How Private Correctional Companies Use Phony Industry Group Audits to Mislead Government Officials: the ACA Audit of Marion County Jail #2

It is always important to read between the lines. This is especially true when you are talking about private correctional companies and the audits that are done for the purpose of proving that they are doing a great job. Corrections Corporation of America, who runs Marion County Jail #2 is the largest private correctional company in the country. CCA uses the American Correctional Association (ACA) to do audits of their facilities nation-wide and issue accreditations. ACA, in fact, brags about how their audits can be used to paint a rosy picture of facilities with elected officials and as a tool against litigation.

But does ACA really produce fair and objective audits? Well, first, you have to consider that ACA is a pro-private corrections trade group. ACA exists for the purpose of showing to the public that private corrections works well. The group has a huge incentive to show that private jails and prisons are well run. For ACA to show otherwise in their audits is to cut their own throat.

Second, CCA pays ACA hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform audits on their facilities nationwide. Is ACA really going to come back with negative reports on ACA facilities when they might lose CCA’s business?

Finally, it should be noted that ACA audits are primarily a procedure and not an operational audit. ACA auditors are checking to see if certain procedures are in place, not whether those procedures are actually followed. When CCA and other private correctional companies promote the fact they have ACA certification, they leave out the very critical fact that an ACA audit is a procedures audit, not an operations audit.

How do these audits work in practice? Well, in 2005 ACA did an audit of Marion County Jail #2. In ACA’s report it indicates that 100 inmates were einterviewed and "virtually all xpressed satisfaction with the way they were treated.” The eport also says that the inmates "felt their access to medical care was all right, and they know how to access the grievance procedure and understood the disciplinary process. "

I am constantly being contacted by inmates or their families about problems at Jail #2, usually a lack of medical care. I have yet to run across the first inmate who has been interviewed during an ACA audit. The problems with inmates getting medical care and their medication a constant complaint of inmates, one that has been confirmed repeatedly by CCA’s own medical staff and is reflected in the large number of injuries and deaths at Jail #2. As far as grievances, I do not know of a single inmate at CCA/Jail #2 who has ever been allowed to complete the grievance process. That’s no accident. When inmates are not allowed to complete the grievance process, CCA’s attorneys can go to court and ask that any litigation filed against the private jail company be dismissed.

In the 2005 audit, ACA claimed to interview 70 staff members. According to CCA’s report, almost all were “eager to share the very positive things they have and are accomplished in corrections. Virtually all the staff was happy and enthusiastic about their jobs.” I have interviewed scores of employees of CCA/Jail #2 who tell a far, far different story. Not a single one of those employees were ever interviewed by ACA, even though most were at the facility during the time of the 2005 audit and were eager to talk to auditors to point out the problems at the facility. In the 2008 audit, ACA claims to talk to 111 “personnel” of Jail #2. Former CCA employees tell me they doubt the 111 people even work at the facility. Still I’m waiting to find that first non-managerial employee who was actually interviewed by ACA.

During the 2005 ACA audit, in which CCA/Jail #2 was rewarded with a 98% rating, it was noted that there had been no litigation against the facility for 3 years (a claim I find doubtful). By the 2008 audit though, it was noted that thirteen lawsuits had been filed in the previous three years. In those years, several inmates died at the facility, including, allegedly, for highly treatable situations, such as in an inmate not being treated for pneumonia, and inmates not being given their heart and blood pressure medication. So how did ACA judge Marion County Jail #2 in light of these lawsuits and deaths? Marion County Jail #2 went from 98% in 2005 to 99% in 2008.

Obviously Marion County Jail #2 is a well-run facility, right? Well, no. In an operations audit in 2005, the same year Jail #2 scored a 98% on the ACA audit, scores of problems at Marion County Jail #2 were noted. As noted in the documents posted below, 21 areas reviewed were found to be “Nonperforming” and 18 areas were labeled as “Needs Improvement.” It was noted that inmates requesting sick call were “Not seen in a timely manner” and that inmates who miss medication for three doses were not referred to a physician.” Mental health assessments were “Not being completed.” Inmates were not being screened for TB at intake. It was noted that there is “rarely a plan for treatment or followup” when health problems are noted during health appraisals. This last item in particular is a problem that has led to injuries and deaths at the facility.

Despite several deaths at the facility and other medical and safety problems, Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson, who contracts with CCA to run Jail #2, did not even bother to do an audit of the facility for at least the past three years. In 2007, again without even so much as doing an audit, he renewed CCA's contract for another 10 years.

When government officials privatize a service, they have to duty to diligently make sure that the contractor is living up to their contract and following law. Relying on an industry group like ACA for reassurance that the contractor is living up to the contract and following the law is a foolish approach to privatization.

*************

To enlarge, click on images.