Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Department of Corrections - State Correctional Institution At Frackville

Gerald.Coyle

Informations

• Publié par: Phawying
• Nombre de lectures: 36
• Langue: Slovak

Extrait

                                     

                     

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections State Correctional Institution at Frackville July 1, 2003, to December 2, 2005 Performance Audit

                             

                                     

 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections State Correctional Institution at Frackville July 1, 2003, to December 2, 2005 Performance Audit

                                         

 

December 13, 2006

                          The Honorable Edward G. Rendell Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120   Dear Governor Rendell:   This report contains the results of a performance audit of the State Correctional Institution at Frackville of the Department of Corrections from July 1, 2003, through, December 2, 2005. The audit was conducted under authority provided in Section 402 of The Fiscal Code, and in accordance withGovernment Auditing Standardsas issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.   The report details our audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations. The contents of the report were discussed with the officials of the institution and all appropriate comments are reflected in the report.   We appreciate the cooperation extended to us by the management and staff of Frackville State Correctional Institution and by others who provided assistance during the audit.   Sincerely,       JACK WAGNER Auditor General

       

 

                             

Table of Contents

Page

Background Information ..................................................................................................1  Department of Corrections .........................................................................................1 State Correctional Institution at Frackville ................................................................1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ...............................................................................3 

Chapter I – Vending Service.............................................................................................4  Objective and Methodology ..............................................................................................4 Audit Results .....................................................................................................................4 Finding I–1 – The vending contractor was delinquent in remitting $16,702 in commissions. ...........................................................................................................4 Finding I–2 – Frackville didnot have a written contract with General Vending Company..................................................................................................................5 

Chapter II – Inmate General Welfare Fund...................................................................7  Objective and Methodology ..............................................................................................7 Audit Results .....................................................................................................................8 Finding II–1 – Frackville complied with IGWF policies and procedures................8

Chapter III – Inmate Employment and Compensation.................................................9  Objective and Methodology ..............................................................................................9 Audit Results ...................................................................................................................10 Finding III–1 – Frackville complied iwth DOC inmate employment and  compensation policies............................................................................................10

Chapter IV – Tool and Key Inventory Management ...................................................11  Objective and Methodology ............................................................................................11 Audit Results ...................................................................................................................12 Finding IV–1 – Frackville complied withDOC tool and key inventory control policies and procedures..........................................................................................12

Chapter V – Procurement...............................................................................................13  Objectives and Methodology ..........................................................................................13 Audit Results ...................................................................................................................14 Finding V–1 – Frackville did not maintian role mapping documents indicating employee responsibilities.......................................................................................14 Finding V–2 – Purchase orders and asscoiated purchase transactions were processed in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. .......................15

i

Table of Contents

Page   Finding V–3 – The storeroominventory function was not properly segregated or monitored...........................................................................................................15

Chapter VI – Contracts...................................................................................................16  Objective and Methodology ............................................................................................16 Audit Results ...................................................................................................................16 Finding VI–1 – Frackville complied withDOC and Commonwealth contract policies. ..................................................................................................................16

Status of Prior Audit Results and Recommendations ..................................................17  Objectives and Methodology...........................................................................................17 Prior Audit Results ..........................................................................................................17 Conclusion II–1 - Corrections officersare not receiving mandated training hours. ……………………………………………………………………............17 Conclusion III–1 – A properly trained indviidual did not complete the annual fire extinguisher inspection....................................................................................18 Conclusion IV–1 - Service purchase contracts were not assigned to contract monitors. ................................................................................................................18 Conclusion V–1 – Restitutions, fines orc osts were not deducted for some court  orders issued prior to October 16, 1998.................................................................18

Audit Report Distribution List .......................................................................................20 

ii

 

Background Information

        Department of Corrections The Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections was established by Section I of Act 408 of 1953. In January 1981, the responsibility for bureau operations was removed from the authority of the Attorney General and transferred to the Office of the General Counsel. On December 30, 1984, the Governor signed Act 245 of 1984 1 , which elevated the Bureau of Corrections to cabinet level status as the Department of Corrections (DOC).   The main purpose and goal of the DOC is to maintain a safe and secure environment for the incarcerated offenders and the staff responsible for them. In addition, the DOC believes that every inmate should have an opportunity to be involved in a program of self-improvement. The DOC’s mission according to its narrative is:   To protect the public by confining persons committed to our custody in safe, secure facilities and to provide opportunities for inmates to acquire the skills and values necessary to become productive law-abiding citizens; while respecting the rights of crime victims.   The DOC is responsible for all adult offenders serving state sentences of two or more years. As of December 2, 2005, it operated 25 correctional institutions, 1 regional correctional facility, 1 motivational boot camp, a training academy, and 14 community pre-release centers throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.       State Correctional Institution at Frackville The State Correctional Institution at Frackville is located in the borough of Frackville, Schuylkill County, and is approximately eight miles north of Pottsville. It is designated as a maximum-security facility, and was opened in April 1987. Frackville’s grounds encompass 219 acres of land of which 35 acres are located inside two 14-foot high perimeter fences.              

                                                  1 71 P.S. §310.1.

 

1 --

Background Information

The following schedule presents selected unaudited Frackville operating statistics compiled for the years ended June 30, 2003, 2004, and 2005:    2003 2004 2005      2 Operating expenditures (in thousands)  State $31,914 $33,297 $34,606  Federal 90 51 47  Total $32,004 $33,348 $34,653    Inmate population at year-end 1,066 1,080 1,071    Capacity at year-end 711 900 900    Percentage of capacity at year-end 149.9% 120.0% 119.0%    Average daily inmate population 1,018 1,076 1,071    Average cost per inmate 3 $31,438 $30,992 $32,355

       

                                                  2 Operating expenses were recorded net of fixed asset costs, an amount that would normally be recovered as part of depreciation expense. 3 Average cost was calculated by dividing the operating expenditures by the average monthly inmate population. 

 

- 2 -

 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

        The audit objectives are detailed in the body of the report. We selected the objectives from the following general areas: vending service, Inmate General Welfare Fund, inmate employment and compensation, tool and key inventory management, procurement, and contracts. In addition, we determined the status of the recommendations made during the prior audit of the prison.   To accomplish the objectives, we interviewed DOC management and staff, obtained and reviewed available records, and analyzed pertinent regulations, policies, and guidelines.   The scope of the audit covered the period July 1, 2003, through December 2, 2005. A closing conference was held on December 2, 2005, to discuss the results of the audit with Frackville management and management’s comments are included with each recommendation in the report.                      

 

- 3 -