MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF

SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

October 2008

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

471-0620-07L

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

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

Michigan

Off ice of the Auditor General
REPORT SUMMARY
Performance Audit
Selected Personnel and Other Administrative
Costs
Department of Corrections

Report Number:
471-0620-07L

Released:
October 2008

The Department of Corrections (DOC) maintained 49 facilities (41 correctional facilities
and 8 camps) that housed over 50,000 prisoners as of December 31, 2007. Each
facility is required to maintain specific staffing levels of custody officers for duty 24
hours each day. DOC had 16,260 employees as of December 31, 2007. In fiscal year
2006-07, DOC expended $1.41 billion for payroll, of which $95.3 million was for
overtime pay. DOC total expenditures for fiscal year 2006-07 were $1.91 billion.

Audit Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of DOC's
efforts to manage costs related to staffing,
overtime, and salaries and benefits.

Audit Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of DOC's
efforts to manage other administrative
costs.

Audit Conclusion:
We concluded that DOC's efforts to
manage costs related to staffing, overtime,
and salaries and benefits were moderately
effective.
We noted two reportable
conditions (Findings 1 and 2).

Audit Conclusion:
We concluded that DOC's efforts to
manage other administrative costs were
effective.
However, we noted one
reportable condition (Finding 3).

Reportable Conditions:
DOC needs to improve its administration of
custody officer staffing (Finding 1).
DOC needs to pursue additional cost
saving measures through future contract
negotiations
and
review
of
its
organizational structure (Finding 2).

~~~~~~~~~~

Reportable Condition:
DOC did not have a formal process in place
to negotiate prices for goods and services
purchased from Michigan State Industries
(Finding 3).

~~~~~~~~~~
Agency Response:
Our audit contains 3 findings and 3
corresponding recommendations. DOC's
preliminary response indicated that it
partially agrees with all of the
recommendations.

~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

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

October 28, 2008

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

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

471-0620-07L

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

4
471-0620-07L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Report Summary

1

Report Letter

3

Description of Agency

7

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

9

COMMENTS, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES
Efforts to Manage Costs Related to Staffing, Overtime, and Salaries and Benefits

12

1.

Custody Officer Staffing

12

2.

Staffing and Benefit Savings

16

Efforts to Manage Other Administrative Costs
3.

Purchased Goods and Services

20
20

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit 1 - Expenditure Data for Fiscal Year 2006-07

26

Exhibit 2 - Overtime Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2004-05 Through 2006-07

28

Exhibit 3 - Payroll Hours for Fiscal Years 2004-05 Through 2006-07

29

Exhibit 4 - Overtime Hours by Position for Fiscal Year 2006-07

30

5
471-0620-07L

Exhibit 5 - Number of Employees With Overtime for Fiscal Years 2004-05
Through 2006-07

31

Exhibit 6 - Overtime Hours by Reason for Fiscal Years 2005-06 and 2006-07

32

Exhibit 7 - DOC Custody Staffing Levels by Facility as of December 31, 2007

33

Exhibit 8 - Changes in Prisoner Bed Space and Custody Staff From
October 1, 2006 Through December 31, 2007

34

Exhibit 9 - DOC-Reported Initiatives Related to Closures and Other Reductions

35

Exhibit 10 - Closures and Other Reductions for Appropriation Years 2004-05
Through 2007-08

36

Exhibit 11 - Staffing Ratios as of October 2005 and October 2008

38

GLOSSARY

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

41

6
471-0620-07L

Description of Agency

The goal of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is to provide the greatest amount of
public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's resources. DOC
maintained 49 facilities (41 correctional facilities and 8 camps) located across the State
and was responsible for the custody and safety of approximately 50,000 prisoners as of
December 31, 2007. Each facility is required to maintain specific staffing levels of
custody officers 24 hours each day. DOC consists of the following four main entities:
1.

Correctional Facilities Administration
The Correctional Facilities Administration is responsible for the State's correctional
facilities and camps, including the Special Alternative Incarceration Program (boot
camp). The State is divided into three regions; each region has a regional prison
administrator who has oversight over wardens. The Correctional Facilities
Administration is also responsible for transportation, food service, and courtordered health care.

2.

Field Operations Administration
The Field Operations Administration is responsible for State probation, parole
supervision, and a variety of other methods of supervision, including community
residential programs, electronic monitoring of offenders, and technical rule violation
centers.

3.

Planning and Community Development Administration
The Planning and Community Development Administration is responsible for
external projects and programs, including special projects, the Michigan Prisoner
Reentry Initiative (MPRI), the Office of Community Corrections, and the Office of
Research.
The goal of MPRI is to reduce crime and enhance public safety by implementing a
system of services tailored to each parolee. MPRI programming and services
provided to the parolee are intended to help the parolee smoothly transition into
society.

7
471-0620-07L

4.

Operations Support Administration
The Operations Support Administration is responsible for all internal organizational
support within DOC. The Operations Support Administration includes the Bureau
of Human Services, Bureau of Fiscal Management, Office of Legal Affairs, and
Office of Internal Affairs. The Bureau of Fiscal Management consists of the
budget, finance, and physical plant units.

DOC had 16,260 employees as of December 31, 2007. DOC incurred the following
expenditures:
Fiscal Year
2004-05
2005-06

2003-04

2006-07

Nonpayroll expenditures
Payroll expenditures

$0.42 billion
1.22 billion

$0.47 billion
1.31 billion

$0.56 billion
1.40 billion

$0.49 billion
1.41 billion

Total expenditures

$1.64 billion

$1.78 billion

$1.96 billion

$1.91 billion

8
471-0620-07L

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

Audit Objectives
Our performance audit* of Selected Personnel and Other Administrative Costs,
Department of Corrections (DOC), had the following objectives:
1.

To assess the effectiveness* of DOC's efforts to manage costs related to staffing,
overtime, and salaries and benefits.

2.

To assess the effectiveness of DOC's efforts to manage other administrative
costs*.

Audit Scope
Our audit scope was to examine records related to selected personnel and other
administrative costs of the Department of Corrections. Our audit was conducted in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and such other
auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our audit
procedures, conducted from July 2007 through February 2008, generally covered the
period October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007.
Supplemental information was provided by the Department of Corrections and is
presented in Exhibits 1 through 11. Our audit was not directed toward expressing a
conclusion on this information and, accordingly, we express no conclusion on it.
Audit Methodology
Our audit methodology included a preliminary review of DOC's staffing, overtime,
salaries and benefits, and other administrative costs. This included interviewing various
DOC management and staff and reviewing applicable statutes, executive directives,
policies and procedures, legislative reports, and other reference materials.
To accomplish our first audit objective, we reviewed applicable statutes, executive
directives, DOC reorganizations, and legislative reports.
We interviewed DOC
management and reviewed organization charts and staffing levels for each entity within
* See glossary at end of report for definition.

9
471-0620-07L

DOC. Our analysis included reviewing changes in staff authorizations by position and
comparing the levels of positions between similar security level correctional facilities. In
addition, we performed a cost-benefit analysis of overtime versus hiring new custody
officers. Further, we reviewed payroll expenditures, including overtime; critical incident
assault reports; and employee contractual agreements.
To accomplish our second audit objective, we reviewed applicable statutes, policies and
procedures, procurement practices, and cost reports and we examined departmentwide
expenditures. We also reviewed DOC's role in negotiating prices for goods and
services purchased from its Michigan State Industries (MSI). However, we excluded
MSI operations from the scope of this audit because it will be covered in another Office
of the Auditor General audit. In addition, we excluded food, transportation, and medical
related expenditures as these were reviewed in other recent Office of the Auditor
General audits. We reviewed certain expenditure categories, including prisoner
clothing, utilities, board and care of prisoners, and non-State building rentals. In
addition, we examined DOC's analyses of various expenditure categories, such as
utilities and laundry. Further, we interviewed DOC and MSI management and staff and
compared costs for commonly purchased items among various vendors.
Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up
Our audit contains 3 findings and 3 corresponding recommendations.
DOC's
preliminary response indicated that it partially agrees with all of the recommendations.
The agency preliminary response that follows each recommendation in our report was
taken from the agency's written comments and oral discussion subsequent to our audit
fieldwork. Section 18.1462 of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the State of Michigan
Financial Management Guide (Part VII, Chapter 4, Section 100) require DOC to develop
a formal response to our audit findings and recommendations within 60 days after
release of the audit report.
We released our performance audit of Corrections Officers' Supplemental Pay and
Retirement, Department of Corrections (47-117-97), in April 1998. Within the scope of
this audit, we followed up all 5 prior audit recommendations. DOC complied with 4 of
the prior audit recommendations, and 1 prior audit recommendation was rewritten for
inclusion in this report.

10
471-0620-07L

COMMENTS, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

11
471-0620-07L

EFFORTS TO MANAGE COSTS RELATED TO STAFFING,
OVERTIME, AND SALARIES AND BENEFITS
COMMENT
Background: The Department of Corrections (DOC) had 10,472 authorized custody
positions, maintained 49 facilities, and was responsible for the custody and safety of
approximately 50,000 prisoners as of December 31, 2007. DOC establishes custody
officer staffing levels for each facility by taking into account the facility layout, prisoner
classification, and previous critical incidents reported at the facility. Between fiscal
years 2004-05 and 2006-07, DOC made various adjustments to staffing levels because
of revisions to prisoner security classification, implementation of the Michigan Prisoner
Reentry Initiative, and the addition of 1,148 beds to current facilities. As a result of
these changes, DOC informed us that it reduced custody staff by 247 full-time positions.
In addition, in November 2007, DOC closed two correctional facilities and reopened
another correctional facility that provided an additional 360 beds and reduced required
custody staffing levels by another 383 full-time positions. DOC provided us with
additional initiatives related to closures and other reductions (see Exhibits 9 through 11,
presented as supplemental information).
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of DOC's efforts to manage costs related
to staffing, overtime, and salaries and benefits.
Audit Conclusion: We concluded that DOC's efforts to manage costs related to
staffing, overtime, and salaries and benefits were moderately effective. Our
assessment disclosed two reportable conditions* related to custody officer staffing and
staffing and benefit savings (Findings 1 and 2).

FINDING
1.

Custody Officer Staffing
DOC needs to improve its administration of custody officer staffing.
Improving administration of custody officer staffing would help DOC reduce
overtime costs, improve work performance, increase custody officer morale, and
realize other residual benefits.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

12
471-0620-07L

As of December 31, 2007, DOC employed 9,782 custody officers at its 49 facilities.
DOC paid overtime costs of $66.9 million to custody officers for 1,924,513
nonholiday overtime hours worked in fiscal year 2006-07. The reasons for
overtime included vacancies, hospital coverage, sick leave coverage, essential
special assignments, transportation coverage, occurrences of long-term disability,
and miscellaneous.
Our review of DOC's staffing and fiscal year 2006-07 payroll data disclosed:
a.

DOC's methodology for projecting custody officer staffing requirements did not
account for some of the factors that reduce the direct hours available for post
assignments. As a result, unanticipated custody officer overtime may occur
and cause payroll costs to exceed budget.
In recognizing that not all of the 2,080 annual hours paid to a custody officer
are available for direct assignment to a post, DOC developed a formula for
staffing projections that considers the hours a custody officer is paid but not
assigned to a post. DOC refers to these hours as the "relief factor." Relief
factor hours accounted for annual and sick leave usage, training, and other
types of absences, but did not account for other hours away from post
assignments, such as hospital coverage, essential special assignments, and
transportation coverage. These factors result in a need for additional staffing
while a custody officer is away from an assigned post. During fiscal year
2006-07, these additional factors accounted for 27% of the overtime hours
incurred by DOC.

b.

DOC needs to take steps to reduce the amount of overtime worked by
individual custody officers.
Excessive overtime may impair the physical and mental abilities of custody
officers, resulting in less effective management of prisoners, thereby
jeopardizing the safety of other custody officers, prisoners, and the general
public. A significant level of research exists that links overtime, stress, fatigue,
and work performance. For example, a National Institute of Justice study cited
overtime as one of the factors that causes stress, which can impair an officer's
health and cause him/her to burn out or even to retire prematurely. Stress and
fatigue resulting from working excessive overtime hours in a highly stressful

13
471-0620-07L

environment may result in custody officers becoming complacent in the
performance of their duties. Also, several recent Office of the Auditor General
audits of DOC facilities reported numerous instances in which custody officers
did not perform or did not properly document the performance of required
duties, including cell searches, gate manifests, prisoner counts, critical tool
inventories, sanitation inspections, and prisoner shakedowns.
We noted that during fiscal year 2006-07:
(1) DOC allowed 121 custody officers to each work more than 1,000 overtime
hours. DOC also allowed 1 custody officer to work 2,390 overtime hours,
which is the equivalent of working more than two full-time positions.
(2) DOC allowed 7 custody officers in 113 instances to work at least 7
consecutive days. Thirty-five of the 113 instances included custody
officers who worked 14 or more consecutive days. The consecutive days
ranged from 7 to 85 days, with an average of 12 days for these
employees.
(3) DOC allowed 7 custody officers in 88 instances to work a double shift of
16 hours or more within consecutive work days. The double shifts ranged
from 1 to 19 double shifts within a period of 7 to 85 days. Also, 1 custody
officer had worked 40 consecutive days with 19 (48%) of the work days
being double shifts and another custody officer had worked 19
consecutive days with 14 (74%) of the days being double shifts.
c.

DOC needs to determine the optimal balance between continued overtime
usage versus employing additional custody officers to alleviate overtime
usage. Also, comparisons of expected and actual custody officer leave usage
would help identify and address variances in overtime usage among facilities.
These efforts will help DOC identify ways to better manage its resources and
reduce overtime costs. If DOC reduces overtime usage by hiring additional
custody staff, it may realize other residual benefits, including positively
affecting the State's economy, boosting employee morale, and reducing stress
levels of DOC custody officers who work a significant amount of overtime.

14
471-0620-07L

As of April 1, 2008, subsequent to our fieldwork completion, DOC hired 419 new
custody officers for fiscal year 2007-08.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC improve its administration of custody officer staffing.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees in part with the finding and informed us that it continues to improve its
administration of custody staffing. DOC believes that it has been effective in
managing costs as it has reduced its costs significantly during the audit period.
Information related to these efforts is contained in Exhibits 9 through 11.
Regarding part a., DOC informed us that it will continue to address hospital
coverage, essential special assignments, and transportation coverage by making
adjustments to staffing charts. For example, DOC indicated that it created hospital
cadres at various locations in June 2008. DOC informed us that these cadres
supervise prisoners at the nearby hospital regardless of which facility sent the
prisoner to the hospital, thus reducing travel time and overtime across the
department. Also, DOC indicated that it centralized custody transportation in
October 2007. DOC informed us that this allowed it to allocate custody
transportation officer positions to regions and facilities where demand for such
positions is the greatest, thus reducing overtime across the department.
Regarding part b., DOC informed us that its facilities monitor the amount of
overtime worked by individual custody officers, but under current contract
language, DOC cannot prohibit employees from working any given number of
overtime hours, consecutive days, or double shifts unless they are determined
medically unfit to do so. Also, the report cites 121 custody officers who worked
more than 1,000 hours of overtime in the fiscal year. This equates to an average
of 19 hours of overtime per week; the approximate equivalent of two shifts per
week.
DOC indicated that this amount of overtime is common in any
24-hour/7-day-a-week operation. The report also cites 7 officers in 88 instances in
which officers worked a double shift within consecutive work days. This equates to
an average of 12 instances of double shifts for each of the 7 officers in a one-year
time period. DOC indicated that this frequency is not indicative of excessive
overtime. DOC also indicated that double shifts are common in any 24/7
operation. DOC informed us that it employs approximately 8,625 officers. The
15
471-0620-07L

total number of officers identified in the citations for excessive amounts of overtime
(124 officers) represents less than 1.5% of the total work force of custody officers
and DOC believes this is a very small percentage. DOC indicated that it is also
important to note that overtime is offered and accepted on a voluntary basis in
most instances and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and
Civil Service Rules. DOC informed us that it will continue to recommend changes
to the collective bargaining agreement between the Michigan Corrections
Organization (MCO) and the State of Michigan to provide DOC with greater control
and flexibility in the scheduling of overtime and staffing of assignments.
Regarding part c., DOC informed us that it continues to determine the optimal
balance between the overtime usage and employing additional custody officers.
DOC indicated that it considers custody staff turnover rates, changes to the
demand for beds, and reasons for overtime when it assesses staffing needs. DOC
informed us that it attempts to optimize custody staffing across the department by
working with the Office of the State Budget through the annual budget process.
However, DOC stated that the leading cause of custody staff overtime for fiscal
year 2006-07 was staff vacancies. DOC indicated that its ability to maintain full
staffing in fiscal year 2006-07 was affected by many factors, such as legislative
funding for new employee schools, a State hiring freeze, and holding vacancies
open to accommodate staff affected by facility closings and reorganizations. DOC
indicated that it hired approximately 700 new custody officers to fill vacancies in
fiscal year 2007-08. DOC also indicated that it plans to hire an additional 540
custody officers in fiscal year 2008-09. In addition, DOC indicated that closure of
the Robert Scott Correctional Facility in May 2009 will make 200 additional custody
officers available to fill vacancies. DOC informed us that, as custody officer
vacancies are filled, overtime will be significantly reduced. In addition, DOC
informed us that it compared expected and actual custody officer leave usage,
which prompted DOC to revise the relief factor and off-duty limits that will become
effective October 2008.

FINDING
2.

Staffing and Benefit Savings
DOC needs to pursue additional cost saving measures through future contract
negotiations and review of its organizational structure. Pursuit of these additional
cost savings could result in potential savings of as much as $12.8 million.
16

471-0620-07L

Efficient utilization of State resources requires continual reviews of all costs for
necessity and reasonableness, balanced with DOC's responsibility to provide the
greatest amount of public protection.
Our review disclosed:
a.

DOC needs to continue to review its custody staffing contracts to identify cost
savings and work with the Office of the State Employer during future collective
bargaining processes to negotiate viable contract changes.
We reviewed contracts between DOC and various employee unions, including
the MCO contract. Our review of the contracts disclosed potential cost
savings of $9.3 million during fiscal year 2006-07 for items such as dry
cleaning allowances, high security retention premiums, and bonuses. For
example:
(1) If DOC discontinued providing a $575 dry cleaning allowance to custody
staff, it could save at least $5.5 million annually.
(2) If DOC discontinued paying a high security retention premium payment to
employees who work in a level IV or higher security level correctional
facility, it could save approximately $3.4 million per year. DOC paid 3,440
employees an average of $993 each in high security retention premiums.
DOC informed us that the premium rate was implemented to encourage
officers to work in the higher security level correctional facilities and to
reduce the amount of turnover in these facilities. However, DOC also
informed us that this retention pay may no longer be necessary because
turnover rates are now consistent between low and high security level
correctional facilities.
(3) If DOC discontinued making payments to employees for sick leave and
physical fitness bonuses, it could save $265,450 and $142,450,
respectively, per year. During fiscal year 2006-07, DOC paid 1,157
employees an average of $229 for the sick leave bonuses and 600
employees an average of $237 for the physical fitness bonuses.

17
471-0620-07L

(4) If DOC discontinued paying overtime based on paid hours, including
annual leave, rather than based on actual hours worked, it would result in
a decrease of DOC's total overtime costs.
For example, if an employee recorded annual leave for one shift in a
given day, that employee could also record overtime for that same day or
any occurrence within a pay period. As of January 1, 2008, DOC was
successful in eliminating sick leave hours from an employee's paid
overtime calculation. DOC estimated that this contract change will save
$4.1 million per year.
(5) If DOC discontinued prohibiting officer assignments between work sites to
fill vacancies, it would allow for more flexible scheduling and could
potentially reduce the amount of overtime and overall vacancies for the
correctional facilities and camps within these locations.
MCO union contract language states that DOC cannot make temporary
assignments across complex lines to balance daily staffing. DOC has 7
locations that have 3 to 5 facilities that are within 5 miles of each other.
These locations include Coldwater, Huron Valley, Ionia, Jackson,
Kincheloe, Muskegon, and St. Louis. These 7 locations account for 23
correctional facilities and 2 camps.
The aforementioned cost saving items may involve future contract negotiations
and may not be realized until such changes are approved. DOC informed us
that all of these changes will be considered during future collective bargaining
negotiations.
b.

DOC needs to continue to review its organizational structure and other
processes to ensure that it is operating in the most cost-efficient manner.
During our review, DOC identified a potential cost savings of $2.6 million if it
could regionalize maintenance, business office, warehouse, and food service
staff. Also, DOC identified additional cost savings it could potentially achieve
through reorganizing its records offices.
DOC estimates that this
reorganization will result in a reduction of 8.5 full-time equated positions and a
potential cost savings of $857,000 per year. DOC informed us that it is

18
471-0620-07L

planning on performing the regionalization and reorganization in fiscal year
2008-09.
We noted that other states have implemented alternative staffing methods,
including utilization of two 12-hour shifts per day rather than three 8-hour shifts
per day, to decrease costs and inefficiencies while still maintaining public
safety. Alternative staffing could reduce the required staffing levels and could
reduce overtime costs.
DOC management informed us that it plans to begin implementing alternative
shift schedules for nonrepresented custody employee positions in calendar
year 2008.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC pursue additional cost saving measures through future
contract negotiations and review of its organizational structure.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees in part with the finding and informed us that it will continue to
recommend changes to the contract between the State of Michigan and MCO.
DOC will also continue to review its organizational structure.
DOC indicated that Civil Service Rule 6 establishes that the Office of the State
Employer, as the Governor's representative, has the responsibility and authority to
direct negotiations regarding conditions of employment with various employee
unions through collective bargaining agreements. Civil Service Rule 6 also vests
with the Civil Service Commission, the final authority to approve, modify, or reject,
in whole or in part, all primary and secondary collective bargaining agreements.
DOC noted that the payments cited were negotiated by the Office of the State
Employer and approved by the Civil Service Commission.
DOC informed us that it has recommended during the last several contract
negotiations to eliminate these items; however, these changes were not achieved
through the collective bargaining process. DOC also informed us that these same
payments are made by the Department of Community Health (DCH), and DCH is
also restricted in its ability to assign employees across facility lines. DOC further
indicated that the Michigan Department of State Police makes similar payments to
19
471-0620-07L

its officers. All of these issues are subject to future collective bargaining
negotiations.
Regarding the DOC organization structure, DOC informed us that it is continuing
its efforts to regionalize and reorganize. As stated in the audit finding, DOC is
attempting to regionalize maintenance, business office, warehouse, and food
service staff. DOC informed us that these efforts are ongoing. Several of these
efforts are recognized in the fiscal year 2008-09 Appropriation Act and require
convening of work groups that include legislative representatives. Regarding
alternative staffing methods, DOC informed us that it is implementing alternative
work schedules for certain custody and noncustody employees where it is feasible.
DOC also indicated that to expand alternative staffing methods to include utilizing
two 12-hour shifts per day would result in certain employees being forced to work
these schedules. DOC indicated that current contract language for corrections
officers requires mutual agreement between MCO and the State of Michigan to
expand shifts beyond 10 hours; consequently, changes to this would require
negotiation between the State of Michigan and the union.

EFFORTS TO MANAGE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
COMMENT
Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of DOC's efforts to manage other
administrative costs.
Conclusion: We concluded that DOC's efforts to manage other administrative
costs were effective. However, our assessment disclosed one reportable condition
related to purchased goods and services (Finding 3).

FINDING
3.

Purchased Goods and Services
DOC did not have a formal process in place to negotiate prices for goods and
services purchased from Michigan State Industries (MSI). As a result, DOC could
not ensure that it realized optimal cost savings when purchasing goods and
services from MSI. We estimated that DOC could have saved $2.0 million if it had
a process to negotiate prices for MSI goods and services.

20
471-0620-07L

The State's procurement policy requires that departments competitively bid goods
and services, whenever possible, to ensure that the State receives the goods and
services at a reasonable cost. Also, Section 800.331 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws requires all agencies, offices, and departments of the State to order goods
from MSI if the goods produced are comparable in price and quality and the goods
can be supplied in a reasonable time period.
During our review, we noted:
a.

DOC purchased goods from MSI that could be found at a lower cost through
other vendors.
MSI operates under the authority of DOC, employing inmates of the State's
correctional facilities and providing goods and services to governmental
entities and nonprofit organizations in Michigan and other states. Some of the
major commodities manufactured by MSI are office furniture, garments,
cleaning supplies, and meat and dairy products.
In fiscal year 2006-07, DOC purchased 73% of the goods sold by MSI, totaling
$33.1 million. During our review, we noted that, between fiscal years 2005-06
and 2006-07, MSI increased the price for several commodities.
We reviewed DOC payments to MSI for laundry supplies, janitorial supplies,
and prisoner clothing. We obtained price information for MSI products and
similar products from outside vendors and other state prison industries that
were similar in prison population and/or located in the Midwest region. Our

21
471-0620-07L

review disclosed that, in several instances, goods could be found at a lower
cost than that paid by DOC to MSI:

Tube socks
Underwear
T-shirts
Coats
Pants
Boots
Shoes
Blankets
Pillows
Sheets
General purpose
cleaner
Dishwashing detergent
Disinfectant spray
Liquid hand soap
Deodorant soap
Laundry bleach
Laundry detergent

Potential
Cost Savings
Computed for
Fiscal Year
2006-07
Purchases (2)

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Average
Price From
Other States'
Correctional
Industries (1)

$ 1.65
$ 1.65
$ 4.75
$41.00
$18.00
$32.80
$26.60
$15.20
$ 6.10
$ 8.75

$ 1.70
$ 1.70
$ 4.90
$42.50
$18.65
$34.00
$27.55
$15.70
$ 6.30
$ 9.05

$ 1.70
$ 1.70
$ 4.90
$42.50
$18.65
$34.00
$27.55
$15.70
$ 6.30
$ 9.05

$ 1.14
$ 1.90
$ 2.78
$32.67
$12.71
$24.50
n/a
$14.00
$ 8.06
$ 6.32

$ .88
$ .75
$ 2.76
n/a
$10.45
$30.09
$22.84
$ 9.95
$ 5.53
n/a

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

$43.95
$27.25
$33.00
$29.00
$ .08
$13.65
$23.00

$43.95
$27.25
$33.00
$29.00
$ .08
$13.65
$23.00

$40.00
$27.25
$33.00
$30.00
$ .10
$13.65
$23.00

$25.25
$42.00
$28.50
$28.31
$ .08
$40.00
$48.75

$30.52
$30.51
$35.16
$16.22
$ .13
$39.34
$39.99

N/A
$ 26,602
N/A
N/A
N/A
325,235
234,156

175,630
N/A
38,399
31,234
N/A
N/A
N/A

$585,993

$ 2,019,411

MSI Price for Fiscal Year
Description of Product

Price From
Private
Vendor

Savings
Realized
for
Fiscal Year
2006-07
MSI
Purchases

Total

$

(1) The other states' correctional industries were located in Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania.
(2) This calculation is based on the lower per unit cost from other states' correctional industries or a private vendor.
n/a - not available
N/A - not applicable

b.

DOC did not have a process in place to review or pursue optimal savings
related to laundry services purchased from MSI. Without such a process,
DOC could not ensure efficient use of State resources.
DOC is committed to strengthening MSI processes by helping to establish
cost-effective processes that employ prison labor. However, Section 800.331
of the Michigan Compiled Laws and DOC's commitment to utilize MSI may be
limiting DOC's ability to negotiate pricing for services purchased from MSI.
For example, DOC requested that all of its facilities utilize MSI laundry
services. DOC believed that it would provide energy cost savings for its
facilities to purchase laundry services from MSI rather than using laundry
22

471-0620-07L

324,453
244,357
368,704
78,981
363,941
29,944
228,840
80,816
7,633
46,479

appliances within the facilities, which utilize additional resources, including
water, electricity, and laundry goods such as detergent and bleach.
MSI offers a 10% discount for facilities utilizing MSI for 100% of their laundry.
However, as of our audit fieldwork, only 6 (12%) of 49 facilities were taking
advantage of MSI's 10% discount. If DOC had a process in place to negotiate
prices for laundry services from MSI, it may be able to negotiate a price that is
cost beneficial for more facilities. In turn, as more facilities purchase laundry
services from MSI, overhead costs per unit could decrease and MSI may be
able to further lower its prices.

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that DOC establish a formal process to negotiate prices for goods
and services purchased from MSI.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
DOC agrees in part with the finding and informed us that it will formalize its
process for negotiating prices with MSI by meeting yearly with MSI to review prices
to ensure they are competitive with other options. DOC informed us that it has had
an informal price negotiation process in place with MSI for many years.
However, regarding part a., DOC believes that quality must be considered when
comparing prices. DOC informed us that MSI's garments have been proven to be
better quality by independent testing labs when compared to other leading
providers of institutional clothing. DOC indicated that MSI's prisoner clothing is on
average 5 - 5½ oz. material, while vendors on average use a 4 oz. material. DOC
also indicated that MSI thread count averages 170 - 180 per square inch, while
vendors average 130 - 140. DOC further indicated that MSI actually receives
customer complaints that its t-shirts turn yellow. DOC explained that the reason for
this is that the cotton, after many years of washings, has been washed out of the
garment leaving only the polyester. However, the t-shirt is still intact with no tears
or rips. DOC indicated that the less expensive private vendor item would have to
be purchased more frequently. DOC also indicated that socks are an additional
product in which MSI's quality exceeds that of private vendors.
Regarding part b., DOC informed us that MSI's laundry service prices are fair and
competitive. DOC indicated that MSI's laundry service pricing is in line with other
23
471-0620-07L

states' prison industry programs and MSI has several non-State agency customers
who procure laundry services from MSI at similar pricing. However, DOC informed
us that it will negotiate more with MSI to get cost-beneficial pricing for more
facilities.

24
471-0620-07L

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

25
471-0620-07L

SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 1

Expenditure Data
For Fiscal Year 2006-07

Total Expenditures

Payroll expenditure Nonpayroll expenditures
$ 1,413,260,109.66
$493,967,687$
Nonpayroll expenditure
493,967,686.73
26%

74.1%
25.9%

Payroll expenditures
$1,413,260,110
74%

Nonpayroll Expenditures

Clothing and textiles
$16,026,570
3%

Insurance and bonds
$15,985,123
3%

Other fees and
compensation
$17,579,941
4%

Prisoner health care, medical, surgic $
Headlee reportable grants

Purchase services $31,408,056
(Michigan State In $
Other administrative costs
6% (buildings $
Fuel and utilities
$
Prisoner food
Prisoner food and beveragesand beverages
$
$46,458,536
Headlee reportable grants
$
9% $
Other fees and compensation
Clothing and textiles
$
Insurance and bonds
$
Fuel and utilities
Household and laundry$49,119,457
$
10%

171,858,763.86

34.8%

75,934,690.40
58,825,635.06
49,119,457.48
46,458,535.73
31,408,055.69
17,579,941.42
16,026,569.95
15,985,122.99
10,770,914.15

15.4%
11.9%
9.9%
9.4%
6.4%
3.6%
3.2%
3.2%
2.2%

Miscellaneous costs
(buildings, equipment,
supplies, etc.)
$58,825,635
12%

26
471-0620-07L

Household and laundry
$10,770,914
2%

Prisoner health care,
medical, surgical, and
laboratory
$171,858,765
36%

Purchased services (MSI,
Michigan Department of
Information Technology, and
other vendors)
$75,934,690
15%

Regular hours all shifts - All employees
Payroll Expenditures
Insurances (health, dental, and vision)
Retirement - All employees
Payroll taxes
Leave used - All employees (annual, sick, banked,
compensatory,
and school)
Other employment benefits
All employees
Overtime - All employees (including holiday overtime)
$64,584,493
$69,847,831
Overtime - All employees
Payroll taxes - All employees
5%
5%
(including holiday overtime)
Other employment
benefits
$95,303,345

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 1
(Continued)
Total Dollars
Percent
$ 703,664,911.83 49.8%
$ 190,599,503.25 13.5%
$ 163,780,476.31 11.6%
$ 125,479,549.33
8.9%
$ 95,303,344.57
6.7%
$ 69,847,831.28
4.9%
$ 64,584,493.09
4.6%

7%
Leave used All employees (annual,
sick, compensatory,
banked, and school)
$125,479,549
9%

Regular hours all shifts All employees
$703,664,913
49%

Retirement - All employees
$163,780,476
12%
Insurances (health,
dental, and vision)
$190,599,503
13%

Leave Usage Expenditures
Banked leave time
$3,510,670
3%
Compensatory leave
$17,208,412
14%

Annual leave
Sick leave
Compensatory leave
Banked leave time
School leave

School leave
$480,661
0%

$ 65,391,980.55 #####
$ 38,887,825.94 #####
$ 17,208,411.85 #####
$ 3,510,670.30 2.80%
$
480,660.69 0.38%
Annual leave
$65,391,980
52%

Sick leave
$38,887,826
31%

Source: Michigan Administrative Information Network (MAIN).

27
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 2
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

Overtime Expenditures
For Fiscal Years 2004-05 Through 2006-07

$90,000,000

$63,453,980

$60,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000

$18,538,295

$40,000,000

$17,699,895

$50,000,000

$56,945,358

Overtime Expenditures

$70,000,000

$18,112,421

$80,000,000

$77,190,923

Regular overtime
Holiday overtime

$10,000,000

$0
2004-05

2005-06
Fiscal Year

Source: Michigan Administrative Information Network (MAIN).

28
471-0620-07L

2006-07

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 3
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

Payroll Hours
For Fiscal Years 2004-05 Through 2006-07
(In Thousands)

35,000

Total hours

29,531

Regular hours

26,788

29,198

26,747

26,523

30,000

28,783

Overtime hours

Payroll Hours

25,000

20,000

15,000

2,451

2,260

5,000

2,743

10,000

0
2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Fiscal Year

Source: Data Collection and Distribution System (DCDS).

29
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 4
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

Overtime Hours by Position*
For Fiscal Year 2006-07

Food services leader
84,371
3%

Corrections
transportation officer
64,159
2%

Registered nurse
63,126
2%

All other positions
(each less than 2%)
161,678
6%

Corrections shift
supervisor
166,519
6%

Corrections officer
1,381,847
51%

Resident unit officer
821,332
30%

* Includes holiday overtime.
Source: Data Collection and Distribution System (DCDS).

30
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 5
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

Number of Employees With Overtime
For Fiscal Years 2004-05 Through 2006-07

4,057

4,516

4,560

4,540

2,750

3,000

2,540

4,000

2,201

Employees

5,000

Fiscal year 2004-05
Fiscal year 2005-06
Fiscal year 2006-07

5,894

6,000

5,844

7,000

414

214

848

210

558

1,000

627

2,000

0
0 - 99.9

100.0 - 249.9

250.0 - 499.9

500.0 - 750.0

More than 750.0

Overtime Hours

Source: Data Collection and Distribution System (DCDS).

31
471-0620-07L

Es

471-0620-07L

Tra

Source: Data Collection and Distribution System (DCDS).

32

Reason for Overtime

Mi
sc

ell
an

Es

eo

e

us

ca
p

197
449

3,128
3,866

5,124
10,327

3,861
12,963

16,871
14,715

12,276
21,718

24,585
24,798

26,489
34,503

50,000

Mi
lita

ef

on

te
Re
li

po
rta
ti

ini
ng

av
e

172,896
176,978

178,485

203,175

123,256
121,691

182,953
197,830

187,572
153,806

119,802

91,330
101,946

100,000

La

ns

Tra

Le

hif
t

nm
en
t

Pr
e- S

sig

150,000

nu
al

As

200,000

An

ec
i al

ea
ve

l

309,904
289,639
277,230

300,000

ng
-T

Sp

kL

350,000

Lo

tia
l

250,000

pit
a

s

406,466

450,000

Sic

cie

550,000

ry
erm
Wo
Dis
rke
ab
ility
rs'
Co
mp
en
sa
tio
n
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
Ad
mi
nis
tra
tio
n
Re
po
rt W
riti
ng

se
n

ca
n

563,196

600,000

Ho
s

Va

Overtime Hours

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 6

SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections
Overtime Hours by Reason
For Fiscal Years 2005-06 and 2006-07

Fiscal year 2005-06 overtime hours
Fiscal year 2006-07 overtime hours

500,000

400,000

0

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 7
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections (DOC)
DOC Custody Staffing Levels by Facility
As of December 31, 2007

Camp/Facility

Security Level

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

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I, II
I, II
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, II, IV
I, III, IV
I, V
I, V
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II, IV
II, IV
II, V
III, IV
IV
IV
RGC, I, V
V
V

Total

Total Staffing
Needed*
170.98
100.96
256.04
170.42
172.82
175.42
184.46
178.36
235.58
169.44
180.18
185.44
169.82
257.46
308.90
358.64
238.36
225.34
364.62
261.16
243.02
270.72
229.92
308.44
317.00
225.42
257.98
195.58
233.60
233.74
264.60
195.22
270.62
284.80
268.86
290.08
282.70
250.60
294.00
316.22
245.66
245.74
10,088.92

* As determined by DOC.
RGC = Reception and Guidance Center.
Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

33
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 8
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections

Changes in Prisoner Bed Space and Custody Staff
From October 1, 2006 Through December 31, 2007

Prisoner Beds

AUDIT: DOC Staffing & Admin Costs #471-0620-07L
Changes in Prisoner Bed Space Statewide
PHASE: Staffing, OT & Benefits
PURPOSE: To document our graphs of custody staff and bed space changes for the report.
53,000
SOURCE:
Auditor prepared using data in this workpaper.
52,686
METHODOLOGY & CONCLUSIONS: See METHOD&CONCL tab.
52,603
52,500
52,391
52,000

51,917
51,740
51,557

51,500

51,000
2006-07
(Beginning)

2006-07
(First Quarter)

2006-07
(Second Quarter)

2006-07
(Third Quarter)

2006-07
(Fourth Quarter)

2007-08
(First Quarter)

Fiscal Year (by Quarter)

Changes in Custody Staff Statewide

Custody Staff

11,000
10,585

10,585

10,585

10,585

10,500

10,472

10,089
10,000

9,500
2006-07
(Beginning)

2006-07
(First Quarter)

2006-07
(Second Quarter)

2006-07
(Third Quarter)

2006-07
(Fourth Quarter)

2007-08
(First Quarter)

Fiscal Year (by Quarter)

These exhibits present the changes in prisoner bed space and in the number of custody staff Statewide from October 1, 2006
through December 31, 2007. The number of custody staff is the authorized positions, including vacant positions. The
number of custody staff vacancies was 690 authorized positions as of December 31, 2007.
Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

34
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 9
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections
DOC-Reported Initiatives Related to Closures and Other Reductions
The Department of Corrections (DOC) performs an important role in promoting public safety
for the residents of Michigan by providing custody and care for over 50,000 incarcerated
felons and supervising 74,000 parolees and probationers. DOC takes seriously this
obligation and strives to provide this service in the most cost-effective manner. During the
audit period, DOC achieved over $200 million in budgetary reductions and reallocations from
closures and other changes designed to increase efficiency (see Exhibit 10).
DOC continually assesses the most cost-effective expansion of its prison capacity. Since
1990, DOC has added almost 16,000 additional beds to existing facilities through doublebunking prisoners, adding additional bunks to open-bay facilities, and identifying opportunities
to add beds to many of the housing units within its facilities.
While the prison population continues to increase, DOC has reduced its staffing levels (see
Exhibit 11). The appropriated full-time equated positions went from 17,510 in fiscal year
2005-06 to 17,087 in fiscal year 2008-09.
Prison population growth in 2006 surpassed all recent historical trends and the prison
population at the end of that year was larger than any time in history. DOC continues to take
steps to control the prison population and is continuing to address these realities. These
initiatives include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Taking the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) up to scale.
Opening the Cooper Street MPRI Drug Treatment Prison.
Implementing the Field Operations Collaborative Case Management System.
Working under the Community Corrections Act to reduce admissions.
Opening the Michigan Reformatory Prison, closing the Riverside Correctional Facility,
and double-bunking the Oaks Correctional Facility.
Adding additional bunks to open-bay facilities.
Performing medical commutations and paroles.
Protecting citizens by effectively supervising felons in the community.
Reducing crime by improving prisoner reentry into Michigan's communities.

Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

35
471-0620-07L

SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Closures and Other Reductions
For Appropriation Years 2004-05 Through 2007-08
Appropriation Year 2004-05
Closures
Western Wayne Correctional Facility
Wing Farm
Technical Rule Violator Centers - Gilman
Total closures
Other Reductions
Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF) - Facility
management fee
MYCF - Lease
Workers' compensation
Reduce gun tower staffing (1)
Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI)
Hadix Consent Decree
Dental care efficiencies
U.S. Department of Justice - Psychiatric Plan - Department
of Community Health Services
U.S. Department of Justice - Psychiatric Plan - DOC Services
Pharmacy savings
Academic/Vocational programs
Transportation efficiencies (due to videoconferencing)
Total other reductions
Total closures and other reductions

Appropriation Year 2005-06
$ 22,740,100
1,025,100
1,286,600
$ 25,051,800

$

150,000
279,400
3,849,000
12,808,800
190,000
2,000,000
1,015,500

3,618,500
500,000
3,600,000
1,000,000
3,413,100
$ 32,424,300
$ 57,476,100

Closures
Jackson A and B Units
Benton Harbor and Saginaw Correctional Centers
MYCF contract
Camp Tuscola and Annex
Camp Sauble
Mangum Farm
DeMarse Training Academy
Jackson production kitchen
Total closures
Other Reductions
Central office staffing reductions (18.5 positions)
Security reductions (95 positions)
Eliminate prisoner coffee
Human resources optimization (Human Resource Center
reallocation)
Field Operations Administration business office consolidations
Correctional Facilities Administration business office
consolidations (St. Louis, Muskegon, Kincheloe, and Detroit)
Workers' compensation
Silver Oak Solutions - (Statewide Purchasing Efficiencies)
Milk savings - conversion to skim milk
Total other reductions
Total closures and other reductions

$

3,517,900
3,773,200
18,844,600
4,163,800
3,011,100
1,044,000
1,000,000
3,460,300
$ 38,814,900

$

1,118,700
6,667,200
500,000
476,700
239,500

445,600
1,378,000
5,684,700
250,000
$ 16,760,400
$ 55,575,300

(1) DOC reduced gun tower coverage to times of prisoner movement and reinvested over $2 million in technology for cameras and electronic fence security systems.
(2) Reorganization allowed new parole/probation officers.
(3) DOC increased use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) special programs.
(4) DOC informed us that it reviewed staffing at all facilities and then reallocated staffing while still meeting safety and security needs.

Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

36
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 10

Appropriation Year 2006-07
Closures
Camp Brighton
Total closures
Other Reductions
Human resources optimization (Human Resource Center
reallocation)
Field Operations Administration reorganization (reduction
of 33.2 positions) (2)
Workers' compensation
Reduction in the number of inspectors (17 positions)
Mid-management reductions (27.5 sergeant positions)
Overtime reductions - transportation and courts
Total other reductions
Total closures and other reductions

Appropriation Year 2007-08
$ 10,163,500
$ 10,163,500

$

508,600

2,731,000
1,105,000
1,500,000
2,466,600
4,533,400
$ 12,844,600
$ 23,008,100

Closures
Camp Manistique
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (7 block)
Education programs - Facility closures
Hadix Consent Decree
Hospital and specialty care
Southeast clinical
Southwest clinical
Jackson area support and services
Riverside Correctional Facility (3) (opened Michigan
Reformatory Prison)
MDIT savings from closures
Cost avoidance - Macomb Correctional Facility (3)
Cost avoidance - Lakeland Correctional Facility (3)
Total closures
Other Reductions
Regional business office consolidations
Staffing efficiencies - Custody staffing charts (4)
Human resources optimization (Human Resource Center
reallocation)
Workers' compensation
Parolee loans
Food savings through menu changes
Discontinuation of providing tennis shoes to level IV prisoners
Total other reductions
Total closures and other reductions

Total closures and reductions from fiscal year 2004-05 through
fiscal year 2007-08

$

$

4,641,300
35,866,300
9,043,900
1,366,400
58,200
331,500
380,600
40,400
127,200
1,794,400
34,700
3,752,400
475,700
57,913,000

$

2,631,700
5,877,400

$

380,100
1,632,000
115,000
672,500
408,100
11,716,800

$

69,629,800

$ 205,689,300

37
471-0620-07L

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 11
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections
Staffing Ratios
As of October 2005 and October 2008

Institutions
Northern Region
Alger Maximum Correctional Facility
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
Chippewa Correctional Facility
Straits Correctional Facility
Kinross Correctional Facility
Hiawatha Correctional Facility
Marquette Branch Prison
Newberry Correctional Facility
Oaks Correctional Facility
Ojibway Correctional Facility
Pugsley Correctional Facility
Saginaw Correctional Facility
Standish Maximum Correctional Facility
Northern Region Average
Southeastern Region
Cooper Street Correctional Facility
Cotton Correctional Facility
Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
Parr Highway Correctional Facility
Huron Valley - Inmate Housing Fund
Huron Valley Complex - Women
Huron Valley Complex - Men
Macomb Correctional Facility
Mound Correctional Facility
Parnall Correctional Facility
Ryan Correctional Facility
Robert Scott Correctional Facility
Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Thumb Correctional Facility
Southeastern Region Average
Southwestern Region
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility
West Shoreline Correctional Facility
Carson City Correctional Facility
Boyer Road Correctional Facility
Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility
Lakeland Correctional Facility
Florence Crane Correctional Facility
Michigan Reformatory
Deerfield Correctional Facility
Muskegon Correctional Facility

Prisoners to
Officers (1)
Ratio

October 2005
Officers to Shift
Command (2)
Ratio

Prisoners to
Officers (1)
Ratio

October 2008
Officers to Shift
Command (2)
Ratio

Prisoners to
All Other
Staff Ratio

2.6:1
3.4:1
5.6:1
7.9:1
6.6:1
8.1:1
4.3:1
4.5:1
4.7:1
7.3:1
7.0:1
6.3:1
2.5:1
5.2:1

8.1:1
8.5:1
7.1:1
7.7:1
10.3:1
6.6:1
9.7:1
9.3:1
11.7:1
6.9:1
6.8:1
8.4:1
8.0:1
8.4:1

9.3:1
11.1:1
13.8:1
18.5:1
17.6:1
18.1:1
10.5:1
12.5:1
14.2:1
15.6:1
14.9:1
15.9:1
8.2:1
13.8:1

2.7:1
3.5:1
6.1:1
7.3:1
6.5:1
8.5:1
4.7:1
4.9:1
4.9:1
7.6:1
8.0:1
6.4:1
3.1:1
5.5:1

7.9:1
9.0:1
7.8:1
8.2:1
10.8:1
7.6:1
7.9:1
10.2:1
10.3:1
7.2:1
7.4:1
10.1:1
7.4:1
8.6:1

9.2:1
12.3:1
11.6:1
21.1:1
24.2:1
27.9:1
12.8:1
12.7:1
14.9:1
15.9:1
16.2:1
16.8:1
11.0:1
15.4:1

7.6:1
6.1:1
4.0:1
5.0:1
9.3:1
2.2:1

9.5:1
11.0:1
11.1:1
8.7:1
6.8:1
11.6:1

19.4:1
18.9:1
14.6:1
13.9:1
19.6:1
8.0:1

8.6:1
6.1:1
3.6:1
5.1:1
9.5:1

9.8:1
11.1:1
10.1:1
7.2:1
7.3:1

27.8:1
20.6:1
12.4:1
12.2:1
23.7:1

4.4:1
3.1:1
6.2:1
4.5:1
8.8:1
4.6:1
4.2:1

11.3:1
9.5:1
8.6:1
11.8:1
10.4:1
11.1:1
7.1:1

6.7:1
8.1:1
13.0:1
18.4:1
28.7:1
13.7:1
6.3:1

5.6:1
5.5:1

9.5:1
9.5:1

17.2:1
14.3:1

6.3:1
6.6:1
8.8:1
6.7:1
8.6:1
7.2:1
3.1:1
7.0:1
7.4:1
5.3:1
8.7:1
9.2:1

9.0:1
6.5:1
7.3:1
6.8:1
7.5:1
9.4:1
7.6:1
9.7:1
7.3:1
8.9:1
7.4:1
7.3:1

20.4:1
15.6:1
21.1:1
15.1:1
22.2:1
18.9:1
13.1:1
17.8:1
17.6:1
20.2:1
23.1:1
20.1:1

5.8:1
5.3:1
8.1:1
4.9:1
4.0:1
4.7:1
5.9:1
5.1:1

9.7:1
10.1:1
8.7:1
10.4:1
7.1:1
13.4:1
8.6:1
9.9:1

14.3:1
15.9:1
16.4:1
14.5:1
9.8:1
17.8:1
14.9:1
14.8:1

6.1:1
7.1:1
8.3:1
6.4:1
8.0:1
8.2:1
2.9:1
6.7:1
7.0:1

7.4:1
5.2:1
6.7:1
5.5:1
6.4:1
7.0:1
8.4:1
8.2:1
7.7:1

13.9:1
14.6:1
18.5:1
13.6:1
20.0:1
15.5:1
10.4:1
18.3:1
14.7:1

9.5:1
8.8:1

7.8:1
7.2:1

20.4:1
15.6:1

This exhibit continued on next page.

38
471-0620-07L

Prisoners to
All Other
Staff Ratio

UNAUDITED
Exhibit 11
(Continued)
SELECTED PERSONNEL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Department of Corrections
Staffing Ratios
As of October 2005 and October 2008

Institutions
Pine River Correctional Facility
Riverside Correctional Facility
St. Louis Correctional Facility
Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility
Southwestern Region Average

Prisoners to
Officers (1)
Ratio

October 2005
Officers to Shift
Command (2)
Ratio

Prisoners to
All Other
Staff Ratio

Prisoners to
Officers (1)
Ratio

October 2008
Officers to Shift
Command (2)
Ratio

Prisoners to
All Other
Staff Ratio

7.8:1
4.0:1
4.8:1
7.4:1
6.4:1

8.9:1
11.0:1
6.9:1
8.1:1
7.4:1

15.6:1
10.4:1
13.6:1
22.9:1
15.2:1

8.3:1

7.7:1

20.7:1

5.5:1
7.5:1
6.8:1

7.7:1
8.6:1
7.9:1

13.1:1
20.0:1
18.3:1

Camp System

7.4:1

6.5:1

18.1:1

8.2:1

7.3:1

21.0:1

Combined Average

5.6:1

8.4:1

14.8:1

6.0:1

8.6:1

16.2:1

(1) Officer total includes corrections officers, corrections transportation officers, and resident unit officers.
(2) Shift command includes sergeants, lieutenants, and captains.

Source: Bureau of Fiscal Management, Department of Corrections.

39
471-0620-07L

GLOSSARY

40
471-0620-07L

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

DCH

Department of Community Health.

DOC

Department of Corrections.

effectiveness

Program success in achieving mission and goals.

MCO

Michigan Corrections Organization.

MDIT

Michigan Department of Information Technology.

MPRI

Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative.

MSI

Michigan State Industries.

other administrative
costs

Costs for utilities, other fees and compensation, insurance
and bonds, household items and laundry, clothing and
textiles, and other purchased services.

performance audit

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

reportable condition

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

41
oag

471-0620-07L

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

MICHIGAN
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

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