Tn Doc Audit Re Cca and Cms Contract Deficiencies 2003

Tn Doc Audit Re Cca and Cms Contract Deficiencies 2003

• Topics: Private Prisons

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

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

Department of Correction
September 2003

Arthur A. Hayes, Jr., CPA, JD, CFE
Director
Deborah V. Loveless, CPA
Assistant Director
Diana L. Jones, CGFM
Audit Manager
Lamont Price
David Wright, CFE
Lisa Breen
Ana Stovall
Scott Eads
Staff Auditors

R. Mason Ball, CPA, CGFM, CFE
In-Charge Auditor
Amy Brack
Editor

Comptroller of the Treasury, Division of State Audit
1500 James K. Polk Building, Nashville, TN 37243-0264
(615) 401-7897
Performance audits are available on-line at www.comptroller.state.tn.us/sa/reports/index.html.
For more information about the Comptroller of the Treasury, please visit our Web site at
www.comptroller.state.tn.us.

STATE OF TENNESSEE
COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0260
(615) 741-2501
John G. Morgan
Comptroller

September 9, 2003
The Honorable John S. Wilder
Speaker of the Senate
The Honorable Jimmy Naifeh
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Thelma M. Harper, Chair
Senate Committee on Government Operations
The Honorable Mike Kernell, 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 should be continued, restructured, or terminated.
Sincerely,

John G. Morgan
Comptroller of the Treasury
JGM/dlj
02-018

State of Tennessee

Audit Highlights
Comptroller of the Treasury

Division of State Audit

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
September 2003
_________

AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the audit were to determine the department’s legislative mandate and the extent to
which it has fulfilled that mandate and complied with applicable laws and regulations and to make
recommendations that might result in more efficient and effective operation of the department.

FINDINGS
The Department Failed to Assess Liquidated
Damages Against Health Care Providers for
Contract Noncompliance
The Department of Correction has failed to
assess liquidated damages against vendors
Correctional Medical Services and Mental
Health Management for numerous instances of
noncompliance with contract provisions.
Allowing
contractors
to
operate
in
noncompliance for significant periods of time
without substantial consequences provides no
incentive for efficient and effective operations
(page 39).
The Department Failed to Assess Liquidated
Damages Against Corrections Corporation of
America for Contract Noncompliance
Pursuant to Sections 41-24-101 et seq. and 4-3603(b), Tennessee Code Annotated, the
Department of Correction contracts for
correctional services at South Central
Correctional Facility (SCCF) and for housing of
state
prisoners
at
Hardeman
County
Correctional Facility (HCCF).
Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) manages both
facilities.
Despite numerous instances of

noncompliance at SCCF and HCCF, the
department has failed to assess liquidated
damages against CCA.
By allowing the
contractor to fail to comply with agreed-upon
terms without negative consequences, the
department has not ensured that the state is
getting the level of service it has paid for and
that the citizens of the state, including the
inmates and facility employees, are receiving
the level and types of services deemed necessary
by the state (page 43).
The Corrections Corporation of America Is
Not Purchasing Inmate Uniforms from
Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in
Corrections as Required by Statute and
Contract Provisions
According to interviews and documentation
obtained, it appears CCA is not purchasing the
majority of its inmate uniforms from the
Tennessee
Rehabilitative
Initiative
in
Corrections (TRICOR). When compared to
other department facilities, CCA’s inmate
uniform purchases are significantly lower (page
45).

The Department Needs to Continue to
Improve Pre-Release Services for Inmates
Department
Policy
511.02,
Pre-Release
Services, mandates that all department and
privately
managed
institutions
provide
programming designed to facilitate an inmate’s
release from incarceration and community
reintegration. Studies pertaining to recidivism
indicate that educational, life skill, and parental
programming help inmates readjust to life in the
community, which may help keep the former
inmates from committing new crimes and
returning to the prison system. During fiscal
year 2003, the department made several
improvements in its pre-release program. These

improvements include implementing the new
Tennessee Bridges program, assigning full-time
pre-release coordinators at 14 of the 15
correctional facilities, beginning the update of
pre-release policies, and requiring coordinators
to provide data on inmate participation in prerelease programs. Despite these improvements,
however, the pre-release services provided by
the Department of Correction still appear to be
insufficient given the number of inmates who
exit the system each year and the problems
inmates face when attempting to readjust to life
outside the correctional system (page 47).

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
The audit also discusses the following issues: (1) the high rate of correctional officer turnover at
department facilities; (2) the failure of some counties to submit Final Cost Settlements in a timely
manner; (3) the lack of centralized monitoring of employee training; (4) the failure of some prisons to
consistently adhere to all requirements of Health Services’ Continuous Quality Improvement Program;
(5) problems that led to the early replacement of West Tennessee State Penitentiary’s security fence; and
(6) delays in the selection of a new prison site. In addition, the audit discusses inmate classification and
reclassification, inmate employment, and the collection of DNA samples from inmates (pages 17-39).

“Audit Highlights” is a summary of the audit report. To obtain the complete audit report, which contains all findings,
recommendations, and management comments, please contact

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

Organization and Responsibilities
Commissioner’s Division
Deputy Commissioner’s Division
Division of Administrative Services
Division of Operations

2
2
5
7
10

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
Department Facilities Experience a High Rate of Correctional Officer Turnover

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

The Department Does Not Centrally Monitor Employee Training

Some Prisons Have Not Consistently Adhered to Health Services’
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Program

Early Replacement of West Tennessee State Penitentiary’s Security Fence

Delays in Selection of New Prison Site

Inmate Classification and Reclassification

Inmate Idleness

Collection of DNA Samples

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The department failed to assess liquidated damages against health care providers
for contract noncompliance

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page
2. The department failed to assess liquidated damages against Corrections
Corporation of America for contract noncompliance

3. The Corrections Corporation of America is not purchasing inmate uniforms from
Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections as required by statute and contract
provisions

4. The department needs to continue to improve pre-release services for inmates

RECOMMENDATIONS
Administrative

APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Title VI Information

Appendix 2: CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance

Appendix 3: Primary Care and Dental Care – Contracted Hours Versus
Actual Hours

Appendix 4: MHM Contractor Performance Assessment – Northeast Correctional
Complex

Appendix 5: Instances of Contract Noncompliance at South Central
Correctional Facility

Appendix 6: Instances of Contract Noncompliance at Hardeman County
Correctional Facility

Appendix 7: Health Services’ Continuous Quality Improvement
Program Information

Performance Audit
Department of Correction
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE AUDIT
This performance audit of the Tennessee Department of Correction was conducted
pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Entity Review Law, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4,
Chapter 29. Under Section 4-29-224, the Tennessee Department of Correction was scheduled to
terminate June 30, 2003. As provided for in Section 4-29-115, however, the department will
continue through June 30, 2004, for review by the designated legislative committee. The
Comptroller of the Treasury is authorized under Section 4-29-111 to conduct a limited program
review audit of the department and to report to the Joint Government Operations Committee of
the General Assembly. The audit is intended to aid the committee in determining whether the
agency should be continued, restructured, or terminated.

OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT
The objectives of the audit were
1. to determine the authority and responsibility mandated to the department by the
General Assembly,
2. to determine the extent to which the department has fulfilled its legislative
mandate and complied with applicable laws and regulations, and
3. to recommend possible alternatives for legislative or administrative actions that
might result in more efficient and effective operation of the department.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE AUDIT
The audit reviewed the activities of the Tennessee Department of Correction from fiscal
year 1997 through fiscal year 2002, with a focus on fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The audit was
conducted in accordance with the standards applicable to performance audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The
methods used included
1. a review of applicable statutes and rules and regulations;

2. an examination of the department’s records, documents, and policies and
procedures;
3. a review of prior performance audits, financial and compliance audit reports, audit
reports from other states, department internal audit reports, and department
contract monitor reports; and
4. interviews with department staff and staff of the Select Oversight Committee on
Corrections.

ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Tennessee 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 correctional system facilities. According to the department, the mission of the
Tennessee Department of Correction is to ensure public safety through incarceration of convicted
felons; enhance inmate life skills through selected rehabilitative programming; and make
implementation of cost-effective measures a clear priority.
Detailed below are departmental organization charts (pages 3-4) and descriptions of the
department’s divisions and sections as described in the Tennessee Department of Correction
Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
Commissioner’s Division
Employee Grievances and Disciplinaries
The Employee Grievance section helps employees determine the correct procedures for
resolving grievances and provides assistance to managers in establishing consistent actions.
During fiscal year 2002, a total of 176 grievances were submitted. The outcomes of these
grievances were as follows: 126 decisions were upheld, 30 decisions were overturned, 11 were
deemed non-grievable, and 9 were resolved without a hearing.
Internal Affairs
As authorized by the commissioner, Internal Affairs conducts administrative and criminal
investigations related to the operation of the department.
Legislative Liaison
The assistant to the commissioner for legislation serves as the liaison to the Governor’s
Office and members of the General Assembly concerning proposed legislation that might impact
the department’s operations. The liaison advises the commissioner and department staff of bills
being considered and coordinates the department’s review of pending legislation. The liaison
also monitors the implementation of new laws and informs staff of statutory changes and
possible revisions to department policies.

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organization Chart
October 2002
Commissioner

Executive
Secretary

Assistant to the
Commissioner

Assistant to the
Commissioner/
Legislation

General
Counsel
Public
Information
Officer

Director of
Internal Affairs
Correspondence/
Victim
Coordinator

Employee
Disciplinary
Appeals

Deputy
Commissioner

Executive
Secretary

Assistant to the
Deputy Commissioner

Asst. Commissioner
Fiscal and
Administrative Services

Asst. Commissioner
Operations

Physician

HCCC and SCCF
Contract Monitors

Director of
Compliance

Director of Food
Services

Correctional Health
Director

General Contract
Monitors (5)

Director of
Planning and
Research

Superintendent
Tennessee
Correction Academy

Director of Mental
Health Services

Program Planning
Group

Tennessee Department of Correction
Organization Chart (Cont.)
October 2002
Assistant
Commissioner
Operations

Executive Secretary

Corr. Prog. Support
Coord. (Director of
Special Projects)

Corr. Prog. Dir.
(Classification and
Central Dispatch)

Exec. Asst. (Inmate
Grievances/Disciplinary
Appeals)

Corr. Prog. Dir. (Sentence
Management Serv.)

Adm. Serv. Asst.
(Inmate Jobs)

Adm. Serv. Asst. (STG
Coordinator)

Corr. Prog. Dir.
(Commissioner's
Designee HCCF and
SCCF-2)

Educ. Consultant
(Education)

Corr. Prog. Support
Coord. (Security
Compliance
Coordinator-2)

Corr. Prog. Dir.
(Substance Abuse)

Volunteer Services
Director

Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex
Middle TN
Correctional Complex

Hardeman County
Correctional Complex
South Central
Correctional Center

Northeast
Correctional Complex

Southeastern TN
State Regional Corr.
Fac.

Wayne County Boot
Camp

West TN State
Penitentiary

Lois M. DeBerry
Special Needs Facility

Mark Lutrell
Correctional Complex

Northwest Correctional
Complex

Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution

Tennessee Prison for
Women

Turney Center Indus.
Prison & Farm

Office of the General Counsel
The Office of General Counsel represents the department and the commissioner in legal
and administrative proceedings in which the department is a party. In addition, the office drafts
administrative rules, reviews and recommends changes to departmental policies, provides legal
opinions on issues affecting corrections, reviews contracts, administers the Interstate Compact on
Detainers and the Interstate Corrections Compact, coordinates the extradition process in
Tennessee, reviews proposed legislation, and assists the Office of the Attorney General and
approved private counsel in the defense of departmental employees sued by inmates for alleged
constitutional civil rights violations.
Public Information Office
The Public Information Office is the central point for communication with the public and
media about the Department of Correction.
Deputy Commissioner’s Division
Compliance
Accreditation – The department continues to maintain its accredited status. One institution, the
Central Office, and the Tennessee Correctional Academy had successful American Correctional
Association (ACA) audits during fiscal year 2002. Tennessee is one of five states (including
New York, Ohio, Florida, and Louisiana) that have all correctional facilities and the central
office fully accredited by ACA.
Annual Inspections – During fiscal year 2002, all department and privately operated institutions
and the training academy were inspected by teams of 10 to 15 inspectors consisting of personnel
from the institutions and the Central Office. The inspections were completed using an inspection
instrument designed to monitor policy compliance in each area of the facility’s operation.
Internal Audit – During fiscal year 2002, Internal Audit conducted general fiscal audits of every
department institution and the training academy.
Food Services
The Food Services division coordinates the food service operations in all departmentmanaged correctional institutions. This division also works with the State Food Service Board of
Standards, which administers the Cook/Chill program, and with other correctional facilities in
and outside Tennessee on issues relating to food service.
Department facilities used $39,478 in U.S. Department of Agriculture commodities and
received $137,334 from the School Nutrition Program. Each institution uses produce grown on
department farms in order to decrease overall food cost. During fiscal year 2002, department
facilities served over 16.5 million meals at a cost of $4.41 per day per inmate, including food,
labor, supplies, and Cook/Chill overhead costs.

Health Services
Health Services is responsible for the overall planning, coordination, organization, and
monitoring of the department’s provision of health care. The staff of the Health Services section
includes registered nurses, contract monitors, a physician, and administrative staff.
Each institution has an on-site contract physician and other health care providers.
Patients requiring specialty physician care are generally referred to the Lois M. DeBerry Special
Needs Facility in Nashville, which provides a range of specialty clinics on-site. The facility’s
Health Care Center also provides 104 sub-acute nursing care beds for patients requiring preoperative, post-operative, or convalescent care. Metropolitan Nashville General Hospital
maintains a secure 14-bed acute care unit exclusively for department patients. The medical
contractor also provides specialty care at Nashville hospitals and medical clinics that cannot be
provided at the DeBerry Special Needs Facility. (See finding 1 for additional information
regarding the medical contractor.)
Mental Health Services
All incarcerated offenders have access to mental health services upon determination of
need by staff. Services include, but are not limited to, mental retardation services, psychiatric
inpatient and outpatient care, medication management through psychiatric intervention,
individual and group counseling designed to address a range of mental disorders, psychological
and psychiatric assessment and evaluation, and intensive sex offender treatment.
The department has two primary psychiatric treatment locations:
DeBerry Special Needs Facility – This Nashville facility, which can serve 320+
mentally disordered offenders, offers a 64-bed intensive sex offender treatment program,
a 24-bed pre-treatment sex offender program, and a 32-bed cognitively challenged sex
offender program.
South Central Correctional Facility – This Wayne County facility offers transitional
services for offenders discharged from DeBerry and other offenders within the system
who require sheltered psychiatric care in an environment less restrictive than DeBerry
Special Needs Facility.
Planning and Research
The Planning and Research division provides information, analysis, and research to assist
the department’s ongoing and future management, operation, and policy initiatives. The division
is responsible for providing information and analysis to public and private constituencies
regarding developing trends, issues, and correctional policy within the department in the form of
numerous reports issued monthly (e.g., Female Felon Population Update, Tennessee Jail Report
Summary, and Tennessee Felon Population Update), quarterly (e.g., Incident Report Summary
and Strategic Plan Update), and annually (e.g., Title VI Statistical Section, Correctional Officer
Turnover Report, and Future Felon Population Report), as well as statistical data and research
briefs.

Program Planning
The Program Planning division is responsible for special projects, program development,
and project management associated with the department’s long-range plans. This division’s
three-person staff reports to the Deputy Commissioner and works in conjunction with department
administration, directors, Planning and Research, and institutional personnel.
Tennessee Correction Academy
The Tennessee Correction Academy provides continuing job-based professional
development skills to both newly hired and in-service personnel. Fiscal year 2002 was the first
full fiscal year of program delivery since the expansion of basic training for correctional officers
to six weeks (240 hours).
Division of Administrative Services
Budget
The Budget division assists the institutions and program directors in the submission,
development, and management of the department’s operating budget. This division monitors and
authorizes expenditures from the department’s operating funds and monitors and revises the
department’s projected revenue collections.
The department’s total operating budget for fiscal year 2002 was $504,307,300. The
department’s actual expenditures were $449,708,900, approximately 11% under budget.
Fiscal Services
Fiscal Services provides technical assistance to the field in all areas of fiscal management
(financial reporting and all aspects of accounting, purchasing, payroll, property management, the
inmate trust fund, the commissary, and inventory control). The section participates in the
development of policies and procedures designed to maximize resources and eliminate fraud and
waste. For fiscal management issues, Fiscal Services also serves as the liaison between the
department and Finance and Administration, General Services, and the Comptroller of the
Treasury, and staff work with these agencies to ensure compliance with state laws and
regulations.
Central Procurement
In July 1997, the department established centralized procurement for the middle
Tennessee institutions and transferred the procurement officers from Davidson County facilities
to the Central Office to perform these functions. The assignment of procurement staff by
commodity groups enables staff to compare their assigned commodities among facilities and has
helped the department establish central contracts for purchasing leverage.
As of July 1, 2002, all facilities are on-line using an electronic procurement request for
procuring commodities.

Contract Administration
The Contract Administration section writes contracts, requests for proposals (RFPs), and
purchase authorizations to help institutions and Central Office administrators procure personal
services, professional services, and consultant services vital to the mission of the department.
The section is responsible for ensuring that the department complies with the statutes, rules, and
policies applicable to the service procurement and contracting processes. It serves as a single
point of contact between the department and the Department of Finance and Administration’s
Office of Contracts Review.
During fiscal year 2002, the department negotiated a new contract with Corrections
Corporation of America for management of the South Central Correctional Center. Amendments
to the “Private Prison Contracting Act” required the development of objective performance and
cost criteria for inclusion in the pro forma contract in the RFP. Contract renewal is contingent
upon the contractor providing essentially the same quality of services as the state at a cost 5%
lower than the state or the contractor providing services superior to those provided by the state at
essentially the same cost.
Contract liabilities for fiscal year 2003 included the following:
Service Category
Private Prison Operation
County Jails
Medical
Mental Health
Other
Total

Maximum Liability
$60,629,323
58,851,150
34,336,608
3,648,308
982,252
$158,447,641

% of Total
38%
37%
22%
2%
1%
100%

Energy Management and Facility Safety Compliance
Energy Management and Facility Safety Compliance provides technical information and
assistance to institution energy coordinators and facility safety officers in their efforts to reduce
energy consumption and improve institutional safety and the efficiency of existing HVAC and
related mechanical and electric systems. The section also conducts lighting, noise, and
ventilation testing to help institutions maintain their ACA accreditation.
Engineering Services
The Engineering Services section forms an administrative bridge between institutional
managers and the architects, engineers, and contractors providing services at the institutions.
This section prepares maintenance budgets, new construction programs, cost proposals, and
maintenance policies. Engineers review construction plans, specifications, and completed work,
and also investigate new building sites and designs. In addition, the staff serve as liaisons
between the department, Finance and Administration’s Capital Project Management division, and
the State Building Commission.

Judicial Expense and Criminal Cost Accounting
The Judicial Expense and Criminal Cost Accounting division works with county officials
to ensure that the counties are reimbursed for housing felons. There are several conditions under
which the state is liable for costs of housing felons:
1. Felons sentenced to serve their time in the local jail. (Tennessee Code Annotated
permits judges to sentence felons to serve their time locally in certain
circumstances.)
2. Counties that have contracted with the state to house felons sentenced to the
Department of Correction.
3. Counties housing felons who have been sentenced to the Department of
Correction and are awaiting transfer.
4. Court costs associated with felony charges, transporting inmates, extradition,
witness fees, jury boarding, and emergency medical expenses.
The funded appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $111,343,400.
Management Information Services
Management Information Services (MIS) provides computerized information reporting
and technical assistance in the design and development of computerized systems and archived
records. MIS is divided into four functional areas: Systems Development Services, Operational
Support Services, Integrated Technology Services, and Technical Support Services.
Systems Development Services provides support and maintenance for the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (TOMIS) as well as development support for the department’s
perpetual inventory and electronic procurement systems.
Operational Support Services is responsible for microfilming offender records, maintaining
archived medical and institutional records, distributing computer-generated reports, and
maintaining the electronic fingerprint system.
Integrated Technology Services (ITS) is responsible for the repair and preventive maintenance of
electronic security systems, including fence detection systems, locking control panels, alarm
annunciation panels, closed circuit TV, paging and intercom systems, and mobile mapping
systems. ITS is also responsible for the installation and maintenance of network and desktop
hardware and software for all department facilities.
Technical Support Services provides desktop hardware and software support assistance to users
in the Central Office. The group also maintains and updates the Victim Offender Information
Caller Emissary (VOICE), a system designed to allow registered victims to retrieve selected
automated offender information from TOMIS via telephone.

Personnel
Personnel provides technical assistance and advice to ensure compliance with Civil
Service rules, EEOC/Affirmative Action, state laws, and policies. This section also implements
and monitors personnel-related programs such as employee benefits, including employee
assistance, family medical leave, and accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Division of Operations
Program areas listed below are part of Operations. Program staff in each of these areas
provide overall support to the Central Office and the facilities (see Exhibit 1) on a daily basis.
Exhibit 1
Adult Facilities
County
1. Bledsoe
2. Davidson

3. Hardeman
4. Hickman
5. Johnson
6. Lake
7. Lauderdale
8. Morgan
9. Shelby
10. Wayne

Facility
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility
DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Middle Tennessee Correctional Complex
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
Tennessee Prison For Women
Hardeman County Correctional Facility
Whiteville Correctional Facility
Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm
Northeast Correctional Complex
Northwest Correctional Complex
West Tennessee State Penitentiary
Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex
Mark Lutrell Correctional Center
South Central Correctional Facility
Wayne County Boot Camp

Acronym
STSR
DSNF
MTCX
RMSI
TPW
HCCF
WCF
TCIP
NECX
NWCX
WTSP
BMCX
MLCC
SCCF
WCBC

Security Level
III
IV
III
IV
IV
II
II
III
IV
III
IV
IV
III
III
I

Custody Designations
Level
I
II
III
IV

Minimum Direct/Trusty
Minimum Restricted – Medium
Minimum – Close
Minimum – Maximum

Programs – Classification
The Classification section is responsible for inmate classification and sentence
management. The 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.

Inmate Population by Custody Level
June 30, 2002
Custody Level
Maximum
Close
Medium
Minimum
Unclassified
Total

Number of Offenders
817
440
12,045
3,327
794
17,423

Percent of Total
4.7%
2.5%
69.1%
19.1%
4.6%
100.0%

Classification is also responsible for ensuring that the inmate population levels of the
institutions do not exceed capacity limits. (See Table 1.) This is accomplished by authorizing
admissions of inmates to the department’s reception centers from county jails on a daily basis,
contingent upon available capacity. The division also monitors and approves, on the basis of
population levels, inter-institutional transfers of inmates.
Sentence Management Services
Sentence Management Services (SMS) provides sentence management information,
computes all felony sentences, monitors release dates and eligibility dates, and report these dates
to the Board of Probation and Parole in order to produce eligibility dockets.
Programs – Community Service Work Crews
According to the department’s annual report, in fiscal year 2002, department work crews
provided over 1.3 million hours of labor. By multiplying the hours of labor by the minimum
wage ($5.15), the department estimated that the inmates provided taxpayers and nonprofit groups
with more than $6 million in saved labor costs.
Programs – Education
The department operates a State Special School District and, as such, is required to
operate in accordance with the Department of Education’s Minimum Rules and Regulations for
the Governance of Schools. As of May 2002, the department had 248 educational staff (191 at
TDOC facilities and 57 at the private facilities, i.e., Hardeman County Correctional Facility and
South Central Correctional Center).

Table 1
Bed Space and Operating Capacity
April 30, 2003

Institution

BMCX
DSNF
HCCF
MLCC
MTCX
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
SCCF
STSRCF
TPW
TCIP
WCBC
WCF (2)
WTSP (3)
Total

Total
Beds
A

TDOC Operating
Capacity (1)
B

Population
as of 4/30/03
C

1,603
800
2,016
440
1,126
1,886
2,425
736
1,676
981
775
1,136
450
1,350
2,582
19,982

1,587
736
1,976
436
1,115
1,848
2,352
714
1,642
971
744
1,113
446
1,350
2,505
19,535

1,542
721
1,952
423
1,039
1,795
2,298
704
1,633
934
752
1,102
430
1,303
2,531
19,159

Operating
Capacity
C/B

Female

97.2%
98.0%
98.8%
97.0%
93.2%
97.1%
97.7%
98.6%
99.5%
96.2%
101.1%
99.0%
96.4%
96.5%
101.0%
98.1%

Classification

Maximum
Security

Special Purpose
Facilities

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

Notes:
(1) Operating capacity indicates the population that should be assigned to the institution on a regular basis. Therefore, it excludes beds for special
purposes such as medical or mental health reasons, disciplinary segregation, protective custody, and maximum security. The department’s operating
capacity is currently set at 98% of total beds available.
(2) The Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) opened October 28, 2002.
(3) The facilities consolidated into WTSP are West Tennessee High Security, Cold Creek Correctional Facility, and the new Lauderdale County Facility.
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction, Planning and Research Section.

The department routinely assigns inmates under 21 years of age and those without a
verified high school diploma or GED to educational programs. During fiscal year 2002,
according to the department’s annual report, 655 inmates took the GED test, and 511 (78%)
passed the test. Inmates may participate in college-level classes via correspondence courses at
their own expense and with the approval of the warden.
The department offers 29 different vocational training programs. In fiscal year 2002,
there were 865 vocational graduates (see Table 2).
Programs – Inmate Grievances/Disciplinary Appeals
A grievance is defined as a written complaint concerning the substance or application of a
written or unwritten policy or practice, any single behavior or action toward an inmate by staff or
other inmates, or any condition or incident within the department or institution which personally
affects the inmate complainant.
The U.S. Department of Justice has certified the department’s inmate grievance
procedures. There are three levels of the grievance process, two of which occur at the
institutional level. An executive administrative assistant to the commissioner handles the third
level of the process. Responses to grievances concerning health services, food services, TRICOR
(Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections), and jobs/education are drafted by the
appropriate director and returned to the executive administrative assistant for final review.
Inmates have one calendar year to file a civil suit from the date of receipt of the final level-three
responses to the grievance.
Programs – Inmate Jobs
An inmate job is defined as a program assignment for which an inmate is paid and/or is
evaluated for program sentence credits. A program assignment includes work, academic and
vocational classes, social services programs, and mental health programs. The purpose of the
inmate jobs program is to reduce idleness, to provide meaningful jobs and training, and to
provide a system for job advancement. (See page 33 for further discussion of inmate
employment.)
Inmates are not permitted to refuse or quit an assignment, with the exception of those
assigned to a Prison Industries Enhancement program or to certain mental health treatment
programs. There are two types of job assignment terminations—disciplinary and nondisciplinary. Sanctions are attached to disciplinary terminations.
Programs – Substance Abuse Program
The goal of the Substance Abuse Program is to provide a continuum of cost-effective
substance abuse treatment and programming services for incarcerated felons who have a history
of being alcohol or drug dependent. The department has developed a range of treatment
programs designed for varying levels of need and motivation. Programming services include
drug awareness, addiction and recovery education, group counseling, therapeutic community, and
transitional release services (see Exhibit 2).

Table 2
Vocational Graduates
Fiscal Year 2002
Facility
Vocational Program
Auto Mechanic Technology
Barbering
Building Maintenance
Building Trades
Cabinetmaking
Carpentry
Cleaning (Industrial)
Computer Repair/Service
Cosmetology
Culinary Arts
Electrical/Mechanical
Heating, AC and Refrigeration
Interior Development and Finish
Interior Exterior Landscaping
Industrial Maintenance
Landscaping
Masonry
Office Technology
Painting
Personal Computing
Plumbing
Graphic Arts
Residential Construction Tech. I
Residential Construction Tech. II
Residential Electricity
Shoe Repair
Small Engine Repair
Upholstery
Welding
System Wide Totals

BMCX

*HCCF

MLCC

NECX

NWCX

RMSI

*SCCF

STSRCF

TCIP

TPW

3
18

24
2

9
6

WTSP

8
36

7
27

9
53
43

7
6

4
24

2
8

1
2

10
6

1
22
7

11
19

19
15

3
1
9
26
3
8
20
3

3
29

198

100

1
4
6
6
6
0
113

18
4

231

Total
3
25
24
11
10
24
239
43
10
50
49
23
51
7
10
66
19
3
1
20
26
3
9
20
73
6
10
30
0
865

*HCCF’s and SCCF’s vocational programs are administered through Pontiac Business Institute (approved by Tennessee Higher Education Commission) rather than frameworks of the Tennessee
Department of Education. The programs are typically 16 weeks in length, thus the higher number of graduates.
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction, Planning and Research Section

Exhibit 2
TDOC Substance Abuse
Program Availability
Modality
Drug Awareness
All Department
Facilities

Addiction and
Recovery
Education
All Department
Facilities

Group Counseling
All Time Building
Facilities

Therapeutic
Community
(TPW, MLCC,
BMCX, and
NWCX)
Transitional
Release
(MTCX, BMCX,
TPW)

Description

Client Characteristics

Length of Stay

Generally once per week, after work
hours or on weekends. Group discussion
and lecture format. Can be instructed by
any employee trained to facilitate current
Drug Awareness Curriculum. This is not
a treatment program.

Used as a sanction for inmates
who test positive on a drug
screen. Group size: unlimited,
determined
by
seating
capacity.

Short duration, 30-40
hours of classroom
instruction.

Commonly once or twice per week.
Lecture format, classroom setting. Can
be instructed by any employee trained to
facilitate current Addiction and Recovery
Education Curriculum. This is a pretreatment
program.
Federal
confidentiality laws do not protect
inmates who are enrolled in Addiction
and Recovery.

Persons who are not ready for
treatment services. Persons
who are not heavily addicted
and are in need of pretreatment
or
prevention
services. Group size: 20-30
per session.

Varies, generally 26
hours of classroom
instruction.

Generally, conducted twice per week.
Group sessions are 120 minutes in length.
Participants are given homework
assignments or out-of-group activities.
Role-play, individual presentations, and
situational exercises are required to assist
in skill development. A substance abuse
treatment counselor can only facilitate
group counseling. A plan of treatment is
required. Federal confidentiality laws
protect program participant information.
A signed release of information is
required prior to acceptance into the
program.

Appropriate for persons who
have substantial drug histories
or who have completed a
therapeutic
community
program. Group size: 20-25
for large group discussion and
10-15 for small process group
sessions.

Generally, 3-6 months.

Long-term 24 hours a day designed to
impact new behaviors and attitudes. Peer
hierarchy and reinforcement. Federal
confidentiality laws protect all program
information.

Persons with long histories of
substance abuse and antisocial
behaviors.

Generally, 6-12
months.

Short- or long-term pre-release program
utilizing relapse prevention strategies;
may include work release or community
service.

Persons completing a TC or
Cognitive
Interventions
program, parole violators, or
person convicted for a
positive drug screen.

Varies, generally 6-24
months.

All inmates incarcerated in department institutions are subject to random drug testing.
Using a computer-generated list, ten percent of each institution’s in-house population is
randomly drug tested each month. Inmates are tested for several different drugs that are
commonly used by the population being tested. The table below provides the monthly random
drug test results for fiscal year 2002.
Monthly Random Drug Test Results
Fiscal Year 2002
Month

Number
Tested

Refused
Test

July 2001
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June 2002
Total

1,472
1,517
1,489
1,488
1,472
1,461
1,407
1,457
1,479
1,466
1,448
1,468
17,624

12
24
18
18
9
10
10
5
5
6
5
10
132

Tested
Positive
64
84
56
52
37
51
39
26
41
41
35
27
553

Percent Testing
Positive*
5%
7%
5%
5%
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%

* Tested positive + refused test/Number tested.

Programs – Security Services
The Security Services section is responsible for monitoring department security systems;
evaluating institutional security issues; and developing applicable policies, procedures, and
practices. The section conducts on-site audits of institutional security practices and procedures,
compiles and evaluates information on trends and changes in technology that might impact or
improve security functioning, and serves as a general resource for issues related to correctional
security.
Programs – Volunteer Services
The Volunteer Services section is responsible for developing and implementing volunteer
programs for offenders, members of the inmate’s family, and staff. The volunteers are recruited
from within the community to supplement services the state offers. Personal counseling, tutoring
in basic literacy and GED preparation, sponsoring birthday parties, and offering religious
instruction are some of the services volunteers provide.
A staff member in each institution is assigned the task of working with the volunteers at
that site, and the local volunteer coordinator recruits and trains volunteers according to each
institution’s specific needs. Training includes a standardized orientation to policies and
procedures with specialized instruction to meet the needs of the volunteer program at a particular
location.

Each institution organizes a local Community Resource Board to oversee management of
the volunteer program and community relations. The local boards are made up of community
leaders and representatives from church groups and civic organizations.
Security Threat Group Management
The Security Threat Group (STG) Management function is an integral component of the
Division of Operations. STG management encompasses the identification, monitoring, and
tracking of confirmed STG members and affiliates throughout their incarceration. In 1999, a
position was created within the Division of Operations for a Security Threat Group Coordinator.
The coordinator’s primary responsibility is to assess gang intelligence and disseminate it within
the department and to other law enforcement agencies.
Pre-Release and Transition Services
See finding 4 for a further discussion of the department’s pre-release program during our
audit fieldwork. On November 1, 2001, the position of Director of Pre-Release and Transition
Services was created to enhance the department’s existing pre-release program. In July 2002, the
U.S. Department of Justice awarded the department, in partnership with the Board of Probation
and Parole, $1,064,000 to develop a three-year reentry program targeting serious and violent
offenders. The pilot project will target 300 offenders who are determined to be at high risk to
recidivate.
The proposal is divided into three phases with the first being an intensive treatment
program while still in TDOC custody. Phases two and three deal with reentry and stabilization.
These phases will have enhanced parole supervision, and each inmate will be assigned a case
manager to assist with community transition. The goal of the proposal is to reduce recidivism
rates, thereby increasing public safety.

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS

The following issues were included in the audit but did not warrant findings.

DEPARTMENT FACILITIES EXPERIENCE A HIGH RATE OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
TURNOVER
Wardens and/or personnel office staff at seven of the nine institutions we visited
indicated that correctional officer turnover is a problem. System-wide, for calendar year 2002,
the correctional officer class had a turnover rate of 28%, an increase of 1% from the 2001 rate of
27%. High turnover rates may contribute to a variety of problems for facilities, such as increased
training and recruitment costs and increased use of overtime. According to employee exit

surveys, low pay is a major reason for turnover, and comparisons of the department’s starting
correctional officer salary with salaries in other states and in Middle Tennessee counties indicate
that the department’s salary is lower than average.
The department’s personnel director indicated that the average cost to recruit and train a
new correctional officer is about $10,000 and that it takes the department about three years to
recover the cost. A warden at one of the department’s facilities in Davidson County indicated
that the department is basically a training facility for local jails because an individual can be
trained by Correction, receive work experience, and then leave for more money by working at
county sheriffs’ offices. Based on the employee exit surveys the department received during
calendar year 2000, 62% of the survey respondents left with two years or less of employment. In
calendar year 2001, 65% of the respondents left with two years or less of employment, and
during the first eight months of calendar year 2002, 59% left with less than 2 years of
employment service. (Many department employees who leave never complete and return their
exit surveys; therefore, the survey results do not present a complete picture of departing
employees. However, based on the above survey results and the personnel director’s estimate of
costs, the department is losing a substantial amount of money recruiting and training correctional
officers who then leave within two years.)
The department’s 2002 turnover report (see Table 3) indicated that there are five facilities
with a correctional officer turnover rate that is higher than the statewide average. These facilities
include DeBerry Special Needs Facility (51%), Middle Tennessee Correctional Complex (34%),
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution (46%), Tennessee Prison for Women (69%), and West
Tennessee State Penitentiary (35%).
As might be expected, some of the facilities with higher turnover rates for the correctional
officer positions also had higher amounts of employee overtime and were more understaffed in
comparison to facility staffing standards. Three of the facilities with the higher turnover rates—
Riverbend, DeBerry, and West Tennessee—also accounted for 72% of the overtime pay in fiscal
year 2000, 63% in fiscal year 2001, and 58% in fiscal year 2002. In addition, in fiscal year 1999,
several of the facilities with higher amounts of turnover also had the highest percentage of
understaffing for Correctional Officer positions (Tennessee Prison for Women 12%, Middle
Tennessee Correctional Complex 11%, West Tennessee State Penitentiary 19%, Riverbend
Maximum Security Institution 15%, Northwest Tennessee Correctional Complex 16%, and
DeBerry Special Needs Facility 10%). In fiscal year 2000, there were three facilities that had
understaffing percentages that were 10% or more (Mark Luttrell Correctional Center 10%, West
Tennessee State Penitentiary 11%, and Riverbend Maximum Security Institution 12%). Two of
the three facilities had turnover rates higher than the statewide rate. In fiscal year 2001, DeBerry
Special Needs Facility (24% below staffing standards) and Tennessee Prison for Women (41%
below staffing standards) were the only two facilities with more than 10% understaffing for
correctional officers, and both facilities had high turnover rates. The Tennessee Prison for
Women’s high percentage of understaffing during 2001 was at least partly the result of additional
beds added to the facility during that year.

Table 3
Trends in Correctional Officer
Turnover Rates by Institution
Calendar Years 1998 Through 2002

TDOC Facilities
Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex
DeBerry Special Needs
Facility
Mark Luttrell
Correctional Center
Middle Tennessee
Correctional Complex
Northeast Correctional
Complex
Northwest Correctional
Complex
Riverbend Maximum
Security Institution
Southeastern Tennessee
State Regional
Correctional Facility
Tennessee Prison For
Women
Turney Center Industrial
Prison & Farm
Wayne County Boot
Camp
West Tennessee State
Penitentiary
Statewide Department
Turnover Rate

1998
Turnover

1999
Turnover

2000
Turnover

2001
Turnover

2002
Turnover

12%

39%

42%

34%

51%

33%

23%

25%

24%

27%

38%

42%

34%

29%

25%

24%

18%

24%

35%

36%

28%

30%

25%

50%

55%

52%

39%

46%

20%

17%

24%

16%

45%

42%

68%

55%

69%

37%

29%

21%

19%

10%

36%

15%

16%

52%

56%

36%

33%

35%

34%

33%

29%

27%

28%

Source: Department of Correction Planning and Research Section, Correctional Officer Turnover Annual Report 2002

Based on the employee exit surveys we reviewed, “low pay” was the most common
reason reported for leaving the department. The three most common reasons given are listed
below.
Reason

2000

2001

2002*

Favoritism

10%

Pay too low

42%

43%

44%

Problems with
supervisor

20%

13%

12%

72%

66%

Total

* Surveys received during the first eight months of calendar year 2002.

We reviewed correctional officer salaries reported in the Southern Legislative Conference
Adult Correctional Systems Reports for fiscal years 1998 through 2002 (see Table 4). When
compared with the other 15 states in relation to starting salaries for correctional officers,
Tennessee ranked 13th in fiscal year 1998, 10th in fiscal year 1999, 11th in fiscal year 2000, 12th in
fiscal year 2001, and 13th in fiscal year 2002.
Table 4
Correctional Officer Starting Salaries*
Fiscal Years 1998 Through 2002
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

FY 1998
$17,823
18,860
21,680
19,722
17,687
15,324
22,904
16,906
19,764
21,565
15,965
18,706
16,968
17,724
20,364
18,120

FY 1999
$22,318
19,388
23,024
19,722
18,264
15,324
24,287
17,505
20,700
21,999
16,672
19,267
18,540
17,724
20,824
18,120

FY 2000
$22,318
19,931
25,924
22,044
18,264
15,948
24,824
17,073
21,300
22,269
16,680
19,748
19,416
21,942
20,823
18,120

FY 2001
$22,318
20,449
25,175
22,044
18,866
18,360
25,921
17,072
21,720
22.894
20,672
20,044
19,876
21,942
20,455
18,120

FY2002
$23,221
20,981
25,243
22,926
19,377
18,366
26,958
17,073
23,268
22,894
20,672
20,542
20,100
22,772
22,361
20,124

16-State Average
Tennessee Amount Below Average

$18,755
$1,787

$19,605
$1,065

$20,420
$1,004

$20,996
$1,120

$21,680
$1,580

* Salary data is based on base annual salary and does not include retirement and other related benefits.

We also obtained salary information from sheriff offices in Davidson and surrounding
counties (see Table 5).
Table 5
Correctional Officers/Guards/Jailers Beginning Pay
As of December 5, 2002
County
Davidson
Cheatham
Wilson ($11.30/hour)
Sumner
Williamson ($10.10/hour)
Rutherford
Montgomery ($11.52/hour)
7-County Average
Tennessee Department of Correction
Difference

Beginning Salary
$26,695
$26,048
$23,504
$20,000
$21,008
$22,980
$23,962
$23,457
$20,100
$3,357

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

The comparison of Tennessee with 15 other states indicates that, as of July 1, 2002,
Tennessee paid newly hired correctional officers $1,580 below the average salary for the
Southern Legislative Conference states. The department also has a long way to go to become
competitive with local jails in several counties surrounding Davidson County. The average
salary gap between the department and local jails around Davidson County was over $3,300, and
the gap ranged from ($100) to $6,600. All four of the department facilities located in Davidson
County had a correctional officer turnover rate that exceeded the statewide average. The other
two facilities that exceeded the statewide average turnover rate were located in West Tennessee.
These two facilities must compete against industrial factories such as Goodyear in Union City
and Caterpillar in Dyersburg, as well as employers located in Shelby County. It appears that,
given the salary differential, the department will continue to have problems keeping new
employees except in rural areas where there is less competition for labor.
The department should continue its efforts to upgrade correctional officer salaries to
remain as competitive as possible with local facilities, as well as with other states in the region.
The department should review the results of the exit surveys and seek additional feedback from
departing and current employees, as well as from correction officials in other states, to identify
other changes the department could make to help decrease turnover.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. If TDOC’s turnover rate is to be identified as high and/or
problematic, the auditors should present turnover for departments of correction in comparative

states to establish a baseline. In actuality, TDOC’s correctional turnover rate is equal to or lower
than other Southern states where methodologies in data collection are similar.
The auditors note that TDOC’s turnover rate increased by 1% in 2002. This statement
was offered to convey an upward trend in officer turnover; therefore, this is a misrepresentation
of the data. Moreover, the audit report did not note that systemwide in 2002, DOC’s correctional
officer turnover rate of 27.9% represented a decrease of 5.4% from the 1999 rate of 33.3%. The
department’s turnover rate is also not homogeneous, as the rate of turnover in some of the
institutions is as low as 4%. Additionally, it should be noted that TDOC’s turnover rate is also
improving for those with less than one year of service (from 66.1% in 1999 to 62.2% in 2002, a
decrease of 3.9%).
Turnover among correctional officers remains a long-standing issue for departments of
correction throughout the United States and other countries. Burnout and high levels of
occupational stress are extremely common for correctional officers. This stress is unfortunately
met with low pay and low job prestige. Tennessee is no exception, but we are currently striving
to identify some of the key factors affecting turnover in our facilities.
Accordingly, initiatives that have contributed or are anticipated to contribute to a
reduction in the turnover rate and should be noted in the audit report include:
1. Enhanced Pre-Service Training: Pre-service training has been increased from 4 weeks to
6 weeks for newly hired correctional officers.
2. Creation of Field Training Officers: This new position has been established at each
TDOC facility to work with, train, and coordinate the mentoring of new employees
returning from the academy.
3. New Supervisor Training: The department is developing a “people skills program” to
complement the Academy’s 40 hour New Supervisory Orientation class. This new
program will further enhance new supervisors’ “people skills,” which are vital in
supervising and working with inexperienced first line employees.
4. Position Upgrades: Whenever possible, requests to increase the salary grade and pay scale
of the correctional officer series have been made in an attempt to be more competitive
with other states, county jails, and local law enforcement agencies. The current entry
salary is $1,725 per month, almost 30% greater than the $1,331 offered six years ago.
5. Enhanced Recruitment Efforts: A new staff position (recruiter) was created in central
office and dedicated solely to working with the institutions on recruitment and retention
of employees.
While we agree that low pay is one reason that employees leave state service, a review of our exit
surveys also suggests that employees are often dissatisfied with supervision/management. This
dissatisfaction leads to the employee seeking other employment, sometimes at jobs paying more

but with fewer benefits. We feel that increased supervisory/people skills training for managers
and supervisors will aid in alleviating employee turnover.
With regard to Table 5, the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office beginning salary is now $28,600,
even more than the amount shown.

COUNTY FINAL COST SETTLEMENTS ARE NOT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN
A TIMELY MANNER
Under the County Correctional Incentives Program (CCIP), counties are reimbursed for
housing Tennessee Department of Correction inmates. For counties using the Reasonable
Allowable Cost method of reimbursement, the monthly reimbursement is based on the county’s
interim Inmate Day Rate and the inmate count from the Tennessee Offender Management
Information System (TOMIS). The interim Inmate Day Rate, in turn, is based on the county’s
Final Cost Settlement from the previous fiscal year. (See the note to Table 6 for a discussion of
the rates and process for counties with resolution and flat rate contracts.) However, a file review
of 47 county files (15 counties from each grand division with Davidson and Shelby counties
having two jail facilities) found that 22 Final Cost Settlements were over 30 days late in fiscal
year 2000, 20 were 30 days past due in fiscal year 2001, and 17 were over 30 days late in fiscal
year 2002. Timely submissions are important because a reasonable interim Inmate Day Rate
cannot be calculated for the subsequent fiscal year until the Final Cost Settlement is completed.
Although the prior year’s interim rate is used to pay the current year’s monthly jail bills in the
meantime, this practice often results in underpayments or overpayments to the counties.
As noted above, the interim Inmate Day Rate is based on the county’s Final Cost
Settlement from the previous fiscal year. The prior-year’s actual cost per that settlement, limited
to $35, is multiplied by 103% to account for inflation. Then the interim rate is set at 90% of the
calculated amount. Monthly, the department sends jail bills to the facilities listing the state
inmates housed at the county’s institution according to TOMIS. The facilities are to review the
jail bill, note additions and deletions, and return the jail bill along with a Correction Facility
Summary Report (CFSR) for the month. Both the signed CFSR and the jail bill have to be
returned in order to process payment. The CFSR and jail bill are then reviewed by one of four
department employees assigned to this task. The amount paid is the adjusted TOMIS count of
inmate days multiplied by the interim Inmate Day Rate.
The Final Cost Settlement (FCS) is due October 1 following the end of the fiscal year
(June 30). This date is included in the Guidelines for Determining Reasonable and Allowable
Costs, which is sent by June of each year to those counties using the Reasonable Allowable Cost
method of reimbursement. The department also sends a letter in June to the institutions
reminding them of the October 1 deadline for the FCS. The letter indicates that if the FCS is not
submitted by the deadline, the interim Inmate Day Rate may be reduced. Also, the final payment
for the month of June is not made until the FCS is completed. In March following the October
deadline, the department contacts the counties that are still outstanding and urges them to submit
their FCS. On May 1, the department sends another letter to those counties still outstanding

notifying them that if they do not respond by May 15, their rate will be reduced. For counties
still not responding by May 15, the interim rate is reduced until the FCS is completed.
(According to department staff, the timetable for contacting counties who have not submitted
their FCS may vary somewhat from year to year. The timetable described above was the one
used during our audit period.)
According to the department’s Judicial Expense and Criminal Cost Accounting staff,
there are no formal policies and procedures for the County Correctional Incentives Program.
Aside from the October 1 deadline for submission of the FCS, there are no other policies
outlining county and department requirements. Based on testwork performed, a significant
number of counties do not submit the FCS by the appropriate date. A summary of the results is
shown in the following table.
Table 6
Review of County Submission of Final Cost Settlement (FCS)
For Fiscal Years Ending June 30
Submission of FCS
No Reports Required*
Early or on time
1-30 days late
31-60 days late
61-90 days late
91-120 days late
121-150 days late
151-200 days late
201-250 days late
> 250 days late
Total Counties Reviewed

2002
9
9
12
2
1
0
0
4
6
4
47

Percent
19%
19%
26%
4%
2%
0%
0%
9%
12%
9%
100%

2001
9
7
11
4
2
0
2
7
3
2
47

Percent

2000

19%
15%
23%
9%
4%
0%
4%
16%
6%
4%
100%

9
7
9
4
2
2
1
5
4
4
47

Percent
19%
15%
19%
9%
4%
4%
2%
10%
9%
9%
100%

* Some counties are not required to submit a Final Cost Settlement because they are either contracted at a flat rate or
participate via a resolution (25 of 102 institutions are categorized either as Resolution or Contract Flat Rate). For
resolution counties, the county governing body adopts a resolution for the reimbursement rate of $18 or $20 per
inmate day. Counties with a rated capacity of less than 100 inmates receive a flat rate of $18. Counties with a
rated capacity greater than 100 inmates receive a flat rate of $20. The county and state determine a reasonable
cost reimbursement for counties that receive the contract flat rate, and this flat rate is incorporated into the
contract. Currently the contract flat rate ranges from $20 to $35. Since both the Resolution and Contract Flat Rate
counties have a set rate applied, their actual costs are not relevant and a Final Cost Settlement is not necessary.

For facilities that did not submit the Final Cost Settlement (FCS) timely, it appears that
the department correctly withheld final payment until the FCS was reviewed and corrected.
However, the untimely completion of the FCS causes several problems. A reasonable interim
Inmate Day Rate cannot be calculated for the subsequent fiscal year until the FCS is completed.
Until the FCS is completed, the prior fiscal year’s interim rate is used to pay the present fiscal
year’s monthly jail bills. For most counties reviewed that had not submitted a timely FCS, the
counties’ interim Inmate Day Rate was understated. This in turn caused the monthly
reimbursement to be understated. It is in the county’s interest to submit the FCS timely in order
to have costs reimbursed more accurately, limiting the burden on local government. In some

counties, the interim Inmate Day Rate was overstated. This caused the state to overpay the
counties and then have to recover the overpayment from subsequent payment requests. It is in
the state’s interest to encourage timely submission of the FCS in order to limit the state’s risk and
to better utilize the funds.
In some cases, corrections for over- and underpayments may be delayed until close to or
after the end of the following fiscal year. Several counties reviewed—four in 2000, two in 2001,
and four in 2002—submitted their FCS over 250 days late. According to department staff, one
county has not submitted an FCS since 1999.
The department should consider creating formal policies and procedures regarding the
CCIP program. Policies and procedures should include, at a minimum:
•

Timelines for the review of jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs by department staff. These
should be reviewed within 30 days of receipt.

•

Timelines for follow-up of FCS. The department should continue to contact counties
in June but should follow up in November, with reduction of the interim Inmate Day
Rate occurring in December following the end of the fiscal year.

•

Timelines for response from the counties to questioned costs. Counties should be
limited to 30 days from notification before reduction in the Inmate Day Rate.

•

Procedures for review of jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs by department staff.

•

Procedures for corrections to the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs.

•

Policies for submission of the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. The Department of Correction is unable to control the
counties’ submittal of Final Cost Settlements (FCSs), board bills, and Correctional Facility
Summary Reports (CFSRs). We will continue working with the Comptroller’s Office – County
Correctional Incentives Program (CCIP) audit group, UT County Technical Assistance Services,
and the county officials to receive and process all documents in a timely manner.
We do not concur with the need for formal departmental policies and procedures, as these
will only affect TDOC personnel and have no impact on the counties and/or other entities.
However, we will revise our Guidelines for Determining Reasonable Allowable Cost for State
Prisoners, Reimbursement for Housing Felons in County Facilities, and Sheriff’s Handbook
where necessary and formulate a new operational manual if additional procedures are required.

THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CENTRALLY MONITOR EMPLOYEE TRAINING
The department has specific training requirements for security staff, and training
requirements are an important component of the facility accreditation process. However, staff at
the department’s central office do not monitor whether employees have received the required
hours of training. In addition, the facilities, which are responsible for monitoring their
employees’ training, are not consistent in the way they track that information.
We interviewed staff at the department’s Central Office, the Tennessee Correction
Academy (TCA), and several facilities concerning employee training. According to the staff
interviewed, new correctional security personnel are required to receive one week of orientation
at the facility, six weeks of training at the Correction Academy, and two weeks of on-the-job
training prior to being assigned a shift position by themselves. Annually, correctional security
personnel are required to receive 40 hours of professional training. Correctional officers and
corporals are required to receive 24 hours of training at the academy and 16 hours of training inhouse. Upper-level positions such as sergeants, lieutenants, and captains are required to receive
16 hours of training at the academy and 24 hours of in-house training.
When we requested employee-training information from Central Office, we were told that
the Central Office did not maintain a summary of that information and that there was no specific
person assigned the responsibility of monitoring employee training. The Tennessee Correction
Academy also does not maintain employee-training summaries. Instead, each facility maintains
the documentation of employee-training information. Four facilities maintain the training
information in a paper file, and then store the information in an electronic database and in a paper
file. (At the time of the audit, the Whiteville facility operated by CCA did not house any
department inmates.) Six of the facilities use some version of Microsoft Access, and four use an
Excel spreadsheet.
Methods for Tracking Employee Training Data
Facility

Managed By

BMCC
DSNF
HCCF
MLCC
MTCC
NECC
NWCC
RMSI
SCCF
STSRCF
TPW
TCIP
WCBC
WCF

TDOC
TDOC
CCA
TDOC
TDOC
TDOC
TDOC
TDOC
CCA
TDOC
TDOC
TDOC
TDOC
CCA

WTSP

TDOC

Employee Training
Data
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
File Only
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
File Only
File Only
File Only
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
Electronic/File
Didn’t House Inmates at
Time of Audit Fieldwork
Electronic/File

Electronic Data
Format
Excel
Microsoft Access
Excel
Microsoft Access
Microsoft Access
Microsoft Access

Excel
Excel
Microsoft Access
Microsoft Access

Microsoft Access

To ensure that employees receive the required amounts of training, the department should
consider monitoring training centrally. The department should require that all facilities track
training information electronically, using the same software program, and submit that
information to the Central Office periodically (e.g., monthly or quarterly). The department
should also develop a uniform method of recording employee training hours to facilitate
monitoring. Using information submitted by the facilities, Central Office staff should prepare at
least once during the course of each year an exception report highlighting employees who lack
the required training hours. The department should prepare the report early enough to allow
sufficient time to schedule training classes for individuals needing additional hours.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. Each institution and the training academy undergo a
rigorous annual inspection conducted by an appointed team of departmental personnel under the
supervision of TDOC’s compliance division. Included in this process are at least 14 specific
inspection items that directly and distinctly pertain to employee training requirements. It is our
contention that this on-going monitoring process adequately addresses the department’s need to
ensure that employee training requirements are thoroughly met. In addition, each institution, the
training academy, and central office track employee training via paper or electronic files for staff
assigned to their respective sites. While we concede that each location’s tracking method may
need to be standardized, most of TDOC’s functions are decentralized; therefore, there would be
no great enhancement or economical advantage to establishing staff to centrally track training.

SOME PRISONS HAVE NOT CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO HEALTH SERVICES’
CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI) PROGRAM
The CQI program is a result of the Grubbs court case, which determined that the
Department of Correction needed centralized oversight of its medical services through a quality
assurance program. The program is designed to continually pursue opportunities to improve
patient care in an effort to achieve optimal care in a cost-effective manner. The CQI process
involves ongoing monitoring and evaluation to systematically and objectively assess the
adequacy and appropriateness of the health care provided and to institute improvement as
needed. Based on interviews with department staff and reviews of documentation they provided,
it appears that the department has a reasonable process in place. Some facilities, however,
continue to have difficulty complying with program objectives on a consistent basis. (See
Appendix 7.)
The program has a CQI coordinator based in the Central Office, and each institutional
health administrator designates a registered nurse whose duties include serving as institutional
CQI coordinator and overseeing the institutional infection-control program. The Continuous
Quality Improvement Manual identifies information and forms required to capture information
for the quality assurance program. Standard information is required each month, such as the
number of positive tuberculosis tests or a list of required periodic health appraisals. In addition,

each facility is required to perform system-wide studies, and each study has a set performance
standard. Areas of noncompliance identified in department reports include late or missing CQI
meeting minutes, failure to select institutional CQI leaders and team members, late or missing
mandated reports and studies, mediocre documentation of studies and reports, and minimal
physician involvement in the program. Noncompliance with program mandates could negatively
impact the department’s ability to perform trend analyses to assess infection control; review the
distribution of medication; and properly diagnose and treat mental illness, tuberculosis, hepatitis,
HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and chronic diseases. Although the department’s primary role is not
disease prevention and treatment, it is important to avoid the spread of disease within the prison
system and to return inmates back to the community as physically and mentally well as possible.
The department’s Statewide CQI Health Services Annual Report for Calendar Year 2002
indicated that there are several institutions that still need additional assistance in getting the CQI
program operating properly. Exhibit 3 indicates the weaknesses that the department plans to
address in Calendar Year 2003.
Exhibit 3
CQI Weaknesses That the Department Plans to Address in Calendar Year 2003
The institution will need to resume holding CQI
meetings

BMCX

The institution will need to submit the monthly and
quarterly reports on a regular basis.

MLCC, MTCX, NWCX, TPW

The institution will need to submit the CQI Meeting
HCCF, MLCC, MTCX. NWCX
Minutes on a regular basis and in the proper format (who
was present and what was discussed).
The institution will need to have the institutional
physician involved in the CQI program.

BMCX, MLCC, MTCX, NWCX,
STSRCF, TPW, WCBC

Source: TDOC Statewide CQI Health Services Annual Report 2002

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. As noted in the Statewide CQI Health Services Annual
Report for Calendar Year 2002 reviewed by the audit team, all institutions, with the exception of
TPFW, completed all the required studies and quarterly reports, although some were not
submitted in a timely manner. While some institutions have experienced intermittent issues, the
department’s commitment to the CQI process is strong.
In the Spring of 2003, TDOC implemented a Statewide CQI committee to focus emphasis
on operations that affect delivery of health services. Wardens are strongly encouraged to actively

participate in their institutional CQI committee meetings. The wardens’ active involvement in
this process should ensure compliance with the CQI policy.

EARLY REPLACEMENT OF WEST TENNESSEE STATE PENITENTIARY’S SECURITY
FENCE
Operational problems required the Tennessee Department of Correction to prematurely
replace a security fence at the West Tennessee State Prison. Installed in 1999, the $275,927
fence was supposed to have a ten-year life span. However, problems with the fence’s
performance necessitated that it be replaced several years earlier than anticipated..
The fence was installed with the intention of providing security for additional mediumsecurity prison beds at the West Tennessee Prison facility. Because of economic concerns, the
state determined that it was more cost-efficient to use the existing prison’s administrative
facilities rather than build separate administrative facilities for the new addition. As a result, it
was necessary to link the security system for the existing facility with the new addition.
However, although the existing security system was satisfactory, it would have been too costly to
provide the whole prison with a newer version of the same type of security system. Therefore, in
an effort to keep costs down, the state determined that it was more economical to replace the
existing security system with a different type of system.
Despite concerns expressed by department staff about the proposed security fence’s
ability to function properly, the Department of Finance and Administration awarded a contract to
install an infrared motion detection fence system. The contractor who installed the system
assured the state that the new system would work as well as another system being considered;
however, according to Correction and Finance and Administration staff, it quickly became
apparent that the new system was defective. The infrared system, which uses heat to detect
movement, was unable to detect body heat on warm days, thereby possibly allowing inmates to
escape.
Despite numerous efforts to identify and resolve problems, the contractor has been unable
to remedy the problems associated with the security fence. The attorney general’s office reported
that despite the contractor’s failure to meet its contractual obligation, it was not cost-effective for
the state to seek restitution.
According to Department of Correction staff, the department has taken steps to help
ensure that similar problems are avoided in the future. During the September 2002 Select
Oversight Committee on Corrections hearing, the department proposed that it be allowed to
modify state purchasing regulations by prequalifying vendors based upon experience. The bids
for those contractors who have successfully been prequalified would then be assessed, with the
lowest bidder being awarded the contract.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. The report comment identifies the fence as the problematic
element of the new prison construction. However, it is the electronic intrusion detection system
mounted on the fence or between the two fences forming the prison’s secure perimeter that is
faulty. The perimeter fence itself is not problematic. Although TDOC did have fence detection
system standards which were reflected in the contract specifications, a formal objection to the
system was not offered by Capital Projects Management (CPM) because of CPM’s reliance on
the installing contractor’s written assurance that the system would meet or exceed design
specifications.
As the audit report reflects, TDOC has since sought to revise purchasing procedures for
electronic detection systems. The new process was proposed to the Select Oversight Committee
on Corrections in September 2002 and was approved by that body and the State Building
Commission. The department is now able to pre-qualify both the equipment to be installed and
the installing contractor. These procedures will be built into future construction projects, which
will improve the procurement of these critical systems, and hopefully prevent further issues such
as were encountered at the WTSP site.

DELAYS IN SELECTION OF NEW PRISON SITE
In fiscal year 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly authorized the Department of
Correction to sell $33,290,000 in bonds for the purpose of building a new facility to house 1,592
inmates. In addition to authorizing the department to sell bonds, the General Assembly also
appropriated $3,710,000 toward the construction of the new prison. It wasn’t until fiscal year
2002, however, that the administration made an initial selection of a site for the new prison. As
of July 2003, discussions regarding site selection are still in progress, and construction of the new
prison has not begun. According to department staff, it takes about three years to build a prison
and get it ready to be occupied.
Subsequent to receiving bonding authorization in fiscal year 1996, the Governor’s Office
contacted each of the state’s county executives to inform them of the state’s desire to build a new
prison and to inquire whether they would like such a facility in their county. As part of this
process, county executives were asked to identify possible locations for the projected prison.
Using established criteria, staff from the Departments of Correction and Finance and
Administration assessed each of these sites. According to Correction staff, criteria used to
evaluate possible prison sites included the availability of land and adequate workforce, the cost
of improving the site, and access to needed utilities, services, etc.
Following an extensive review of identified sites, the department provided the Governor’s
Office with an initial list of possible locations in May 1999. Over a period of more than three
years, the department provided the Governor’s Office with a list of multiple site options. Each
identified site contained a recommendation specifying its potential to house a prison. It was not
until September 2002, however, that the Governor’s Office identified a location in Weakley

County as its choice for the new prison. (The department dealt with increases in the inmate
population in the interim by contracting for the Hardeman County facility, increasing the number
of prisoners held in local jails, and increasing double-celling of inmates, etc.) At the July 2003
meeting of the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, the Departments of Correction and
Finance and Administration presented the preliminary results of a site-feasibility study conducted
by a consulting firm. The firm looked at sites in Weakley, Morgan, Bledsoe, and Trousdale
Counties. The firm is scheduled to present its report to the committee at the September 2003
meeting.
From the time the department was initially authorized to sell bonds to the time the
Governor’s Office selected a site for the new facility, the number of inmates in department
facilities increased from 13,341 to 17,565. Moreover, the estimated amount of funding needed to
build the new prison increased from $37 million to $107 million, with the number of beds being
added to the projected new facility increasing from 1,592 to 2,316.
According to department staff, the state is experiencing an annual increase of 2% in its
inmate population. At that rate, by 2007 the department will need a second additional prison to
address the anticipated increase in its inmate population.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. After the appropriation of funds in 1996, TDOC solicited all 95
county executives to determine interest in a prison being built in their counties. Unfortunately,
the review by Capital Projects Management of sites in the counties indicating an interest
continued over several years.
In 2000, the Sundquist administration selected Weakley County as a site for the next
prison; however, the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections recommended that additional
counties that had expressed interest be reviewed and the Weakley site be further reviewed. The
Department of Finance and Administration’s Capital Project Management section hired
consultant engineers to provide the requested reviews and their report is due in early September
2003. Based on current population projections, assuming a new large capacity prison
(approximately 2,300 beds) is sited, a second prison will need to be ready for occupancy in early
2008.

INMATE CLASSIFICATION AND RECLASSIFICATION
Our review of a sample of classification files found that the department was following its
policies in almost all cases. Department of Correction policy requires all inmates entering the
correctional system to receive an initial classification assessment to determine their custody
level. Assessments occur at one of the department’s four reception centers (Brushy Mountain
Correctional Complex, Middle Tennessee Correctional Complex, Tennessee Prison for Women,
and West Tennessee State Penitentiary). Factors considered when assessing an inmate’s custody

level include inmate conduct, attempted escapes, criminal history, and recorded assaults. From
the highest to the lowest, custody levels are maximum, close, medium, and minimum. The
inmate’s classification score, as well as space availability, will determine the facilities to which
an inmate may be assigned.
Department policy also requires that inmates who are already in the system periodically
have their custody level reassessed to determine whether it should be changed. At a minimum,
inmates are required to have their custody level reassessed annually. In the event of an incident,
however, inmates may receive more frequent assessments. Inmates located in segregation are
reviewed every 30 days to determine whether they should be released.
If an inmate is currently classified at one level, the inmate’s reclassification scores may
lower or raise his or her custody level multiple steps. For example, an inmate who is currently
classified as minimum but scores close custody (e.g., because of a recent incident) on his
reclassification assessment, may have his custody level raised two levels to close. However, if an
inmate’s reclassification score matches his or her current custody level, the warden may only
override the score to reclassify the inmate up or down one custody level (for example, from
medium to either close or minimum). According to department staff, this limitation was
implemented to decrease the possibility of abuse in the system.
Our review of files for 51 randomly selected inmates found that the department followed
its policies in almost all cases. The initial classification assigned to all but one of the inmates
reviewed matched their initial classification assessment form’s (CAF) score. According to staff,
the CAF score represents the recommended custody level based upon criteria used to assess an
inmate’s risk level. The one instance in which an inmate’s initial classification differed from his
CAF score was the result of a warden override. We also found that all but 3 of the 504
reclassifications for the 51 inmates were conducted within the required annual time frame, for a
compliance rate of greater than 99%. Of those that were not conducted timely, one
reclassification was performed nearly three months late, one was four months late, and one was
nearly six months late. Finally, we found that, for the sample reviewed, the department adhered
to its policy regarding the limits on warden overrides of reclassification scores.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. In the matter of classification, TDOC staff review an offender’s
risk factors as they relate to custody and security needs. The compliance rate of 99+% noted by
the auditors indicates TDOC’s classification system is functioning extremely well.

INMATE IDLENESS
From the data provided by the department, it appears that the department is, for the most
part, meeting its goals to reduce inmate idleness (see Table 7). However, Tennessee

Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections (TRICOR) is having trouble meeting the goal for the
percentage of inmates it employs.
As of June 2000, 2001, and 2002, the percent of inmates enrolled in academic/vocational
programs was at or above the department’s goal of 20% of the inmate population. In addition,
the inmate unemployment goal is 8% of the population or less, and the facilities are meeting this
goal (see Table 7 for percentage of assignable inmates waiting for a job). When looking at the
assignable inmate population as a whole, TRICOR employs about 5% of the population, far short
of the 10% goal. However, TRICOR is not available at five facilities (see Table 8), and when the
populations at these facilities are factored out, TRICOR comes much closer to meeting the goal.
Decreases in the percentage of inmates assigned to TRICOR in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 may
have resulted in part from the state’s budget problems, with state agencies having less money
available for purchasing items from TRICOR. Also, see finding 3, which discusses the apparent
failure of privately operated prisons to purchase all inmate uniforms from TRICOR as required
by their contracts with the department.
Table 7
Inmate Employment
As of June 2000 – 2002
June 2000

ASSIGNMENT
Academic Education
Vocational Programs
Support
Program Services (1)

Number of
Inmates

June 2001

Percent of
Population

Number of
Inmates

June 2002

Percent of
Population

Number of
Inmates

Percent of
Population

1,839
1,505
4,514
835

11%
9%
27%
5%

1,927
1,628
4,300
1,030

11%
9%
25%
6%

1,998
1,659
4,363
995

11%
10%
25%
6%

TRICOR (2)

912

930

867

Worklines
Outside State Agency
Other Outside Agency
Community Service
Work Release
Mental Health Programs
Boot Camp
Pre-Release
Other

669
334
26
669
31
836
47
167
669

4%
2%
0%
4%
0%
5%
0%
1%
4%

436
205
25
664
26
1,126
61
112
896

3%
1%
0%
4%
0%
6%
0%
1%
5%

537
29
168
699
56
1,036
44
123
1,051

3%
0%
1%
4%
0%
6%
0%
1%
6%

13,053

78%

13,366

77%

13,625

78%

3,050

18%

2,724

16%

2,818

16%

615

1,239

980

16,718

100%

17,329

100%

17,423

100%

TOTAL ASSIGNED
Unassignable Status (3)
Job Waiting List
TOTAL INMATES

Notes:
(1) Includes jobs such as teachers’ aides, library workers, and recreational assignments.
(2) Percentage of inmates employed by TRICOR needs additional adjustments since TRICOR is not available at all 14
correctional facilities (see Table 8).
(3) Inmates who cannot be assigned due to their status such as segregation, classification, or medical disabilities.

Table 8
Adjustment for TRICOR Employment
As a Percentage of Applicable Inmate Population
2000
Total Inmates Assigned Jobs (Table 7)
Job Waiting List (Table 7)
Total Inmates Available#

2001

13,053
615
13,668

2002

13,366
1,239
14,605

13,625
980
14,605

Average Daily Count
2000
2001
2002
1,965
1,990
1,993
335
404
397
1,009
994
1,011
715
696
664
393
409
385
4,417
4,493
4,450

Locations where TRICOR is not available:
Hardeman County Correctional Facility
Mark Luttrell Correctional Facility
Middle Tennessee Correctional Complex
DeBerry Special Needs Facility
Wayne County Boot Camp
Total Adjustment
Total number of inmates available to work in
TRICOR^
Number of inmates assigned to TRICOR

9,251

10,112

10,155

912

930

867

Percentage of inmates available to work in
TRICOR who are assigned to TRICOR

9.9%

9.2%

8.5%

# Number does not include inmates who cannot be assigned because of their status, e.g., segregation, classification,
or medical disabilities.
^ To obtain an estimate of the total number of inmates available to work in TRICOR, we subtracted the average daily
count at the five facilities where TRICOR is not available from the total number of inmates available to work
system-wide.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. The failure of the state and privately managed institutions to
purchase items from TRICOR decreases the number of inmate workers needed to produce these
items, and impedes TRICOR’s ability to achieve optimum inmate employment.
When budget reductions are necessary, TDOC and other government entities that
purchase TRICOR-produced items decrease purchases, which in turn decreases the demand for
inmates who work in these industries.

Purchasing from TRICOR is not mandated for government entities, although the
provision of inmate jobs does offset TDOC programming costs, as alternate job activities do not
have to be provided when workers are needed for TRICOR work initiatives.

COLLECTION OF DNA SAMPLES
Section 40-35-321, Tennessee Code Annotated, requires the collection of biological
specimens for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) analysis from persons convicted of certain offenses.
Effective July 1, 1991, individuals convicted of certain sex offenses (i.e., aggravated rape, rape,
aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery, and/or incest) must provide a DNA specimen. Chapter
1028, Public Acts of 1998, added a requirement that a DNA sample be collected from any person
convicted of any felony offense committed on or after July 1, 1998. The June 1995 Department
of Correction Performance Audit found that, as of June 1994, over 350 sex offenders in the
department’s custody had not had samples collected as required. Our current review, however,
indicates that the vast majority of inmates have provided samples as required.
If an inmate is not incarcerated at the time of sentencing, the inmate is required to report
to the county/district health department, which will collect the DNA sample. If the inmate is
incarcerated at the time of sentencing, the chief administrative officer of the institution
designates a qualified person to collect the DNA sample. The Community Correctional facilities
and the Board of Probation and Parole use the Department of Health for the DNA specimen
collection process. The approved agency or entity collecting DNA sample specimens mails the
samples to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s (TBI’s) Crime Laboratory. TBI conducts the
DNA analysis on samples collected and maintains records of all DNA sample results. According
to the Department of Correction’s staff attorney and departmental policy, an inmate convicted of
a felony or sex offense will not be released on parole unless that inmate has provided a blood
specimen for DNA analysis. The commissioner or the chief administrative officer may order the
individual to provide a specimen before completion of the inmate’s term of imprisonment. If an
inmate refuses to provide a DNA specimen, the department is directed to go back to the
sentencing court to get an order, which forces the inmate to provide a specimen. According to
the staff attorney and department management, refusal jeopardizes the inmate’s parole
possibilities along with sentence credits.
The department uses the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS)
to maintain its DNA information. The TOMIS database denotes whether an inmate provided the
required DNA sample. The department’s goal is to collect DNA samples from inmates during
the 30-day classification process between the 14th and 30th day at the correctional reception
centers. A nurse or designated clerk directly enters DNA information into TOMIS. Both the
Departments of Correction and Health have policies and/or procedures in place for the collection
of DNA samples, as well as controls. Once a month, the Department of Finance and
Administration’s Office for Information Resources (OIR) runs extracts from the information
maintained in TOMIS regarding the collection of DNA samples from all felony and sex
offenders. According to Department of Correction management, the department uses extracts as
a check and balance to determine when DNA samples have not been collected. Extracts can also

serve as a red flag to determine which correctional reception facilities fall behind in DNA sample
collections. According to management, the department generally has a 93-96% DNA sample
collection rate for all felons and a 95-98% collection rate for sex offenders.
We reviewed the department’s extract report dated January 9, 2003. Overall, over 93%
(9,247 out of 9,895) of the felony offender population had provided DNA samples, and nearly
95% (1,813 out of 1,919) of the sex offender population had provided DNA samples. (At any
given date, there may be inmates in the system who are going through classification and have not
yet been asked to provide a sample or who have provided a sample but have not yet had that
information entered into TOMIS.) In addition, we randomly selected 69 inmates (48 felony and
21 sex offenders) to determine if required DNA specimens were provided in accordance with
statute. Our review of the inmates’ paper files, as well as the information maintained in TOMIS,
indicated that 96% (46 of 48) of the felony offenders in our sample and all of the sex offenders
provided DNA specimens. (See Table 9.)
Table 9
Summary of File Review
Inmates Convicted of Felony or Sex Offense
Submission of DNA Sample as of August 2002 (Cont.)
Control Number
Used for Audit Sample

Offense

Date Entered
System

DNA Sample Required *

DNA Sample Provided

1
2
3
4
5

1st Degree Murder
Sale of Drugs
Theft
Forgery
1st Degree Murder

11/30/90
01/28/00
09/09/99
07/25/91
11/13/95

No
Yes
Yes
No
No

6
7
8
9
10

Burglary
Burglary
Armed Robbery
Aggravated Burglary
Theft

08/08/97
04/06/95
10/19/83
10/04/83
04/06/90

Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes

11
12
13
14
15

2nd Degree Murder
Burglary
2nd Degree Murder
DUI
Aggravated Assault

09/27/95
09/04/00
01/30/90
01/11/01
11/29/01

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

16
17

Assault w/Intent to Murder
Attempted 2nd Degree
Murder
Burglary
Attempted 2nd Degree
Murder
1st Degree Murder

07/21/89
11/26/99

No
Yes

08/11/87
11/23/99

Yes
Yes

05/23/80

MLCC

MTCX

TPFW

RMSI

18
19
20

Table 9
Summary of File Review
Inmates Convicted of Felony or Sex Offense
Submission of DNA Sample as of August 2002(Cont.)
BMCX
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Aggravated Robbery
Forgery
Aggravated Burglary
Voluntary Manslaughter
Aggravated Burglary
1st Degree Murder
Arson
Burglary

02/18/00
02/12/00
07/16/98
07/10/96
06/23/99
05/16/80
06/07/99
07/28/88

Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

29
30

Armed Robbery
2nd Degree Murder

05/18/94
07/12/00

No
Yes

31
32
33
34

Burglary
Vehicular Assault
Aggravated Robbery
Armed Robbery

11/16/92
02/21/01
05/10/01
11/15/79

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

10/08/98

Yes

36
37
38
39
40

Attempted 1st Degree
Murder
2nd Degree Murder
Aggravated Burglary
Burglary
Aggravated Robbery
Arson

03/31/98
04/03/01
05/08/01
05/15/97
04/27/00

No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Sex Offender
Possession of Cocaine
Robbery
DUI
Aggravated Burglary
2nd Degree Murder
Schedule I Drugs
Sex Offender
2nd Degree Murder
2nd Degree Murder

04/08/86
05/17/96
05/15/00
03/31/94
09/24/96
01/12/93
08/11/98
08/28/89
05/06/85
04/05/00

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes

51
52
53
54
55

Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender

04/15/02
04/26/02
06/17/02
01/07/02
09/10/90

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Sex Offender

04/17/02

Yes

57
58

Sex Offender
Sex Offender

07/26/01
03/11/02

Yes
Yes

NWCX

NECX

WTSP

NWCX
TPFW

Table 9
Summary of File Review
Inmates Convicted of Felony or Sex Offense
Submission of DNA Sample as of August 2002 (Cont.)
TCIP
59
60
61
62
63

Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender

02/21/96
03/14/97
02/04/00
03/13/01
06/20/01

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

64
65
66
67
68

Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender
Sex Offender

10/23/00
01/10/94
01/04/94
12/06/96
12/07/93

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

STSR

DSNF
69
Sex Offender
08/05/99
Yes
Yes
*Section 40-35-321, Tennessee Code Annotated, denotes the collection of biological specimens for DNA analysis for persons
convicted of certain offenses. All felony offenders are required by statute for DNA testing with an offense date on or after
07/01/1998 or with an offense date on or after 07/01/1991 for certain sex offenses.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. As noted in the report, numerous factors impact the collection rate
for blood specimens that are not taken and/or entered in TOMIS during a given month: (1) the
inmate may have already submitted a sample, but the data had not yet been entered into TOMIS;
(2) the inmate may have gone to court before the sample could be taken, thereby causing a delay;
(3) TBI may not have enough kits on hand to provide to the department, once again causing
delays in the collection process; or (4) the problem may be as simple as a new inmate being
processed the day the DNA report is generated. (The inmate will show up on the report as
requiring a specimen submission, since the report is geared to pinpoint subjects based upon
criminal charges. The nurse may simply not have had enough time to take a blood specimen and
log it in TOMIS before the report was generated.)
The following clarifications, which may be useful to those reading the audit report,
should be added:
1. The TBI now enters DNA collection status data in TOMIS conversation LOEL.
2. There is no departmental policy requiring DNA sample collection at initial
classification to occur within the 14th and 30th day at the reception center. It may
simply have been the practice among health services staff at whichever site the
auditors visited.

3. The 93-96% DNA sample collection rate for all felons and the 95-98% collection rate
for sex offenders are monthly rates.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The department failed to assess liquidated damages against health care providers for
contract noncompliance
Finding
The Department of Correction has failed to assess liquidated damages against vendors
Correctional Medical Services and Mental Health Management for numerous instances of
noncompliance with contract provisions. Allowing contractors to operate in noncompliance for
significant periods of time without substantial consequences provides no incentive for efficient
and effective operations.
Beginning July 2001, the department entered into a contract with Correctional Medical
Services (CMS) of St. Louis, Missouri, to provide comprehensive medical services, which
include all on-site staff and services, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, laboratory services, and
all off-site care at Riverbend, Tennessee Prison for Women, Middle Tennessee Correction
Facility, and Turney Center. In addition, managed care services are to be provided in the form of
primary care physicians; dentists; optometrists; laboratory and pharmaceutical services; and all
off-site care at Brushy Mountain, DeBerry, Mark Luttrell, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast
Tennessee State, Wayne County Boot Camp, and West Tennessee Penitentiary.
Since the contract’s inception, CMS has been noncompliant in many areas. (See Table 10
for a summary and Appendixes 2 and 3 for additional specifics regarding the noncompliance.)
As of June 2002, however, the department had not assessed damages for the vendor’s
repeated noncompliance. According to section F.11 of the CMS contract, a party “shall be
deemed to have breached the contract if any of the following occurs: (1) failure to perform in
accordance with any term or provision of the contract; (2) partial performance of any term or
provision of the contract; (3) any act prohibited or restricted by the contract; or (4) violation of
any warranty.” In the event of a breach of the contract by CMS, the state has available the
following remedies: actual damages and any other remedy available at law or equity, or
liquidated damages in which the state may withhold amounts designated in the contract from any
amount owed the contractor.

Table 10
Correctional Medical Services (CMS)
Areas of Contract Noncompliance
Examples From Calendar Year 2002
Physician hours noncompliant
Dentist hours noncompliant
Nursing hours noncompliant
No current treatment plan (Medical)
Missing Intake dental exams
Optometry clinic not set up
Optometrist not working contracted hours
Corrections officers inappropriately administering controlled substances
Sick call co-pay procedures not followed by contracted staff, which cost TDOC approximately $5,000
Staff not receiving TDOC-mandated training
CMS not sending mandated statistical reports to TDOC
Not documenting DNA testing consistently
Lack of monitoring chronically ill inmates
Lack of treatment plans for inmates
Periodic Health Assessments not being performed according to policy
Lack of communication between CMS Health Administrator and the Wardens
Perpetual dental inventory kept by CMS staff has been inaccurate
Delay in establishing chronic care clinics
Infirmary not routinely staffed
Intake exams for inmates were late, and equipment used to conduct exams was broken (CMS responsibility)
Inappropriate maintenance of medical files
Delay in specialty physician network being established
CMS was not providing the proper back-up for pharmacy services
Slow responses to referrals sent out on extremely ill patients

Similar circumstances have also occurred with Mental Health Management (MHM),
headquartered in Vienna, Virginia. Beginning in 1998 when the contract originally went into
effect, MHM has been noncompliant in a number of areas that could have warranted assessing
damages. (See Table 11 and Appendix 4.) MHM’s contract contains the same language as
CMS’s regarding breach of contract. According to department staff, MHM does not have to
adhere to the proposed staffing pattern set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP); it is just used
as a guideline to help staff each facility. However, the per-diem payment negotiated for MHM
(as well as CMS) is partly based on that suggested staffing pattern. If the contractor continually
staffs below the RFP levels, the department is getting less than it paid for, and the quality of care
received by the inmates may suffer. In the case of Northeast Correctional Complex, MHM’s
noncompliance contributed to multiple failed annual inspections at that facility.

Table 11
Mental Health Management (MHM)
Areas of Contract Noncompliance at Northeast Correctional Complex
Examples From July 1999 Through December 2002
Contracted staff not working proposed hours (see discussion above)
Missing mental health treatment plans, drug facts sheets, and consent forms
Staff not performing mandated training
Mental health patients on therapeutic isolation were not monitored appropriately
Providers failed to provide proper progress notes on mental patients
Vendor failed to provide continuity of care staff when regular staff was not available
Inmates’ records were not reviewed every 30 days, and inmates were not directly assessed every 90 days
Physician prescribed treatments for inmates who had not been seen
Improperly written psychiatric orders
No protocol provided for schedule IV drugs
Providers canceling medication clinics on numerous occasions
Inmates were treated by staff without the proper qualifications
Providers not completing work within specific time frame

Recommendation
The department should enforce adherence to proposed staffing patterns and contract terms
and assess damages against contractors when they consistently fail to comply with agreed-upon
terms.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. The consolidation of multiple individual contracts into two
major health care contracts has resulted in the department’s development of specific, intensive
monitoring efforts. Prior to this, only limited reviews of program functions were formally
completed during annual inspections. Our preferred approach has been to work with the
contractors toward systemic and quality improvement. Therefore, the department has not been
quick to assess liquidated damages for all non-compliant findings; instead, every possible attempt
has been made to inform the contractor and allow them to correct deficiencies. We do not
recognize that this should be handled differently.
Mental Health Management (MHM): The centralized contract for doctoral level mental
health services was initiated in 1997. Prior to that time, each institution developed its own
contracts for these services (a minimum of two contracts per institution for psychiatric and
psychological services) and monitored compliance with its individual contracts. Annual
inspections performed by the department reviewed and evaluated mental health service delivery
at each location, and identified issues were addressed with the contracted vendors at the local
institutional level. There were no provisions for liquidated damages included in these individual
contracts.

With the consolidation of all these services into one state-wide contract, the overall
monitoring of contracts began to change focus. Not only did the annual inspections continue to
review the provisions of mental health care, the institutional staff became more involved in
reviewing and reporting to the central office any deficiencies of the contract staff.
With the initiation of the state-wide consolidation of medical (physical health) services,
several specific monitor positions were created within the TDOC Central Office in 2001. One
position was assigned specifically to monitor mental health. Anytime contracts as inclusive as
these are initiated, there must be a period of adjustment for both the vendor and institutional
staff.
When annual inspections occur, the missing of one or two items in any area does not
constitute “failing” the inspection. Instead, these missed items may or may not be due to a failure
solely on the contractor’s part.
While annual inspections for NECX did result in deficiencies for mental health, it should
also be noted that the mental health inspector in 1999 was experiencing significant individual
issues with MHM contract staff at her own institution. Due to the complaints/allegations, the
department hired an independent consultant to review the mental health services at this
inspector’s site. This review revealed no significant issues with service delivery.
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

6 items missed out of 17
2 items missed out of 17
1 item missed out of 17
1 item missed out of 17
1 item missed out of 18

Obviously, the annual inspection results for NECX are positive in that there was a decline in the
number of deficiencies that occurred in each year of the contract.
The report also noted in Appendix 4 that there was a high turnover rate for psychiatrists at
NECX. However, it should also be noted that the current psychiatrist has been assigned there
since March 2001. Although the audit report focuses primarily on NECX, there have not been
chronic issues throughout the contract time period, despite early start-up issues.
The department assessed liquidated damages in the amount of $750 against the mental
health contractor, MHM, in March 2003.
Correctional Medical Services (CMS): Liquidated damages were assessed against
Correctional Medical Services in November 2002 ($8,000) and in June 2003 ($1,250). Prior to
these assessments, multiple meetings and various memoranda were issued related to problematic
contractual services.
The departmental initiative to negotiate this level of medical services into a consolidated
contract was not without the realization of potential problems (e.g., a minimum of three per

institution and multiple contracts at DSNF for hospitalization, specialty physicians, etc.) The
provision of pharmacy services by TDOC via an in-house pharmacy was also suffering because
of the state’s inability to compete for employees to operate the pharmacy.
The department has invested a tremendous amount of staff time monitoring and working
with the vendor and institutional staff to address issues of liquidated damages. Previous
contracts for all medical services at three TDOC institutions, hospitalization, and physician and
specialty services at all other institutions had only been monitored via annual inspections and
issues noted by the institutions. The transition to add centrally located contract monitors
constituted a major departure from previous procedures.
The department is in the process of developing a new RFP to re-bid the medical contract.
The new contract will include more specific performance expectations and will enable TDOC to
assess liquidated damages more effectively and efficiently.
The deficiencies noted in Appendix 2 are not presented in a manner that denotes the dates
of noncompliance or whether the item was non-compliant repetitively at a given location. It also
does not denote whether the noncompliance was CMS or the institutional staff’s responsibility,
or whether the contractor’s response negated the original compliance finding.

2. The department failed to assess liquidated damages against Corrections Corporation of
America for contract noncompliance
Finding
Pursuant to Sections 41-24-101 et seq. and 4-3-603(b), Tennessee Code Annotated, the
Department of Correction contracts for correctional services at South Central Correctional
Facility (SCCF) and for housing of state prisoners at Hardeman County Correctional Facility
(HCCF). Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) manages both facilities. Despite numerous
instances of noncompliance at SCCF and HCCF, the department has failed to assess liquidated
damages against CCA. By allowing the contractor to fail to comply with agreed-upon terms
without negative consequences, the department has not ensured that the state is getting the level
of service it has paid for and that the citizens of the state, including the inmates and facility
employees, are receiving the level and types of services deemed necessary by the state.
According to both contracts, the vendor breached the contract if the vendor failed to
perform in accordance with any term or provision of the contract in whole or in part. In the event
of a breach by Hardeman County or South Central, the state has available the remedy of actual
damages, liquidated damages, or termination of the contract. In general, CCA has been
noncompliant in the areas of
• security staffing
• medical staffing

•
•

training of staff
hiring of staff with the proper experience

See Appendixes 5 and 6 for details regarding specific areas of noncompliance.
The contract and department requirements call for a specific number and skill level for
security staffing positions at each facility. The vendor has 30 days to fill vacant security
positions and 45 days to fill other positions (SCCF only). On a number of occasions, SCCF had
vacant positions open longer than 30 days or hired staff in certain positions without the proper
amount of experience. The department granted CCA a policy exemption for the latter issue so
the vendor could become compliant. Hardeman County is not held to the same staffing standards
but does have staffing requirements to meet. Its staffing problems included not having job
descriptions, hiring staff not meeting job qualifications, and not following established staffing
patterns for its operations. The department granted HCCF a policy exemption for certain staffing
issues as well. (As alluded to above, the Hardeman County contract, unlike the South Central
contract, does not require that the facility fill vacant positions within 30 or 45 days. Thus, there
is no incentive to fill such positions in a timely manner. This appears to be a weakness in the
Hardeman County contract.)
In the area of medical staffing, the contract calls for a specific number of staff and hours
to be worked throughout the contract. Based on the documentation we obtained, CCA appears to
be falling short on registered nurse hours and supplementing the deficit with LPN hours. In
addition, SCCF has received more licensed practical and registered nursing care than HCCF
although HCCF’s staffing pattern calls for more staff and HCCF has more inmates than SCCF.
With regard to training, CCA has employees ranging from correctional officers to food service
workers who have not received the required number of training hours.

Recommendation
The department should take action (including assessing liquidated damages) against a
contractor that does not correct an area of noncompliance in a timely manner or repeatedly fails
to meet contract requirements. Before the contracts are renewed, department management should
review the contracts to identify areas that need to be strengthened or clarified to ensure that the
contractor maintains sufficient, qualified staff at all times. Department management should
ensure that policy exemptions are granted only for valid reasons and for specified periods of
time.
Management’s Comment
Management concurs. The noncompliance issues noted in Appendixes 5 and 6 do not
include the contractor’s responses and any subsequent follow-up done by the department to
resolve issues noted.

3. The Corrections Corporation of America is not purchasing inmate uniforms from
Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections as required by statute and contract
provisions
Finding
The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is not purchasing inmate uniforms in
accordance with Section 41-21-234, Tennessee Code Annotated, and the contract with the
department. According to interviews and documentation obtained, it appears CCA is not
purchasing the majority of its inmate uniforms from the Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in
Corrections (TRICOR). When compared to department facilities, CCA’s inmate uniform
purchases are significantly lower (see Table 12).
According to TRICOR staff, 25 to 30% of TRICOR’s business comes from the
Department of Correction. CCA is to purchase inmate uniforms—which by legal interpretation
include shirt, pants, and jackets—from TRICOR. The TRICOR staff stated they pulled sales
invoices to compare South Central and Hardeman County with comparable department facilities
to assess if CCA is meeting the contract requirements for purchasing inmate clothing. The
assessment revealed significant sales differences for South Central and Hardeman County when
compared to Northeast, Northwest, and West Tennessee State Penitentiary.
A decrease in sales affects TRICOR and the state in a number of ways. The state’s goal is
for TRICOR to use 10% of the department’s employable inmates in its business. As detailed on
page 33, TRICOR has had difficulty in meeting this goal recently. In addition, TRICOR is selffunded and does not receive appropriations of any type from the state. A sharp decrease in
expected revenues has extreme operational consequences for the agency. A decline in revenue
also equates to a loss of inmate training opportunities and jobs for the Department of Correction.
If this scenario continues, the department and ultimately taxpayers will incur the expenses for
providing alternative activities and staff to manage programs for inmates since the department is
mandated to prevent inmate idleness.

Recommendation
The department should enforce its mandate for CCA to purchase uniforms from
TRICOR. The department should include a review of CCA’s purchasing actions as part of its
existing process for monitoring activities at Hardeman County, South Central, and Whiteville
Correctional Facilities. If performance by these facilities is not in accordance with the contract,
the department should assess liquidated damages for repeated noncompliance.

Table 12
Inmate Clothing Sales
July 1, 2001, Through May 31, 2003
----------------------CCA Facilities------------------------

Description

Hardeman County
1,933

Quantity

South Central
1,615

Amount

Quantity

-----------Comparable Department Facilities---------

Whiteville*
1,487

Amount

Quantity

Northeast
1,818

Amount

Quantity

Northwest
2,318

Amount

Quantity

Amount

Jeans

2,979

$36,607

886

$9,642

1,660

$18,834

8,138

$97,628

4,200

$51,678

Scrubs, Shirt Combination

2,144

13,219

218

1,308

877

5,729

3,988

25,412

6,023

37,211

270

6,268

979

606

550

14,572

215

6,497

3,525

1,697

12,720

6,106

2,400

1,152

2,976

6,044

25,415

43,426

17,268

30,587

1,812

3,037

14,040

18,031

14,624

31,547

9,446

$22,707

64,851

$205,175

44,730

$158,672

Denim Jackets
Socks
T-shirts

Boxer Shorts

Totals

5,405

$56,139

2,561

$25,169

* Facility began housing Tennessee Department of Correction inmates in October 2002.
Source: Information provided by Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections. Population figures from Department of Correction’s 6/6/03 Population
Report.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs. TDOC has included this item on the monitoring documents to
assess these purchases. Inmate uniform sales in those facilities managed by Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) are significantly less than comparable facilities managed by the
Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). Management also concurs with the information
presented in Table 12.
TRICOR’s revenue is generated through the sale of its products and services. TRICOR
does not receive any state-appropriated funds. Approximately 26% of TDOC’s total available
beds are located in privately managed contract facilities. When these facilities do not purchase
items mandated by statute, it has a significant impact on TRICOR’s business and its ability to
employ inmates.
Every inmate assigned to TRICOR saves TDOC $3,000 annually in programming costs.
TRICOR is self-funded; therefore, any inmate programming cost savings realized by TDOC is
also a cost savings to the taxpayers of Tennessee. Absence of inmate uniform sales results in a
reduction of production needs and eliminates inmate training opportunities and inmate jobs for
TDOC. It also impedes TRICOR’s ability to achieve optimum inmate employment. Reduction
in inmate jobs has an adverse effect on idleness within correctional facilities. Reduction in
training opportunities impedes ex-offenders’ ability to secure employment upon release from
incarceration.

4. The department needs to continue to improve pre-release services for inmates
Finding
Department Policy 511.02, Pre-Release Services, mandates that all department and
privately managed institutions provide programming designed to facilitate an inmate’s release
from incarceration and community reintegration. Studies pertaining to recidivism indicate that
educational, life skill, and parental programming help inmates adjust to life back in the
community, which may help keep the former inmates from committing new crimes and returning
to the prison system. During fiscal year 2003, the department made several improvements in its
pre-release program. These improvements include implementing the new Tennessee Bridges
program, assigning full-time pre-release coordinators at 14 of the 15 correctional facilities
(Southeast Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility does not yet have a coordinator),
beginning the update of pre-release policies, and requiring coordinators to provide data on inmate
participation in pre-release programs. Despite these improvements, however, the pre-release
services provided by the Department of Correction still appear to be insufficient given the
number of inmates who exit the system each year and the problems inmates face when
attempting to readjust to life outside the correctional system.

The Department of Correction offers several types of pre-release programming. Four
facilities are designated pre-release facilities, offering full-time programming:
West Tennessee State Penitentiary, a 90-day non-voluntary program with 20 beds
available (80 available per year);
Middle Tennessee Correctional Complex Annex, a 90-day non-voluntary program with
70 beds available (280 available per year);
Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex, a 90-day non-voluntary program with 30 beds
available (120 available per year); and
Tennessee Prison for Women, a four-week voluntary program with no limit on the
number who can be served.
The remaining eleven institutions offer a voluntary program called “Thinking for Change.”
Inmates meet twice a week for ten or eleven weeks (22 sessions) for general pre-release
counseling and assistance. The department only recently began tracking participation in its prerelease programs. Therefore, the number of inmates who began and completed participation in
these programs in recent years is not known.
In July 2002, the department acquired a federal grant to target serious and violent
offenders from the ages of 18-35. (The money for the program was not released until November
2002, however.) This program, Tennessee Bridges, seeks to target offenders deemed a high risk
to recidivate. The program, which has a capacity of 300 inmates over a three-year period,
consists of three one-year phases:
§

Phase I, Protect and Prepare: Institutionally Based Programs,

Phase II, Control and Restore: Community-Based Transition, and

Phase III, Responsibility and Productivity: Community-Based Long-Term Support.

As of mid-July 2003, there are 44 male inmates in the program at the Middle Tennessee
Correctional Center Annex and 2 female inmates in the program at the Tennessee Prison for
Women. Forty-three inmates are in Phase I, and three are in Phase II. Phase I includes a sixmonth session for substance abuse (conducted at the facility) and six months of work release.
During Phases II and III, the inmate (now paroled) is under the supervision of the Tennessee
Board of Probation and Parole.
In contrast to the number of full-time pre-release beds available per year, the number of
felons released from department facilities during the first ten months of fiscal year 2003 was
4,054. In addition, another 3,253 felons sentenced to the department’s custody were released
during the same time period from local jails (with whom the department contracts for the
inmates’ housing). (The extent of pre-release services available to department inmates in local
jails is unknown but is presumed to be minimal in most cases.) Because of the lack of

information on inmate participation in pre-release programs, we are not able to compare the
number of inmates released versus the number who received full-time or part-time pre-release
services. However, annual program capacity is certainly far less than the number of felons
released. In addition, because of the lack of information on inmate participation and on
performance outcomes (e.g., recidivisim levels for inmates completing the various types of
programs versus levels for inmates not participating), the effectiveness of the programs is not
known.

Recommendation
The department should continue to work toward implementing a comprehensive prerelease program to address inmates’ needs before they are released into the community. In
conjunction, the department should develop a system to monitor short- and long-term outcomes,
including tracking recidivism rates, to help the department identify additional needs as well as
the most effective programs/program components.

Management’s Comment
Management concurs in part. As noted in the audit report, there is no specific statutory
requirement governing pre-release programming. TDOC policy 511.02 mandates the provision
of pre-release services to TDOC inmates. Compliance with this policy is reviewed during the
annual inspection process at each facility, and when deficiencies are noted, corrective action is
outlined, approved, and compliance is later verified. Annual inspection reports are available for
review through the office of the Director of Compliance. Please note that this policy complies
with American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, and the entire department, including
all institutions, central office, and the training academy, is accredited by this nationally
recognized professional organization.
While statute does not specifically require “pre-release programming,” Section 41-21504(a), Tennessee Code Annotated, does outline various methods of “rehabilitation,” which
should include:
1) Proper classification of inmates as to attitudes and morale;
2) Potentials and work skill improvements during periods of confinement;
3) Adequate work training and vocational-technical programs designed to improve employment
potentials;
4) Moral upgrading programs; formal education classes;
5) Self-help courses;
6) Religious instruction; legal advice; and
7) Employment aid to include a work release program for certain first and second term inmates.
Therefore, while not strictly defined as “pre-release programming,” the multitude of
programs and services provided to inmates in TDOC custody offer opportunities for self-

improvement that enhance the inmate’s ability to successfully return to the community. The
Southern Legislative Conference’s 2002 Comparative Data Report on Corrections reviewed
inmate rehabilitation programming in 16 southeastern states, including Tennessee. Only two of
the other states provided a greater percentage of offenders with on-the-job training and
vocational education. Tennessee was sixth of the 16 states in the percentage of inmates provided
with Adult Basic Education services. Tennessee was in the middle of the 16 states in the
percentage of inmates obtaining their GEDs, as well as the percent of budget allocated to
rehabilitation programs.
Certainly there is room for improvement in the pre-release program. The department
recognizes this and is acting accordingly. The following initiatives have been undertaken in this
area during the last 18 months.
1. Appointment of a Director of Pre-release and Transition Services at the central office
level.
2. Inmates mandated by the Board of Probation and Parole to complete a pre-release
program were transferred to the designated pre-release facilities. However, all inmates
incarcerated in the TDOC are eligible for pre-release services at all 15 institutions.
3. Application for and award of federal grant funds for a three-year reentry program targeted
at offenders who are considered to be at high risk to recidivate, involving forging
partnerships with other state and community agencies, such as Project Return, the Board
of Probation and Parole, and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
4. Renovation of space at MTCX annex to create 44 pre-release “Bridges” program beds
(federal grant funded reentry program mentioned above) and associated program space.
5. Creation of pre-release coordinator positions (Correctional Counselor 3s) at all TDOC
facilities.
6. Development of electronic-monitoring procedures for inmates on pre-release furlough
and/or work release status.
7. Specific pre-release curriculum for use across the state is in the developmental stage, with
certain components already in place (i.e., Thinking for a Change).
8. A program evaluation component is being developed by the Planning and Research
section to enable a more efficient and effective program planning process, with the
ultimate goal of reducing recidivism by providing programs that better prepare the
offender for successful community reintegration.
9. Coordination with the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities for
transitional mental health services for inmates being released from TDOC custody.

10. TDOC policy 511.02, Pre-release Services, is currently being rewritten to require all
TDOC institutions to develop a pre-release program that complies with policy and ACA
standards. The TDOC no longer has only four institutions designated as pre-release
facilities; a self-contained program is being offered to all inmates returning to the
community, regardless of location or release type.
11. In June 2003, TDOC and BOPP held the first joint quarterly meeting of the two agencies.
The agenda included the development of a system to monitor short- and long-term
outcomes, including tracking recidivism rates and program effectiveness.
From the above, it should be obvious that an increased emphasis has been and continues to be
placed on strengthening reentry (or pre-release) programming for TDOC offenders. However,
the department must work within the reality of budgetary constraints to further enhance
programs. In addition, addressing the pre-release needs of jail offenders is beyond the scope or
authority of the department.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE
The Department of Correction should address the following areas to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
1. The department should enforce adherence to proposed staffing patterns and contract terms
and assess damages against contractors when they consistently fail to comply with agreedupon terms.
2. The department should take action (including assessing liquidated damages) against a
contractor that does not correct an area of noncompliance in a timely manner or repeatedly
fails to meet contract requirements. Before the contracts are renewed, department
management should review the contracts to identify areas that need to be strengthened or
clarified to ensure that the contractor maintains sufficient, qualified staff at all times.
Department management should ensure that policy exemptions are granted only for valid
reasons and for specified periods of time.
3. The department should enforce its mandate for Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) to
purchase uniforms from Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Corrections. The department
should include a review of CCA’s purchasing actions as part of its existing process for
monitoring activities at Hardeman County, South Central, and Whiteville Correctional
Facilities. If performance by these facilities is not in accordance with the contract, the
department should assess liquidated damages for repeated noncompliance.

4. The department should continue to work toward implementing a comprehensive pre-release
program to address inmates’ needs before they are released into the community. In
conjunction, the department should develop a system to monitor short- and long-term
outcomes, including tracking recidivism rates, to help the department identify additional
needs as well as the most effective programs/program components.
5. The department should continue its efforts to upgrade correctional officer salaries to remain
as competitive as possible with local facilities, as well as with other states in the region. The
department should review the results of the exit surveys and seek additional feedback from
departing and current employees, as well as from correction officials in other states, to
identify other changes the department could make to help decrease turnover.
6. The department should consider creating formal policies and procedures for the County
Correctional Incentives Program. Policies and procedures should include, at a minimum:
§

Timelines for the review of jail bills, Correction Facility Summary Report (CFSRs),
and Final Cost Settlements (FCSs) by department staff. These should be reviewed
within 30 days of receipt.

Timelines for response from the counties to questioned costs. Counties should be
limited to 30 days from notification before reduction in the Inmate Day Rate.

Procedures for review of jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs by department staff.

Procedures for corrections to the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs.

Policies for submission of the jail bills, CFSRs, and FCSs.

7. To better ensure that employees receive the required amounts of training, the department
should consider monitoring training centrally. The department should require that all
facilities track training information electronically, using the same software program, and
submit that information to the Central Office periodically (e.g., monthly or quarterly). The
department should also develop a uniform method of recording employee training hours to
facilitate monitoring. Using information submitted by the facilities, Central Office staff
should prepare at least once during the course of each year an exception report highlighting
employees who lack the required training hours. The department should prepare the report
early enough to allow sufficient time to schedule training classes for individuals needing
additional hours.

Appendix 1
Tennessee Department of Correction
Title VI Information
All programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance are prohibited by Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from discriminating against participants or clients on the basis of
race, color, or national origin. In response to a request from members of the Government
Operations Committee, we compiled information concerning federal financial assistance received
by the Tennessee Department of Correction and the department’s efforts to comply with Title VI
requirements. The results of the information gathered are summarized below.
The department submitted its Title VI Implementation Plan for fiscal year 2003-2004 to
the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, Division of State Audit, on June 30, 2003, as
required by Section 4-21-901, Tennessee Code Annotated. According to the plan, the department
received an estimated $1.1 million in federal funding during fiscal year 2003. These funds
included the following: Edward Byrne grants for enhancing the current pre-release programs at
Brushy Mountain and the Tennessee Prison for Women, Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
grant funds, Title I funds, and funds for school lunch programs for inmates.
Title VI Director Responsibilities
The department’s executive assistant to the commissioner has been designated the Title
VI coordinator. The coordinator is assisted by division coordinators (appointed by each division
with administrative responsibility for correctional facilities) and local coordinators appointed at
each facility. The Title VI coordinator for the department has the following duties:
•

to serve as liaison and coordinate the response to Title VI investigations by federal or
other state agencies (i.e., Department of Justice, Tennessee Human Rights
Commission, etc.);

•

to develop, revise, and review the department’s Title VI Implementation Plan and
Compliance Review for annual submission to the Comptroller of the Treasury;

•

to present the plan and update annually to the Title VI Review Subcommittee and
respond to subcommittee’s questions and requests for changes for the following year;

•

to attend Title VI training and workshops and provide training to Title VI local
coordinators at each institution and other departmental staff when necessary to ensure
all are kept up-to-date on Title VI issues as well as state and federal law;

•

to document and track Title VI complaints received from inmates and the public; and

•

to develop and implement procedures for ongoing pre-award and post-award audits of
contractor compliance with Title VI.

The coordinator also serves as the chair and handles the administration of the Title VI
Coordinating Committee, which is made up of eight members. The committee meets
semiannually, or more frequently at the direction of the chairman.
Title VI Training
According to the Title VI Implementation Plan, new employees receive information about
Title VI during orientation. In addition, refresher training is provided during annual in-service
training. Inmates receive Title VI information during their institutional orientation. Local
coordinators are responsible for ensuring that Title VI information is displayed in areas
frequently accessed by visitors, employees, and inmates and that foreign language translations are
available when needed.
The department also provides Title VI information to vendors, who must certify that they
will comply with Title VI laws as a part of their contract application. The vendors must have
Title VI posters in public areas and provide translators for non-English speaking employees.
Monitoring
The department’s compliance section monitors the facilities’ compliance with Title VI
requirements as part of the annual inspection of each facility. Information included in the fiscal
year 2003-2004 implementation plan indicated that inspectors found the department in
compliance with Title VI mandates at all locations.
According to the fiscal year 2002-2003 plan, the department ensures Title VI compliance
by subrecipients providing services or benefits to inmates through (1) a review of the previous
year’s Title VI compliance evaluation as part of the RFP evaluation process; (2) language in all
contract awards specifically noting Title VI requirements; and (3) the use of pre- and post-award
reviews to determine if the subrecipient has met (and continues to meet) Title VI requirements.
(According to the department’s FY 2001-2002 Title VI Implementation Plan, the department was
in the process of developing a schedule of post-award on-site reviews. One was scheduled for
2001, five for 2002, one for 2003, and three for 2004. However, as of October 1, 2002, none of
the post-award on-site reviews had been done. The department conducted pre-award desk
reviews [including certification of compliance with Title VI] for mental health services in
December 2001 and for the operation of South Central Correctional Center in January 2002.
Based on the reviewer’s comments on the pre-award desk reviews, there did not appear to be any
major contractor Title VI noncompliance concerns.)
Title VI Complaints
Section 4-21-905, Tennessee Code Annotated, specifies the procedures for filing a
complaint concerning discriminatory practices. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a
discriminatory practice under this part has 180 days to file a complaint with the state agency
receiving federal funds. An aggrieved person may also file a complaint with the Human Rights
Commission, as provided in Section 4-21-302, Tennessee Code Annotated.

According to the department’s Title VI plan, complaints allegedly involving Title VI
violations are forwarded to the Title VI site coordinator for review and final determination
regarding designation as a Title VI issue. The table below summarizes Title VI complaints filed
by inmates during calendar years 1999 through 2002.

Department of Correction’s Title VI Complaints Reported

Calendar Year
Jan. 99-Dec. 99
Jan. 00-Dec. 00
Jan. 01-Dec. 01
Jan. 02-Dec. 02

Total Title VI
Complaints
Filed by Inmates
236
313
379
181

Title VI Complaints
Resolved/
Withdrawn
119
164
160
71

Title VI
Complaints
Appealed to
Commissioner
107
146
210
99

Complaints
Pending at
Calendar Year
End
10
3
9
11

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction’s FY 2000–2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 Title VI
Implementation Plans.

Program Development
According to the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Title VI Implementation Plan, planning for
departmental services is consolidated in the operating divisions of the department, including
Institutional Operations, with staff support from the Division of Administrative Services, various
support functions associated with the commissioner’s office, and selected advisory bodies and
functions. The plan states that, because the department has been successful in recruiting and
retaining a diverse staff (22% minority representation among professional and
official/administrator categories), minority staff participation in the development of its program
plans is assured.
Program Participation
According to the department’s Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Title VI Implementation Plan and
Calendar Year 2002 Compliance Review, 48.5% of the department’s institutional population was
Black, and about 50% of the population was White. Less than 1.5% of the population belonged
to other racial groups (e.g., Hispanic, Asian, American Indian). The following table details
inmate participation in five types of programs, by ethnicity.

Breakdown of Program Participants by Ethnicity
Calendar Year 2002
Other
Minority (1)

Programs

Black

White

Anger Management
Substance Abuse Treatment
Sex Offender
Mental Health Programs (2)
Chapter 1 Education (3)

792
1,740
94
1,284
131

632
1,466
156
1,341
28

14
62
11
33
7

Totals (4)

4,041

3,623

127

Notes:
(1) Includes Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian.
(2) Includes Parenting, Aftercare, Step-up Step-down (a psychiatric transitional housing
program), Alternatives to Violence, Life Skills, Drug Education/Awareness, etc.
(3) Inmate must be under 21 and lack a GED or high school diploma.
(4) Includes all participants in the program within the calendar year.
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction FY 2003-2004 Title VI Implementation
Plan & CY 2002 Compliance Review.

The table below presents a breakdown of inmates assigned to work programs in wageearning positions, by job level and ethnicity.
Breakdown of Job Participants by Ethnicity
Calendar Year 2002
Ethnic Groups
Job Levels

White

Black

American Indian

Hispanic

Unskilled
Semi-Skilled
Skilled
Highly Skilled
TRICOR
Workline

2,703
425
1,766
106
500
276

2,614
442
1,356
59
325
215

5
1
6
0
2
1

44
6
21
1
9
6

6
1
5
0
1
0

Totals

5,776

5,011

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction FY 2003-2004 Title VI Implementation Plan & CY 2002
Compliance Review.

Asian

Correctional Facility Program Participation-Title VI Tracking
Each facility tracks program participation for Title VI purposes and submits the
information to the department’s Planning and Research Section on a quarterly basis. We
conducted a file review of the facilities’ Program Participation – Title VI Tracking Quarterly
Reports for the period between April 2001 and June 2002. Based on our review, it appeared that
the department’s correctional facilities submitted the Title VI program information in a timely
manner.
Employee and Contractor Information
A breakdown of the department’s employees and contractors by gender and ethnicity is
included below. The department’s staff does contain diversity, with 36% female staff, 21%
African-American staff, and 2% of staff from other minority groups. However, the department
has been less successful in attracting minority vendors. Based on dollar amounts of contracts for
personal, professional, and consultant services, only .01% went to minority contractors, and only
.4% went to female contractors during fiscal year 2003.
Staff of the Department of Correction by Title, Gender, and Ethnicity
As of May 2003
Gender

Ethnicity
American
Indian
Other

Title

Male

Female

Black

White

Asian

Hispanic

Account Clerk
Accountant-Judicial Cost
Accounting Manager
Accounting Technician
Accountant Auditor
Accountant
Assistant Commissioner
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Services
Assistant
Administrative Secretary
Affirmative Action Officer
Associate Warden-Operations
Attorney
Auditor
Building Maintenance Worker
Boiler Operations Supervisor
Boiler Operations
Budget Analyst-Correction
Chaplain
Clerk

4
0
7
0
0
3
2
0
6
7

50
1
2
29
1
2
0
1
16
16

8
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
6

46
1
8
26
1
5
2
1
18
16

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
7
2
3
69
1
8
0
14
10

19
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
73

5
1
2
0
2
4
0
2
0
1
16

14
0
6
2
3
65
1
5
0
13
66

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Gender
Title
Commissioner
Correctional Captain
Correctional Classification
Coordinator-Adult Services
Correctional Clerical Officer
Correctional Counselor
Correctional Corporal
Correctional Health
Administrator
Correctional Health Director
Correctional Internal Affairs
Director
Correctional Internal Affairs
Investigator
Correctional Instructor
Correctional Lieutenant
Correction Officer
Correctional Program Director
Correctional Program
Manager
Correctional Program Support
Coordinator
Correctional Principal
Correctional Sergeant
Correctional Teacher
Correctional Teacher
Supervisor
Correctional Unit Manager
Custodial Worker Supervisor
Custodial Worker
Data Entry Operator
Dental Assistant
Deputy Commissioner
Deputy Warden
Dietitian
Distributed Computer
Operator
Distributive Program Analyst
Education Consultant
Electronics Technician
Equipment Mechanic
Executive Administrative
Assistant
Executive Secretary
Extradition Officer
Facility Administrator

Ethnicity
American
Indian
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0

Male
1
58
14

Female
0
4
3

Black
1
13
3

White
0
49
14

Asian
0
0
0

Hispanic
0
0
0

27
104
328
0

107
59
75
4

26
32
90
2

102
131
304
2

4
0
3
0

2
0
5
0

0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0

0
1

1
0

0
0

1
1

0
0

14
63
1844
6
3

4
9
721
6
2

1
5
563
3
1

16
67
1931
9
4

1
0
27
0
0

0
0
29
0
0

0
0
11
0
0

0
0
4
0
0

5
132
33
5

2
22
23
1

2
27
8
1

5
127
48
5

0
0
0
0

32
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
0

9
1
6
4
6
1
0
1
1

8
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
0

33
1
6
4
4
1
6
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
5
1
2

0
1
0
0
4

1
0
1
0
2

1
1
4
1
4

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1

15
1
0

2
0
0

13
1
1

0
0
0

Gender
Title
Facilities Construction
Assistant Director
Facilities Construction
Director
Facilities Manager
Facilities Safety Officer
Facilities Supervisor
Food Service Assistant
Manager
Food Service Director
Food Service Manager
Food Service Steward
Food Services Supervisor
Food Service Worker
Fiscal Director
Heating & Refrigeration
Mechanic
Health Information Manager
Inmate Job Coordinator
Information Resource Support
Specialist
Information Officer
Information Systems Analyst
Supervisor
Information Systems Analyst
Information Systems Assistant
Information Systems
Consultant
Information Systems Director
Information Systems Manager
Inmate Relations Coordinator
Laundry Manager
Laundry Supervisor
Laundry Worker
Legal Services Director (over
Attorneys)
Licensed Practical Nurse
Mail Technician
Medical Records Technician
Medical Records Assistant
Media Producer/Director
Mental Health Program
Specialist
Mental Health/Mental
Retardation Institutional
Program Director

Ethnicity
American
Indian
Other
0
0

Male
1

Female
0

Black
0

White
1

Asian
0

Hispanic
0

11
10
11
6

0
0
0
8

0
0
2
6

11
10
9
8

0
0
0
0

0
12
41
0
11
3
4

1
6
83
3
17
5
0

1
3
37
2
8
0
1

0
13
83
0
19
8
3

0
2
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
7
22

1
8
1

1
0
1

0
14
21

0
0
1

0
0
0

0
1
0

0
1

1
1

0
0

1
2

0
0

6
0
1

2
1
0

3
0
0

5
1
1

0
0
0

0
1
57
3
0
0
0

1
0
41
4
1
1
1

0
0
23
2
1
1
0

1
1
75
5
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

17
1
0
0
1
5

83
0
1
1
0
12

38
1
1
0
0
5

59
0
0
1
1
12

0
0
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
0
0
0

Gender
Title
Mental Health/Mental
Retardation Program Director
Maintenance Carpenter
Maintenance Electrician
Maintenance Plumber
Nurse Assistant
Nurse Practitioner
Personnel Analyst
Personnel Director
Personnel Manager
Personnel Technician
Pharmacy Technician
Physical Therapy Technician
Physician
Physician’s Assistant
Procurement Officer
Property Officer
Psychiatric Social Worker
Psychologist
Psychologist Director
Psychological Examiner
Radio Communications
Recreation Assistant
Recreation Specialist
Recreation Therapist
Registered Nurse
Secretary
Security Guard
Sentence Analyst
Sentence/Docketing
Management Supervisor
Sentence/Docketing
Technician
Statistical Analyst Supervisor
Statistical Analyst
Storekeeper
Stores Manager
Teacher Assistant-Correction
Telephone Operator
Training Academy
Superintendent
Training & Curriculum
Director
Training Specialist
Treatment Plant Operator

Ethnicity
American
Indian
Other
0
0

Male
0

Female
0

Black
0

White
0

Asian
0

Hispanic
0

4
6
6
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
5
3
3
2
1
12
1
5
13
2
16
1
5
0
0

0
0
0
9
1
10
1
3
17
1
0
0
0
9
7
2
2
0
8
0
2
1
1
68
46
0
6
2

0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
7
2
36
9
0
3
0

4
6
6
2
1
12
1
3
13
1
0
1
3
13
9
3
4
1
19
1
7
7
1
43
38
5
3
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
2
26
7
0
0
1

1
0
34
6
1
5
0

1
0
8
0
0
1
0

0
1
52
13
1
4
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5
9

7
0

1
0

11
9

0
0

Gender
Title
Vocational Instructor Per
Specialty
Vocational Instructor FNL
Volunteer Services Director
Warden
Web Developer
X-Ray Technician
Total

Ethnicity

Male
52

Female
16

Black
8

White
60

Asian
0

Hispanic
0

1
1
9
0
2
3300

0
0
3
1
0
1882

0
1
1
0
1
1100

1
0
11
1
1
3968

0
0
0
0
0
45

0
0
0
0
0
43

American
Indian
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16

0
0
0
0
0
10

Department of Correction Personal, Professional, and Consultant Services Contracts
By Minority Status
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Contractor
Correctional Medical Services
MHM Correctional Services, Inc.
Robert Dodd

Services Provided
Health services
Comprehensive mental health services
Psychology services

FY 2002-2003
Amount
$27,608,876
$3,570,738
$3,000

Project Return, Inc.

Tennessee Bridges Prerelease Program

$58,733

The George Washington University

Develop inmate population projections

$30,000

Transcor America, LLC

Interstate transportation of inmates

$35,000

Corrections Corporation of America

Manage institution

$22,363,233

Lawrence Gaines, Ph.D.

Psychology services

$14,285

Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates

Training/Consultation

$1,900

Karl Hansen, Ph.D.

Training/Consultation

$2,300

Robert Alan Prentky, Ph.D.

Training/Consultation

$2,300

American Correctional Association

Accreditation/Reaccreditation –Wayne
County Boot Camp

$8,330

American Correctional Association

Accreditation/Reaccreditation – Middle
Tennessee Correctional Complex

$8,330

American Correctional Association

$7,990

$8,330

Correctional Counseling, Inc.

Accreditation/Reaccreditation –
Southeastern Tennessee State Regional
Correctional Facility
Accreditation/Reaccreditation –
Northwest Correctional Complex
Accreditation/Reaccreditation – DeBerry
Special Needs Facility
Therapeutic community

$95,500

Correctional Counseling, Inc.

A&D Counseling and Anger Management

$102,051

Centerstone Community Mental
Health Centers, Inc.

A&D Counseling and Anger Management

$69,924

American Correctional Association
American Correctional Association

Minority
Status
NM
NM
NM

Department of Correction Personal, Professional, and Consultant Services Contracts
By Minority Status (Cont.)
Aegis Sciences Corporation

Confirmation Drug Testing

$30,000

Samaritan Recovery Community, Inc.

Tennessee Community Reintegration

$55,560

Hope of East Tennessee, Inc.

Tennessee Community Reintegration

$69,575

Total Contract Amounts for NM

$54,154,285

Valerie Warner

Psychology services

$3,000

Kimbra L. Gill

Psychology services

$15,000

Ann Nicholas

Psychology services

$15,000

Young Women’s Christian
Association
Oklahoma Scoring Services, Inc.

NewStart prerelease training program

$139,000

GED Essay Scoring Services, Inc.

$2,000

Oklahoma Scoring Services, Inc.

GED Essay Scoring Services, Inc.

$2,000

Bonnie L. Shelley, Ph.D.

Psychology services

$14,285

Jill R. Rosello, M.D.

Psychiatry Services

$10,000

Toni Cavanagh-Johnson, Ph.D.

Training/Consultation

$3,300

Victoria Roberts

Training/Consultation

$1,000

Total Contract Amounts for F

H. Jeanette Lambert

$204,585

Library consulting services

Total Contract Amounts for BF

$7,000

Total Contract Amounts

$54,365,870

Contractor Minority Status: B-African American F-Female NM-Non-minority/no disadvantaged status
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction FY 2002-2003 Title VI Implementation Plan & CY 2001 Compliance
Review.

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance
Contract Monitor Reports
CMS Contract Date: July 1, 2001

Item

Institutions

Monitor chronically ill inmates according to chronic care guidelines and renew
or approve all medication orders.

The Contractor’s physicians shall write and place in the health record an
individual treatment plan for all inmates with special medical conditions that
require close supervision, including chronic and convalescent care.
Documentation shall include directions to the health care staff in the care and
supervision of the patient.

The Contractor’s licensed optometrist(s) provide the following services for all
TDOC institutions identified in Section A.1: (a) Conduct thorough eye
examination, including refraction and tonometry on all patients triaged by the
facility’s health staff for eye examinations. b) Perform fundoscopic
examinations as medically necessary for diabetic patients. c) Write
prescriptions for eyeglasses for all inmates according to the criteria established
by TDOC. d) Fit eyeglasses for patients when they are delivered to the facility,
if necessary. e) Provide all necessary eyeglasses for the State’s inmates. f)
Provide follow-up examinations when indicated for the patient.

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

TPW, MLCC

All chronic clinics not yet
established-2/13/02.
No documentation showing
inmates were monitored
according to chronic care
guidelines at MLCC.

TPW, MTCX,
MLCC,
NWCX, RMSI

No treatment plans in place.

TPW, MTCX

2/13/02 – Clinics not yet
scheduled.
Equipment recently installed.

TREATMENT PLANS

OPTOMETRY SERVICES

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

TPW, MTCX

Clinics not yet scheduled.
Equipment recently installed.

Institutions

An optometrist shall visit each institution identified in Section A.1 at least once
monthly.

All laboratory reports, radiographic, cardiologic, and/or other clinical
diagnostic are reviewed when recorded by the physician or mid-level provider.
(Clinical protocols must define how the mid-level provider is to conduct
test/report review.) These are initialed/dated prior to being filed in the inmate
health record.

TPW, MLCC

Date frequently missing when
provider initials diagnostic
reports.

SOAPIE format is used to document clinical assessments.

MTCX

Does not consistently use
SOAPIE format.

The health record shall accompany the inmate at all on-site health encounters,
and shall be forwarded to the appropriate facility with the inmate.

TPW, MTCX

Medical records not always
forwarded to receiving
institution.

A complete health record is maintained for each inmate in an administrative,
medical and legal manner. Health records are secured under lock and key
when not physically under observation of appropriate health care staff. The
health administrator has designated which personnel (by position or function)
are authorized to have access to health records.

TPW

Records left unmanned and
unlocked during monitor
visits.

All specialty care consultations and physicians’ diagnostic reports shall be
dictated and typed for placement in the health record. Any necessary
transcription services shall be the responsibility of the contractor.

MLCC, NWCX

For 12 of the 20 charts
reviewed that had specialty
consultations, 0 of 12 were
dictated or typed when placed
in the medical record.

HEALTH RECORDS

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

NWCX, RMSI

Physician not consistently
using stamp on both orders
and progress notes. Orders
missing nurses’ professional
title and/or it was illegible.
Time often missing on both a)
and b).

Often not in birth month.

Institutions

a) All physician and mid-level written orders are annotated with the date and
time the order was written. b) All physician and mid-level orders are annotated
with the nurse’s full legal signature and title, date, and time the order was
officially processed/noted.

All inmates are screened for TB on initial admission and on an annual birth
date basis as outlined in the department’s TB Control/Prevention Guidelines.

TPW

All correctional health care providers and institutional employees whose
responsibilities include contact with inmates or other persons who are
potentially at risk for occupational exposure to mycobacterium TB are
screened for TB at the time of initial employment and annually thereafter
according to employee’s birth or hire date.

NECX

TPW

Infirmary area not routinely
staffed.

TPW, MTCX

Staff working prior to
attending Tennessee Correction Academy.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES

INFIRMARY CARE
13

Infirmary beds shall be used to care for those inmates in need of short-term,
basic nursing care; for those requiring medical observation; or for other
services that can be provided at the infirmary in a safe manner.

ORIENTATION OF NEW EMPLOYEE TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS
14

The Contractor shall ensure that all of its full-time employees that are assigned
to TDOC institutions participate in the TDOC’s pre-service training program
regarding State policies and procedures and security considerations.

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item
DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID (DNA) TESTING
15

Institutions

The Contractor shall be responsible for drawing specimens for DNA testing.

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

TPW, MTCX,
RMSI

Not being consistently
documented.

MEDICATIONS
16

Each medication is properly documented on the Medication Administration
Record (MAR) (cross check MAR entries against corresponding progress
notes).

TPW, MTCX,
RMSI

MARs not filed. Nurses not
consistently signing MARs.

Controlled substances are administered only on a dose-by-dose basis.

TPW, MTCX

MARs not filed. Medications
given on Friday for the
weekend regardless of control
status.

Proper entries are made on the MAR when inmates fail to receive their
medications (block corresponding to the missed dose is circled) or when they
refuse the medications (“R” placed in block corresponding to date and time).
All such misses or refusals are reported to the prescribing practitioner.

TPW, MTCX

MARs not filed.

The contractor shall provide a medication information or “fact” sheet for the
patient each time a new prescription is initiated.

MTCX, RMSI,
NWCX

The contractor shall provide a monthly, computer-generated medication
administration record (MAR) for each patient on medication and send it in a
timely manner to the patient’s institution.

RMSI

Provider information not
current on MARs. MARs not
submitted timely.

The contractor shall label each prescription container to include the inmate
name, number, dose, prescribing physician, medication name, lot number,
strength, dosage, directions for administration, and any applicable warnings or
dietary instructions or other information in compliance with federal regulations
and the laws of the State of Tennessee.

RMSI, TPW

Warnings not always
included. Unit doses not
always labeled.

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item

Institutions

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

The contractor shall provide a pharmacist that shall conduct monthly
inspections at DSNF and at least annual inspections at each of the other
institutions included in this contract.

MLCC

Contractor’s pharmacy shall receive prescription drug orders between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Prescription orders received by the
Contractor’s Pharmacy by 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) Monday through Friday
shall be delivered to the ordering institution by 12:00 noon the following day.

NECX

Independent provider’s telephone and verbal orders for drugs are recorded on
Physician’s Orders (CR1892) annotated with time, date, and signed by the
individual receiving the order. Verbal and telephone orders are countersigned
by the ordering physician within 14 days and dated.

RMSI

A perpetual inventory is maintained on all immediate-use prescription
medications, narcotics, and controlled and emergency substances. A Control
Drug Administration Record is used for this purpose. Nursing personnel
inventory and initial the forms at the change of each shift. (Review medications
for individual inmates and emergency “crash” carts.)

RMSI

Staffing (including any approved changes) shall be in accordance with the
staffing plans in the Proposals.

TPW, MTCX

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

Not all orders being delivered
on the next day.

On 2/28/02 morning and noon
dose of valium had not been
recorded even though both
had been administered.

STAFF CREDENTIALING AND RECRUITMENT

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN SERVICES
27

Monitor chronically ill inmates according to chronic care guidelines and renew
or approve all medication orders.

3/14/02 – Still organizing
chronic clinics.

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item

Institutions

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

Perform minor surgeries in the institutional clinic when appropriate and
necessary for patient’s health.

TPW

Sending patients out for most
procedures.

Periodic health appraisals (PHAs) are performed on each inmate (for inmates
ages 49 years/under, every 3 years; 50-64, every 2 years; ages 65+, annually).

TPW, MTCX,
MLCC, RMSI

PHAs past due.

Document legibly in the medical chart using the Problem Oriented Medical
Record Format as defined by TDOC Policy. The physician shall affix full legal
signature, date, time, and professional title to all physicians’ orders, progress
notes and documentation requiring signature.

MTCX, NWCX

Often omits time and
professional title.

The contractor shall comply with the state’s procedures for collecting copayment for sick call visit.

MTCX

Warden concerned
copayments not collected.

The contractor shall ensure that its staff report any problems and/or unusual
incidents to the state’s warden or designee.

MTCX

Health Administrator does not
fully communicate with
warden.

The contractor shall provide all necessary specialty physician services for all
state-operated institutions.

RMSI

1/25/02 Neurology not yet
contracted. GI not contracted
until November 1, 2001.

The contractor shall complete the monthly statistical report on TDOC form
CR2124 and submit to TDOC central office by the 15th of the following month.

MTCX

Received November report in
February.

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item
DENTAL SERVICES

Institutions

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

An intake dental exam, including a pan-oral dental x-ray, is completed for each
inmate within 14 days of receipt into TDOC custody and documented with
findings and treatment on the dental records.

TPW, MTCX

Dental intake exams behind.
Warden was not informed that
equipment was broken for
two weeks.

A daily work/encounter log is maintained in the dental clinic showing all dental
work performed. The inmate’s name, number, type procedure, time required,
and name of dental staff member providing the service is recorded.

TPW, MLCC

Time required for procedure
not being recorded accurately.
Dental log not kept at MLCC.

A perpetual inventory is maintained on dental “working stock,” syringes, and
needles.

MTCX

Inventory did not match what
was in stock.

All steam sterilizers (autoclaves) are tested weekly using a spore testing kit.
Documentation of weekly test results are maintained by the health
administrator.

RMSI

Spore testing done monthly
using an expired testing kit/
advised dental assistant and
Health Administrator of issue.

Health screening is provided to all inmates by qualified health care personnel
or designee(s) immediately upon arrival at the institution, with findings
recorded on Health Screening (CR-2178) and signed by the inmate to
acknowledge receipt of procedure to access health services.

TPW

Charts either contained no
CR2178 or contained form
with no signature and/or date.

PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES

Appendix 2
CMS Instances of Contract Noncompliance (Cont.)

Item
EMPLOYEE HEALTH SERVICES

Institutions

Frequency of
the
Noncompliance

Comments
From TDOC
Monitoring Reports

All inmate AIDS education/training is fully documented on Health Education
Roster (CR-3013).

TPW, RMSI

Information not on
appropriate form. Attendance
is not documented.

Contractor shall on a quarterly basis submit to the State a report of the previous
quarter’s history of approved, denied, and pending health care services,
including specialty consults, outpatient procedures, and imaging procedures
(other than routine x-ray and laboratory), using the Current Procedure
Terminology (CPT) codes.

MLCC

A full report that shows all
the items listed had not been
received from the contractor1/9/02.

Source: The auditors reviewed the following TDOC Contract Monitor Monthly Reports
MLCC
MTCX
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
TPW

1/09/02
2/07/02
01/02
4/10/02
1/25/02
2/13/02

3/20/02
3/07/02
3/27/02
2/28/02
3/14/02

3/28/02

Appendix 3
Primary Care and Dental Care - Contracted Hours Versus Actual Hours
Calendar Year 2002

Facility
BMCX
DSNF
MLLC
MTCC
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
STSRCF
TPW
TCIP
WCBC
WTSP
Total

Primary Care Hours
Contract
Actual
Variance
1,024
921
-103
6,168
5,962
-206
616
550
-66
1,268
1,202
-66
2,032
2,082
50
2,032
2,164
132
1,024
1,080
56
824
756
-68
1,024
934
-90
1,024
1,014
-10
624
544
-80
3,040
2,810
-230
20,700
20,019
-681

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction.

Contract
3,165
3,728
1,161
3,728
1,864
2,804
1,880
1,112
1,880
3,728
0
3,728
28,778

Dental Hours
Actual
Variance
3,012
-153
3,530
-198
994
-167
3,446
-282
1,594
-270
2,282
-522
2,166
286
752
-360
1,515
-365
3,424
-304
454
454
4,071
343
27,240
-1,538

Appendix 4
Contractor Performance Assessment – Northeast Correctional Complex
Mental Health Management Services (MHM)
July 1999 Through June 2003
July-Dec
1999

Jan-June
2000

July-Dec
2000

Jan-June
2001

July-Dec 2001

Has the Contractor provided the
services and deliverables
required under the contract?

Has the Contractor completed
the work within the time frame
set out in the contract?

Not sure what
the
department’s
objectives are
in the mental
health area –
NECX
objectives have
not been met.

Performance

Jan-June 2002

July-Dec 2002

YES

Jan-June 2003

NECX

Have the Contract and the
Contractor’s performance
thereunder accomplished the
department’s objectives?

Has the Contractor complied
with all applicable TDOC
policies and ACA standards in
the performance of the Contract?

With the recent
replacement of the
psychologist with
one that provides
needed services,
this issue is
currently resolved

NO
Major concerns
exist regarding
psychologist
assessments

YES

Even though TDOC made major
policy changes to accommodate
this contractor, basic longstanding policy/ inspection
compliance requirements
continue to be unmet/ignored.

Failed three
annual
inspections.

NECX Areas of Concern: NECX fails annual inspections becuasue MHM staff are noncompliant in areas such as improperly written psychiatric orders, lack of documentation, and staff
not showing up for scheduled hours. June 1999 report indicated that since June of 1998, five different psychiatrists had been assigned to NECX.

Source: Tennessee Department of Correction monitoring reports.

Appendix 5
Contract Monitor Reports for South Central Correctional Facility
For Selected Months in Calendar Years 2000 Through 2002
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
1

Suggested Monitoring Procedures
Select a random sample of 10 staff
hired within the last year, including
both security and non-security
personnel. Examine information in
personnel files to determine that they
meet the qualifications required for
their positions as stated in job
descriptions.

For the 10 randomly selected staff,
examine personnel files to determine if
all staff were subjected to background
examinations and, for correctional
officers, psychological histories.
Determine that employment and
criminal histories go back a minimum
of five years.

Date
10/10/2000

Comments
Found one employee without proof of education and one employee without driver’s license.

11/2/2000

Found two employees who were hired without required documents.

12/5/2000

Found three correctional officers who were hired before they possessed a driver’s license.

4/19/2002

Four of five senior correctional officers hired during the months of March and April 2002 do
not meet minimum requirements that were approved with the contract in February 2002.

6/27/2002

New issue/concern dated 6/27/2002 due to the promotion of employee who does not meet
three-year experience qualification as stated in job descriptions. (Previous issue/concern of
4/19/02 still unresolved).

3/21/2002

New correctional officers were not cleared by a certified mental health professional as
required.

Appendix 5
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
South Central Correctional Facility (Cont.)
3

Suggested Monitoring Procedures
Vacant positions are filled within the
following time limits:

Date

Security – 30 days

10/4/2000

Fourteen positions allowed to pass the 30-day time limit for a total of 100 days.

11/2/2000

Thirteen positions filled past the 30-day limit for a total of 251 noncompliant days, and 21
more positions still vacant over 30 days.

12/4/2000

Sixteen positions filled past the 30-day limit for a total of 490 noncompliant days, and 21 more
positions still vacant over 30 days.

1/11/2001

Twenty positions filled past the 30-day limit for a total of 775 noncompliant days.

2/2/2001

Eight positions filled past the 30-day limit for a total of 262 noncompliant days.

3/2/2001

Twenty-six correctional officer positions allowed to pass the 30-day time limit for a total of
502 noncompliant days.

10/4/2000

One position allowed to pass the 45-day limit by 9 days.

6/14/2001

Two expansion positions have been vacant since contract amendment date of 3/7/2001.

12/18/2001

Assistant food service manager position was filled by in-house promotion on 11/15/2001. As
of 12/18/2001, employee is still working as unit clerk.

All Other – 45 days

Comments

Appendix 5
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
South Central Correctional Facility (Cont.)
Suggested Monitoring Procedures
All new SORT team members have at
least one year prior institutional
experience.

Date
11/2/2000

Comments
A policy exemption was granted for this standard so CCA would be in compliance.

Determine if approved postassignment schedule/staffing pattern is
being routinely staffed according to
actual post-assignment sheets/rosters.

12/19/2000

Found three vacant critical posts on first and second shift rosters dated 12/2/2000, 12/4/2000,
and 12/18/2000.

All administrative employees,
specialist employees, and support staff
received 40 hours training in addition
to 40 hours of orientation for new
employees during their first year, with
40 hours of in-service training
annually thereafter.

11/2/2001

One employee with plenty of training hours did not receive any mandatory classes.

All new correctional officers received
120 hours training in addition to 40
hours of orientation for new
employees during their first year, with
40 hours of in-service training
annually thereafter.

7/9/2001

Found two employees with misleading information in training files. Response: Training forms
were corrected. With the corrections, employees did not receive 40 hours of training.

Appendix 5
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
South Central Correctional Facility (Cont.)
8

Suggested Monitoring Procedures
A list of all positions which were
vacant during the month indicating the
number of days they were vacant.

Date
11/2/2000

Comments
Fifty-nine positions for a total of 1,244 days. Seven employees on extended sick leave. (CCA
was compliant in providing the list.)

12/4/2000

Fifty positions for a total of 981 days. (CCA was compliant in providing the list.)

1/5/2001

Forty-four positions for a total of 879 days. Four employees on extended sick leave. (CCA
was compliant in providing list.)

2/2/2001

Forty-four positions for a total of 1,064 days. Five employees on extended sick leave. (CCA
was compliant in providing list.)

3/2/2001

Fifty-six positions for a total of 490 days. Seven employees on extended sick leave. (CCA was
compliant in providing list.)

7/2/2001

Thirty positions for a total of 266 days. Six employees on extended sick leave. (CCA was
compliant in providing list.)

1/4/2002

Eighteen positions for a total of 187 days. Seven employees on extended sick leave. (CCA was
compliant in providing list.)

2/4/2002

Fourteen positions for a total of 183 days. Five employees on extended sick leave. (CCA was
compliant in providing list.)

5/6/2002

Procedure deleted during April 2002 revision of monitoring instrument.

Appendix 6
Contract Monitor Reports for Hardeman County Correctional Facility
January 2001 Through June 2002
Instances of Contract Noncompliance

Suggested Monitoring
Procedures
Obtain a roster of all
current institutional
employees by position.
Determine that the number
in each category of
employees corresponds
with the number of
positions on the staffing
pattern.

Date

Comments

1/16/2001

The following deviations from the approved staffing pattern
were noted as reflected in the position control listing: 1
additional LPN, 2 additional academic instructors, 1 less
vocational instructor, 3 additional SCOs, 2 additional COs, than
on the approved pattern. Issue addressed in noncompliance
report dated 12/15/2000. Warden’s response dated 2/9/2001
states: “Employee in commissary became licensed LPN, hired as
LPN to keep her.” The 2 SCOs are K-9, paperwork submitted
for approval. Others are approved; however, paperwork
submitted to monitor incorrect.

2/2/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

3/2/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

4/24/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

6/1/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

7/2/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

7/31/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

8/31/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

9/28/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

10/31/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous. *The following
deviations from the approved staffing pattern were noted as
reflected in the control listing: 3 administrative clerks, 2 assistant
shift supervisors, 1 dentist, 1 RN, 1 assistant training manager, 1
commissary coordinator.

11/30/2001

Deviations still exist – same as previous (both).

12/31/2001

New deviation mentioned on 10/31/2001 still exists.

1/31/02

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

Appendix 6
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
Hardeman County Correctional Facility (Cont.)

Suggested Monitoring
Procedures
(continued)
Obtain a roster of all
current institutional
employees by position.
Determine that the number
in each category of
employees corresponds
with the number of
positions on the staffing
pattern.

All new correctional
officers received 120 hours
of training in addition to 40
hours of orientation for
new employees during the
first year, with 40 hours of
in-service training annually
thereafter.

Date

Comments

2/28/2002

Deviations still exist – same as previous.

3/27/2002

Deviations still exist – same as previous. Response dated
11/16/01 states: “Positions submitted to corporate awaiting
approval. However a new organizational chart has been
approved by TDOC management.”

4/30/2002

The approved staffing plan for Food Service indicates 1 FS
Manager, 2 Assistant FS Managers, 6 Assistant FS Supervisors.
The position control listing indicates 1 FS Manager, 1 Assistant
FS Manager, 2 FS Supervisors, and 7 FS workers. Operating
with 1 FS Manager, 1 Assistant FS Manager, 7 FS workers, and
1 additional FS worker not yet hired.

5/31/2002

Outstanding issue. No new noncompliance report issued.

6/30/2002

Outstanding issue. No new noncompliance report issued.

1/10/2001

Could not locate enough in-service hours for two correctional
officers. One SCO hired in 1997 had 0 hours in 1998 and 4
hours in 2000. Second SCO hired in 1997 had 0 in-service
hours in 1998. Issue addressed in noncompliance report dated
1/16/2001. Warden’s response dated 2/9/2001 states: “There is
no documentation to support in-service for two employees. Plan
in place to ensure staff receive required in-service in the future.”

2/20/2001

Could not locate enough in-service hours for one SCO – only
had 12 hours in 1999, and 14 hours date unknown. Response
dated 4/16/2001 states additional staff assigned to training and
an in-service schedule implemented to correct.

3/15/2001

Could not locate enough in-service for one employee hired
5/5/1995. Training hours were 0 in 1997 and 1998.

7/30/2001

Could not locate employee’s 40 hours of in-service training for
2000.

8/31/2001

Unable to locate any in-service training for one employee for
1998 and located only 18.5 hours of in-service for another
employee in 2000.

Appendix 6
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
Hardeman County Correctional Facility (Cont.)

Suggested Monitoring
Procedures
(continued)

All administrative
employees, specialist
employees, and support
staff received 40 hours of
training in addition to 40
hours of orientation for
new employees during their
first year, with 40 hours of
in-service training annually
thereafter.

Vacant positions are filled
within the following time
limits:
Security – 30 days
All other – 45 days

Date

Comments

12/31/2001

Some of the correctional employees transferred from the CCA
Whiteville facility and undertook their assignments before
receiving their 40 classroom hours of pre-service orientation.
Response dated 1/9/02 states: “Transferring staff received 8
hours overview of TDOC to assist in transfer from non-TDOC
facility. Officers assigned to post to ensure no break in pay.
Policy change request through QA Manager in progress to
change phrase “Undertaken their Assignment” so they can be
trained within first 25 days which policy also states.”

2/20/2001

Could not locate enough in-service for two employees. LPN had
2 hours in 1998, and another employee had 8 hours in 1998.
Response dated 4/16/2001 states additional staff assigned to
training and an in-service schedule implemented to correct.

8/31/2001

Located only 24.5 in-service hours for one employee during year
2000.

9/28/2001

One employee only had 24.5 in-service hours for year 2000.
Warden’s response dated 10/2/2001 states: “New training plan
implemented for 2001. All training will be properly documented.
81% of staff have completed in-service for 2001.”

2/28/2002

Some of the correctional employees transferred from the CCA
Whiteville facility undertook their counselor assignments before
receiving their 40 classroom hours of Pre-Service Orientation.

3/27/2002

Some of the employees hired by Food Service undertook their
assignments before receiving their 40 hours of Pre-Service
Orientation.
Auditor Note: This requirement only applies to SCCF;
HCCF contract does not require filling vacant positions in
any timely manner. There is not an incentive to have vacant
positions filled. Appears to be a contract weakness.

Appendix 6
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
Hardeman County Correctional Facility (Cont.)

Suggested Monitoring
Procedures
Obtain the current list of
SORT team members.
Determine that:
All new team members
have at least one year of
prior institutional
experience.

Date

Comments

11/29/2001

Two SORT team members did not have one year prior
institutional experience.

12/31/2001

No new members with less than one year; however, members
with less than one year noted on 11/01 instrument are still on
team. Policy exemption request still pending.

1/31/2002

Same comment as last month.

2/28/2002

Same comment as last month.

3/27/2002

Same comment as last month.

4/30/2002

Same comment as last month.

5/31/2002

A request for waiver regarding one year institutional experience
granted for next six months. Waiver granted by TDOC 5/16/02.

All team members who
have participated in any
tactical situation, including
cell extractions, have
received 80 hours of
relevant SORT team
training.

2/20/2001

One team member only had 56 hours of pre-SORT training.
Response dated 4/16/2001 states the training department has
committed to provide 100% compliance with SORT by
4/30/2001.

7/30/2001

Could not locate 80 hours of pre-SORT training for team
member for year 2000.

All team members have
received a minimum of 12
hours of training each
quarter.

2/20/2001

Could locate only 8 SORT hours for last quarter for one team
member. Response dated 4/16/2001 states the training
department has committed to provide 100% compliance with
SORT by 4/30/2001.

Appendix 6
Instances of Contract Noncompliance
Hardeman County Correctional Facility (Cont.)

Suggested Monitoring
Procedures
For 10 randomly selected
staff, examine personnel
files to determine if all staff
were subjected to
background examinations,
and for correctional
officers, psychological
histories. Determine that
employment and criminal
histories go back a
minimum of five years
Verify that all critical posts
are staffed as required.

On randomly chosen days,
observe to determine that
posts on all shifts are being
staffed as indicated on the
daily post assignment
sheets/rosters.

Date

Comments

9/28/2001

Unable to locate NCIC request for two employees.

1/3/2002

The December 2001 roster indicates that on 12/15/01, on the
first shift, Recreation CO post was not indicated as being staffed.
This is a critical post.

1/31/2002

The January 2002 roster indicates that on 1/28/02, on the first
shift and on 1/30/02 on the second shift, the Recreation CO post
was not indicated as being staffed. This is a critical post.

7/27/2001

Three critical positions on third shift not staffed.

5/21/2002

Mandatory post was not staffed. Chief sent memorandum
informing supervisors and advising that failure to comply with
directive will result in disciplinary action.

6/12/2002

Mandatory post was not staffed. Officer left before being
relieved. The chief was to serve a PSN to the officer for
attendance problems. Since the recommendation was to
terminate, there was no reason for corrective action for
abandoning post. The officer was terminated prior to shift on the
evening of 6/12/2002.

Appendix 7
Health Services’ Continuous Quality Improvement Program
Information as Summarized by the Department of Correction Central Office

Facility

BMCX
DSNF
HCCF
MLCC
MTCX
NECX
NWCX
RMSI
SCCF
STSRCF
TCIP
TPW
WCBC/WANX
WCF
WTSP

Health Care
Managed By
TDOC Staff
TDOC Staff
CCA
TDOC
CMS
Northeast Community
Services Agency
Northwest Community
Services Agency
CMS
CCA
TDOC Staff
CMS
CMS
TDOC Staff
Was not a part of the
correctional system
Southwest Community
Services Agency

July 1, 2000 – Oct. 2,
2001
CQI Program on
Track? **

Available 2002 Information*
Monthly ICQI
CQI Annual Report
Calendar Year
Report: Nov. 2002
Health Services 2002
2002 (3rd quarter)
CQI Program on
CQI Program on
CQI Program on
Track? **
Track? **
Track? **

No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes

No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes

No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

See Note 1
Yes
See Note 2
See Note 3
See Note 4
Yes

Yes

See Note 5

No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Not Applicable

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not Applicable

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Start-up Date 1/1/03

Yes
Yes
See Note 6
Yes
See Note 7
See Note 8
Start-up Date 1/1/03

Yes

Because of staff changes and vacancies in CQI Central Office staff, there were gaps in the summary information the department was able to provide. The
table above includes all summary information we were able to obtain for calendar year 2002.
** Facility has held regular CQI meetings, selected current committee members, performed studies, and forwarded written communications, reports, etc.

Notes from department’s Statewide CQI Annual Report—Health Services 2002 regarding weaknesses in the CQI Program at several facilities:
1.

BMCX held CQI meetings regularly the first half of the year, completing the monthly studies and quarterly reports. The last six months of
the year, they completed the monthly studies and quarterly reports (received by SCQIC past expected due dates) and did send memos
documenting their severe nursing shortage and their inability to hold regular CQI meetings. Beginning in 2003, they have been able to
resume holding CQI meetings and have the goal of maintaining a timely program. This institution historically does attempt to have an
effective ICQI program and will do so again if feasible. The institutional physician will need to become involved in the ICQI program.

HCCF completed all monthly studies and quarterly reports and submitted them to the SCQIC within expected time frames. The goal for
this institution for 2003 is to present the ICQI committee meeting minutes in a specific format to include members present and absent as
well as more information about what the committee discussed and recommended.

MLCC submitted all monthly studies, quarterly reports, and monthly minutes to the SCQIC in one packet at the end of the year. It appears
that the institutional physician periodically attends the ICQI committee meetings. The SCQIC worked with the institutional CQI
coordinator throughout 2002 in an effort to improve the timeliness of reporting, but the primary goal for this institution in 2003 remains to
complete required elements of the CQI program within expected time frames.

MTCX monthly minutes and studies have been received by the SCQIC but not always within expected time frames, and quarterly reports
were not sent in. The institutional physician has not been attending ICQI committee meetings and will need to become involved in 2003.
Continuity and consistency of their ICQI program will be primary goals for 2003, as well as completing expected elements, e.g., quarterly
reports.

NWCX completed all monthly studies and quarterly reports and submitted them to the SCQIC within expected time frames. This
institution has been without a mid-level provider for many months and has had changes in its institutional physician. Therefore, this
committee has not had consistent physician involvement. Once it gets a permanent institutional physician, he/she will need to be involved
in the ICQI program.

STSRCF completed all monthly studies and quarterly reports and submitted most of them to the SCQIC within expected time frames (the
third and fourth quarter reports were sent past the due dates). The ICQIC frequently must do direct patient care, along with multiple other
duties, and this interferes with maintaining timeliness of the CQI program, but this institution has done well for the most part. The
institutional physician has not been attending the ICQI committee meetings and will need to begin attending.

TPW submitted monthly studies, quarterly reports, and minutes through November 2002 but did not submit December’s study or minutes
and only three of six expected fourth quarter reports. This institution has had multiple staff changes. The institutional physician attended
several of the ICQI committee meetings, but several meetings did not have a physician to participate in them as the institution did not have
a permanent physician. The primary goal for TPW in 2003 is to maintain its ICQI program as required; hopefully, stable staff will help this
process.

WCBC completed all monthly studies and quarterly reports and submitted them to the SCQIC within expected time frames. The
institutional physician usually did not attend the ICQI committee meetings and will need to begin doing so.

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side