The United States Marshals Service’s Cooperative Agreement Program

Audit Report 05-28
June 2005
Office of the Inspector General

Appendix VII
OFDT’s Response to the Draft Report

The text in this Appendix was prepared by the auditee and uncorrected by the OIG.

FROM: Stacia A. Hylton
Federal Detention Trustee
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report for the United States Marshals Service's (USMS) Cooperative Agreement Program Comments

The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) appreciates the opportunity to review the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) draft audit report of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP). OFDT would like to take this opportunity to provide clarification on a few points attributed to the OFDT within the report, specifically, on page 17, where the report attributes several statements by OFDT officials. These statements do not accurately reflect the position of this office. However, I am glad to address these issues in this memorandum. It appears from reading the report that the statements, when taken out of context, provide a negative connotation of OFDT's position. Therefore, I would like to clarify.

Auditors from your office contacted OFDT staff members to comment on expiring CAP arrangements and how the bed space provided to the USMS through these agreements would be replaced. Simply because the CAP expires docs not necessarily mean the corresponding Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) cannot be continued. In fact, the majority of prior expired CAP agreements still have IGA's in place. At this time, there has been no indication provided to this office to suggest that the jurisdictions providing bed space through a CAP/IGA would not continue to provide the space under an IGA un-associated with a CAP. We will work with the USMS to ascertain if current information indicates less of a critical need for space in CAP facilities.

Additional discussion ensued concerning the need for CAP in the future. The report seems to suggest that OFDT docs not see a need for the program and was critical of USMS past practices. We do not believe this was relayed to he OIG in the fashion the report suggests. OFDT explained its position that the government should first use business process improvements to more efficiently use existing bed space prior to investing in additional infrastructure through CAP, which is the basic purpose of the CAP program.

Lastly, you include a statement of the lack of analysis regarding CAP and IGA bed space. We have conducted analyses and, while no general trends emerge, there are a few examples that show that costs associated with CAP facilities are rising at a higher rate than other surrounding facilities. For example, the Milwaukee County Jail per diem rate rose from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 rate of $60.00, to an audited rate of $104.21, while the average rate paid at other facilities in the area is approximately $65.00. Another example would be the Lucas County, Ohio facility, which increased from a FY 2004 rate of $70.00, to an audited rate of $112.40, while the average rate paid to other jails in the area is approximately $70.00. Based on these analyses OFDT did not approve these rate increases. These are just a few examples of what we have seen.

OFDT and the USMS are working closely together to find the most efficient detention bed space through CAP, IGA, and other arrangements. These efforts are on-going and include attempts to create equitable pricing arrangements for IGAs that provide the Government a fair and reasonable price for services, to develop a long-range Advance Procurement Plan to address population management, and to support the CAP by the cost effective use of any future funding.

We hope this information helps clarify the statements attributed to OFDT officials. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, at (202) 353-4601.

Previous Page Back to Table of Contents Next Page