Tn Dept Correction State Audit Sept 2012

Tn Dept Correction State Audit Sept 2012

• Topics: Misconduct/Corruption, Corrections Audits

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Department of Correction
September 2012

Justin P. Wilson
Comptroller of the Treasury

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

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

Deborah V. Loveless, CPA, CGFM
Assistant Director

Diana Jones, CGFM
Audit Manager

Mason Ball, CPA
Catherine Balthrop, CPA
Edwin Carter
Robert Fox

Kristy Carroll-Grimes, CFE
In-Charge Auditor

Amy Brack
Editor

Staff Auditors

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

STATE OF TENNESSEE

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

September 18, 2012
The Honorable Ron Ramsey
Speaker of the Senate
The Honorable Beth Harwell
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Mike Bell, Chair
Senate Committee on Government Operations
The Honorable Jim Cobb, Chair
House Committee on Government Operations
and
Members of the General Assembly
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is the performance audit of the Department of Correction. This
audit was conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-29-111, Tennessee Code
Annotated, the Tennessee Governmental Entity Review Law.
This report is intended to aid the Joint Government Operations Committee in its review to
determine whether the Department of Correction should be continued, restructured, or
terminated.
Sincerely,

Arthur A. Hayes, Jr., CPA
Director
AAH/dlj
12-025

State of Tennessee

Audit Highlights
Comptroller of the Treasury

Division of State Audit

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
September 2012
_________

AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the audit were to review inmate trust fund account documentation and
reconciliation; to review the reentry program; to review the department’s recovery procedures for
employee state-issued property; to review the department’s monitoring of employees’ use of the
Family Medical Leave Act and/or Military Leave; to review employee-related security
procedures for the Tennessee Offender Management Information System; to review departmental
policies and procedures related to violent incidents; to review payments to local jails and related
changes in statute; to determine how the department monitors contract performance; to determine
the status of actions and related legislation to transfer to the department certain offender
supervision responsibilities assigned to the Board of Probation and Parole; to review the
department’s policies and procedures regarding contraband; to determine how the department
measures and tracks recidivism; and to gather and report Title VI information, staff demographic
information, and performance measures data.
FINDINGS
Numerous Weaknesses Were Identified in
the Department’s Mental Health Contract
Monitoring Process, Increasing the Risk
That Inmates May Not Receive Adequate
Mental Health Services and That the
State Vendor May Not Provide All of the
Services It Is Obligated to Perform
Auditors’ review of the mental health
services contract monitoring process and
related documentation at the Department of
Correction (TDOC) found weaknesses
related to assessment of liquidated damages
for contract noncompliance and the

timeliness of monitoring. The Office of
Mental Health Services sets policy standards
for the delivery of mental health treatment to
inmates and evaluates the care provided
throughout the department system. The
department
contracted
with
MHM
Correctional Services, Inc., from July 1,
2006, through June 30, 2012, for a
maximum liability of $28,858,200. As of
July 9, 2012, there were approximately
3,760 inmates with a mental illness
diagnosis within the system (page 16).

Because Department of Correction
Facilities and the Tennessee Correction
Academy Fail to Properly Document the
Return of State-issued Property,
Including Uniforms, Badges, IDs, and
Keys, When Employees Leave
Department Employment, Neither the
Facilities Nor the Academy Could
Provide Adequate Proof That Exiting
Employees Returned State-Issued
Property, Increasing the Security Risk of
Abuse of the Items
Four of the 11 department facilities and the
Tennessee Correction Academy do not
document whether exiting employees return
state-issued
property
when
leaving
department employment. In addition, there
is a lack of consistency and uniformity in
carrying out the requirements of the related
policies.
Serious security risks could
potentially occur when state-issued property
items such as correctional officer uniforms,
picture IDs, and TDOC badges are not
returned by exiting employees (page 26).
Management Has Again Not Mitigated
the Risks Associated With Information
Systems Security, Which Increases the
Risk of Fraudulent Activity
Our testwork revealed that the department’s
staff did not always follow the Management
Information Services Procedures Manual,
resulting in an increased risk of fraudulent
activity.
The department’s various
information systems contain extensive
inmate and employee data. This is a repeat
finding from the Division of State Audit’s
Financial and Compliance Audit released in
2009 (page 30).

The Department and Its Contractors Do
Not Always Follow Inmate Trust Fund
Account Policies, Increasing the Risk
That These Trust Funds Will Be Subject
to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
The purpose of the Inmate Trust Fund
Accounts is to establish a cashless inmate
economy through the use of an inmate trust
fund. Auditors’ review of Inmate Trust
Fund Account documentation found several
instances of noncompliance with the policy,
as well as additional areas of concern.
Taken individually, these noncompliances
and areas of concern appear relatively
minor; however, these are trust funds with
fiduciary obligations. Taken as a whole,
they raise questions about the internal
controls over these accounts and the
potential for problems (page 31).
The Department Needs to Clarify Its
Policy on How It Reports Incidents
Occurring in the State’s Prisons, and
Should Ensure That Incident Statistics
Provided to the Public and Policy Makers
Are Sufficiently Explained
Incident reports are used by the department
to record certain incidents (e.g., confiscation
of contraband, violent activities) that occur
in Department of Correction (TDOC)
facilities. Incident numbers are reported in
statistical and performance measures reports
that are used to inform the public and the
legislature about the conditions present in
Tennessee prisons and are used to aid
department management and policy makers
in making decisions. Auditors reviewed
Policy 103.02, which provides guidance on
incident reporting; tested a sample of
incident reports; interviewed department
staff regarding incident reporting; and
reviewed statistical and performance
measures reports containing incident
statistics. Our review raised concerns that
(1) the language in the policy is not clear,
which could lead to misunderstandings and

inconsistencies in how and when incidents
are reported and (2) that members of the
public and policy makers reviewing incident

statistics may need additional explanation to
understand what these statistics mean and
how they were calculated (page 35).

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
The audit also discusses the following issues: the department conducts extensive monitoring of
Corrections Corporation of America’s compliance with its contracts to manage the three
facilities, but could improve monitoring procedures, including documenting management review
and formatting reports to permit better analysis of noncompliance issues; review of contract
monitoring processes for medical, rehabilitation, and nursing contracts; the department has
instituted new procedures to address increasing rates of violence; contraband in department
facilities; the department has incorporated evidence-based programming into the reentry process;
the department has made significant improvements in defining and tracking recidivism since the
April 2009 performance audit, but still does not track recidivism based on programs; continued
lack of compliance with FMLA rules and procedures; and discontinuance of the requirement for
counties to submit final cost settlements (page 37).

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Authority for the Audit

Objectives of the Audit

Scope and Methodology of the Audit

Statutory Responsibilities and Organization

Revenues and Expenditures

Reorganization

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3. Management has again not mitigated the risks associated with information systems
security, which increases the risk of fraudulent activity

4. The department and its contractors do not always follow Inmate Trust Fund
Account policies, increasing the risk that these trust funds will be subject to fraud,
waste, and abuse

5. The department needs to clarify its policy on how it report incidents occurring in
the state’s prisons, and should ensure that incident statistics provided to the public
and policy makers are sufficiently explained

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Page
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

Review of Contract Monitoring Processes for Medical, Rehabilitation, and Nursing
Contracts

The Department Has Instituted New Procedures to Address Increasing Rates of Violence

Contraband in Department Facilities

The Department Has Incorporated Evidence-Based Programming Into the Reentry
Process

Although the Department Has Made Significant Improvements in Defining and
Tracking Recidivism Since the April 2009 Performance Audit, the Department
Still Does Not Track Recidivism Based on Programs

Continued Lack of Compliance With FMLA Rules and Procedures

Discontinuance of the Requirement for Counties to Submit Final Cost Settlements

RECOMMENDATIONS

Administrative

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Title VI and Other Information

Appendix 2 - Performance Measures Information

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE AUDIT
This performance audit of the Department of Correction (TDOC) was conducted pursuant
to the Tennessee Governmental Entity Review Law, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter
29. Under Section 4-29-234, the Department of Correction is scheduled to terminate June 30,
2013. The Comptroller of the Treasury is authorized under Section 4-29-111 to conduct a
limited program review audit of the agency and to report to the Joint Government Operations
Committee of the General Assembly. The audit is intended to aid the committee in determining
whether the Department of Correction should be continued, restructured, or terminated.

OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT
The objectives of the audit were
1. to review inmate trust fund account documentation and reconciliation;
2. to review the reentry program;
3. to review the department’s recovery procedures for employee state-issued property;
4. to review the department’s monitoring of employees’ use of the Family Medical
Leave Act and/or Military Leave;
5. to review employee-related security procedures for the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System;
6. to review departmental policies and procedures related to violent incidents;
7. to review payments to local jails and related changes in statute;
8. to determine how the department monitors contract performance;
9. to determine the status of actions and related legislation to transfer to the department
certain offender supervision responsibilities assigned to the Board of Probation and
Parole;
10. to review the department’s policies and procedures regarding contraband;
11. to determine how the department measures and tracks recidivism; and
12. to gather and report Title VI information, staff demographic information, and
performance measures data.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE AUDIT
The audit focused on the Department of Correction’s activities for fiscal years 2010
through 2012. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Methods used
included
1. review of applicable legislation and policies and procedures;
2. examination of the entity’s records, reports, and information summaries; and
3. interviews with department staff and staff of other state agencies that interact with the
agency.

STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES AND ORGANIZATION
The Department of Correction was established in 1923 under the provisions of Title 4,
Chapter 3, Part 6, Tennessee Code Annotated. The department was created to manage and
govern the state’s penitentiaries. According to the department, its mission is to enhance public
safety in Tennessee through the incarceration and rehabilitation of felony offenders and to
operate safe and secure prisons.
The Department of Correction is supervised by a commissioner, chief of staff, and two
deputy commissioners (see the department’s organization chart on pages 3 and 4). The
department consists of 14 state prisons located across the state. Eleven facilities are operated by
the department; three are managed privately by Corrections Corporation of America.
On July 12, 2012, there were 18,622 males and 1,207 females assigned to the department,
for a total of 19,829 inmates incarcerated in Tennessee’s adult institutions. Female inmates are
housed in two prisons: one in Nashville and the other in Memphis. Male inmates are housed in
the 12 other prisons located across the state. Inmates in need of acute or continuing medical care
are housed at the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility in Nashville. The department is fully
accredited by the American Correctional Association.
The department also operates the Tennessee Correction Academy, which trains
corrections professionals and criminal justice professionals from other government agencies.

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organizational Chart
2012

Commissioner

Executive Admin. Assistant

General
Counsel

Chief of Staff

Assistant to the
Commissioner

Communications
Officer

Director
Office of Investigation

Transition
Team Leader

Board
Liaison/Research and
Planning Director

PREA
Coordinator

Director
Accreditation/Compliance

Chief of Staff

Deputy Commissioner
Administrative
Services

Deputy Commissioner
Operations

Director
Human Resources

Policy Development
and
Organizational Manager

Director of
Organization,
Development, and
Support

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organizational Chart
2012 (Cont.)

Deputy Commissioner
Administrative Services

Executive Admin. Assistant

Director
Budget/Fiscal

Director
Information Technology
Services

Director
Contract Administration

Coordinator
Communications/Utilities

Judicial Cost
Accountant and State
Prosecutions

Director
Purchasing
Administration

Director
Jail Resource Center

Director
Food Services

Director
Facilities, and Planning
& Construction

Director
Facilities Management
and Maintenance

Deputy Commissioner
Operations

Director Offender
Administration

Commissioner's
Designee for
Privately Managed
Facilities (3)

Correctional
Administrator
West Region
5 prisons
(2 CCA)

Title VI
Coordinator

Director
Classification
and
Central Dispatch

Director
Sentence
Management
Services

Correctional
Administrator
Middle Region
6 prisons
(1 CCA)

Correctional
Administrator
East Region
3 prisons

Assistant
Commissioner
Rehab Svcs

Offender Administration includes the Classification and Sentence Management Services
Sections. The Classification Section is responsible for the implementation and maintenance of
the system that manages the progression of inmates through the levels of custody/risk from the
point of intake into department custody through the period of their incarceration. Classification
is also responsible for ensuring that the inmate population levels of the institutions do not exceed
capacity limits. This is accomplished by authorizing admissions of inmates to the department
from county jails on a daily basis, contingent on available capacity. See the table on page 6 for
populations and security levels at each facility. Sentence Management Services staff provide
sentence management information, compute all felony sentences, monitor release dates and
parole eligibility dates, and report these dates to the Board of Parole (the Board of Probation and
Parole prior to July 1, 2012) in order to produce eligibility dockets.
Detailed below are the department’s major programs focused on inmate care and
rehabilitation.
Education
The department operates its own school system, with the Commissioner acting as the
superintendent. The department recognizes the crucial role education and training play in the
successful rehabilitation of incarcerated felons. With additional education and training,
offenders are less likely to reoffend than those who do not learn a skill or trade while
incarcerated. Roughly 20% of the eligible inmate population is enrolled in either academic or
vocational training.
5

Facility
WEST TN
Hardeman County Correctional Facility
(HCCF) Private
Mark H. Luttrell Correctional Center
(MLCC)
Northwest Correctional Center (NWCX)
West TN State Penitentiary (WTSP)
Whiteville Correctional Facility
(WCFA) Private
West Tennessee Total
MIDDLE TN
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex
(CBCX)
Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility
(DSNF)
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
(RMSI)
South Central Correctional Center
(SCCC) Private
Tennessee Prison for Women (TPFW)
Turney Center Industrial Complex
(TCIX)
Middle Tennessee Total
EAST TN
Morgan County Correctional Complex
(MCCX)
Northeast Correctional Complex
(NECX)
Southeast TN State Regional
Correctional Facility (STSRCF)
East Tennessee Total

Security Level

Operating
Capacity

Inhouse Number
as of 7-12-2012

Location

Medium

1,976

1,971

Whiteville

Close (Women)

436

410

Memphis

Close/Minimum
Maximum
Medium

2,377
2,505
1,505

2,349
2,477
1,493

Tiptonville
Henning
Whiteville

8,799

8,700

Close/Minimum

749

646

Nashville

Maximum

736

729

Nashville

Maximum

714

699

Nashville

1,642

1,630

Clifton

Maximum
Close/Minimum

789
1,541

797
1,530

Nashville
Only/Clifton

6,171

6,031

Maximum

2,417

2,395

Wartburg

Maximum/
Minimum
Close

1,819

1,772

971

931

Mountain
City
Pikeville

5,207

5,098

20,177

19,829

Overall Total

All facilities have adult education programs that offer both adult basic education and
GED preparation. Inmates are given the opportunity to take the GED test if they meet the
requirements. Many inmates also participate in volunteer literacy programs.
Thirteen of the institutions offer vocational training. Program offerings include such
courses as barbering, carpentry, cosmetology, culinary arts, masonry, electrical, and career
management for success. All vocational programs follow a curriculum approved by the
Tennessee Department of Education and provide a Department of Education certificate upon
graduation. A select number of vocational programs offer certification through the Department
of Labor and apprenticeships.

Health Care
The department provides medical, mental health, dental, and vision services to inmates.
The department’s treatment model is a multidisciplinary approach that includes physicians,
nurses, dentists, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, psychological examiners, social workers, and
other professionally trained staff.
Substance Abuse
The department believes that part of its mission is to provide effective evidenced-based
treatment programs for incarcerated offenders, to enhance public safety when the inmates reenter
the community.
Currently, the department offers the following substance abuse treatment options:
1. Comprehensive Assessment and Referral – Available at all department facilities.
2. Correctional Treatment Academy – A 9- to 12-month structured, high-intensity
modified therapeutic community. This program is appropriate for serious and violent
offenders, using an evidence-based treatment approach.
3. Substance Abuse Felony Treatment – A 9- to 12-month modified therapeutic
community for non-violent offenders, using an evidence-based treatment approach.
4. Transition Center – A 9- to 12-month modified therapeutic community program with
a focus on reentry issues such as community service, vocational education, and
employment readiness for offenders transitioning back to the community.
The department has a zero-tolerance policy related to inmate drug and alcohol use within
state correctional facilities. All inmates incarcerated in a state-operated or state-funded
correctional facility are subject to urinalysis testing at any time during their incarceration in
accordance with Policy 506.21, “Inmate Drug/Alcohol Testing.” Inmates are expected to review
this policy to familiarize themselves with the requirements for urinalysis testing and are subject
to disciplinary action for the following:


failure to submit to drug testing or to provide a urine sample within two hours of the
request;



tampering or attempting to tamper with the specimen or test results; or



receiving a positive test result for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

Jobs and Programs
Inmate jobs teach responsibility, work ethic, and marketable skills. They also promote
stability within the institutions by reducing idleness.
Work rules mimic requirements of jobs outside the prison. Inmates are expected to report
to their assigned job at the scheduled time and perform all assigned duties. A system of

incentives and disincentives are in place to help promote the concept that job advancement is
connected with positive work performance. It is the department’s desire that participation in
prison jobs be the basis for instilling good work ethics that will continue when the inmate is
released.
More than 5,000 inmates work in support services inside department facilities, preparing
food, cleaning the institutions, landscaping, doing laundry, recycling, and maintaining buildings
and equipment. This reduces operational costs as well as teaching new skills. Over 1,000
inmates work as teacher aides, counselor aides, clerks, and library assistants.
In 1994, the General Assembly created the Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in
Correction (TRICOR) to put inmates to work in a real-life job setting. These jobs include
making uniforms and furniture, entering data, etc.
Inmates also provide community service to nonprofit organizations and state, local, and
federal government agencies whenever possible. Institutional work lines pick up trash along
roadways; clean out underbrush in fields surrounding the perimeter of the prison; cut firewood;
and plant, tend, and harvest crops.
Programming is an integral part of Rehabilitative Services. Based on their individual
needs, inmates may be assigned to a substance abuse treatment program; academic, vocational,
and pre-release classes; the parole technical violator program; and/or a transitional community.
Inmates may receive program sentence credits and a small stipend for work performed or for
program participation. Ninety percent of all eligible inmates are assigned to work and/or to
participate in a rehabilitative program, including education. (See the table on pages 12 and 13.)
Reentry
The department has implemented several reentry programs to help offenders leave
facilities better prepared to reenter communities. The Preparation Is The Key To Success
program focuses on release from incarceration and transition back into the community, and
involves a combined effort from the inmate, his or her family, community support, department
staff, Board of Probation and Parole staff, and the community service agencies. Reentry
coordinators, counselors, and institutional parole and probation officers are available to assist
with reentry and transition services.
The Division of Rehabilitative Services is responsible for establishing programs at each
institution to ease inmate adjustment from institutional to “free world” life, and ultimately reduce
the likelihood that the offender will re-offend. Reentry programming is offered at each
department facility as well as the three private facilities. Each facility has a designated reentry
specialist who has the responsibility of developing a 3-month reentry program for eligible
offenders. Once assigned to the program, offenders are not allowed to work in other areas.
Completing reentry becomes their job. Any inmate who is within nine months of release
consideration is eligible for reentry services. Because of limited space availability, first priority
is given to inmates granted parole with a mandate to complete the program, followed by inmates

who are close to their sentence expiring or with a release date set by the Board of Probation and
Parole (the Board of Parole as of July 1, 2012).
The reentry programs (a minimum of 50 days with 240 hours of classroom work and 30
to 60 hours of homework assignments and/or community service work) have all incorporated a
cognitive behavior program based on the National Institute of Correction’s “Thinking for a
Change” curriculum. The other components of the program include


life-skills, self-esteem, and self-evaluation;



decision-making and critical thinking;



access to health care;



anger management and coping skills;



parenting, family, and community reunification;



substance abuse and use;



job seeking and retention;



housing plans and options;



budgeting;



legal issues;



awareness of the impact of crime and its impact on victims; and



restoration of citizenship and voting rights.

Reentry specialists assist parolees with finding employment and housing as required by
the Board of Probation and Parole.
The department also has a transition center program, which is a three-phase approach
lasting approximately nine months. The first phase is assessment and program orientation. The
second phase is development and integration with a focus on community service. Phase three
consists of reentry preparation with the primary focus on employment, housing, and relapse
prevention.
Program services offered include


employment readiness and placement assistance,



relapse prevention planning,



victim impact awareness,



cognitive behavioral therapy to address thinking distortions,



discharge planning,



community service,



parole preparation, and



mentoring services.

The Exodus 40-bed program for female inmates at the Tennessee Prison for Women is a
prime example of the department’s efforts to focus on the rehabilitation of felony offenders. The
transition center uses a modified therapeutic community model that promotes awareness,
responsibility, and accountability.
Religious Services
All Tennessee institutions except one have a full-time professional chaplain and
numerous volunteer chaplains who minister to inmates of all faiths. Chaplains lead worship
services, coordinate services by outside clergy, perform pastoral counseling, provide religious
literature to inmates, teach classes, coordinate outside volunteers, and notify inmates of serious
illnesses and deaths of family members.
To help chaplains provide religious services, the position of Director of Religious
Services was created in September 2007. The director’s role is to serve as the central point of
contact for all religious activity and practices within the department, and to assist chaplains as
they work with inmates of all faiths.
Victim Services
The department provides the following services for victims of crimes:


crisis intervention and advocacy, assisting victims with concerns related to inmates
under public jurisdiction;



the Victim Speakers Bureau which allows victims of crimes or victims’ loved ones to
share their story;



community education about department policies and procedures; and



referrals to other state and community services.

Volunteer Opportunities
It is estimated that 97% of the individuals incarcerated in a department facility will
eventually be released back into the community. For that reason, it is crucial that the department
and the community work hand in hand to help those incarcerated work toward becoming better
citizens. Volunteers are a great resource in accomplishing this goal.
Approximately 5,000 volunteers currently offer their services to the Department of
Correction. The department wants to increase the impact of volunteers by partnering with the
community (faith-based groups, nonprofits, civic organizations, and dedicated citizens) to use
volunteers as mentors, tutors, and facilitators of evidence-based programs.

Parole Technical Violators Diversion Program
The General Assembly passed legislation in 2006 permitting a collaborative effort
between the department and the Board of Probation and Parole. This effort allowed both
agencies to assist parole technical violators and provide public safety. Under the program, a
parolee who has violated the conditions of parole, but not committed a new felony, can have his
or her parole revoked and regranted in the same action. (Examples of a technical violation
include missing a scheduled meeting with the parole officer, failing a drug test, or failing to
attend required counseling or treatment.) The grant (release on parole supervision) is contingent
upon successful completion of a six-month program at the Turney Center Industrial Complex –
Annex (formerly the Wayne County Boot Camp).
Candidates for the program are selected by the Board of Parole (the Board of Probation
and Parole prior to July 1, 2012) at a revocation hearing. Participants either work on a
community service crew or attend GED classes during the day and complete treatment programs
in the evening, with no “downtime” during the six-month program. The community service
work crew helps the participants establish good work habits, and the treatment programs in the
evening address issues such as substance abuse and cognitive behavior modification. When the
violator nears completion of the program, the department notifies the parole officer that the
parolee will be returning to the community and the officer prepares a release plan.
Tennessee Reentry Collaborative
The department established the Tennessee Reentry Collaborative in October 2004,
shortly after reestablishing the Division of Rehabilitative Services. The collaborative’s mission
is “to provide a continuum of services for all offenders reentering society in order to reduce
recidivism and promote public safety”; its cosponsors are the Commissioner of the Department
of Correction and the Chairman of the Board of Parole. The collaborative’s membership also
includes representatives from other state agencies, local law enforcement agencies, and nonprofit
agencies.

Rehabilitative Services Programs

INSTITUTION
Facility/Security Level

CBCX

DSNF

HCCF

MCCX

MLCC

NECX

NWCX

RMSI

SCCF

STSR

TCIX

TPFW

WCFA

WTSP

III

Academic Programs
Adult Education

GED

Literacy Program

Title I Program

Vocational Programs
Barbering

Basic Principles of Welding/Advanced
Application

Core Brake/Suspension/Steering/ Engine
Performance

Career Management for Success/Release
for Success

X
X

Computer Applications/Literacy
Core Carpentry
Core Electrical I & II

X
X

Core HVAC & Refrigeration

Core Leisure Craft, Small Engine

X
X

Rehabilitative Services Programs (continued)

NWCX

RMSI

SCCF

Core Masonry I & II/Construction

INSTITUTION

CBCX

Core Plumbing I & II

Electrical/Construction Core

DSNF

HCCF

MCCX

MLCC

NECX

Foundation/Culinary Arts
Horticulture/Grounds Keeping

STSR

TCIX

TPFW

WCFA

WTSP

X
X

Principles of Cosmetology/Design
Chemistry

X
X

Mental Health/Behavioral
Pro-Social Life Skills
Victim Impact Classes

X
X

Substance Abuse
Substance Abuse Group Therapy
Therapeutic Community

Community Service

Work Release

Employment*
X

Transition and Pre-Release
Transition Centers

Parole Technical Diversion

Release Centers

*In addition, inmates work in support services (e.g., food preparation, laundry, cleaning, maintenance) inside department facilities.

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
The tables below summarize the department’s revenues and expenditures by category for
fiscal year 2011.
Revenues by Source
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2011*
Title
Administration
State Prosecutions
Correction Academy
Correction Release Centers
Major Maintenance
Sex Offender Treatment Program
Sentencing Act of 1985
Tennessee Prison for Women
Turney Center Industrial Complex
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional
Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
Northeast Correctional Complex
Northwest Correctional Complex
Morgan County Correctional Complex
Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Hardeman County Incarceration Agreement
Hardeman County Agreement - Whiteville
South Central Correctional Center

State
$ 15,823,000
134,593,700
4,578,500
61,100
9,455,100
475,500
22,254,000
33,868,500
13,596,700
26,275,300

Federal **
$
648,600
-

Other***
$ 5,005,200
1,127,100
112,900
713,200
1,151,200
439,300
873,200

Total
$ 21,476,800
135,720,800
4,691,400
61,100
9,455,100
475,500
22,967,200
35,019,700
14,036,000
27,148,500

21,658,100
50,950,400
24,067,900
37,311,500
47,728,200
56,242,000
46,168,300
37,252,600
28,965,200
26,025,500

865,500
1,296,900
388,700
1,498,900
1,558,500
1,164,200
300,200
4,900
11,100
11,200

22,523,600
52,247,300
24,456,600
38,810,400
49,286,700
57,406,200
46,468,500
37,257,500
28,976,300
26,036,700

Department Total

$637,351,100

$648,600

$16,522,200

$ 654,521,900

Percentage of Total

97.4%

0.1%

2.5%

100.0%

* The source of the above data, the State of Tennessee’s The Budget Fiscal Year 2012-2013 included revenues of
$70.2 million for Field Services and revenues of $13.4 million for Community Corrections in the department’s fiscal
year 2011 revenues. However, Field Services and Community Corrections were part of the Board of Probation and
Parole in fiscal year 2011 and, therefore, are not included in the above breakdown.
** Federal revenues include the following grants: Incarcerated Youthful Offender, Prison Rape Elimination Act,
Stay at Home, Nashville Works, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
*** Examples of “Other” revenues include commissary sales, inmate telephone system revenue, fees from inmates,
inmate labor, federal pass-through grants from state agencies, recovery of court costs, MVM reimbursements, Cook
Chill, and Teachers Career Ladder.

Expenditures by Category*
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2011
Title

Payroll

Operational

Total

Administration
State Prosecutions
Correction Academy
Correction Release Centers
Major Maintenance
Sex Offender Treatment Program
Sentencing Act of 1985
Tennessee Prison for Women
Turney Center Industrial Complex
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional
Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
Northeast Correctional Complex
Northwest Correctional Complex
Morgan County Correctional Complex
Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Hardeman County Incarceration Agreement
Hardeman County Agreement - Whiteville
South Central Correctional Center

$ 13,869,800
3,273,900
2,647,000
10,792,400
19,015,700
8,262,900
15,716,800

$ 7,607,000
135,720,800
1,417,500
61,100
6,808,100
475,500
12,174,800
16,004,000
5,773,100
11,431,700

$ 21,476,800
135,720,800
4,691,400
61,100
9,455,100
475,500
22,967,200
35,019,700
14,036,000
27,148,500

14,796,300
31,121,100
14,987,700
23,930,200
30,023,500
34,564,700
26,155,400
156,500
130,300
143,600

7,727,300
21,126,200
9,468,900
14,880,200
19,263,200
22,841,500
20,313,100
37,101,000
28,846,000
25,893,100

22,523,600
52,247,300
24,456,600
38,810,400
49,286,700
57,406,200
46,468,500
37,257,500
28,976,300
26,036,700

Department Total

$249,587,800

$ 404,934,100

$ 654,521,900

61.9%

100.0%

Percentage of Total

38.1%

* The source of the above data, the State of Tennessee’s The Budget Fiscal Year 2012-2013 included expenditures
of $70.2 million for Field Services and expenditures of $13.4 million for Community Corrections in the
department’s fiscal year 2011expenditures. However, Field Services and Community Corrections were part of the
Board of Probation and Parole in fiscal year 2011 and, therefore, are not included in the above breakdown.

REORGANIZATION
Chapter 727, Public Acts of 2012, transferred certain functions relating to probation and
parole services and the community correction grant program from the Board of Probation and
Parole to the Department of Correction. These duties include the supervision of all prisoners
released on parole; the authority to declare prisoners eligible for parole; the employment of
probation and parole officers; the administration of the community corrections program; the
jurisdiction, supervision, and control of persons on community supervision; and the supervision
of sex offenders on parole or probation. Governor Haslam announced his proposal for the
reorganization in January 2012, and in anticipation of action by the General Assembly, a
transition team was put into place. The law, which was signed by the Governor on April 11,

2012, took effect July 1, 2012, with full implementation to be accomplished on or before January
1, 2013.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Numerous weaknesses were identified in the department’s mental health contract
monitoring process, increasing the risk that inmates may not receive adequate mental
health services and that the state vendor may not provide all of the services it is
obligated to perform
Finding
Auditors’ review of the mental health services contract monitoring process and related
documentation at the Department of Correction (TDOC) found weaknesses related to assessment
of liquidated damages for contract noncompliance and the timeliness of monitoring. The Office
of Mental Health Services sets policy standards for the delivery of mental health treatment to
inmates and evaluates the care provided throughout the department system. The department
contracted with MHM Correctional Services, Inc., from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2012, for
a maximum liability of $28,858,200. Effective July 1, 2012, the department has contracted with
Corizon, Inc., to provide mental health services for fiscal years 2013 through 2015 for a
maximum liability of $42,920,653.
As of July 9, 2012, there were approximately 3,760 inmates with a mental illness
diagnosis within the system—3,203 at Level II; 363 at Level III; 162 at Level IV; and 32 at
Level V. The different levels of mental illness are


Level II – Inmates are able to function in the general population but, because they are
mildly impaired by their illness, these inmates would require only outpatient services.



Level III – Inmates are able to function only moderately well in the general
population because of a mental illness and may become easily overwhelmed by
everyday pressures, demands, and frustrations. These inmates function better in a
supportive living environment.



Level IV – Inmates’ ability to function in the general population is severely impaired
due to a mental illness. These inmates may function better in a supportive living
environment.



Level V – Inmates require crisis stabilization in a hospital or infirmary. This is a
temporary designation (for example suicide watch) lasting until the inmate is
discharged from the hospital or infirmary.

MHM was responsible for providing services at the state-managed institutions, with
services being defined as “interventions which provide for the detection, diagnosis, treatment and
referral of inmates/patients with mental health problems and the provision of a supportive
environment when deemed clinically necessary.” To determine compliance with contract terms,
the department’s mental health contract monitors use a monitoring instrument that includes 20
items to review either quarterly or semi-annually. We reviewed the department’s mental health
contract monitoring documentation to determine any areas in which the contractor was
determined to be noncompliant and what actions the department took in response to any
noncompliances. The auditors requested copies of the contract monitoring reports that would
cover the most recent 12-month period (received Quarter 4, 2010; Quarter 1, 2011; Quarter 2,
2011; and Quarter 3, 2011). These reports were released January 2011 through March 2012
covering services mostly provided during calendar year 2011. Areas of concern we identified
during the review are detailed below.
Assessing Liquidated Damages Did Not Appear to Correct MHM Correctional Services’
Noncompliance With Contract Requirements
The results of the quarterly summaries prepared by the department’s contract monitors
are presented in Table 1. A contract item that monitors evaluate as noncompliant for the first
time is normally assessed a Level III liquidated damage penalty of $100. If the same item is
evaluated as noncompliant in the next monitoring report, the contract monitor reports a repeat
finding and may assess a Level II liquidated damage penalty of $250. If an item continues to be
a finding, the monitor can report the item as a repeat finding and assess a Level I liquidated
damage penalty of $500. There were three facilities where MHM did not have any repeat
findings (Charles Bass Correctional Complex, Mark Luttrell Correctional Center, and Northeast
Correctional Complex). There were two facilities where MHM only had one repeat finding
(Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility and Tennessee Prison for Women).
For these five facilities, MHM had assessed liquidated damages ranging from a low of $0 at
Charles Bass Correctional Complex to $650 at Tennessee Prison for Women during the audit
period reviewed. At six of the state-operated facilities, MHM had two to eight repeat findings
during the audited time period. The assessed liquidated damages ranged from $1,000 (Northwest
Correctional Complex) to $4,100 (Turney Center Industrial Complex). (See Table 1 for details)
Table 2 shows 23 Level II and 15 Level I repeat findings, and provides information
concerning items that were evaluated as being repeat findings during the time period reviewed.
Contract item number 3 was reported as a repeat finding for MHM Correctional Services a total
of 14 times (Level II, five times; and Level I, nine times). Table 1 shows that MHM
Correctional Services was noncompliant and received five consecutive repeat findings for item 3
at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, and was assessed Level I liquidated damages of
$500 each time (March 2011 through March 2012). Table 1 also shows that at West Tennessee
State Penitentiary, MHM Correctional Services was noncompliant for item 3 a total of three
consecutive times and was assessed one Level II and two Level I liquidated penalties during the
audited time period. It appears that assessing a Level I liquidated damage penalty of $500 does
not always serve as an incentive for the contractor to take corrective actions and become
compliant. For example, at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution over the time period
audited, MHM Correctional Services was fined a total of $2,500 for the five occurrences of

noncompliance for item number 3, yet the problem was not corrected. (See Table 2 for a
description of items with repeat findings.)
During our review process, we also noted that monitors only classify a noncompliance as
a repeat finding if the monitor had noted it as a noncompliance in the immediately preceding
monitoring report. For example, at the DeBerry Special Needs Facility, MHM was assessed a
Level II liquidated damage penalty of $250 for noncompliance with contract item number 6 (see
Table 2 for item description) for two consecutive reports (repeat finding), was found compliant
in the next report, and was assessed a Level III liquidated damage penalty of $100 in the
following report because the noncompliance with item 6 was considered a new deficiency. In
addition, we identified an assessment error at Turney Center Industrial Complex—for contract
item 7, MHM was assessed a Level II liquidated damage penalty of $250 for a repeat finding,
followed by Level I liquidated damage penalties of $500 for repeat findings in the next two
quarters; however, when a repeat finding was identified for item 7 in the following quarter,
MHM was only assessed a Level II liquidated damage penalty of $250, instead of $500.
The auditor requested and received (from the mental health contract monitor) copies of
the department’s Liquidated Damages Letters to MHM Correctional Services. The Director of
Budget and Fiscal Services provided us documentation that the department had deducted these
damages from the contractor’s invoices. The letters and invoices were compared to the contract
monitoring reports, and it appears that the amount of liquidated damage penalties assessed was
deducted appropriately, as adjustments to the invoice amounts paid to MHM Correctional
Services.
Timeliness of the Quarterly Contract Monitoring
The mental health contract monitor stated that the MHM Correctional Services contract
was monitored on a calendar-year, quarterly basis except in instances where the facility has an
annual inspection during the quarter. In that instance, the contract monitor would skip that
quarter since the inspection would review the same type of information. Table 1 shows the dates
that the quarterly contract monitoring was performed during the time period reviewed.
According to the information provided, 10 of the 11 facilities had a five- to seven-month gap
between at least one of the quarterly reports, some of which may be the result of annual
inspections. Tennessee Prison for Women was the only facility that had a quarterly contract
monitoring performed within each three-month period. Northeast Correctional Complex only
had two contract monitoring reports released during the audit period reviewed. In Table 1,
Southeast Tennessee State Regional Correction Facility shows a 12-month gap between contract
monitoring (February 2010 to February 2011).

Table 1
Summary of the Mental Health Contract Monitoring
Quarterly Summaries and Recommended Liquidated Damages
Liquidated Damages Assessed*
TDOC
Facility
CBCX

DSNF

Item – Finding+
Item 16
None
None
None

Item 1

Repeat - Finding

Item 6 L II
Item 20 L II
Item 6 L II
Item 20 L I

Item 2 L III
Item 6 L III (indicated
1st time deficient)
Item 7 L III

Quarter**
Q. 4 2010
Q. 1 2011
Q. 2 2011
Q. 3 2011

Performed
1/26/2011
6/15/2011
8/19/2011
2/23/2012

Q. 4 2010

3/4/2011

Q. 1 2011
Q. 2 2011

5/13/2011
8/25-26/2011

Item 2 L II

Q. 3 2011

2/09 - 28/2012

Item 3 L II

Q. 4 2010

2/9-10/2011

Level I

$250
$250
$250

Penalty
None
None
None
None

Penalty

$500
$500

$100

$750
$100

$250

$450

$250

$350

$1,800

$100

Item 2 L III

$100
Item 3 L I
Item 12 L II

$500
Q. 1 2011
Q. 2 2011

3/29-30/2011
9/7-8/2011

Q. 3 2011

2/15-16/2012

Item 6 L III
None
None

Q. 4 2010
Q. 1 2011
Q. 2 2011

2/16/2011
6/23/2011
9/15/2011

$100

Item 1 No penalty
Item 12 L III

Q. 3 2011

3/9/2012

$100

Item 6 L III
Item 10 L III
Item 6 L II
MLCC

Level II

Total

$100
$100

Item 12 L III
MCCX

Level III

Quarterly

$250

$850
$100

$250

$350

$100
$100

$1,650

$200

Table 1 (continued)
Summary of the Mental Health Contract Monitoring
Quarterly Summaries and Recommended Liquidated Damages
Liquidated Damages Assessed*
TDOC
Facility

Item – Finding+

Repeat Finding

NECX
Item 2 L III

NWCX

Item 3 L III
Item 12 L III
Item 3 L II

Quarter**

Performed

Q. 3 2010

11/4/2010

Q. 1 2011
Q. 2 2011
Q. 3 2011

9/1/2011
None
None

Q. 4 2010

1/31-02/1/2011

Q. 1 2011

4/25-26/2011

Item 7 L III

Level II

Level I

$100

Total

Penalty

$100
$ 100

$100
$100

$200
$250

$250

$350

$100
Item 3 L II

Item 2 L III
Item 12 L III

Q. 2 2011
Q. 3 2011

7/5-6/2011
1/10-11/2012

Item 20 L III

$100
$100

$200

$1,000

$100
Item 3 L I
Item 6 L II

RMSI

Level III

Quarterly

$500
Q. 4 2010

3/30/2011

Item 7 L III

$250

$850

$100
Item 3 L I

Q. 1 2011

6/7/2011

Item 6 L III

$500

$600

$100
Item 3 L I
Item 7 L II

Q. 2 2011

9/1/2011

$250

$500

Item 3 L I
Item 6 L II

Q. 3 2011

10/13/2011

$250

$850
$500

Item 2 L III

$750

$100
Item 3 L I

Q. 3/4 2011

3/1/2012

$500

$600

$3,650

Table 1 (continued)
Summary of the Mental Health Contract Monitoring
Liquidated Damages Assessed*
TDOC
Facility

STSRCF

Item – Finding+
There were no
deficiencies at this
facility during the period
audited.

Repeat Finding

Quarter**

Performed

Level III

Level II

Level I

Quarterly

Total

Penalty

Q. 4 2009

2/4/2010

Item 10 L III

Q. 1 2011

2/24/2011

$100

Item 20 L III

Q. 2 2011

6/7/2011

$100

Q. 3 2011

8/4/2011

Item 20 L II
Item 1 not mentioned
Item 20 L III

Item 3 L III ( not
included but in
summary)
Item 16 L III

$250

$450

$100
Item 6 L I
Item 7 L II

TCIX

$250

$500
Q. 4 2010

1/18/2011

$250

$850

$100
$100
Item 20 L II
Item 6 L I
Item 7 L I
Item 3 L II

$250
Q. 1 2011

4/26/2011

$500
$500

$1,450

$500

$850

$250

Item 10 L III

$100
Item 7 L I

Q. 2 2011

8/2/2011

Item 1 no assessment
Item 2 L III
Item 6 L III indicated
repeat

$100
$100
Item 3 L I
Item 7 L II
(changed
from L I to
L II)

$500
$250

Q. 3 2011

3/19/2012

$950

$4,100

Table 1 (continued)
Summary of the Mental Health Contract Monitoring
Liquidated Damages Assessed*
TDOC
Facility
TPFW

Item – Finding+
Item 3 L III
Item 12 L III

Repeat Finding

Quarter**

Performed

Level III
$100
$100

Level II

Level I

Quarterly

Total

Penalty

Q. 4 2010

1/18/2011

Q. 1 2011

4/5/2011

No Deficiencies

Q. 2 2011

7/3/2011

Item 2 L III

Q. 3 2011

10/4/2011

$100

1/4/2012

$100

Item 12 L II

Item 12 L III
Item 1 no assessment
Item 10 L III
Q. 4 2010

$250
$250

2/2-3/2011

Item 16 L III

$650

$600

$100
Item 3 L I
Item 10 L II
Item 12 L I
Item 3 L I
Item 10 L II
Item 16 L II

Item 2 L III
Item 12 L III

$250

$100
Item 3 L II
Item 12 L II

WTSP

$200
$250

$500
$250
Q. 1 2011

4/27-28/2011

Q. 2 2011

7/7-8/2011

Q. 3 2011

2/22-23/2012

$500
$500
$250
$250
$100
$100

* Liquidated Damages:
Level III = $100
Level II = $250
Level I = $500
** Quarterly Monitoring is performed on a calendar year basis (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December).
+ See Table 2 for description of the contract requirement for this item.

$1,350

$1,000
$200

$3,150

Table 2
Mental Health Contract Monitoring
January 2011 Through March 2012
Repeat Findings
Item Number

Item 2
DSNF
Item 3
MCCX
NWCX
RMSI
TCIX
WTSP

Item 6
DSNF
MCCX
RMSI
TCIX

Level III

Level II

Level I

Item 7
RMSI
TCIX

Item 10
WTSP

Totals

Contract Requirement

Common Issues for Noncompliance

At least 100% of the time, the psychiatrists/APNs
(Advanced Practice Nurse) respond to emergency
inquiries within one hour.

Emergency phone call not returned
within the required one-hour time frame.

At least 100% of psychiatrists/APNs providing emergency
phone consultation will see patients within a 72-hour
period from the time of the original phone order. All
applicable sections of CR-3082 will be completed by the
psychiatrist/APN. All verbal orders by the
psychiatrist/APN are documented on CR-1892 in
accordance with TDOC Policy 113.50, Health Records.

Authorization by ordering practitioner
was unsigned and/or undated.
Form CR-3082 - Documentation of
Verbal Orders missing in inmate's file.
Telephone order unsigned and/or
undated.

At least 95% of all patients warranting a treatment plan
will have a plan reviewed, signed, and dated by the
psychiatrist/APN. Any applicable diagnosis will have
been assigned to each patient. Treatment plans are
updated as needed but no less than every six months.
Rationale for continued treatment is clearly documented.

Treatment plan expired, not in inmate
medical file, not updated, or not
developed in timely manner.

At least 95% of Medication Information Fact Sheets and
Informed Consent Forms are completed prior to providing
an inmate psychotropic medication in accordance with
federal regulations and department policy.
At least 95% of patients prescribed psychotropic
medications will have met directly with a psychiatrist or
APN every 90 days.

Inmate's file missing Medication Fact
Sheet and/or Informed Consent Form.
Inmate has not been seen by the
Contractor psychiatrist or APN.

Table 2 (continued)
Mental Health Contract Monitoring
January 2011 Through March 2012
Repeat Findings
Item Number

Item 12
MCCX
TPFW
WTSP

Level III

Level II

Item 16
WTSP
Item 20
TCIX
DSNF
STSRCF

Level I

Totals

3
23

1
15

Totals

Contract Requirement

The psychologist at each facility will provide individual
counseling, when clinically appropriate. Each file will
contain current treatment plans. Any applicable diagnosis
will have been assigned to each patient. Rationale for
continued treatment is clearly documented. Discharge
summaries will be available for those clients no longer
receiving services. If the psychologist/psychological
examiner provides group services to inmates, TDOC Form
CR-3491 Programmatic/Daily/Weekly/Monthly Group
Summary Form will be used to document such services.

Inmate's file did not contain a current
treatment plan.

At least 95% of the time, a psychologist/psychiatrist/APN
personally interviews all inmates placed in segregation
status within 30 days of initial placement. At least every
90 days thereafter, this screening is performed by a
licensed mental health professional. (Use CR-2629 for
documentation purposes.)

Segregation placements’ 30-day
assessments performed by the
psychologist exceeded the timeline.

At least 95% of the time, the most current mental health
diagnosis is listed on CR-1894, Major Medical Conditions
Problem List.

Mental health diagnosis listed on
treatment plan but missing on Form CR1894.

4
38

Common Issues for Noncompliance

The contract monitoring instrument states that the mental health contract requirements
are monitored quarterly (every three months). When the time period between monitoring goes as
long as 5 to 12 months, contract noncompliance goes unnoticed, contracted services may not be
provided to the inmates, and the department has not complied with its own policy and standards.

Recommendation
The department should consider some modification to the assessment of liquidated
damages. If a contractor noncompliance is consistently evaluated as a repeat finding, the
department should consider increasing the penalty. The increase in monetary punishment might
serve as an incentive for contractors to become compliant with the contract requirement(s) more
quickly.
The department also should reevaluate the practice of lowering the level of penalty when
a contractor is consistently noncompliant for a given contract requirement (i.e., consider past
occurrences of repeat findings such as noncompliance-compliance-noncompliance).
The Director of Clinical Services should develop a tracking mechanism that includes
reviewing the “Summary and Recommendations” of prior contract monitoring to ensure that
repeat finding liquidated damage penalties are not lowered in error during the review process.

Management’s Comment
We concur. Effective January 1, 2012, the department implemented a new mental health
contract that is more comprehensive and provides the services we believe will adequately serve
the mental health needs of the inmate population. In this new contract, the liquidated damages
have been significantly increased to add the incentive for the contractor to respond to all audit
findings in a timely manner to ensure continuity of care. The TDOC Clinical Services Division
has also developed a monitoring process which included the assessment and review of all audit
findings that justify liquidated damages being assessed to the contractor. All audit findings will
now be reviewed by the Director of Mental Health Services based on the new mental health
contract and its liquidated damages assessment procedures. The final approval for liquidated
damages will be the responsibility of the Clinical Services Director. We believe this new process
will provide the oversight needed to ensure all TDOC inmates have access to adequate mental
health services.
These changes are effective immediately.

2. Because Department of Correction facilities and the Tennessee Correction Academy fail
to properly document the return of state-issued property, including uniforms, badges,
IDs, and keys, when employees leave department employment, neither the facilities nor
the academy could provide adequate proof that exiting employees returned state-issued
property, increasing the security risk of abuse of the items
Finding
Four of the 11 department facilities and the Tennessee Correction Academy do not
document whether exiting employees return state-issued property when leaving department
employment. In addition, there is a lack of consistency and uniformity in carrying out the
requirements of the related policies. Serious security risks could potentially occur when stateissued property items such as correctional officer uniforms, picture IDs, and TDOC badges are
not returned by exiting employees.
According to department Policies 506.23, “Provisions and Maintenance of Security
Uniforms,” and 506.24, “Provisions and Maintenance of Non-Security Uniforms,” Section VI E,
certain items must be returned to the department within 72 hours of an employee’s last day of
work. The Payroll Deduction Authorization, Form CR-3578, must accompany returned clothing
(uniforms). Form CR-3578, which is to be signed by the employee, allows the Department of
Correction to deduct the cost of items not returned within 72 hours from the employee’s last
paycheck. Proper documentation of items issued to employees should include the Form CR3578, Receipt of Issued Provisions (a list of items that were issued to the employee), and the
Uniform Replacement Request form (uniform items issued to replace original uniform items).
Instead of listing the items on Form CR-3578, most facilities attach the Receipt of Issued
Provisions form, which includes a list of uniform items that were issued to the individual and the
cost of the items, to the Form CR-3578. The Receipt of Issued Provisions form also has a
column to fill in the date that the item(s) are returned and states at the bottom of the form,
“Support for CR-3578 – Payroll Deduction Authorization.” Five facilities (Northeast
Correctional Complex, Northwest Correctional Complex, Turney Center Industrial Complex,
Tennessee Prison for Women, and West Tennessee State Penitentiary) have developed an inhouse checklist of items returned by exiting employees.
Review Methodology
The auditors requested from the Central Office’s Human Resource staff a list of all
employees who left department employment during calendar year 2011. From a list of 1,009
employees, the auditors selected a random sample of 50 employees. (This is not a statistical
sample and results are not projected to the entire population.) We reviewed 48 of the 50
employee files located at the Tennessee Department of Human Resources (two of the employee
records were not available because the appointment was canceled before the individual actually
started work with the Department of Correction). We also communicated with Human Resource
staff at the 11 correctional facilities and at the academy to determine whether the entities had exit
procedures in place whenever an employee was leaving department employment. The auditor
was interested in knowing whether each facility and the academy maintained a list of state

property issued to the employee and a list of state-issued property returned when leaving
employment. The auditor also wanted to determine whether the department held the employee’s
last paycheck to cover the cost of state-issued property that was not returned. According to the
department Payroll Officer in the Central Office, the Department of Correction cannot hold an
employee’s last paycheck. However, the department can send a deduction letter along with a
copy of the signed property form and have the amounts deducted from the employee’s last check
if the information is available in time.
Results of Review
Table 3 summarizes the results of the audit file and document review. Auditors’ review
found that four of the facilities and the academy do not document the items that are returned by
an employee leaving department employment. Six facilities maintain documentation of stateissued property that exiting employees returned to the facility: Charles B. Bass Correctional
Complex, Northeast Correctional Complex, Northwest Correctional Complex, Turney Center
Industrial Complex, Tennessee Prison for Women, and West Tennessee State Penitentiary. Four
of the facilities and the Tennessee Correction Academy did not maintain any documentation of
state-issued property returned by exiting employees. One facility (DeBerry Special Needs
Facility) could not provide any of the requested information concerning state-issued property
returned by exiting employees. Without documentation of what the employee did or did not
return, the department is not able to deduct the cost of items not returned from the employee’s
last paycheck.
Department Policies 506.23 and 506.24 and Tennessee Correction Academy Policy
506.23.01 require exiting employees to return state-issued security and non-security uniforms.
The information submitted by the 11 facilities and the academy revealed a lack of consistency in
carrying out the requirements of the policies. For example, among the 12 facilities, the exiting
employee returns the state-issued property to 6 different individuals or sections.
CR-3578 forms are kept either in the employees’ personnel files or payroll files while
they are employed at the facility; the academy does not use Form CR-3578 to document the
items issued to employees and does not have a document to list items returned when leaving
TDOC employment.
The lack of uniformity contributes to the inconsistency of documenting the property
issued when the individual is hired and documenting the property returned when an employee
separates from department employment. The lack of documentation of state property being
returned reduces the department’s opportunity to recover the cost of property not returned and
creates a serious security risk that the items (particularly uniforms, IDs, badges, and keys) could
be used improperly after a person leaves Department of Correction employment.

Recommendation
Serious security risks could potentially occur when state-issued property items such as
correctional officer uniforms, picture IDs, and TDOC badges are not returned by the exiting

employee. The Commissioner should ensure that the department develops a standard procedure
for receiving state-issued property from exiting department employees. The procedure should
become the uniform procedure for all state-run facilities and the Tennessee Correction Academy.
The procedure should have a consistent location for keeping the Form CR-3578 and supporting
documentation during the individual’s employment at the facility, specific individuals
responsible for receiving property from the exiting employee, and uniform documentation of the
property received from the exiting employee. The department should consider using Form CR3578 and the Receipt of Issued Provisions form as the documentation that the exiting employee
has returned all state property assigned during employment with the department. The Receipt of
Issued Provisions form, attached to Form CR-3578, could serve as a listing of items issued and
also document the items that are returned.

Management’s Comment
We concur. In an effort to ensure appropriate property maintenance, the department is
developing a standardized checklist that will include all state-issued property and identification
to be completed when an employee departs the agency. This checklist will be designated as
mandatory, shall be used by all Human Resources (HR) staff in TDOC, and is to be fully
completed prior to the employee’s last work day. The HR staff will have a consistent location
for all appropriate forms and supporting documentation at each facility.
The implementation date is October 1, 2012; field notification will precede the
implementation.

Table 3
Documentation of State Property Issued and Returned
State Property Issued
Facility

CR-3578

CBCX
DSNF

MCCX
MLCC
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
STSRCF
TCA
TCIX
TPFW
WTSP

CR-3578
RIP*
X

State Property Returned
CR-3578

CR-3578
RIP*

X
X

X
X^

X
X
X

X
Does not
document
X

KEY

No
Document

X
No Doc
Provided

X
*
^

In-House
Checklist

X
X

X
X
Receipt of Issued Provisions
NWCX has developed an in-house property return checklist but uses the Uniform Replacement Request

X
X
X

CBCX – Charles Bass Correctional Complex
STSRCF – Southeastern TN State Regional Correctional Facility
DSNF – DeBerry Special Needs Facility
TCA – Tennessee Correction Academy
MCCX – Morgan County Correctional Complex TCIX – Turney Center Industrial Complex
MLCC – Mark Luttrell Correctional Center
TPFW – Tennessee Prison For Women
NECX – Northeast Correctional Complex
WTSP – West Tennessee State Penitentiary
NWCX – Northwest Correctional Complex
RMSI – Riverbend Maximum Security Institution

3. Management has again not mitigated the risks associated with information systems
security, which increases the risk of fraudulent activity
Finding
Our testwork revealed that the department’s staff did not always follow the Management
Information Services Procedures Manual, resulting in an increased risk of fraudulent activity.
The department’s various information systems contain extensive inmate and employee data.
This is a repeat finding from the Division of State Audit’s Financial and Compliance Audit
released in 2009.
The wording of this finding does not identify the specific vulnerability that could allow
someone to exploit the department’s systems. Disclosing this vulnerability could present a
potential security risk by providing readers with information that might be confidential pursuant
to Section 10-7-504(i), Tennessee Code Annotated. We provided the department with detailed
information regarding the specific vulnerability we identified as well as our recommendations for
improvement.

Recommendation
The Commissioner should ensure that department staff are informed of the requirements
of the department’s Management Information Services Procedures Manual. The Commissioner
also needs to identify staff to be responsible for ongoing monitoring for compliance with the
Management Information Services Procedure Manual to ensure the manual is followed by
department staff. Management should include the risks noted in this finding in management’s
documented risk assessment.
The Commissioner should also continue to ensure that other risks of improper
accountability, noncompliance, fraud, waste, or abuse are adequately identified and assessed in
management’s documented risk assessment. Management should implement effective controls
to ensure compliance with applicable requirements, should assign staff to be responsible for
ongoing monitoring of the risks and mitigating controls, and should take action if deficiencies
occur. The risk assessment and the mitigating controls should be adequately documented and
approved by the Commissioner.

Management’s Comment
We concur. In an effort to mitigate the risks identified, the department is developing
procedures to address those risks. The procedures will be designed as mandatory. The
Compliance Division is responsible for monitoring the procedure and will ensure it is followed
by department staff.

The implementation date is October 1, 2012; field notification will precede the
implementation.

4. The department and its contractors do not always follow Inmate Trust Fund Account
policies, increasing the risk that these trust funds will be subject to fraud, waste, and
abuse
Finding
Policy 208.01, “Inmate Trust Fund Accounts,” revised as of June 15, 2011, addresses
these accounts. The purpose of the Inmate Trust Fund Accounts is to establish a cashless inmate
economy through the use of an inmate trust fund. Auditors’ review of Inmate Trust Fund
Account documentation found several instances of noncompliance with the policy, as well as
additional areas of concern. Taken individually, these noncompliances and areas of concern
appear relatively minor; however, these are trust funds with fiduciary obligations. Taken as a
whole, they raise questions about the internal controls over these accounts and the potential for
problems.
To determine whether institutions were following departmental policy, we chose to visit
and review documentation from one state-operated facility in each of the state’s grand
divisions—Morgan County Correctional Complex (East), Charles Bass Correctional Complex
(Middle), and Mark Luttrell Correctional Center (West)—and one facility that is privately
operated, Whiteville Correctional Facility (Corrections Corporation of America). At each
facility, we obtained a current list of inmates who had a trust fund account and randomly chose
ten inmates from each list. (Populations at the four facilities at the time of our review were as
follows: Morgan County, 2,062; Charles Bass, 575; Mark Luttrell, 434; and Whiteville, 1,456.)
Areas of concern identified are detailed below.
Some Personal Withdrawal Requests and Commissary Requests Were Not Signed by Inmates
For each of the 40 inmates included in the random sample, we reviewed a month’s
activity (e.g., deductions such as personal withdrawal requests or commissary requests, and
deposits) in their trust fund accounts. (The sample was not a statistical sample and the results are
not projected to the entire population.) For 6 of the 40 inmates, we found instances where the
inmate did not sign the Personal Withdrawal Request and/or Commissary Signature
Form/Commissary Pick List (CBCX, 3; MLCC, 2; and WCFA, 1). The institutional trust fund
coordinator deducted the money from the inmate’s account without the inmate’s signature
authorizing the deduction. The signature requirement serves as documentation that the inmate
acknowledges receiving the items ordered and agrees with the amount to be deducted from his or
her trust fund account in accordance with Policy 209.04 VI.E (9).
Withdrawals from the Inmate Trust Fund Account, other than those mandated by statute
or policy, are to be requested in writing by the inmate. The inmate uses Form CR-2727, Personal
Withdrawal Request; Forms CR-2128 and CR-3344, Commissary Order, or an acceptable

alternative developed by the institution. The personal withdrawal request must be forwarded to
the trust fund custodian after being signed (not stamped) by a witness and the warden or
designee. After processing, the original request form must be returned to the inmate. A copy of
the request will be maintained in the trust fund office, whether the request is approved or denied.
Departmental Policy 209.02 VI. M states that the inmate must verify the commissary order prior
to signing the commissary order form indicating acceptance of goods.
Charles Bass Correctional Complex had one Personal Withdrawal Request for medical
expenses that was not signed by the inmate and also had three commissary orders that were
delivered but not signed for by the inmate. Mark Luttrell Correctional Center had three
commissary orders that were delivered but not signed for by the inmate. Whiteville Correctional
Facility also had one instance where commissary items were delivered but not signed for by the
inmate.
Two State-Operated Institutions Failed to Report All Inmate Savings Accounts to the Director of
Budget and Fiscal Services to Accurately Determine Inmate Financial Assets in Accordance
With Policy and Statute
Policy 208.01, “Inmate Trust Fund Accounts,” requires the warden to report inmate
savings and investment accounts that are equal to or greater than $2,000 to the Director of
Budget and Fiscal Services for the director’s review as to the inmate’s potential to contribute
towards the cost of his/her care in accordance with Sections 41-21-901 through 911, Tennessee
Code Annotated, “Inmate Financial Responsibility Act of 1998.” Morgan County Correctional
Complex had one inmate investment account with a current value of $4,651.27 as of March 21,
2012, that had not been reported to the Director of Budget and Fiscal Services. Charles Bass
Correctional Complex provided auditors documentation that there were five inmates with
savings account balances equal to or over $2,000. However, the Director of Budget and Fiscal
Services stated that she had only received documentation for four of the five accounts.
According to Policy 208.01, the Central Trust Fund Administration is required to conduct
an annual review during the third quarter of each fiscal year of each inmate’s trust fund account.
In addition to the inmate’s trust fund balance, the review is also to include information
concerning the inmate’s savings/investment accounts to determine the possibility that sufficient
assets may exist to allow the state to recover at least 10% of the estimated cost of the inmate’s
care for a two-year period. The Director of Budget and Fiscal Services is to forward an Inmate
Financial Status Report, CR-3561, to the fiscal officer of the appropriate institution with
directions for completion. The director must prepare a memorandum detailing the results of the
trust fund account review and forward it, along with the CR-3561, to the Deputy Commissioner
of Administration, who must then forward the Inmate Financial Status Report, CR-3561, and the
results of any investigation to the department’s General Counsel. The General Counsel then
submits the report to the State Attorney General’s Office to take action to recover inmate cost of
incarceration as required by Sections 41-21-901 through 911, Tennessee Code Annotated.
Department staff stated that the information is forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office, but
the department does not receive a response concerning the collection of money from the inmate’s
trust fund.

The most current Inmate Financial Status Report, CR-3561, includes trust fund balances
as of December 28, 2011. According to policy, this review is to be performed annually during
the third quarter of each fiscal year (January-March). The auditor requested copies of the annual
review from management, but copies prior to December 28, 2011, could not be located. Thus the
auditor’s conclusion is that the reports prior to December 28, 2011 were not being prepared as
required by policy and statute.
Whiteville Correctional Facility Did Not Prepare the Inmate Trust Fund Account Interest
Quarterly Report in Accordance With Policy Guidelines
The Inmate Trust Fund Account Interest Quarterly Report is required to be completed by
the tenth day of the month following the end of the quarter. Whiteville Correctional Facility was
late preparing the first quarter report for fiscal year 2012 by 59 days (October 10th to December
8th).
An Inmate Receipt Had an Incorrect TOMIS Identification Number
Policy 208.01 VI.A states that when a check, warrant, or money order is received for an
inmate, the mailroom staff will write a receipt. A copy of the receipt will be given to the inmate
at the time of receipt (unless the check is to be verified according to policy); a copy of the receipt
will also be sent to the business office along with the check, warrant, or money order; and a copy
will remain in the receipt book in the mailroom. We reviewed the receipt books at the four
facilities for the month of February 2012. The auditor reviewed documents of ten inmates at
Mark Luttrell Correctional Center and identified one receipt that had an incorrect Tennessee
Offender Management Information System (TOMIS) identification number. The fund manager
was able to provide proof that the money was posted to the correct Inmate Trust Fund Account.
However, the receipt was dated February 27, 2012, but not posted into the inmate’s Inmate Trust
Fund Account until March 2, 2012.

Recommendation
The Commissioner should take steps to see that the issues noted in this finding are
corrected. For example, the department should provide institutional training concerning
compliance with the policy that requires inmates to sign Personal Withdrawal Requests and the
Commissary Signature Form/Commissary Pick Form. If an inmate does not sign for the
commissary items delivered, the inmate should not receive the order. Supervisors should
regularly review forms to ensure compliance with departmental policy.
The department should track inmate savings/investment accounts and require that all
wardens submit the Inmate Financial Status Report in accordance with Policy 208.01, “Inmate
Trust Fund Account.” The policy also requires that the Director of Budget and Financial
Services submit an annual report to the Commissioner listing the amount of money recovered.
The department needs to develop procedures to ensure compliance with policy and statute.

The department should require Corrections Corporation of America management to
follow the requirements in Policy 208.01 relating to the quarterly Inmate Trust Fund Account
interest statement.

Management’s Comment
(a) Some Personal Withdrawal Requests and Commissary Requests Were Not Signed by
Inmates.
We concur. We will instruct and train the facilities staff to enforce current policy by
informing all inmates that personal withdrawal request forms and commissary order forms will
not be processed without the inmate’s signature and TDOC number on the form. Additional
training will be conducted as needed during monthly statewide conference calls with fiscal
officers at each facility.
(b) Two State-Operated Institutions Failed to Report All Inmate Savings Accounts to the
Director of Budget and Fiscal Services to Accurately Determine Inmate Financial
Assets in Accordance with Policy and Statute.
We concur. The Fiscal Director at each TDOC facility and the Business Manager at the
privately operated facilities will ensure that existing policy guidelines are followed and adhered
to. We are currently reviewing all policies and will initiate PCNs to reduce the risk and fraud
factors. Budget and Fiscal Services conducts annual statewide training on fiscal updates and
policy and procedure. Additional training will be conducted as needed during monthly statewide
conference calls with fiscal officers at each facility. Upon receipt of the savings account
information from the facilities, the Director of Budget and Fiscal will complete the Inmate
Financial Status Report, CR3561 Services in the third quarter of each fiscal year as required.
These changes are effective immediately.
(c) Whiteville Correctional Facility Did Not Prepare the Inmate Trust Fund Interest
Account Quarterly Report in Accordance With Policy.
We concur. The Business Managers at the privately operated facilities will be notified
and trained to ensure that existing policy guidelines are followed and adhered to. This policy
requirement will be added to the annual inspection instrument to allow monitoring and oversight
of the privately operated facilities by the compliance section. Training will be conducted as
needed during monthly statewide conference calls with fiscal officers at each facility.
(d) An Inmate Receipt Had an Incorrect TOMIS Identification Number.
We concur. The wrong inmate number was mistakenly entered on the receipt. The
mistake was rectified, and the money was placed into the correct account. Incidents such as this
are rare. Current policy and procedures such as internal audits and annual inspections of the

receipt books have proven effective in preventing these types of errors. Institutional staff will be
trained on policy to ensure that all receipts are correct and filled out in their entirety.

5. The department needs to clarify its policy on how it reports incidents occurring in the
state’s prisons, and should ensure that incident statistics provided to the public and
policy makers are sufficiently explained
Finding
Incident reports are used by the department to record certain incidents (e.g., confiscation
of contraband, violent activities) that occur in Department of Correction (TDOC) facilities.
Incident numbers are reported in statistical and performance measures reports that are used to
inform the public and the legislature about the conditions present in Tennessee prisons and are
used to aid department management and policy makers in making decisions. Auditors reviewed
Policy 103.02, which provides guidance on incident reporting; tested a sample of incident
reports; interviewed department staff regarding incident reporting; and reviewed statistical and
performance measures reports containing incident statistics. Our review raised concerns that (1)
the language in the policy is not clear, which could lead to misunderstandings and
inconsistencies in how and when incidents are reported and (2) that members of the public and
policy makers reviewing incident statistics may need additional explanation to understand what
these statistics mean and how they were calculated.
Incident reports that department staff enter into the Tennessee Offender Management
Information System (TOMIS) contain an incident code and a brief narrative describing the event.
TDOC Policy 103.02 states that incidents such as visitor arrest, drug confiscation, contraband,
etc., which may be part of another incident, such as a vehicle search or institutional shakedown,
should be entered as separate incidents in addition to the precipitating incident (i.e., the search).
Additionally, any and all weapons found on institutional property or confiscated from an inmate,
visitor, etc., should be entered as a separate incident.
Auditors interpreted this policy to mean that all incidents should be reported. We
selected a sample of incident reports that were recorded in TOMIS during fiscal year 2011. (The
sample, chosen by randomly selecting 10 days in fiscal year 2011 and 10 of the 14 facilities, is
not a statistical sample and the results are not projected to the entire population.) Our tests
revealed that, of the 135 incident reports tested, 10 incident reports (7.4%) listed multiple
incidents that had occurred and not been reported separately. Our interpretation of Policy 103.02
led us to believe that the department may have been understating the number of incidents.
However, the department interprets the policy to mean that a single incident may include several
infractions, but each infraction is not counted as an incident. For example, an inmate may get
into a fight with his cell mate and upon searching the cell; the officer finds a weapon, drugs, cell
phone, etc. In this scenario, only one concern (fight, weapon, drugs, or cell phone) would be
recorded as an incident but a disciplinary may be given for each infraction. According to
management, if each infraction was recorded as an incident then the number of incidents would
35

be overstated. We understand the department’s perspective regarding the need to not overstate
incidents; however, our audit work did raise concerns that all department staff might not be
interpreting the policy in the same way, leading to inconsistent reporting of incidents. Further,
the general public and policy makers reviewing statistics prepared based on these incident
reports may be confused regarding how an “incident” is defined.
TDOC’s fiscal year 2011 Statistical Abstract report indicates that 16,221 incidents
occurred in Tennessee prisons during 2011; 1,763 of those incidents were related to violence.
Examples of reported incidents include: contraband, cell phone possession, drug confiscation,
and injuries. Violence-related incidents include: assault, arson, death, escape, self-inflicted
injury, rape, suicide, hostage situations, and riot. Because of the nature of these incidents, it is
imperative that the data are reported correctly in reports used by the public and policy makers,
and that the statistics reported include sufficient explanation for readers to understand how these
statistics were calculated (e.g., explaining that each incident may include multiple infractions,
with multiple people involved).

Recommendation
The department should revise and clarify Policy 103.02 to ensure that all department
staff, the general public, and legislators understand the intent of the policy and that correctional
officers consistently identify and report all incidents. In its statistical and performance reports
used by the public and by policy makers, the department should include an explanation of how
the numbers are calculated (e.g., informing readers that an incident may include several
infractions.) All incidents should be recorded in TOMIS, regardless of whether a disciplinary
offense is assigned or warranted, to provide a complete and clear picture of institutional
conditions.

Management’s Comment
We concur. The incident policy is currently under review. Revisions will be made, and
the language and procedures in policy will be clarified and implemented in order to promptly
address this issue. Institutional staff will be notified once the revisions are made and
implemented. The revisions will be added to the annual inspection instrument to allow
continued monitoring and oversight by the compliance section.
The implementation date is October 1, 2012; field notification will precede the
implementation.

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

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

The Department Conducts Extensive Monitoring of CCA’s Compliance With Its Contracts
to Manage the Three Facilities; However, the Department Could Improve Monitoring
Procedures, Including Documenting Management Review and Formatting Reports to
Permit Better Analysis of Noncompliance Issues
According to Section 41-24-109, Tennessee Code Annotated, the Department of
Correction (TDOC) monitors contractors with contracts to provide correctional services. The
largest contracts for correctional services are with Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a
private corrections management firm that manages South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF)
in Wayne County, and Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCFA) and Hardeman County
Correctional Facility (HCCF) in Hardeman County. The contract maximum liability amounts
were as follows: $127,135,800 for SCCF (FY 2008 - FY 2012); $154,878,716 for WCFA (FY
2012 – FY 2016); and $36,898,292 for HCCF (FY 2011). Auditors identified several concerns
regarding the department’s monitoring process of the CCA facilities, as well as concerns
regarding documentation of review by department management.
The department issued Administrative Policies and Procedures Policy 205.02, which
establishes procedures for monitoring contracts to ensure that contract requirements are being
met. They include employing a full-time, on-site contract monitor at each CCA facility who is
responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance. The monitoring includes observing and
reporting on the day-to-day operational performance of the contractor regarding compliance with
all terms and conditions of the contract. There are 36 Contract Monitoring Instruments used by
the on-site monitors and completed either on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis, that
assess the entire operation of each facility. Each month, the results of the monitoring
instruments are compiled by the contract monitor in a spreadsheet, Summary of Non-Compliance
Notifications, and forwarded by the tenth of the following month to the department’s Central
Office Director of Contract Monitoring for review. The director is responsible for tracking
noncompliance reports for purposes of determining whether a breach of contract has occurred.
Contract Monitoring Instruments
The Contract Monitoring Instruments (CMIs) are checklists based on contract
requirements, TDOC policies, and American Correctional Association standards. For example,
the Disciplinary Procedures CMI instructs the on-site contract monitor to select a random sample
of disciplinary actions of inmates and determine if the actions are signed by the facilities

disciplinary board members. The on-site monitor completes this checklist quarterly to determine
contract compliance. The Staffing CMI, completed monthly, requires the on-site contract
monitor to check the facility’s daily shift roster and verify that critical posts were staffed.
Noncompliance Report
Each on-site contract monitor develops a monthly noncompliance report, which is sent to
the Director of Contract Monitoring. The noncompliance report is based on the results of the
monitoring instruments completed by the on-site monitor; however, policy permits the contract
monitor to report significant issues that “threaten institutional security or staff/inmate
health/safety” as No Item Number (NIN) - meaning the noncompliance is not associated with a
numbered item on a CMI.
The contractor’s response to each noncompliance issue is recorded in the report. The onsite contract monitor has 60 days to conduct a review of the noncompliance issue and is also
required to reevaluate all noncompliance items on the subsequent CMI.
Issues Identified in the Noncompliance Reports
While reviewing the contract monitor noncompliance reports for facilities operated by
CCA, a recurring issue was apparent. There were several noncompliance issues noted due to
CCA staff not entering information, not entering information in a timely manner, entering
inaccurate information, and/or entering insufficient information into the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS), the department’s system-wide source of required
inmate information. Institutions that receive inmates from the CCA facility will have inaccurate
or incomplete information if the information is not entered into TOMIS or is entered
inaccurately.
Notifications to the Contractor
According to TDOC’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Policy 205.02, the
contractor is notified of noncompliance issues by the on-site contract monitor, who forwards the
noncompliance report to the contractor, who then has ten working days to provide a written
response electronically to the monitor, describing the corrective action taken. If the issue does
not “reflect serious, dangerous, or systemic problems,” the contract monitor may communicate
noncompliances to the contractor without issuing a formal report. The Director of Contract
Monitoring in TDOC’s Central Office is responsible for notifying the contractor when a breach
of contract has occurred. A breach of contract is defined in Policy 205.02 as


Routine instrument items found non-compliant three times in any 12-month
period (for items on monthly or quarterly monitoring CMIs) or two times in any
18-month period (for items on semi-annual monitoring CMIs); or



Essential items found non-compliant may be a breach of contract regardless of the
number of times it has occurred.

Contractors advise the on-site contract monitor of actions taken to “cure the breach,” and the
contractor is given a cure period when notified of the breach. All of this is recorded by the onsite monitor in the noncompliance report.
Document Review and Interviews
Auditors reviewed the Contract Monitoring Instruments (CMIs); breach of contract letters
from the department to the facilities; liquidated damages letters; and HCCF, SCCF, and WCFA
Summary of Non-Compliance Notifications for each month of the calendar year 2011. As
required by Policy 205.02, the notifications were prepared by the on-site contract monitor and
submitted to the department’s Director of Contract Monitoring. These notifications are reported
in a spreadsheet and include a column for each of the following:


Date of Report



Outstanding Issue (Y or N)



Monitoring Instrument and Item Number



Non-Compliance Issue



Contractor Response and Corrective Action Taken



Date/Method of Confirmation by Monitor/Comments



TDOC Management Comments/Notes

Each issue is carried forward on the report until a contractor response is received and
documented, and the on-site contract monitor has verified and commented on the outcome of the
corrective action noted by the facility. For example, the SCCF contract monitor reported in the
February 2011 Summary of Non-Compliance Notifications a noncompliance item dated
2/17/2011 with the description of the noncompliance item and the facility warden’s response
dated 2/27/2011 under Contractor Response and Corrective Action Taken. That item is reported
again in the March, April, and May 2011 Summary of Non-Compliance Notifications and
indicated “Y” as an outstanding issue. In the May 2011 report, the contract monitor adds
additional information in the Date/Method of Confirmation by Monitor/Comments verifying that
the contract monitor has confirmed that the corrective action has been implemented. The issue
dated 2/17/2011 is not reported in subsequent monthly notification reports.
Auditors traced noncompliance issues to memos to facility management prepared by the
on-site contract monitor and to letters from the department’s Director of Contract Monitoring.
We found that the department has memos sent from the on-site contract monitors to the facilities
and the department has letters sent to the facilities for breach of contract, when the department
determines breach of contract is applicable.
Auditors interviewed the department’s Director of Contract Monitoring and the
department’s on-site contract monitors at each of the three Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA) facilities. The Director of Contract Monitoring reviews each report and determines if the
issues have been corrected or cured, or if a breach of contract should be issued, and whether

liquidated damages should be assessed as a result of the breach. The Director of Contract
Monitoring stated that management at the CCA facilities responds well to correcting
noncompliance issues.
It appears that the department does monitor each contract and follows through to ensure
that noncompliance issues are resolved and appropriate action is taken throughout the monitoring
process. However, we identified some weaknesses related to documentation and record-keeping.
Weaknesses in the Record-Keeping Process
The documentation provided by the department did not contain any notations, signatures,
or other documentation stating that the memos were discussed with the institutional
management. While memos were provided indicating correspondence from the institution, there
was no direct evidence documenting discussions concerning the noncompliance issues.
Although TDOC’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Policy 205.02 requires
noncompliance issues, plans of correction, and memos be reported electronically, the electronic
reports do not have any notations, management initials of review, or contractor notations that
indicate the facility, on-site contract monitor, or Director of Contract Monitoring discussed any
of the instances of noncompliance and the resulting correction.
The current reporting method using an excel spreadsheet makes it difficult for the
department to track the timeliness of corrections and to perform any trend analysis of the issues
that might identify problems prior to a breach of contract. This increases the difficulty of
effectively managing the noncompliance issues from month to month. The department should
consider developing a reporting system that would assist with trend analysis, by documenting the
amount of time spent correcting a particular noncompliance item.
The department may wish to require monthly or quarterly documented discussions with
the CCA contract monitors, or record such meetings if this is already being done. Adding this
element into the contract monitoring process could speed up the process of resolving
noncompliance issues.
The department may also wish to develop a database to more effectively track and
monitor the noncompliance issues. A database would offer more capabilities and provide for
greater ease of recording all monitoring efforts by the department. The database should include a
unique identifying number for each noncompliance issue.

Review of Contract Monitoring Processes for Medical, Rehabilitation, and Nursing
Contracts
According to Section 41-24-109, Tennessee Code Annotated, the department monitors
any contracts with contractors providing correctional services. Auditors reviewed the
department’s monitoring efforts for nine contracts covering areas such as private prisons,
rehabilitation, medical, nursing, and mental health. See Finding 1 for auditors’ review of mental
health contract monitoring and page 37 for auditors’ review of the department’s monitoring of its

contracts with Corrections Corporation of America. Our reviews of medical, rehabilitation, and
nursing contracts are detailed below; we found that, overall, the department is appropriately
monitoring these contracts. See page 43 for suggestions for some improvements the department
may wish to consider.
Corizon/Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
The largest health services contractor is Corizon/Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
(CMS). (The department’s current contract is with CMS; in June 2011, Corizon was created
from the merger of the parent companies of CMS and PHS Correctional Healthcare).
Comprehensive health services are provided at Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex,
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Tennessee Prison for Women, and Turney Center
Industrial Complex & Annex. In addition, CMS provides noncomprehensive services to the
other seven state-run institutions. CMS provides primary health care, specialty care, dental care,
emergency care, hospitalization, pharmaceutical services, staffing, and program support services.
The maximum liability for the state set forth in the CMS contract for January 1, 2010, to
December 31, 2012, is $181,404,800. The contract specifies remedies for breach of contract
including an option to terminate the contract or to assess liquidated damages for noncompliance
issues.
Auditors reviewed the department’s contract monitoring activities occurring from June
2011 to June 2012. The contract monitoring instruments record that monitoring was performed
consistently on a monthly basis and the department appears to be monitoring the CMS contract
as set forth by the current contract. The department assessed liquidated damages against CMS
for 2011 and 2012; however, because of department record-keeping methods, it was very
difficult to trace the monthly noncompliance issues back to the resulting liquidated damage
assessments. According to the Correctional Program Manager, the department used to break the
assessments down but stopped doing so for unknown reasons. When state agencies discontinue
effective controls, the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse is increased. The department should have a
documented system in place to identify situations in which management intends to discontinue or
modify existing controls and to provide independent review of the proposed changes before they
occur.
Rehabilitation Contracts
The Next Door, Inc., (TND) and Project Return, Inc., (PRI) provide services to help
offenders in custody of the Department of Correction (TDOC) successfully transition from
prison back into society. Auditors reviewed contract monitoring activities performed by
department staff from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2012, for PRI and TND. The maximum
liability for FY 2012 was $54,640 for the Next Door Tennessee Prison for Women (TPW)
contract and $438,000 for the Next Door contract to operate a female transitional facility in
Chattanooga. The maximum liability for the FY 2012 Project Return contract was $140,000.
The PRI Exodus program contract monitoring instruments recorded that all contract
sections were tested and were found to be in compliance, or were not in compliance but were
later remediated. The PRI Genesis program contract monitoring instruments recorded that PRI

was compliant for all contract sections tested in 2010. Noncompliance issues were discovered
during 2011; however, remediation could not be determined because of the program site’s
closure (Charles B. Bass Annex closed in November 2011). The Next Door instruments
recorded that contract sections were tested and in compliance at the time of contract monitor
testing, or were not in compliance but were later remediated.
We noted that the contracts for both PRI and TND do not contain a clause allowing the
Department of Correction to recover liquidated damages for breach of contract. TND and PRI
appear to be operating within the guidelines set forth by each applicable contract; however, the
lack of liquidated damages provisions could prevent the state from recovering damages for future
noncompliance issues. The only remedy offered by The Next Door and Project Return contracts
for breach allow the state to terminate the contract and withhold payments in excess of fair
compensation for completed services.
Nursing Contracts
Guardian Health Care Providers, Inc., is one of the providers of temporary nursing
services when state positions are unable to provide the level of nursing services required.
Guardian Health Care Providers, Inc., was a part of the Delegated Purchase Authority (DPA) that
was effective from July 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011. Under the DPA, department facilities were
able to hire temporary nurses to fill vacancies (e.g., when employees quit, are dismissed, or take
extended leave) from Guardian, other nursing agencies, or individual nurses in the area who were
willing to come and work for the department. This provided more opportunities for the facility
Health Service Administrator to obtain nurse staffing on an as-needed basis from a larger pool of
resources. The maximum liability of the DPA was $5,114,475.
The process for requesting temporary nursing staff and payment for the services provided
is similar at each institution:


One of the medical team staff, either the Health Service Administrator (HSA) or
Director of Nursing (DoN) at the institution calls the contractor for a nurse to fill a
vacancy.



The nurse works the shift, and the contractor includes this shift on the monthly bill.



The monthly bill is routed to the HSA or DoN to audit the bill against institution
records for shifts covered by contractor.



The audited, balanced, and approved invoice is sent to the fiscal officer (Fiscal
Director/Accounting Manager) at the institution. This is the fiscal review of the
process.



Once approved by Fiscal, the invoice is processed for payment.



Any invoice discrepancies are resolved as appropriate with the contractor by either
medical or fiscal staff at each institution.

The process is subject to an institutional audit by the annual inspection teams.

As of April 1, 2012, the department has entered into six contracts for temporary nursing
services. Guardian Health Care Providers is the primary contractor for Middle Tennessee and
the secondary contractor for East and West Tennessee. @Work Medical Services is the primary
contractor for East and West Tennessee and the secondary contractor for Middle Tennessee. The
Director of Contract Administration stated that the contract arrangement provides better pricing
but does not provide the flexibility of obtaining nursing staff that the previous DPA did.
There are three types of health service organization at the state-operated facilities.
1. Comprehensive – contract with Corizon to provide all medical services at Charles
Bass Correctional Complex, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Tennessee
Prison for Women, and Turney Center Industrial Complex.
2. State Run – DeBerry Special Needs Facility uses state employees to provide health
services.
3. Non-comprehensive – Health Service Administrator responsible for making sure the
health services are provided with a combination of Corizon employees and state
employees at the remaining state-operated correctional facilities.
According to the director, the comprehensive facilities do not have many problems with health
service vacancies and turnover. At the non-comprehensive facilities, it’s estimated that the
health service vacancy rate is around 20 percent.
The contractors Guardian Health Care Providers and @Work Medical Services are paid
only for the nursing hours provided to fill staff vacancies at the facilities not covered by Corizon.
It appears that each facility has a process in place for monitoring the accuracy of the billing for
nursing services provided before payment is made.
Conclusion
The department should consider revising future rehabilitation contracts to include
language allowing the state to recover liquidated damages. This would impose a monetary
penalty if a contractor did not fulfill its obligations, and it would also allow the department to
recover damages for noncompliance.
Auditors identified difficulties in tracing noncompliance issues back to the resulting
liquidated damages assessments. The department may wish to review its record-keeping
processes to determine whether improving the documentation and tracking methods for
monitoring contract compliance would provide a more efficient means of managing contract
compliance and ensuring that appropriate liquidated damages were assessed and collected.

The Department Has Instituted New Procedures to Address Increasing Rates of
Violence
Over the last few years, the rate of violent incidents in department institutions has
increased. However, the department has instituted multiple procedural changes in an effort to
reduce institutional violence.
In 1982, a class action lawsuit, Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F. Supp. 1053 (Middle District of
Tennessee 1982), challenged the constitutionality of certain conditions present in Tennessee
penal intuitions. The lawsuit claimed that several conditions existed in the state’s prisons that
created an atmosphere of violence: the classification system did not ensure that violence-prone
prisoners were separated from their potential victims; guards were not present, were unable, or
were unwilling to assist during a violent attack; blind spots existed in areas under surveillance;
weapons were readily available to prisoners; prisoners were subject to excessive idleness; and
the prisons were overcrowded. Remedial orders were issued by the court, and Tennessee’s
supervisory control over the state’s prisons was removed.
In 1993, the court’s remedial objectives were evaluated. It was determined that the
conditions outlined in the Grubbs v Bradley 1982 lawsuit had sufficiently improved to return
supervisory control of the penal institutions back to the State of Tennessee.
Currently, inmates are classified upon entering a TDOC receiving institution to determine
their history of violence, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) status, and security threat group
(STG) affiliation, to determine proper housing. Inmates are selected for single or double
occupancy depending upon their initial assessment. All new-admission inmates are initially
single-celled for safety purposes. Inmates under sentence of death are housed in single cells and
segregated from the remainder of the inmate population. Inmates are assessed to determine if
they are potential sexual predators or victims. Inmates under administrative segregation
(considered to be a threat to the institution, staff, or other inmates) are placed in a single-cell
maximum-security unit. Under most circumstances, close-custody inmates are not double-celled
with lower custody inmates. Under a new department initiative, however, certain inmates have
been selected to be placed into housing units containing inmates with lower custody levels.
Security Threat Group (STG) assessments are performed to identify STG members
during initial classification. Those in protective custody or those who are part of a security threat
group are placed in segregated housing facilities away from the remainder of the inmate
population.
In addition to the classification system, TDOC uses several methods to discourage
conditions of violence in Tennessee prisons. Mail may be screened for violent and STG group
communications. Inmates committing violent acts are punished according to the severity of the
crime. Punishment may include the assessment of a fee and/or the loss of visitation, revocation
of sentence credits, punitive segregation, and restriction of special privileges. Additional
penalties may be imposed if the assault was inflicted on an employee, visitor, or volunteer.
Inmates who commit assault may be subject to an additional two to five years on their sentence
if the assault results in injury to a person that requires medical attention.

All employees are instructed by TDOC in the prevention, detection, response, reporting,
and investigation of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual assault. Inmates receive
written and verbal education on the prevention, self-protection, reporting, and treatment of
sexual assault. Inmates are rescreened as predators or potential victims annually, after being
found guilty of sexual assault, or at the discretion of the warden. Male inmates identified as
predators may be placed into the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) program at Southeastern
Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility. Allegations of sexual assault are reported to the
institutional investigator, and alleged aggressors involved in reported incidents are segregated
from the victims.
A security threat group includes any group, organization, or association of three or more
individuals who possess common characteristics which serve to distinguish them from other
individuals or groups who have been determined to be acting in concert, so as to pose a threat or
potential threat to staff, other inmates, the institution, or the community. Inmates are identified
as possible STG members during the initial classification process and through continuous
monitoring of the population. Inmates may be identified through observation of certain
identifiers including self-admission, tattoos, mail, use of symbols, possession of or participation
in STG documents and publications, and correspondence or interaction with other STG
members.
Inmates who are designated as STG members may be assigned to an STG phase program
unit or an STG housing unit. An STG phase program unit is designated to house confirmed STG
members who may pose a threat to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of institutions, as well
as those inmates who wish to volunteer to renounce their STG affiliation while they participate
in the STG phase program. The three-phase behavior modification program uses cognitive
behavior modules designed to sever the inmate’s dependence on the STG. A housing unit inside
the secure perimeter of the institution is used for the placement of confirmed STG members in
order to separate them from the non-STG population. These units differ from the STG phase
program unit in that inmates may be assigned to jobs or programs outside of the unit.
According to the STG Coordinator, TDOC is implementing changes to the STG program
to move toward a new therapeutic community model with STG-specific treatment programming.
Policies are currently being written to reflect the developing changes to the STG program.
The per capita rate of institutional violence is illustrated in the table below:
Violent Incident Rate
Violent Incident Rate
Average Population
Violent Incidents
Rate per 100

FY 2007
19,116
1,041
5.45

All Institutions
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
19,174
19,179
19,708
1,280
1,643
1,597
6.68
8.57
8.10

FY 2011
19,978
1,763
8.82

To reduce institutional violence, and in an effort to comply with its mission, “To operate
safe and secure prisons,” TDOC instituted changes in correctional facility procedures in cell

inspections, inmate property guidelines, and inmate movement during fiscal year 2012. Cell
inspections, previously performed periodically, are now performed daily Monday through Friday
by a senior staff member to enable correctional officers to find hidden weapons more effectively.
Inmates stand at attention and do not speak during cell inspection.
Inmate property guidelines have been reinforced. According to the Warden of the
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex, the amount of property inmates were allowed to have in
the cells was too excessive and disorderly. Now, according to policy, items in the personal
possession of an inmate shall not occupy more than six cubic feet. Diagrams have been placed
outside each cell to indicate proper cell organization.
Inmates walk in single file when moving throughout the facilities to attend class,
programs, jobs, meals and recreation. According to the Deputy Commissioner of Operations,
inmates who walk in single file are less likely to commit violent acts. The improved visibility
enables correctional officers to spot violent incidents that were previously hidden by prisoners
walking in unorganized crowds. Inmates’ hands remain visible and out of their pockets, and all
movement is escorted by a correctional officer.
Incident reports are used by the department to record certain incidents that occur in
TDOC facilities. The numbers of incidents are reported in statistical and performance measures
reports that are used to inform the public and the legislature about the conditions present in
Tennessee prisons and are used to aid management in making departmental decisions. Examples
of these incidents include contraband, cell phone possession, drug confiscation, and injuries.
Violence-related incidents include assault, arson, death, escape, self-inflicted injury, rape,
suicide, hostage situations, and riot.
The department should closely monitor the per capita institutional rate of violence to
determine if the procedural changes in cell inspections, inmate property guidelines, and inmate
movement have been effective in reducing violence by creating an atmosphere of safety and
security in the Tennessee state prisons. The safety initiatives were implemented throughout
fiscal year 2012.

Contraband in Department Facilities
Department of Correction (TDOC) policies define contraband as any item that is not
permitted by law or is expressly prohibited by TDOC or institutional policy. According to
Section 39-16-201, Tennessee Code Annotated, it is unlawful to possess or to introduce weapons,
ammunition, explosives, intoxicants, controlled substances, and telecommunication devices into
a Tennessee penal institution where prisoners are quartered.
Examples of contraband include weapons, alcohol, controlled substances, cash, cell
phones, tobacco, or other items designated as contraband by the Commissioner. Allowable
personal property, which is not considered contraband, includes certain clothing, jewelry, linens,
grooming accessories, reading and writing materials, appliances, and other approved
miscellaneous items.

TDOC uses several methods to prevent the introduction of contraband into its facilities.
Incoming inmate mail is read, documented, and inspected by TDOC staff. Inmates are searched
when received into custody. Inmates, visitors, and employees are frisk searched and must pass
through a metal detector when entering the institutions. As of 2012, TDOC has placed body
orifice security scanners (B.O.S.S. chairs) in all institutions (excluding the Mark H. Luttrell
Correctional Center) to improve metal detection screening capabilities. Personal property is
examined visibly or by fluoroscope prior to entry. Inmates are subject to strip searches at any
time and, when authorized by the warden, routinely when returning from furlough, transportation
runs, work details, etc. Visitors and employees are subject to strip search based on reasonable
suspicion. Incoming vehicles, property, goods, supplies, and food stocks are searched prior to
entry to the institution. K-9 units are used when available to detect contraband.
Based on our audit survey of the Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and North
Carolina Departments of Correction, the methods used by TDOC to prevent and detect
contraband are similar to those used in surrounding states. Some states use additional unique
equipment to detect contraband. Tennessee uses the B.O.S.S chair and mobile forensics,
Arkansas uses a mobile device forensics system, and Arkansas and Missouri utilize ION mobility
spectrometers. Some states, including Texas, California, and Mississippi, have explored the use
of a cell phone managed-access system, which intercepts cell phone call signals and allows the
institution to permit or deny communications.
TDOC staff have a number of ways of detecting those items smuggled into the
institution. Facility searches of housing units, grounds, and buildings are conducted periodically
and no less than semi-annually. Cells are searched regularly and prior to being occupied.
Outgoing mail may be searched at the discretion of the warden. Visitor and employee vehicle
searches are performed according to a plan developed by each warden; organized searches are to
be conducted at least quarterly, with unannounced inspections of employee vehicles at least
annually. Inmates are subject to unannounced searches.
Inmates found to be in possession of contraband are subject to disciplinary punishment
including prosecution in a court of law, sentence extensions and revocation of sentence credits,
punitive segregation, and the restriction of privileges. Visitors introducing contraband into a
TDOC facility may be prosecuted and employees possessing contraband are subject to
disciplinary punishment including possible termination, arrest, and prosecution.
Items discovered and identified as contraband are documented by TDOC staff and
disposed of or held as evidence. Narcotics that are not held as evidence are disposed of by
flushing into the sewer system. Perishable or hazardous items are photographed and disposed of
immediately. Cash is deposited into a state revenue account. Firearms and cellphones are turned
over to the TDOC Office of Investigations and Compliance. Other weapons, such as knifes and
clubs, are destroyed on site. Miscellaneous contraband found may be disposed of, remitted to an
inmate’s relative, or held for training purposes.
As noted on page 46, the department has instituted new procedures relating to inspections
and inmate property guidelines. Personal property guidelines have been strengthened to enable

staff to readily identify contraband during cell searches. Diagrams are placed in each cell and
housing unit outlining the organizational placement of inmate property.
Based upon interviews with TDOC wardens, incidents involving cellular telephones are a
growing area of concern in Tennessee prisons. Possession of cell phones by inmates is a
violation of Tennessee law and a threat to institutional and public security. According to a
Federal Bureau of Investigations July 2010 Law Enforcement Bulletin, prisoners have used cell
phones to intimidate and threaten witnesses, transmit photographs, orchestrate crimes, coordinate
escapes, bribe prison officers, order retaliation against other inmates, communicate with other
prisoners, gain access to the Internet, and create security breaches.
As illustrated in the table below, incidents involving cell phones are occurring more
frequently. The data also suggest that, for fiscal year 2011, nearly one cellular telephone
incident occurred for every ten inmates.
Cellular Telephone Incidents

Average Population
Incidents
Rate per 100

Fiscal Year 2009
19,179
1,130
5.89

All Institutions
Fiscal Year 2010
19,708
1,497
7.60

Fiscal Year 2011
19,978
1,968
9.85

The methods used by TDOC to prevent contraband are expected to prevent prohibited
items; however, some items are successfully smuggled in. Based on a survey of the Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and North Carolina Departments of Correction and interviews
with TDOC staff, contraband, including cell phones, is smuggled in by visitors, staff, vendors,
and inmates. These items can also be introduced into the facilities through the mail system or are
thrown over the fence.
Because of the dramatic increase in cell phones found in Tennessee prisons over recent
years, the department should consider using additional techniques used by other states such as
cell phone managed access systems to increase control over cell phone contraband use in TDOC
institutions.

The Department Has Incorporated Evidence-Based Programming Into the Reentry Process
According to the department, 97% of all Department of Correction offenders will be
released back into the community. In an effort to prepare offenders for reentry and maintain
public safety, the department has incorporated evidence-based programming into the reentry
process.
The department asserts that reentry begins when an offender enters the department’s
custody. Upon arrival, the inmate is given the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
(LS/CMI) (unless one has already been completed by the Board of Probation and Parole during

the pre-sentence investigation). This assessment instrument is used to identify the criminogenic
needs of the offender. Research indicates that addressing an offender’s criminogenic needs can
reduce an offender’s likelihood to reoffend.
The LS/CMI measures the offender’s risk to reoffend and need for programming
treatment. The eight criminogenic domains addressed in the LS/CMI are criminal history,
education/employment, family/marital, leisure/recreation, companions, alcohol/drug problems,
procriminal attitude/orientation, and antisocial patterns. The LS/CMI is used to develop the
offender’s Transitional Assessment Plan-Behavioral Intervention Goals (TAP/BIG). The
TAP/BIG uses the LS/CMI scores to identify the offender’s strengths and weaknesses, prioritizes
the programmatic needs, establishes goals, and includes an action plan to meet the goals. The
TAP/BIG is the offender’s treatment plan used throughout his or her incarceration. It is
reviewed annually, and the institutional assignments are made based on the first and/or second
priority recommendation. Because the department has limited resources, it uses prioritized
registers to ensure the program needs of offenders with the highest risk of reoffending are met
first. Offenders will move to the top of the register for the programs that they have a parole
mandate to complete. Offenders also move up the registers as they get closer to their release date.
Offenders with higher LS/CMI scores will also be placed higher on the register.
Reentry Services consist of education services (academic and vocational), religious and
volunteer services, correctional counseling, inmate jobs, and medical and mental health services.
Table 4 lists the programs and services available at each institution.
The department began offering a new program in March 2011 called Career Management
for Success and Release for Success. It is a four-month systematic program of instruction
presented in real-world context that emphasizes the basic practical knowledge needed for
employment success and for preparing inmates for release and successful reintegration using a
cognitive behavioral approach. It is designed to train offenders for job acquisition and retention.
As show in Table 4, this program is offered at each institution.
The department begins working on post-release services for inmates within two years of
the inmate’s release date. These services include lining up housing (where the inmate will live
once released), addressing family relationships and issues, leisure activities, peer companionship
(good/bad relationships), employment, and obtaining identification.
The department has one transitional program called Exodus, and it is offered at the
Tennessee Prison for Women – Annex. The program uses a therapeutic community to gradually
prepare offenders to live successfully in the free world by addressing the issues of Substance
Abuse/Relapse Prevention, Criminal Thinking, Life/Coping Skills, and Career Development. It
is divided into a three-phase format. The first phase, Orientation and Stabilization, lasts four
months while the second (Development and Integration) and third (Employment and Re-Entry)
last three to four months depending on sentence expiration, going back up for parole, or going
home upon parole-mandated completion of the program.

Table 4
Programs/Services Available at Each Institution

Domain

Education/
Employment

Program
Duration (in
months)

Institution Program
Availability

3m-6m

CBCX, DSNF, HCCF, MCCX,
NECX, RMSI, SCCF, STSR,
TCIX, TPFW, WCFA, WTSP

7m-26m
15m-23m

NWCX
STSR, WTSP, NWCX

CAP-Core/Carpentry I&II

12m-26m

HCCF, MCCX, MLCC, NECX,
NWCX, RMSI, STSR, TCIP,
TPFW, WCFA, WTSP, SCCF

CFS-Foundation/Culinary Arts I,
II, & III
MRA-Electrical/Construction Core

6m-26m
3m-6m

MCCX, NECX, STSR, TCIP,
TPFW
HCCF, NWCX

7m-23m

SCCF, TCIP, TPFW, WCFA,
WTSP

Program/Class

ABE-Adult Basic Education
AMA-Core/Brake/Suspension/
Steering/ Engine Performance
BAP-Barbering

VOE-Computer Applications/
Literacy
COA-Principles of Cosmetology/
Design/Chemistry

15m-23m

EAP-Core Electrical I & II

7m-19m

MLCC, TCIP, TPFW
HCCF, NECX, NWCX, SCCF,
STSR, WCFA

ACH-Core/HVAC/RI & II
Refrigeration

12m-26m

MCCX, NWCX, STSR, WTSP

LGA-Horticulture/
Grounds Keeping
SEA-Core/Leisure Craft, Small
Engine/Engine PR
CMA-Core/Masonry I & II/
Construction
PLA-Core/Plumbing I & II

Family/Marital

7m-15m

HCCF, MCCX, NECX,
NWCX, SCCF, TCIP, TPFW
MCCX, NWCX, WCFA,
WTSP

Career Management for
Success/Release
WAC-Basic Principles of
Welding/Advanced Application

NWCX, RMSI, SCCF, WCFA,
WTSP
NWCX, SCCF
CBCX, DSNF, HCCF, MCCX,
MLCC, NECX, NWCX, RMSI,
SCCF, STSR, TCIP, TPFW,
WCFA, WTSP

10m-30m

NWCX

TCP1-Transition Center (Exodus)

9m-N/A

TPFW/A

5m-N/A

MCCX, TPFW, HCCF, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, TCIX/M,
WCFA

5m-N/A

MCCX, TPFW, HCCF, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, TCIX/M,
WCFA

12m-26m
12m-26m

PSLS -Prosocial Life Skills

Leisure/Recreation

12m-15m

PSLS -Prosocial Life Skills

MCCX, TPFW, HCCF, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, TCIX/M,
WCFA

Companions

PSLS -Prosocial Life Skills

5m-N/A

Alcohol/Drug
Problem

GRTH-Group Therapy

3m-6m

TCOM-Therapeutic Community

9m-N/A

MLCC, TCIX, RMSI, NECX,
TPFW, WCFA
CBCX, HCCF, MCCX, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, RMSI, SCCF,
STSR, TCIP, TPFW, WCFA,
WTSP

TCP1-Transition Center (Exodus)

9m-N/A

TPFW/A

5m-N/A

MCCX, TPFW, HCCF, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, TCIX/M,
WCFA

5m-N/A

MCCX, TPFW, HCCF, MLCC,
NECX, NWCX, TCIX/M,
WCFA

Procriminal
Attitude/Orientation

PSLS -Prosocial Life Skills

Antisocial Pattern

PSLS -Prosocial Life Skills

The department’s one release center, established in January 2011, is The Next Door,
located in Chattanooga. It provides 30 beds and serves only women offenders who are either
expiring their sentences or are there as a condition of parole and will be on parole once they
leave the program. The Next Door provides the following classes and services: physical fitness,
workforce development class, individual counseling, journaling, Thinking for a Change
(integrated, cognitive behavioral change program), Victim Impact class (educational program
designed to teach offenders about the human consequences of crime), Bible study, community,
spiritual emphasis, group therapy, independent living/hygiene, transportation assistance,
medication management, addiction recovery services, and a family enrichment program. There
are five levels: Mapping (building relationships with the resident), Reflection (strengthening
independent living skills and acceptance of responsibility for personal recovery), Grounding
(strengthening employment skills, recovery skills, and accepting responsibility for personal
recovery), Action (strengthening recovery skills and beginning transition planning), and
Preservation (assistance in transition services, connections to outside services, and plan for
continuity of care). The length of the program is approximately 120 days.
The department has partnered with Memphis city and Shelby County officials as well as
the Board of Probation and Parole to create a pilot project, the Memphis-Shelby County Office
of Re-Entry, with the goal of reducing repeat offenders. The location was chosen because the
number of ex-offenders that are rearrested in Memphis is extremely high. The office began
serving offenders on May 30, 2012, and will target 160 men and 40 women who are currently
incarcerated. This program will focus on job training and placement and meeting basic needs
such as food and housing once they are released. Those who participate in this program will be
closely monitored.

Although the Department Has Made Significant Improvements in Defining and
Tracking Recidivism Since the April 2009 Performance Audit, the Department Still
Does Not Track Recidivism Based on Programs
The Department of Correction (TDOC) has joined with the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and other states in the adoption of both standardized
terminology and a time frame for assessing recidivism. The department uses the Bureau of
Justice’s definition of recidivism, which is defined as counting the criminal acts that result in rearrest, reconviction, or a return to prison of an individual with or without a new sentence for a
period of three years. Offenders are considered “unique” in reference to their first release from
incarceration and their recidivism is counted upon their first return to incarceration for each
calendar year. This is a new methodology—in previous reports, multiple returns for offenders
were counted throughout the time frame of each study, and the total number of offenders who
returned each year for a three-year period of time was counted.
The department’s most recent recidivism study follows unique offenders on a year-byyear basis from 2001 to 2007 and allows the department to determine return rates for calendar
years one, two, three, and four-plus years. The department believes this method provides a more
comprehensive view of recidivism.
The department tracks recidivism by location, release type (community corrections,
sentence expiration, parole, and probation), offense group (person, property, societal, and other),
sex, race, sex and release type, sex and offense group, race and release type, and race and offense
group. However, the department does not track or include in its recidivism study any
information about the impact of department rehabilitative programs on recidivism. Department
management stated that they do not track recidivism by programs because causal relationships
cannot be demonstrated. According to management, there are too few offenders enrolled in the
programs, and even fewer complete the programs thus, at best, there can only be a correlation
between the programs and recidivism.
While it is understood that causal relationships cannot be proven, it seems that tracking
recidivism based on programs could provide useful information to the department. Such
information could help the department evaluate whether the programs are effective at providing
the inmate the skills needed to reenter society and become a productive citizen. If the programs
are ineffective, the department could shift funds to the more effective programs. This would
help the department and the General Assembly determine if funds are being allocated to the
program with the highest payoff, meaning those programs with the greatest likelihood of
reducing recidivism. This information could suggest to the department what type of programs
work best for each type of offender, which in turn, could aid the department in assessing future
inmates’ needs.
According to the Tennessee Department of Correction Recidivism Study Felon Releases
2001-2007, recidivism rates system-wide (TDOC institutions and local jails) have remained
stable from 2001 to 2007. However, in the four years and beyond category, the recidivism rates
decline. (See Table 5.)

Table 5
System-Wide Return Rates January 2001 – December 2007
Calendar
Year

Total
Releases

Unique
Yearly
Releases

Number of Releases Returned in Years

Percentage Return Rate in Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

2001

12,508

12,151

3,032

4,697

5,544

6,980

25.0%

38.7%

45.6%

57.4%

2002

13,144

12,649

3,196

4,901

5,790

7,069

25.3%

38.7%

45.8%

55.9%

2003

13,434

12,904

3,350

5,133

6,035

7,030

26.0%

39.8%

46.8%

54.5%

2004

14,048

13,479

3,484

5,259

6,174

6,921

25.8%

39.0%

45.8%

51.3%

2005

15,169

14,500

3,869

5,795

6,729

N/A

26.7%

40.0%

46.4%

N/A

2006

16,121

15,452

4,164

6,118

N/A

26.9%

39.6%

N/A

2007

16,209

15,520

3,952

N/A

25.5%

N/A

25.9%

39.3%

46.1%

54.8%

Average

The department does break down recidivism with regard to offenders in institutions and
offenders in local jails. There is a significant disparity in the rates (see Tables 6 and 7).
Table 6
TDOC Return Rates January 2001 – December 2007
Calendar
Year

TDOC
Releases

Unique
Yearly
Releases

Number of Releases Returned in Years

Percentage Return Rate in Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

2001

4,450

4,423

852

1,516

1,856

2,426

19.3%

34.3%

42.0%

54.8%

2002

4,374

4,336

749

1,357

1,698

2,144

17.3%

31.3%

39.2%

49.4%

2003

4,928

4,873

891

1,594

2,002

2,378

18.3%

32.7%

41.1%

48.8%

2004

5,380

5,348

931

1,644

2,039

2,336

17.4%

30.7%

38.1%

43.7%

2005

5,602

5,545

1,030

1,779

2,152

N/A

18.6%

32.1%

38.8%

N/A

2006

6,267

6,197

1,225

2,033

N/A

19.8%

32.8%

N/A

2007

6,396

6,328

1,139

N/A

18.0%

N/A

18.4%

32.3%

39.8%

49.2%

Average

Table 7
Local Jail Rates January 2001 – December 2007
Calendar
Year

Local
Jail
Releases

Unique
Yearly
Releases

Number of Releases Returned in Years

Percentage Return Rate in Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

1
Year

2
Years

3
Years

4+
Years

2001

8,058

7,728

2,180

3,181

3,688

4,554

28.2%

41.2%

47.7%

58.9%

2002

8,770

8,313

2,447

3,544

4,092

4,925

29.4%

42.6%

49.2%

59.2%

2003

8,506

8,031

2,459

3,539

4,033

4,652

30.6%

44.1%

50.2%

57.9%

2004

8,668

8,131

2,553

3,615

4,135

4,585

31.4%

44.5%

50.9%

56.4%

2005

9,567

8,955

2,839

4,016

4,577

N/A

31.7%

44.8%

51.1%

N/A

2006

9,854

9,255

2,939

4,085

N/A

31.8%

44.1%

N/A

2007

9,813

9,192

2,813

N/A

30.6%

N/A

30.5%

43.6%

49.8%

58.1%

Average

As the above tables illustrate, there is a growing disparity between TDOC and jail
recidivism rates. Unique releases have increased at both institutions and local jails; however,
local jails have substantially higher return rates. Department management would not comment
on the contributing factors to the significant difference in the recidivism rate of offenders in
institutions and offenders in local jails.
Table 8 highlights the percentage differences between the institutions and local jails.
Table 8
Return Rate Difference for Institutions and Local Jails
January 2001 – December 2007
Return Rate Differences for TDOC and Local Jails
Calendar Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

1 Year
8.9%
12.1%
12.3%
14.0%
13.1%
12.0%
12.6%

2 Years
6.9%
11.3%
11.4%
13.8%
12.7%
11.3%
N/A

3 Years
5.7%
10.0%
9.1%
12.8%
12.3%
N/A
N/A

4+ Years
4.1%
9.8%
9.1%
12.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A

Survey of Other States
Auditors contacted nine states, mostly Southeastern, to compare their methods for
measuring and tracking recidivism to Tennessee’s procedure. Of the states contacted, Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, and North Carolina responded. All four states track recidivism in a similar
manner while Alabama and Florida, to some degree, also track recidivism by programs.
There is no single official definition of recidivism used nationwide. Researchers have
used a variety of definitions and measurements, including rearrest, reconviction, or
reincarceration, depending on their particular interests and the availability of data. Therefore, it
is difficult to compare recidivism rates among states because most states use different calculation
measures. In order to compare recidivism of various groups of offenders, one would have to be
sure that the same definitions and measurements are used for all groups.
Data Reliability of the Recidivism Report
The data included in the Tennessee Department of Correction Recidivism Study Felon
Releases 2001-2007 report was extracted from the Tennessee Offender Management Information
System (TOMIS). According to the Director of Management Information Systems, TOMIS has
some built-in test validity measures for field entries. However, both the Director of Management
Information Systems and the Director of Policy, Planning, and Research stated that they were not
with the department at the time of this report; therefore, they cannot attest to the reliability and
validity of the report. However, according to the Director of Policy, Planning, and Research, as
of January 2010, all data extracted must be accompanied by identifying characteristics of each
offender in the population and only unique offenders are counted. By having this data readily
available, recidivism reports can be checked for reliability.
Conclusion
Correctional programs do not affect crime directly; rather, they are designed to change
offenders’ attitudes, skills, or thinking processes, in the hope that their social behavior will
change as a result. Policy makers such as legislators tend to be concerned with whether the
programs ultimately reduce criminal behavior. A program may be successful in educating,
training, or counseling offenders, but if it does not reduce their subsequent criminal behavior,
they will still pose a threat to public safety. Because of this, the department may wish to
consider tracking recidivism based on pre-test and post-test scores offenders earn in the
programs. A higher post-test score may indicate a change in the offender’s cognitive abilities,
which may help improve his or her behavior. As stated before, this could help the department to
determine the effectiveness of the programs and, perhaps, shift time and resources into the
programs that work best. The department should also consider developing a standardized
method of testing the reliability and validity of the data recorded in the recidivism reports (and
documenting the testing) so that if there is a change in staff, the accuracy of the report is known.

Continued Lack of Compliance with FMLA Rules and Procedures
The Internal Audit Section of the Department of Correction (TDOC) conducts an annual
audit of all TDOC state-run facilities. The audit includes a review of each facility’s Human
Resources Division to determine compliance with guidelines for Military Leave, the Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Separation Notices. We reviewed Internal Audit Reports

covering fiscal years 2009 through 2011 (five of the reports for 2011 were still in process at the
end of our audit fieldwork), and identified FMLA leave issues as a recurring problem. The audit
reports show that facilities do not monitor the FMLA and allow employees to take more than 60
days during a 12-month period. The TDOC Internal Audit reports included 16 repeat findings
during fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 for employee FMLA leave exceeding the 60 days
allowed by Tennessee Department of Human Resources (DOHR) policy and rules, missing
documentation, and coding errors.
TDOC Central Office staff designed a corrective action plan, which was initiated as of
February 1, 2012, to reduce the recurrence of these internal audit findings. Management stated
there were no Central Office staff assigned to provide oversight of the FMLA for approximately
a year and a half. The corrective action plan includes the following information:
1. The department’s HR division has instituted new procedures for recording and
tracking employees’ FMLA leave, and those procedures have been
communicated to the local facilities’ Human Resources offices.
2. Facility Human Resources staff should send all information concerning
employees using FMLA to the central office HR staff, who is responsible for
keying the time into the employee’s timesheet.
3. Central Office HR is developing computer folders for each facility, including
a folder for each individual who is using FMLA or has taken FMLA during
the fiscal year and also a worksheet to assist in tracking the number of FMLA
days an individual has taken. Central Office would like to incorporate the
spreadsheet into a database that will provide alerts whenever an employee is
reaching the maximum number of days allowed (60 days per year). However,
this capability does not currently exist.
4. HR staff will travel with the TDOC Internal Audit staff to observe how
Internal Audit staff review employee files and identify problems that result in
an audit finding.
The Human Resources Manager has also sent additional information to the facility
Human Resources staff responsible for entering and tracking FMLA information, providing more
detail on the new procedures for entering employee FMLA leave, and monitoring the leave.
The following documentation must now be provided to the Human Resource Manager
when an employee is placed on FMLA leave:


time sheet;



certification form and any other forms that pertain to the employee’s use of FMLA;



any and all correspondence between the HR staff and the employee, i.e., interrupt
letters, non-qualifying letters, return to work, etc.;



letter to the employees advising them of their rights and responsibilities; and



completed checklist.

As noted in the internal audit reports, compliance with FMLA procedures and
requirements has continued to be a problem. In February 2012, TDOC management put a
corrective action plan into place to attempt to correct this deficiency.

Discontinuance of the Requirement for Counties to Submit Final Cost Settlements
Under the County Correctional Incentives Program (CCIP), counties are reimbursed for
housing Department of Correction inmates. Some county facilities contract to house the inmates
at a flat rate, but others are reimbursed based on their reasonable allowable costs and are required
to submit a Final Cost Settlement detailing their actual daily inmate cost for the year. According
to the Guidelines for Determining Reasonable Allowable Cost for State Prisoners, the Final Cost
Settlement (FCS) is to be submitted no later than October 1 following the end of the fiscal year,
June 30. The April 2009 performance audit of the Department of Correction noted that, for fiscal
year 2007, only 47% of the local jails filed the FCS by October 1, 2007, with 68% filing the FCS
by October 31, 2007.
Chapter 229, Public Acts of 2011, amended Section 41-8-106, Tennessee Code
Annotated, to allow local and county jails that hold Department of Correction prisoners to
discontinue filing the FCS, given certain conditions. If the jail has received the maximum
amount allowed per prisoner per day as reasonable allowable costs ($35.00) for three or more
continuous fiscal years, the jail will not be required to provide documentation to the department
regarding costs, beyond information necessary to determine the number of prisoner days for
which the county is entitled to be reimbursed. The legislation was effective July 1, 2011, and
Correction legal staff interpreted the legislation’s intent to mean that the department could refer
back to fiscal year 2008 to determine whether the local and county jail meets the three
continuous fiscal year requirement. Correction staff stated that there were 14 local and county
jails that were required to submit the annual FCS for fiscal year 2011 by October 1, 2011. One
jail filed the FCS during August 2011, four jails filed the FCS during October 2011, eight jails
filed the FCS during November 2011, and one jail (Davidson County Detention Facility) filed
the FCS on March 19, 2012.
There are four types of reimbursements: Resolution, Reasonable Allowable, Contract
Fixed Rate, and Contract Reasonable Allowable. (See Table 9 below.)

Table 9
Types of Reimbursements to Counties Housing Department of Correction Inmates
Resolution

Counties that preferred not to complete a Final Cost Settlement. The
reimbursement rate is $18 per day if the Tennessee Corrections Institute’s rated
capacity is under 100 inmates and $20 if the rated capacity is 100 or over. Since
fiscal year 2008, TDOC has not had any Resolution counties.

Reasonable
Allowable Cost

The reimbursement rate is based on the county facility’s Reasonable Allowable
Costs, which are determined by the submission of an annual Final Cost Settlement
(FCS). The reimbursement rate is the FCS rate or the cap of $35 per day,
whichever is lower.
Effective July 1, 2011, Section 41-8-106, Tennessee Code Annotated, was
amended to state that in the event that a county has been reimbursed pursuant to
this section for housing convicted felons for a continuous period of three or more
fiscal years and has received the maximum amount allowed per prisoner per day as
reasonable allowable costs during this period, then the county shall thereafter be
presumed to be entitled to the full maximum amount allocated per prisoner per day
as reimbursement of reasonable allowable costs for housing such prisoners and
will not be required to provide documentation to the department regarding costs
incurred, beyond information necessary to determine the number of prisoner days
for which the county is entitled to reimbursement.
During the 2012 legislative session, the General Assembly increased the cap from
$35 to $37, effective for fiscal year 2013.

Contract Fixed
Rate

TDOC contracts with a county/city for a fixed rate per day per inmate. The fixed
rate is generally based on the county/city completing an FCS to determine the
county facility’s actual cost per inmate. However, other factors may be taken into
consideration. The rate cannot exceed the cap of $35 per day with the exception of
the Johnson City Jail (JCJ). JCJ contracts to house 100 female TDOC inmates at a
fixed rate of $36.75. This is the only city jail TDOC contracts with to house state
felons.
During the 2012 legislative session, the General Assembly increased the cap from
$35 to $37, effective for fiscal year 2013.

Contract
Reasonable
Allowable Costs

TDOC contracts with a county at a rate based upon the county facility’s
Reasonable Allowable Costs. The county submits a FCS each fiscal year to
determine the rate, which will be either the cap of $35 or the FCS rate, whichever
is less, with the exception of Davidson and Shelby counties.
See note above concerning the 2011 legislative session changes to TCA 41-8-106.
Davidson County Detention Facility and Shelby County Correctional Center
receive actual cost for their reimbursement and therefore will always be required to
submit an FCS. Davidson County Drug Court is a unique location and is required
per its contract to submit an FCS.

According to information provided by Correction staff, there are a total of 103 local or county
jails that are housing TDOC prisoners for fiscal year 2012. The following table displays the
number of jails along with the type of reimbursement:
Number of Jails and Reimbursement Type
Fiscal Year 2012
Reimbursement Type

Number

Contract Reasonable Allowable – No FCS Required

5 (a)

Contract Reasonable Allowable – FCS Required

2 (b)

Contract Fixed Rate

Reasonable Allowable – No FCS Required

72 (c)

Reasonable Allowable – FCS Required

Total

103

(a) The Contract Reasonable Allowable counties that do not require an FCS will change to Contract Fixed
Rate in the next contract cycle.
(b) Davidson County Detention Facility and Shelby County Correctional Center.
(c) Have received the maximum allowable amount for three or more continuous fiscal years.

Only five counties will be required to file the FCS for fiscal year 2012 by October 1,
2012. Davidson County Detention Facility and Shelby County Correctional Center will always
be required to file the FCS because they receive reimbursement based on actual cost.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE
The Department of Correction should address the following areas to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of their operations.
1. The department should consider some modification to the assessment of liquidated
damages. If a contractor noncompliance is consistently evaluated as a repeat finding,
the department should consider increasing the penalty. The increase in monetary
punishment might serve as an incentive for contractors to become compliant with the
contract requirement(s) more quickly.
2. The department also should reevaluate the practice of lowering the level of penalty
when a contractor is consistently noncompliant for a given contract requirement (i.e.,
consider past occurrences of repeat findings such as noncompliance-compliancenoncompliance).
3. The Director of Clinical Services should develop a tracking mechanism that includes
reviewing the “Summary and Recommendations” of prior contract monitoring to
ensure that repeat finding liquidated damage penalties are not lowered in error during
the review process.
4. Serious security risks could potentially occur when state-issued property items such
as correctional officer uniforms, picture IDs, and TDOC badges are not returned by
the exiting employee. The Commissioner should ensure that the department develops
a standard procedure for receiving state-issued property from exiting department
employees. The procedure should become the uniform procedure for all state-run
facilities and the Tennessee Correction Academy. The procedure should have a
consistent location for keeping the Form CR-3578 and supporting documentation
during the individual’s employment at the facility, specific individuals responsible for
receiving property from the exiting employee, and uniform documentation of the
property received from the exiting employee. The department should consider using
Form CR-3578 and the Receipt of Issued Provisions form as the documentation that
the exiting employee has returned all state property assigned during employment with
the department. The Receipt of Issued Provisions form, attached to Form CR-3578,
could serve as a listing of items issued and also document the items that are returned.
5. The Commissioner should ensure that department staff are informed of the
requirements of the department’s Management Information Services Procedures
Manual. The Commissioner also needs to identify staff to be responsible for ongoing
monitoring for compliance with the Management Information Services Procedure

Manual to ensure the manual is followed by department staff. Management should
include the risks noted in this finding in management’s documented risk assessment.
6. The Commissioner should also continue to ensure that other risks of improper
accountability, noncompliance, fraud, waste, or abuse are adequately identified and
assessed in management’s documented risk assessment. Management should
implement effective controls to ensure compliance with applicable requirements,
should assign staff to be responsible for ongoing monitoring of the risks and
mitigating controls, and should take action if deficiencies occur. The risk assessment
and the mitigating controls should be adequately documented and approved by the
Commissioner.
7. The Commissioner should take steps to see that the issues noted in Finding 4 are
corrected. For example, the department should provide institutional training
concerning compliance with the policy that requires inmates to sign Personal
Withdrawal Requests and the Commissary Signature Form/Commissary Pick Form.
If an inmate does not sign for the commissary items delivered, the inmate should not
receive the order. Supervisors should regularly review forms to ensure compliance
with departmental policy.
8. The department should track inmate savings/investment accounts and require that all
wardens submit the Inmate Financial Status Report in accordance with Policy 208.01,
“Inmate Trust Fund Account.” The policy also requires that the Director of Budget
and Financial Services submit an annual report to the Commissioner listing the
amount of money recovered. The department needs to develop procedures to ensure
compliance with policy and statute.
9. The department should require Corrections Corporation of America management to
follow the requirements in Policy 208.01 relating to the quarterly Inmate Trust Fund
Account interest statement.
10. The department should revise and clarify Policy 103.02 to ensure that all department
staff, the general public, and legislators understand the intent of the policy and that
correctional officers consistently identify and report all incidents. In its statistical and
performance reports used by the public and by policy makers, the department should
include an explanation of how the numbers are calculated (e.g., informing readers that
an incident may include several infractions.) All incidents should be recorded in
TOMIS, regardless of whether a disciplinary offense is assigned or warranted, to
provide a complete and clear picture of institutional conditions.

Appendix 1
Title VI and Other Information
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds
of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
On June 23, 2009, Governor Phil Bredesen signed legislation transferring the duties of the Title
VI Compliance Commission to the Tennessee Human Rights Commission, effective July 1,
2009. This legislation grants the commission the authority to verify that all state governmental
entities comply with the requirements of Title VI. This responsibility includes the establishment
and development of guidelines for a comprehensive statewide policy to ensure compliance by the
executive branch of state government. Section 4-21-203, Tennessee Code Annotated, specifies
the commission’s Title VI duties and responsibilities, and Section 4-21-203(b) requires each
state governmental entity to submit annual Title VI compliance reports and implementation plan
updates to the Human Rights Commission by October 1, 2010, and each October 1 thereafter.
The Department of Correction received $648,640 in federal funding during fiscal year
2011, and is estimated to receive $1.1 million in federal funds during fiscal year 2012. The
Department of Correction filed the annual report and implementation plan update on October 29,
2010, for fiscal year 2010 (28 days past due) and on January 10, 2012, for fiscal year 2011 (101
days past due). The Tennessee Title VI Compliance Report – Report to Governor and General
Assembly – FY July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 and FY July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 was released
on September 22, 2011, by the Human Rights Commission; it contained one finding concerning
the TDOC annual report. The finding stated that the implementation plan was not submitted in
the format as set forth in the guidelines. According to the report, the commission did not receive
a response to the finding from the department.
The following table details department staff by job title, gender, and ethnicity as of July
18, 2012. (The table includes field services staff transferred to the department from the Board of
Probation and Parole.)

Department of Correction Personnel by Title, Gender, and Ethnicity
As of July 18, 2012
Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Account Clerk

Accountant 3

Accounting Manager

Accounting Technician 1

Accounting Technician 2

Administrative Assistant 1

Title

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

White

Total

Administrative Assistant 2

Administrative Secretary

Administrative Services
Assistant 1

Administrative Services
Assistant 2

Administrative Services
Assistant 3

Administrative Services
Assistant 4

Administrative Services
Assistant 5

Administrative Services
Manager

Affirmative Action Officer 1

Architect

Assistant Commissioner 2

Associate Warden

Attorney 3

Auditor 2

Auditor 3

Boiler Operator 1

Boiler Operator 2

Boiler Operator Supervisor

Budget Analyst Coordinator

Building Maintenance
Worker 2

Building Maintenance
Worker 3

Chief of Staff

Clerk 2

Clerk 3

Commissioner 2

Correction Dec Sup Res
Plan Director

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

White

Total

Correction Facility
Management & Maintenance
Program Director

Correction Facility Safety
Program Director

Correction Management &
Maintenance Program
Administrator

Correction-Budget Analyst

Correctional Academy
Instructor 1

Correctional Academy
Instructor 2

Correctional Ad Service
Class Coordinator

Correctional Administrator

Correctional Captain

Correctional Clerical Officer
Correctional Compliance
Manager

131

Title

Correctional Contract
Monitor

Correctional Corporal

338

322

409

Correctional Counselor 1

Correctional Counselor 2

Correctional Counselor 3

105

Correctional Facilities
Construction Director

Correctional Health
Administration

Correctional Health Director
Correctional Health Deputy
Director

Correctional Internal Affairs
Investigator

Correctional Lieutenant

1809

648

612

1796

2457

Correctional Sergeant

138

132

177

Correctional Teacher

Correctional Officer
Correctional Principal
Correctional Program
Director 1
Correctional Program
Director 2
Correctional Program
Manager 1
Correctional Program
Manager 2
Correctional Program Supt
Coordinator

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

Correctional Teacher
Supervisor

Correctional Unit Manager

Custodial Worker 1

Custodial Worker 2

Custodial Worker
Supervisor 1

Data Entry Operator

Dental Assistant 1

Dental Assistant 2

Deputy Commissioner 2

Deputy Warden

Dietitian

Director of Organization
Development & Support

Education Consultant 3

Electronics Technician 1

Electronics Technician 2

Executive Administrative
Assistant 1

Executive Administrative
Assistant 2

Executive Administrative
Assistant 3

Executive Secretary 1

Executive Secretary 2

Facilities Construction
Assistant Director

Facilities Construction
Specialist 3

Facilities Manager 1

Facilities Manager 2

Facilities Manager 3

Facilities Safety Officer 2

Facilities Safety Officer 3

Facilities Supervisor

Fiscal Director 1

Fiscal Director 2

Fiscal Director 3

Food Service Assistant
Manager 2

Food Service Director 3

Food Service Manager 2

Title

White

Total

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

White

Total

Food Service Manager 3

Food Service Steward 1

Food Service Steward 2

Food Service Worker

General Counsel 2

Graduate Associate

Grants Program Manager

Health Information Manager

Heating & Refrigeration
Mechanic 2

Human Resources Analyst 2

Human Resources Analyst 3

Human Resources Director 4

Human Resources Manager 1

Human Resources Manager 2
Human Resources
Technician 1

Human Resources
Technician 2

Human Resources
Technician 3

Human Resources
Transactions Supervisor

Information Resource
Support Specialist 3

Information Resource
Support Specialist 4

Information Resource
Support Specialist 5

Information Officer

Information Systems
Analyst 2

Information Systems
Analyst 3

Title

Information Systems
Analyst 4
Information Systems
Analyst Supervisor
Information Systems
Associate

Information Systems
Consultant

Information Systems
Director 2

Information Systems
Director 3

Information Systems
Manager 2

Information Systems
Manager 4

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

White

Total

Inmate Jobs Coordinator

Inmate Relations Coordinator

Judicial Cost Accountant

Laundry Manager 1

Laundry Worker 2

Licensed Practical Nurse 1

Licensed Practical Nurse 2

128

148

Licensed Practical Nurse 3

Maintenance Carpenter 2

Maintenance Electrician 1

Maintenance Electrician 2

Maintenance Plumber 2

Medical Records Assistant

Medical Records Technician 1

Mental Health Program
Specialist 2

Mental Health Program
Specialist 3

Mental Health/Intellectual
and Developmental
Disabilities Institutional
Program Director

Nurse Practitioner

Nurse's Assistant 2

Physical Therapy Technician

Physician

Physician Assistant

Probation/Parole Assistant
Field Director

Probation/Parole Deputy
District Director

Probation/Parole District
Director

Probation/Parole Field
Director

Probation/Parole Field
Services Administrator

Probation/Parole Manager

Title

Probation/Parole Officer 1

Probation/Parole Officer 2

230

359

179

404

589

Probation/Parole Officer 3

137

Probation/Parole Program
Specialist

Probation/Parole Technical
Services Director

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

White

Procurement Officer 1

Procurement Officer 2

Programmer/Analyst 3

Programmer/Analyst 4

Programmer/Analyst
Supervisor

Property Officer 1

Property Officer 2

Psychiatric Chaplain 2

Psychiatric Social Worker 1

Psychiatric Social Worker 2

Psychological Examiner 2

Psychologist

Radio Communications
Technician 3

Recreation Assistant

Recreation Specialist 1

Recreation Specialist 2

Recreation Therapist 3

Registered Nurse 2

Registered Nurse 3

103

Registered Nurse 4

Title

Total

Registered Nurse 5

Secretary

Security Guard

Sentence/Docketing Analyst

Sentence/Docketing
Management Supervisor

Sentence/Docketing
Technician 1

Sentence/Docketing
Technician 2

Sentence/Docketing
Technician 3

Statistical Analyst
Supervisor

Storekeeper 1

Storekeeper 2

Stores Manager

Training and Curriculum
Director 1

Training and Curriculum
Director 2

Training Specialist 2

Gender

Ethnicity

Male

Female

American
Indian

White

Total

Treatment Plant Operator

Training Academy
Superintendent

Vocational Instructor-Per
Specialty

Warden 2

Warden 3

Warden 4

Website Developer 1

X-Ray Technician 3

Totals

3,629

2,566

1,524

4,549

6,195

Percentages

58.6%

41.4%

0.3%

0.6%

24.6%

0.8%

0.3%

73.4%

Title

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Other
Ethnicity

Appendix 2
Performance Measures Information
As stated in the Tennessee Governmental Accountability Act of 2002, “accountability in
program performance is vital to effective and efficient delivery of governmental services, and to
maintain public confidence and trust in government.” In accordance with this act, all executive
branch agencies are required to submit annually to the Department of Finance and
Administration a strategic plan and program performance measures. The department publishes
the resulting information in two volumes: Agency Strategic Plans: Volume 1 - Five-Year
Strategic Plans and Volume 2 - Program Performance Measures. Agencies were required to
begin submitting performance-based budget requests according to a schedule developed by the
department, beginning with three agencies in fiscal year 2005, with all executive-branch agencies
included no later than fiscal year 2012. The Tennessee Department of Correction began
submitting performance-based budget requests effective for fiscal year 2005-2006.
Detailed below are the performance standards and performance measures of the
Department of Correction (TDOC), as reported in the September 2011 Volume 2 - Program
Performance Measures. Also reported below is a description of the agency’s processes for (1)
identifying/developing the standards and measures; (2) collecting the data used in the measures;
and (3) ensuring that the standards and measures reported are appropriate and that the data are
accurate.
Program Performance Standards and Measures Development
During April of each year, the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration
(F&A) issues instructions to TDOC regarding strategic planning as required by Section 9-4-5606
(a), Tennessee Code Annotated. In addition to the instructions, TDOC will receive strategic and
program plan Microsoft Word files, as printed in the previous year’s Agency Strategic Plans
report, and a performance measure Microsoft Excel file, as printed in the previous year’s Budget.
Using these files and instructions, the Decision Support Research and Planning section develops
the performance standards and measures for each program area. The data included in the Agency
Strategic Plans: Volume 2 - Program Performance Measures report may not contain complete
information for the fiscal year for the reporting agency. Updated information may be provided
by the agency to be used in the annual Budget as needed. Performance measures data
comparisons may be made using the annual Program Performance Report for the applicable
years. Information from the FY 2011 Program Performance Report, released January 9, 2012, is
included below.

Administration
Performance Standard 1: Reduce the average length of hospital stay.
Performance Measure 1: Hospital average length of stay (days).
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
3.73

Estimate
FY 20112012
3.60

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

3.60

3.70

Target
FY 20122013
3.50

The performance measure, hospital average length of stay (days), represents the average number
of days a TDOC inmate remains in the hospital after admission. TDOC’s medical contractor,
Corizon Health, Inc., collects average length of stay data using hospital rosters and a utilization
management database. Daily and monthly reports including this information are submitted to
TDOC. Estimate and target performance measures are developed using inmate medical activity
data, historical Average Length of Stay (ALOS) data, and initiatives undertaken to bring more
medical services on-site to reduce the number of emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
Hospital days per admission are calculated by counting each calendar day from hospital
admission to hospital discharge. ALOS is calculated by dividing the total hospital days per
admission by total hospital admissions.
The performance measure and associated
data/calculations are reviewed by the Director of Health Services. No written procedures exist
for the collection, calculation, or review of the performance measures data.
Performance Standard 2: Limit the number of substantiated incidents of sexual violence in
TDOC managed facilities (excludes CCA facilities).
Performance Measure 2: The number of substantiated incidents of sexual violence in TDOC
managed facilities (excludes Corrections Corporation of America [CCA] facilities).
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
14

Estimate
FY 20112012
12

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

Target
FY 20122013
12

The performance measure is used to determine the number of substantiated incidents of sexual
violence in an ongoing effort to reduce the overall rate of sexual violence incidents. The
incidents are reported by a victim directly or by a third party. The incident is investigated with
information entered into a main frame database (TOMIS) as well as a monthly report which is
submitted listing all reported incidents. Each facility has a designated PREA (Prison Rape
Elimination Act) coordinator who reports information directly to the TDOC PREA coordinator.
71

Estimates are made based on trends. Target results are based on ideals developed from policies,
procedures, and changes in current law to curb the number of violent sexual incidents. The
actual performance measures data is recorded by the TDOC PREA coordinator using the
monthly reports. The Director of Planning and Research reviews the performance measure and
associated data/ calculations. The cumulative report is used to ensure the totals are correct.
State Prosecutions
Performance Standard 1: Process invoices promptly.
Performance Measure 1: The percent of invoices processed within 45 days of receipt of all
required documents (i.e., Board Bills, Correctional Facility Summary Reports, etc.).
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
95%

Estimate
FY 20112012
95%

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

95%

Target
FY 20122013
95%

The performance measure is used to determine the number of invoices promptly processed. Per
Section 12-4-703, Tennessee Code Annotated, invoices are to be paid within 45 days of receipt.
Accounts payable staff enter the dates invoices were received onto a worksheet by county.
Quarterly, the Judicial Cost Accountant summarizes the results and calculates the percent of
invoices processed within 45 days. Estimate and target performance measures were developed
through a discussion between the Assistant Commissioner of Administration, Director of Fiscal
Services, Assistant Director of Fiscal Services, and the Judicial Cost Accountant. The
performance measure is calculated by dividing the number of board bills processed within 45
days by the number of board bills received in the quarter. The performance measure and
associated data/calculations are reviewed by the Judicial Cost Accountant. Written procedures
do not exist for the collection, calculation, or review of the performance measures data.
Correction Academy
Performance Standard 1: Continue to deliver training by the academy using non-traditional (nonresidential) methodologies.
Performance Measure 1: Total training hours delivered by the academy using non-traditional
(non-residential) methodologies.

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
20,100

Estimate
FY 20112012
25,100

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

15,300

8,460

Target
FY 20122013
27,300

This performance measure is used to report the amount of training hours delivered using nontraditional training techniques such as video conferencing and computer-based training. Training
hours are recorded and maintained by the Training and Curriculum staff of the Academy’s
Records section. Performance estimates are developed by considering previous year totals and
upcoming programming delivery obligations. Target performance data is derived from an
anticipated increase in the number of employees as a result of departmental growth,
establishment of departmental initiatives, new policies, attrition rates, and anticipated new
training technologies. Total non-traditional training hours are calculated by multiplying the total
number of class participants by the length of the course (in hours). Performance measures and
calculations are reviewed by assigned Correction Academy personnel.
Performance Standard 2: Increase the percentage of correctional officers who attain a 25% or
more increase in pre-test to post-test scores following completion of in-service training.
Performance Measure 2: The percent of correctional officers who attain a 25% or more increase
in pre-test to post-test scores following completion of in-service training.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
75%

Estimate
FY 20112012
75%

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

85%

87%

Target
FY 20122013
75%

This performance measure is used to measure trainee learning. Pre-tests and post-tests are
administered, scored, and maintained by assigned training staff at the beginning and prior to the
conclusion of each tested class (weekly). Test score estimates are based on agreed upon
outcomes developed through a collaborative effort between the Academy Superintendent,
Director of Training, Assistant Director of Training, Administrative Services Manager, and
Instructor Supervisor. Target data are based upon TDOC’s strategic plan for the upcoming
years, the academy’s responsibilities relating to department initiatives, and administrative
mandates. Actual performance data are calculated by comparing pre-test to post-test scores.
Performance measures and calculations are reviewed by assigned Correction Academy
personnel.

Correction Release Centers
Performance Standard 1: Create the availability of release center beds.
Performance Measure 1: The number of TDOC Correctional Release Center beds.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Actual
Estimate
Target
Target
Actual
FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2010-2011
FY 2010-2011
2011
2012
2013
30
120
120
N/A*
N/A*
* New program area as of 2010 Agency Strategic Plans Volume 2 report.
This performance measure is used to report the number of beds available in all TDOC
Correctional Release Centers. Available release center beds for each facility are maintained in
the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS). Estimate and target data
are based on available funding for new beds and the implementation of the first 30-bed
Correctional Release Center contract. The performance measures data represent actual beds
available; therefore, data calculations are not performed.
Major Maintenance
Performance Standard 1: Resolve security system calls within 48 hours.
Performance Measure 1: The percent of security system calls resolved within 48 hours.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
98.0%

Estimate
FY 20112012
99.9%

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

99.9%

91.08%

Target
FY 20122013
99.9%

This performance measure reports the percent of security system repair work orders responded to
and completed within 48 hours of being reported in the Edison system by correctional
institutional staff. Security systems include fence alarms; video cameras and networking; door
control, intercom, and paging systems; security networks, and personal alarms. Work orders are
assigned to Integrated Technology Services (ITS) technicians by ITS supervisors. Information
concerning the repair is reported into Edison. Quarterly, the ITS manager manually counts the
security-related work orders not completed in 48 hours. The actual performance measures result
is calculated by dividing the number of successfully completed security calls completed within
48 hours by the total number of security related work orders and multiplying the result by 100%.
Performance measures and calculations are reviewed by the Director of Information Technology.

Performance Standard 2: Respond on-site to emergency electronic problems within four hours.
Performance Measure 2: Percent of emergency electronic problems responded to on-site within
four hours.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
99%

Estimate
FY 20112012
99%

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

99.9%

99.0%

Target
FY 20122013
99%

This performance measure reports the percent of emergency situations responded to by ITS
within four hours of receiving notification by the officer in charge at each correctional facility.
The actual performance measures result is calculated using the following formula: (The total
number of emergency call outs – number of failures)/Total number of call outs X 100 = Percent
of emergency electronic problems responded to on-site within four hours. Performance
measures and calculations are reviewed by the Director of Information Technology.
Sex Offender Treatment Program
Performance Standard 1: Provide annual training to at least 100 treatment providers.
Performance Measure 1: The number of treatment providers receiving annual training.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Actual
Estimate
Target
Target
Actual
FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2010-2011
FY 2010-2011
2011
2012
2013
97
240
100
215*
97*
* Performance Standard was to “Provide annual training to at least 200 treatment providers.”
This performance measure reports the total number of treatment providers who participate in the
Sex Offender Treatment Board’s (SOTB) annual training conference. Attendees of the
conference become qualified to join SOTB’s statewide network of sex offender treatment
providers. The Office of Mental Health Services collects provider training participation data.
Estimate and target performance measures results were developed by projecting the increased
number of professionals who become sex offender treatment providers as a result of new training
conference coordination efforts between SOTB and the Tennessee Chapter of Children's
Advocacy Center. Performance measures data are reviewed by the Director of Mental Health
Services.

Sentencing Act of 1985
Performance Standard 1: The Tennessee Department of Correction Budget Office will
appropriately estimate the operating costs of the proposed laws or amendments affecting
revenue.
Performance Measure 1: The percent of fiscal notes attached to proposed laws or amendments
affecting revenue or funding for the Department of Correction.
2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Actual
FY 20102011
100%

Estimate
FY 20112012
100%

FY 2011 Program
Performance Report

FY 2011 Program
Performance
Report

Target
FY 2010-2011

Actual
FY 2010-2011

100%

Target
FY 20122013
100%

This performance measure reports the accuracy of the estimated fiscal notes that are prepared by
the Budget Division to the amount appropriated by the General Assembly for the cost of the
proposed laws. TDOC’s Budget Office maintains a worksheet listing completed fiscal notes and
the funding required for each legislative initiative. At the conclusion of each legislative session,
the Budget Office reviews all bills passed that will have an impact on TDOC, and the funding
appropriated for each initiative. The performance measure is calculated by measuring
appropriated funds to estimated funds. Performance estimate and target results were developed
through a discussion by the Assistant Commissioner of Administrative Services, the Deputy
Commissioner, and the Director of Budget and Fiscal Services. Performance measures data are
reviewed by the Director of Budget and Fiscal Services.
Institutional Operations, Special Purpose Facilities, and Contract Management Facilities
Institutional Operations (10 program areas):
Performance Standard 1: Increase or maintain GED and vocational completions.
Performance Measure 1: The number of GED and vocational recipients.

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

105

165

105

190

195

270

190

197

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Tennessee Prison for
Women
Turney Center Industrial
Complex

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 2010-2011

Mark Luttrell
78
48
123
48
Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass
44
126*
174
30
Correctional Complex
Southeastern Tennessee
State Regional
163
125
202
115
Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State
268
300
495
300
Penitentiary
Riverbend Maximum
103
59
137
54
Security Institution
Northeast Correctional
134
110
222
95
Complex
Northwest Correctional
423
290
423
245
Complex
Morgan County
262
220
445
195
Correctional Complex
*Prior to FY 2011-2012, CBCX did not have vocational training (GED only).

105
26
167
340
120
198
468
338

Special Purpose Facilities (1 program area):
Performance Standard 1: Increase the number of GED recipients.
Performance Measure 1: The number of GED recipients.

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Lois M. DeBerry Special
Needs Facility

Contract Management Facilities (3 program areas):
Performance Standard 1: Increase or maintain GED and vocational completions.

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 20102011
12

Performance Measure 1: The number of GED and vocational recipients.

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

269

285

360

275

325

162

234

294

234

250

245

249

414

247

294

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Hardeman County
Incarceration
Agreement
Hardeman County
Agreement Whiteville
South Central
Correctional Center

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 20102011

This performance measure reports the number of General Equivalency Diploma (GED) and
vocational certificates awarded each year. Completed GED tests are submitted to Oklahoma
Scoring Service for scoring. The results are sent to the Director of Education to be recorded and
to the principal at the testing institution who enters the results into the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS). Vocational program assignment and completion is
maintained at each facility and tracked through TOMIS. Each month, the principal submits an
institutional monthly education report to the Director of Education listing the number of GED
tests successfully passed and vocational programs completed for the month. The actual
performance measures results are calculated by adding the number of offenders who received
their GED each month and the number of offenders who successfully completed a vocational
program each month. Estimate and target performance measures are developed by reviewing the
number of vocational and GED completions for previous years, planned prison expansions,
planned bed reductions, and any planned program expansions or reductions. Each month, the
institutional monthly education report is submitted to the Director of Education who verifies the
number of GED and vocational completions submitted by the institution against the official
results from Oklahoma Scoring Service and vocational completions recorded in TOMIS.
Institutional Operations (10 program areas):
Performance Standard 2: Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).

Performance Measure 2: The violent institutional incident rate (per 100 inmates).

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

8.57

6.50

8.00

10.00

9.46

6.52

5.00

6.00

5.00

6.84

10.82

8.00

10.00

14.17

3.17

2.30

3.00

2.02

3.47

2.20

3.00

1.15

3.07

5.93

8.07

8.00

7.45

7.12

16.53

16.56

16.00

14.00

19.39

3.25

2.92

5.00

2.60

3.42

8.12

5.71

5.00

6.20

9.31

7.18

7.93

8.00

5.00

7.64

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Tennessee Prison for
Women
Turney Center Industrial
Complex
Mark Luttrell
Correctional Facility
Charles B. Bass
Correctional Complex
Southeastern Tennessee
State Regional
Correctional Facility
West Tennessee State
Penitentiary
Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution
Northeast Correctional
Complex
Northwest Correctional
Complex
Morgan County
Correctional Complex

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 20102011

Special Purpose Facilities (1 program area):
Performance Standard 2: Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).
Performance Measure 2: The violent institutional incident rate (per 100 inmates).

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

43.04

25.00

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Lois M. DeBerry Special
Needs Facility

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 20102011
46.06

Contract Management Facilities (3 program areas):
Performance Standard 2: Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).
Performance Measure 2: The violent institutional incident rate (per 100 inmates).

Actual
FY 20102011

Estimate
FY 20112012

Target
FY 20122013

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Target
FY 20102011

5.39

5.30

5.00

6.00

6.16

10.53

7.40

5.00

6.80

11.61

4.24

6.60

5.00

7.20

4.73

2011
Agency Strategic Plans
Institutions

Hardeman County
Incarceration
Agreement
Hardeman County
Agreement Whiteville
South Central
Correctional Center

FY 2011
Program
Performance
Report
Actual
FY 20102011

This performance measure reports the violent incident rate (per capita) per institution. Incidents
are recorded into TOMIS by the witnessing staff member using a designated reporting code
based on incident type. The main frame computer system makes a cumulative report which
provides TDOC with incident totals per reporting code. The actual performance measure result
is calculated by dividing the total number of violent incidents for the month by the percent of the
monthly average number of inmates (per facility). Estimate performance measures results are
based on facility trends. Target results are based on policies and procedures put into effect to
curb the number of violent incidents. Performance measures data is reviewed by the Director of
Planning and Research.
Performance Measures and Standards Conclusion
Below are auditors’ overall observations and comments regarding the performance
standards and measures we reviewed.
Performance Targets Not Met For 15 of 20* Program Areas
Correction Academy: The department did not meet its performance target for the standard,
“Continue to deliver training by the academy using non-traditional (non-residential)
methodologies.” The amount reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 8,460 with a target of 15,300.
An agency comment in the FY 2011 Program Performance Report stated, “Some institutions
have increased self delivery.”

Major Maintenance: The department did not meet its performance standard, “Resolve security
system calls within 48 hours.” The amount reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 91.08% with a
target of 99.9% An agency comment in the FY 2011 Program Performance Report stated, “Staff
shortage negatively impacted response times.”
Major Maintenance: The department did not meet its performance standard, “Respond to on-site
to emergency electronic problems within four hours.” The amount reported for FY 2010 – 2011
was 99.0% with a target of 99.9%.
Sex Offender Treatment Program: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Provide annual training to at least 100 treatment providers.” The amount reported for FY 2010
– 2011 was 97 with a target of 215 (or 100 according to the performance standard). An agency
comment in the FY 2011 Program Performance Report stated, “Fewer treatment providers are
interested in taking this training.”
Tennessee Prison for Women: The department did not meet its performance standard, “Increase
or maintain GED and vocational completions.” The amount reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 88
with a target of 105.
* Excludes Correctional Release Centers. New program area as of 2010 Agency Strategic Plans
Volume 2 report.
Turney Center Industrial Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 6.84 with a target of 5.00. An agency comment in the FY 2011 Program
Performance Report for this and other facilities that did not meet their violent incidents
performance target stated, “There is a presence of a strategic threat group population, the mental
health and close custody inmates have been mixed with the general population department wide,
and there is a more thorough reporting system.”
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 14.17 with a target of 10.00.
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Increase or maintain GED and vocational completions.” The amount reported for FY 2010 –
2011 was 26 with a target of 30.
Charles B. Bass Correctional Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 3.47 with a target of 2.02.
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility: The department did not meet its
performance standard, “Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The
amount reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 3.07 with a target of 1.15.

Riverbend Maximum Security Institution: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 19.39 with a target of 14.00
Northeast Correctional Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard, “Limit
the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY 2010 –
2011 was 3.42 with a target of 2.60
Northwest Correctional Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard, “Limit
the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY 2010 –
2011 was 9.31 with a target of 6.20.
Morgan County Correctional Complex: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 7.64 with a target of 5.00.
Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility: The department did not meet its performance standard,
“Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount reported for FY
2010 – 2011 was 46.06 with a target of 25.00.
Hardeman County Incarceration Agreement: The department did not meet its performance
standard, “Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount
reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 6.16 with a target of 6.00.
Hardeman County Agreement – Whiteville: The department did not meet its performance
standard, “Limit the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates).” The amount
reported for FY 2010 – 2011 was 11.61 with a target of 6.80.
Performance Standards Not Consistent With Tennessee Code Annotated
The performance standards listed in the Agency Strategic Plans: Volume 2 - Program
Performance Measures for many of the program areas appear to be performance objectives
rather than performance standards. According to Section 9-4-5606(b), Tennessee Code
Annotated, “. . . each state agency subject to performance-based budgeting is required to submit
to the commissioner of finance and administration . . . proposed performance measures and
standards for each program.” Section 9-4-5604 defines a performance standard as, “. . . the
desired level of performance of a program, measured by outcome or output.” A majority of the
department performance standards listed in the 2011 Agency Strategic Plans: Volume 2 Program Performance Measures report did not state a “desired level.” In the auditors’ opinion,
without meaningful standards to compare performance measures results against, the public and
the General Assembly cannot adequately assess the performance data to “make meaningful
decisions about the allocation of scarce resources in meeting vital needs” (Section 9-4-5602).

Performance Standards and Measures Not Consistent With Program Areas
Administration: Review of the September 2011 Agency Strategic Plans Vol. 2 report indicates
that the performance standards listed for the administration program area are (1) The average
length of hospital stay and (2) The number of substantiated incidents of sexual violence in
TDOC managed facilities. These performance standards and related measures are, in the
auditor’s opinion, not relevant standards of performance for the services outlined for the
administration program.
Institutional Operation and Contract Management Facilities: Review of the September 2011
Agency Strategic Plans Vol. 2 report indicates that the performance standards listed for all ten of
the institutional operations program areas (facilities) and all three of the contract management
facilities are (1) To increase or maintain GED and vocational completions and (2) To limit the
rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates). The use of a uniform set of standards
and measures for all facilities appears to be, in the auditor’s opinion, inconsistent with the
varying types of services offered by all institutions. Furthermore, combining the results for both
the GED completions and vocational completions makes it impossible to differentiate between
the performances of the two program services offered.
Special Purpose Facilities: Review of the September 2011 Agency Strategic Plans Vol. 2 report
indicates that the performance standards listed for the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility
program area are (1) To increase or maintain GED and vocational completions and (2) To limit
the rate of violent institutional incidents (per 100 inmates). The auditor noted that these
performance standards are the same standards used for the institutional program areas (facilities).
In the auditor’s opinion, because of the specialized nature of the Lois M. DeBerry facility, the
use of the same standards used for other institutions does not adequately assess the performance
of the variety of services offered. Additionally, the auditor noted that different types of inmates
are housed at the Lois M. DeBerry facility (those requiring chronic, long-term, and convalescent
health care; those requiring mental health care; and sex offenders), but the performance measures
results indicated in the Agency Strategic Plans Volume 2 report show a single set of data. In the
auditor’s opinion, the performance measures results are likely to be distorted if the data were
collected and combined for all types of inmates and displayed in one numerical performance
measure result.
Performance Measure Not a Measurement of the Department’s Performance
Sentencing Act of 1985: The department’s performance standard is, “The Tennessee Department
of Correction (TDOC) Budget Office will appropriately estimate the operating costs of the
proposed laws or amendments affecting revenue.” The performance measure, “The percent of
fiscal notes attached to proposed laws or amendments affecting revenue or funding for the
Department of Correction,” does not relate to the estimation of operating costs of proposed laws
or amendments.