DOC recorded $23.6 million for corrections
transportation officers' (CTOs') salaries and wages, vehicle costs to transport
prisoners, and other miscellaneous transportation costs. These costs were for a
total of 4,601,300 vehicle miles and approximately 102,000 overtime hours.
We reviewed transportation cost data and transportation miles reported by all
correctional facilities and camps to the DOC central office. We also reviewed
documentation for transportation activity and overtime data at the 3 regional
transportation hubs and 13 correctional facilities. Our review disclosed:
a.

DOC did not consistently or accurately identify prisoner transportation costs or
the total number of miles traveled to transport prisoners. As a result, DOC

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

12
471-0623-07L

could not rely on this information to monitor transportation activity and control
costs. We noted:
(1) One of the 42 correctional facilities did not report any transportation miles
traveled during fiscal year 2006-07 even though it had CTOs assigned
and it recorded transportation costs of $429,000 during the fiscal year.
(2) Four of the 13 correctional facilities that we visited recorded 95,777 in
transportation mileage at a cost of $29,576 for perimeter vehicles,
produce trucks, and other State vehicles that would not typically be used
for transporting prisoners. As a result, the total vehicle miles for prisoner
transportation reported to the DOC central office was inaccurate and
could not be relied on to monitor prisoner transportation activity.
(3) The salaries for facility transportation activity performed by custody
officers were not reported as transportation costs. When a CTO is not
available, custody officers are routinely assigned to transport prisoners.
For the 10 days included in our review, we noted 324 regular hours and
611 overtime hours of custody officer transportation activity, costing
$21,352, that were not recorded as prisoner transportation costs. As a
result, total prisoner transportation costs were likely understated and
could not be relied on to monitor transportation activity.
b.

DOC did not collect complete and consistent prisoner transportation data from
its three regional transportation hubs. In addition, DOC did not collect data
similar to that collected from the regional transportation hubs from its other
correctional facilities. For example, one regional transportation hub reported
only overtime hours in its monthly report, while the other two regional
transportation hubs reported details such as the number and type of
transportation runs, number of prisoners moved, custody staff hours, and
transportation staff regular and overtime hours. Also, facilities did not utilize
transportation schedules, logs, or trip sheets similar to those used by the
regional transportation hubs to document transportation activity performed by
custody officers. Not documenting and collecting comparable and complete
data decreases DOC's ability to monitor and analyze transportation activity.

Section 914, Act 124, P.A. 2007, which covers fiscal year 2007-08 appropriations,
states that funds appropriated for transportation are appropriated for costs incurred
13
471-0623-07L

by DOC in transporting offenders. The Act also states: "It is the intent of the
legislature that costs of offender transportation be met through expenditure of the
line item for transportation . . . ."
Our May 1996 performance audit of Prisoner Transfers and Transportation,
Department of Corrections (47-390-95), reported that DOC had not developed a
methodology to maintain sufficient, standardized documentation of prisoner
transportation services and that DOC did not have a methodology to identify,
account for, report, and monitor the costs of prisoner transportation. DOC
indicated that it agreed with our recommendations and would comply. However,
DOC has not fully complied with these prior audit recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION
WE AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT DOC DEVELOP A STANDARDIZED METHOD
TO IDENTIFY, ACCOUNT FOR, DOCUMENT, AND REPORT PRISONER
TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and informed us that it has taken steps to
comply. DOC indicated that the Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA) is
conducting a self-audit to ensure that prisoner transportation vehicles and mileage
are appropriately charged to prisoner transportation. Also, the Bureau of Fiscal
Management will remind facility business offices to ensure that vehicle costs and
mileage are charged to proper accounts based on vehicle use. In addition, DOC
informed us that CFA has taken steps to standardize monthly reporting of prisoner
transportation activities performed by regional and facility transportation staff and
that CFA and the Bureau of Fiscal Management are working together to establish a
system to track prisoner transportation activity performed by facility custody
officers. Furthermore, DOC stated that these reports will be analyzed by the
transportation manager on a monthly basis.
However, regarding item a.(3), DOC agrees in part. DOC informed us that it tracks
and monitors overtime earned by non-transportation officers to transport prisoners
by using the Statewide daily personnel reconciliation system, which is tied to
DOC's staffing relief factor, and the State's Data Collection and Distribution System
(DCDS). DOC indicated that it will charge these overtime costs to the prisoner
transportation appropriation line item beginning in fiscal year 2008-09. Also, DOC

14
471-0623-07L

informed us that it is piloting a system to track and monitor regular hours incurred
by non-transportation officers to transport prisoners and to estimate the costs
associated with these regular hours. If the pilot demonstrates that these costs are
material and feasible to track and estimate, DOC stated that it will begin to charge
these costs to the prisoner transportation appropriation line item.

FINDING
2.

Computerized Prisoner Transportation System
DOC had not fully implemented its computerized prisoner transportation system to
prioritize, schedule, route, and coordinate its prisoner transportation services.
Such a system, when fully implemented, could provide DOC with a tool to ensure
consistent and standardized reporting of transportation activity, enhance
monitoring, prioritize transfers based on established rules, and actually identify and
reserve space at facilities and on vehicles for prisoners who need to be transferred.
In addition, a fully implemented system would decrease the number of man-hours
required to perform the preceding duties manually.
During our site visits, we obtained various forms of documentation for
transportation activity for our selected testing period. We determined that
scheduling daily transportation runs, including assigning the runs to CTOs and
custody officers and identifying all the prisoners who require transportation, is labor
intensive and that maintaining all documentation related to the runs is
cumbersome. As a result, for many of the transportation runs we reviewed, there
was insufficient documentation to determine the CTOs and custody officers who
performed the runs, the prisoners who were on the runs, the number of miles
traveled, the vehicles used, and the time it took to complete the runs. Also, based
on conversations with transportation staff, transfer coordinators, and Bureau of
Health Care Services staff, most of the arrangements were ultimately made
through telephone calls and e-mail.
In January 2001, DOC began implementing a computerized prisoner transportation
system known as the Transfer Request and Transportation System (TRATS) within
the Offender Management Network Information System (OMNI). However,
according to DOC staff, TRATS was never fully implemented. TRATS is used to
request DOC approval for prisoner transfers, but it is not used to schedule those
transfers. In addition, DOC does not use TRATS to request or schedule medical or

15
471-0623-07L

court appointments. TRATS includes basic prisoner information, such as prisoner
name, prisoner number, date of transfer, prisoner location, and reason for transfer.
Additional fields available in TRATS that could be used to collect specific
transportation-related information for each transport include the vehicle, vehicle
miles, number of officers, and overtime hours.
Our May 1996 performance audit of Prisoner Transfers and Transportation,
Department of Corrections (47-390-95), reported that DOC had not developed a
computerized prisoner transportation system to prioritize, schedule, route, and
coordinate its prisoner transportation services. DOC indicated that it agreed with
our recommendation and would comply; however, DOC has not fully complied with
this prior audit recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION
WE AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT DOC FULLY IMPLEMENT ITS
COMPUTERIZED PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO PRIORITIZE,
SCHEDULE, ROUTE, AND COORDINATE ITS PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees in part with the recommendation and informed us that it is taking steps
to improve the process for prioritizing, scheduling, routing, and coordinating
prisoner transportation. DOC indicated that it is in the process of contracting with a
vendor to assist DOC in developing a logistics network strategy. DOC stated that
this logistics network strategy may or may not include full implementation of
TRATS and that the focus of the strategy will be more comprehensive than only
prisoner transportation and will look to increase efficiency in several areas of
logistical management within DOC.
Also, DOC stated that as part of a logistics network strategy, DOC will transform its
communication processes to allow facility transportation coordinators, medical
schedulers, and records office staff to effectively prioritize and schedule prisoner
transfers or appointments to allow better coordination of prisoner transports across
multiple geographical areas. Furthermore, DOC indicated that the communication
processes will also allow prisoner transportation supervisors to efficiently schedule,
route, and coordinate prisoner transportation runs across multiple geographical
areas.

16
471-0623-07L

FINDING
3.

Central Coordination of Transportation Activity
DOC had not established a central transportation coordinator, with the appropriate
level of authority, to work with the regional transportation hubs, the individual
facility transfer coordinators, and the medical and records office staff at each
facility. Without central coordination of transportation, DOC could not ensure that it
provided the most efficient* prisoner transportation.
All facility transfer coordinators, medical schedulers, and records office staff
prioritized and scheduled their own prisoner transportation needs. DOC central
office staff worked with facility transfer coordinators to locate available bed space
and approve prisoner transfers but did not assist in coordinating prisoner
transportation with the scheduling of medical and court appointments and
transportation arrangements for parolees and probationers. We observed:
a.

DOC did not centrally coordinate or schedule medical and court transportation
runs. As a result, DOC could not effectively monitor and correct inefficient or
costly planned transfers or transportation activity identified by regional and
facility staff.
We reviewed 663 transportation runs (see Exhibit 4, presented as
supplemental information), of which 108 (16%) were interfacility transfers,
397 (60%) were scheduled medical appointments, and 75 (11%) were
scheduled court appointments. Of the 397 scheduled medical appointments,
161 (41%) required 674 overtime hours. Of the 75 scheduled court
appointments, 45 (60%) required 233 overtime hours. We estimated that the
overtime costs for these scheduled medical and court appointments for the
10 days included in our review totaled $31,094.
We were informed that staff at the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance
Center routinely scheduled medical appointments in the Jackson area even
though the prisoner would be transferred to another facility, sometimes across
the State, prior to the date of the appointment. In these instances, the facility
receiving the prisoner had to provide transportation back to the Jackson area
for the medical appointment, often incurring overtime costs. We also noted

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

17
471-0623-07L

that medical staff scheduled appointments based on doctors' requests without
considering transportation priorities or scheduling. Furthermore, we noted that
61 (15%) scheduled medical appointment runs exceeded 150 miles round trip
and 38 (51%) scheduled court appointment runs exceeded 150 miles round
trip.
b.

DOC did not require CTOs to utilize alternative work schedules to reduce
overtime costs. As a result, DOC incurred overtime costs that could have
been avoided.
For the 10 days we reviewed, the 3 regional transportation hubs, 3
transportation cadres, and 7 correctional facilities incurred overtime costing at
least $63,299 (1,847 hours), an average of $6,330 of overtime per day. We
estimated that for 166 of the 1,847 hours, DOC could have saved $1,901 in
overtime costs if CTOs had flexible work schedules starting as early as
5:00 a.m. and others ending as late as 6:00 p.m.
CTOs at the three regional transportation hubs were generally scheduled to
work 8-hour shifts from Monday through Friday; however, the shifts varied at
each hub. For example, at one hub, the CTOs' shift was from 6:30 a.m. to
2:30 p.m.; at the second hub, the shift was from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and at
the third hub, the shift was from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. However, these CTOs
often worked several hours before their normal shift started or several hours
after their normal shift ended to accommodate scheduled medical or court
appointments, resulting in the payment of overtime to accommodate the
transport.
A central transportation coordinator, in monitoring activity
Statewide, could determine which facilities have the volume of transfers to
support shifts that start sooner or end later and could develop an alternative
work schedule to accommodate those transfers.

c.

DOC did not ensure that facilities reported their transportation activity to the
transportation lieutenant within their region. As a result, consistent Statewide
transportation activity was not available for DOC central office management's
review and analysis.
For the 10 days we reviewed, the regional transportation hubs documented
and reported only 67% of the total transportation activity to DOC central office.
Therefore, 33% of the regional transportation activity that took place at
18

471-0623-07L

facilities was omitted from the regions' monthly reports and not subject to
monitoring and review by central office staff. Reporting all transportation
activity to the regional transportation lieutenants, who then report to the DOC
central office, would help in centrally coordinating runs between regions and
could result in more efficient transportation runs. For example, if a facility
transportation team was completing a run in one area, another facility in that
area could request that the team pick up one of its prisoners along that route.
Furthermore, DOC's December 2003 transportation committee report also
indicated that daily monitoring by the regional transportation lieutenant would
help to create a system that would allow DOC to capitalize on planned runs.
Our May 1996 performance audit of Prisoner Transfers and Transportation,
Department of Corrections (47-390-95), reported that DOC had not consolidated
the responsibility and authority for prioritizing, scheduling, and routing all prisoner
transportation services with a central transportation coordinator. In addition, we
reported that DOC had not effectively coordinated its prisoner transportation
services with the scheduling of prisoners' off-site medical appointments to
maximize its utilization of prisoner transportation resources. DOC indicated that it
agreed with our recommendations and would comply. However, DOC has not fully
complied with these recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION
WE AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT DOC ESTABLISH A CENTRAL
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR, WITH THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF
AUTHORITY, TO WORK WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION HUBS, THE
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY TRANSFER COORDINATORS, AND THE MEDICAL AND
RECORDS OFFICE STAFF AT EACH FACILITY.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and informed us that it has complied. DOC
indicated that it established and filled a full-time central office transportation
manager position to provide additional resources toward improving prisoner
transportation efficiency. Also, DOC indicated that the transportation manager has
the authority and responsibility to monitor and make necessary changes to
increase the efficiency of prisoner transportation and to work with the regional
transportation hubs, facility transfer coordinators, and medical and records office
staff in the coordination and scheduling of prisoner transportation activity.

19
471-0623-07L

Regarding item b., DOC agrees in part. DOC indicated that some regional CTOs
already work flexible schedules where they start working several hours before their
normal shift starts and leave several hours before their normal shift ends to
minimize overtime.
Also, DOC indicated that it will monitor and review
transportation activities and staff scheduling to determine and implement the most
cost-effective work schedules, including alternative work schedules as necessary,
while complying with the provisions of the Michigan Corrections Organization
(MCO) contract.
Regarding facility transportation activity, DOC informed us that facility
transportation staff now report to regional supervisors and that CFA has
established standardized transportation activity reports.

FINDING
4.

Videoconferencing
DOC should continue to seek the cooperation of the State Court Administrative
Office (SCAO) and its medical service providers to fully use existing technology to
conduct
videoconferencing
for
court
and
medical
appointments.
Videoconferencing allows for a prisoner to participate in court proceedings or a
medical appointment without leaving the facility. Taking advantage of new
technologies would greatly impact the safety and security of the public and DOC
employees because the prisoner would not leave the secure prison environment.
Also, videoconferencing may help reduce transportation costs by reducing the
number of transportation runs.
For the 10 days included in our review of prisoner transportation activity, 75 (11%)
of the 663 runs reviewed were for scheduled court appointments. These runs
accounted for 12,671 miles and utilized 233 overtime hours at an estimated cost of
$7,986. Many of these court appointment runs could have been avoided if the
facility had been able to use videoconferencing. The courts dictate when an
appointment can be handled via videoconferencing and, as of November 2008,
neither DOC nor the SCAO could identify how many of Michigan's 238 courts had
videoconferencing capabilities. We determined that, for the six-month period from
January through June 2008, only 121 (5%) of 2,411 court appointments were held
via videoconferencing. If a court does not have videoconferencing capabilities or
refuses to use them, DOC must physically transport the prisoner to the court

20
471-0623-07L

because DOC is legally responsible for ensuring a prisoner's presence at a
scheduled court appointment.
In addition, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care released a report
in January 2008 entitled "A Comprehensive Assessment of the Michigan
Department of Corrections Health Care System." The Commission reviewed
telemedicine (a form of videoconferencing) at correctional facilities and concluded
that "none of the facilities exploits the technology to a fraction of its potential."
Furthermore, the report concluded that increasing the use of telemedicine could
result in substantial cost savings to DOC by reducing transportation time.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC continue to seek the cooperation of the SCAO and its
medical service providers to fully use existing technology to conduct
videoconferencing for court and medical appointments.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees with the recommendation and informed us that it has been working
with the SCAO and the courts to determine which courts have video equipment that
is compatible with videoconferencing industry standards. DOC indicated that, in
cooperation with the Michigan Department of Information Technology, it has
developed a method for courts with compatible equipment to connect with prison
facilities utilizing Internet protocol for video traffic. DOC stated that nine counties
have been certified for in-bound video traffic, in addition to a number of courts that
are conducting videoconference hearings using older Integrated Service Digital
Network (ISDN) network technology. Also, DOC informed us that the SCAO has
been assisting DOC by advocating the use of court videoconferencing and
explaining the connectivity process to the courts and that it will continue to work
with legislators to establish incentives for counties to minimize transportation costs
by using available technologies.
DOC noted that it, and the courts, used telephone conferencing 1,256 times
between January and June 2008 and that it will continue to use telephone
conferencing whenever allowed by the courts.
In addition, DOC indicated that it has been using telemedicine since 1996 and that
currently there are two subspecialties (nephrology and infectious disease) that are

21
471-0623-07L

almost exclusively done using telemedicine because they are largely driven by
laboratory results instead of physical examination findings. DOC also indicated
that dietary consults and emergency psychiatric evaluations have been
increasingly done using telemedicine. DOC would like to clarify that physicians,
not facilities, determine which cases can be seen through telemedicine. DOC is in
the process of negotiating incentives for the managed care contractor to maximize
the use of telemedicine. DOC stated that it has installed additional telemedicine
units and performed upgrades in preparation for the new managed care contract.
DOC also stated that, while it currently averages 75 telemedicine encounters a
month, this average will rise significantly when telemedicine is established in 12
subspecialties.

FINDING
5.

Implementation of Recommendations
DOC had not fully implemented DOC's internal control assessment
recommendations, DOC's transportation committee recommendations, or the prior
Office of the Auditor General (OAG) audit report recommendations. As a result,
DOC could not ensure that it delivered transportation services in the most effective
manner.
Sound management practices dictate that when management identifies the need
for improvements and develops viable recommendations to address those needs, it
should make an effort to implement the recommendations in a timely manner.
We noted that DOC's May 2006 biennial internal control evaluation (ICE) identified
several recommendations that are also identified in DOC's December 2003
transportation committee report, this OAG audit report, and the prior OAG audit
report. These recommendations included recognizing the full cost of transportation
departmentwide (Finding 1), establishing a full-time central transportation
coordinator position (Finding 3), and completing DOC's transportation committee
recommendations, which included requiring each facility/complex to report its
schedule to the regional transportation lieutenant daily (Finding 3.c.) and requiring
all CTOs to be on a minimum of two hours of flex time (Finding 3.b.).
The ICE document is management's assessment of risk in its operations. The ICE
document noted, as a risk factor, that failure to enact/implement prior committees'

22
471-0623-07L

recommendations results in acceptance of current efficiency, effectiveness, and
safety levels. The ICE document also noted, as a risk factor, that even when
problems were communicated to management, it did not seem to achieve problem
resolution.
Our May 1996 performance audit of Prisoner Transfers and Transportation,
Department of Corrections (47-390-95), reported that DOC did not assign a high
priority to implementing the recommendations contained in evaluation reports on
prisoner transfers and transportation. DOC indicated that it agreed with our
recommendation and would comply.
As of July 2008, 12 years after the OAG's performance audit of Prisoner Transfers
and Transportation (47-390-95), 5 years after the 2003 transportation committee
report, and 2 years after DOC's ICE, DOC had not fully implemented several of the
key recommendations made.

RECOMMENDATION
WE AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT DOC FULLY IMPLEMENT DOC'S INTERNAL
CONTROL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, DOC'S TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND
OAG
AUDIT
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees in part with the recommendation. DOC informed us that it has
implemented and continues to make significant progress toward more fully
implementing various internal and external recommendations. DOC also indicated
that it continues to study various alternatives that are available to increase the
efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of prisoner transportation as it believes that
recommendations contained within the internal and external assessments may not
result in the most efficient, most effective, or safest solution.
DOC provided the following examples of its efforts to improve prisoner
transportation in areas identified within the internal and external assessments:
•

DOC established a Statewide daily personnel reconciliation system to track
compensatory time and overtime costs associated with various activities,

23
471-0623-07L

including prisoner transportation conducted by CTOs and non-transportation
officers.
•

In October 2007, DOC placed all CTOs under central office authority, which
allows DOC to allocate CTO positions to regions and facilities where demand
for such positions is the greatest, thus reducing overtime costs.

•

DOC is in the process of contracting with a vendor to assist DOC in
developing a logistics network strategy. DOC continues to research a global
positioning system and central seat reservation system as a long-term strategy
to manage prisoner transportation.

•

In October 2008, DOC established and filled a full-time central office
transportation manager position. The transportation manager will focus on
improving prisoner transportation efficiency.

•

DOC added on-call services that allow nurses and custody staff at all facilities
to contact an on-call doctor prior to transporting a prisoner to an emergency
room (ER). This resulted in approximately 20 fewer ER runs per month. DOC
also established some local urgent care centers, which reduced ER runs. In
addition, DOC resumed staffing some third shifts with nurses, which also
reduced some ER runs.

•

DOC is in the process of negotiating a new managed health care contract that
will require all specialty services to be within 30 miles of the facility when
possible. DOC is also in the process of negotiating incentives for the
managed health care contractor to maximize the use of telemedicine. This will
reduce transportation costs associated with off-site medical appointments.

•

DOC has assigned an employee to work with the SCAO, the courts, DOC's
managed health care contractor, and DOC facilities on a full-time basis to
increase the use of court telephone and videoconferencing and telemedicine.

•

DOC established multiple staging areas to house prisoners overnight thereby
eliminating lengthy transportation runs that cause overtime. DOC also
established additional staging areas where transportation units can meet and

24
471-0623-07L

turn their assigned prisoners over to another transportation unit that completes
the trip.
•

DOC continues to align facilities in close proximity to one another with one
controlling facility to better organize and manage transportation activities
related to court and medical appointments.

•

DOC continues to establish reporting of facility/complex transportation
schedules to regional transportation supervisors daily for purposes of
coordinating planned runs.

•

Transportation supervisors have been working with transfer and medical
coordinators to achieve better coordination of work loads. Transportation
supervisors have also been initiating transfers to minimize the need for
prisoner transportation.

•

DOC continues to take steps to have CTOs perform the majority of prisoner
transports throughout DOC.

•

DOC continues to review and update its prisoner transportation policies and
procedures.

•

DOC established a system to report inefficiencies and delays encountered
during prisoner transports to central office for review and corrective action.

•

DOC purchased ballistic vests for CTOs to improve safety.

25
471-0623-07L

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

26
471-0623-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 1
PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
Department of Corrections
Transportation Costs by Facility (1)
Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2006-07

Facility

Fiscal Year
2005-06

2004-05

Field Operations Administration (2)
Correctional Facilities Administration (3)
Alger Maximum Correctional Facility
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Boyer Road Correctional Facility
Carson City Correctional Facility
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Chippewa Correctional Facility
Cooper Street Correctional Facility
Deerfield Correctional Facility
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility
Florence Crane Correctional Facility
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
Hiawatha Correctional Facility
Huron Valley Complex - Men and Women
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility
Kinross Correctional Facility
Lakeland Correctional Facility
Macomb Correctional Facility
Marquette Branch Prison
Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility
Mound Correctional Facility
Muskegon Correctional Facility
Newberry Correctional Facility
Oaks Correctional Facility
Ojibway Correctional Facility
Parnall Correctional Facility
Parr Highway Correctional Facility
Pine River Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
Riverside Correctional Facility
Robert Scott Correctional Facility
Ryan Correctional Facility
Saginaw Correctional Facility
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
St. Louis Correctional Facility
Standish Maximum Correctional Facility
Straits Correctional Facility
Thumb Correctional Facility
West Shoreline Correctional Facility
Western Wayne Correctional Facility (4)

$

663,397
566,845
457,282
199,658
1,301

$

672,125
634,295
493,925
286,523

2006-07
$

749,767
631,088
464,085
355,837
18,665

243,191
4,890,050
9,852

255,560
5,529,025
14,565

223,073
5,559,452
18,566

452,424

1,331,318

1,250,108

551
772,983

218
758,499

122
690,198

1,096,799

1,173,596

1,185,031
1,347,223
37,890
744,144

1,602,254
1,442,135
70,644
779,224

1,337,358
9,908
1,843,755
1,432,422
73,228
838,513

2,800
296,252
621,646
319,149
399,636

3,002
2,897
377,551
325,375
427,873

54,643
5,934
335,151
238,934
507,796

289,705
58,783
1,490
2,179,068
391,940
553,672
565,399

7,487
54,423
1,139
2,331,853
684,368
923,083
606,280

20,075
59,974
15,036
2,355,594
675,874
1,021,226
709,833

612,132
298,365

924,250
542,969

1,021,786
606,115

370,938

397,441

428,958

283,254

Total

$

19,912,850

$

22,653,897

$

23,553,074

(1) Transportation costs may include salaries and wages, equipment purchases, uniforms, dry cleaning, meals, lodging, telephone charges,
office supplies, vehicle lease payments (including insurance and mileage), and other miscellaneous costs. As indicated in Note 2 of
Exhibit 3, some facilities provide transportation services to other facilities; therefore, transportation costs may not be reported for all
facilities.
(2) Field Operations Administration supervises prisoners who are released to parole and conducts parole hearings for parolees who commit
parole violations.
(3) Correctional Facilities Administration supervises all prison operations.
(4) Western Wayne Correctional Facility was closed December 2004.
Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

27
471-0623-07L

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
Department of Corrections
Transportation Personnel Costs by Facility
Fiscal Years 2005-06 and 2006-07

Facility

Assigned FTEs (1) (2)

DOC Field Operations - Region I (3)
DOC Field Operations - Region III (3)
Alger Maximum Correctional Facility
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Boyer Road Correctional Facility
Carson City Correctional Facility
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Chippewa Correctional Facility
Cooper Street Correctional Facility
Deerfield Correctional Facility
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility
Florence Crane Correctional Facility
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
Hiawatha Correctional Facility
Huron Valley Complex - Men and Women
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility
Kinross Correctional Facility
Lakeland Correctional Facility
Macomb Correctional Facility
Marquette Branch Prison
Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility
Mound Correctional Facility
Muskegon Correctional Facility
Newberry Correctional Facility
Oaks Correctional Facility
Ojibway Correctional Facility
Parnall Correctional Facility
Parr Highway Correctional Facility
Pine River Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
Riverside Correctional Facility
Robert Scott Correctional Facility
Ryan Correctional Facility
Saginaw Correctional Facility
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
St. Louis Correctional Facility
Standish Maximum Correctional Facility
Straits Correctional Facility
Thumb Correctional Facility
West Shoreline Correctional Facility

Fiscal Year 2005-06
Regular Wages
Overtime Wages
$

Total

3.00
3.00

355,466
47,144
144,877
184,657

3.00
48.00

143,312
2,283,621

17,638
697,896

160,950
2,981,517

11.20

560,150
609,162

120,419
100,973

680,569
710,135

8.32

318,150

65,552

383,702

14.00

515,188

78,143

593,331

17.00
13.20

713,698

183,194

896,892

6.60

180,480
397,417
504,741

21,978
21,939
56,661

202,458
419,356
561,402

7.00
4.00
5.00

164,169
96,636
243,443

35,770
27,964
34,584

199,939
124,600
278,027

2.44

98,176

17,496

115,672

19.00
7.32
16.00
6.00

897,387
281,269
627,199
299,948

372,144
99,834
59,780
62,843

1,269,531
381,103
686,979
362,791

10.40
8.00

360,887

39,836

400,723

4.00

173,538

16,205

189,743

2,200,368

$ 12,401,086

216.48

$

10,200,718

$

$

8,683
10,116
22,878
27,843

Total Wages
$

364,149
57,260
167,755
212,500

(1) FTEs = full-time equated positions.
(2) FTEs assigned to facilities provide transportation services to the other prisons within their vicinity, complex, or region.
(3) Field Operations Administration supervises prisoners who are released to parole and conducts parole hearings for parolees who commit parole
violations.
Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

28
471-0623-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 2

Assigned FTEs (1) (2)

Fiscal Year 2006-07
Regular Wages
Overtime Wages
$

3.00
2.90

383,891
38,836
136,893
162,953

3.00
48.00

139,893
2,232,104

14,053
707,612

153,946
2,939,716

11.20

546,133
639,947

150,742
98,854

696,875
738,801

8.32

337,578

60,366

397,944

15.00

586,375

92,361

678,736

16.64
13.20
4.00
6.60

794,235

231,172

1,025,407

195,819
416,847
523,490

26,249
36,467
84,781

222,068
453,314
608,271

7.00
4.00
5.00

147,097
56,664
245,257

29,713
16,047
44,543

176,810
72,711
289,800

2.44

97,910

19,757

117,667

19.00
7.32
13.00
7.00

915,226
315,713
572,725
336,084

416,967
92,296
52,160
62,168

1,332,193
408,009
624,885
398,252

10.40
8.00

380,617

37,964

418,581

4.00

240,496

29,469

269,965

2,395,717

$ 12,838,499

219.02

$

10,442,784

$

$

15,787
16,994
27,461
31,733

Total Wages
$

399,678
55,830
164,354
194,686

29
471-0623-07L

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

30
471-0623-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 3
PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
Department of Corrections
Reported Vehicle Miles for Prisoner Transportation by Facility
Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2006-07

Facility

2004-05

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

Fiscal Years
2005-06

2006-07

147,472
55,796

164,086
74,885

174,141
90,154
11,032

166,121
774,920
11,189

149,366
813,029
11,342

128,139
835,840
23,755

253,858

220,855

182,587

262,103

267,653

271,929

110,275

256,391

200,014
384,085
54,825
29,165

276,238
400,496
143,863
68,774

324,165
8,507
354,356
424,276
150,508
83,464

9,136
96,243
92,996

(4,745)
73,478
192,765

61,045
103,584

23,894
103,347

417,107
110,943

481,655
184,721

72,852

24,031

18,026
88,633
6,014
490,861
173,215
87,545
71,559

212,677
144,653

136,521
141,897

82,183
144,768

31,644

5,020

30,846
3,241
84,305
204,548
52,703

65,945

Total

3,868,648

4,209,562

4,601,300

Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

31
471-0623-07L

PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
Department of Corrections
Summary of Site Visit Testing
For the Periods January 21 through 25, 2008 and March 17 through 21, 2008

Scheduled Runs
Interfacility transfers
Medical
Court
Field Operations Administration
Parole hearings
Multiple purpose runs*
Total

Prisoners
Number Percentage

Number

Runs
Percentage

108
397
75
22
4
57

16%
60%
11%
3%
1%
9%

1,471
962
85
123
4
229

663

100%

2,874

Number

Miles
Percentage

51%
33%
3%
4%
0%
8%

25,449
20,665
12,671
6,232
657
7,599

35%
28%
17%
9%
1%
10%

100%

73,273

100%

* Multiple purpose runs had more than one purpose identified, e.g., one run transported one or more prisoners
between facilities and transported one or more prisoners to a medical appointment.

32
471-0623-07L

Exhibit 4

Custody
Officers
36
156
26
5

Number of
Corrections
Transportation
Officers

Medical or Court Runs
Requiring
Determined to be
Overtime
Long Distance
Overtime
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Hours
579
674
233
154

16

216
604
135
41
8
79

239

1,083

1,847

161
45

41%
60%

61
38

15%
51%

207

33
471-0623-07L

GLOSSARY

34
471-0623-07L

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

cadre

A group of corrections transportation officers that is
responsible for all transportation within a complex of three or
more prisons in the same general area.

CFA

Correctional Facilities Administration.

CTO

corrections transportation officer.

DOC

Department of Corrections.

effectiveness

Program success in achieving mission and goals.

efficient

Achieving the most outputs and outcomes practical with the
minimum amount of resources.

ER

emergency room.

FOA

Field Operations Administration.

FTEs

full-time equated positions.

goal

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

hub

A group of corrections transportation officers that is
responsible for all transportation activity within a region.

ICE

internal control evaluation.

interfacility transfer

A prisoner transfer that is scheduled in advance from one
correctional facility to another correctional facility on a run
that takes place on the same day of the week.

35
471-0623-07L

mission

The agency's main purpose or the reason that the agency
was established.

OAG

Office of the Auditor General.

parolee

A felon who is incarcerated for at least the minimum portion
of his/her sentence and is placed on parole by vote of the
Parole Board. With some exceptions, a typical offender is
supervised on parole for a period of two years. While on
parole, the offender is monitored by a parole agent employed
by DOC.

performance audit

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

probationer

A person placed on probation pursuant to Chapter XI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, Act 175, P.A. 1927, being
Section 771.3b of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

region

The division of responsibility within the State of Michigan for
DOC's operations. DOC has divided operations into three
regions.

reportable condition

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

SCAO

State Court Administrative Office.

TRATS

Transfer Request and Transportation System.

471-0623-07L

36
oag

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

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