United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Report to the Honorable Thomas M.
Davis, III Chairman, Subcommittee on
the District of Columbia, House
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

April 2000

DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Issues Related to the
Youngstown Prison
Report and Lorton
Closure Process

GAO/GGD-00-86

United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-282741
April 7, 2000
The Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III
Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report responds to your December 7, 1998, request that we assess the
D.C. Department of Corrections’ response to the recommendations made
by the Office of the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia in its
November 1998 report on the disturbances at a contract prison facility in
Youngstown, Ohio. You also expressed interest in issues related to the
closing of the Lorton facilities that house felon inmates from the District of
Columbia and the transfer of these inmates to the federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP). In addition to requiring the closing of the District’s
corrections facilities in Lorton, Virginia, the National Capital Revitalization
1
and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act),
among other things, required that BOP house at least 2,000 of the District’s
inmates in private contract facilities by December 31, 1999.
More specifically, you asked us to assess and report on
• the D.C. Department of Corrections’ response to the Trustee’s
recommendations;
• the BOP’s efforts to comply with the privatization requirements of the
Revitalization Act; and
• any challenges concerning the closing of Lorton faced by the District of
Columbia and BOP as December 31, 2001, the statutory date for closing all
of Lorton, nears.

Results in Brief

In its November 1998 report on problems at the Youngstown facility, the
Corrections Trustee made nine recommendations to the D.C. Department
of Corrections. Corrections Trustee officials were generally satisfied with
the actions taken by the Department to implement the recommendations.
We found that as of March 3, 2000, the Department had partially
implemented five of the Trustee’s recommendations and fully implemented
1

The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 was enacted as
Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.

Page 1

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

the remaining four. Partially implemented were recommendations to
modify the existing contract so as to hold Youngstown more accountable
for adhering to contract provisions and to temporarily reduce the inmate
population at Youngstown until there were significant additional work and
educational opportunities for inmates. Also partially implemented were
2
recommendations to supplement the full-time monitor at Youngstown
with additional professional and clerical assistance, adopt BOP’s system
for classifying inmates, and define the criteria for transferring inmates
from D.C. Department of Corrections facilities, including Lorton, to
3
contract facilities. Fully implemented were recommendations dealing
with activating new contract facilities; ensuring that these facilities have in
place, before inmates arrive, a sound screening and classification
capability; removing from Youngstown all inmates requiring separation
from other inmates; and establishing a contract monitoring unit at D.C.
4
Department of Corrections headquarters.
BOP did not comply with the initial privatization requirement of the
Revitalization Act that it house at least 2,000 sentenced felons in private
contract facilities by December 31, 1999. BOP began contracting for 2
private facilities to house these inmates 22 months in advance of the date
they were needed. However, delays due to environmental and legal issues,
as well as security concerns partially arising from the Trustee’s report on
Youngstown, resulted in neither facility being operational on December 31,
1999. As of that date, BOP had accepted the transfer of 1,861 D.C.
sentenced felon inmates, but none of the inmates were in private facilities.
In a letter dated April 1999, BOP notified Congress of its inability to
comply with this requirement. In February 2000, BOP modified its
contracting procedures in an effort to avoid the environmental
complications that delayed the construction and operation of the two
private facilities. BOP believes that these modifications will prevent a
recurrence of the environmental complications previously encountered.
As of January 2000, BOP had not begun to contract for the additional
private facilities needed to comply with the Revitalization Act’s
requirement to house at least half of the District’s sentenced felon
population in private correctional facilities by September 30, 2003.
2

The full-time monitor at Youngstown is employed by the D.C. Department of Corrections. He is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract.

3

The BOP’s classification system, like other classification systems, classifies or subdivides inmates into
groups based on their security and program needs.

4

For this report, screening refers to the process of determining an inmate’s fitness for placement in a
particular correctional facility based on various factors, including security, program, and medical
needs.

Page 2

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

Although the District of Columbia and BOP successfully transferred some
inmates and closed some facilities at Lorton, several important challenges
remain as the December 31, 2001, statutory date for closing Lorton and
transferring the remaining inmates approaches. These challenges could
potentially adversely affect the operation of the District’s correctional
facilities, including Lorton, and the transfer of inmates. They include
continued increases in both the D.C. Department of Corrections’ and
BOP’s inmate populations; concerns about the adequacy of funding to
operate the District’s correctional facilities during the period up to
December 31, 2001; lack of space in BOP facilities, particularly low-to-high
5
security facilities to which D.C. inmates are to be transferred; and a high
rate of staff attrition within the D.C. Department of Corrections. According
to Corrections Trustee officials, increases in the D.C. inmate population,
which they attributed to an increase in the number of D.C. parole violators;
a reduction in the number of felons released as a result of a court decision;
and delays in the inmate parole hearing process, had contributed to the
delay in closing two Lorton facilities by about a year after the date they
were originally scheduled to close. Despite the transfer of 1,861 District
sentenced felon inmates from Lorton to BOP, the number of sentenced
felon inmates in the District’s custody only decreased by 13, and the total
number of sentenced felons transferred or in the custody of both the
District and BOP increased by 1,223. The Corrections Trustee issued a
revised closure plan for Lorton in February 1999. After issuing this revised
plan, the D.C. Department of Corrections closed three of the facilities
scheduled for closure either ahead of or slightly behind the revised
schedule. In February 2000, the Corrections Trustee issued another
closure plan to revise the closure schedule.

Background

For several decades, the D. C. Department of Corrections functioned as
both a local and a state-like system. As a typical municipal system, the
Department of Corrections detained pretrial, presentence, and other
inmates for the local Superior Court; probation and parole violators; and
those misdemeanor or felony offenders sentenced to relatively short
terms. As a state-like system, it housed convicted felons. The latter have
been held primarily in a 3,000-acre prison complex consisting of 7 facilities
located on federally owned land in Lorton, Virginia. In October 1995, the

5

Correctional facilities are grouped into security levels depending on the security needs of the inmates.
Under BOP’s security classification system, minimum security inmates require the least amount of
supervision; high security inmates require the most. Moving from the lowest security level to the
highest, BOP uses the terms “minimum,” “low,” “medium,” and “high.”

Page 3

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

D.C. Department of Corrections had custody of 9,222 inmates, including
6
6,814 at Lorton.
More recently, the D.C. Department of Corrections also housed convicted
7
felons in contract facilities, primarily in Ohio and Virginia. From May to
October 1997, the Department transferred 1,700 inmates from District
correctional facilities to the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, a medium
security facility in Youngstown, Ohio, owned and operated by the
Corrections Corporation of America. The Department’s decision to
transfer inmates to the Youngstown facility came about as a result of welldocumented concerns about the security, cost effectiveness, and adequacy
of the seven facilities located in the aging Lorton complex. However, in its
first 14 months of operation, the Youngstown facility experienced a
number of problems, including the deaths of two inmates caused by other
inmates and an escape of six inmates.
The Revitalization Act requires the closing of the District’s correctional
facilities in Lorton by the end of 2001 and, in general, the transfer of all
sentenced felon inmates to penal or correctional facilities operated or
contracted for by BOP. After Lorton is closed, the D.C. Department of
Corrections is to be responsible for the operation of the D.C. Jail. The
Department of Corrections is also to be responsible for overseeing the
operation of the Correctional Treatment Facility, which is privately
operated, as well as the halfway houses, several of which are contract
facilities. BOP is to be responsible for the D.C. sentenced felon inmate
population. See table 1 for other Revitalization Act requirements and the
dates the requirements must be accomplished.
Table 1: Revitalization Act Requirements
for BOP and the Dates the Requirements
Must Be Accomplished

Requirement
House at least 2,000 of the District’s
sentenced felons in private contract facilities
Assign all of the District’s sentenced felons
to a penal or correctional facility
Accept the transfer of all of the District’s
sentenced felons
House at least half of the District’s
sentenced felon inmate population in private
contract facilities

Date
December 31, 1999
October 1, 2001
December 31, 2001

September 30, 2003

Source: National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act, as amended.
6

This figure does not include 781 inmates assigned to community halfway houses and 517 inmates in
the custody of BOP and the U.S. Marshals Service.

7

The D.C. Department of Corrections also placed inmates in private contract facilities in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee.

Page 4

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

The Revitalization Act established the District of Columbia Corrections
Trustee to serve as an independent officer of the District government to
facilitate the closure of the Lorton facility. The role of the Corrections
Trustee is to
• allocate federal funding to the D.C. Department of Corrections for
continued housing of District felon inmates at Lorton and District contract
facilities;
• provide financial oversight to the Department;
• reimburse BOP for certain expenses related to the construction of new
facilities, as identified by Congress;
• facilitate the closure of the Lorton complex and the transfer of all
sentenced felons to federal custody by December 31, 2001; and
• ensure that the District develops and maintains a viable correctional
system.
In August 1998, the U.S. Attorney General asked the Corrections Trustee to
review and inspect the security procedures, management practices, and
the inmates’ work opportunities at the Youngstown facility in response to
the aforementioned problems. The Corrections Trustee’s report, issued in
November 1998, identified 19 major findings and 24 major
recommendations, 15 of which were focused on the Youngstown facility.
The remaining nine recommendations focused on the D.C. Department of
Corrections, which according to Corrections Trustee officials, was not
required to respond because the report was addressed to the U. S.
Attorney General.
Subsequent to the transfer of inmates to Youngstown and the issuance of
the Corrections Trustee’s report, the D.C. Department of Corrections
transferred additional inmates to other contract facilities. From January to
May 1999, the D.C. Department of Corrections transferred 1,355 minimum
to high security inmates from District facilities, including Lorton, to two
Virginia state-run contract facilities—Sussex II, a high security facility
located in Waverly; and Red Onion, one of two facilities for the state’s
most dangerous inmates, located in Pound.

Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

To assess and report on the D.C. Department of Corrections’ response to
the Trustee’s recommendations, we read the Trustee’s November 1998
report, analyzed each of the recommendations, and reviewed a response to
the Youngstown report prepared by the D.C. Department of Corrections.
We also reviewed the District’s proposed Youngstown contract
modification incorporating some of the Trustee’s recommendations, as
well as the District’s contract with the Virginia Department of Corrections.

Page 5

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

We interviewed officials from the D.C. Department of Corrections, the
Corrections Trustee, Department of Justice, BOP, and the Virginia
Department of Corrections. We visited the Virginia Department of
Corrections’ Sussex II contract facility but did not assess the facility or its
programs. We assessed whether the Department took action to address
each recommendation but did not assess the quality of the implementation.
In this report, we use the following terms to describe the Department’s
implementation of the Trustee’s recommendations:
• Fully implemented. The entire wording of the recommendation has been
fulfilled.
• Partially implemented. Only part of the recommendation has been
implemented. When the wording of the recommendation had multiple
parts, if one part or a portion of a part had been implemented (but not all
parts), we categorized the recommendation as “partially implemented.”
8
• Not implemented. No part of the recommendation was implemented.
To assess and report on BOP’s efforts to comply with the Revitalization
Act’s privatization requirements, as well as the challenges concerning the
closing of Lorton faced by the District of Columbia and BOP, we read
several studies and transcripts of congressional hearings, dating back to
1987, dealing with the D.C. Department of Corrections. We also
interviewed officials from the D.C. Department of Corrections, the
Corrections Trustee, BOP, the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the Criminal
9
Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia. We reviewed
relevant statistical, financial, and contractual data provided to us by these
agencies, as well as the applicable federal law requiring the closing of
Lorton. We requested comments on a draft of the report from the Director
of the Department of Corrections, the Corrections Trustee, and the
Director of BOP. Their written comments are discussed near the end of
this letter. We performed our work between February 1999 and April 2000
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

8

We used similar definitions when reporting on the Customs Service’ implementation of
recommendations issued by a blue ribbon panel in 1991 (Customs Service: Status of the
Implementation of Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations (GAO/GGD-96-163, Sept. 3, 1996).
9

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia coordinates the efforts of both
federal and District agencies that form part of the District of Columbia’s criminal justice system. The
Council’s membership includes, among others, representatives from the Metropolitan Police
Department, the D.C. Department of Corrections, the U.S. Parole Commission, and the Office of the
Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia.

Page 6

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

D.C. Department of
Corrections Had Not
Fully Implemented the
Trustee’s
Recommendations

In its November 1998 report, the Corrections Trustee noted problems with
the District’s contract to house inmates in the Youngstown facility and the
screening and transfer of sentenced felon inmates to that facility. The
report also indicated that the Youngstown facility lacked appropriate work
and education programs for the inmates as required by the contract. In
nine of its recommendations, the Corrections Trustee focused on the D.C.
Department of Corrections, but according to Corrections Trustee officials,
the Department was not required to respond to the recommendations
because the report was addressed to the U.S. Attorney General. We found
that the D.C. Department of Corrections partially implemented five and
fully implemented the other four recommendations. Corrections Trustee
officials told us that they were generally satisfied with the actions taken.
In its report, the Corrections Trustee found that the D.C. government
rushed into an abbreviated procurement process, resulting in a contract at
a somewhat inflated price with the Corrections Corporation of America
that, among other things, lacked financial penalties in the event of
contractor noncompliance. In addition, the Trustee found that there were
few constructive work or educational opportunities for most inmates, in
direct conflict with the terms of the contract. The Trustee found that the
Department and the Youngstown facility failed to screen and transfer
inmates properly, resulting in the transfer of (1) over 200 inmates requiring
separation from other inmates and (2) large numbers of inmates who
should have been classified at a higher level than medium security. The
Trustee also found that the Department of Corrections initially took little
responsibility for monitoring the operations at the Youngstown facility
until confronted with major problems, and Youngstown was not
adequately prepared for the accelerated transfer of inmates—904 in 17
days—that occurred just after the contract was signed.
In its report, the Corrections Trustee recommended that the D.C.
Department of Corrections
• modify the Youngstown contract to provide for financial penalties in the
event of contractor noncompliance, add specific language to the contract
describing procedures for determining noncompliance with the contract,
and reevaluate the justification for the pricing structure;
• reduce the inmate population to preferably 1,000 inmates until there were
significant additional opportunities for constructive daily activities;
• supplement the full-time contract monitor at Youngstown with additional
professional and clerical assistance;

Page 7

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

• stabilize the process of classifying inmates by adopting the BOP
classification system as the permanent system and properly training staff
in its use;
• clearly define the criteria for transferring inmates to future contract
facilities and allow for sufficient time to screen transfers;
• ensure that any future activation of a contract facility be well organized
and gradual, with feasible start-up schedules and on-site monitoring;
• ensure that future contract facilities have in place, before inmates arrive, a
sound screening and classification capacity to use as a basis for assigning
inmates to housing units;
• work with Youngstown to remove all existing separation/enemy cases and
10
ensure that no future known separation cases were sent to Youngstown;
and
• establish a contract monitoring unit at headquarters responsible for
developing and administering oversight guidelines, coordinating various
forms of on-site monitoring, and ensuring the proper implementation of
plans of action or imposition of penalties for noncompliance.
We found that the D.C. Department of Corrections partially implemented
five and fully implemented the other four recommendations. Partially
implemented recommendations included the recommendation to modify
the contract with Youngstown. The D.C. Department of Corrections
drafted a contract modification that would require the Youngstown facility
to (1) comply with the standards set forth by the American Correctional
11
12
Association, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and
the State of Ohio and (2) pay financial penalties of $1,200 per day for
failure to comply with the major contract provisions. It also outlined
procedures for determining compliance with the contract. However, at the
time of our review, the Department’s draft modification of the Youngstown
contract was under negotiation with the contractor. Further, Department
officials did not attempt to reevaluate the cost of the contract as
recommended by the Trustee.

10
Some inmates require separation from other inmates within a correctional facility for various
reasons, including personal animosities, and testimony provided against other inmates.

11
The American Correctional Association is a professional membership organization dedicated to the
improvement of corrections and the development and training of correctional professionals. It has
been involved in the development of national standards addressing operations, programs, and services
essential to effective correctional management.

12

The National Commission on Correctional Health Care has developed standards addressing the
provision of health care at correctional facilities.

Page 8

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

The D.C. Department of Corrections temporarily reduced the inmate
population at Youngstown to below 1,000. However, despite the July 1999
finding of a joint Corrections Trustee/Department of Corrections review
team that Youngstown still lacked an industrial operation for employing
inmates, by September 1999, the Department had increased the population
of the facility to 1,436. While the Department of Corrections had begun the
process of hiring supplemental professional and clerical assistance for the
on-site monitor at Youngstown, the Department had not hired this
assistance. The Department also reclassified all of the District’s inmate
felon population using the BOP model, which the Department adopted in
the fall of 1997 as part of an initiative that predated the Corrections
Trustee’s report. However, two BOP reviews of 744 minimum security
inmate files (completed in December 1998 and March 1999, respectively)
13
found classification errors in about 40 percent of the files reviewed.
According to D.C. Department of Corrections officials, it has arranged for
additional training on the BOP classification system.
Also partially implemented was a recommendation to clearly define the
criteria for selection of inmates for any future transfer to contract
facilities. With assistance from the Corrections Trustee, the D.C.
Department of Corrections negotiated a contract with the Virginia
Department of Corrections to house felon inmates that included, as the
Corrections Trustee recommended, clearly defined criteria for transferring
inmates. However, according to an October 1999 report issued by the
Corrections Trustee, the Department still lacked written policies and
procedures for classifying and transferring inmates. This problem was
reported before and after the Corrections Trustee’s November 1998 report.
In October 1997, a study led by the National Institute of Corrections
reported that, of the 270 D.C. Department of Corrections’ orders in effect,
at least 61 percent had been developed between the 1960s and 1980s, with
no indication in most cases that these policies had subsequently been
14
reviewed or updated. An internal assessment of the Department’s Case
15
Management Services unit in April 1999, found that the manual used,
among other things, to ensure a consistent application of policies with
13

In January 2000, D.C. Department of Corrections officials told us that BOP had more recent evidence
showing that the Department of Corrections had greatly reduced the number of classification errors.
However, BOP could not provide data to support this claim.
14

The National Institute of Corrections is an agency within BOP that provides assistance to federal,
state, and local corrections agencies working with adult offenders.
15

The Case Management Services Unit is responsible for classifying, transferring, and separating
inmates.

Page 9

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

regards to inmate classification, transfer, and separation, had not been
updated since 1988. According to Corrections Trustee and Department of
Corrections officials, the Department recently established an office to
develop and monitor internal controls, and was in the process of updating
its policies and procedures.
Fully implemented recommendations were those dealing with activating
new contract facilities; ensuring that these facilities have in place, before
inmates arrive, a sound screening and classification capability; removing
all inmates requiring separation from other inmates; and setting up a
contract monitoring unit. The contract with the Virginia Department of
Corrections included provisions to gradually activate the new Sussex II
facility, allow sufficient time to screen and transfer inmates, and select an
on-site monitor to oversee the transfer of inmates. The contract also
incorporated the recommendation that future contract facilities have a
sound screening and classification capability. According to the D.C.
Department of Corrections, as of January 2000, all inmates known to
require separation at Youngstown from other inmates had been removed
except those required by court order to stay there. The Department of
Corrections has established a contract monitoring unit at headquarters.
This unit has conducted program reviews of all D.C. Department of
Corrections’ contract facilities, including smaller contract facilities in New
Mexico and Arizona. Appendix I provides a fuller explanation of the D.C.
Department of Corrections’ actions to implement each of the
recommendations, as well as an explanation of the factors affecting the
Department’s response.

BOP Did Not Comply
With the Revitalization
Act’s Initial
Privatization
Requirement

BOP did not comply with the Revitalization Act’s initial privatization
requirement to house at least 2,000 District sentenced felons in private
contract facilities by December 31, 1999. To comply with the act’s initial
requirement, BOP accepted the transfer of 1,861 District sentenced felon
inmates and began contracting for two private facilities to house 2,200
inmates 22 months in advance of the date they were needed. However, the
construction of both facilities was delayed because of a number of issues,
including security, environmental, and legal issues. As of December 31,
1999, none of the inmates were in private facilities. BOP notified Congress
of its inability to comply with this requirement in April 1999. In February
2000, BOP modified its contracting procedures in an effort to avoid a
recurrence of the environmental complications that delayed the
construction and operation of both private facilities. According to BOP,
these modifications will require prospective contractors to address
environmental concerns as part of the contracting process. BOP officials

Page 10

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

believe that the modified contracting procedures will prevent a recurrence
of the environmental complications previously encountered.
The Revitalization Act also requires BOP to house at least half of the
District’s sentenced felon inmate population in private contract facilities
by September 30, 2003. As of January 2000, BOP had not begun to contract
for the additional private facilities needed to comply with the
Revitalization Act’s requirement to house at least half of the District’s
sentenced felon population in private correctional facilities by September
30, 2003.
In February 1998, BOP issued an initial request for proposals to house
2,200 inmates of various classification levels; however, it revised this
request in November 1998, partially in response to the release of the
Trustee’s report describing security and other problems at Youngstown to
delete the requirement for 1,200 low security beds. Prospective offerors
were asked to revise their proposals to encompass the remaining
requirement to house 1,000 male and female inmates of various security
classification levels. In December 1998, BOP issued a second request for
proposals covering the 1,200 low security inmates. In April 1999, BOP
awarded a contract to Cornell Corrections, Incorporated, for the
management and operation of a contractor-owned and operated
correctional institution in Pennsylvania for 1,000 male and female inmates
of varying classification levels. Groundbreaking for this facility took place
in May 1999. However, as a result of a court challenge, BOP subsequently
issued four temporary stop-work orders to reevaluate the environmental
documentation used to support the contract award. Also, in September
1999, the Pennsylvania Attorney General issued a letter to the contractor
advising that since Pennsylvania law does not specifically authorize the
operation of a privately owned and operated prison in Pennsylvania, such
prisons are prohibited. Largely as a result of environmental concerns, BOP
delayed the awarding of a second contract until October 1999, when it
conditionally accepted Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s proposal
(pending completion of an environmental impact review) to build and
operate a second facility in North Carolina. As a result of these delays,
neither contract facility was operational as of December 1999, and BOP
was unable to begin the transfer of inmates as planned. In March 2000,
BOP formally awarded the contract for the second facility to Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation. The first inmates are scheduled to arrive there in
March 2001. Table 2 shows a summary of BOP’s efforts to comply with the
Revitalization Act’s privatization requirements.

Page 11

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

Table 2: BOP’s Efforts to Comply With the Revitalization Act’s Privatization Requirements
Actions taken by BOP
Issued a request for proposals to build and operate a single private facility to house 2,200
inmates of various classification levels.
Partially in response to the Corrections Trustee’s report on Youngstown, amended its initial
request for proposals to delete a requirement for 1,200 beds for low security inmates.
Prospective offerors were requested to modify their proposals to reflect the remaining
requirement to house 700 male and 300 female inmates of various security classification levels.
In December, BOP issued a second request for proposals to cover the 1,200 low security
inmates.
Testified before Congress that it expected to have operational contracts for the two facilities by
December 1999 and June 2000, respectively.
Awarded a contract for the management and operation of a contractor-owned and operated
correctional institution in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, for 700 male and 300 female inmates of
various security classification levels. Groundbreaking for the facility took place in May.
Issued a 90-day stop-work order in response to a court challenge questioning the environmental
documentation used to support the contract award.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania facility through December 1999. In a
separate development, the Pennsylvania Attorney General informed the contractor that since
state law does not specifically authorize the operation of a privately owned and operated
contract prison in Pennsylvania, such prisons are prohibited.
Conditionally accepted a proposal for the construction and operation of a second private facility
in Winton, North Carolina, pending completion of an environmental impact review. This facility,
when completed, will house 1,200 primarily low security inmates.

Date
February 1998

November 1998 and December 1998

Contracted with the Virginia Department of Corrections to house 1,000 primarily low security
inmates at Virginia’s Greensville Correctional Center and began the transfer of inmates.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania facility to continue until early March 2000.
As of December 31, 1999, had transferred a total of 596 inmates to the Virginia Department of
Corrections’ Greensville Correctional Center.
Extended the stop-work order for the Pennsylvania facility to continue until early April 2000.
Formally awarded the contract for the second facility to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.

February 1999

April 1999 and May 1999
June 1999

September 1999

October 1999

December 1999

March 2000

Source: Documents provided by and interviews with BOP officials.

Although BOP did not comply with the initial privatization requirement of
the Revitalization Act, it accepted the transfer of 1,861 District felon
inmates by the end of 1999. Of these inmates, 1,583 remained in custody as
of December 31, 1999, including 596 at a state-run facility in Virginia. BOP
officials told us that the majority of these inmates will eventually be
transferred to one of the two private facilities. BOP sent the remainder of
the inmates to various federal correctional facilities.

Page 12

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

D.C. and BOP Face
Significant Challenges
as the Date for Closing
Lorton Nears

Since the passage of the Revitalization Act, the D.C. Department of
Corrections and BOP have, despite difficulties, successfully transferred
some inmates and closed some facilities at Lorton. However, as the date
for closing all of Lorton nears, District of Columbia and BOP officials face
important challenges, including an unexpected increase in the District’s
sentenced felon inmate population, funding concerns, a lack of space in
BOP facilities, and staff attrition at the D.C. Department of Corrections.
As of December 31, 1999, a total of 4,599 District felon inmates had been
transferred from Lorton to other correctional facilities. The D.C.
Department of Corrections had transferred 1,473 inmates to Youngstown
and other private contract facilities and 1,265 inmates to state-run contract
facilities in Virginia. BOP had accepted the transfer of 1,861 inmates; of
these, 1,583 remained in custody. A total of 2,827 inmates remained in the
Lorton complex. The D.C. Department of Corrections had also closed
three of the seven Lorton facilities, but closed two of these about 1 year
after the date called for in the original closure plan issued in October
16
1997. The slippage in the scheduled closings of these two Lorton facilities
was primarily attributable to the Department’s errors in inmate
classification and, according to Corrections Trustee officials, an
unexpected increase in the inmate population. As a result of concerns
about past escapes noted in inmates’ case files, BOP reclassified a number
of inmates as low security after the Department had classified them as
minimum security inmates. Because of this reclassification of inmates,
BOP was initially unable to transfer these inmates, as originally planned, to
work camps, which generally lack perimeter fences, and they remained in
the custody of the D.C. Department of Corrections. The Department of
Corrections closed one of the Lorton facilities, the Modular facility, in 1995
as a result of budget cuts, but reopened it in May 1999 following an
unexpected increase in the inmate population.
In February 1999, the Corrections Trustee issued a revised closure plan.
Since issuing this plan, the D.C. Department of Corrections has closed two
facilities—Occoquan and the Minimum Security Facility. A third facility,
the Youth Facility, closed in January 2000. All three facilities closed either
ahead of or slightly behind the revised schedule. In February 2000, the
Corrections Trustee revised its closure plan a second time to reflect a
decision to close the Maximum Security Facility in March 2001, rather than
in December 2001, as called for in the February 1999 revised closure plan.
Table 3 provides for each of the seven Lorton facilities the original
16

A fourth facility, the medium security facility, was closed in September 1997 prior to the completion
of the original closure plan.

Page 13

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

scheduled closing date, the revised scheduled closing date, and the actual
closing date.
Table 3: Lorton Facilities’ Planned and
Actual Closing Dates

Facility
Medium securityc
Occoquan
Minimum security
Youth
Maximum security
Central
Modulard

Original planned
a
closing date
Not applicable
August 1998
Summer 1998
December 2001
December 2001
December 2001
Not applicable

Revised closing
b
date
Not applicable
April 1999
September 1999
March 2000
March 2001
December 2001
December 2001

Actual date closed
September 1997
May 1999
July 1999
January 2000

a

In October 1997, the National Institute of Corrections led the study that contained the original closure
plan for Lorton.

b

The Corrections Trustee revised the closure plans for Lorton in February 1999 and February 2000.
The major difference between these two plans consists of moving the closure date for the Maximum
Security Facility from December 2001 to March 2001.
c

This facility was closed before either of the closure plans was prepared.

d

The D.C. Department of Corrections closed this facility in 1995 and reopened it in May 1999 after
submission of the February 1999 revised closure plan.
Sources: District of Columbia Department of Corrections Management Reform Act: Phase IIRecommended Improvement Projects, October 1997; February 1999, and February 2000 closure
plans issued by the Office of the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia.

District Felon Inmate Population
Increase

Officials from the Department of Corrections, the Corrections Trustee, and
BOP agreed that a continued increase in the District felon inmate
population could complicate the transfer of inmates to BOP. D.C.
Department of Corrections and Corrections Trustee officials also agreed
that the sentenced felon population increase could complicate the
management and funding of the Lorton complex until its closure on
December 31, 2001. Although BOP accepted the transfer of 1,861 District
sentenced felon inmates between April 1998 and December 1999, the
number of sentenced felon inmates in the District’s custody only
decreased by 13, and the total number of sentenced felons transferred or in
the custody of both the District and BOP increased by 1,223. The number
of inmates remaining in the Lorton facilities as of December 31, 1999, also
increased. According to the Corrections Trustee, in fiscal year 1999 alone
the sentenced felon inmate population increased by more than 10 percent.
The Corrections Trustee attributed the population increase, which was
unexpected, to (1) an increase in the number of parole violators, (2) a
reduction in the number of felons released as a result of a court decision
that disallowed credit for time spent on parole prior to a parole violation,
and (3) delays in the inmate parole hearing process as a result of the
transfer of authority to grant parole from the D.C. Board of Parole to the
U.S. Parole Commission. According to the Corrections Trustee, the

Page 14

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

February 2000 closure plan, which assumes a population increase of 400
inmates per year, will require revision in the event the Department’s
inmate population increases significantly in excess of this level. Table 4
shows a comparison of the District’s felon inmate population in April 1998
versus December 1999.

Table 4: Comparison of the District’s Sentenced Felon Inmate Population From 1998 to 1999
Number of inmates as of
Number of inmates as of
Facility
April 1998
December 1999
Correctional Treatment Facility and Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail)
Correctional Treatment Facility
583
445
Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail)
334
191
Total
917
636
Lorton Facilities
Central
1,231
1,951a
Youth center
639
258
Maximum security
536
618
Occoquan
1,058
0
Minimum security
272
0
Medium security
0
0
Total
3,736
2,827
Private Facilities contracted for by the District of Columbia
Youngstown, Ohio
1,561
1,227
Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee
0
246
Total
1,561
1,473
Virginia Department of Corrections facilities contracted for by the District of Columbia
Sussex II
0
1,178
Red Onion
0
87
Total
0
1,265
Total sentenced felons in the District’s
b
c
custody
6,214
6,201
d
e
Sentenced felons transferred to BOP
625
1,861
Total number of District sentenced felons in
custody and transferred
6,839
8,062

Difference

-281

-909

-88

+1265
-13
+1,236
+1,223

a

Total includes the inmates in the Modular facility, which was closed in 1995 as a result of budget cuts
and reopened in 1999 because of an unexpected increase in the inmate population.
b
Total does not include 247 sentenced felon inmates accused of possible parole violations and
inmates detained as a result of warrants issued by other jurisdictions. Total also does not include
inmates in halfway houses.
c

Total does not include 42 inmates transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service; 18 inmates housed in
state-run facilities under cooperative agreements with Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland,
and Florida; and 208 inmates in halfway houses.

d

BOP did not have information about the number of inmates released and in custody as of April 1998.

e

As of December 31, 1999, BOP had in custody a total of 1,583 sentenced felon inmates.

Sources: District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Office of the Corrections Trustee for the
District of Columbia, and BOP.

Page 15

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

Funding Concerns

District officials, at both the Department of Corrections and the Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, were concerned that
a funding shortfall could complicate efforts to operate Lorton until its
closure. In fiscal year 1999, the Department of Corrections reported what
it referred to as a projected funding shortfall of approximately $26 million.
This projected shortfall was not resolved, according to agency officials,
until the Attorney General waived an $11 million reimbursement from the
Corrections Trustee to BOP for expenses related to the care of District
inmates, the District government reprogrammed $5 million in additional
funding, and the Department reduced its expenditures. To bridge the gap,
the District government also applied the Corrections Trustee’s final fiscal
year 1998 payment of $3.4 million.
D.C. Department of Corrections officials estimated that a similar shortfall
will occur in fiscal year 2000 and that the Department’s ability to carry out
its mission will be adversely affected unless it is able to obtain additional
federal or local funding, or a combination of the two. Regarding 1999,
2000, and 2001, Corrections Trustee and District government officials did
17
not agree on the most appropriate mix of federal and local funding. As of
January 2000, Corrections Trustee and District officials had not agreed on
an estimate of the projected fiscal year 2000 funding shortfall, but the
Department had developed a plan to reduce the projected shortfall, which
includes approximately $13 million in additional local funding and
approximately $13 million in spending cuts. In January 2000, Department
officials also expressed concern about the fiscal year 2001 budget, but had
not yet finalized the funding figures.
Of the D.C. Department of Corrections’ total approved budget of $257
million for fiscal year 1999, the federal government, through the
Corrections Trustee provided approximately $185 million. The District of
Columbia provided the majority of the remainder, although a small amount
was also generated through a for-profit self-supporting fund used to
purchase items for sale to inmates. The projected 1999 funding shortfall
was attributed to a combination of factors including
• the unexpected increase in the felon inmate population;
• errors made by the District government in allocating funding;
• underfunding on the part of either or both the federal and District
governments;
17
The disagreement focused on the responsibility for funding inmates not ready for transfer to longterm confinement facilities. The inmates in question include those who were sentenced, served terms
of confinement as felons, returned to the community on parole or under supervision, were arrested for
new crimes, and were being held in local detention awaiting adjudication.

Page 16

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

• the failure to appropriately fund the April 1998 pay raise for Department of
Corrections employees that was approved by the City Council;
• a failure to budget for operation of the minimum security facility, which
was originally scheduled to close in the summer of 1998 and the Modular
facility that was reopened in 1999; and
• a failure on the part of the D.C. Department of Corrections to budget for
the Virginia contract .
While District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority officials believed that the projected funding shortfall
was the result of inadequate funding from the federal government,
Corrections Trustee officials believed that the level of federal funding was
sufficient, given the transfer of inmates from the aging Lorton facilities to
newer, more cost effective contract facilities. In June 1998, the
Corrections Trustee testified that his fiscal year 1999 budget provided
between $27,000 and $28,000 for each inmate, whereas the national
average cost for state systems was about $20,000. However, in April 1999,
the Corrections Trustee indicated that a continuation of the inmate
population increase could put a severe strain on the Corrections Trustee’s
ability to provide adequate resources to manage the felon population.
Of the D.C. Department of Corrections’ enacted budget of approximately
$243 million for fiscal year 2000, the federal government, through the
18
Corrections Trustee, is to provide $173 million. Because of an increasing
felon inmate population and the failure to realize expected savings in the
health services budget when only a few of the inmates with acute or
chronic illnesses were transferred to contract or BOP facilities, the
Department of Corrections believes that it will again experience what it
describes as a funding shortfall of about $20 million to $26 million in fiscal
year 2000. Other factors that agency officials believe will contribute to the
projected shortfall include a lack of (1) budget authority for overtime; (2)
operating funds for the Modular facility; and (3) investment funds for
improvements in information technology, capital improvements to the D.C.
19
jail, and community corrections. According to the Department’s fiscal
year 2000 financial plan, the District allocated less than $70 million in local
funds for the D.C. Department of Corrections’ operations that are to
continue after Lorton is closed. The Corrections Trustee estimated that
18
An additional $13 million is being requested from District funds to address the projected shortfall,
bringing the revised estimate to $256 million. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Office of the
Corrections Trustee is approximately $175 million; of which approximately $3 million is for the
Corrections Trustee’s administrative expenses.

19

For this report, community corrections include programs for pretrial detainees, sentenced
misdemeanants, work release program felons, and halfway houses.

Page 17

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

the District should allocate approximately $80 million to fund these
facilities. In March 2000, the Corrections Trustee testified that Mayor
Anthony Williams’ recently released fiscal year 2001 budget that was sent
to the City Council recommended a funding level that was $20 million
short of what the District needs to provide to the Department of
20
Corrections to fund its local responsibilities. After Lorton is closed, the
D.C. Department of Corrections is to be responsible for the operation of
the D.C. Jail. The Department of Corrections is also to be responsible for
overseeing the operation of the Correctional Treatment Facility, which is
privately operated, as well as the halfway houses, several of which are
contract facilities.

Lack of Space in BOP Facilities

D.C. Department of Corrections and Corrections Trustee officials were
concerned about BOP’s lack of space for low, medium, and high security
inmates. This lack of space, combined with increases in the inmate
population experienced by both the District and BOP, could complicate
the Department’s efforts to transfer the Lorton inmates. According to the
Department of Corrections’ fiscal year 2000 financial plan, the
Department’s transition to a more typical municipal correctional system is
contingent on BOP’s acceptance of medium and high security inmates in
the near future.
As of February 2000, about 91 percent of the District’s felon population
was comprised of low, medium, and high security inmates. All three of
BOP’s plans for accepting the transfer of District inmates—dated
November 1997, December 1998, and January 2000, respectively—
acknowledged a lack of space, particularly for low, medium, and high
security inmates, as a factor limiting BOP’s ability to accept the District
inmates. BOP does not plan to begin accepting the majority of medium
and high security inmates until January 2001. In addition to the two
private facilities under contract, BOP plans to build seven facilities to
house the District inmates. However, the first of these new facilities, a
high security facility located in Florida with space for 960 inmates, is not
to be activated until September 2001. The remaining six facilities are
21
scheduled to become operational in 2002 and 2003. In March 2000, BOP
testified that the additional prison bed capacity to absorb the District’s
sentenced felon inmates will not be ready by the December 31, 2001, date,
but that it was taking other steps to comply with the Revitalization Act’s
requirements. These steps include adding space by expanding existing
20
Statement of the Corrections Trustee, John Clark, before the House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee for the District of Columbia, March 23, 2000.

21

These seven facilities are to also house inmates from other jurisdictions.

Page 18

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

BOP facilities, increasing the use of contract and state-run facilities, and
redistributing low and minimum security inmates among existing BOP
22
facilities.
Also, BOP’s ability to house the District’s remaining inmates is
complicated by increases in both the District’s and BOP’s inmate
populations. As discussed above, the District experienced an unexpected
inmate population increase and, in fiscal year 1998, BOP experienced an
increase of 10,000 inmates—the largest increase in BOP’s history.
According to testimony presented by BOP in March 2000, in fiscal year
1999 BOP experienced a second year of large inmate population increases,
23
increasing its total inmate population by more than 11,300. BOP facilities
are reportedly 33 percent over capacity systemwide, with medium and high
security facilities at 54 percent and 52 percent over capacity respectively.
BOP has requested funding for additional inmate housing, as well as
greater discretion in the placement of District sentenced felons to help
ensure that these inmates can be placed in private facilities in accordance
with their needs.

D.C. Department of Corrections’
Staff Attrition

D.C. Department of Corrections officials were concerned that staff
attrition could adversely affect the operation of Lorton until its closure on
December 31, 2001. Staff attrition, while much reduced from previous
levels, has been a continuing problem partially as a result of the
announced closure of Lorton, which made it more difficult for the D.C.
Department of Corrections to recruit and retain qualified staff. In October
1997, a study led by the National Institute of Corrections reported that up
to 20 Department of Corrections’ employees were resigning during each 2week pay period. According to the Corrections Trustee, staff attrition has
more recently averaged 9 per 2-week pay period. During the past year, the
closing of the three Lorton facilities has permitted the reassignment of
correctional officers to fill vacancies at the remaining District correctional
facilities, including Lorton, providing an adequate staffing complement.
However, no facilities are scheduled to close between January 2000 and
March 2001, and as of January 15, 2000, the D.C. Department of
Corrections had an on-board strength of 1,761— 7 above the required

22
Statement of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, before the House
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, March 2, 2000.
23
Statement of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, before the House
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, March 2, 2000.

Page 19

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

B-282741

24

staffing level of 1,754. According to Corrections Trustee officials, staff
attrition will force the D.C. Department of Corrections to continue to use
overtime as a means of filling court-ordered posts, as well as seeking other
alternatives to offset the loss of staff. It may also result in an older, less
technologically capable workforce.

Agency Comments

The Corrections Trustee and BOP generally agreed with the information in
our report. They and the Department of Corrections also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Their
comments are reprinted in appendixes II through IV.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the
date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Minority Member, House
Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, as well as other interested congressional parties. We will also
send copies of this report to the Honorable Anthony Williams, the Mayor of
the District of Columbia; and the Honorable Janet Reno, the Attorney
General. Copies will be made available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me or Brenda Bridges
on (202) 512-8777. Key contributors to this assignment were David
Alexander, Geoffrey Hamilton, Jose M. Pena, III, and Barbara Stolz.
Sincerely yours,

Laurie Ekstrand,
Director, Administration
of Justice Issues

24
Only includes staff at D.C. Department of Corrections operated facilities, as well as transportation
staff. The total staffing level is 2,224, which also includes medical staff, facilities maintenance staff,
and other administrative positions.

Page 20

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Page 21

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Contents

1

Letter
Appendix I
Department of
Corrections’
Responses to the
Trustee’s
Recommendations

24

Appendix II
Comments From the
D.C. Department of
Corrections

27

Appendix III
Comments From the
Federal Bureau of
Prisons

29

Appendix IV
Comments From the
Office of the
Corrections Trustee

31

Tables

Table 1: Revitalization Act Requirements for BOP and the
Dates the Requirements Must Be Accomplished
Table 2: BOP’s Efforts to Comply With the Revitalization
Act’s Privatization Requirements
Table 3: Lorton Facilities’ Planned and Actual Closing
Dates
Table 4: Comparison of the District’s Sentenced Felon
Inmate Population From 1998 to 1999

Page 22

4
12
14
15

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Contents

Abbreviations
BOP
DC

Page 23

Bureau of Prisons
District of Columbia

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix I

Department of Corrections’ Responses to the
Trustee’s Recommendations

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.
Department of Corrections . . .
Modify the existing contract to hold
Youngstown more accountable for
adhering to the contract provisions by
including specific procedures and
penalties for noncompliance. The
Department should add specific language
to the contract describing the procedures
for determining whether the contract
facility complied with the contract and
include a preset schedule of financial
penalties that attach to such contract
breaches. The Department should also
reevaluate the justification for the pricing
structure.
Until there are significant additional
opportunities for constructive daily
activities, reduce the population of the
Youngstown facility, preferably to 1,000
inmates, since a greater number of idle
inmates may result in serious problems.

Supplement the current full-time contract
monitor at Youngstown with additional
professional and clerical assistance. The
Department of Corrections’ subject matter
experts should provide assistance
periodically to the local monitor.

In response to the Trustee’s
recommendations, the Department of
Corrections . . .
Status
Drafted a provision to be added to the
Partially implemented.
Youngstown contract for a $1,200 per day
penalty in the event of a major deficiency.
However, at the time of our review,
The Department also proposed specific
Youngstown had not agreed to the
language to be added to the contract
contract modifications, and the D.C.
requiring Youngstown to comply with
Department of Corrections had not re
standards set forth by the American
evaluated the justification for the
Correctional Association, the State of
contract’s pricing structure, viewing the
Ohio, the National Commission on
contract as cost effective.
Correctional Health Care, court orders or
consent decrees specifically applicable to
the Youngstown facility, and D.C.
Department of Corrections policies. It also
outlined procedures for determining
compliance with the contract.
Temporarily reduced, in the wake of the
Partially implemented.
Trustee’s report, the inmate population at
Youngstown to below 1,000.
Subsequent to the reduction to below
1,000, by September, 1999, the D.C.
Department of Corrections had increased
the inmate population to 1,436. In July
1999, a joint Trustee/Department review
found that, while there was much less
evidence of inmate idleness, Youngstown
had still not established an industrial
operation.
Started the process of hiring additional
Partially implemented.
staff.
However, the D.C. Department of
Corrections had not yet hired the
additional staff to assist the on-site
monitor. According to D.C. Department of
Corrections officials, subject matter
experts have provided the on-site monitor
at Youngstown with subject matter
expertise.

Page 24

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix I
Department of Corrections’ Responses to the Trustee’s Recommendations

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.
Department of Corrections . . .
Stabilize the process of classifying
inmates and eliminate confusion by
adopting BOP’s model as the permanent
model and properly train staff in its use.

Clearly define criteria for the selection of
inmates for any future transfer to contract
facilities. Sufficient time should be
allowed for the (1) Department of
Corrections and the contract facility to
screen referrals and determine if
adequate information is available and (2)
contractor to object to the transfer of any
inmate not suitable under the terms of the
contract.

In response to the Trustee’s
recommendations, the Department of
Corrections . . .
Adopted BOP’s classification model in the
fall of 1997, as a result of an initiative that
predated the Trustee’s report. An
October 1999 Trustee review of the D.C.
Department of Corrections’ classification
procedures found that the Department’s
adoption of the BOP model represented a
major improvement in the safety of its
facilities.

Defined the criteria for transfer in its
contract with the Virginia Department of
Corrections as a medium to maximum
security inmate as determined by the
Virginia Department of Corrections’
classification system. Virginia Department
of Corrections, D.C. Department of
Corrections, and Trustee officials agreed
that sufficient time was allowed for
screening and classifying inmates.
Virginia Department of Corrections
officials told us that they rejected the
transfer of some inmates they deemed
unsuitable for their facilities.

Page 25

Status
Partially implemented.
However, two BOP reviews of 744 D.C.
Department of Corrections minimum
security inmate case files, completed in
December 1998 and March 1999, found
classification errors in about 40 percent of
the cases reviewed. In January 2000,
Department of Corrections officials told us
that BOP had more recent evidence
showing that the Department of
Corrections had greatly reduced the
number of classification errors. However,
BOP could not provide data to support
this claim. According to the D.C.
Department of Corrections, it has
arranged for additional training on the
BOP classification system.
Partially implemented.
In October 1999, the Trustee found that
the D.C. Department of Corrections
lacked written policies and procedures for
classifying and transferring inmates. An
April 1999 assessment showed that the
case management services manual—
used, among other things, to ensure a
consistent application of policies with
regards to classification, transfer, and
inmate separation procedures—had not
been updated since 1988. With
assistance from the Corrections Trustee,
the Department recently established an
office to monitor internal controls, and is in
the process of updating its policies and
procedures.

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix I
Department of Corrections’ Responses to the Trustee’s Recommendations

In response to the Trustee’s
recommendations, the Department of
Corrections . . .
Status
Contracted to house 1,355 inmates in two
Fully implemented.
Virginia Department of Corrections
facilities—Sussex II and Red Onion.
While the D.C. Department of Corrections
Provided for the transfer of inmates to
had not developed internal policies and
Virginia to begin approximately 5 months
procedures for ensuring that all future
after the signing of the contract in August
contract facilities are activated in a
1998. Virginia used this period to prepare
gradual, organized manner, as of January
its facilities for the transfer of inmates.
2000, the Department had no plans to
The first transfer actually occurred in
place sentenced felon inmates in any
January 1999, and transfers continued
other contract facilities.
until May 1999. Inmates were transferred
at the rate of 80 inmates each week. The
Department’s on-site monitor assumed his
position prior to the transfer of the first
inmates.
Ensure that future contract facilities have
Contracted with the Virginia Department of Fully implemented.
in place, before inmates arrive, a sound
Corrections, which has a sound inmate
screening and classification capacity to
screening and classification capability, to
As of January 2000, the D.C. Department
use as a basis for assigning inmates to
house 1,355 inmates. According to
of Corrections had no plans to house
housing units, identifying individual
Virginia Department of Corrections
sentenced felon inmates in any other
security needs, and directing inmate
officials, they used their classification
contract facilities.
involvement in work and program
model to assign inmates to housing units
activities.
and direct them into work and program
activities.
Work with Youngstown to remove all
Removed all inmates at Youngstown
Fully implemented.
existing separation cases and to ensure
requiring separation from other inmates
that no future known separation/enemy
except those required by court order to be
cases are sent to Youngstown.
at Youngstown.
Establish a contract monitoring oversight
Established such an office in its
Fully implemented.
unit in headquarters with the responsibility
headquarters. This office is to coordinate
of monitoring all contract facilities holding
the Department’s efforts to monitor
Department of Corrections inmates. The
contract facilities and has developed
unit should develop and administer
written rules and procedures, to guide its
oversight guidelines, coordinate various
operations. Since May 1999, this office
forms of on-site monitoring, and ensure
has completed program reviews of all
the proper implementation of plans of
contract facilities housing District inmates,
action or imposition of penalties for
including smaller contract facilities in New
noncompliance.
Mexico and Arizona. These program
reviews identified problems related to the
operation of the contract facilities and
suggested solutions.

The Trustee recommended that the D.C.
Department of Corrections . . .
Ensure that any future activation of a new
contract facility be well organized and
gradual, with feasible start-up schedules,
on-site monitoring, and a willingness to
alter plans to adapt to the realities of the
situation.

Sources: National Institute on Corrections; D.C. Department of Corrections; Office of the Corrections
Trustee for the District of Columbia, Bureau of Prisons, and the Virginia Department of Corrections.

Page 26

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix II

Comments From the D.C. Department of
Corrections

Page 27

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix II
Comments From the D.C. Department of Corrections

Page 28

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix III

Comments From the Federal Bureau of
Prisons

Page 29

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix III
Comments From the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Page 30

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Appendix IV

Comments From the Office of the Corrections
Trustee

Page 31

GAO/GGD-00-86 District’s Response to Youngstown Prison Report

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order made
out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA
and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or
more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
th
th
700 4 St. NW (corner of 4 and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list
from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to
obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

(182835)

Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100