OVERSIGHT AND BENEFITS OF THE
TRANSITIONAL WORK PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONS –
CORRECTIONS SERVICES

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
ISSUED APRIL 13, 2016

LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
1600 NORTH THIRD STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 94397
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397

LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE

ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
FOR STATE AUDIT SERVICES
NICOLE B. EDMONSON, CIA, CGAP, MPA

DIRECTOR OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES
KAREN LEBLANC, CIA, CGAP, MSW

FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PERFORMANCE AUDIT, CONTACT
GINA BROWN, PERFORMANCE AUDIT MANAGER,
AT 225-339-3800.

Under the provisions of state law, this report is a public document. A copy of this report has been
submitted to the Governor, to the Attorney General, and to other public officials as required by
state law. A copy of this report is available for public inspection at the Baton Rouge office of the
Louisiana Legislative Auditor.

This document is produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, State of Louisiana, Post Office
Box 94397, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397 in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute
24:513. Twelve copies of this public document were produced at an approximate cost of $34.20.
This material was produced in accordance with the standards for state agencies established
pursuant to R.S. 43:31. This report is available on the Legislative Auditor’s website at
www.lla.la.gov. When contacting the office, you may refer to Agency ID No. 9726 or Report ID
No. 40140066 for additional information.
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance relative to
this document, or any documents of the Legislative Auditor, please contact Elizabeth Coxe, Chief
Administrative Officer, at 225-339-3800.

LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE

April 13, 2016

The Honorable John A. Alario, Jr.,
President of the Senate
The Honorable Taylor F. Barras,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Dear Senator Alario and Representative Barras:
This report provides the results of our performance audit on the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections – Corrections Services’ (Corrections) oversight of the Transitional Work
Program and the benefits the program provides to the state, offenders, providers, and businesses.
The report contains our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Appendix A contains
Corrections’ response to this report. I hope this report will benefit you in your legislative
decision-making process.
We would like to express our appreciation to the management and staff of Corrections for
their assistance during this audit.
Sincerely,

Daryl G. Purpera, CPA, CFE
Legislative Auditor
DGP/aa
TWP FY2015

1600 NORTH THIRD STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 94397 • BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397
WWW.LLA.LA.GOV • PHONE: 225-339-3800 • FAX: 225-339-3870

Louisiana Legislative Auditor
Daryl G. Purpera, CPA, CFE
Transitional Work Program
Department of Public Safety and Corrections –
Corrections Services
April 2016

Audit Control # 40140066

Introduction
This report provides the results of our
The mission of the Transitional Work
performance audit of the Transitional Work Program
Program, commonly called “work
(TWP) administered by the Department of Public Safety
release,” is to help offenders transition
back into the workforce and prevent them
and Corrections - Corrections Services (Corrections).
from re-entering into the prison system.
The purpose of the audit was to evaluate Corrections’
oversight of the TWP and to identify the benefits of the
program. State law 1 authorizes DOC to establish and administer the TWP, which is designed to
provide offenders with employment while incarcerated.
During fiscal year 2015, approximately 8,700 2 offenders participated in TWP. Offenders
are eligible for participation in TWP three to four years prior to their release date. 3 Offenders
convicted of specific sex offenses, violent crimes, and certain habitual offenders are not eligible
for participation in the program. In addition to the eligibility requirements, offenders must be
determined to be a suitable candidate by Corrections management.
Corrections received $19.8 million from the state general fund for the TWP in fiscal year
2015. TWP facilities are administered by either local sheriffs or private companies (providers)
and monitored by Corrections. As of June 29, 2015, there were 27 providers operating 38
facilities throughout Louisiana. Twenty-four of these 38 facilities were operated by local
sheriffs, and the remaining 14 facilities were operated by five private operators. Exhibit 1 on the
following page shows the facilities’ locations.

1

Louisiana Revised Statute (La. R.S.) 15:1111.
This number is based on the total number of offenders each facility reported as participating in TWP in their
monthly activity reports during fiscal year 2015.
3
If an offender was convicted of aggravated arson, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, or attempted murder,
they do not become eligible for TWP until six months before their release date, except if the offender has served a
minimum 15 years in custody, in which case the offender is eligible for TWP during the last 12 months of
incarceration.
2

1

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

TWP providers receive a per diem of
either $11.25 or $15.39 4 for each TWP
offender housed at their facility. For
calendar year 2015, Corrections paid local
sheriffs $8.8 million and private providers
$6.7 million to house offenders participating
in the TWP program. Appendix C
summarizes the number of offenders and
other characteristics for each facility.

Exhibit 1
Locations of TWP Facilities
As of December 2015

The objectives of this audit were to:
1.

Evaluate Corrections’
oversight of the TWP.

2.

Identify the benefits the
TWP provides for the state,
offenders, providers, and
businesses.

Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using
information received from Corrections.

Overall, we found that Corrections needs to strengthen its oversight of the program in
several areas, including supervision of offenders, ensuring providers deduct required courtordered restitution and other financial obligations from offenders’ wages, and program
monitoring. Strong oversight of the TWP is critical, as there are public safety risks associated
with the offender population and many beneficiaries of the program. Specifically, the state
benefits by paying a reduced per diem that results in savings of approximately $12.1 million per
year for offenders that participate in TWP, and recidivism rates of offenders who participate in a
TWP are lower than offenders who do not. Offenders benefit by learning work skills, and
participating businesses benefit from reduced labor costs. Program providers also receive a
benefit, as they receive a per diem from the state, commissary sales which totaled $4.1 million in
calendar year 2015, and 64% of offenders’ wages for room and board ($35.5 million).

4

$11.25 is paid to providers who have a contract with the department that states Corrections will fill the provider’s
available beds first with TWP offenders. The other providers are paid a per diem of $15.39 because they do not
have a contract with Corrections that guarantees the department will place offenders with their program first.

2

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Objective: Evaluate Corrections’ oversight of the
Transitional Work Program.
Overall, we found that Corrections needs to strengthen its oversight of the Transitional
Work Program (TWP) in the areas discussed below. We also provided recommendations in each
area to assist Corrections in improving its oversight of the program.

Nearly half of the TWP slots are not filled. If TWP facilities
operated at capacity, the state could save an additional
$7 million a year.
As of June 2015, there were a total of
5,278 approved TWP slots for the 38 TWP
facilities. However, 2,015 (38%) of the
approved slots were not filled. Although this
can be due to offenders choosing not to
participate, seasonal employment, or facilities
using the beds to house non-TWP offenders, it
is also because until recently Corrections did
not have a consistent or systematic process for
screening state offenders housed in local jails
to identify those eligible for TWP. According
to our analysis of Corrections data, 63% of the
potentially eligible offenders are located in
local jails.

Exhibit 2
Examples of Offenders Not Eligible for TWP
 Sex offenders as defined in La. R.S. 15:541
 Habitually violent offenders
 Offenders who have significant medical issues
that require more than routine medical care
 Offenders who escaped or attempted escape in
the last seven years
 Offenders whose records show consistent signs
of bad work habits or lack of cooperation
 Offenders with pending felony charges or
detainers that may result in future confinement
 Offenders who have refused to participate in
reentry and/or pre-release preparation
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using
Department Regulation No. B-02-001.

To identify potentially eligible
offenders at state facilities, a Corrections employee compiles a report of potentially eligible
offenders each week with release dates from six months to five years from the current date. This
list is sent to the state facility where the offender is housed, and the state facility evaluates the
physical, mental, and behavior history of the offender to determine if the offender is suitable for
placement into the TWP. If the offender is determined eligible, Corrections staff will either
interview the offender via teleconference or visit the facility for a face-to-face interview to
determine whether the offender can participate in TWP. Offenders can choose not to participate
in a TWP.
In contrast, until recently, Corrections
Of the 30 facilities that responded to our
relied on local jails to identify potential offenders.
survey questions regarding keeping the
In local jails, offenders are recommended for TWP
TWP spots filled, 20 (67%) stated they
placement by the warden or designee and then sent
had trouble finding offenders to fill beds.
to Corrections to verify that the offender meets
eligibility requirements. According to Corrections, this is because the warden knows the
offenders better than Corrections staff and can make recommendations based on behavior,

3

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

medical needs, and other factors. Corrections staff will review the warden’s recommendation to
determine whether the offender meets all TWP requirements. However, each warden may
interpret certain eligibility criteria differently (see Exhibit 2 for eligibility requirements), which
may result in a lack of uniformity in the TWP recommendation process at the local jail level.
Further, according to Corrections management, wardens may be hesitant to allow certain
offenders to participate in the TWP if they possess a skill that is valuable to the warden within
the walls of the jail. For example, a warden might not recommend a skilled welder for TWP if
he needs a welder at his own facility.
According to Corrections, starting in fiscal year 2015, it began to proactively identify
offenders housed in local jails who are potentially eligible to participate in TWP. Since then,
Corrections has reviewed potential offenders in 67 (55%) of 121 local jails that housed at least
10 Corrections offenders during fiscal year 2015. Proactively identifying eligible offenders may
increase local jail participation since we found that only 42% of offenders currently participating
in TWP came from a local jail during fiscal year 2015. In addition, 32 of the 121 local jails in
our review did not send any offenders to participate in TWP during fiscal year 2015.
Increasing participation would also reduce overall costs. Corrections saves taxpayers
money by placing eligible offenders in a TWP because the daily per diem for a non-TWP
offender is $24.39 versus $11.25 or $15.39 for a TWP offender. Using CAJUN, Corrections’
offender tracking and billing data system, we identified at least 6,027 5 offenders potentially
eligible to participate in TWP as of May 2015, with 3,805 or 63% housed in local jails. Using
these figures, if Corrections were to operate TWP at full capacity, the state would save an
additional $19,200 per day and more than $7 million annually. This is in addition to the savings
Corrections is already receiving from its current utilization of the program as discussed in the
second objective of this report on page 18.
Recommendation 1: Corrections management should continue to proactively
identify offenders housed in local jails who are potentially eligible to participate in TWP.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections neither agreed nor disagreed
with this recommendation. According to Corrections, while it agrees with the need to
maximize the number of offenders in TWP, it stated that the methodology used by the
audit team to identify program vacancies is flawed. While Corrections does allow for the
program to have approved slots, this does not always equate to vacant beds that can be
occupied by TWP offenders. Corrections stated that it has changed the manner in which
TWP vacancies are reflected in its monthly reports to more clearly show where true
vacancies exist. However, Corrections stated it will continue to work with the local
facilities to provide for a more comprehensive screening process for offenders. See
Appendix A for Corrections’ complete response.
LLA Additional Comment: Our methodology for calculating vacant slots used
numbers reported in an internal report that Corrections compiles using information from
5

This includes 1,831 offenders housed in state facilities, 3,805 offenders housed in local jails, and 391 classified as
“other.” To determine this number, we eliminated all factors that would make an offender ineligible for participation
in TWP and excluded those offenders who were scheduled to be released within six months.

4

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

TWP providers. As acknowledged in the report, the number of TWP slots that are not
filled can be due to offenders choosing not to participate, seasonal employment, or
facilities using beds to house non-TWP offenders. However, it is also because until
recently Corrections did not have a consistent or systematic process for screening state
offenders housed in local jails to identify those eligible for TWP.

Corrections does not ensure that providers notify it prior to
transferring offenders to a different TWP facility or back to
a local jail. As a result, Corrections does not know where
all TWP offenders are located on a daily basis.
When an offender participating in TWP is either transferred to another TWP or back into
regular incarceration, the TWP facility is required by Corrections’ Standard Operating
Procedures to notify it via fax or email prior to the transfer occurring so Corrections can update
the CAJUN system. However, Corrections management does not enforce this policy. As a
result, Corrections does not know where offenders are located on a daily basis if they are
transferred to another location within the month. Not only does this represent a safety risk, it
could also potentially cause the state to overpay providers.
According to Corrections management, offenders transfer all of the time. We reviewed
the transfer records of 100 offenders between July 1, 2014, and May 12, 2015, and found that
these offenders were transferred to another facility at least 475 times during this period. Because
of the high number of transfers, Corrections should ensure that local facilities notify the
department of all transfers. If a TWP facility does not notify Corrections of a transfer, the only
way Corrections knows when offenders transfer locations is when the facilities submit their
monthly invoice, which is generated from CAJUN, to Corrections for the per diem. Monthly
invoices for the prior month are due on the fifteenth day of the month. The facility makes any
necessary changes (i.e. removal or deletion of offenders from the roster or corrections to the
number of days an offender stayed in a facility) to an offender’s location on these invoices and
submits these adjustments to Corrections. At this point, Corrections updates CAJUN if the
facility did not notify Corrections in advance.
To determine how often providers were not notifying Corrections, we reviewed monthly
invoices for 29 TWP providers and found several examples where the facility had to make
changes to an offender’s location on the invoice generated by CAJUN. These changes had to be
made because the facility had not notified Corrections before the transfer. For example, one
facility that housed 112 offenders had to make manual changes on its invoice for three offenders.
As shown in Exhibit 3, the facility manually edited the invoice to show when these offenders
were transferred. As the exhibit also shows, the facility notified Corrections 15 days after an
offender was transferred to another location. The same facility notified Corrections of a transfer
that occurred in September 2013, which was 10 months prior to the billing month.

5

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Our review of invoices also
found one provider that had six
TWP offenders transfer out of its
facility during one month and
another provider that had 17
transfers. These transfers were also
not reported to Corrections prior to
the offender being transferred and
therefore not updated in CAJUN
when the transfers occurred. As a
result, Corrections did not know the
location of these six offenders for 10
to 25 days, depending on when the
facility notified it.

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 3
Example of TWP Facility CAJUN Invoice

By not enforcing procedures
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information
related to offender transfers,
received from CAJUN, Corrections’ offender tracking and billing data
Corrections cannot ensure that
system.
offenders are where they are
supposed to be on a daily basis. Therefore, Corrections should use monthly invoices to identify
those providers with frequent manual updates to their invoice to help determine compliance with
its transfer notification requirement.
In addition to the risk of increased liability to the state, there is also the risk that providers
may be paid for offenders who have transferred from their facility. For example, we reviewed
activity reports submitted by providers to Corrections each month. These reports list all
offenders, by location. We found that, during fiscal year 2015, offenders were listed at multiple
provider locations during the same time period. For example, we found one offender listed as
being housed at both West Feliciana Parish TWP and East Baton Rouge Parish TWP at the same
time during August 2014. Overall, we found 229 offenders participating in TWP were listed in
multiple locations during the same time period at some point during the year. Although we did
not find any evidence of duplicate payments in our analysis for these 229 offenders, not
enforcing procedures that providers notify Corrections when an offender transfers increases the
risk that there may be duplicate payments.
Recommendation 2: Corrections should enforce its requirement that TWP facilities
notify the department prior to transferring an offender to another location and use
monthly invoices to determine whether providers are complying with this requirement.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections neither agreed nor disagreed
with this recommendation. According to Corrections, moves of offenders are
documented by all facilities and updated in their data system daily and Corrections is
aware of moves of offenders and can locate any offender in the system when necessary.
Additionally, TWPs do notify Corrections of the movement of all offenders in a timely
manner and the system is updated accordingly. Corrections stated that the errors found
were primarily human errors. However, Corrections stated that it will update its

6

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

procedures to require that facilities make notification to Corrections’ staff on the next
business day of any type of offender movement into or out of a TWP. See Appendix A
for Corrections’ complete response.
LLA Additional Comment: We identified multiple instances where the TWP
provider did not notify Corrections when a TWP offender was transferred. As a result,
Corrections did not know the location of this offender until the monthly invoice was
submitted by the TWP provider, as shown in Exhibit 3 of this report.

Corrections needs to develop additional procedures to
ensure that offenders participating in TWP are supervised
at all times. During fiscal years 2013 through 2015,
offenders escaped 254 times.
When an escape is reported, the escape can be
from the TWP facility, as the offender is being transported
to and from work, or from offenders’ employment
location. TWP facilities reported a total of 254 escapes
from fiscal years 2013 through 2015. Therefore, it is
important that Corrections have sufficient procedures to
minimize escapes. Exhibit 4 shows the number of escapes
from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015.

Corrections defines an escape as
“leaving without authorization from
any penal and correctional facility,
community rehabilitation center,
transitional work program, hospital,
clinic, and any and all programs where
offenders are legally assigned.”

Exhibit 4
Reported Escapes of Offenders Participating in TWP
Fiscal Year 2013−Fiscal Year 2015
106

Number of Escapes

120

91

100
80
60

47

59

57

46 45

36

40

Private
Sheriff
Total

21

20
0

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP
facilities provided to Corrections.

As shown in Exhibit 4, the number of escapes has decreased since fiscal year 2013.
According to Corrections, this is because the department now stresses to both TWP facilities and
employers the importance of supervising offenders at all times. To minimize escapes,
7

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Corrections also requires that all employers enter into an agreement that outlines various rules of
the program. These rules require that offenders be supervised at all times by a designated
employee representative, preferably a supervisor. The rules also require that the supervisor
know offenders’ whereabouts at all times and report any known violations. Although provider
contracts require 24-hour supervision of TWP offenders, they do not specify how offenders will
be supervised while at their work site. Therefore, Corrections should develop specific
requirements for TWP providers to use to monitor offenders while they are working. This could
include random visits and/or phone calls to ensure the offender is there or requiring that the
business conduct periodic checks. Although each TWP facility may do these things periodically,
there is no set procedure requiring these random visits or how many should be conducted.
Exhibit 5 shows the top five facilities with the most escapes.
Exhibit 5
Five Facilities Reporting the Most Escapes
Fiscal Year 2013−Fiscal Year 2015
Facility

Escapes

West Baton Rouge Parish Transitional Work Program

22

Northshore Workforce Transitional Work Program

20

Citizens in Need of Care*

17

Caddo Transitional Work Program

16

Orleans Transitional Work Program (Warren McDaniel TWP) (Tied-5th)

15

Rapides Parish Transitional Work Program (Tied-5th)

15

*This facility ceased operations in February 2015 and is not included as one of the 38 current
TWP facilities.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP facilities that
was provided to Corrections.

Another option to further reduce escapes is for TWP providers to implement electronic
monitoring of offenders. For example, Calcasieu Correctional Center has implemented
electronic monitoring 6 for its TWP offenders. Electronic monitoring is an ankle bracelet worn
by offenders. To implement electronic monitoring for its TWP offenders, Calcasieu increased
the amount it deducts from offender wages from 64% to 70%, with special permission from
Corrections. During this time period, Calcasieu did not report any escapes. Florida also requires
electronic monitoring for offenders in its TWP. In 2012, Florida had 144 escapes before
implementing electronic monitoring and in 2015 reported 54 escapes, a 62.5% decrease.
Recommendation 3: Corrections should create more specific procedures for TWP
providers to monitor offenders while they are at their place of work. This could include
requiring offenders participating in TWP to wear electronic monitoring ankle bracelets
while working.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections neither agreed nor disagreed
with this recommendation. According to Corrections, the report noted a significant
decrease of escapes over the last few years and this was done with the efforts of TWP
6

Obtained approval from Corrections for electronic monitoring in March 2014.

8

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

providers and Corrections’ staff. Corrections has made it a priority to ensure employers
know their responsibilities of offender supervision and has also advised TWP providers
they could no longer allow certain employers to employ offenders in the program who
have not followed the proper protocols. This reduction has been done without the need
for electronic monitoring and has resulted in a decrease in escapes from FY 2012 at 144
to FY 15 at 54 which is a 62.5% decrease over this period of time. However, Corrections
will examine its ability to require electronic monitoring for all TWP offenders. The
current cost is estimated to be over $5 million for implementation. See Appendix A for
Corrections’ complete response.
LLA Additional Comment: Corrections still needs to create more specific
procedures to monitor offenders while they are at their place of work as the report
recommended.

Corrections does not ensure that providers deduct courtordered restitution and other offender obligations TWP
offenders owe from their wages, as required by law and
internal policy. As a result, providers only deducted .05%
($19,184 out of $38.8 million) of total restitution and other
obligations owed from offenders, including $5 million
dollars owed to victims and $29 million owed to Corrections
during calendar year 2015.
One of the goals of the TWP is to provide offenders
Victim restitution in the criminal
with a mechanism to compensate individuals and
justice system is defined as “payment
7
communities impacted by crime. Court-ordered restitution
by an offender to the victim for the
harm caused by the offender’s
and other financial obligations can cover items such as
wrongful acts.”
victim restitution (e.g., medical expenses, therapy costs,
prescription charges, lost wages, lost or damaged property,
etc.), court fees owed to the state, supervision fees owed to Corrections, and any fines. State law
(La. R.S. 15:1111) requires that TWP providers deduct payment for offenders’ financial
obligations. In addition, Corrections’ Standard Operating Procedures for TWP state that
offenders’ financial obligations should be deducted. However, during calendar year 2015, we
found that providers deducted less than 1%, or only $19,184 (.05%) out of the $38.8 million 8 of
total restitution owed from offenders. Exhibit 6 summarizes the amount owed for each
restitution category.

7
8

According to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for TWP.
This amount is the amount TWP offenders owed as of June 2015.

9

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 6
Court-Ordered Restitution
and Other Obligations Owed by
TWP Offenders as of June 2015
Name
Supervision Fees to Corrections
Victim Restitution
Fines
Processing Fees
Technology Fund Fees
Court Fund
Indigent Defender Fund
DA Fees
10% Assessment Fees
Drug Abuse Fund
Victim Fund
Compact Transfer Fees
PSI Investigation Fees
12% Assessment
Filing Fees
Infectious Disease
Transportation Fund
Sex Offender ID Card
In Camera
Confiscated Funds
Total

Amount*
$29,255,661**
5,035,912
2,402,592
529,771
505,512
305,452
230,304
212,216
206,047
40,994
22,087
20,016
6,685
5,083
3,590
1,360
684
390
253
65
$38,784,673

*These amounts are for the offenders’ past offenses and not the
offenses for which they are currently incarcerated.
**According to Corrections’ management, this amount includes all
supervision fees owed by the TWP offenders that were previously on
parole. This total is not reduced in Corrections’ data system if an
offender was re-incarcerated and did not complete parole. Therefore,
this total may be inflated.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data provided by
Corrections.

In addition, during calendar year 2015, court-ordered restitution deductions from
offenders’ paychecks represented only .04% of total offender deductions compared to other
deductions including room and board, child support, and commissary items purchased such as
candy and tobacco. Exhibit 7 summarizes the total amount deducted for room and board,
commissary, weekly cash allowance, family funds, medical, child support, and court-ordered
restitution from January to December 2015.

10

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 7
Offender Paycheck Deductions by Type*
Calendar Year 2015
Type

Amount

Room and Board
Commissary (e.g., candy, greeting cards,
energy drinks, tobacco, etc.)
Cash Allowance
Child Support
Family Funds (i.e., money sent to family
voluntarily)
Medical**
Court-Ordered Restitution and other financial
obligations
Total

$35,523,662

Percentage
79%

4,138,466
2,271,457
726,267

9
5
2

1,843,911
478,984

4
1

19,184
$45,001,931

>1
100%

*This exhibit does not include federal and state taxes, Medicare, or Social Security
deducted from offender paychecks.
**TWP offenders are responsible for paying co-pays for medical visits and prescription
medications.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP facilities
provided to Corrections in their monthly report.

Recommendation 4: Corrections should ensure that providers are deducting
restitution and other financial obligations from offender wages as required by law and
internal policy.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections neither agreed nor disagreed
with this recommendation. According to Corrections, La. R.S. 15:1111 does not allow
providers to deduct victim restitution unless they have a specific judgment detailing how
much is owed and to whom. Corrections stated it will examine its ability to collect the
$33.7 million owed in offenders’ other financial obligations while keeping in mind the
balance of ensuring offenders release from a Transitional Work Program with funds
available to properly reintegrate back into society. See Appendix A for Corrections’
complete response.

Corrections does not limit the amount an offender can
spend on commissary purchases or cash allowances, which
limits the offender’s ability to accumulate savings and pay
other required obligations such as restitution. During
calendar year 2015, offenders spent $6.4 million on
commissary items and cash allowances.
Corrections policy requires facilities to set spending limits on offender purchases from
commissary operations to encourage the offender to accumulate savings prior to release. In
addition, as of January 1, 2015, this policy defines $1,000 as a reasonable minimum goal for
11

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

offenders to accumulate in savings. However, we found
that Corrections does not enforce this policy, and many
facilities do not have a commissary spending limit
which may limit an offender’s ability to accumulate
more savings when released and pay other required
obligations such as victim restitution, as stated in the
previous finding.

Exhibit 8
Example of Commissary Items

For fiscal year 2015, 1,482 (55%) of the 2,718
TWP offenders who were released had savings under
$1,000. As a result, these offenders may have a harder
time meeting their required obligations upon release.
We also found that during calendar year 2015,
offenders spent approximately $4.1 million on
commissary items even though TWP facilities provide
offenders three meals a day and basic necessities such
as linens, deodorant, razors, etc. Exhibit 8 shows the
prices for some of these items in one TWP facility.
In addition, offenders received approximately
$2.3 million in cash allowances from the wages they
earned during the same time period. An offender can
use cash allowances for spending money when the
offender is outside of the facility. This money can be
used for lunch or other items, even though the facility
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff
prepares a bag lunch for the offender to take to work
using information provided by a TWP facility.
upon request. Of the 25 facilities that responded to our
survey, 10 stated they do not limit commissary purchases. According to Corrections
management, TWP facilities use the profits from commissary items to supplement operating
expenses at their local jail or TWP facility.
Recommendation 5: Corrections should limit the amount of funds offenders can
spend on commissary purchases and cash allowances until all obligations, such as victim
restitution, are paid.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections agrees that if an offender is
ordered to pay restitution, they should be limited on what they can spend in the
commissary. According to Corrections, limits will be placed on these identified
offenders to ensure the prompt payment of restitution. See Appendix A for Corrections’
complete response.

12

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Although Corrections conducted all required monitoring of
TWP providers in 2014 and 2015, we identified weaknesses
in its monitoring process. For example, Corrections does
not conduct follow-up visits on critical or repeat findings
identified during its monitoring visits.
Corrections’ Standard Operating Procedures require that the department monitor each of
the 38 TWP facilities each year. The monitoring visit consists of a compliance checklist to
ensure facilities are following all Standard Operating Procedures and Basic Jail Guidelines, 9
such as maintaining adequate records for each offender, maintaining transportation logs to show
where the offender is located, ensuring that deductions from offenders’ paychecks are accurate,
ensuring facility staffing is adequate and that providers are making timely notifications after
escapes, and ensuring that required drug tests are being administered. During calendar years
2014 through 2015, Corrections identified 257 findings on its monitoring visits. The most
prevalent type of finding was related to paperwork, including missing payroll checks, not
providing account balance statements to offenders, and incomplete transportation logs. Exhibit 9
summarizes the type and number of findings identified during calendar years 2014 and 2015.

9

These are the procedures and guidelines that Corrections uses when administering and overseeing the TWP.

13

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 9
Monitoring Findings
Calendar Years 2014-2015
Type of
Finding

Paperwork

Facility

Financial

Procedure

Security

Examples
Outdated and incomplete forms; Incomplete transportation logs; Missing
waivers for offenders earning below Corrections’ approved minimum
wage (higher than the federal minimum wage); Missing payroll
check/stubs from offender files; Providing account balance statements to
offenders only upon request instead of the required monthly statements
to all offenders.
Broken fixtures (toilets, showers, sinks, water fountain, etc.); Cleanliness
of facilities; Paint peeling from walls; Mattresses and pillow coverings
cracked, torn, and in poor condition; Raw animal food not separated from
ready to eat food; Food not stored six inches above the floor; Insects
present in establishment.
Offender overcharged on participation fees; Missing or incomplete
financial information; Outstanding checks; Formula error in Excel
spreadsheet used to calculate participation fees; Charging participation
fees for a second job; Only one check signer instead of two for the
Offender Trust Account; Unspecified garnishment of wages from
offenders’ payroll checks; Deducting $800 from offender balances upon
release.
Drug testing not completed during admission and every 90 days
thereafter; Not ensuring that meals are served in approved intervals; No
training for staff that administer medication; Not picking up offenders
from work in a timely manner.
Hazardous materials (e.g. syringes, chemicals) or tools are not
inventoried or stored in a secure location; Security gate left open;
Offenders had access to keys; Knife in kitchen was not on the inventory
or logged out; Escapes not properly reported.

Total

Number Percentage
of
of Total
Findings Findings

111

43%

55

22

36

14

31

12

24

9

257

100%

Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information provided by Corrections.

Although Corrections conducted all of its required monitoring, we identified the
following weaknesses with the department’s monitoring process:


Corrections notifies facilities in advance of what offender files will be
reviewed. This provides facilities with an opportunity to address potential
findings before the monitors arrive. According to Corrections monitors, they give
the facility the list of names beforehand because it will take too long to pull the
information once they arrive at the facility.



Corrections does not expand its file review when issues are identified to
determine the extent of the issues. Corrections only reviews approximately 5-7
files at each facility. However, even when an issue is identified, the monitors do
not expand their sample to determine how extensive the issues are and how many
offenders it impacts. For example, one monitor selected six offender files to
review. There were discrepancies identified in five of the files. These findings

14

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

included incorrect participation fees deducted from offenders’ wages, and no
documentation of commissary purchases in offender files. However, the monitor
did not pull additional offender files to determine if these relatively serious
financial issues existed for other offenders.


Corrections does not follow up to ensure that providers address all findings.
Once findings are documented in the annual monitoring report, facilities respond
as to how they will address the findings. However, the department does not
conduct a follow up visit with the facility to ensure critical findings were
addressed. For example, Corrections did not conduct any follow up visits over
the two-year period that we reviewed, even though some of the findings included
escapes not being properly recorded. Follow-up is also important in helping to
prevent repeat findings from occurring. Of the 35 facilities that had monitoring
visits in both 2014 and 2015, 10 (29%) had at least one repeat finding. For
example, Terrebonne TWP was cited for not performing timely drug testing for
three years in a row. They were also cited two years in a row for allowing
offenders to complete sign-in logs ahead of time instead of on the actual day the
offender left and returned.

Recommendation 6: Corrections should not provide TWP facilities with the list of
records monitors are going to review prior to their visit when conducting their annual
visits.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections agrees with this practice as
it is already in operation. See Appendix A for Corrections’ complete response.
LLA Additional Comment: According to interviews with Corrections monitors and
our observation during a monitoring visit, the department gives the facility the list of
names beforehand.
Recommendation 7: Corrections auditors should pull additional offender files when
findings are identified to determine if the issue is systemic.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections agrees with this
recommendation and stated it will be implemented and all monitors will be provided
training to determine when this type of action is necessary. See Appendix A for
Corrections’ complete response.
Recommendation 8: Corrections should conduct follow-up visits on critical or
repeat findings identified during its monitoring visits to ensure these findings are
addressed in a timely manner.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections disagrees with this
recommendation. According to Corrections, it does not agree that an actual follow-up in
the form of facility inspections would be the best use of state resources unless life safety
issues arise. Management stated that they will continue to monitor programs utilizing the

15

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

current practices as this has proven to be an effective method to ensure compliance with
expected practices. See Appendix A for Corrections’ complete response.
LLA Additional Comment: We recommended that monitors conduct follow-up
visits on critical (i.e., security issues), or repeat findings to ensure these findings are
addressed in a timely manner. Of the 35 facilities that had monitoring visits in both 2014
and 2015, 10 (29%) had at least one repeat finding. For example, one facility was
allowing offenders to complete sign-in logs ahead of time.

Corrections does not require that TWP providers offer
rehabilitation programs that could help reduce recidivism
rates. On average, TWP providers offered only three
rehabilitation programs compared to local jails, who
offered seven, and state institutions, who offered 61 during
calendar year 2015.
One of the goals of the TWP is to promote offender rehabilitation by offering programs
in areas such as education, substance abuse, parenting, and anger management. According to a
report published by the U.S. Department of Justice, 10 providing correctional programming helps
keep jails safer and lowers rates of recidivism. Although the TWP is considered a type of
rehabilitation program, Corrections requires local jails and state institutions to also offer certified
treatment and rehabilitation programs, 11 such as substance abuse treatment, anger management,
parenting, and education classes. When screening offenders housed in state institutions for TWP
suitability, Corrections considers the rehabilitation programs an offender has completed as well
as any he/she may currently be enrolled in. However, Corrections does not require TWP
providers to offer the offenders any rehabilitation programs, which may disrupt the progress
offenders are making in classes they are currently taking.
Because Corrections does not require TWP
Other states, such as Washington and
providers to offer the same level of programming as
Florida, require work release offenders to
local jails and state institutions, we found that 55% (21
continue life skills curriculum (e.g.
out of 38) of active TWP facilities offered only one
parenting and anger management) and
substance abuse classes as a requirement
correctional program. 12 Overall, state institutions
of their participation.
offered 549 programs, parish jails offered 229
programs, and TWP providers offered 95, as shown in
Exhibit 10. Appendix D shows a complete listing of programs offered by TWP facilities
compared to local jails and state facilities that transition offenders into TWP.
10

Serin, R., and Crime and Justice Institute. 2005. Evidence-Based Practice: Principles for Enhancing
Correctional Results in Prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Corrections.
11
For the purposes of this report, we are defining rehabilitation programs as programs for participants in TWP that
result in good time being offered to the offender. Offenders who participate in good time programs can potentially
receive an earlier release date.
12
During calendar year 2015.

16

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 10
Total Number of Rehabilitation Programs Offered by
TWP Facilities, Local Jails, and State Institutions*
Calendar Year 2015

549

State Programs

229

Parish Programs

TWP Programs

95

*This exhibit includes the number of programs offered at each state institution, local
jail, and TWP facility.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP
facilities provided to Corrections.

On average, TWP providers offer three programs, local jails offer seven programs, and
state institutions offer 61 programs. For example, Ouachita Correctional Center offered 11
different rehabilitation programs, and the Ouachita Men’s TWP offered only one program during
calendar year 2015.
Recommendation 9: Corrections should require that TWP providers offer
rehabilitation programs such as therapy, parenting, anger management, and substance
abuse treatment to offenders who need these types of programs during their participation
in TWP.
Summary of Management’s Response: Corrections agrees with this
recommendation and stated that additional certified treatment and rehabilitative programs
can be offered by TWP providers and it will continue to work with the providers to
expand and provide additional classes. See Appendix A for Corrections’ complete
response.

17

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Objective 2: Identify the benefits the TWP provides for
the state, offenders, providers, and businesses.
Overall, we found that the state, offenders, businesses and providers all benefit from
TWP. These benefits are summarized in more detail below.

The state benefits from the TWP because it costs taxpayers
less money through reduced per diems and decreased
recidivism rates.
The state saves money on housing TWP offenders because the program’s per diem rates
of $11.25 and $15.39 are lower than the $24.39 rate that Corrections pays local sheriffs to house
non-TWP offenders. For example, during fiscal year 2015, the state saved $33,090 per day, or
potentially $12.1 million per year on offenders who participated in the TWP. In addition,
recidivism rates of offenders who participate in TWP are lower than offenders who do not
participate in TWP, thereby further saving the taxpayers money. In 2009, the incarceration
recidivism rate for the first year was approximately 18% for state offenders leaving local jails,
compared to 12% for TWP participants. Exhibit 11 shows the one-, three-, and five-year
recidivism rates for offenders released from state, local, and TWP facilities in 2009.
Exhibit 11
One-, Three-, and Five-Year Recidivism Rates for State Offenders
Released from State Institutions, Local Jails, and TWP Facilities
Year
First Year
Third Year
Fifth Year

Local

State

TWP

Recidivism Rate
17.6%
37.1%
44.9%

Recidivism Rate
15.5%
34.4%
41.3%

Recidivism Rate
12.0%
32.1%
39.6%

Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information from Corrections’
Briefing Book. These rates are for offenders released in 2009 and the most current
recidivism rates for the fifth year of release.

As the exhibit shows, only 12 of 100 TWP offenders returned to jail after one year
compared to 18 of 100 local jail offenders. By not paying the $24.39 daily rate for these six
additional offenders, the state would have saved $53,414 for one year compared to if these
offenders were in local jails. However, the savings are likely greater because this example only
includes offenders released from local jails which receive a lower per diem than state institutions
for housing offenders. Offenders housed in state institutions cost Corrections an average of
$52.51 a day.

18

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Offenders benefit from TWP by learning job skills and
accumulating savings through wages.
TWP allows offenders to work during the day for private employers, earn money and
then return to a low-security facility in the evening. By participating in a TWP, offenders are
able to learn the skills necessary to maintain employment after they are released. These skills
include the ability to work in a structured environment, as well as specific skills such as welding,
cooking, construction, and manufacturing. Offenders also have an opportunity to accumulate
savings, pay child support and victim restitution, and send money home. In fiscal year 2015, the
average wage paid to offenders ranged from $7.38 per hour to $17.08 per hour, depending on the
offender’s job title, before the TWP facility deducted a percentage of their wages for room and
board. Most offenders worked as general laborers, kitchen workers, and factory workers.
Exhibit 12 summarizes the most common job titles for TWP offenders in fiscal year 2015 and
their average hourly wage. Appendix E summarizes all job titles.
Exhibit 12
10 Most Common Job Titles
Fiscal Year 2015
Job
Laborer - General
Kitchen Worker - General
Factory Worker
Laborer - Construction
Dishwasher
Butcher/Meat Handler
Cook - Prep
Offshore - Deckhand
Cook - Line
Warehouse Labor

Number of Offenders*
5,366
571
471
407
375
331
212
202
188
173

Average Hourly Wage
$8.35
$7.80
$8.04
$8.98
$7.94
$7.38
$7.82
$11.12
$7.83
$8.93

*These numbers are higher than the total number of participants because one TWP participant
may have had several different jobs in one year.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP facilities
provided to Corrections in their monthly reports.

Businesses benefit from TWP because they receive a tax
credit and reduced labor costs.
Businesses who participate in TWP are eligible for the federal Work Opportunity Tax
Credit. Employers can earn up to a $2,400 credit for each employee that is classified as
participating in TWP. Employers also benefit from the lower labor costs that come from not
having to provide employee benefits such as health insurance or retirement plans. Based on
13

13

Employers may also receive this tax credit for hiring unemployed veterans, recipients of Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, and recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. A full listing of eligible
employees is available on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website
https://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/eligible.cfm

19

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

estimates from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, these types of benefits add
approximately 24% to labor costs. Exhibit 13 shows the monetary impact of having to pay these
benefits, based on a 40-hour week. Based on this example, a business employing a non-TWP
employee will pay over $5,400 more each year in salary and benefits for that employee.
Exhibit 13
TWP Wages vs. Non-TWP Employee Wages and Benefits
Based on Similar Wage Jobs
Based on 40-hour
work week
Wages and Salaries
Total Benefits
Total Compensation (1 week)
Total Compensation (1 year)

TWP
Offender

Non-TWP
Employee

Difference

$334

$334

N/A
$334
$17,368

$105
$439
$22,828

$105 (per week)
$5,460 (per year)

Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using information obtained from Corrections and Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

In addition, some employers report that they benefit from the stability that TWP provides
as it relates to employee punctuality, behavior, and dress code. TWP offenders are also required
to be routinely tested for substance abuse, which is also a potential benefit for employers,
because their employee is less likely to be using drugs due to this testing.

TWP providers benefit because they receive a per diem
from the state, commissary profits, and 64% of offenders’
wages. During calendar year 2015, providers received more
than $55 million from administering TWP.
In addition to the per diems providers receive
For example, Caddo Correctional Center
from Corrections for each TWP offender, the offenders
(CCC) houses a TWP participant who
participating in the program are also required to
currently works at a pizzeria for $7.75
reimburse providers for the cost of their board, clothing,
per hour for a 40-hour work week. CCC
receives a daily rate of $43.73 for the
and other necessary expenses related to their
offender ($15.39 per diem from
employment. These amounts are deducted from their
Corrections plus $28.34 as 64% of gross
paychecks. Corrections’ Standard Operating
wages for an eight-hour day).
Procedures set the deduction cap at 64% of the
offenders’ gross wages per paycheck, or $64.50 daily, whichever is less. 14 During calendar year
2015, Louisiana providers received $35.5 million from offenders. Exhibit 14 summarizes how
much each provider received during calendar year 2015.

14

The statutory limit that the operator can be reimbursed directly from the offender’s account is 70% of their gross
wages; however, Corrections lowered the amount that could be deducted. In addition, the 62% in Corrections’
procedures was raised to 64% starting in August 2015.

20

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Transitional Work Program

Exhibit 14
TWP Provider Revenues
Calendar Year 2015
Facilities

Offenders
(As of
12/2015)

1

94

Closed

-

City of Faith Prison
Ministries**

1

98

Louisiana Workforce

6

Type of Operator

Fees
Paid by
Offenders*

Per Diem
Paid by
State

Commissary
Revenue

Total
Revenue

Private
Cedarwood Manor,
Inc.
CINC, Inc.**

$725,700

$93,790

$1,125,947

63,765

-

63,765

1,067,701

373,534

-

1,441,235

948

9,839,329

4,108,377

1,591,611

15,539,317

5

220

3,037,767

1,301,212

423,153

4,762,132

1

112

1,604,226

571,210

118,993

2,294,429

Private Subtotal****

14

1,472

$16,274,723

$6,724,554

$2,227,547

$25,226,825

Sheriff Subtotal

24

1,580

$19,248,940

$8,773,676

$1,910,919

$29,933,535

LaSalle
Corrections***
St. Tammany
Workforce Solutions

-

$306,456

Total
38
3,052
$35,523,663 $15,498,230
$4,138,466
$55,160,360
*The wages received from the each offender reflects 62% of wages from January through August of 2015 and 64%
of wages from August to December of 2015.
**This facility did not report any commissary expenditures and/or fees paid by offenders.
***The Claiborne Detention Center TWP was operated by LaSalle Corrections through July 31, 2015. After this
date, the Claiborne Sheriff’s Office operated the facility.
****We included the total revenue for the Bossier Parish TWP, which closed in 2015. This facility was not
included in the 24 facilities.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP facilities provided to Corrections
in their monthly reports.

21

APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE

A. 1

A. 2

Over the last several years the Department has made numerous improvements to the
operations and administration of the Transitional Work Program requirements. The following is
a list of improvements made over the last two years:
Administrative Improvements
1. Any sheriff interested in contracting with a separate private management source must
complete a bid process.
2. As of January 1, 2015, all TWP facilities, regardless of the amount of gross revenues or
number of offenders or who manages the facility, are required to have an annual AUP
(Agreed Upon Procedures) engagement performed on offender trust accounts.
3. The guidelines regarding offender funds were improved by adding how to distinguish
appropriate segregation of duties; adding a goal for offenders to release with a minimum
of $1,000; added a goal for offenders to release with a minimum of $1,000; added
Minimum Account Balances which required offenders to save $200 initially and should
not be allowed to spend funds until reached and must never go below; revised the
offender participation fee to not exceed 64% of gross wages, or $451.50 per workweek
(7 consecutive 24 hour days), whichever is less; provided clarification of how the
participation fee should be calculated (% vs max weekly); and below forms were added
or revised in order to provide more efficient procedures and reporting (see attachment
“A” for complete forms):
 Form 17-1A Offender Trust Account Monthly Fiscal Package Certification
 Form 17-1B Offender Trust Account Monthly Summary Report
 Form 17-1C Offender Trust Account Monthly Reconciliation
4. Added that local jails are to ascertain suitability of offenders for disciplinary, medical and
mental health.
5. Clarified that offenders are required to obtain and retain a minimum of one PRIMARY
(full time) job give a definition of what we consider as primary/full time. This section
also stipulates that an offender may start out working multiple part time jobs which total
32 hours per week until Primary is obtained. Outlines how an offender should be
evaluated for a Secondary Job (part time).
6. Added eligibility criteria for offenders participating in the Southwest Transitional
Workforce Development Program which provides certified training and skilled labor jobs
that pay offenders at a higher rate.

A. 3

Operational Improvements
1. Added stipulations to the Employer Work Agreement as follows:
a. Offenders are not allowed visitors on the job except DPS&C employees
b. Acts of sexual activity is in violation of the law and employees are subject to
criminal prosecution
c. Offenders are not allowed electronic devices without prior approval of the
department
d. Offenders assigned offshore jobs must return to the TWP facility on their days off
e. Prior approval from the department is required for offenders placed in jobs that
requires the offender to live off premises of the TWP facility during his tour of
duty
f. No offender shall be in a position which necessitates his departure from the state
of Louisiana, except for those who are employed in industries off the coast such
as offshore jobs
g. Under no circumstances is an offender allowed to operate a vehicle or equipment
on public roadways, unless it is in the scope of their job duties and directly
supervised
h. Be mindful that participants are convicted felons awarded to the state and any
suspicious activity should be reported to TWP staff immediately.
2. The eligibility criteria increased in order to improve the participation rate.
3. Clarified that offenders shall not be employed in a bar, lounge or tavern. Added
stipulation that offenders should not be placed in management or supervisory position
which gives them authority over other TWP offenders.
4. PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) Case Report Format was provided with instructions
for reporting.
5. Clarification made to include “tug boat” workers with offshore workers in that they
should not be allowed to remain on the job site on days off.
6. Added a stipulation that the facility must make visual contact with offenders who work
offshore or within LA waterways at least every 30 days.
7. Placed an emphasis on the programs to add more meaningful and more frequent job
site visits to ensure appropriate supervision of offenders is taking place.

A. 4

While the Department agrees with the need to maximize the
number of offenders in TWP, the methodology used by the
audit team to indicate program vacancies is flawed. While
we do allow for program to have approved slots, this does
not always equate to vacant beds that can be occupied by
TWP offenders. Several instances were explained where
facilities had TWP slots available but they could not be used
as the facility was at or near operational capacity as most
facilities that operate TWPs are also responsible for housing
offenders who are arrested in their Parish and other DPS&C
offenders. Many times TWP beds are not available due to
this size of this population. Another hurdle is that some
facilities have approved slots and do not have employment at
the time of review. The employment, especially in rural areas
is seasonal in the form of farm employment and while the
slots are not always filled, these beds are used at specific
times of the year. Using the correct methodology we were
able to obtain a more accurate number of actual TWP
vacancies. For the census dated February 26, 2016, there
were only 1,309 vacancies available to place offenders in
TWP and it was reported that there were fewer than 100
opportunities for offender employment by the actual
Transitional Work Programs. This is far less than the 2,015
available slots noted in the report. The Department has
changed the manner in which TWP vacancies are reflected in
our reporting to more clearly show where true vacancies
exist.
However, the Department will continue to work with the local
facilities to provide for a more comprehensive screening
process for offenders. The overall goal is to allow for more
offenders to participate in the programs.

A. 5

Recommendation #1
   

DOC management should
continue to proactively
identify offenders housed
in local jails who are
potentially eligible to
participate in TWP. 
 

The report notes that while the Department does not always
know where offenders are housed and this represents a safety
risk and a risk of duplicate payment. This is not the case as
moves of offenders are documented by all facilities and
updated in the Department’s data system daily.
The
Department is aware of moves of offenders and can locate
any offender in the system when necessary. The report also
states that the team did not find an incident of overpayment.
The reason the team could not locate an instance of
overpayment is because the current system does not allow for
overpayment. Additionally, TWPs do notify DOC of the
movement of all offenders in a timely manner and the system
is updated accordingly. The errors found were primarily
human errors.
However, the Department will update its procedures to require
that facilities make notification to DPD&C staff on the next
business day of any type of offender movement into or out of
a TWP.

A. 6

Recommendation
#2
   

DOC should enforce its
requirement that TWP
facilities notify them
prior to transferring an
offender to another
location and use monthly
invoices to determine
whether providers are
complying with this
requirement. 
 

The report noted a significant decrease of escapes over the
last few years and this was done with the efforts of facility
and DPS&C staff. We have made it a priority to ensure
employers know their responsibilities of offender supervision.
This has also been included in the monitoring visits with
direct interviews of employers to make sure they know their
responsibilities and they take these responsibilities seriously.
The Department has also advised TWPs they could no longer
allow certain employers to employ offenders in the program
who have not followed the proper protocols.
These
employers have received a ban on the ability to hire TWP
offenders and are not able participate in the program in any
manner. This reduction has been done without the need for
electronic monitoring and has resulted in a decrease in
escapes from FY 2012 at 144 to FY 15 at 54 which is a
62.5% decrease over this period of time. Also, the use of
electronic monitoring does not come without certain
drawbacks due to the movement of offenders in specific lines
of employment, offenders who want to escape can remove
the monitor and several false reports are generated with the
current technology. It should also be noted of the 22
escapes reported from the West Baton Rouge TWP, 16 were
offenders who walked away from employment and were
captured the same day when they returned. The additional
six were apprehended within days of their escape. Offenders
in TWP are ones that have been thoroughly screened for
participation and are close to release back into their
community without the type of close supervision that is
provided by a TWP or Halfway House as we previously
described. The ability to gradually step offenders down from
prison into a TWP allows for a graduated release to the
community that is proven to be effective as stated in this
report. The Department has determined their risk of escape
to be minimal and it is provide that the overall majority stay in
TWP without any type of escape from the facility or walk off
from their place of employment. While escapes are minimal
in comparison to the thousands of offenders who participate
in TWP, the Department does take them extremely serious
and escape protocols are implemented in every instance to
ensure that offenders are apprehended as soon as possible.

A. 7

Recommendation
#3
   

DOC should create more
specific procedures for
TWP providers to
monitor offenders while
they are at their place of
work. This could
include requiring
offenders participating in
TWP to wear electronic
monitoring ankle
bracelets while working. 
 

Recommendation #3 Response Continued
Once offenders are apprehended, they are immediately removed from the TWP, processed
and transferred to a DPS&C facility to face some type of disciplinary action. Additional criminal
charges can be pressed against the offender who has escaped from the facility or their place
of employment adding one more year to their current sentence.
However, the Department will examine our ability to require electronic monitoring for all TWP
offenders. The current cost is estimated to be over $5 million for implementation. We will
consider this cost and the implementation of a comprehensive electronic monitoring program
when submitting future budget requests or when additional funds become available.

A. 8

The Department’s interpretation of La. R.S. 15:1111 does not
allow for the deduction of victim restitution unless we have a
specific judgement detailing how much is owed and to whom.
Additionally, we randomly selected thirty-five files of offenders
in TWP and could not locate any offenders who had been
ordered to pay victim restitution as a condition of their
incarceration. The lack of judgements requiring offenders to
pay restitution or fees as a condition of their incarceration
correlates to why the Department only collected a small
percentage of what is owed as stated in the report. Without an
order or judgement from the Court the ability to enforce this
debt is outside the scope of our authority. The Department did
collect $5,135,120 in victim restitution for FY 15 from offenders
on supervision as the Court orders payment of restitution as a
condition of supervision. We will continue to collect these
funds from offenders on community supervision to ensure
victims are reimbursed for their loss. The Department will
examine our ability to collect the $33.7 million owed as the
offender’s other financial obligations while keeping in mind the
balance of ensuring offenders release from a Transitional
Work Program with funds available to properly reintegrate
back into society. This is a vital part of the program’s success.
These debts will continue to remain active and will definitely
continue to be collected as part of the offender’s conditions of
parole supervision or turned over to the Office of Debt
Recovery upon supervision closure.
However, the Department will continue to collect restitution
from offenders where we have a signed order from the Court
where restitution was ordered as part of the offender’s
incarceration.

A. 9

Recommendation
#4
   

DOC should ensure that
providers are deducting
victim restitution and
other financial
obligations from
offender wages as
required by law and
internal policy. 

One of the Department’s goals of a TWP is to provide
offenders with the opportunity to accumulate savings as they
prepare for reentry back to their communities. DPS&C has
defined $1,000 as a reasonable minimum goal for offenders to
save prior to release with an average stay of 8 months. As
such, facilities are instructed to implement policies to set
limitations and/or spending limits on offender purchases from
canteen/commissary operations to encourage the offender to
maximize the opportunity to accumulate savings prior to
release. Facilities may also limit the amount of or disapprove
weekly cash draws as a method to accumulate savings. It
should be noted that a number of offenders did not acquire
funds in this amount during the review conducted as the
implementation or this requirement was in effect for only half
of the time period examined. Additionally, all releasing
offenders were reviewed with some only being in the program
for brief periods of time due to an immediate release or
removal from the program. The requirement of the facility
maintaining a minimum of $200 in an offender’s individual
account at all times also has a recent implementation date of
January 1, 2015, leaving the period of July 1, 2014 to
December 31, 2014 without this new requirement. The
offender will not have access to this savings portion of his
account until he has been released or transferred to another
facility and all of his financial obligations at the facility have
been met. No commissary/canteen purchases, support for
dependents, child support or other debts or weekly allowance
deductions shall be processed for an offender until the $200
minimum savings portion has been met. The only exceptions
are to purchase work related items and health care expenses.
An offender’s account should not go below $200 at any time
after this savings has been accrued without a justifiable
reason noted in the offender’s file (i.e. health care expenses).
We have seen some success in offender’s savings with
implementation
of
these
new
requirements
since
implementation in January of 2015.

A. 10

Recommendation
#5
   

DOC should limit the
amount of funds
offenders can spend on
Commissary purchases
and cash allowances
until all obligations, such
as victim restitution, are
paid. 

Recommendation #5 Response Continued

This success has been seen with offenders who have spent several months in the program
compared to those that may only be in the program for short periods of time. Employment also
has an impact. Offenders who have developed skills that would allow for a better paying job
do have the ability to accumulate a larger amount of savings that those offenders who have to
be employed at low wage jobs.
This is why the Department is moving towards a TWP model that not only places an emphasis
on employment but also on assisting offenders with developing specific job skills. We have
two such programs in existence, one for males and one for females. Both of these programs
have an average wage of offenders that is higher that our traditional TWPs.
The amount that offenders spend in the commissary was found to be $3.40 per day per
offender. The amount offenders were allowed to have for their weekly allowance was found to
be $1.85 per day. This is a cost of approximately $5 per day for personal necessities. The
ability to budget funds in their account while having access to a commissary is used as a
teaching tool for offenders who will have to budget their money upon release. The ability to
budget funds and provide for the basic necessities is a life skill that is vital when the offenders
is released to supervision.
The Department agrees that if an offender is ordered to pay restitution, they should be limited
on what they can spend in the commissary. Limits will be placed on these identified offenders
to ensure the prompt payment of restitution.

A. 11

The Department does not provide a list of records that the
monitors are going to review prior to the monitoring visit. This
list is provided at the actual visit once a master list of TWP
participants is provided by the agency to the monitor. We
agree with this practice as it is already in operation.

Recommendation
#6
   

DOC should not provide
TWP facilities with the
list of records monitors
are going to review prior
to their visit when
conducting their annual
visits. 

A. 12

This recommendation will be implemented and all monitors will
be provided trianing to determine when this type of action is
necessary. The Deparment does maintain that a systemic
issue can be found with the review of a specific number of files
and not all the files maintained at the facility.

Recommendation
#7
   

DOC auditors should
pull additional offender
files when issues are
identified to determine if
the issue is systemic. 

A. 13

A physical visit to a facility for follow-up is conducted when
such findings warrant this type of follow-up. These findings
are primarily related to life safety issues related to the
population’s quality of life. Over the last several years the
Department has approved corrective actions through the use
of email, fax or postal mail. The audit report advised that 43%
or 111 of the findings were paperwork related and this type of
follow-up inspection lends itself to our current practices as
paperwork issues can easily be resolved without actually being
at the facility. This approval has proven effective in resolving
issues at the facility and has proven to be a cost effective
approach to ensuring compliance with the Department’s
requirements. It should be noted that since FY 09 the
Department has been cut by $45,557,746 and 2,032 staff
positions. We have worked with limited resources and in order
to adequately inspect the TWPs we have had to find
efficiencies in how this can be done. While we do not provide
for on-site follow-up as stated in the report, we do follow-up
with facilities in accordance with Department resources when it
comes to life safety issues in the facility.
The Department does not agree that an actual follow-up in the
form of facility inspections would be the best use of State
resources unless life safety issues arise. We will continue to
monitor programs utilizing the current practices as this has
proven to be an effective method to ensure compliance with
expected practices. While our staffing is limited, the DPS&C
staff that conducts the monitoring of the 38 TWPs does an
excellent job identifying deficiencies and working with facility
staff to address these deficiencies.

A. 14

Recommendation
#8
   

DOC should conduct
follow-up visits on
critical or repeat findings
identified during its
monitoring visits to
ensure these findings are
addressed in a timely
manner. 

“Certified Treatment and Rehabilitative Programs” offered at
TWP facilities is a project that has taken several years to
achieve our current level of programming. The Department
does encourage all TWPs to offender programming but
smaller programs may only provide one program due to the
difficulty of having all offenders at the facility at the same time.
This is difficult to achieve when there may only be ten
participants who work at different places of employment and at
different times. Also, please note that the Department does
consider Transitional Work Programs as a program that
provides services to releasing offenders.
This can be
demonstrated with a direct correlation to a reduction in
recidivism as noted previously. We are pleased with the fact
that through our partnership with many of these programs
offenders are offered the opportunity to participate in
rehabilitative programs listed in Attachment B.
Offenders in TWP have access to these programs to provide
them with a better chance of success are they reenter society.
It should be noted that if any offender has a specific need for
treatment, the Department ensures this treatment is received
prior to placement in a TWP. For instance, if an offender has
a court recommendation for substance abuse, they will be
required to complete this program prior to placement in a
TWP.
However, the Department does agree that additional CTRP
programs can be offered by these programs and we will
continue to work with the programs to expand and provide
additional classes.

A. 15

Recommendation
#9
   

DOC should require that
TWP providers offer
rehabilitation programs
such as therapy,
parenting, anger
management, and
substance abuse
treatment to offenders
who need these types of
programs during their
participation in TWP. 

Attachment A
Offender Funds

A. 16

A. 17

A. 18

Attachment B
Rehabilitative Programs at TWP

JOB SKILL TRAINING
Medical Office Specialist
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Office Systems Technology
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Workforce Welding Program
Southwest Workforce Development TWP
VALUES DEVELOPMENT AND FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES
Celebrate Recovery
Webster Parish TWP
Healing and Eliminating Abusive Relationships through Scripture (HEARTS)
Calcasieu Parish Facilities
Southwest TWP for Women
Preparing for Success on the Outside
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Iberia Parish TWP
Lafayette Parish TWP
Rapides Parish Facilities
Southwest TWP for Women
Terrebonne Parish Facilities
West Baton Rouge Parish TWP

TREATMENT
Cage Your Rage
East Baton Rouge Parish TWP
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Livingston Parish TWP
Iberia Parish TWP
Southwest Workforce Development TWP
St. Tammany Work Force Solutions TWP
Terrebonne Parish TWP
West Feliciana Parish TWP
Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (For Men)
Avoyelles Parish Facilities

A. 19

Inside/Out Dad Program
City of Faith TWP
East Feliciana Parish Prison and TWP
St. Tammany Workforce Solutions TWP
Living in Balance
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
East Baton Rouge TWP
East Feliciana Parish Prison and TWP
Iberia Parish Jail and TWP
Livingston Parish TWP
Southwest Workforce Development TWP
St. Tammany Workforce Solutions TWP
Terrebonne Parish TWP
West Feliciana Parish TWP
Louisiana Risk Management Model: Phase I & II
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Calcasieu Parish Facilities
East Baton Rouge Parish TWP
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Morehouse Parish TWP
Tangipahoa Parish TWP
Terrebonne Parish Facilities
Union Parish TWP
Webster Parish TWP
Nurturing Parenting
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Our Best Interest (For Women)
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Partners in Parenting
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Calcasieu Parish Facilities
East Baton Rouge Parish TWP
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Morehouse Parish TWP
Tangipahoa Parish TWP
Terrebonne Parish Facilities
Union Parish TWP
Webster Parish TWP
Project 180 (Renew, Restore, Reenter) (A version of Celebrate Recovery)
St. Tammany Workforce Solutions TWP
Thinking for a Change
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Calcasieu Parish Facilities

A. 20

East Baton Rouge Parish TWP
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Morehouse Parish TWP
Tangipahoa Parish TWP
Terrebonne Parish Facilities
Union Parish TWP
Webster Parish TWP
Understanding and Reducing Angry Feelings
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Calcasieu Parish Facilities
East Baton Rouge Parish TWP
East Feliciana Parish TWP
Morehouse Parish TWP
Tangipahoa Parish TWP
Terrebonne Parish Facilities
Union Parish TWP
Webster Parish TWP
MISCELLANEOUS
Standardized Pre-Release Curriculum - 2010
Phase 1
Module 1: Personal Development
Module 2: Problem Solving/Decision Making
Module 3: Anger Management
Module 4: Values Clarification, Goal Setting, Achieving
Module 5: Victim Awareness/Restitution
Phase 2
Module 6: Employment Skills
Module 7: Job Placement Assistance
Module 8: Money Management
Module 9: Reentry Support Resources
Module 10: Counseling on Individual Community Reentry Concerns
Facilities:
Avoyelles Parish Facilities
Calcasieu Parish Facilities
Lafourche TWP
Morehouse Parish Facilities
St. Tammany Workforce Solutions TWP
Terrebonne Parish TWP
W. Feliciana Parish TWP
Approved College Credit Correspondence Courses - All Facilities

A. 21

APPENDIX B: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted this performance audit under the provisions of Title 24 of the Louisiana
Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections – Corrections Services’ (Corrections) oversight of
the Transitional Work Program (TWP) and the benefits of TWP for the state, offenders,
providers, and businesses. Our audit covered the period from July 1, 2014, through
December 31, 2015. Our audit objectives were to:
1.

Evaluate Corrections’ oversight of the TWP.

2.

Identify the benefits the TWP provides for the state, offenders, providers,
and businesses.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally-accepted Government
Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions, based on our
audit objectives. To answer our objectives, we reviewed internal controls relevant to the audit
objectives and performed the following audit steps:


Researched and reviewed Louisiana Revised Statutes and agency policies and
regulations to determine TWP criteria.



Obtained a copy of Corrections’ offender tracking and billing data system,
CAJUN, and performed data reliability testing to ensure we could use the data for
our purposes.



Using CAJUN, calculated the number of offenders potentially eligible to
participate in TWP housed in local jails and state institutions, excluding those
offenders who were set to be released within six months and habitual offenders;
offender transfers; and how much was owed in victim restitution from TWP
offenders.



Obtained monthly activity reports from each TWP facility to determine the
amount of commissary item purchases and cash allowances given to offenders
participating in the TWP for all TWP facilities for calendar year 2015.



Using the monthly activity reports, identified and selected potential duplicate
payments and received copies of the billing invoices for these selected TWP
facilities. These invoices were generated from CAJUN.

B.1

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Appendix B



Toured four TWP facilities and met with a transitional work employer to gain an
understanding of TWP facility processes and obtain the perspective of an
employer regarding using TWP offenders.



Shadowed Corrections employees during an annual monitoring visit of a TWP
facility and during the screening process for potential TWP offenders housed in
state institutions.



Obtained all TWP monitoring reports for calendar years 2014 and 2015, as well as
any responses from TWP facilities or follow-up monitoring visits conducted by
Corrections.



Obtained financial data for each TWP facility for calendar year 2015 and
calculated the amount of per diem paid for each TWP facility (Corrections
financial reports), the amount offenders paid in state and local taxes, child
support, and victim restitution (monthly activity reports).



Obtained gross wages for all offenders at one transitional work facility to ensure
correct participation fees were deducted.



Obtained contracts for all TWP facilities, reviewed occupancy rates and
rehabilitation programs offered at each facility.



Sent a survey regarding TWP to all TWP facilities.



Contacted four states (Washington, Florida, Alabama, and Texas) to obtain
information about their transitional work programs and how they compare to
Louisiana.

B.2

APPENDIX C: FACILITY LISTING
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015

Facility Name

1. Avoyelles Bunkie
Detention Center
2. Avoyelles Women’s
Correctional Center
3. Caddo Transitional Work
Program
4. Calcasieu Correctional
Center
5. Catahoula Correctional
Center
6. City of Faith - Monroe
7. Claiborne Detention
Center Transitional Work
Program
8. Concordia Parish
Transitional Work
Program
9. East Baton Rouge Parish
Transitional Work
Program

Parish

Operator

Approved
Capacity
(As of
6/26/2015)

Avoyelles

Sheriff

150

61%

Avoyelles

Sheriff

N/A - Combined
with Avoyelles
Bunkie Detention
Center

Caddo

Sheriff

Calcasieu

Sheriff

Catahoula
Ouachita

Private - LaSalle
Corrections, LLC
Private - City of
Faith Prison
Ministries

Occupancy
Rates
(As of
6/26/2015)

Average
Hourly
Wage
(FY 15)

Average
Offender
Savings
Upon
Release
(FY 15)

Child and
Family
Support
Paid
(CY 15)*

CourtOrdered
Restitution
Paid
(CY 15)*

$7.93

$1,907

$69,689

$1,055

N/A - Combined
with Avoyelles
Bunkie Detention
Center

7.73

975

13,340

None

240

54

8.13

1,538

80,100

97

48

25

9.11

4,917

8,328

None

19

26

7.89

1,594

11,570

230

162

61

8.51

3,729

69,941

823

Claiborne

Private - LaSalle
Corrections, LLC

30

33

7.78

2,222

22,819

None

Concordia

Sheriff

224

19

8.33

1,210

56,627

None

East Baton
Rouge

Private Louisiana
Workforce, LLC

250

93

8.19

1,283

81,914

None

C.1

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Appendix C

CourtOrdered
Restitution
Paid
(CY 15)*

Operator

10. East Feliciana Parish
Transitional Work
Program

East
Feliciana

Sheriff

125

58%

$8.66

$1,270

$62,999

None

11. Franklin Parish Detention
Center

Franklin

Sheriff

125

18

7.25

2,092

31,170

None

12. Iberia Transitional Work
Program

Iberia

Private Louisiana
Workforce, LLC

163

63

8.91

3,756

88,564

None

Jackson

Private - LaSalle
Corrections, LLC

128

52

8.43

1,553

36,997

None

Lafayette

Sheriff

200

41

9.15

4,245

42,253

$511

Lafourche

Sheriff

174

87

10.13

7,071

145,654

None

LaSalle

Private - LaSalle
Corrections, LLC

54

37

11.77

5,137

27,621

None

Lincoln

Sheriff

75

32

7.93

673

20,469

None

Livingston

Private Louisiana
Workforce, LLC

150

43

9.37

1,312

37,593

None

Morehouse

Sheriff

150

76

7.28

1,591

97,358

None

Natchitoches

Sheriff

48

71

8.46

5,017

94,589

None

Orleans

Sheriff

150

35

8.20

5,647

8,832

None

13. Jackson Correctional
Center Transitional Work
Program
14. Lafayette Parish
Transitional Work
Program
15. Lafourche Transitional
Work Program
16. LaSalle Correctional
Center
17. Lincoln Parish Detention
Center
18. Livingston Parish
Transitional Work
Program
19. Morehouse Parish
Detention Center
20. Natchitoches Transitional
Work Program
21. Orleans Transitional
Work Program (Warren
McDaniel TWP)

C.2

Average
Hourly
Wage
(FY 15)

Child and
Family
Support
Paid
(CY 15)*

Parish

Facility Name

Occupancy
Rates
(As of
6/26/2015)

Average
Offender
Savings
Upon
Release
(FY 15)

Approved
Capacity
(As of
6/26/2015)

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Facility Name

22. Ouachita Parish
Transitional Work
Program - Female
23. Ouachita Parish
Transitional Work
Program - Male
24. Rapides Parish
Transitional Work
Program
25. Richland Parish
Detention Center
26. Richwood Correctional
Center

Ouachita

Sheriff

35

100%

$7.30

$1,080

$33,235

None

Ouachita

Sheriff

250

83

7.28

992

352,457

None

Rapides

Sheriff

255

77

8.01

2,209

80,408

$9,268

Richland

Sheriff

185

41

7.77

1,816

103,337

None

259

62

8.05

1,513

177,327

None

100

99

8.71

1,589

9,982

None

250

65

10.04

1,659

96,075

None

Calcasieu

28. Southwest Transitional
Work Program - Male

Beauregard

31. St. Tammany Parish
Transitional Work
Program
32. Tangipahoa Parish Jail

CourtOrdered
Restitution
Paid
(CY 15)*

Operator

Private - LaSalle
Corrections, LLC
Private Cedarwood
Manor, Inc.
Private Louisiana
Workforce, LLC

Average
Hourly
Wage
(FY 15)

Child and
Family
Support
Paid
(CY 15)*

Parish

Ouachita

Occupancy
Rates
(As of
6/26/2015)

Average
Offender
Savings
Upon
Release
(FY 15)

Approved
Capacity
(As of
6/26/2015)

27. Southwest Transitional
Work Program - Female

29. St. Charles Correctional
Center Transitional Work
Program
30. St. Mary Law
Enforcement Center
Transitional Work
Program

Appendix C

St. Charles

Sheriff

60

30

8.37

4,560

17,979

None

St. Mary

Sheriff

52

29

14.38

9,088

19,000

None

St.
Tammany

Private St. Tammany
Workforce
Solutions, LLC

135

95

9.52

1,651

65,153

None

Tangipahoa

Sheriff

85

73

8.97

4,547

21,561

6,905

C.3

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Appendix C

CourtOrdered
Restitution
Paid
(CY 15)*

Operator

Terrebonne

Private Louisiana
Workforce, LLC

244

68%

$9.16

$4,697

$155,833

None

34. Union Parish Prison

Union

Sheriff

15

113

7.91

142

6,907

None

35. Vernon Correctional
Facility

Vernon

Sheriff

60

70

8.34

2,056

89,127

None

36. Webster Transitional
Work Program (Bayou
Dorcheat Correctional
Center)

Webster

Sheriff

90

66

8.64

2,010

54,315

None

2,653

83,945

None

1,081

90,491

None

4,619

$295

$2,570,178

$19,184

33. Terrebonne Transitional
Work Program

Average
Hourly
Wage
(FY 15)

Child and
Family
Support
Paid
(CY 15)*

Parish

Facility Name

Occupancy
Rates
(As of
6/26/2015)

Average
Offender
Savings
Upon
Release
(FY 15)

Approved
Capacity
(As of
6/26/2015)

37. West Baton Rouge Parish
West Baton
Transitional Work
Sheriff
262
87
8.45
Rouge
Program
38. West Feliciana Parish
Private West
Transitional Work
Louisiana
276
59
7.75
Feliciana
Program
Workforce, LLC
Closed facilities during 2015
(Bossier Parish Transitional
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Work Program and CINC
Total
5,278
62%
$8.63
*Corrections did not start requiring TWP facilities to submit this information until January 2015.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported data from TWP facilities provided to Corrections.

C.4

N/A
$2,686

APPENDIX D: REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS
Comparison of Good Time1 Programs Offered
by TWP, Local Jails, and State Facilities2
As of September 2015
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Program Name
Air Conditioning
American Sign Language Intern
American Sign Language Interpreter
Ass. Degree of Gen. Studies
Auto Body/Collision Repair
Automotive Technology
Barbering
Basic Education (GED, Literacy, Special Education)
Building Technology
Cage Your Rage
Carpentry
Celebrate Recovery
Commercial/Custom Sewing
Communications Electronics
Computer Specialist/Application/Operation/Support
Cornerstone University
Culinary Arts
Didactic Program
Diesel Power Equipment Technology
Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (For Men)
Drafting and Design

TWP Facilities

Local Jails

√

√

√

√
√
√

√

State Facilities
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

√
√
√
√

D.1

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Number
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

Appendix D

Program Name
Electrician/Electronics
Faith- and Character-Based Dormitory
FDIC Money Smart for Young Adults
Financial Management/Solutions to Poverty
From the Inside Out
General Construction
Graphic Communications
Hazeldon’s A New Direction
Healing and Eliminating Abusive Relationships Through Scripture (HEARTS)
Heating
Horticulture (including Golf Course Maintenance)
Inner Healing
Inside/Out Dad Program
Job Life Skills (Vocational)
Knowledge is the Effect Program
LA Risk Management Model
Life Skills Training Program
Life’s Healing Choices
Living in Balance
Malachi Dads
Marketing Management
Masonry
Medical Office Specialist
Men’s Work
Moral Reconation Therapy
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary – Associate’s Degree
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary - Bachelor’s Degree
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary - Spiritual Growth Certificate
Nurturing Parenting
Office Systems Technology
Offset Printing

D.2

TWP Facilities

Local Jails
√
√

State Facilities
√
√
√

√
√
√
√

√
√
√
√

√

√

√

√
√
√
√
√
√
√

√
√
√

√

√
√

√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Number
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

Appendix D

Program Name
Options Re-entry Program
Our Best Interest (For Women)
Outdoor Power Technology
Partners in Parenting
Pipefitter Fabricator
Plumbing
Praise Program
Preparing for Success on the Outside
Project 180
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT)
Residential Drug Abuse Program
S.T.A.R. Long Term Program
School of Faith Bible Institute
Sex Offender Treatment
Standardized Pre-Release Curriculum
Strengthening Families
Thinking for a Change
True Freedom Program
Understanding and Reducing Angry Feelings
Upholstery Technology
Ventilation and Refrigeration
Victim Awareness
Victory Bible Institute
Welding
Youthful Offender Program

TWP Facilities

√

√
√

√

√
√

√

√
√
√
√
√
√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

1

Local Jails
√
√

Offenders who participate in good time programs can potentially receive an earlier release date.
This comparison only includes the programs offered in local jails that also offer TWP.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using data from Corrections and self-reported data from TWP facilities provided to Corrections.
2

D.3

State Facilities

√
√
√
√
√

√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

APPENDIX E: OFFENDER JOB TITLES FY 2015

TWP Offender Job Distribution
Occupation

Number of Offenders*

Laborer - General
Kitchen Worker - General
Factory Worker
Laborer - Construction
Dishwasher
Butcher/Meat Handler
Cook - Prep
Offshore - Deckhand
Cook - Line
Warehouse Labor
Cook - Grill
Landscaper
Shop Hand
Construction - General
AC Repair
Machinists
Welder
Automotive - Detailer
Automotive - Tire Technician
Detailer
Maintenance General
Farm Worker - Crop
Janitor
Welder/Fitter
Welder/Helper
Stock Clerk
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Mechanic - Automotive
Offshore - Oil/Rigger
Automotive Technician
Carpenter
Cashier
Farm Worker - Animals
Heavy Equipment Operator
Porter
Electrician
Automotive - Paint and Body

E.1

5,366
571
471
407
375
331
212
202
188
173
171
161
160
154
114
98
89
81
81
72
68
60
58
54
53
49
48
41
40
36
34
32
30
28
28
27
25

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Appendix E

Occupation

Number of Offenders*

Metal Oxidizer
24
Offshore - Galley Hand
24
Painter
24
Cook - Baker
20
Mechanic - Small Engine
17
Plumber
15
Offshore - Roustabout
13
Receptionist
8
Cook - Caterer
7
Utility Hand
7
Offshore Operator
6
Office - Clerical
4
Offshore - Cook
3
Painter/Blaster
3
Service Technician
3
Pipefitter
2
Cement Finisher
1
Drywall Finisher
1
Offshore - Mechanic
1
Sandblaster
1
*These numbers are higher than the total number of participants
because one TWP participant may have had several different jobs in
one year.
Source: Prepared by legislative auditor’s staff using self-reported
data from TWP facilities provided to Corrections.

E.2