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


Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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 “Prisonersdatabase 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 »