Oversight of Intergovernmental Agreements by the United States
Marshals Service and the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
Audit Report 07-26
March 2007
Office of the Inspector General
The objective of the audit was to determine if the USMS and OFDT employed an effective monitoring and oversight process for IGAs. We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and included such tests as were considered necessary to accomplish our objective. Our audit concentrated on but was not limited to FYs 2001-2005.
We obtained an understanding of the process to establish an IGA by interviewing pertinent personnel from the OFDT and USMS staff involved with finance, budgeting, procurement, auditing, and the prisoner services group. We also reviewed the policies and procedures used to establish an IGA, including the USM-243 – Cost Sheet instructions found at the USMS web site, the USMS Publication number 108 Instructions for Completing United States Marshals Service Cost Sheet for Detention Services (USM-243) otherwise known as the “green book” (March 2000), USMS Directives 9.25 – Housing Prisoners in USMS Custody (October 2003), USMS Directive 9.26 Detention Facility Contracting Policies and Procedures (October 2003), the USMS Intergovernmental Services Agreement Program Policies and Procedures Manual, and OMB Circular A-87.
As part of our audit, we relied on the USMS’s “Prisoners”database to arrive at the universe of IGAs. “Prisoners” is an Access database that the USMS maintains on detention facilities used to house detainees. Prisoners includes IGA facilities, private contract facilities, federal detention centers, and no-contract facilities. However, it was not always clear to us which were IGA facilities. The database also contained IGAs using different numbering formats that hindered our ability to secure information about a specific IGA since the current IGA number may not be in the database.
Using the RDS report, we judgmentally selected the following 34 IGA files for review:
Sampled IGA Files
Note | USM District |
Facility Name |
IGA Number |
Payments FY 2001-2005 |
---|---|---|---|---|
S/TX |
LaSalle County Regional Jail, Texas |
79-04-0043 |
2,474,365 |
|
M/FL |
Charlotte County Jail, Florida |
18-02-0069 |
4,670,076 |
|
SD |
Winner City Jail, South Dakota |
73-03-0060 |
623,050 |
|
M/NC |
Randolph County Jail, North Carolina |
57-04-0026 |
989,050 |
|
MD |
Allegany County Jail, Maryland |
37-01-0020 |
1,627,130 |
|
M/FL |
Hillsborough County Jail, Florida |
18-04-0008 |
25,394,220 |
|
MT |
Crossroads Correctional Center, Montana |
46-03-0043 |
2,593,969 |
|
MN |
Arrowhead Juvenile Detention Center, Minnesota |
41-02-0070 |
1,134 |
|
N/NY |
Washington County Jail, New York |
52-04-0033 |
523,385 |
|
OR |
Lane County Adult Correctional Facility, Oregon |
65-02-0033 |
7,951,994 |
|
N/CA |
Santa Rita Jail, California |
11-03-0047 |
13,584,609 |
|
E/CA |
Yolo County Jail, California |
97-00-0002 |
1,351,558 |
|
S/TX |
LaSalle County Jail, LaSalle |
79-02-0093 |
12,701,247 |
|
S/TX |
Nueces County Jail, Texas |
79-03-0009 |
20,237,768 |
|
E/LA |
St Tammany Parish Jail, Louisiana |
34-03-0013 |
1,537,852 |
|
MD |
Charles County Detention Center, Maryland |
37-95-0047 |
6,387,318 |
|
OR |
Clackamas County Jail, Oregon |
65-99-0193 |
1,672 |
|
E/TX |
Hunt County Jail, Texas |
78-03-0054 |
1,431,772 |
|
N/NY |
Albany County Jail, New York |
52-03-0023 |
7,418,714 |
|
CT |
Connecticut Department of Corrections |
14-03-0046 |
10,429,552 |
|
MN |
Tri-County Community Corrections, Minnesota |
41-04-0037 |
114 |
|
MN |
Sherburne County Jail, Minnesota |
41-99-0129 |
22,496,766 |
|
S/IL |
Alton Law Enforcement Center, Illinois |
25-04-0041 |
142,016 |
|
A |
DC |
D.C. Department of Corrections |
16-00-0016 |
71,089,111 |
B |
E/VA |
Western Tidewater Regional Jail, Virginia |
83-92-0082 |
9,658,732 |
C |
E/LA |
Orleans Parish Community Corrections Center, Louisiana |
J-D34-M-083 |
12,133,980 |
D |
W/NC |
Mecklenburg County Regional Jail, North Carolina |
58-00-0067 |
60,420,733 |
D |
W/NC |
Caldwell Detention Center, North Carolina |
58-99-0210 |
2,502,315 |
D |
N/GA |
South Fulton Regional Jail, Georgia |
19-01-0006 |
12,713,773 |
D |
N/GA |
Floyd County Regional Jail, Georgia |
19-04-0003 |
789,007 |
D |
W/TX |
Crystal City Corrections Center, Texas |
80-04-0005 |
28,627,496 |
D |
W/TX |
Wilson County Justice Center, Texas |
80-00-0028 |
6,038,955 |
D |
NV |
Las Vegas City Jail, Nevada |
48-99-0084 |
15,733,308 |
D |
NV |
Washoe County Jail, Nevada |
48-00-0136 |
8,156,347 |
A - We concurrently audited this IGA, [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED] B - We concurrently audited this IGA, [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]. C - We issued a report in [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED]. During our audit, the USMS was in the process of following up on our report. D - We performed field work at these five USMS districts and eight detention facilities. |
Our sample included different types of IGA actions that were processed by the USMS (e.g., establishing a new IGA or increasing an existing IGA rate) from each USMS IGA analyst (to the extent that each IGA analyst processed a specific action). Except as noted in the previous table, we did not select IGAs that the OIG previously audited. For each action selected, we reviewed the entire IGA file at USMS headquarters to determine the history of the IGA including the initial award process and the review process for any subsequent modifications. We reviewed cost sheets, records of negotiations, and available cost and average daily population data utilized by the USMS in establishing jail-day rates.
For eight of the IGAs located in five USMS district offices, as noted in the table, we interviewed the United States Marshals or their representative to discuss the IGA monitoring process at that district, and any concerns they had relative to the specific facilities we would be visiting or the IGA process in general. We also selected a judgmental sample of high-dollar or high-risk cost items listed on the state or local cost sheet and verified them to supporting records located at the detention facility. In addition, we selected a judgmental sample of USMS payments to tie back to billing statements and supporting documentation.
As part of our follow up on the OFDT’s instruction to the USMS and the revamping of the IGA process, we interviewed personnel from the OFDT and USMS. We discussed the disagreement and the revamping of the IGA process through the eIGA system. The OFDT gave us a demonstration of the eIGA system, and we reviewed documentation pertaining to the econometric statistical pricing model that the system is based on. However, we did not audit the appropriateness of the schedule of adjustments, and do not provide assurance that the factors and values used to arrive at the adjusted core rate are appropriate.
As of June 2006, the OFDT and USMS used the model to award about 90 IGAs as part of a pilot of the model. We reviewed detailed documentation from OFDT and the USMS for 11 judgmentally selected IGAs to determine: (1) whether the awarded rates were within the model’s [SENSITIVE INFORMATION REDACTED], and (2) how the awarded rates compared to the cost-based rate previously used in awarding IGAs.
As a part of the annual financial statement audit, the USMS financial management systems are reviewed to determine their compliance with the federal financial management systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the United States General Ledger. The FY 2005 independent auditor’s report on compliance reported that the USMS’s financial management systems did not substantially comply with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. Nevertheless, we believe that the data used for our sampling and testing purposes was reliable to the extent needed.
« Previous | Table of Contents | Next » |