Table of Contents
A Report on Prison Unit Cost Comparison
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
November 1996

Key Points of Report
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 1:

Cost Variances Identify Areas of Potential Savings and
Other Potential Operating Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Opportunities for Savings Exist at Units With High Cost Variances . . . . . . . . 7
Units With Low Cost Variances May Indicate Potential Future Risks . . . . . . 8

Section 2:

Opportunities Exist to Improve Accuracy of Data and
Eliminate Duplication of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Unit Expenditure Data Was Not Readily Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TDCJ Could Not Provide Accurate Square Footage Data on
the Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Data Received Contained Inconsistencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Section 3:

Not Preparing Budgets at the Unit Level Limits Fiscal
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Section 4:

True Cost of Industry Operations Cannot Be Determined . . . . 17
Appendices
1 - Objectives, Scope, and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2 - Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table of Contents, concluded
3 - Expenditures - Dependent Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 - Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 - Supplemental Information
5.1 - Construction Costs Vary by Type of Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 - Texas Compared to Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22
23
31
34

Key Points of Report
A Report on Prison Unit Cost Comparison
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
November 1996
Overall Conclusion
The analysis of prison unit costs has identified units and areas which have higher cost
variances. These variances may identify opportunities to reduce expenditures or to
alleviate risks associated with potentially inadequate expenditures.
This report presents cost analysis as a management tool to help target units and areas
needing more attention by management. This report can help identify areas of cost
savings, develop risk analysis, and identify the best unit management practices already
in place. Emphasis should be placed on the areas and units with the cost variances,
rather than the actual dollar amounts of the variances.

Key Facts and Findings
+

+

Our analysis of 13 cost categories at 57 prison units identified significant variances
from expected costs. The most significant variances come from travel and
miscellaneous fees and services. Significant variation from the expected cost is an
indication of potential risk. Management intends to perform further evaluation of
the cost variances. Areas of potential risks generally fall into two categories:
-

High cost variances ranged from 2.5 percent to 37.7 percent. These cost
variances indicate areas where cost savings potentially could be realized.

-

Low cost variances ranged from -2.3 percent to -46.3 percent. These cost
variances may indicate areas where adequate resources have not been
dedicated. Not dedicating appropriate resources can lead to risks such as
buildings not being properly maintained or inmates not being properly
secured.

Management needs to improve the accuracy of data maintained, expand the
budgeting process to include unit budgets, and better identify industry operation
cost.

Contact
Barnie Gilmore, CPA, Audit Manager (512) 479-4700

Office of the State Auditor
Lawrence F. Alwin, CPA
This audit was conducted in accordance with Government Code, § 321.0123.

Executive Summary

T

his report presents cost
analysis as a
management tool to help
target units and areas
needing more attention by
management. This report
can help identify areas of cost savings,
develop risk analysis, and identify the best
unit management practices already in place.

Detail review of cost variances
by management will determine
where savings can be realized
and risks alleviated.

Our analysis of prison unit costs identified
significant variances from expected costs.
Regression analysis of data on 13 categories
of expenses for 57 prison units run by the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
identified areas of potential savings and other
potential operating risks. (Regression analysis
predicts expected expenditures, and thus
variation from expected cost, through relative
comparisons.) Management of TDCJ should
determine whether there are opportunities to
reduce expenditures, or alternatively, to
alleviate risks associated with potentially
inadequate expenditures at prison units.
Since expected costs are relative comparisons,
emphasis should be placed on the areas and
units with the cost variances, rather than the
actual dollar amounts of the cost variances.
Because of difficulty in obtaining data, we
also recommend improvements in the
following areas:
+

Eliminate maintaining duplicate
information by improving the accuracy of
a sole source of data.

+

Strengthen unit-level fiscal management
and accountability by preparing budgets at
the unit level.

+

NOVEMBER 1996

Determine actual industry costs by better
distinguishing industry costs from the cost
of incarcerating inmates.

Cost Variances Identify Areas of
Potential Savings and Other
Potential Operating Risks
Management needs to evaluate cost variances
to determine where savings can be realized
and where risks need to be alleviated. Our
analysis of prison unit costs identified
significant variances (potential savings and
other potential operating risks) from expected
costs. The results of our analysis included:
+

High cost variances on the 13 cost
categories ranged from 2.5 percent to 37.7
percent.

+

Low cost variances on the 13 cost
categories ranged from -2.3 percent to
-46.3 percent.

The most significant cost variances come from
miscellaneous fees and services, and travel.

Opportunities Exist to Improve the
Accuracy of Data and Eliminate
Duplication of Effort
We encountered problems obtaining complete
and accurate information from TDCJ.
Departments appear to know which data
sources are reliable and maintain alternate
sources for those that are not, causing an
unnecessary duplication of effort and
potentially causing confusion as to what is
“official” data.
The problems include the following:
+

Unit-level expenditure data was not
readily available.

+

Square footage information on the units
could not be obtained.

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 1

Executive Summary
+

Information received contained
inconsistencies.

Not Preparing Budgets at the Unit
Level Limits Fiscal Management
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice
does not have a budgeting system at the unit
level. Preparing unit budgets would permit
better fiscal management, improve
accountability, and promote efficiency at the
unit level.

True Costs of Industry Operations
Cannot Be Determined
The manner in which expenditures are charged
makes it impossible to determine the actual
cost of industry operations. Certain industry
costs, such as utilities, support costs, and some
salaries, are not captured at a level to
distinguish them from the cost of incarcerating
inmates. Identifying an actual or reliable cost
to produce industry items is essential for
management decisions about industry
operations.

Summary of Management’s
Comments
Management generally concurs with the
analysis and recommendations contained in
this report.
Management states in its comments that it
intends to perform further evaluation of the
cost variances. Additionally, management has
expressed interest in further developing the
regression analysis model and applying it to
1996 expenditures.

PAGE 2

Summary of Objective, Scope, and
Methodology
The objective of this analysis was to provide
prison officials with a tool for self-assessment
of prison unit costs. Through performing
analytical procedures, including regression
analysis, our objective was to determine if unit
operating expenditures for related functions
are within a reasonable range among units.
The scope and methodology primarily
included:
A regression analysis of 57 prison units
(encompassing more than $751 million in
fiscal year 1995 unit operating expenditures)
identified high and low cost variances. This
represented 28 percent of total TDCJ
expenditures of $2.7 billion. (Excluded from
the analysis were expenditures for prison
facilities not operational the entire 1995 fiscal
year, privately operated units, Central
Administration, capital construction, the State
Jail Division, the Parole Division, and the
Community Justice Assistance Division.)
The regression model considered 13
dependent factors (expenditure categories) and
17 independent factors (unit characteristics).
Through mathematical relationships between
the expenditure amounts and the unit
characteristics, regression analysis can
reasonably predict a unit’s expenditure for a
category.
The cost variance is the amount in which the
actual expenditure differs from the predicted
amount. A high cost variance could be an
indication of opportunities for savings.
Conversely, a low cost variance may indicate
the deferral or elimination of necessary
expenditures, leading to future risks such as
inadequately maintained buildings.

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Executive Summary
Recent Reports Issued by the State
Auditor’s Office
An Audit Report on Purchasing and Contract
Administration of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (SAO Report No. 97-006,
issued October 8, 1996).

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 3

Section 1:

Cost Variances Identify Areas of Potential Savings and Other Potential
Operating Risks
Our analysis of prison unit cost has identified significant variances from expected
costs. Based on 57 units and 17 unit characteristics, regression analysis predicts,
through relative comparisons, the expected expenditure for a unit. When actual costs
exceed expected costs, this may be an indication of excess spending, such as
unexplained travel costs or security staffing levels. Conversely, if actual costs are
lower than expected, this may indicate potential underspending or the deferral of
necessary expenditures, leading to risks such as inadequately maintained buildings or
understaffed security levels. Total high cost variances amounted to $37 million and
low cost variances totaled $46 million. The expressed amounts help quantify the cost
variance. However, the expected costs are based on the relative comparisons of costs
among units rather than specifically determined appropriate costs. For this reason,
emphasis should be placed on the areas and units with the cost variances–not the actual
dollar amounts.
We believe the management of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
should determine whether there are opportunities to reduce expenditures or to alleviate
risks associated with potentially inadequate expenditures. Since a cost variance is the
unexplained portion of an expenditure amount after making allowances for the varying
characteristics of the unit, the larger the unexplained amount (defined as the cost
variance as a percentage of total expenditures) the more significant the cost variance.
We believe opportunities to achieve cost savings and alleviate risks are most likely to
occur from the categories as ordered in Figure 1, page 6. (See Figure 4, page 10, for
cost variances by unit and expenditure category)
In Figure 1, the units which make up the high cost variance for any single category are
different from those units which make up the low cost variance. Ultimately,
management will need to evaluate the specific units causing the cost variance within
the cost category. Figure 1 includes the three units for each category with the most
significant cost variance.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 5

Figure 1

Cost Variances by Category in Order of Significance
(Includes three most significant units making up cost variance)
High Cost Variance
Dollars (in thousands)

Low Cost Variance

% of category expenditure

EXPENDITURE CATEGORY

% of category expenditure

$367
346
110
578

37.69%

MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND SERVICES

-46.32%

Michael Unit
Coffield Unit
Terrel Unit
All Others

Goree Unit
Diagnostic Unit
Lynaugh Unit
All Others

30
15
11
63

29.91%

TRAVEL

-29.91%

Holliday Unit
Pack I Unit
Ferguson Unit
All Others

(7)
(7)
(6)
(99)

Daniel Unit
Terrell Unit
Eastham Unit
All Others

16
12
12
71

29.71%

CONSTRUCTION

-32.99%

Clements Unit
Jester III Unit
Smith Unit
All Others

(13)
(9)
(9)
(93)

Garza East
Garza West
Wynne Unit
All Others

49
42
33
125

26.03%

TELECOMMUNICATION

-23.16%

Huntsville Unit
McConnell Unit
Stiles Unit
All Others

(17)
(16)
(12)
(176)

Ramsey III Unit
Ellis I Unit
Michael Unit
All Others

143
107
74
584

19.79%

FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT

-19.79%

Terrell Unit
Robertson Unit
McConnell Unit
All Others

(94)
(79)
(75)
(660)

Darrington Unit
Brisco Unit
Coffield Unit
All Others

21
18
16
72

19.75%

FUELS

-19.75%

Clements Unit
Gatesville Unit
Huntsville Unit
All Others

(19)
(11)
(10)
(87)

Hughes Unit
Jester III Unit
Powledge Unit
All Others

205
104
101
749

15.05%

HAZARD PAY

-17.24%

Hobby Unit
Ramsey I Unit
Garza East
All Others

(143)
(125)
(73)
(1,069)

Garza East
Garza West
Darrington Unit
All Others

122
117
115
729

14.39%

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING SERVICES

-18.67%

Clements Unit
Robertson Unit
Coffield Unit
All Others

(197)
(125)
(118)
(965)

Garza East
Garza West
Gurney Transfer
All Others

14
14
6
50

11.97%

OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS

-14.70%

Robertson Unit
Coffield Unit
Clements Unit
All Others

(15)
(12)
(8)
(68)

Diagnostic Unit
Estelle Unit
Garza East
All Others

705
586
470
1,702

9.27%

CONSUMABLES

-11.70%

Michael Unit
Clements Unit
Hughes Unit
All Others

(497)
(447)
(422)
(3,004)

Huntsville Unit
Hughes Unit
Boyd Unit
All Others

712
415
269
2,333

8.88%

UTILITIES

-10.62%

Eastham Unit
Coffield Unit
Ferguson Unit
All Others

(515)
(474)
(463)
(3,006)

Clements Unit
Mt. View Unit
Jester III Unit
All Others

3,290
2,536
2,467
14,480

3.98%

SALARY

-5.18%

Coffield Unit
Hobby Unit
Wynne Unit
All Others

Coffield Unit
Clements Unit
Robertson Unit
All Others

271
256
107
1,170

2.48%

FOOD

-2.29%

Terrell Unit
Huntsville Unit
Wynne Unit
All Others

4.94%

TOTALS

-6.16%

Torres Unit
Clements Unit
Mt. View Unit
All Others

$37,083

PAGE 6

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Dollars (in thousands)
($125)
(117)
(110)
(1,370)

(3,866)
(3,334)
(3,117)
(19,297)
(145)
(138)
(137)
(1,251)

($46,251)

NOVEMBER 1996

About the Regression Methodology
Regression analysis predicts, through mathematical
relationships of the units’ expenditures and
characteristics, an expenditure amount for a unit.
Therefore, the amount by which the actual
expenditure exceeds the predicted is the high cost
variance. Conversely, the amount by which the
predicted expenditure exceeds the actual is the low
cost variance.
A high cost variance could be an indication of excess
spending while a low cost variance may indicate the
deferral or elimination of necessary expenditures.
Appendix 1 presents the methodology used in this
analysis. It is an integral part of understanding the
cost variances identified and determining where
savings can be realized and risks alleviated.

+

The cost variance information should help
executive management, central management,
wardens, and internal auditors identify
concerns and develop decisions. Unexplained
cost variances can be used to help:
+

Management and internal auditors
identify areas of cost savings

+

Management identify the best
management practices being used

+

Management identify areas where
costs have been reduced to a level
which could cause future risk

+

Internal auditors develop risk analysis

+

Management facilitate budgeting and
operating decisions

Management during the unit budgeting process

Section 1-A:
Opportunities for Savings Exist at Units With High Cost Variances

Opportunities for savings exist in the areas where high cost variances are identified.
The State Auditor’s Office analysis of prison unit costs has identified those risk areas
and units with potential inefficiencies. A regression analysis of expenditures totaling
$750,848,900 at 57 prison units in 13 cost categories has identified $37,082,970 in
high cost variances.
The cost variances should be viewed as a starting point for unit operating and
budgeting decisions. Since the cost variances are based on a regression analysis
model, and specific, unique situations cannot be factored into the model, actual cost
savings realized by each unit will vary.
High Cost Variances at TDCJ Facilities - Based on the high cost variance at a unit as

a percentage of total unit operating expenditures (salary was excluded due to the large
amounts overshadowing the other categories), we believe opportunities to achieve cost
savings are most likely to occur in the units identified in Figure 2 (page 8). Since
salary may be impacted by unit design and legal constraints, which could not be
incorporated into the model, salary cost variances should be reviewed independently.
(See salary cost variances in Figure 4, page 10.)

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 7

Figure 2
Total
Operating Costs
(excluding
salary)

High
Cost
Variance

Facility

Cost Variance
as a Percentage of
Total Costs
(excluding salary)

$3,262,574

$1,124,758

Diagnostic Unit

34.47%

$894,930

$204,316

Jester I Unit

22.83%

$2,118,075

$432,759

Jester III Unit

20.43%

$1,694,891

$342,148

Mt. View Unit

20.19%

$4,229,823

$845,934

Huntsville Unit

20.00%

$5,839,308

$1,091,591

Estelle Unit

18.69%

$4,421,865

$790,910

Garza East - Transfer Facility

17.89%

$4,002,127

$697,444

Garza West - Transfer Facility

17.43%

$2,496,364

$417,595

Hilltop Unit

16.73%

$2,511,334

$376,303

Torres Unit

14.98%

Section 1-B:
Units With Low Cost Variances May Indicate Potential Future Risks

Units which have a low cost variance in a cost category may be an indication that
appropriate resources are not being dedicated which could cause future risks. This
may include risks such as higher maintenance costs in future years or safety concerns
if security expense is unreasonably low. Management needs to evaluate the
appropriateness of having a low cost per inmate for an expenditure category. The
same regression analysis which identified the high cost variances in Section 1-A (page
7) identified $46,251,366 in low cost variances. Low cost variances can also identify
units and areas where there is efficiency. These can be used as benchmarks for other
units. However, having an unexplained large low cost variance is not necessarily
good.
For example, having an extremely low cost per inmate (causing a low cost variance) in
the maintenance and operating services category may indicate the unit is not
adequately maintaining its facilities. Or, having a low cost per inmate in salary
expenditures could lead one to question if the inmates are properly secured. Finally, a
low cost could be an indication that the unit is reporting the expenditures in an
inappropriate cost category.
Low Cost Variances at TDCJ Facilities - Based on the low cost variance at a unit as a
percentage of total unit operating expenditures (salary was excluded due to the large
amounts overshadowing the other categories), we believe the highest risks of

PAGE 8

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

appropriate resources not being dedicated to a cost category are most likely to occur in
the units identified in Figure 3. Since salary may be impacted by unit design and legal
constraints which could not be incorporated into the model, salary cost variances
should be reviewed independently. (See salary cost variances in Figure 4, page 10.)

Figure 3
Total
Operating Costs
(excluding
salary)

Low
Cost
Variance

Facility

Cost Variance
as a Percentage of
Total Costs
(excluding
salary)

$809,468

$228,518

Diboll Detention Center

28.23%

$2,245,185

$591,535

Hobby Unit

26.35%

$2,075,185

$438,971

Ramsey II Unit

21.15%

$4,308,232

$833,681

Ellis I Unit

19.35%

$650,322

$116,073

Jester II Unit

17.85%

$4,959,160

$865,275

Eastham Unit

17.45%

$861,154

$141,041

Tulia Detention Center

16.38%

$875,235

$140,561

Cotulla Detention Center

16.06%

$5,532,224

$865,483

Michael Unit

15.64%

$3,418,631

$533,411

Ramsey I Unit

15.60%

Management’s Comment to Section 1:
TDCJ agrees that regression analysis is a valuable tool that can identify unexplained
cost variances in a timely manner. We also agree that variances derived from a
regression analysis model should only be viewed as a beginning point for further
analysis and evaluation. In order to continue this evaluation process, we request your
assistance through the provision of a detailed definition of the methodology used to
apply the independent variables identified in the Prison Unit Cost Comparison Model.
This information will enable us to proceed with the variance analysis as
recommended. In the course of this analysis we intend to refine current factors and
develop additional factors in the cost comparison model and apply this model to 1996
expenditures. Assistance from the State Auditor’s Office may be required.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 9

Figure 4

Cost Variances By Unit
High Cost Variances Noted Without Parentheses
Low Cost Variances Noted With (Parentheses)
Cost Variances

Facility
Beto I Unit
Boyd Unit
Briscoe Unit
Central Unit
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Cotulla Detention Center
Daniel Unit
Darrington Unit
Diagnostic Unit
Diboll Detention Center
Eastham Unit
Ellis I Unit
Estelle Unit
Ferguson Unit
Ft Stockton I Unit
Garza E. - Transfer Facility
Garza W. - Transfer Facility
Gatesville Unit
Goree Unit
Gurney Transfer Facility
Havins Unit
Hightower Unit
Hilltop Unit
Hobby Unit
Holliday Transfer Facility
Hughes Unit
Huntsville Unit
Jester I Unit
Jester II Unit
Jester III Unit
Jordan Unit

Average
Number
of
Inmates
3,301
1,309
1,265
898
1,066
3,083
3,850
587
1,311
1,739
1,112
585
2,349
2,173
2,333
2,380
581
2,150
1,992
1,879
1,031
1,900
488
1,313
933
1,273
1,901
2,867
1,597
305
344
964
981

Total
Unit
Operating
Expenditures

Total
High
Cost
Variance

$26,719,350
9,583,874
9,366,749
9,096,624
10,377,632
29,878,796
30,024,280
3,511,579
8,920,967
17,776,021
11,281,074
3,473,683
20,030,132
18,063,972
20,944,467
18,676,734
3,367,686
15,389,308
14,916,863
21,913,736
11,160,092
13,714,575
4,749,634
9,330,114
10,214,630
9,894,685
14,584,315
26,179,369
15,459,348
3,831,754
3,418,240
9,804,013
7,513,763

$515,940
567,127
565,914
245,153
294,418
3,911,843
293,452
0
164,626
1,493,859
2,068,935
8,191
483,077
192,390
1,702,598
68,349
10,271
790,910
697,444
121,137
1,016,307
56,036
98,139
338,776
417,595
57,393
821,621
2,698,164
845,934
313,069
510,620
2,899,419
713,432

Total
(Low)
Cost
Variance
($1,193,823)
(205,904)
(97,354)
(344,976)
(80,924)
(749,789)
(4,817,625)
(786,259)
(135,462)
(275,686)
(59,133)
(834,404)
(2,841,555)
(1,817,295)
(113,993)
(2,008,989)
(889,591)
(1,164,358)
(344,710)
(1,812,133)
(203,448)
(328,123)
(81,579)
(323,506)
(812,572)
(3,925,219)
(250,906)
(640,111)
(556,028)
(13,704)
(116,073)
(106,629)
(62,619)

Salary
($1,050,709)
$215,178
$240,082
($260,756)
$43,888
$3,290,363
($3,865,853)
($645,698)
($9,139)
$1,173,073
$944,178
($605,886)
($1,976,280)
($983,615)
$611,008
($1,337,073)
($783,397)
($1,000,723)
($166,165)
($1,517,659)
$882,595
($43,016)
$30,517
$298,264
($766,273)
($3,333,683)
$654,045
$2,053,868
($222,158)
$108,752
$491,268
$2,466,660
$506,561

Hazard
Pay
$35,180
($40,178)
($27,390)
$13,923
($37,694)
$9,839
($64,860)
($12,921)
($22,875)
($61,750)
$72,383
$6,970
($64,540)
$30,844
$95,930
$11,468
($18,278)
($73,087)
($62,477)
$24,217
$40,111
$40,144
($6,136)
$31,137
($16,519)
($142,560)
$62,697
$204,988
$3,923
$20,315
$7,981
$103,862
($28,020)

Miscellaneous
Fees
and
Services

Other
Employee
Costs
($7,246)
$2,508
($935)
$3,304
($1,497)
($8,233)
($11,942)
($296)
($2,057)
$3,160
($2,006)
$437
$3,102
($850)
($5,039)
$1,404
($4,242)
$14,279
$14,083
($2,571)
$1,493
$6,191
$1,104
$829
($2,077)
($4,421)
$937
($1,252)
$3,895
($1,596)
$3,811
($1,649)
($4,961)

$90,326
$13,501
$18,805
($25,717)
$8,487
$346,255
($116,946)
($7,255)
($37,909)
$45,088
$55,903
($16,791)
($74,952)
($101,943)
($101,454)
($72,016)
($7,398)
($44,949)
($56,714)
$14,554
$35,420
($40,125)
($6,239)
($37,110)
$9,467
($11,936)
($54,671)
$24,207
$97,530
($8,694)
($9,697)
$35,580
($28,367)

See Appendix 3, page 22, for Detailed Description of Cost Variance Categories.

PAGE 10

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Figure 4

Cost Variances By Unit, continued
High Cost Variances Noted Without Parentheses
Low Cost Variances Noted With (Parentheses)
Cost Variances

Fuels

Food

$838
($2,604)
$18,085
($3,484)
$2,141
($18,692)
$16,101
($722)
($2,411)
$20,603
($5,263)
($1,538)
$604
($2,604)
$13,706
($5,022)
($1,217)
$5,758
$15,643
($10,994)
$5,135
($1,491)
($340)
$1,398
$2,851
($1,769)
($4,610)
($3,024)
($9,815)
$2,410
($849)
$2,757
$996

$94,173
$66,712
$18,823
$5,864
$72,952
$256,042
$271,178
($32,457)
($9,632)
$105,142
($40,683)
($29,947)
($111,746)
$34,961
$100,175
$45,251
($47,215)
($40,590)
($54,682)
($75,314)
$19,564
($26,578)
($14,098)
$7,147
$67,959
($42,365)
($91,188)
($67,479)
($137,562)
$30,404
$7,559
$100,380
$104,257

Consumables
($128,830)
($101,729)
($66,129)
$28,337
$95,056
($447,439)
($135,912)
($50,222)
($49,720)
($36,268)
$705,255
($52,885)
$467,845
($308,624)
$585,666
($48,810)
$4,291
$469,594
$355,239
$15,509
($79,217)
($82,397)
($34,611)
($88,380)
$122,615
($22,238)
$64,679
($422,083)
($159,175)
$19,794
($4,163)
$153,342
$52,526

Construction
($667)
$534
$9,314
($2,415)
$5,165
($13,244)
($4,742)
($578)
$15,659
$1,272
$1,560
$785
$11,526
($4,658)
$535
$10,225
$4,084
($469)
$3,090
($4,560)
$2,092
($2,017)
$153
($7,596)
($3,320)
$167
($3,465)
($5,715)
($89)
($3,414)
($917)
($9,407)
$6,791

Telecommunication
($6,371)
($772)
$3,292
$11,003
($5,535)
($4,592)
$469
($7,275)
($772)
($7,817)
($11,182)
($7,402)
($8,657)
($2,241)
($1,882)
($1,681)
($6,327)
$48,997
$42,496
($4,391)
($9,159)
$9,701
$331
($1,436)
($1,991)
$1,286
$227
($7,729)
($16,863)
$8,942
($2,963)
($1,694)
$745

Utilities
$230,279
$268,692
$198,367
$182,172
($31,838)
($50,731)
($474,065)
($10,551)
$121,731
($167,122)
$218,146
($81,210)
($515,319)
($407,372)
$194,807
($463,125)
($7,861)
$72,013
$101,216
($177,817)
($26,281)
($89,757)
$66,034
($97,335)
$169,259
($329,688)
$39,035
$415,101
$711,765
$46,762
($51,792)
($89,209)
($1,271)

Travel
$5,528
($3,966)
$1,000
$552
($4,361)
$9,343
$5,703
($776)
($947)
($2,730)
$14,826
($3,079)
($5,369)
($5,387)
($5,617)
($6,178)
$1,897
($4,540)
($4,672)
($268)
$29,897
($3,390)
($640)
($950)
($3,390)
($4,029)
($6,849)
($2,392)
($4,589)
$778
($1,592)
($2,105)
$1,091

Maintenance
and
Operating
Services

Furnishings
and
Equipment

$7,228
($13,287)
$58,147
($23,469)
$22,079
($197,406)
($117,726)
($7,388)
$22,435
$114,995
$2,971
($15,907)
($52,822)
$19,386
$74,184
($39,781)
($6,740)
$121,755
$116,837
$66,857
($71,990)
($30,497)
($9,105)
($58,958)
$45,444
$55,940
($58,051)
($80,971)
$28,820
$58,487
($34,378)
$36,838
$35,715

$52,388
($43,366)
($2,900)
($29,135)
$44,651
($9,452)
($25,580)
($10,119)
$4,801
$30,527
$53,713
($19,759)
($31,870)
$107,198
$26,589
($35,305)
($6,914)
$58,514
$48,841
($18,560)
($16,802)
($8,855)
($10,409)
($31,741)
($19,002)
($32,529)
($32,070)
($49,467)
($5,777)
$16,424
($9,722)
($2,565)
$4,750

See Appendix 3, page 22, for Detailed Description of Cost Variance Categories.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 11

Figure 4

Cost Variances By Unit, continued
High Cost Variances Noted Without Parentheses
Low Cost Variances Noted With (Parentheses)
Cost Variances
Average
Total
Number
Unit
of
Operating
Facility
Inmates Expenditures
Lewis Unit
1,309
$9,505,516
Luther Unit
1,269
9,870,889
Lynaugh Unit
1,225
8,185,419
McConnell Unit
2,859
22,441,643
Michael Unit
3,076
25,606,244
Middleton Transfer Facility
1,925
13,003,189
Mt. View Unit
597
10,042,859
Pack I Unit
1,396
10,851,520
Powledge Unit
1,059
9,303,395
Ramsey I Unit
1,687
13,191,251
Ramsey II Unit
1,075
9,568,274
Ramsey III Unit
1,556
12,640,155
Retrieve Unit
984
9,392,942
Roach Unit
1,575
11,997,278
Robertson Unit
2,731
21,501,940
Sayle Unit
494
4,842,306
Smith Unit
1,297
8,516,920
Stevenson Unit
1,309
8,582,245
Stiles Unit
2,868
23,106,740
Terrell Unit
2,765
23,385,916
Torres Unit
1,300
9,096,508
Tulia Detention Center
583
3,240,340
Wallace Unit
1,273
9,747,904
Wynne Unit
2,600
20,059,448

Total
High
Cost
Variance
$436,538
136,022
237,537
9,236
479,244
7,525
2,878,058
627,301
1,603,526
17,046
78,544
1,086,635
270,820
1,074,744
137,415
112,390
20,708
85,648
7,309
1,230,764
376,303
2,897
978,406
206,213

Total
(Low)
Cost
Variance
Salary
($228,533)
$390,479
(265,334)
$11,708
(519,284) ($313,227)
(1,329,830) ($756,471)
(865,483)
$270,063
(1,113,642) ($716,749)
(18,611) $2,535,910
(293,435)
$399,289
(87,286) $1,474,087
(2,767,546) ($2,234,134)
(1,487,302) ($1,048,331)
(168,644)
$839,795
(142,529)
$163,427
(141,092)
$972,503
(1,247,590) ($855,066)
(66,828)
($2,683)
(555,891) ($399,656)
(588,601) ($281,140)
(734,984) ($272,803)
(588,663)
$972,685
(384,571) ($167,606)
(1,022,287) ($881,246)
(97,088)
$732,806
(3,541,833) ($3,116,737)

TOTALS

$37,082,970

($46,251,366)

90,652

$750,848,900

Hazard
Pay
$16,172
$46,755
($50,228)
($67,234)
$71,023
($60,885)
$69,732
$65,837
$101,361
($124,777)
($61,046)
$33,314
($1,479)
$10,874
($72,930)
($6,974)
($50,072)
($35,666)
($60,658)
($10,164)
($11,224)
($20,010)
($32,621)
($64,396)

Other
Employee
Costs
($1,771)
($1,491)
$3,875
($1,205)
($730)
$1,443
$4,219
($410)
($1,269)
($2,685)
($72)
($3,037)
$1,590
($1,597)
($14,695)
$1,861
($1,790)
($487)
$4,133
($5,897)
$973
($1,849)
($1,129)
$5,272

Miscellaneous
Fees
and
Services
($37,657)
($36,319)
($35,047)
($91,421)
($124,568)
($55,663)
$109,680
$85,551
($487)
$17,046
$2,264
$12,223
$12,277
($45,031)
($46,480)
($6,316)
($37,504)
($27,226)
($59,274)
($109,577)
$367,090
($7,454)
($36,810)
($104,175)

See Appendix 3, page 22, for Detailed Description of Cost Variance Categories.

PAGE 12

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Figure 4

Cost Variances By Unit, concluded
High Cost Variances Noted Without Parentheses
Low Cost Variances Noted With (Parentheses)

Cost Variances

Fuels
$462
($1,196)
($2,395)
$529
($8,550)
($4,537)
($5,039)
($2,300)
($1,720)
($2,538)
($5,617)
($651)
($2,579)
($610)
($6,066)
$3,429
$1,961
($2,191)
$742
($205)
$4,943
($2,755)
$5,842
($1,537)

Food
($13,486)
$48,522
($58,517)
($44,738)
$39,108
($50,292)
$13,507
$59,446
($20,165)
($105,806)
($119,947)
$8,780
($2,159)
$56,981
$107,385
$1,405
($32,118)
($15,861)
($32,605)
($145,420)
($35,298)
($36,802)
$60,769
($136,660)

Consumables
($117,324)
($35,936)
$152,901
($180,159)
($496,635)
($130,301)
$37,464
($77,739)
($36,434)
($209,667)
($12,710)
($70,094)
$48,948
($7,900)
($31,976)
($15,015)
$9,875
($115,749)
($97,781)
($209,815)
($124,334)
($21,294)
$74,521
($60,569)

Construction Telecommunication
($4,655)
($3,700)
($1,707)
($9,182)
($4,393)
$13,347
$3,833
($16,307)
($4,913)
$6,038
$771
$762
$4,376
$364
($5,943)
($11,399)
($266)
($6,610)
($1,176)
($8,115)
$675
($3,658)
($3,808)
($11,952)
($5,918)
($4,078)
($2,348)
$5,387
($8,600)
($8,255)
$5,468
$763
($9,267)
$4,997
$6,534
$25,737
($3,110)
($12,243)
$11,973
$2,943
$887
($90)
($144)
($6,881)
$3,233
$27,642
$516
$33,140

Utilities
$29,426
($151,861)
($55,476)
($33,784)
($227,314)
($27,434)
$102,807
($174,653)
($16,513)
($5,768)
($196,603)
($75,273)
($97,320)
($75,505)
$21,709
$99,465
$2,903
($91,848)
($107,552)
$242,853
($8,674)
($40,123)
$27,405
$167,285

Travel
($157)
($5,776)
$11,165
$4,874
($2,774)
$4,549
($1,129)
($6,593)
($3,821)
($5,949)
($4,973)
($3,830)
($4,260)
$3,209
$8,321
($561)
$972
($420)
$2,434
$311
$2,410
$1,148
$8,867
($817)

Maintenance
and
Furnishings
Operating
and
Services
Equipment
($18,038)
($31,745)
$29,037
($21,865)
$4,128
$52,122
($63,511)
($75,000)
$18,615
$74,398
($49,114)
($18,666)
($1,521)
($10,922)
$17,178
($14,397)
$22,588
$5,489
($52,536)
($14,394)
($34,344)
$75,605
$49,982
$142,542
($24,736)
$44,579
($8,102)
$25,791
($124,889)
($78,633)
($13,475)
($21,803)
($15,754)
($9,731)
$53,377
($18,015)
($76,886)
($12,072)
($13,853)
($93,733)
($21,468)
($15,878)
($3,728)
$1,749
($26,529)
$37,322
($37,703)
($19,239)

See Appendix 3, page 22, for Detailed Description of Cost Variance Categories.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 13

Section 2:

Opportunities Exist to Improve Accuracy of Data and Eliminate
Duplication of Effort
Opportunities exist to improve the accuracy of information on the units and to
eliminate duplication of effort in the collection and maintenance of this information.
During this project, we encountered problems obtaining complete and accurate
information from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Departments appear to
know which data sources are reliable and maintain alternate sources for those that are
not. This causes an unnecessary duplication of effort and potentially causes confusion
as to what is “official” data.
The problems include the following:
+
+
+

Unit-level expenditure data was not readily available
Square footage information on the units could not be obtained
Information received contained inconsistencies

If TDCJ is maintaining data which is not used, efforts to collect and maintain the
information should be ceased. If data is used and necessary, TDCJ should ensure the
data is accurate and up-to-date, so duplication of effort does not occur.

Section 2-A:
Unit Expenditure Data Was Not Readily Available

When obtaining expenditure data at the unit level (charges which are specifically
identifiable to the unit, exclusive of arbitrary and administrative allocations), five data
sets were needed before arriving at the information used in our analysis. Inaccuracies
and incompleteness in the initial four data sets were identified by both TDCJ financial
operating personnel and state auditors. Due to the complexity of how unit information
is captured, it was difficult for TDCJ to completely and accurately compile the data
requested. Inaccurate and untimely information leads to ineffective and inaccurate
management decisions.

Management’s Comment to Section 2-A:
Final information provided to the State Auditor’s Office for use in the analysis is
complete, accurately defined, and represents actual 1995 expenditures. Concurrent
with the initiation of this project, Financial Operations was in the process of
developing information system queries to extract unit level operational costs.
Consequently, several data sets were generated during the development of a final data
set that satisfied both the requirements of the State Auditor’s Office and Financial
Operations. With the development of these queries behind us, standard, requestable
information files are now available in LONESTARS, the agency’s financial
information system. Additionally, we are in the early implementation stages of

PAGE 14

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

ADPICS (Advanced Purchasing and Inventory Control System), a companion product
to LONESTARS that will enhance the collection and availability of primary cost
information.

Section 2-B:
TDCJ Could Not Provide Accurate Square Footage Data on the
Units

TDCJ was unable to provide accurate square footage information. Square footage
information was a significant factor which could have been included in the regression
analysis discussed in Section 1 of this report (page 5). This factor could have further
explained the variances in costs. Due to the fact that reliable information could not be
obtained in a timely manner, this factor could not be used.
The Asset Management Division of the General Land Office identifies and evaluates
all state-owned real property. TDCJ is responsible for reporting property information
to the Asset Management Division. When we obtained data relating to TDCJ,
numerous inaccuracies were noted. Some examples include the following:
+
+
+
+

A Dorm-300 man block was listed at one square foot
The Clements Unit (3,000 inmates) was listed at 3,803 usable square feet
Numerous Unit IDs had no square footage assigned
Some properties were listed more than once

TDCJ does use square footage of units to do cost allocations, such as utility costs. The
square footage available for the allocation does not tie to the General Land Office’s
database, and is only available on a limited number of units. It is apparent that there is
duplication of effort to maintain square footage information for allocation purposes
since the information supplied to the General Land Office is not complete and
accurate.
TDCJ should eliminate the need for duplication of effort by properly maintaining a
sole source of updated and reliable data.

Management’s Comment to Section 2-B:
TDCJ recognizes this as a problem and agrees with the assessment by the State
Auditor’s Office that a sole source of information should be maintained. The agency’s
Asset Management System has the capacity to store this information, and in most cases
the information is available. Financial Operations, Facilities, and Property
Management staff have discussed the maintenance of square footage information and
action to update information files has been initiated. Additionally, a meeting with the
General Land Office Asset Management Division is scheduled to discuss the need for
and feasibility of an electronic interface to their database. This interface will allow
mass update of existing records and eliminate manual data reporting in the future.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 15

Section 2-C:
Data Received Contained Inconsistencies

Classification of units (such as prison, transfer, or substance abuse facility) obtained
from financial operations was inconsistent with that obtained from the financial
information system. The description of the units received from TDCJ personnel
contradicted the information on the financial information system. In all cases, the
financial information system was incorrect. Since the system is not kept up-to-date,
personnel maintain their own source of necessary information, duplicating work and
data. There are risks that the “outdated” information on the system will be relied upon.

Management’s Comment to Section 2-C:
The data referred to above is not financial or numeric descriptive information but
rather text information found in the agency’s financial system index/organization
profile. Although found on the financial system, this information is not used nor was it
ever intended to be used as an authoritative source for classification of institutional
facilities. However, upon review we found that 3% (67 of 2,584) of the text
descriptions were in need of revision. Of the 67 corrections, 21 modifications
reflected a change in institutional classification. In the future, the agency
Classification Department will notify Financial Operations of any changes in unit
classification to provide for immediate revision of descriptive text.

Section 3:

Not Preparing Budgets at the Unit Level Limits Fiscal Management
TDCJ does not have a budgeting system at the unit level. Preparing budgets at the unit
level would permit better fiscal management. Currently, TDCJ uses a centralized
budgeting approach, developing budgets at a higher level or program level. However,
this allocation-based method of budgeting does not allow for direct input, control, or
monitoring of unit expenditures from the wardens and unit managers. This lack of unit
involvement limits accountability and does not promote efficiency at the unit level.
According to TDCJ management, only 16 percent of unit expenditures are controlled
by decisions made at the unit level. The remaining amounts are quasi-fixed due to
salaries and overhead amounts allocated to the units. For example, security personnel,
which makes up the most significant portion of salary expenditures, have legal
requirements which must be met. The minimum number of security personnel
depends on the unit design and number of inmates at the unit. Unit management does
not have control over these factors; therefore, the units have little control over security
salary expenditures. However, they do have some control over nonsecurity personnel.
Beginning in fiscal year 1997, TDCJ began to implement Unit Supply Budgets: A
Controlled Approach to Inventory Consumption, which will allow greater
accountability and control of supply expenditures at the unit level. Supplies account

PAGE 16

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

for 3 to 4 percent of total operating costs at a unit (or about 25 percent of “unit
controllable” costs). TDCJ plans to incorporate the remaining portion of “unit
controllable” costs into future unit budgets. These will include food, maintenance, and
utilities.
TDCJ’s efforts to implement the Unit Supply Budget are commendable. We further
encourage TDCJ to implement a unit budget system for all operating areas. Further
enhancement of the ability to monitor and assess expenditure activity at the unit level
will instill greater accountability and promote efficiency.

Management’s Comment to Section 3:
As reported, TDCJ is implementing a Unit Supply Budget for fiscal year 1997. Agency
executive management has recognized the need for unit level decision-making in
regard to fiscal management in order to provide for better accountability and to
promote efficiency at the unit/customer level. This agency has chose a progressive
approach to unit level budget implementation. As the financial tracking/reporting and
organizational/functional issues are resolved, and the experience base developed, the
unit based budget will be expanded to include other unit controllable expenditures.

Section 4:

True Costs of Industry Operations Cannot Be Determined
The manner in which expenditures are charged makes it impossible to determine the
actual cost of industry operations. Certain industry costs are not captured at a level to
distinguish them from the cost of incarcerating inmates:
+
+
+

Utilities are not separately metered
Support costs (such as payroll runs) are not charged to industry operations
Other costs such as freight, sales transactions, and some salaries are not
distinguished between internal and external products

Texas Correctional Industry operates out of two funds: the General Revenue Fund for
products to be used by the Institutional Division and the Industrial Revolving Fund for
products intended for outside markets. In practice, internal and external product costs
are not necessarily distinguished, causing a “commingling” of expenditures.
Technically, appropriated funds are inappropriately being used for industry
expenditures; however, the Industrial Revolving Fund is charged for certain
expenditures eligible to be paid from appropriated funds. In the aggregate, it does not
appear the General Revenue Fund is supplementing the Industrial Revolving Fund.
Because costs are not specifically captured to distinguish product costs from
incarcerating costs, reliability of a product’s actual cost is questionable. Identifying an
actual or reliable cost to produce items is essential for management decisions about
industry operations. If TDCJ could have funds appropriated directly to the Industrial

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 17

Revolving Fund, the Texas Correctional Industries could operate solely from the
Revolving Fund. All appropriate expenditures should then be charged directly to the
Revolving Fund. This will also allow for industries to be more effectively monitored.

Management’s Comment to Section 4:
Implementation of the industrial manufacturing system designed and developed by JD
Edwards and Associates in Texas Correctional Industries should alleviate the cost
accounting concerns described above. The projected completion date for this project
is August 31, 1997. Additionally, the agency’s Utilities and Energy Management
department is in the process of implementing independent metering for industrial
facilities. A system to record and allocate indirect overhead or support costs such as
accounting, payroll, and data services is presently in place. With an accurate
manufacturing cost accounting system, concerns of commingling industry sales
receipts and general fund appropriations will no longer be an issue so long as the
exchange of general fund appropriations for internally consumed industry produced
goods remain equitable.

PAGE 18

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Appendix 1:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
The objective of this analysis was to provide prison officials with a tool for selfassessment of prison unit costs. Through performing analytical procedures, including
regression analysis, our objective was to determine if unit operating expenditures for
related functions are within a reasonable range among units.

Scope
A regression analysis was performed on 57 prison units encompassing more than $751
million in expenditures. The regression model considered 13 dependent factors
(expenditure categories) and 17 independent factors (unit characteristics). Additional
procedures were performed in the areas of unit budgeting, industry monitoring,
departmental staffing levels, construction costs, and state comparisons.

Methodology
This report was developed with the intention of determining whether related
expenditures are within a reasonable range among prison units. A database of
information was created to perform various analytical procedures, including regression
analysis. The expenditure amounts and unit characteristics used were obtained from
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). The accuracy of these amounts and
characteristics are the responsibility of TDCJ’s management. The information obtained
from TDCJ was not subsequently audited.
This analysis did not compare the quality or effectiveness of operations and
confinement services provided by the various units.
The regression analysis was performed with the aid of StatSoft Inc. STATISTICA
software. The regression model only included those units which were operational for
the entire 1995 fiscal year. Certain other units were excluded because the independent
factors could not capture the uniqueness of their operations. Certain expenditure types
were also excluded since they were not expenditures common to most units. The
dependent factors analyzed are defined in Appendix 3 (page 22). The independent
factors used are listed in Appendix 4 (page 23).
Regression analysis can predict what a unit’s expenditure for a category should be
based on the independent factors. Through mathematical relationships between the
dependent factor (expenditure amounts) and the independent factors (unit
characteristics) included in the model, a reasonable prediction can be made. By
including appropriate independent factors, regression analysis will make allowances
for the varying characteristics so unit expenditures can be compared.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 19

The cost variance is the amount of expenditure which has not been explained after
making allowances for all the independent factors. The amount which the actual
expenditure exceeds the predicted is the high cost variance. Conversely, the amount
which the predicted expenditure amount exceeds the actual is the low cost variance.
Due to either the availability of information or the timeliness of obtaining information,
all independent factors cannot be included in the model. Some examples of
characteristic which may have enhanced the regression model (and should be
considered for future analysis) are unit square footage, inmate turnover, utility rates,
and employee seniority. Another characteristic which is difficult to include in the
regression model is the impact of legal constraints on expenditures. Legal constraints
may have a more significant impact on the expenditures of one unit than another.
Further analysis of the cost variances will determine what portion of the cost variance
is justifiable and what portion of actual savings can be realized.
Appendix 5 (page 30) includes Supplemental Information related to:
+

A comparison of unit construction costs between Prison Units, State Jail
Facilities (Mode I and II), and Private Units

+

A comparison of characteristics of Texas’ correctional facilities system to
other states

Other Information
The information in this report did not result from an audit. Consequently, Government
Auditing Standards and generally accepted auditing standards did not apply.
This review was performed by the following members of the State Auditor’s Office
staff:
+
+
+
+

Duane J. McNaney, CPA (Project Manager)
Dana Jung
Barnie Gilmore, CPA (Audit Manager)
Craig D. Kinton, CPA (Director)

We would like to thank the TDCJ’s Financial Operations’ staff for working with the
State Auditor’s Office in compiling the data used in this analysis.

PAGE 20

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Appendix 2:

Background
The overall mission of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) as outlined
by Texas Government Code, Section 493.001, is to exercise responsibility for the
confinement, supervision and rehabilitation of felons; the development of a system of
state and local punishment, supervision and rehabilitation programs and facilities; and
the reintegration of felons into society after release from confinement. In addition, the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice strives to insure effective fiscal responsibility
and to comply with laws and court-mandated requirements.
TDCJ was appropriated $3.7 billion for the 1994-1995 biennium and $4.5 billion for
the 1996-1997 biennium. TDCJ is made up of four divisions: Community Justice
Assistance Division, Institutional Division, Parole Division, and the State Jail
Division. Our analysis concentrated primarily on the Institutional Division, which in
fiscal year 1995 operated fifty-one prison units, eight substance abuse facilities, sixteen
transfer facilities, seven private prisons, four psychiatric facilities, one boot camp
facility, and five work camp facilities throughout the state.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 21

Appendix 3:

Expenditures - Dependent Factors
The cost categories in which cost variances were determined in Section 1 (page 5) of
this report were developed by categorizing TDCJ’s agency object codes into similar
cost groups. Expenditure amounts by agency object code for each unit were obtained
from Financial Operations. These amounts were not subsequently audited.
Salary - salaries and wages of security and nonsecurity personnel (full-time and part-

time); does not include hazardous pay, or benefits (health insurance, state paid social
security and retirement, workers’ compensation, or unemployment benefits)
Hazard Pay - hazardous duty pay earned in addition to the employee’s salary
Other Employee Costs - training fees, and emoluments and allowances; does not

include benefits (health insurance, state paid social security and retirement, workers
compensation, or unemployment benefits)
Miscellaneous Fees and Services - medical services, professional contracts,

architectural services, and legal fees
Fuels - gasoline, diesel, propane, and lubricants
Food - staples, bread, dairy, meats, fresh produce, and eggs
Consumables - personal items for wards of the State, medical supplies, drugs,

chemicals, periodicals, computer supplies, parts, consumable supplies, and postage
Construction - hardware, windows, doors, fencing, lumber, concrete, electrical

materials, plumbing materials, paints, etc.; does not include items for capital
construction, and primarily items are for renovations
Telecommunication - communication service and parts, telecommunication

maintenance and repairs, and monthly and long distance charges
Utilities - electric, gas, water, and waste
Travel - in-state and out-of-state travel, mileage, meals, lodging and incidental

expenses
Maintenance and Operating Services - maintenance and repairs of buildings,

roads, and grounds; purchased operating services, printing services, funeral expenses,
and miscellaneous fees and services
Furnishings and Equipment - purchase, rental, and repairs of furnishings and

equipment

PAGE 22

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Appendix 4:

Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors
Figure 5 (page 26) includes the demographic characteristics used as the independent
factors in our regression analysis of unit expenditures in Section 1 of this report (page
5). The demographic information was obtained from various sources at the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. This information was not subsequently verified or
audited.
Unit Age (Days) - Number of days beds have been on-line through fiscal year 1995
Average Inmate Age - The average inmate age at the facility as of August 31, 1995
Average Inmate Number - The average number of inmates at the facility during

fiscal year 1995
Miles from Huntsville - The distance to TDCJ headquarters, Huntsville; units located

in Huntsville were assigned a value of five miles
Number of Security Employees - The number of security employees as of August

31, 1995
Number of Nonsecurity Employees - The number of nonsecurity employees as of

August 31, 1995
Total Number of Employees - The number of total employees as of August 31, 1995
Unit Security Level - The unit security classification (Minimum, Medium, High/Close,

Maximum, Special Use, or Multi) as of August 31, 1995
Inmate Gender - Male or Female inmates
Inmates Classified Minimum - The number of inmates classified minimum at the

facility as of August 31, 1995
Inmates Classified Medium - The number of inmates classified medium at the

facility as of August 31, 1995
Inmates Classified High/Close - The number of inmates classified High/Close at the

facility as of August 31, 1995
Inmates Classified Maximum - The number of inmates classified maximum at the

facility as of August 31, 1995
Inmates Classified Special - The number of inmates classified Mental Health or

SAFP/IPTC (Substance Abuse Felony Punishment/In-Prison Therapeutic Community)
at the facility as of August 31, 1995

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 23

Number of Industry Staff - The number of TDCJ personnel staffed in industry
operations at the facility at August 31, 1995
Unit Type - The units were categorized in the following types: prison, prototype,

transfer facility, reception facility, or substance abuse facility
Inmate Category - The units were categorized based on the overall makeup of

inmates as follows:
A - 100 percent Minimum
B - >80 percent Minimum and No Maximum or Special Needs
C - >80 percent Minimum with Maximum or Special Needs
D - <80 percent Minimum with <15 percent Maximum and Special Needs
E - <80 percent Minimum with >15 percent Maximum and Special Needs
F - >15 percent Special Needs
G - 100 percent Special Needs

PAGE 24

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

This page intentionally left blank.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 25

Figure 5

Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors

Facility

Beto I Unit
Boyd Unit
Briscoe Unit
Central Unit
Clemens Unit
Clements Unit
Coffield Unit
Cotulla Detention Center
Daniel Unit
Darrington Unit
Diagnostic Unit
Diboll Detention Center
Eastham Unit
Ellis I Unit
Estelle Unit
Ferguson Unit
Ft Stockton I Unit
Garza E. - Transfer Facility
Garza W. - Transfer Facility
Gatesville Unit
Goree Unit
Gurney Transfer Facility
Havins Unit
Hightower Unit
Hilltop Unit
Hobby Unit
Holliday Transfer Facility
Hughes Unit
Huntsville Unit
Jester I Unit
Jester II Unit
Jester III Unit
Jordan Unit

Unit
Age
(Days)

5490
1110
1320
31110
33540
1980
10890
1140
2190
27600
11280
1110
28230
10860
4050
11970
1140
570
480
5430
31140
630
420
1980
5190
2100
600
2040
32619
32610
32610
4740
1050

Average
Inmate
Age

27.47
39.21
28.68
27.62
24.74
35.04
32.3
31.44
38.4
33.61
32.79
30.49
37.35
40.6
37.34
25.16
30.31
31.89
31.74
34.93
34.9
31.79
31.35
29.23
32.76
33.23
30.79
33.33
39.5
33.65
40.45
41.19
39.15

Average
Inmate
Number

Miles
From
Huntsville

3301
1309
1265
898
1066
3083
3850
587
1311
1739
1112
585
2349
2173
2333
2380
581
2150
1992
1879
1031
1900
488
1313
933
1273
1901
2867
1597
305
344
964
981

78
76
259
76
115
475
78
273
343
94
5
57
29
5
5
23
429
208
208
138
5
78
429
61
138
90
5
136
5
83
83
83
455

Number of
Security
Employees

Number of
Nonsecurity
Employees

537
215
217
202
217
740
751
87
219
393
180
87
510
446
450
457
85
363
378
531
226
361
112
210
236
227
359
623
321
73
74
191
181

216
86
68
86
92
282
188
24
60
178
139
22
139
246
299
133
23
89
65
190
142
106
34
74
146
101
115
188
121
52
33
107
59

Total
Number of
Employees

753
301
285
288
309
1022
939
111
279
571
319
109
649
692
749
590
108
452
443
721
368
467
146
284
382
328
474
811
442
125
107
298
240

Unit
Security
Level

Max
Med
Med
Med
Close
Max
Max
Min
Med
Max
Med
Med
Max
Max
Close
Max
Min
Med
Med
Multi
Med
Med
Min
Med
Med
Med
Med
Max
Close
Med
Med
Med
Med

See Appendix 4 Text (page 23) for Column Description Detail.

PAGE 26

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Figure 5

Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors, continued

Inmate
Gender

Inmates
Classified
Minimum

Inmates
Classified
Medium

Inmates
Classified
High/Close

Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

2,309
1,227
1,137
723
967
1,906
2,590
588
1,314
1,246
1,214
485
1,573
1,682
1,732
1,519
582
2,245
2,142
1,386
1,016
1,900
0
1,211
893
1,082
1,893
1,852
1,447
0
324
932
894

222
82
145
0
13
267
313
0
0
124
0
0
251
88
207
282
0
0
0
47
12
0
0
109
29
121
0
289
28
0
0
0
93

401
0
12
0
6
321
132
0
0
16
0
0
246
21
132
483
0
0
0
47
14
0
0
0
5
71
0
250
19
0
0
0
3

Inmates
Classified
Maximum

275
0
0
0
4
18
892
0
0
216
0
0
267
385
26
94
0
0
0
26
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
486
15
0
0
0
0

Inmates
Classified
Special

Number of
Industry
Staff

0
0
0
163
0
444
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
0
0
0
0
360
0
0
496
0
0
0
0
0
10
297
0
0
0

10
10
11
11
15
0
36
0
11
6
0
0
9
37
12
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
9
0
18
14
5
0
0
9

Unit
Type

Inmate
Category

Prison
Prototype
Prototype
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Trans
Prototype
Prison
Reception
Trans
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Trans
Trans
Trans
Prison
Reception
Trans
Substance
Prototype
Prison
Prototype
Trans
Prison
Prison
Substance
Prison
Prison
Prototype

D
B
B
F
C
F
E
A
A
D
A
A
D
E
D
D
A
A
A
F
C
A
G
B
B
B
A
E
C
G
A
A
B

See Appendix 4 Text (page 23) for Column Description Detail.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 27

Figure 5

Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors, continued

Facility
Lewis Unit
Luther Unit
Lynaugh Unit
McConnell Unit
Michael Unit
Middleton Transfer Facility
Mt. View Unit
Pack I Unit
Powledge Unit
Ramsey I Unit
Ramsey II Unit
Ramsey III Unit
Retrieve Unit
Roach Unit
Robertson Unit
Sayle Unit
Smith Unit
Stevenson Unit
Stiles Unit
Terrell Unit
Torres Unit
Tulia Detention Center
Wallace Unit
Wynne Unit

Unit
Age
(Days)
1830
4740
360
1080
2880
600
7260
4320
4770
31380
31380
4320
27360
1470
1080
390
1050
480
810
660
960
1170
480
20970

Average
Inmate
Age
29.23
28.09
37.38
32.57
35.74
31.45
35.76
42.11
42.06
40.67
36.75
41.28
40.57
27.99
29.53
31.66
26.52
38.02
38.4
26.38
26.63
31.8
26.85
39.48

Average
Inmate
Number
1309
1269
1225
2859
3076
1925
597
1396
1059
1687
1075
1556
984
1575
2731
494
1297
1309
2868
2765
1300
583
1273
2600

Miles
From
Huntsville
68
39
429
208
78
273
136
39
78
95
95
95
109
370
273
240
402
153
96
39
234
445
331
5

Number of
Security
Employees
218
219
229
607
629
362
241
251
216
311
220
292
216
229
613
113
224
219
645
641
226
85
248
450

Number of
Nonsecurity
Employees
78
79
53
155
182
85
89
104
80
174
76
113
94
80
114
33
57
58
147
140
65
18
67
132

Total
Number of
Employees
296
298
282
762
811
447
330
355
296
485
296
405
310
309
727
146
281
277
792
781
291
103
315
582

Unit
Security
Level
Med
Med
Med
Max
Max
Med
Close
Med
Med
Med
Close
Med
Close
Med
Max
Min
Med
Med
Max
Max
Med
Min
Med
Max

See Appendix 4 Text (page 23) for Column Description Detail.

PAGE 28

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

Figure 5

Unit Demographic Characteristics - Independent Factors, concluded

Inmate
Gender
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

Inmates
Classified
Minimum
1,247
1,225
1,266
1,900
2,186
1,947
470
1,376
1,063
1,659
693
1,552
739
1,392
1,618
0
1,188
1,244
1,781
1,521
1,143
583
1,149
2,317

Inmates
Classified
Medium
63
6
60
167
201
0
25
2
0
4
46
20
121
162
274
0
103
70
196
479
165
0
88
128

Inmates
Classified
High/Close
0
12
0
243
203
0
44
1
0
2
138
3
83
7
300
0
0
3
384
338
12
0
17
70

Inmates
Classified
Maximum
0
6
0
478
492
0
34
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
507
0
0
0
472
503
0
0
0
90

Inmates
Classified
Special
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
201
0
0
0
0
504
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0

Number of
Industry
Staff
15
11
0
13
16
0
8
0
23
15
0
0
0
8
14
0
6
0
16
0
9
0
7
48

Unit
Type
Prototype
Prison
Prototype
Prison
Prison
Trans
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prison
Prototype
Prison
Substance
Prototype
Prototype
Prison
Prison
Prototype
Trans
Prototype
Prison

Inmate
Category
B
C
B
E
E
A
D
B
A
C
F
B
D
B
E
G
B
B
E
E
B
A
B
C

See Appendix 4 Text (page 23) for Column Description Detail.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 29

Appendix 5:1:

Construction Costs Vary by Type of Unit
The construction cost of prison unit beds varies depending if the facility is a Prison Unit, State
Jail Facility (SJF), or a Private Unit. The average cost per prison beds constructed in the last
five years is:
Prison Unit
Private Unit
Mode I SJF
Mode II SJF

-

$24,902
$22,600
$18,874
$18,270

The facilities are distinguished by the following four categories:
+

Prison Unit - Units operated by the Institutional Division of TDCJ; excludes transfer,

substance abuse, psychiatric, intermediate sanction facilities, as well as hospitals, and
boot and wilderness camps.
+

Private Unit - Units under the responsibility of the Institutional Division which are

operated by a private vender.
+

Mode I SJF - Facilities operated by the State Jail Division of TDCJ; the majority

which are co-located with existing Institutional Division facilities.
+

Mode II SJF - Facilities, the Community Justice Assistance Division of TDCJ

contracts with Community Supervision, Corrections Departments or counties, for the
building, operation, or subcontracting of operations to private vendors.
See Figure 6 (page 32) for the cost per bed of those units constructed within the last five years.
When determining the type of facility to construct, one must take into consideration numerous
attributes along with the cost of construction. The two most significant would be inmate type
and operating costs. Facilities need to be constructed to meet needs of the types of inmates
being sentenced (state jail felon, substance abuse offender, psychiatric needs offender, etc.) so
future renovations are not necessary. Yearly operating costs comprise the most significant
portion of cost. If a unit is more costly to construct but more economical to operate, savings
from operations in future years may outweigh the initial savings from construction costs.

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PAGE 31

PAGE 32

Beds

1500
2000
1000
1000
1000
1000
667

Invoiced

II
Bradshaw
07-95
$30,381,605
$29,906,605
II
Dawson
02-96
$40,378,228
$39,489,404
II
Lindsey
09-95
$18,998,837
$18,471,180
II
Bartlett
10-95
$18,832,447
$17,644,676
II
Willacy Co.
01-96
$17,987,280
$17,619,027
II
Travis Co.
01-96
$19,315,818
$17,571,332
II
Top Street
02-96
$12,104,052
$11,273,767
Source for expenditure information - TDCJ Project Cost Sheets

$20,639,625
$21,271,626
$24,499,625
$23,887,872
$19,951,626
$37,238,000
$37,160,134
$19,749,626
$37,653,900
$35,149,900
$34,028,374

Budget
900
900
1100
1100
900
2144
2144
1100
2144
2144
2144

On line

Cole *
08-95
Woodman *
TBD
Sanchez
02-96
Formby *
02-96
Ware *
TBD
Dominquez
06-95
Gist *
10-94
Lopez *
02-96
Hutchins
04-95
Plane
05-95
Atascosita
07-95
* - Co-Located with other TDCJ facility

SJF
$20,385,675
$20,094,588
$23,101,056
$23,090,267
$18,802,497
$36,868,389
$36,156,590
$19,450,826
$35,364,581
$34,419,834
$33,154,201

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Mode
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,874
$18,270
$18,270
$18,270
$18,270
$18,270
$18,270
$18,270

$19,938
$19,745
$18,471
$17,645
$17,619
$17,571
$16,902

Average

$22,651
$22,327
$21,001
$20,991
$20,892
$17,196
$16,864
$17,683
$16,495
$16,054
$15,464

Cost/Bed

$1,668
$1,475
$201
($625)
($651)
($699)
($1,368)

$3,776
$3,453
$2,127
$2,117
$2,017
($1,678)
($2,010)
($1,192)
($2,380)
($2,820)
($3,411)

Difference

TDCJ Facilities which are less than five years old
Includes:
prison units, state jail facilities, and private units
Excluded: detention/transfer, substance abuse felony punishment facilities, pre-release centers, psychiatric units, intermediate
sanction facilities, boot camps, wilderness camps, hospitals

Construction Costs

Appendix 5.1:

Figure 6

Construction Costs Vary by Type of Unit, continued

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

06-93
06-95
07-95
07-95
11-93
09-92
09-92
12-95
03-95
01-95
02-95
09-94
05-94
08-92
05-94
10-92
01-92
08-91
10-92
01-93
On line

Private
Budget

$75,550,000
$72,619,000
$72,048,900
$68,405,100
$66,167,000
$68,425,000
$67,271,661
$28,000,000
$26,083,597
$25,398,557
$24,975,736
$24,131,700
$22,273,365
$22,000,000
$22,099,000
$21,128,266
$19,791,000
$19,969,500
$20,357,076
$20,325,863

Budget

Invoiced

$75,436,166
$70,670,078
$70,377,912
$67,292,715
$65,960,315
$65,454,880
$65,417,901
$25,790,022
$25,398,244
$25,002,984
$24,563,017
$23,072,038
$21,672,758
$21,053,683
$20,989,555
$20,125,553
$19,472,232
$19,282,081
$19,166,762
$18,843,285

Invoiced

Diboll - Private
06-95
$12,609,160
$12,584,160
Moore - Private
06-95
$11,790,699
$11,790,699
Lockhart - Private
08-94
$10,908,996
$10,883,996
Venus - Private
09-94
$9,948,500
$9,940,189
Source for expenditure information - TDCJ Project Cost Sheets

On line

Prison

Stiles Unit
Allred Unit
Telford Unit
Connally Unit
Terrell Unit
McConnell Unit
Robertson Unit
Murray Unit
Hodge Unit
Neal Unit
Dalhart Unit
Lynaugh Unit
Stevenson Unit
Boyd Unit
Wallace Unit
Jordan Unit
Briscoe Unit
Roach Unit
Smith Unit
Torres Unit

500
500
500
500

Beds

2250
2250
2250
2250
2250
2250
2250
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000

Beds

$25,168
$23,581
$21,768
$19,880

Cost/Bed

$33,527
$31,409
$31,279
$29,908
$29,316
$29,091
$29,075
$25,790
$25,398
$25,003
$24,563
$23,072
$21,673
$21,054
$20,990
$20,126
$19,472
$19,282
$19,167
$18,843

Cost/Bed

$22,600
$22,600
$22,600
$22,600

Average

$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902
$24,902

Average

$2,569
$982
($832)
($2,719)

Difference

$8,625
$6,507
$6,377
$5,006
$4,414
$4,189
$4,173
$888
$496
$101
($339)
($1,830)
($3,229)
($3,848)
($3,912)
($4,776)
($5,430)
($5,620)
($5,735)
($6,059)

Difference

TDCJ Facilities which are less than five years old
Includes:
prison units, state jail facilities, and private units
Excludes:
detention/transfer, substance abuse felony punishment facilities, pre-release centers, psychiatric units, intermediate
sanction facilities, boot camps, wilderness camps, hospitals

Construction Costs, concluded

Appendix 5.1:

Figure 6

Construction Costs Vary by Type of Unit, concluded

PAGE 33

Appendix 5.2:

Texas Compared to Other States
In a survey of 13 states pertaining to fiscal year 1995, Texas ranked highest in two categories:
(1) inmates per 100,000 population and (2) percentage change in incarceration per 100,000
from 1994 to 1995. Texas did have one of the lowest ratings for capacity rates and cost per
inmate for food. However, in most categories, Texas falls in the mid-range. Some of the
information gathered included:
+
+
+
+
+

Percentage of state’s budget allocated to corrections
Annual cost per inmate
Cost per capita
Inmates per 100,000 population
Cost per inmate for: salaries, central administration, professional fees, and food

We did not audit the data provided, nor did we review or compare the quality of confinement
services provided by the various states. Refer to Figure 7 (page 35) for the ratings of the
categories for each state. The reader will also want to take into consideration that states may
account for costs and inmate classifications differently.

PAGE 34

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996

NOVEMBER 1996

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

3.16%

14.96%

2.49%

2.74%

N/A

4.47%

5.71%

6.44%

3.20%

Louisiana

Michigan

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania

S. Carolina

Texas

Virginia

$77

$115

$60

$60

$116

$99

$95

$130

$85

$92

$101

$84

$41

Corrections

$16,934

$16,206

$13,219

$23,152

$15,504

$22,500

N/A

$23,625

N/A

$17,863

$14,549

$16,347

$9,162

Inmate

Cost Per

Operating

Per

324

561

497

424

378

372

313

401

550

500

435

483

457

Population

100,000

13.90%

16.30%

-1.10%

7.90%

2.10%

3.70%

4.80%

3.00%

6.50%

15.60%

5.00%

8.00%

3.90%

1994 - 1995

Rates

Incarceration

$1,266

$415

$569

$598

$1,869

$632

N/A

$684

$751

$1,700

$1,517

$1,416

N/A

Administration

Central

Inmate For

Cost Per

$12,022

$7,624

$7,439

$16,993

$8,944

$17,920

N/A

$14,223

N/A

$10,589

$6,567

N/A

N/A

Salaries

For

Inmate

Cost Per

N/A

N/A

$1,201

$2,495

$2,219

$3,187

$1,783

$2,186

N/A

$1,762

N/A

$2,656

$3,069

Fees

Professional

Inmate For

Cost Per
Cost

$1,291

$655

$1,001

$1,005

$1,005

$649

N/A

$914

N/A

$999

$802

$1,013

N/A

For Food

Per Inmate

140%

94%

N/A

133%

170%

103%

150%

N/A

101%

103%

97%

109%

107%

Rates

Capacity

72%

18%

10%

27%

30%

15%

N/A

24%

N/A

22%

69%

46%

26%

Year 2000

Through

Population

In Inmate

Projected Increase

Information not readily available
Survey conducted by the Texas State Auditor’s Office and completed by the above states’ Departments of Corrections
Data pertains to fiscal year 1995

6.51%

Georgia

N/A:
Source:

3.67%

7.27%

Arizona

Florida

19.08%

Corrections

Alabama

States

Cost Per

Capita For

Budget

Change in

Allocated to

Percentage
Inmates

Of State

Annual

Percentage

Summary Chart - State Comparisons

Appendix 5.2:

Figure 7

Texas Compared to Other States, concluded

PAGE 35

This page intentionally left blank.

PAGE 36

A REPORT ON PRISON UNIT COST COMPARISON
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOVEMBER 1996