Susan Montee, JD, CPA
Missouri State Auditor

CORRECTIONS

Department of Corrections

September 2009
Report No. 2009-103

auditor.mo.gov

Office of the
Missouri State Auditor
Susan Montee, JD, CPA

September 2009

The following report is our audit of the Department of Corrections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Significant General Revenue Fund monies, exceeding $2 million annually, were used to
subsidize correctional facility canteen operations. As discussed in our prior report, this
may be in violation of statutory provisions requiring the costs of goods and other
expenses to be paid by the canteen fund. In fiscal year 2004, the DOC began making
reimbursements from the Inmate Canteen Fund (ICF) to the General Revenue Fund for
the salaries of canteen managers, and these reimbursements totaled approximately $1.7
million for the 3 years ended June 30, 2008. However, significant additional expenses,
including canteen manager fringe benefit expenses, civilian canteen employee salaries
and benefits, inmate canteen worker wages, and various other operating expenses, are
paid from General Revenue Fund monies without reimbursement. During the 3 years
ended June 30, 2008, the ICF bank account balance has increased significantly and it
appears funds are available to fully reimburse the General Revenue Fund for canteen
related expenses without requiring an increase in canteen retail prices.
As noted in previous audits, the DOC continues to retain monies seized from offenders
who escaped from supervision, as well as monies remaining from old unredeemed canteen
coupons. During fiscal year 2007, the DOC began spending escapee monies. At June 30,
2008, the DOC was holding approximately $973,000 and $19,000 in escapee and coupon
monies, respectively. It is unclear whether the DOC has statutory authority to retain and
spend these monies. Although the DOC disagreed with the prior audit recommendations
that any such monies remaining after financial obligations are met should be considered
abandoned property and turned over to the State Treasurer's Office (STO) Unclaimed
Property Section, department officials did not consult with the STO to confirm the
accuracy of their understanding.
The Inmate Finance Office does not prepare financial reports of the ICF activities as
required by department policy and statements of department-wide ICF activities are not
provided to department management or the comptroller.
Inmate canteen operations need improvement. The DOC has implemented a centralized
point-of-sale inventory system; however, about half of the canteens do not maintain
perpetual inventory records on the system. Various concerns with expenditures from the
ICF were noted. Expenditure approval was not always documented as required by DOC
policy, and bids and price analyses were not always performed as required by DOC
policy. There is minimal oversight over the use of interest monies earned on the ICF bank
account and no policies relating to the interest monies have been established. Decisions
regarding the disposition of these monies are made by the Inmate Finance Officer (IFO).
The ICF earned interest totaling more than $1.6 million for the 3 years ended June 30,

2008, and the Interest Fund balance at June 30, 2008, was $983,655. As mentioned in our prior
report, the DOC does not maintain centralized records of canteen capital assets and has not
established sufficient procedures for monitoring canteen capital assets. The Canteen Operations
Policy does not require periodic physical inventories be performed and the IFO has not established
procedures to ensure canteen capital assets are tagged.
The DOC reimburses counties and the City of St. Louis more than $40 million each year for costs
incurred in the prosecution and incarceration of defendants sentenced to imprisonment in the DOC,
and the transportation of prisoners. Although detailed written procedures for reviewing the criminal
cost billings have been established and are being followed, these procedures have not detected some
significant billing errors that resulted in overpayments. Our review of 18 payments totaling
approximately $5.7 million to St. Louis County during the period March 2007 to May 2008,
identified 43 instances where the DOC improperly reimbursed the county for multiple billings for
the same prisoners and dates resulting in overpayments totaling at least $44,118. In addition, the
DOC has not established policies and procedures to periodically compare criminal cost billings to
the certification of prisoner incarceration days and/or jail records and relies on a manual review
process for paying thousands of claims each year. In addition, the DOC's interpretation of the state
law for reimbursing counties and the City of St. Louis for transporting convicted offenders to
reception and diagnostic centers may provide excess reimbursements for these services. Also, our
review of some extradition reimbursements and the related supporting documents found DOC
procedures need to address meal and lodging limits and include requirements for itemized receipts.
As noted in several prior audit reports, Missouri Vocational Enterprises (MVE) receipts are not
always transmitted for deposit on a timely basis. A cash count determined the MVE was holding
$153,968, some of which had been held up to 50 business days. In addition, we noted significant
conderns with the records and procedures over monies collected in the MVE Store. Receipt records
are poorly organized and lack proper documentation and controls. As a result, there is little
assurance all monies collected were accounted for properly and transmitted to the Accounts
Receivable Office.
Competitive bids/proposals were not solicited for fuel, attorney services, and physician services. The
DOC and the Office of Administration, Information Technology Division need to improve
procedures for monitoring cellular telephone usage. Some employee expense reimbursements
appeared excessive and/or were not supported with adequate documentation of actual expenses
incurred. The DOC may be paying more than necessary for meals provided to employees attending
training.
The DOC has not established formal written policies and procedures regarding the handling of old
Inmate Revolving Fund accounts receivable balances related to discontinued program fees.
The department's internal audit section is not fully independent of the activities it audits. Internal
audit engagements are determined by department policy, without utilizing risk assessment
procedures.
All reports are available on our Web site: auditor.mo.gov

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT ................................................................................................... 1-3
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT - STATE AUDITOR'S FINDINGS ....................... 4-31
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Description
Inmate Canteen Funding ..............................................................................5
Funds Held Outside the State Treasury and Financial Reporting................7
Inmate Canteen Operations ..........................................................................9
Cost Reimbursements ................................................................................14
Controls over Missouri Vocational Enterprises Receipts ..........................19
Expenditures ..............................................................................................23
Accounts Receivable..................................................................................28
Internal Audit .............................................................................................29

HISTORY, ORGANIZATION, AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION .............................. 32-56
Appendix

A-1
A-2
A-3

Combined Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, and
Changes in Cash and Investments, Year Ended June 30, 2008 ...........................................................................................39
June 30, 2007 ...........................................................................................40
June 30, 2006 ...........................................................................................41

B

Comparative Statement of Receipts,
Years Ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006 .............................................42

C

Comparative Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures,
Years Ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006 ....................................... 43-52

D

Comparative Statement of Expenditures (From Appropriations),
Five Years Ended June 30, 2008 ...............................................................53

E

Comparative Statement of Income, Expenses, and Net Income –
Inmate Canteen Fund,
Years Ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006 .............................................54

F

Comparative Statement of Income, Expenses, and Net Income –
Working Capital Revolving Fund,
Years Ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006 .............................................55

-i-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
HISTORY, ORGANIZATION, AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION .............................. 32-56
Appendix
G

Comparative Statement of General Capital Assets,
Years Ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006 .............................................56

-ii-

STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT

-1-

SUSAN MONTEE, JD, CPA
Missouri State Auditor

Honorable Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Governor
and
George Lombardi, Director
Jefferson City, Missouri
We have audited the Department of Corrections. The scope of our audit included, but
was not necessarily limited to, the years ended June 30, 2008, 2007, and 2006. The objectives of
our audit were to:
1.

Evaluate the department's internal controls over significant management and
financial functions.

2.

Evaluate the department's compliance with certain legal provisions.

3.

Evaluate the economy and efficiency of certain management practices and
operations, including certain revenues and expenditures.

Our methodology included reviewing written policies and procedures, financial records,
and other pertinent documents; interviewing various personnel of the department, as well as
certain external parties; and testing selected transactions.
We obtained an understanding of internal controls that are significant within the context
of the audit objectives and assessed whether such controls have been properly designed and
placed in operation. We also tested certain of those controls to obtain evidence regarding the
effectiveness of their design and operation. However, providing an opinion on the effectiveness
of internal controls was not an objective of our audit and accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.
We obtained an understanding of legal provisions that are significant within the context
of the audit objectives, and we assessed the risk that illegal acts, including fraud, and violations
of contract, or other legal provisions could occur. Based on that risk assessment, we designed
and performed procedures to provide reasonable assurance of detecting instances of
noncompliance significant to those provisions. However, providing an opinion on compliance
with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and accordingly, we do not express such
an opinion. Abuse, which refers to behavior that is deficient or improper when compared with

-2P.O. Box 869 • Jefferson City, MO 65102 • (573) 751-4213 • FAX (573) 751-7984

behavior that a prudent person would consider reasonable and necessary given the facts and
circumstances, does not necessarily involve noncompliance with legal provisions. Because the
determination of abuse is subjective, our audit is not required to provide reasonable assurance of
detecting abuse.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards applicable to performance
audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform our audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides such a basis.
The accompanying History, Organization, and Statistical Information is presented for
informational purposes. This information was obtained from the department's management and
was not subjected to the procedures applied in our audit of the department.
The accompanying Management Advisory Report presents our findings arising from our
audit of the Department of Corrections.

Susan Montee, JD, CPA
State Auditor
The following auditors participated in the preparation of this report:
Director of Audits:
Audit Manager:
In-Charge Auditor:
Audit Staff:

John Luetkemeyer, CPA
Regina Pruitt, CPA
Kim Spraggs, CPA
James M. Applegate, MBA
Seth Sanders
Tanisha Ursery
Darrell Wolken

-3-

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT STATE AUDITOR'S FINDINGS

-4-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY REPORT STATE AUDITOR'S FINDINGS
1.

Inmate Canteen Funding

The Department of Corrections (DOC) uses significant General Revenue Fund monies to
subsidize correctional facility canteen operations. This funding exceeded $2 million per
year for the 3 years ended June 30, 2008. As discussed in our prior report, the use of
General Revenue Fund monies for this purpose may be in violation of statutory
provisions requiring the costs of goods and other expenses to be paid by the canteen fund.
The Inmate Canteen Fund (ICF) accounts for the purchase of goods and the sale of those
goods to inmates through the inmate canteens located in each institution. The canteens
stock and sell numerous products such as soda, tobacco products, hygiene items, snack
foods, radios, and televisions. Profits from the canteen sales are designated for the use
and benefit of the offenders through purchases of recreational, religious, or educational
services. In recent years, canteen sales have exceeded $29 million each year. The Inmate
Finance Office (IFO) manages the ICF which is held outside the state treasury. During
the 3 years ended June 30, 2008, the ICF bank account balance increased significantly,
from approximately $7.8 million at July 1, 2005, to approximately $15.3 million at June
30, 2008 (an average annual increase of $2.5 million).
Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the DOC began making reimbursements from the ICF to
the General Revenue Fund for the salaries of 20 canteen managers.
These
reimbursements totaled approximately $595,400, $541,900, and $553,000 for fiscal years
2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. However, there are additional expenses paid from
General Revenue Fund monies that are not reimbursed, including:
•
•
•
•

Fringe benefit expenses associated with the salaries of 20 canteen managers.
These expenses totaled approximately $200,000 per year for fiscal years 2008,
2007, and 2006.
Salaries and benefits associated with additional civilian canteen employees.
These expenses totaled more than $1.6 million during fiscal year 2008 for 40 fulltime and 7 part-time employees.
Inmate canteen worker wages totaling approximately $265,400, $252,800, and
$193,100 for fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Other operating expenses, such as utility costs, space utilization, IFO
administrative costs, etc., which are more difficult to identify to the canteens.

The ICF was established under Section 217.195, RSMo, which includes the requirement
that, "The acquisition cost of goods sold and other expenses [emphasis added] shall be
paid from this account." Based on this statutory language, it appears the operational costs
related to the canteens should be paid from the earnings from canteen sales. In addition,
considering the annual increases in the ICF's cash and investment balance, funds appear
-5-

to be available to fully reimburse the General Revenue Fund for salary and fringe benefit
expenses without requiring an increase in canteen retail prices.
Department officials believe some subsidization of ICF operating expenses is warranted
because the canteens discharge major DOC constitutional obligations to provide inmates
with the basic necessities of life as well as access to the courts through writing supplies
and stamps. Further, officials believe offering certain items for purchase in the canteens
may reduce DOC operating costs. For example, fewer corrections officers are needed to
supervise those inmates who choose to stay in their cells to watch televisions purchased
at the canteens instead of going to the recreation areas.
However, DOC officials have not quantified the costs of the constitutional obligations
and/or the extent of savings to the department due to the canteen operations and
compared these amounts to the overall General Revenue Fund subsidy of the canteen
operations. Officials also indicated, and we acknowledge, that some costs which are not
tracked by specific function, such as utilities and administrative costs of the IFO, are
difficult to identify to the canteens.
The DOC should discontinue the practice of subsidizing the ICF with General Revenue
Fund appropriations. All operating costs of the ICF activities should be determined, and
reimbursed to the appropriate fund. Any adjustments to the reimbursements for
departmental savings or costs related to constitutional obligations should be supported by
sufficient analysis and documentation.
WE RECOMMEND the DOC discontinue the practice of subsidizing the operations of
the ICF with General Revenue Fund appropriations and reimburse the state's General
Revenue Fund as appropriate.
AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
The Department partially concurs with this recommendation. The ultimate outcome of any
computations will not be exact (as acknowledged by the auditors), but rather an estimate based
upon a number of factors that are constantly changing. This approach appears to be contrary to
the premise that reimbursing the General Revenue Fund should be based on actual costs.
Nonetheless, the DOC will endeavor to establish a methodology to reimburse the General
Revenue Fund and will regularly review and adjust this methodology.
It should be noted that any expenditures redirected from the ICF to reimburse the General
Revenue Fund also diminishes ICF available "for the benefit of offenders in the improvement of
recreational, religious, or educational services." If sufficient ICF funds are not available for
these services, the DOC would request General Revenue Funds to augment funding for these
services.

-6-

2.

Funds Held Outside the State Treasury and Financial Reporting

The DOC has confiscated over $1 million from offenders who escaped or absconded
from supervision, and has spent some of these monies while retaining some for future
uses. Unredeemed coupon monies totaling over $19,000 have been held without any
disposition by the department. In addition, financial reporting procedures for the ICF are
not sufficient.
The DOC maintains two significant funds, the Inmate Account Fund (IAF) and the ICF,
outside the state treasury. Since these funds are held outside the state treasury, there is
less oversight and the internal controls applicable to these funds are the responsibility of
the department. The DOC receives monies for and from offenders, and these monies are
accounted for in the IAF where each offender has an individual account that functions
much like a bank account. For the 3 years ended June 30, 2008, more than $30 million in
offender monies were processed through this fund annually and the fund balance totaled
approximately $3.1 million at June 30, 2008. As described in Management Advisory
Report (MAR) finding number 1, the ICF accounts for canteen activities at each of the
institutions. More than $29 million in canteen sales were processed through this fund
annually and the fund balance totaled approximately $15.3 million at June 30, 2008.
A.

As noted in previous audits, the DOC continues to retain monies seized from
offenders who escaped or absconded from supervision as well as monies
remaining from old unredeemed canteen coupons. During fiscal year 2007, the
DOC began spending escapee monies. However, it is unclear whether the DOC
has statutory authority to retain and spend these monies. At June 30, 2008, the
DOC was holding approximately $973,000 and $19,000, in escapee and coupon
monies, respectively.
•

Escapee monies consist of funds held by the DOC in inmates' accounts at the
time of their escape, less withholdings for certain inmate obligations such as
court ordered obligations and child support. At June 30, 2008, escapee
monies totaling approximately $640,000 were held in the IAF. In addition,
during fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the DOC transferred a total of $500,000 in
escapee monies from the IAF to the ICF to fund various computer upgrades
and purchase equipment for the IFO. As of June 30, 2008, approximately
$167,000 had been spent, resulting in an unspent balance of approximately
$333,000. There was no supporting documentation regarding the approval of
the transfer and/or use of the escapee monies. According to DOC personnel,
the transfer and subsequent expenditures were verbally authorized by the
department's Deputy Director and Comptroller.

•

For more than 9 years, the DOC has held over $19,000 in the ICF related to
canteen coupons that were sold, but never redeemed by the inmates for
various reasons, such as losing the coupons or leaving the institution. The

-7-

department is unable to identify the inmates who did not spend the coupons.
The department has not spent any of these coupon monies.
The confiscation and retention of the escapee monies and failure to dispose of
unredeemed coupon monies was addressed in our previous audit reports. We
recommended the DOC follow guidance provided in Chapter 447, RSMo, and
transmit both escapee monies remaining after any financial obligations (such as
court ordered obligations, child support, and costs of incarceration) have been
met, as well as the unredeemed coupon monies to the State Treasurer's Office
(STO) Unclaimed Property Section. Chapter 447, RSMo, provides that
abandoned property once belonging to persons known or unknown should be
turned over to the STO. DOC officials disagreed with the prior audit
recommendations, responding that Chapter 447, RSMo, does not apply to the
DOC and they believe the handling of these funds is in compliance with various
statutory provisions, court rulings, and department policy. However, DOC
officials have not consulted with the STO to confirm the accuracy of their
understanding.
Due to the absence of clear statutory authority for the DOC to retain and spend
confiscated escapee and coupon monies, the DOC should resolve the issue with
the STO and/or seek legislative authority allowing these monies to be retained and
spent by the department. If spending authorization is obtained, the DOC should
ensure appropriate approval is obtained and sufficiently documented for transfers
and expenditures of funds.
B.

The IFO does not prepare financial reports of the ICF activities as required by
department policy.
Individual income statements and estimates of available funds are periodically
provided to each canteen, and copies are provided to the division directors.
However, statements of department-wide ICF activities, including the interest and
central fund sub-accounts, are not provided to department management or the
comptroller.
DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Section III.D, requires the Offender
Finance Officer to ". . . complete and distribute monthly financial statements,
year-end reports by institution and a consolidation for all institutions to the
appropriate division directors and chief administrative officer and the comptroller
of fiscal management for each month's operation." Monthly and yearly financial
statements of department-wide ICF activities should be prepared and made
available to department management and the comptroller so they are aware of the
activities of the ICF and effective decisions regarding the fund can be made.

-8-

WE RECOMMEND the DOC:
A.

Resolve the issue with the STO and/or seek legislative authority allowing escapee
and coupon monies to be retained and spent by the department before any
additional monies are spent. If it is determined these monies can be spent by the
DOC, the department should ensure appropriate approval is obtained and
sufficiently documented for transfers and expenditures of funds.

B.

Ensure ICF financial statements are prepared and made available to appropriate
DOC officials in accordance with department policies.

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department disagrees with this recommendation. With respect to both escapee
balances and unredeemed coupon moneys, we assert that this inmate personal property is
governed by DOC policy pursuant to the power delegated to DOC by the legislature in
section 217.197 RSMo, and that Chapter 447 RSMo does not apply to the property at
issue. In addition, with respect to escapee balances held by the DOC, we assert that
existing case law with respect to escapee's property is applicable and is consistent with
DOC policy and practice. See Herron v. Whiteside, 782 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. App. 1989)
(inmate's escape consisted of abandonment of personal property, divests owner of title,
and becomes as if inmate never had any interest in it); Charron v. Thompson, 939 S.W.2d
885 (Mo. banc 1996) (legislature delegated to prison officials the responsibilities about
making decisions about inmate property control).

B.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. Regular financial statements will be
prepared and made available to appropriate DOC officials.

3.

Inmate Canteen Operations

Established perpetual inventory records are not used by many institutions, expenditure
approval and price comparison procedures do not always comply with policy, adequate
policies and procedures regarding the retention and use of interest earnings have not been
established, and procedures and records related to capital assets are lacking.
A.

The DOC has implemented a centralized point-of-sale inventory system; however,
many of the canteens do not maintain perpetual inventory records on the system.
According to DOC officials, managers of 11 of 20 (55 percent) canteens maintain
perpetual inventory records on the point-of-sale system. However, the remaining
canteens have developed various other inventory records that are often not
complete perpetual records of all items for sale. Canteens are required to utilize
the point-of-sale system to sell items in the canteens, but they are not required to
maintain inventory records on the system. As a result, the system cannot be
utilized to determine and analyze canteen inventories on a department-wide basis.

-9-

DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Section III.A.2, requires canteens
conduct monthly inventory counts of all canteen items; however, the policy only
requires perpetual inventory records be maintained for expensive and high-risk
items such as radios, CD players, and televisions. Without complete perpetual
inventory records, as provided through the point-of-sale system, the benefits of
the physical inventory procedure are diminished; inventory variances are not
identified or reported to DOC management; and the risk of undetected loss, theft,
or misuse of inventory is increased. Effective inventory internal controls require
perpetual records to be maintained on all inventory items and that a reconciliation
of the balances obtained during the physical inventory count and the balances
recorded on the perpetual inventory records be performed. To provide assurance
canteens maintain proper inventory procedures, the DOC should revise canteen
inventory policies to require canteens use the point-of-sale system to maintain
perpetual inventory records and compare those records to the monthly inventory
counts.
B.

Various concerns with expenditures from the ICF were noted. Expenditure
approval was not always documented as required by DOC policy, and bids and
price analyses were not always performed as required by DOC policy.
Oversight of the canteens is vested in institutional and central canteen
committees. The DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Sections III.B.1 and
III.B.2, outline committee membership compositions and duties. The institutional
committees meet quarterly to consider and approve specific purchases for the
benefit of offenders. Purchase authorization is documented in the meeting
minutes and quarterly budget requests are submitted to the IFO for review and
approval.
The central canteen committee considers institutional canteen
committee recommendations, periodically evaluates sales, and is responsible for
establishing and updating a master canteen list of items authorized for sale in the
canteens. We noted the following concerns related to the ICF expenditures:
1)

Three of 14 canteen purchases reviewed were not supported by
documentation of institutional canteen committee approval. The IFO
should ensure all ICF expenditures are approved by the institutional
canteen committee as required by DOC policy.

2)

The IFO has not established sufficient procedures to ensure canteen
bidding policies are followed. For 4 of 12 canteen purchases reviewed,
bids or price comparisons were not obtained or documented as required by
DOC policy.

-10-

Items
Canteen resale - various food items
Canteen resale - candy
Microwaves (20 units)
Delivery of dirt/topsoil

$

Year Ended June 30,
2008
2007
62,304
4,234
5,500
3,460

Some of the items above consisted of individual purchases that were less
than $3,000, but exceeded $3,000 in total for the year. The Inmate
Finance Officer acknowledged the canteen employees need additional
training regarding bid requirements, particularly the requirements
pertaining to aggregate purchases during a period of 1 year. Some were
purchases of items for resale, for which the IFO could not provide
documentation of price analyses. The DOC internal audits of some
canteen operations have also found instances where comparative price
analyses were not prepared for resale items as required by policy.
DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Section III.D.10, requires
canteens to strive to obtain three bids for purchases of items with an
anticipated yearly aggregate cost of $3,000 or more. For items purchased
for resale, DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Section III.A.4,
requires when canteens buy items not offered under already established
DOC vendor contracts, a comparative price analysis shall be prepared for
each item. In addition, a summary of the price analysis obtained during
the previous 12-month period shall be provided to the comptroller each
July.
The IFO should ensure competitive bids are solicited and price analyses
are conducted in accordance with DOC policy.
C.

There is minimal oversight over the use of interest monies earned on the ICF bank
account and no policies relating to the interest monies have been established.
Decisions regarding the disposition of these monies are made by the Inmate
Finance Officer.
The ICF earned interest totaling approximately $632,700, $575,400, and
$454,800, in fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The IFO accounts
for the interest earned and expenditures of those monies in an ICF sub-account
called the Interest Fund. The Interest Fund balance at June 30, 2008, was
$983,655.
The Offender Finance Officer indicated Interest Fund monies are spent on
purchases that benefit all inmates. During fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006,
Interest Fund monies were spent toward several new processes implemented by
the IFO, including a system for electronic inmate discharge payments; an inmate
account receipts document scanning, imaging, and recording system; and a kiosk

-11-

system with which inmates can check their account activity and balance. In
addition, the funds were used for movies for the inmates, various IFO computer
upgrades, and other IFO administrative expenditures.
Although the DOC has established policies requiring committee approval of all
other ICF expenditures as discussed in part B above, no policies address the
interest monies. To ensure proper oversight and procedures, policies should be
developed to address interest income retention, appropriate uses of the interest
funds, and expenditure approval guidelines. The DOC should consider requiring
approval from an independent committee similar to all other ICF expenditures.
D.

Canteen capital asset procedures need improvement. As noted in our prior report,
the DOC does not maintain centralized records of canteen capital assets and has
not established sufficient procedures for monitoring canteen capital assets. The
following problems regarding canteen capital asset records and procedures were
noted:
•

A centralized system for tracking canteen capital assets is not maintained.
DOC Canteen Operations Policy D3-9.1, Section III.E.6, requires each
canteen maintain a detailed listing of capital assets; however, our review noted
some canteens are not maintaining adequate listings. We requested capital
asset listings from five institution canteen managers. One of the canteens did
not maintain such a listing; while the listings provided by the other four
canteens varied with regard to level of details provided and in some cases did
not contain some required information, such as date of purchase, serial
numbers, and location. DOC internal auditors have also identified inadequate
capital asset records at several canteens.

•

Unlike the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 15 CSR 40-2.031, and the
department's property control policy, the Canteen Operations Policy does not
require periodic physical inventories be performed. Physical inventory
procedures were discussed with the five canteen managers mentioned above.
One canteen manager indicated employees periodically spot check
approximately 25 percent of the assets, but could not provide documentation
of such spot checks. Another canteen manager provided documentation from
a September 2007 physical inventory count and, although the count showed
25 (approximately 8 percent) of the canteen assets were unaccounted for, the
canteen manager indicated no efforts had been made to resolve the
discrepancies. The other three canteen managers indicated they do not
perform any physical inventory procedures.

•

The IFO has not established procedures to ensure canteen capital assets are
tagged for specific identification. All canteen purchases are processed by the
IFO; however, the IFO does not automatically issue a property tag for each
applicable item. Instead, the IFO issues tags to the business managers upon
request without ensuring tags are issued for each applicable item. DOC

-12-

internal auditors have identified instances where capital assets were not
properly tagged at several canteens.
Adequate capital asset records and procedures are necessary to ensure better
internal controls; safeguard assets which are susceptible to loss, theft, or misuse;
and comply with state and department policies. The DOC should consider
modifying canteen capital assets policy to be more consistent with state
regulations and department policies. In addition, consideration should be given to
implementing centralized canteen capital assets records and providing more
monitoring of individual canteen procedures either through the IFO or internal
audit function to ensure assets are properly tagged, records are accurate, and
physical inventories performed as appropriate.
WE RECOMMEND the DOC:
A.

Revise canteen inventory policies to require canteens use the point-of-sale system
to maintain perpetual inventory records and compare those records to the monthly
inventory counts.

B.1.

Ensure all ICF expenditures are approved by the institutional canteen committee
as required by DOC policy.

2.

Ensure competitive bids are solicited and price analyses are conducted in
accordance with DOC policy.

C.

Establish policies regarding the appropriate uses and authorization of
expenditures of interest monies. The DOC should consider requiring approval
from an independent committee similar to all other ICF expenditures.

D.

Amend the DOC Canteen Operations Policy to require periodic physical
inventories of canteen capital assets. In addition, procedures to ensure canteens
are properly tagging canteen property and maintaining complete and accurate
records should be established in accordance with the policy and state regulations.
The DOC should consider implementing centralized canteen capital asset records
and procedures to facilitate these improvements.

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. In a memorandum from the Director
of Adult Institutions dated July 14, 2009, all DOC sites were directed to begin utilizing
the point-of-sale system to maintain perpetual inventories.

B.1.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. Department procedures clearly
outline the process by which ICF expenditures are approved by the institutional canteen
committees and submitted to Central Office for final approval. Other centralized
expenditures are approved by appropriate staff to ensure compliance with statutorily

-13-

authorized use of these funds. This process will be outlined and included in the next
revision to department policy.
2.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. The DOC will ensure competitive
bids are solicited and appropriate price analyses are conducted in accordance with
policy.

C.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. The DOC has historically followed
a standard practice for the approval and utilization of interest funds and will formalize
this practice into a department policy.

D.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. A database of all canteen capital
assets has been developed to track these assets. In addition, beginning in fiscal year
2010 the DOC will include canteen capital assets in the routine inventories conducted by
property control staff.

4.

Cost Reimbursements

The DOC reimburses counties and the City of St. Louis for costs incurred in the
prosecution and incarceration of defendants sentenced to imprisonment in the DOC,
transporting prisoners to the reception and diagnostic centers, and transporting extradited
prisoners. Our review noted 1) procedures to monitor county and/or city criminal cost
reimbursement claims are not sufficient to detect certain over billings, 2) the DOC's
interpretation of the law providing for prisoner transportation may provide for payments
in excess of the intent of the law, 3) guidelines and limits for reimbursements of
extradition expenses have not been developed, and 4) records and procedures need
improvement to ensure cost reimbursements are made on a timely basis.
The responsibility for processing the cost reimbursements was transferred from the
Office of Administration (OA) to the DOC in fiscal year 2007. At that time, the
employee primarily responsible for receiving, reviewing, and processing the
reimbursement requests was transferred to the DOC. Reimbursements to the counties
and the City of St. Louis for criminal costs, transportation of prisoners to the reception
and diagnostic centers, and transportation of extradited prisoners total over $40 million
each year. The majority of the overall reimbursements pertain to incarceration costs.
While Section 221.105, RSMo, provides the DOC can pay up to $37.50 per offender per
day; the reimbursement rate, which is dependent on appropriations, is significantly less.
Effective July 1, 2007, the rate was $21.25 per day. A rate increase to $22.50 was
included in the department's fiscal year 2009 budget request, but was not approved.
Department officials are aware the current rate is not sufficient to cover actual costs of
offender incarceration.
A.

Although detailed written procedures for reviewing criminal cost billings have
been established and are being followed, these procedures have not detected some
significant billing errors that resulted in overpayments. In addition, the billing

-14-

process is manual, monitoring procedures are labor intensive, and the DOC has
not taken advantage of improvements in technology to prevent and/or detect
improper billings. Criminal cost reimbursements totaled approximately $35.7
million and $35.6 million in fiscal years 2008 and 2007, respectively.
1)

Our review of 18 payments (each relating to multiple prisoners and dates
of incarceration) totaling approximately $5.7 million to St. Louis County
during the period March 2007 to May 2008, identified 43 instances where
the DOC improperly reimbursed the county for multiple billings for the
same prisoners and dates. These overpayments totaled at least $44,118.
For one prisoner, the county billed $3,864 for the same incarceration dates
on three different billings, resulting in a $7,728 overpayment. Criminal
cost reimbursements to St. Louis County represented 13 percent and 11
percent of total statewide reimbursements for fiscal years 2008 and 2007,
respectively. These errors were not detected by DOC personnel because
review procedures are limited to the current billing and do not include a
comparison of current billings to previous billings.
The DOC reviews appear to be effective in identifying various instances
of improper billings related to duplicate claims (billing for the same
prisoner(s) for the same days within the same billing period), late billings,
and excess days billed.
When such errors are identified, the
reimbursement amounts are properly reduced. However, when numerous
and frequent errors are identified, the DOC should consider expanding the
review period, requesting supporting records, and working with the billing
entity to resolve the cause to curtail future billing errors.
For example, the DOC's review of the St. Louis County billings for June
and July 2007 identified many errors. The reimbursement amounts were
reduced by $20,500 (4 percent of the billing) and $22,800 (6 percent of the
billing) for June and July, respectively, due to duplicate claims on the
same billing and/or claims exceeding the 2 year claim filing deadline.
Although the DOC identified significant instances of duplicate claims,
procedures were not expanded to compare to other billing periods.
Department personnel indicated they do not have enough staff to perform
such a detailed review. Also, although these billings and others contained
numerous errors requiring adjustment to billed amounts, the DOC had not
contacted St. Louis County to address these deficiencies and possible
solutions, and to prevent similar errors in the future.

2)

The DOC has not established policies and procedures to periodically
compare criminal cost billings to the certification of prisoner incarceration
days and/or jail records. Discussion with DOC employees and review of
records found the certification of prisoner incarceration days is
infrequently requested from a city or county, and only for instances where
the prison stay was extensive (i.e., over a year). Periodic comparison of

-15-

billings to supporting records would help ensure only actual prisoner
incarceration days incurred are reimbursed.
3)

The DOC relies on a manual review process and should give consideration
to more effective alternatives. Counties and the City of St. Louis complete
and mail criminal costs reimbursement forms to the DOC, and department
personnel manually review the claims. More than 21,000 criminal cost
claims and an additional 9,800 transportation and extradition claims were
paid during fiscal year 2008. The DOC has designated a full-time
employee, with some assistance from another employee, to review these
claims. To provide greater efficiency and error detection, the DOC should
consider converting to an electronic billing system containing sufficient
edit checks.

Chapter 550 and Section 221.105, RSMo, outline the responsibilities and
requirements for preparing criminal cost billings, which include 1) certification of
the number of prisoner incarceration days by the Sheriff/City Jail Superintendent;
2) preparation of the billings by the Circuit Clerk/City Chief Executive Officer,
including a certification that he/she has not previously submitted the same claims;
and 3) examination and certification of the accuracy of the bill by the judge and
prosecuting attorney.
To ensure incarceration costs are not reimbursed more than once, the DOC should
compare current billings to previous billings. In addition, policies and procedures
should be developed to periodically verify the billings to supporting records.
Conversion to an electronic billing system, containing sufficient edit checks,
could increase efficiency and improve the DOC's ability to monitor the billings
for accuracy.
B.

The DOC's interpretation of state law for reimbursing counties and the City of St.
Louis for transporting convicted offenders to reception and diagnostic centers
may provide excess reimbursements for these services. Prisoner transportation
reimbursements totaled approximately $1.9 and $1.8 million in fiscal years 2008
and 2007, respectively.
Current reimbursement procedures and the certificate of delivery form for
transportation reimbursements were developed many years ago by the OA. DOC
prisoner transportation reimbursement procedures provide the following five
components for each trip to and from a reception and diagnostic center:
•
•
•
•
•

Eight dollars per day per Sheriff or other officer.
Six dollars per day per guard (allowed when three or more prisoners are
transported or if ordered by a judge).
Round trip mileage for each Sheriff or officer.
Round trip mileage for each guard.
One-way mileage for each prisoner.

-16-

While the first four components are clearly authorized by state law providing for
reimbursement of prisoner transportation costs; the fifth component is not.
Section 57.290.2, RSMo, states ". . . the mileage rate prescribed by this section for
each mile traveled shall be allowed to the sheriff to cover all expenses on each
convicted offender while being taken to the reception and diagnostic center . . ."
This statute could be interpreted to provide reimbursements in the manner used by
the DOC, or to not allow mileage for prisoners.
The state law has been interpreted by the OA (and continued by the DOC) to
provide payment for mileage for each prisoner. Under this interpretation, the
reimbursement of trips from the same location varies based on the number of
prisoners transported even though the trips may cost approximately the same
regardless of the number of prisoners transported. For example, a county was
reimbursed for a 1-day trip, in which a deputy Sheriff and a guard transported 23
prisoners to the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center. The county was paid
$2,240 for this trip, which included mileage totaling $1,896 for the prisoners. For
another trip to the same center, the same county was reimbursed $1,581 for
transporting 15 prisoners, again claiming expenses for one deputy Sheriff and one
guard. The reimbursement would have been $344 for each of these trips, if
mileage was not provided for each prisoner.
DOC personnel indicated they continue to utilize procedures established by the
OA and have not reviewed these procedures or sought legal advice to determine if
they are in compliance with the state law. Given the ambiguity of the state law,
the DOC should evaluate its current prisoner transportation reimbursement
procedures and consider amending procedures to provide for reimbursements that
more closely approximate actual mileage costs. In addition, the DOC should
consider seeking legislative changes or legal opinions regarding any issues
needing clarification.
C.

The DOC reimburses for extradition costs pursuant to Section 548.241, RSMo,
and has developed procedures requiring submission of receipts. However, our
review of some reimbursements and the related supporting documents found DOC
procedures need to address meal and lodging limits and include requirements for
itemized receipts.
Extradition reimbursements totaled approximately $2.4 million and $2.6 million
in fiscal years 2008 and 2007, respectively. Our review of some reimbursements
made in March and August 2007, totaling approximately $192,300, noted the
following:
•

Several lodging reimbursements appeared excessive. For example, the DOC
reimbursed one county $199 per night in both Phoenix, Arizona and
Sacramento, California, while CONUS rates (federal per diem maximums for
the Continental United States established by the U.S. General Services
Administration) were $141 and $103 per night, respectively.

-17-

•

Several meal reimbursements reviewed were supported only by a credit card
receipt, with no details regarding the meals served or documentation of the
number of individuals eating. These individual meal reimbursements ranged
from $33 to $71. Without sufficient documentation, the propriety and
reasonableness of meal expenses cannot be determined.

Each extradition reimbursement claim is approved by the Governor's office and
then reviewed and processed for payment by DOC personnel. DOC personnel
indicated they do review claims for excessive expenses and unsupported
expenditures and have reduced certain claims; however, no guidelines defining
what is allowable have been established and itemized invoices for meals are not
required.
The DOC should develop a detailed extradition policy to provide guidance to the
counties and the City of St. Louis. This policy should include guidelines
regarding maximum lodging and meal costs allowable for reimbursement and
outline supporting documentation requirements. Adequate review procedures
should be in place to ensure compliance with the policy.
D.

The DOC's records and procedures to monitor the timeliness of cost
reimbursements are not sufficient. Our review of five payments to counties
and/or the City of St. Louis noted payment dates ranged from 3 weeks to 4
months after the date the reimbursement claim was prepared. The DOC does not
track claims by receipt date or have established timeframes within which
reimbursements are to be processed. Department personnel indicated they
consolidate claims into one payment after a reasonable number have been
received. However, criteria for determining a reasonable number, amount, or age
of claims have not been established. Monitoring reimbursement claim receipt
dates and making prompt reimbursement payments is important for several
reasons. Section 33.120, RSMo, requires bills to be submitted to the state within
2 years after reimbursable expenses have been accrued. Without proper tracking,
bills submitted outside the allotted timeframe could be paid in error. In addition,
untimely reimbursements may increase the possibility for claims to be resubmitted and the potential for duplicate payments. Finally, the City of St. Louis
and counties should receive timely reimbursements for costs already incurred.

WE RECOMMEND the DOC:
A.

Expand monitoring procedures to ensure payments for criminal costs represent
actual costs incurred. These procedures should include a comparison of current
billings to previous billings and a periodic comparison to certifications of prisoner
incarceration days by jail personnel and/or jail records. The DOC should consider
developing an electronic billing system that contains sufficient edit checks
designed to prevent and detect improper payments. Finally, the DOC should
identify and recoup overpayments for duplicate criminal costs claims.

-18-

B.

Review current prisoner transportation reimbursement procedures and consider
amending procedures to provide for reimbursements that more closely represent
actual mileage costs. Any legal matters needing clarification should be resolved
by seeking applicable legislation or legal opinions.

C.

Develop and adopt a policy regarding extradition reimbursements. The policy
should establish guidelines regarding maximum lodging and meal costs allowable
for reimbursement and outline supporting documentation requirements.

D.

Establish procedures to monitor and ensure reimbursements are paid timely.

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department partially concurs with this recommendation. A credit was taken in July
2009 to recoup the duplicate criminal cost claims identified by the auditors. Discussions
are on-going with St. Louis County officials to develop a mutually acceptable process
designed to eliminate any future duplicate billings. Once established, the DOC will
attempt to employ similar procedures with other counties where the potential for
duplicate billings may exist. The DOC believes its current practices are sufficient to
detect duplicate billings for the vast majority of counties. The potential for duplicate
billings appears to exist primarily at the larger counties.
Due to the various levels of technology employed by all 114 counties in Missouri, the
DOC believes it is unreasonable and unwise to put the sole burden of developing such a
system on the DOC. Instead, the DOC will work with representatives from the Office of
State Court Administrators, Office of Administration - Information Technology Services
Division (OA-ITSD), and others as appropriate to collaborate on an acceptable solution
that can be deployed in all 114 counties in Missouri.

B.

The Department will consider applicable legislative changes to further clarify reasonable
prisoner transportation reimbursements.

C.

The Department partially concurs with this recommendation. We have notified the
county sheriffs that effective July 1, 2009 extradition claims will be reviewed for
compliance with existing CONUS rates. Although the DOC may establish procedures to
govern extradition reimbursement claims, the DOC has no statutory authority to enforce
compliance by the sheriffs.

D.

The Department concurs with this recommendation and will develop procedures to
monitor the timeliness of reimbursements.

5.

Controls over Missouri Vocational Enterprises Receipts

Missouri Vocational Enterprises (MVE) receipts are not always transmitted to the DOR
on a timely basis. In addition, controls over monies collected in the MVE Store need

-19-

improvement. MVE receipts from product sales totaled approximately $36.3 million,
$28.7 million, and $28.5 million during fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
More than 70 percent of MVE receipts are electronic transfers from various state
agencies.
MVE receipts are collected in three main areas: MVE Central Office Sales, Customer
Service (mail receipts), and the MVE Store. The monies received by these areas are
transmitted to the MVE Accounts Receivable Office which then transmits the monies to
the Department of Revenue (DOR) for deposit.
A.

As similarly discussed in several prior audit reports, MVE receipts are not always
transmitted to the DOR on a timely basis. A cash count performed on April 15,
2008, determined the MVE was holding $153,968 comprised of receipts that had
been received by various MVE areas; some of which had been held up to 50
business days. Our review of those receipts and the subsequent transmittals noted
the following concerns:
•

Cash totaling $557 and 39 checks totaling $6,808 were transmitted for deposit
more than 5 business days after receipt. The cash and 32 of the 39 checks
totaling $5,610 were employee sales receipts collected by Central Office Sales
and the MVE Store, both of which transmit receipts to the Accounts
Receivable Office only once a week. These receipts were transmitted to the
DOR for deposit 6 to 15 business days after receipt. The remaining 7 checks
totaling $1,198 were mail receipts which the Accounts Receivable Office held
6 to 50 business days prior to transmittal.

•

Two other checks totaling $503 had been received March 12, 2008, and
March 23, 2008; but had not been transmitted to DOR as of our review on
April 30, 2008.

MVE personnel indicated the Central Office Sales and the MVE store prepare
weekly transmittals to the MVE Accounts Receivable Office because receipts are
not significant for these areas. However, we noted Central Office Sales and MVE
Store transmittals averaged $2,750 and $842, respectively, per week during fiscal
year 2008. They also indicated the MVE does not have enough Accounts
Receivable staff to make more frequent transmittals.
To adequately safeguard cash receipts and reduce the risk of loss or misuse of
funds, monies should be transmitted for deposit more timely. Central Office Sales
and the MVE Store should make more frequent transmittals to the Accounts
Receivable Office, and the Accounts Receivable Office should transmit all MVE
receipts to the DOR on a timely basis.
B.

In addition to untimely transmittals of receipts noted above, significant problems
were noted with the records and procedures of monies collected in the MVE
Store. Receipt records are poorly organized and lack proper documentation and

-20-

controls. As a result, there is little assurance all monies collected were accounted
for properly and transmitted to the Accounts Receivable Office.
The MVE Store offers items for immediate purchase, such as trash bags, clothing,
clearance and discontinued items, metal outdoor equipment, and certain other
items. The MVE Store was established in February 2006 to speed the process by
which state employees purchase smaller, more popular products. Previously, state
employees had to purchase these items by placing an order in Central Office Sales
and picking up the item(s) at the warehouse. The MVE Store is operated by a
storekeeper, a part-time employee, and two inmates. These employees also
operate the MVE dry cleaning business. MVE Store transmittals totaled $43,800
in fiscal year 2008, approximately half of which was cash.
Store procedures require a manual four-part sales order form be completed for
each sale, indicating the date, item(s) purchased, quantity, price, and total sale.
The customer certifies that he/she is a state employee and the purchase is not for
resale, by signing the form. The sales order form serves as a both a receipt for the
customer and a transaction record which is entered into the MVE accounting
system. Our review identified numerous concerns as noted below:
1)

Prenumbered sales order forms are not issued sequentially and the
numerical sequence is not accounted for properly. A review of sales order
forms numbered 1300 through 1350, issued in 2008, noted various
problems as illustrated in the table and discussed below:
Sales Order
Numbers

Date Issued

Sales Order
Numbers

Date Issued

Sales Order
Numbers

Date Issued

1300

April 14

1315

(2)

1336

April 22

1301 (1)

April 3

1316

April 8

1337

April 23

1302

March 31

1317-1318

April 9

1338

April 24

1303

April 1

1319

April 10

1339

April 25

1304

April 21

1320-1321

April 24

1340

April 30

1305

April 2

1322-1323

April 11

1341

(3)

1306 (1)

April 16

1324-1327

April 14

1342-1343

April 25

1307-1308

April 2

1328

(3)

1344

(3)

1309

April 4

1329

April 16

1345

April 25

1310

(2)

1330-1332

April 17

1346-1347

April 28

1311

April 4

1333

April 22

1348

April 30

1312-1313

April 7

1334

April 21

1349

(3)

1314

April 8

1335

April 22

1350

April 29

(1) handwritten number - prenumbered sales order not issued
(2) sales order not located
(3) multiple transactions recorded on one sales order

-21-

•

While most sales order forms are prenumbered, others have a blank space
where the store employee handwrites a number. The Storekeeper
indicated the blank forms are used to replace prenumbered forms that have
been lost or damaged. In those cases, the employee handwrites the
number from the original sales order form onto the replacement form.

•

Sales order forms are not properly voided and retained. The Storekeeper
indicated voided sales order forms are thrown away.

•

Individual sales order forms are not issued for some transactions. The
Storekeeper explained for items that are inexpensive, frequently sold, and
customers do not request a receipt; store employees record multiple sales
on one sales order. For example, when a customer purchases a package of
trash bags, a sales order would be completed and signed by the customer.
If another customer purchases trash bags, the sales order prepared for the
previous customer would be revised to indicate two packages of trash bags
were sold. The signature of the second customer is not obtained, and only
the date of the first transaction is recorded. The Storekeeper indicated
store employees continue to record sales on a sales order until all or most
of the 12 lines on the sales order are full. The related monies are not
transmitted until the sales order is full. As a result, monies are not
transmitted intact to the Accounts Receivable Office and customer
signatures are not obtained as required. In addition, a May 7, 2008, cash
count showed a receipt of $7 had not been recorded on a sales order.

2)

Some sales order forms do not indicate the method of payment (cash,
check, or money order). Because the sales order form does not require
this documentation, store employees must remember to note the method of
payment.

3)

Access to blank sales orders is not adequately controlled. The forms are
kept in a box accessible to anyone entering the MVE Store. In addition,
the Storekeeper indicated blank sales order forms are used for purposes
other than recording sales, such as scratch paper for taking notes.

4)

Check receipts are locked in the Storekeeper's office until transmitted to
the Accounts Receivable Office so that inmates do not have access to
personal information on the checks. However, we noted the checks are
not always kept together and properly organized. When we performed
cash counts on April 15, 2008, and May 7, 2008, the Storekeeper failed to
provide two checks totaling $169, and four checks totaling $169,
respectively.

Upon receipt of a transmittal, the Accounts Receivable Office reconciles the
receipts to the sales orders submitted with the transmittal. Also, the department's
internal auditors reconcile transmittal documentation to the sales orders on a

-22-

monthly basis. However, because neither the Accounts Receivable Office nor
internal auditors account for the numerical sequence of the sales orders issued,
there is not a sufficient review to ensure all monies received are deposited intact.
Until brought to their attention, DOC and MVE officials were not aware of the
significant control deficiencies noted above.
Failure to implement adequate receipting procedures increases the risk of loss,
theft or misuse of funds. To adequately safeguard and account for all monies
received, prenumbered sales orders, with the method of payment documented,
should be issued in sequence for each transaction. In addition, voided sales orders
should be properly defaced and maintained, access to sales orders should be
controlled, and check receipts should be properly secured. Monies should be
transmitted to the Accounts Receivable Office intact, the numerical sequence of
sales orders issued should be accounted for properly, and the composition of sales
orders issued should be reconciled to the amounts transmitted.
WE RECOMMEND the DOC, along with the Missouri Vocational Enterprises:
A.

Ensure receipts are transmitted for deposit on a timely basis.

B.

Improve receipting procedures at the MVE Store and oversight of these
procedures.

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. Currently receipts are transmitted
on a weekly basis. However, when staff are absent, transmittals may be delayed by one
or two days. To improve, we will continue to transmit every week and when sales have
reached 75 transactions we will transmit that day.

B.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. Previously if a dry cleaning or sales
ticket was not numbered or filled out incorrectly the store staff would save these tickets
and use them as replacements or throw them away. To correct this, they are now writing
void across all tickets that are filled out incorrectly or have missing numbers and then
recording them on a spreadsheet. Individual sales order forms were not issued for some
transactions. To correct this, individual sales order forms are currently being issued for
all transactions and signatures are obtained from every customer. When the MVE
accounting section receives the tickets, cash, and spreadsheet, any tickets that are
missing will be reported to the Fiscal and Administrative Manager for investigation.

6.

Expenditures

Competitive bids/proposals were not solicited for fuel, attorney services, and physician
services. Procedures for monitoring cellular telephone usage need improvement. Some

-23-

employee expense reimbursements appeared excessive and/or were not supported with
adequate documentation of actual expenses incurred.
A.

The DOC spent approximately $2.5 million, $1.9 million, and $1.8 million for
vehicle fuel during fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. Some of
these fuel purchases were procured under the DOC's special delegation of
authority without obtaining bids.
For example, the Farmington Correctional Center (FCC) purchased fuel totaling
approximately $54,000, $63,800, and $80,300 from a vendor in fiscal years 2008,
2007, and 2006, respectively, and the Boonville Correctional Center (BCC)
purchased fuel totaling approximately $38,000, $24,300, and $23,100 from
another vendor in fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively, without
obtaining bids. Numerous individual payments to these vendors totaled just under
the $3,000 bidding threshold, giving the appearance that DOC employees
attempted to circumvent state purchasing requirements. Officials from the BCC
provided a copy of an October 2006 internal memo stating the vendor is the only
vendor in the area willing to sell fuel at the prices the state is willing to pay.
However, the BCC could not provide documentation of communications with
vendors or other documentation to support this conclusion. Officials at these
facilities indicated due to our audit and/or a recent internal audit, they currently
ensure at least three bids are obtained for fuel purchases.
Section 34.040, RSMo, and the OA's procurement policy requires bids be
obtained for purchases over $3,000, including any item or service in which the
total expenditure over a 12 month period is over $3,000. In addition, the OA has
granted the DOC special delegation of authority for the procurement of fuel,
which allows the department to procure fuel purchases in excess of the local
procurement authority (i.e. $25,000 or more) directly rather than referring these
procurements to the OA, Division of Purchasing and Materials Management.
DOC's Procedure for Procurement Authority prohibits splitting local
procurements among two or more orders to the same vendor or multiple vendors
to avoid the competitive bid process. Competitive bidding helps ensure the state
receives fair value by contracting with the lowest and best bidders, and also
ensures all interested parties are given an equal opportunity to participate in the
state's business.

B.

The DOC does not always utilize a competitive procurement process or solicit
proposals for professional services. For example, the DOC contracts with a
former employee for attorney services related to inmate clemency applications
and a physician to conduct mortality case reviews, without soliciting proposals for
these services. The attorney was paid $4,000 and $24,000 in fiscal years 2007
and 2006, respectively; and the physician was paid $1,500, $5,500, and $2,250 in
fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. DOC officials indicated the
proposals for the attorney and physician services were not solicited because
Attorney General's Opinion Letter No. 22, 1980 to Muckler, concluded physician,

-24-

attorney, and expert witness services do not have to be bid in accordance with
state purchasing laws. However, the opinion does not preclude the DOC from
soliciting competitive proposals for these services. DOC officials indicated a
nationwide procurement process for the physician services was conducted in
fiscal year 2003; however, no documentation of the proposals received or the
justification for selection of this physician was maintained.
The DOC should utilize a competitive procurement process or solicit proposals
for attorney and physician services to ensure the best services and rates are
received. Sufficient documentation of these procedures should be retained.
C.

The DOC and the OA-ITSD need to improve procedures for monitoring cellular
telephone usage. The DOC spent approximately $229,000, $261,000, and
$300,000 for cellular telephone services in fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006,
respectively. As of March 2008 the DOC had approximately 970 cellular
telephones.
While the OA-ITSD telecommunications analyst responsible for monitoring DOC
cellular telephone services indicated she reviews cellular telephone usage
quarterly to identify and switch to plans that meet employee needs at the lowest
costs, she was unable to provide any documentation of such reviews. In addition,
these review procedures did not always appear effective. Our review of usage
during the months of March, April, and May 2008 for 13 cellular telephones
noted instances where telephones may not have been on the most cost effective
plan. For example, one employee, who was issued a telephone with a 150
minutes per month plan, used the telephone 593 minutes more than covered by his
plan for the 3 month period. The employee reimbursed the DOC $83 for costs
associated with personal calls, while the DOC paid $184 for the additional
minutes used. Another employee, who was issued a telephone with a 500 minutes
per month plan, only used the telephone 8 minutes under this plan during the 3
month period. The DOC paid $29 per month for this cellular telephone. The
employee indicated a personal cellular telephone instead of the department-issued
telephone is generally used to make business related calls.
While cellular telephones can help increase employee productivity, they are also
costly. The DOC Cellular Phones Policy D4-4.7, Section III.A.2, requires the
telecommunications analyst perform a quarterly review of rates, plans, and
equipment for cost effectiveness; and submit a report of findings, including
recommendations for change, to the director of human services to be reviewed
with department executive staff. Effective procedures should be implemented to
monitor cellular phone usage to ensure the best plan is used for each phone, and
there is a need for each phone. This review should be documented and the results
reported as required by DOC policy.

D.

Some employee expense reimbursements appeared excessive and/or were not
supported by adequate documentation of actual expenses incurred. The DOC

-25-

spent approximately $2.9 million, $3 million, and $3 million on travel expenses
during fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. Our review of six
employee expense reimbursements noted the following:
•

One employee's expense report was not adequately supported by invoices or
other supporting documentation for a trip to Miami, Florida to attend a
conference. The employee was reimbursed $937 for lodging and $161 for an
airline ticket without detailed invoices or receipts for these costs.
In addition, the employee was reimbursed $234 per night for lodging while
the CONUS rate was $107 per night. Expense report documentation indicated
the employee coordinated the trip with a family vacation, and stayed in a hotel
other than where the conference was held. No documentation was available
regarding the per night cost for the hotel hosting the conference.

•

On another expense report, an employee claimed a round trip from Bolivar to
Springfield, totaling 256 miles, while the actual round trip mileage is
approximately 60 miles. DOC officials provided us with documentation
showing the employee administered flu shots in various cities that day;
however, these additional trips were not documented on the expense report.
Also, this documentation was not readily available upon our inquiry and, thus,
it appears was not considered when approving the expense reimbursement.

The DOC Reimbursement for Travel and Subsistence Expenses Policy, Sections
III.D and III.E, and state travel regulations require various reimbursements,
including lodging and airline costs, be supported by descriptive invoices. DOC
policy further requires lodging invoices clearly indicate the single room rate was
charged. Neither state regulations nor DOC policy provide for lodging
reimbursement limits. Reimbursement limits for lodging expenses, such as the
federal per diem maximum, could ensure such reimbursements are reasonable.
Expense reimbursement monitoring procedures should be improved to ensure
travel reimbursements are necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented in
accordance with DOC policy and state travel regulations. The DOC should
consider adopting guidelines regarding maximum lodging cost reimbursements.
E.

The DOC may be paying more than necessary for meals provided to employees
attending training.
To provide meals to employees attending training at the training center located in
the MVE Central Office building, the DOC contracts with the vendor that
operates the cafeteria in that building. The DOC paid the vendor approximately
$173,600, $151,400, and $124,700 during fiscal years 2008, 2007, and 2006,
respectively, for training lunches and snacks.

-26-

Our review found the DOC frequently pays for significantly more lunches than
actually provided to trainees. For example, our review of a payment totaling
$8,423 for lunches and snacks provided during 13 training sessions in December
2007 revealed the DOC was billed and paid for 1,099 lunches, of which only 954
(87 percent) were actually provided to trainees. The DOC paid approximately
$939 for 145 lunches that were not provided by the vendor.
Under the current arrangement with the vendor, the DOC guarantees a number of
lunches needed for each training session, and the vendor bills the DOC for at least
that number of lunches, regardless of the number of lunches actually provided. In
cases where more lunches are provided than guaranteed, the vendor bills for
actual lunches provided. However, in cases where fewer lunches are provided
than guaranteed, the vendor bills for the higher, guaranteed amount.
Approximately one week prior to the training session, the training center submits
a meal guarantee to the vendor for 90 percent of the training enrollment.
However, as noted above, the DOC frequently guarantees significantly more
meals than are actually needed. Training center employees acknowledged the
guarantee is frequently higher than the actual meals consumed; and they continue
to guarantee meals for 90 percent of training enrollment without evaluating
whether this method is reasonable. They indicated DOC frequently pays for extra
meals due to unexpected absences and trainees choosing to eat elsewhere.
The DOC needs to review its current procedures for estimating meals needed for
training and its current billing arrangement with the vendor, and develop a more
reasonable method that will minimize costs incurred for meals not consumed.
WE RECOMMEND the DOC:
A.

Ensure competitive bids are solicited for fuel purchases in accordance with state
law and adequate documentation is maintained to support the procurement and
selection process.

B.

Utilize a competitive procurement process or solicit proposals for all professional
services, and retain sufficient documentation of these procedures.

C.

Along with the OA-ITSD, ensure effective quarterly reviews of cellular phone
usage are performed and documented, and necessary changes are made to cellular
plans based on those reviews.

D.

Ensure travel reimbursements are necessary, reasonable, and comply with DOC
policy and state travel regulations. In addition, the DOC should consider adopting
guidelines regarding maximum lodging cost reimbursements.

E.

Evaluate alternative procedures for estimating and paying for training meals, and
develop procedures to minimize payments for meals not consumed.

-27-

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. The department has implemented
enhanced oversight and review procedures to ensure all purchasing activities comply
with state purchasing laws.

B.

The Department disagrees with this recommendation. As stated by the auditors, Attorney
General Opinion Letter No. 22, 1980 to Muckler, concluded that physician, attorney, and
expert witness services do not have to be bid in accordance with state purchasing laws.
Therefore, the department has not sought competitive bids for these services.

C.

The department concurs that the current policy is not being followed and will work with
the appropriate staff to revise the policy so that it meets the agency's requirements and is
realistic to implement.

D.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. In the matter regarding the
conference in Miami, Florida, this was an isolated incident wherein supporting
documentation could not be obtained despite repeated contacts with the internet site and
hotel that provided the billing. Nonetheless, every effort will be made to ensure
supporting documentation is obtained to support reimbursement claims.

E.

The Department concurs with this recommendation and will continue to work with the
Office of Administration to explore alternative procedures designed to minimize payment
of meals not consumed.

7.

Accounts Receivable

The DOC has not established formal written policies and procedures regarding the
handling of old Inmate Revolving Fund (IRF) accounts receivable balances related to
discontinued program fees.
To help cover the costs of various programs to assist the offenders in successful
completion of probation, parole, or conditional release, the IFO collects fees from
offenders under supervision of the Division of Probation and Parole, and deposits these
fees into the IRF. Since April 2006 the IFO assesses a $30 monthly intervention fee to
these offenders, as authorized by Section 217.690, RSMo. Prior to the implementation of
the intervention fees, offenders were charged various fees specific to the programs in
which they participated, such as the electronic monitoring, interactive voice recognition,
and residential facilities programs. The department discontinued charging specific
program fees in fiscal year 2008, and currently charges the intervention fee to offenders
under the supervision of the Division of Probation and Parole. As of June 30, 2008, the
accounts receivable balance associated with the discontinued program fees was over $9.9
million, with approximately $2.6 million of this amount due from offenders who left
DOC supervision more than 3 years ago.

-28-

The DOC has not established formal policies and procedures regarding the handling of
these old accounts receivable balances. DOC collection procedures consist of Probation
and Parole officers reminding offenders under their supervision of past due balances and
the IFO collection of past due balances from any offenders that re-enter the prison
system. DOC officials indicated they are developing procedures related to the accounts
receivable balances associated with these old fees and are considering writing off at least
the $2.6 million due from offenders who left DOC supervision more than 3 years ago.
Formal policies and procedures related to delinquent accounts are needed to help ensure
such accounts are handled in a proper and consistent manner. The policies and
procedures should address required follow-up efforts on delinquent accounts and
establish criteria for write off of balances for which collection is unlikely or the cost of
collection would exceed the amount collected. In addition, the DOC should take
aggressive actions to collect these old fees, document efforts made, and then write off the
fees as appropriate. By doing so the DOC will be able to focus collection and record
keeping efforts on intervention fee accounts receivables rather than old accounts
receivables related to discontinued fees.
WE RECOMMEND the DOC establish formal policies and procedures to follow-up on
accounts receivable balances associated with the old IRF fees, aggressively pursue
collection of these amounts, and write off balances that may be deemed uncollectible.
AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
The Department concurs with this recommendation. Separate policies have been developed that
deal with the collection and writeoff of outstanding debts owed by offenders. These policies
provide guidance regarding the classification of debt and when debts are considered no longer
collectible. These uncollectible amounts will be presented to the Executive staff for approval to
write off said debt.
It is anticipated these policies will be in effect in the very near future.
8.

Internal Audit

The department's internal audit section is not fully independent of the activities it audits
and internal audit engagements are not planned utilizing risk assessment procedures.
A.

Under the current organization structure, the internal audit section does not report
to top management, but instead reports to the Comptroller. The Comptroller
directs the Fiscal Management Unit, which is responsible for all financial
activities of the department.
The Institute of Internal Auditors' standards provide that internal audit activity is
to be independent and should ". . . report to a level within the organization that
allows the internal audit activity to fulfill its responsibilities." To ensure complete

-29-

and objective audit coverage, the internal audit function must be independent of
the activities it audits, through both departmental status and objective
performance of its audits. Direct communication with the inspector general or the
department director would help ensure independence and provide a means
whereby top management can be kept abreast of current operations and activities.
Such a reporting structure would also permit top management to request the
internal audit section to perform specific audits.
B.

Internal audit engagements are determined by department policy, without utilizing
risk assessment procedures. DOC policies require annual or biannual audits of
the department's correctional centers, community release centers, treatment
centers, reception and diagnostic centers, and certain contracted residential
facilities. Rather than requiring risk assessment procedures to determine internal
audit engagements, the policies give equal consideration to all of the above listed
entities and no consideration to central office processes. Various divisions within
the DOC central office, such as the IFO, which maintains the IAF and ICF, and
the MVE, which processes receipts for sales of MVE products, handle significant
monies, but have received limited internal audit coverage. In recent years, due to
an understaffed internal audit section, some audits required by the policies have
not been performed.
Consideration should be given to revising department policies to address central
office processes in need of periodic audit by the internal auditors and incorporate
risk assessment procedures for prioritizing audit activities and better utilizing
available audit resources. A risk assessment procedure would evaluate risk
factors, such as amount of transactions processed, prior experience with the entity
or central office section, adequacy of information submitted by the entity or
central office section, and expected level of compliance with department policies.
In addition, the Institute of Internal Auditors' standards provide, "The chief audit
executive should establish risk-based plans to determine the priorities of the
internal audit activity, consistent with the organization's goals."

WE RECOMMEND the DOC:
A.

Consider having the internal audit section report directly to the inspector general
or the department director.

B.

Revise department policies related to the internal audit function to incorporate
central office processes needing periodic audits and the use of risk assessment
procedures.

AUDITEE'S RESPONSE
A.

The Department will take this recommendation under advisement as part of our overall
review of the department’s organizational structure.

-30-

B.

The Department concurs with this recommendation. The department will include risk
assessment procedures in future policy revisions and will include periodic reviews of
Central Office processes.

-31-

HISTORY, ORGANIZATION, AND
STATISTICAL INFORMATION

-32-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HISTORY, ORGANIZATION, AND
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
The Missouri Division of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole were transferred to
the Department of Social Services on July 1, 1974, following passage of the Omnibus State
Reorganization Act of 1974. Effective September 28, 1981, the Missouri Department of
Corrections and Human Resources was established as a cabinet-level department of state
government as a result of legislation approved by the Eighty-First General Assembly and signed
by the Governor. With the revision made to Chapter 217, which became effective August 28,
1989, the Department of Corrections and Human Resources was renamed to the Department of
Corrections.
The Governor appointed George Lombardi as Director of the Department of Corrections on
January 29, 2009. Prior to Mr. Lombardi's appointment, Larry Crawford had served as Director
of the department since January 4, 2005.
The department has the responsibility of supervising and managing all correctional institutions
and probation and parole services. The department is composed of the Office of the Director and
four divisions: Human Services, Adult Institutions, Offender Rehabilitative Services, and
Probation and Parole. The department employed approximately 10,900 employees as of June
2008. The functions of the Office of the Director and divisions are:
The Office of the Director is responsible for shaping legislation and formulating policy
and procedures to guide and implement public safety objectives and goals. The Office of
the Director oversees the management of the four divisions as well as the following
specialized areas: Legal Services, Public Information, Inspector General, Legislative and
Constituent Services, Restorative Justice, and Victims' Services.
The Division of Human Services provides coordinated services to the department by
supervising the following activities: Human Resources, Staff Training, Employee
Health/Safety, Budget and Research, Fiscal Management, General Services, Strategic
Planning, Religious/Spiritual Programs, and Volunteer Services.
The Division of Adult Institutions is responsible for the management of the state's 21
correctional centers and the care, custody and control of incarcerated offenders. The
division houses incarcerated inmates securely and humanely while providing programs
and treatment that effectively manages the offender's risk to re-offend. As of June 2008,
the prison population was approximately 30,500 inmates.
The Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services is the arm of the department responsible
for developing and delivering interventions and services necessary for offenders to
correct their criminal behaviors and become more productive at each point in the
department's supervision continuum. These services and interventions include education,
workforce readiness, and substance abuse treatment services. The division also oversees
the inmate medical and mental health services programs and the Missouri Sexual

-33-

Offender Treatment Program provided by the contracted treatment provider. In 1990,
Missouri Vocational Enterprises (MVE) was transferred to the division. The MVE is
responsible for 27 different industries, services, and agribusiness operations located in 15
correctional institutions. MVE utilizes offender labor, along with department supervisors
and administrative staff, to provide products and services to state agencies, political
subdivisions, state employees and not-for-profit organizations. Examples of items
offered include furniture, modular office systems, license plates, metal outdoor
equipment, clothing, chemical products, dry cleaning, and furniture restoration services.
The program's financial activity is accounted for exclusively through the state's Working
Capital Revolving Fund.
The Division of Probation and Parole assesses and supervises criminal offenders assigned
to the division by the Circuit Courts of Missouri and under the terms of the Interstate
Compact. Affiliated with the Division of Probation and Parole is the State Probation and
Parole Board. The Probation and Parole Board determines the eligibility and conditions
for the release of inmates confined in the Division of Adult Institutions and oversees the
supervision of probationers as directed by the courts. The Probation and Parole Board is
comprised of seven full-time members appointed by the Governor, subject to the advice
and consent of the Senate. Board members also investigate and report to the Governor on
all applications for pardons, commutations of sentence, reprieves or restorations of
citizenship. At June 2008, approximately 71,100 offenders were under supervision of the
division.
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
The 21 correctional institutions located throughout the state are:
The Algoa Correctional Center is a medium security institution constructed in 1932. The
institution is located 6 miles east of Jefferson City in Cole County on a bluff overlooking
the Missouri River.
The Boonville Correctional Center in Cooper County, which opened in 1983, was
transferred from the Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services. The
facility is a medium security institution housing first time offenders between the ages of
17 and 25.
The Central Missouri Correctional Center (CMCC), a minimum to medium security
institution, was temporarily closed in fiscal year 2006 and will be reopened in the future
based on bed space needs. Originally constructed in 1938 as a satellite to the Missouri
State Penitentiary, the CMCC became an independent institution within the department in
1974. The institution is located 10 miles northwest of Jefferson City in Cole County
along the Missouri River. The CMCC receives appropriations to cover the costs of
securing and preserving the facility. Also, the MVE continues to operate certain
industries at the CMCC.

-34-

The Chillicothe Correctional Center (CCC) in Livingston County, which opened in 1981,
was transferred from the Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services. The
CCC is a minimum to maximum security institution housing only female offenders.
Construction on the new CCC facility was completed in August 2008 and offenders from
the existing CCC were transferred to the new facility in December 2008. The old CCC
facility and grounds were transferred to the City of Chillicothe in June 2009.
The Crossroads Correctional Center (CRCC), is a maximum security facility, which
opened in 1997 in DeKalb County. The CRCC is the first facility in Missouri to be
equipped with a lethal perimeter fence.
The Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center was opened in May 2002,
when the Regimented Discipline Program formerly housed at Farmington was moved to
this facility. It is a maximum security facility and serves as the point of intake for
offenders from the eastern part of the state. The facility is located in St. Francois County
at Bonne Terre.
The Farmington Correctional Center opened in 1986 and was transferred from the
Department of Mental Health. It is located on the grounds of the former Farmington
State Hospital in the city of Farmington in St. Francois County. The facility is a medium
security institution.
The Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center, located in Callaway County was opened in
1987 and serves as a reception and diagnostic center, which accepts offenders from the
central part of the state. After processing, offenders are assigned to an appropriate
security level facility. This institution also includes the Biggs Correctional Unit and the
Cremer Therapeutic Community Center.
The Jefferson City Correctional Center is a maximum security institution located
approximately 6 miles east of Jefferson City in Cole County. It was constructed in 2004
to replace the Missouri State Penitentiary which opened in 1836 in Jefferson City.
The Maryville Treatment Center opened in 1996. It is a minimum security institution in
Nodaway County on a site that was formerly a Catholic convent. It is located 45 miles
north of St. Joseph.
The Missouri Eastern Correctional Center is a medium security institution opened in
1981. The institution is located near Pacific in St. Louis County.
The Moberly Correctional Center is a medium security institution, which began operation
in 1963. The institution is located 5 miles south of Moberly in Randolph County.
The Northeast Correctional Center (NECC) is a medium security facility located at
Bowling Green in Pike County. The facility began operations in 1998. The NECC also
is the site of the department's male juvenile unit for housing offenders under 17 years of
age.

-35-

The Ozark Correctional Center (OCC) is a minimum security institution established in
1961 on a site originally constructed as an Air Force base. The institution is located 25
miles southeast of Springfield in Webster County. The OCC previously supervised
Camp Hawthorn, a minimum security, and work-release camp for 45 offenders at the
Lake of the Ozarks located in Miller County. The camp was closed in April 2005 due to
budget constraints.
The Potosi Correctional Center in Washington County is a maximum security institution
opened in 1989. This facility is the first lease-purchase state correctional facility in the
history of the state.
The South Central Correctional Center is a maximum security facility located at Licking
in Texas County. It opened in June 2000.
The Southeast Correctional Center is a minimum and maximum security facility located
at Charleston in Mississippi County. It opened in September 2001.
The Tipton Correctional Center (TCC) in Moniteau County is a medium security
institution. The TCC was placed under the administration of the department in 1960 and
served as the state prison for women. The facility now houses male offenders.
The Western Missouri Correctional Center is a medium security institution opened in
1989. It is located near Cameron in DeKalb County.
The Western Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (WRDCC) is a reception and
diagnostic center located in St. Joseph in Buchanan County, that accepts offenders from
the western areas of the state. The WRDCC was constructed on property transferred
from the Department of Mental Health.
The Women's Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (WERDCC) is
located in Vandalia in Audrain County. The WERDCC houses minimum through
maximum security female offenders. The facility opened in 1998.
BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
The Board of Probation and Parole consists of seven full-time members appointed by the
Governor, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Terms of members are for 6 years on
a staggered basis. The chairman is appointed by the Governor and is the chief administrative
officer of the board in charge of the board's operations, funds and expenditures.
As of June 30, 2008, members of the Board of Probation and Parole were:

Steve Long (1)
Wayne Crump (2)
Robert Robinson (3)

Chairman
Member
Member

-36-

Term Expires
August 2012
August 2008
April 2009

Penny Hubbard
Reid K. Forrester
Brian Jamison (1)
Chuck Pryor

Member
Member
Member
Member

April 2010
December 2011
August 2012
April 2014

(1) Steve Long retired in May 2009 and this position remains vacant. Brian Jamison was
appointed Acting Chairman in June 2009.
(2) Jimmie Lee Wells was appointed to replace board member Wayne Crump in January 2009.
His term expires in February 2015.
(3) Robert Robinson retired in April 2009 and this position remains vacant.
The Board supervises offenders through 65 district and satellite offices throughout the state. The
Board of Probation and Parole also manages the operation of Community Release Centers and
Community Supervision Centers which house offenders during transition from institutional to
community placement. The Kansas City Community Release Center and the St. Louis
Community Release Center house up to 900 offenders. The department has constructed seven
Community Supervision Centers which will house up to 30 offenders and accommodate existing
probation and parole district offices in that area. Ninety percent of the construction costs are
paid with federal funding. The centers in St. Joseph and Farmington opened in 2005; the center
in Hannibal opened in 2007; and the centers in Kennett, Fulton, Kansas City, and Poplar Bluff
opened in 2008. As of June 2008, there were approximately 1,816 staff serving in the division.
A department organization chart follows.

-37-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ORGANIZATION CHART
JUNE 30, 2008

DIRECTOR

Deputy Director

Legal
Services
Public
Information

Legislative &
Constituent
Services

Victims'
Services

Restorative
Justice

Inspector
General

Director Division of
Human Services
Human
Resources
Staff Training
Employee
Health/Safety

Director Division of
Offender Rehabilitative
Services

Director Division of Adult
Institutions
Zone 1
7 Correctional
Centers

Zone 2
7 Correctional
Centers

Inmate
Healthcare

Chair Division of
Probation & Parole

Board Operations
Manager

Parole Board

Mental
Health
Chief State Supervisor
Education

Zone 3
Budget &
Research
Fiscal
Management
General
Services
Strategic
Planning

7 Correctional
Centers

Assistant to
the Director
Central
Transfer
Authority

Missouri
Vocational
Enterprises
Substance
Abuse
Women
Offender/
Re-Entry
Manager

Religious/
Spiritual
Volunteer
Services

-38-

Administration/
Command Center/
Community Corrections
Region I (East)
St. Louis Community
Release Center
10 Field Offices

Region II (West)
Kansas City Community
Release Center
10 Field Offices

Region III (SW)
1 Community Supervision
Center
8 Field Offices

Region IV (Central)
1 Community Supervision
Center
8 Field Offices

Region V (SE)
1 Community Supervision
Center
9 Field Offices

Region VI (NW)
1 Community Supervision
Center
9 Field Offices

Appendix A
A-1
1
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMBINED STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS,
RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS,
DISBURSEMENTS AND CHANGES IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS
YEAR
A ENDED JUNE 30,
30 2008

RECEIPTS
Federal receipts
p
Product sales
Leases and rentals
Offender intervention fees
Oth offender
Other
ff d program participation
ti i ti ffees
Offender reimbursement of incarceration costs **
Inmate canteen deposits
Inmate account deposits
Interest
T
Total
t lR
Receipts
i t
DISBURSEMENTS ***
Personal service
Employee fringe benefits
Expense and equipment
C it l iimprovements
Capital
t
Leasing
i g operations
p i
Fuel, utilities, and building maintenance and repair
Cost allocation plan
Inmate canteen disbursements
Inmate account withdrawals
Oh
Other
Total Disbursements
RECEIPTS OVER (UNDER) DISBURSEMENTS
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JULY 1,
1 2007
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JUNE 30,
30 2008

$

$

Department of
Corrections Federal

Working Capital
Revolving
Fund

Inmate
Revolving
Fund

Correctional
Substance Abuse Inmate Canteen Inmate Account
Earnings Fund
Fund *
Fund *

Total
(Memorandum
Only)

20,115,030
, ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20 115 030
20,115,030

0
36,336,124
110 477
110,477
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 446 601
36,446,601

0
0
0
14 567 910
14,567,910
1 643 163
1,643,163
706,399
,
0
0
0
16 917 472
16,917,472

0
0
0
0
77 831
77,831
0
0
0
30 972
30,972
108 803
108,803

0
0
0
0
0
0
31,393,206
0
0
31 393 206
31,393,206

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35 779 328
35,779,328
0
35 779 328
35,779,328

20,115,030
,
,
36,336,124
110 477
110,477
14 567 910
14,567,910
1 720 994
1,720,994
706,399
,
31,393,206
35 779 328
35,779,328
30 972
30,972
140 760 440
140,760,440

2,048,625
841,514
3 510 630
3,510,630
13 668 193
13,668,193
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,068,962
, ,
46,068
1 362 883
1,362,883
1 408 951
1,408,951

6,498,216
2,930,704
24 088 570
24,088,570
18 272
18,272
0
1,546,608
274,294
0
0
0
35,356,664
, ,
1,089,937
7 403 933
7,403,933
8 493 870
8,493,870

833,165
346,197
6 718 438
6,718,438
0
0
47,795
76,790
0
0
0
8,022,385
, ,
8,895,087
15 237 913
15,237,913
24 133 000
24,133,000

0
0
78 370
78,370
0
0
0
1,014
0
0
0
79,384
,
29,419
623 800
623,800
653 219
653,219

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 210 660
30,210,660
0
0
30,210,660
, ,
1,182,546
14 090 616
14,090,616
15 273 162
15,273,162

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 211 164
36,211,164
0
36,211,164
,
,
(431,836)
3 538 545
3,538,545
3 106 709
3,106,709

9,380,006
4,118,415
34 396 008
34,396,008
13 686 465
13,686,465
0
1,594,403
352,098
30 210 660
30,210,660
36 211 164
36,211,164
0
129,949,219
,
,
10,811,221
42 257 690
42,257,690
53 068 911
53,068,911

* Funds held in bank accounts outside the state treasury. Receipts, disbursements, and balances reflect bank account activity. Detailed Canteen Fund income and expenses are included at Appendix E.
** Receipts for offender reimbursement of incarceration costs are deposited by the Attorney General's Office.
Office
*** Disbursements
Di b
t on this
thi statement
t t
t will
ill nott agree tto expenditures
dit
on A
Appendix
di C primarily
i
il ddue tto 1) appropriated
i t d ttransfers
f outt for
f personall service
i benefits
b fit costs,
t leasing
l i operations,
ti
fuel
f l andd utilities,
tiliti
b ildi g maintenance
building
i
and
d repair,
p i and
d cost allocation
ll
i pplan;
l and
d 2)) di
disbursements
b
made
d bby
y other
h state agencies.
g i
Disbursements
ib
made
d by
by other
h state agencies
g i iinclude
l d di
disbursements
b
totaling
li g
approximately $156,000 and $15,000 by the Office of Administration from the Working Capital Revolving Fund and Inmate Revolving Fund, respectively; for services provided to the department by
the Information Technology Service Division; and disbursements totaling approximately $673,000 by the Department of Mental Health for substance abuse treatment services provided to the department.

-39-

Appendix A
A-2
2
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMBINED STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS,
RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS,
DISBURSEMENTS AND CHANGES IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS
YEAR
A ENDED JUNE 30,
30 2007
200

RECEIPTS
Federal receipts
p
Product sales
Leases and rentals
Offender intervention fees
Oth offender
Other
ff d program participation
ti i ti ffees
Offender reimbursement of incarceration costs **
Inmate canteen deposits
Inmate account deposits
Interest
T
Total
t lR
Receipts
i t
DISBURSEMENTS ***
Personal service
Employee fringe benefits
Expense and equipment
C it l iimprovements
Capital
t
Leasing
i g operations
p i
Fuel, utilities, and building maintenance and repair
Cost allocation plan
Inmate canteen disbursements
Inmate account withdrawals
Oh
Other
Total Disbursements
RECEIPTS OVER (UNDER) DISBURSEMENTS
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JULY 1,
1 2006
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JUNE 30,
30 2007

$

$

Department of
Corrections Federal

Working Capital
Revolving
Fund

Inmate
Revolving
Fund

Correctional
Substance Abuse Inmate Canteen Inmate Account
Earnings Fund
Fund *
Fund *

Total
(Memorandum
Only)

10,622,871
, ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10 622 871
10,622,871

0
28,660,248
116 854
116,854
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 777 102
28,777,102

0
0
0
14 744 721
14,744,721
2 523 305
2,523,305
729,882
,
0
0
0
17 997 908
17,997,908

0
0
0
0
70 751
70,751
0
0
0
28 706
28,706
99 457
99,457

0
0
0
0
0
0
31,100,030
0
0
31 100 030
31,100,030

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33 862 486
33,862,486
0
33 862 486
33,862,486

10,622,871
,
,
28,660,248
116 854
116,854
14 744 721
14,744,721
2 594 056
2,594,056
729,882
,
31,100,030
33 862 486
33,862,486
28 706
28,706
122 459 854
122,459,854

1,939,182
839,060
3 231 613
3,231,613
4 215 156
4,215,156
0
0
0
0
0
115
10,225,126
, ,
397,745
965 138
965,138
1 362 883
1,362,883

6,183,811
2,911,701
20 035 960
20,035,960
486 232
486,232
0
0
316,607
0
0
0
29,934,311
, ,
(1,157,209)
8 561 142
8,561,142
7 403 933
7,403,933

937,488
409,006
5 583 709
5,583,709
0
0
0
47,660
0
0
0
6,977,863
, ,
11,020,045
4 217 868
4,217,868
15 237 913
15,237,913

0
0
88 232
88,232
0
0
0
706
0
0
0
88,938
,
10,519
613 281
613,281
623 800
623,800

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 320 066
27,320,066
0
0
27,320,066
, ,
3,779,964
10 310 652
10,310,652
14 090 616
14,090,616

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33 806 589
33,806,589
0
33,806,589
,
,
55,897
3 482 648
3,482,648
3 538 545
3,538,545

9,060,481
4,159,767
28 939 514
28,939,514
4 701 388
4,701,388
0
0
364,973
27 320 066
27,320,066
33 806 589
33,806,589
115
108,352,893
,
,
14,106,961
28 150 729
28,150,729
42 257 690
42,257,690

* Funds held in bank accounts outside the state treasury. Receipts, disbursements, and balances reflect bank account activity. Detailed Canteen Fund income and expenses are included at Appendix E.
** Receipts for offender reimbursement of incarceration costs are deposited by the Attorney General's Office.
Office
*** Disbursements
Di b
t on this
thi statement
t t
t will
ill nott agree tto expenditures
dit
on A
Appendix
di C primarily
i
il ddue tto 1) appropriated
i t d ttransfers
f outt for
f personall service
i benefits
b fit costs,
t leasing
l i operations,
ti
fuel
f l andd utilities,
tiliti
b ildi g maintenance
building
i
and
d repair,
p i and
d cost allocation
ll
i pplan;
l and
d 2)) di
disbursements
b
made
d bby
y other
h state agencies.
g i
Disbursements
ib
made
d by
by other
h state agencies
g i iinclude
l d di
disbursements
b
totaling
li g
approximately $16,000 and $10,000 by the Office of Administration from the Working Capital Revolving Fund and Inmate Revolving Fund, respectively; for services provided to the department by
the Information Technology Service Division; and disbursements totaling approximately $640,000 by the Department of Mental Health for substance abuse treatment services provided to the department.

-40-

Appendix A
A-3
3
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMBINED STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS,
RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS,
DISBURSEMENTS AND CHANGES IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS
YEAR
A ENDED JUNE 30,
30 2006

RECEIPTS
Federal receipts
p
Product sales
Leases and rentals
Offender intervention fees
Oth offender
Other
ff d program participation
ti i ti ffees
Offender reimbursement of incarceration costs **
Inmate canteen deposits
Inmate account deposits
Interest
T
Total
t lR
Receipts
i t
DISBURSEMENTS ***
Personal service
Employee fringe benefits
Expense and equipment
C it l iimprovements
Capital
t
Leasing
i g operations
p i
Fuel, utilities, and building maintenance and repair
Cost allocation plan
Inmate canteen disbursements
Inmate account withdrawals
Oh
Other
Total Disbursements
RECEIPTS OVER (UNDER) DISBURSEMENTS
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JULY 1,
1 2005
CASH AND INVESTMENTS,
INVESTMENTS JUNE 30,
30 2006

$

$

Department of
Corrections Federal

Working Capital
Revolving
Fund

Inmate
Revolving
Fund

Correctional
Substance Abuse Inmate Canteen Inmate Account
Earnings Fund
Fund *
Fund *

Total
(Memorandum
Only)

12,552,400
, ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12 552 400
12,552,400

0
28,462,126
112 655
112,655
0
0
0
0
0
0
28 574 781
28,574,781

0
0
0
3 741 278
3,741,278
3 043 972
3,043,972
551,430
,
0
0
0
7 336 680
7,336,680

0
0
0
0
92 038
92,038
0
0
0
21 390
21,390
113 428
113,428

0
0
0
0
0
0
30,433,724
0
0
30 433 724
30,433,724

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 652 921
30,652,921
0
30 652 921
30,652,921

12,552,400
,
,
28,462,126
112 655
112,655
3 741 278
3,741,278
3 136 010
3,136,010
551,430
,
30,433,724
30 652 921
30,652,921
21 390
21,390
109 663 934
109,663,934

1,885,535
774,894
2 603 536
2,603,536
6 907 044
6,907,044
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,171,009
, ,
381,391
583 747
583,747
965 138
965,138

6,766,123
3,056,549
17 109 383
17,109,383
100 696
100,696
1,650
0
316,871
0
0
0
27,351,272
, ,
1,223,509
7 337 633
7,337,633
8 561 142
8,561,142

886,915
373,864
3 250 255
3,250,255
0
0
0
50,211
0
0
0
4,561,245
, ,
2,775,435
1 442 433
1,442,433
4 217 868
4,217,868

0
0
49 159
49,159
0
0
0
752
0
0
0
49,911
,
63,517
549 764
549,764
613 281
613,281

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 946 223
27,946,223
0
0
27,946,223
, ,
2,487,501
7 823 151
7,823,151
10 310 652
10,310,652

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30 548 497
30,548,497
0
30,548,497
,
,
104,424
3 378 224
3,378,224
3 482 648
3,482,648

9,538,573
4,205,307
23 012 333
23,012,333
7 007 740
7,007,740
1,650
0
367,834
27 946 223
27,946,223
30 548 497
30,548,497
0
102,628,157
,
,
7,035,777
21 114 952
21,114,952
28 150 729
28,150,729

* Funds held in bank accounts outside the state treasury. Receipts, disbursements, and balances reflect bank account activity. Detailed Canteen Fund income and expenses are included at Appendix E.
** Receipts for offender reimbursement of incarceration costs are deposited by the Attorney General's Office.
Office
*** Disbursements
Di b
t on this
thi statement
t t
t will
ill nott agree tto expenditures
dit
att A
Appendix
di C primarily
i
il ddue tto 1) appropriated
i t d ttransfers
f outt for
f personall service
i benefits
b fit costs,
t leasing
l i operations,
ti
fuel
f l andd utilities,
tiliti
b ildi g maintenance
building
i
and
d repair,
p i and
d cost allocation
ll
i pplan;
l and
d 2)) di
disbursements
b
made
d bby
y other
h state agencies.
g i
Disbursements
ib
made
d by
by other
h state agencies
g i iinclude
l d di
disbursements
b
totaling
li g
approximately $369,000 by the Department of Mental Health for substance abuse treatment services provided to the department.

-41-

Appendix B
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS
Year Ended June 30,
30
2007

2008
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Filing fees
D t d assets
Donated
t
Inmate social security benefits
Refunds of criminal case reimbursements
Recoveries
C reimbursements
Cost
i b
ffrom
Canteen Fund and others *
Fees for copying public records
Miscellaneous
T
Total
t lG
Generall R
Revenue F
Fund
d

$

2006

17 049
17,049
280,975
280
975
262,800
761 476
761,476
48 831
48,831

25,336
25
336
91 296
91,296
256,800
693 320
693,320
40 407
40,407

20 893
20,893
209,743
209
743
195,800
0
64 205
64,205

$

649,860
7 307
7,307
81 429
81,429
2 109 727
2,109,727

550,217
11 188
11,188
200 753
200,753
1 869 317
1,869,317

1,003,998
14 293
14,293
73 415
73,415
1 582 347
1,582,347

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE RESERVE FUND
D t d assets
Donated
t
$

0

44 107
44,107

0

BOARD OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS - SERIES A
2003 BOND PROCEEDS - PROJECT FUND
Donated assets

0

111,055

0

$

* Receipts are primarily reimbursements from the Canteen Fund for canteen manager salaries. Fiscal year 2006
receipts also include reimbursements for canteen manager payroll for all of fiscal year 2005.
2005

-42-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Information Technology Services Division Personal Service
Information Technology Services Division Expense and Equipment
Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Center Personal Service
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements, Emergency Requirements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide
Chillicothe Correctional Center - Planning,
Programming, and Preliminary Design of
Replacement Facility
Costs Associated with Increased Offender Population
Department-wide - Personal Service
Payment of Real Property Leases, Related Services,
Utilities, Systems Furniture, Structural
Modifications, and Related Expenses- Leasing
Adult Institutions Department-wide
Department wide Expense and
Equipment - Officers Clothing
Adult Institutions Department-wide Expense and
Equipment - Vehicle
Adult Institutions Department-wide Expense
and Equipment - Inmate Clothing
Adult Institutions Department-wide Expense and
Equipment - Institutional Community Purchases
BP&P Command Center - Expense and Equipment
DHS - Personal Service
DHS - Expense and Equipment
Employee Health and Safety - Expense and Equipment
BP&P - Personal Service
BP&P - Expense and Equipment
South Central Correctional Center - Personal Service

$

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

0

0

0

0

0

18,848,102

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

0

0

0

2,324,348

2,301,130

23,218

0

0

0

0

4,032,559

4,029,533

3,026

18,630,840

217,262

18,841,731

18,434,028

407,703

18,703,273

17,899,433

803,840

0

0

0

1

1

0

48,630

48,629

1 *

0

0

0

202,141

202,066

75

250,000

47,859

202,141 *

2,647,100

2,539,043

108,057

3,152,524

2,710,940

441,584

6,058,375

1,922,438

4,135,937

7,128,732

6,530,530

598,202

6,469,634

6,469,634

0

5,529,197

5,497,772

31,425

1,775,781

1,774,391

1,390

749,151

748,391

760

749,151

749,150

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

2,050,000

2,049,988

12

2,050,000

2,044,870

5,130

2,050,000

2,049,401

599

1,475,206
240,271
8,692,689
196,843
432,000
59,362,650
4,728,404
11,961,035

1,475,206
136,083
8,085,517
196,575
431,911
57,835,010
4,626,652
11,733,682

0
104,188
607,172
268
89
1,527,640
101,752
227,353

1,475,206
14,546
8,883,432
204,119
432,000
57,570,928
4,880,165
11,917,588

1,472,729
11,254
8,295,877
202,349
431,596
56,487,340
4,590,428
11,449,852

2,477
3,292
587,555
1,770
404
1,083,588
289,737
467,736

1,475,206
14,546
8,418,179
224,691
433,500
55,240,249
5,181,089
11,205,053

1,474,079
11,023
8,054,218
223,183
430,115
54,672,967
5,074,486
10,902,589

1,127
3,523
363,961
1,508
3,385
567,282
106,603
302,464

-43-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Aid to Counties for the Cost in Criminal Cases,
Transportation of Convicted Criminals to State
Penitentiaries, Housing, and Cost for
Reimbursement of the Expenses Associated with
Extradition
Western Reception and Diagnostic Center Personal Service
Payment of Real Property Leases, Related Services,
Utilities, Systems, Furniture, Structural
Modifications, and Related Expenses - State Owned
Maryville Treatment Center - Personal Service
BP&P Command Center - Personal Service
General Services - Expense and Equipment
Contractual Services for Offender Physical and Mental
Health Care - Expense and Equipment
Medical Equipment - Expense and Equipment
Public School Retirement Contributions
Appraisals and Surveys of State Facilities
S
th t Correctional
C
ti l C
t -P
i
Southeast
Center
Personall S
Service
Restitution Payments for Those Wrongly Convicted
Building Maintenance and Repair Service Contracts Expense and Equipment
Reentry Pilot Program in the City of Saint Louis Expense and Equipment
Crossroads Correctional Center - Personal Service
BP&P Local Sentencing Initiatives, Electronic
Monitoring, Residential and Community Treatment,
Community Corrections Coordination Unit, and
Command Center
Missouri Eastern Correctional Center - Personal
Service
Northeast Correctional Center - Personal Service
Chillicothe Correctional Center - Personal Service

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

41,935,616

40,008,738

1,926,878

15,392,727

14,677,180

937,174
5,446,977
520,652
526,248

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

40,060,616

40,060,616

0

0

0

0

715,547

15,044,710

14,268,801

775,909

15,104,614

14,317,351

787,263

912,923
5,255,792
507,141
526,222

24,251
191,185
13,511
26

855,438
5,525,993
505,487
408,432

855,438
5,229,811
482,262
406,876

0
296,182
23,225
1,556

0
5,678,581
470,621
321,196

0
5,523,214
445,513
320,759

0
155,367
25,108
437

116,113,029
239,523
0
22,000
11
798 187
11,798,187
109,500

114,679,324
217,022
0
3,766
11
469 139
11,469,139
109,500

1,433,705
22,501
0
18,234
329
048
329,048
0

102,279,361
239,523
1
0
11
644 042
11,644,042
109,500

98,327,872
162,912
0
0
11
004 587
11,004,587
109,500

3,951,489
76,611
1
0
639
455
639,455
0

91,226,092
239,134
1
0
11
059 117
11,059,117
0

91,223,455
165,467
0
0
10 322 402
10,322,402
0

2,637
73,667
1
0
736 715
736,715
0

0

0

0

15,709

12,211

3,498

0

0

0

900,000
11,247,084

708,818
10,849,310

191,182
397,774

1,000,000
11,100,680

25,867
10,223,599

974,133
877,081

0
10,478,933

0
9,991,041

0
487,892

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,710,220

1,566,000

144,220

9,546,037
15,271,496
5,595,809

9,249,088
14,831,773
5,388,219

296,949
439,723
207,590

9,363,209
15,192,744
5,494,417

8,744,834
14,218,392
5,172,834

618,375
974,352
321,583

7,211,005
13,829,615
4,533,270

6,944,666
13,313,936
4,317,326

266,339
515,679
215,944

-44-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Fuel and Utilities Department-wide Expense and Equipment
Purchase, Transportation and Storage of Food and
Food Service Items and Operational Expenses of
Food Preparation Facilities at All Institutions
Expense and Equipment
Jefferson City Correctional Center - Personal Service
Central Missouri Correctional Center - Personal
Service
Women's Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Center Personal Service
Ozark Correctional Center - Personal Service
Tipton Correctional Center - Personal Service
Moberly Correctional Center - Personal Service
Algoa Correctional Center - Personal Service
Office of the Director - Personal Service
Office of the Director - Expenses and Equipment
DAI Central Office - Personal Service
DAI Central Office - Expense and Equipment
Saint Louis Community Release Center - Personal
Service
Kansas City Community Release Center Personal Service
Costs Associated with Increased Offender Population
Department-wide - Expense and Equipment
Boonville Correctional Center - Personal Service
Inmate Wage and Discharge Costs at all Correctional
Facilities - Expense and Equipment
Telecommunications Expense Department-wide
Training Department-wide - Expense and Equipment
DORS Central Office - Personal Service
DORS Central Office- Expense and Equipment
Farmington Correctional Center - Personal Service
Farmington Correctional Center - Board of Public
Buildings - Personal Service

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

0

0

0

26,348,386
15,705,838

26,080,473
15,250,306

564,831

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

26,858,285

26,856,080

2,205

26,744,175

26,130,412

613,763

267,913
455,532

24,675,819
15,566,596

23,206,773
15,474,214

1,469,046
92,382

23,638,476
16,505,039

21,547,702
16,267,926

2,090,774
237,113

483,102

81,729

1,180,211

585,046

595,165

1,134,818

586,646

548,172

13,504,079
4,583,646
9,289,006
12,030,676
9,566,470
3,517,383
122,118
1,457,010
178 464
178,464

11,980,294
4,454,333
9,272,399
11,811,491
9,348,240
2,914,758
118,419
1,444,637
178,055
178 055

1,523,785
129,313
16,607
219,185
218,230
602,625
3,699
12,373
409

13,462,208
4,636,239
9,394,310
11,994,647
9,633,850
2,837,493
122,643
1,414,573
178,464
178 464

11,198,790
4,417,450
9,235,141
11,616,464
9,385,825
2,669,257
115,970
1,340,278
172,058
172 058

2,263,418
218,789
159,169
378,183
248,025
168,236
6,673
74,295
6,406
6 406

11,152,008
4,275,303
9,657,895
11,156,919
9,453,250
2,728,361
118,275
1,357,229
183,511
183 511

10,361,530
4,166,360
9,440,434
10,847,623
9,151,263
2,487,650
114,555
1,261,498
177,933
177 933

790,478
108,943
217,461
309,296
301,987
240,711
3,720
95,731
5,578
5 578

4,085,323

3,804,568

280,755

4,037,840

3,822,063

215,777

3,804,848

3,494,445

310,403

2,359,486

2,066,508

292,978

2,425,034

2,208,242

216,792

2,283,693

2,039,501

244,192

692,996
9,117,461

691,998
8,792,424

998
325,037

2,224,479
9,068,503

1,289,408
8,472,676

935,071
595,827

7,017,992
8,677,146

6,769,400
8,246,532

248,592
430,614

3,978,702
2,239,422
1,566,720
1,952,824
59,995
18,187,198

3,721,335
2,239,422
1,566,425
1,777,961
54,592
17,394,634

257,367
0
295
174,863
5,403
792,564

3,968,244
2,239,422
1,566,720
1,921,471
59,995
17,654,607

3,629,438
2,239,156
1,564,089
1,817,921
55,379
16,573,892

338,806
266
2,631
103,550
4,616
1,080,715

3,782,646
2,993,454
1,573,644
1,835,108
62,333
16,562,046

3,669,122
2,991,815
1,572,738
1,714,907
60,486
15,621,675

113,524
1,639
906
120,201
1,847
940,371

835,826

702,304

133,522

1,169,563

1,088,503

81,060

1,182,312

1,109,625

72,687

-45-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Farmington Correctional Center - Board of Public
Buildings - Expense and Equipment
Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center Personal Service
Overtime
Substance Abuse Services - Personal Service
Substance Abuse Services - Expense and Equipment
Toxicology Testing - Expense and Equipment
Workforce Readiness - Expense and Equipment
Offender Education - Personal Service
Offender Education - Expense and Equipment
Offender Education - Personal Service - Hourly
Offender Reentry Program - Expense and Equipment
Offender Reentry Program - Expense and Equipment
Community Supervision Centers - Personal Service
Community Supervision Centers Expense and Equipment
Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center Board of Public Buildings - Personal Service
Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center Board of Public Buildings - Expense and Equipment
Data Processing and Information Systems
Department-wide - Expense and Equipment
Western Missouri Correctional Center - Personal
Service
Potosi Correctional Center - Personal Service
Farmington Correctional Center and Fulton Reception
and Diagnostic Correctional Center - Board of
Public Buildings - Fuel and Utilities
Adult Institutions Department-wide Expense and
Equipment - Institutional Pool
Total General Revenue Fund

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

0

0

0

11,989,070
9,578,833
3,632,476
4,741,219
886,331
90,918
9,283,371
2,586,396
0
15,000
368,096
2,484,370

11,357,290
9,290,979
3,247,498
3,944,281
858,582
72,455
8,384,588
2,579,915
0
14,443
340,858
1,912,628

1,992,450

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

175,547

174,924

623

175,547

173,459

2,088

631,780
287,854
384,978
796,938
27,749
18,463
898,783
6,481
0
557
27,238
571,742

11,736,353
9,308,726
3,587,120
2,658,198
886,331
90,918
8,975,588
2,587,147
37,394
15,000
368,096
1,973,976

10,895,480
6,869,614
3,283,954
2,400,159
850,367
74,597
8,366,749
2,286,556
20,374
14,267
298,283
1,278,248

840,873
2,439,112
303,166
258,039
35,964
16,321
608,839
300,591
17,020
733
69,813
695,728

9,783,923
8,198,745
3,377,467
2,671,219
899,916
94,449
8,604,814
2,920,275
36,206
15,000
370,700
1,389,987

9,453,626
8,049,703
3,198,609
2,613,776
869,306
83,019
8,114,829
2,876,932
33,088
14,047
255,103
988,505

330,297
149,042
178,858
57,443
30,610
11,430
489,985
43,343
3,118
953
115,597
401,482

1,837,872

154,578

1,517,842

536,714

981,128

830,342

518,813

311,529

617 918
617,918

517 226
517,226

100 692
100,692

639 988
639,988

536 601
536,601

103 387
103,387

553 340
553,340

486 482
486,482

66 858
66,858

0

0

0

48,533

48,131

402

48,533

48,521

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

176,525

170,912

5,613

14,965,589
10,535,644

13,884,324
10,005,170

1,081,265
530,474

14,937,001
10,709,219

13,638,265
9,965,479

1,298,736
743,740

14,073,847
9,154,126

13,016,950
9,148,397

1,056,897
5,729

0

0

0

4,561,609

4,557,389

4,220

4,562,017

4,047,622

514,395

12,331,980
583,184,393

12,323,748
562,159,918

8,232
21,024,475

14,865,675
593,654,506

14,846,248
562,834,279

19,427
30,820,227

13,787,262
533,405,167

13,779,237
511,611,849

8,025
21,793,318

-46-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE RESERVE FUND
Operational Maintenance and Repair
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements, Emergency Requirements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide
Operational Maintenance and Repairs to
State-owned Facilities
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements, Emergency Requirements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide - Year 1
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements, Emergency Requirements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide - Year 2
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide Algoa Correctional Center - Electrical Service
Algoa Correctional Center - Condensate Lines
Boonville Correctional Center - Phase II
Electric Various
Eastern Reception and Diagnostic Center Fire Alarm Various
Farmington Correctional Center - Water
System Improvement
Farmington Correctional Center - Fire Alarm
System
Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional
Center - Replace Roof
Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional
Center - Natural Gas Lines
Maryville Treatment Center - Replace/Repair
Elevator
Missouri Eastern Correctional Center Replace Boiler
Kitchen Floor

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

5,800,000

1,364,384

4,435,616

7,288,609

4,457,453

0

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,831,156

7,839,106

7,839,106

0

18,047,318

724,619

0

0

1,218,750

1,216,606

2,144

1,218,750

1,217,526

0

0

0

48,260

48,260

0

344,840

296,581

48,259 *

0

0

0

3,197,744

3,195,726

2,018

7,619,332

5,638,271

1,981,061 *

6,771,068
347,050

2,064,802
310,030

4,706,266
37,020

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

4 816 782
4,816,782

231 383
231,383

4 585 399
4,585,399

0

0

0

0

0

0

379,469

4,333

375,136

0

0

0

0

0

0

644,512

28,900

615,612

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,798,183

506,213

2,291,970

0

0

0

0

0

0

52,064

30,972

21,092

0

0

0

0

0

0

139,191

21,700

117,491

0

0

0

0

0

0

802,832

18,599

784,233

0

0

0

0

0

0

256,222
126,298

203,468
0

52,754
126,298

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

-47-

17,322,699 *
1,224

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Missouri Eastern Correctional Center Replace Roofs
Moberly Correctional Center - Fire Alarm
System
Moberly Correctional Center - Repair Exterior
Administration
Ozark Correctional Center - Fire Alarm
System Various
Potosi Correctional Center - Replace Chiller
Tipton Correctional Center - Electronic
Renovation Various
Western Missouri Correctional Center Security Improvements Various
Western Reception and Diagnostic Center Repair Tunnel
Western Reception and Diagnostic Center Power Plant Roof
Western Reception and Diagnostic Center Replace Floor
Western Reception and Diagnostic Center Electrical Study
Kansas City Community Release Center Exhaust System Administration
Energy Conservation Project
Total Facilities Maintenance Reserve Fund
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FUND
Information Technology Services Division Expense and Equipment
Security Enhancements Statewide
Contractual Services for Offender Physical and Mental
Health Care - Expense and Equipment
Planning, Design, and Construction of Community
Supervision Centers Statewide

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

1,107,197

26,053

1,081,144

919,313

21,472

681,017

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

0

0

0

0

0

0

897,841

0

0

0

0

0

0

369

680,648

0

0

0

0

0

0

466,478
600,799

9,255
516,227

457,223
84,572

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1,474,552

153,910

1,320,642

0

0

0

0

0

0

8,387,388

1,911,942

6,475,446

0

0

0

0

0

0

333,938

0

333,938

0

0

0

0

0

0

821,266

18,115

803,151

0

0

0

0

0

0

290 927
290,927

10 601
10,601

280 326
280,326

0

0

0

0

0

0

148,000

71,740

76,260

0

0

0

0

0

0

252,679
618,625
46,324,459

14,436
385,590
12,381,947

238,243
233,035
33,942,512

0
0
12,303,860

0
0
12,299,698

0
0
4,162

0
0
27,230,240

0
0
7,876,997

0
0
19,353,243

0
969,519

0
24,243

0
945,276

0
232,534

0
232,534

0
0

2,872
3,000,000

2,357
1,797,947

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

308,073

308,073

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-48-

515
1,202,053 *

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Food Service Items and Operational Expenses of
Food Preparation Facilities at All Institutions Expense and Equipment
Planning, Design, and Construction of Community
Supervision Centers Statewide
Planning, Design, and Construction of a Juvenile
Housing Unit at Northeast Correctional Center
Overtime
Federal Programs - Personal Service
Federal Programs - Expense and Equipment
Total Department of Corrections Fund
BOARD OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS - SERIES A 2003
BOND PROCEEDS - PROJECTS FUND
Planning, Design, and Construction of Community
Supervision Centers Statewide
Planning, Design, and Construction of a Juvenile
Housing Unit at Northeast Correctional Center
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements Emergency Requirements,
Requirements and
Requirements,
Improvements at Facilities Statewide
Total Board of Public Buildings - Series A 2003
Bond Proceeds- Projects Fund
FOURTH STATE BUILDING - SERIES A 1998 FUND
Maintenance, Repairs, Replacements, Unprogrammed
Requirements, Emergency Requirements, and
Improvements at Facilities Statewide
Total Fourth State Building- Series A 1998
Fund
WORKING CAPITAL REVOLVING FUND
Information Technology Services Division Personal Service
Information Technology Services Division Expense and Equipment
Jefferson City Correctional Center - Personal Service
Moberly Correctional Center - Personal Service

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

450,000

226,577

223,423

16,348,960

12,272,677

1,655,802
0
2,863,731
6,154,437
28,750,522

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

450,000

449,932

68

450,000

449,658

342

4,076,283

3,174,087

3,174,086

1

24,611,078

5,088,031

19,523,047 *

1,059,597
0
2,048,625
3,287,656
19,227,448

596,205
0
815,106
2,866,781
9,523,074

824,486
1
2,780,321
5,356,718
12,818,148

824,486
0
1,939,182
2,765,732
9,385,952

0
1
841,139
2,590,986
3,432,196

2,510,501
1
2,219,424
5,467,683
38,261,560

30,213
0
1,885,535
2,142,310
11,396,051

2,480,288 *
1
333,889
3,325,373
26,865,509

730,255

455,726

274,529

717,500

717,499

1

2,022,748

574,993

1,447,755 *

50,364

12,376

37,988

62,393

62,392

1

127,745

14,988

112,757 *

0

0

0

354,682

354,682

0

1,654,048

1,297,831

356,217 *

780,619

468,102

312,517

1,134,575

1,134,573

2

3,804,541

1,887,812

1,916,729

1,325,607

1,325,607

0

3,802,408

3,802,408

0

6,019,695

1,091,680

4,928,015 *

1,325,607

1,325,607

0

3,802,408

3,802,408

0

6,019,695

1,091,680

4,928,015

0

0

0

0

0

0

43,152

42,795

357

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

223,694
203,024
169,220

48,100
154,860
156,416

175,594
48,164
12,804

-49-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Missouri Eastern Correctional Center - Personal
Service
Missouri Correctional Enterprises Expense and Equipment
Missouri Correctional Enterprises - Personal Service
Private Sector/Prison Industry Enhancement
Program - Expense and Equipment
Fuel and Utilities Department-wide Expense and Equipment
Telecommunications Expense Department-wide
Payment of Real Property Leases, Related Services,
Utilities, Systems Furniture, Structural
Modifications, and Related Expenses - Leasing
Algoa Correctional Center - Personal Service
Overtime
Workforce Readiness - Expense and Equipment
Total Working Capital Revolving Fund
INMATE REVOLVING FUND
Boonville
ill Correctional
i l Center - Personall Service
i
Residential Treatment Facilities - Expense and
Equipment
Ozark Correctional Center - Personal Service
Electronic Monitoring - Expense and Equipment
Local Sentencing Initiative - Expense and Equipment
Costs Associated with Increased Offender Population
Department-wide - Personal Service
DHS - Personal Service
DHS - Expense & Equipment
Tipton Correctional Center - Personal Service
BP&P - Personal Service
BP&P - Expense and Equipment
Kansas City Community Release Center Personal Service
Chillicothe Correctional Center - Personal Service
Overtime

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

0

0

0

25,645,726
7,896,208

23,781,136
6,498,215

0

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

0

0

0

56,806

45,478

11,328

1,864,590
1,397,993

25,645,726
7,704,116

18,814,015
6,183,811

6,831,711
1,520,305

25,592,442
7,422,081

15,525,303
6,345,776

10,067,139
1,076,305

0

0

962,762

0

962,762

962,762

0

962,762

0
0

0
0

0
0

1,487,661
256,400

1,487,414
0

247
256,400

1,500,000
256,400

1,491,251
0

8,749
256,400

261,379
0
15,001
0
33,818,314

168,966
0
0
0
30,448,317

92,413
0
15,001
0
3,369,997

181,224
0
1
350,000
36,587,890

177,868
0
0
0
26,663,108

3,356
0
1
350,000
9,924,782

107,254
29,003
20,001
694,349
37,280,188

105,669
20,691
107
0
23,936,446

1,585
8,312
19,894
694,349
13,343,742

32,263

0

32,263

31,323

215

31,108

29,003

20,281

8,722

4,989,458
319,313
1,980,289
1,087,115

3,256,789
306,724
919,207
1,020,071

1,732,669
12,589
1,061,082
67,044

2,733,039
310,013
1,494,821
1,087,115

2,610,045
307,949
960,935
915,264

122,994
2,064
533,886
171,851

2,733,039
291,000
0
0

2,080,859
290,705
0
0

652,180
295
0
0

0
311,914
63,049
85,637
284,317
3,050,772

0
189,945
15,334
11,961
252,119
819,283

0
121,969
47,715
73,676
32,198
2,231,489

415,863
333,238
63,049
83,143
129,277
63,048

383,388
281,206
18,682
56,926
88,991
45,310

32,475
52,032
44,367
26,217
40,286
17,738

0
320,422
63,049
79,945
124,305
63,048

0
251,809
1,240
34,643
90,864
43,997

0
68,613
61,809
45,302
33,441
19,051

46,042
27,018
15,001

38,989
23,834
9,593

7,053
3,184
5,408

44,701
26,231
1

32,391
25,940
0

12,310
291
1

42,982
25,222
20,001

37,128
24,984
0

5,854
238
20,001

-50-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
Year Ended June 30,
2007

2008

Community Corrections Coordination Unit Personal Service
BP&P Local Sentencing Initiatives, Electronic
Monitoring, Residential and Community Treatment,
Community Corrections Coordination Unit, and
Command Center
Total Inmate Revolving Fund
CORRECTIONAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE EARNINGS
FUND
Substance Abuse Services - Expense and Equipment
Total Correctional Substance Abuse Earnings Fund
Total All Funds **
$

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

0

0

0

0
12,292,188

0
6,863,849

264,600
264,600
706,740,702

78,371
78,371
632,953,559

2006

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

Appropriation
Authority

Expenditures

Lapsed
Balances ***

146,759

143,869

2,890

141,114

136,502

4,612

0
5,428,339

0
6,961,621

0
5,871,111

0
1,090,510

1,510,021
5,443,151

752,489
3,765,501

757,532
1,677,650

186,229
186,229
73,787,143

264,600
264,600
667,527,608

88,233
88,233
622,079,362

176,367
176,367
45,448,246

264,600
264,600
651,709,142

49,159
49,159
561,615,495

215,441
215,441
90,093,647

*

Biennial appropriations set up in the current fiscal year are re-appropriations to the next fiscal year.
After the fiscal year-end processing has been completed, the unexpended appropriation
balance for a biennial appropriation is established in the new fiscal year. Therefore, there
is no lapsed balance for a biennial appropriation at the end of the first year.

**

This
Thi schedule
h d l does
d
nott include
i l d start-up
t t
expenditures
dit
for
f the
th new Chillicothe
Chilli th Prison.
Pi
The
Th DOC
was authorized to spend $9.7 million from the Board of Public Buildings Series A 2006
Chillicothe Prison Fund for start-up expenditures. The design and construction of the new facility
was also paid from this fund by the Office of Administration.

-51-

Appendix C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
***

The lapsed balances include the following withholdings made at the Governor's request:

General Revenue Fund
Personal Service
Expense and Equipment
Overtime
Reentry Pilot Program in the City of Saint Louis Expense and Equipment
BP&P Local Sentencing Initiatives, Electronic
Monitoring, Residential and Community
Treatment, Community Corrections Coordination
Unit, and Command Center- Personal Services &
Expense & Equipment
Total General Revenue Fund
BP&P
DAI
DHS
DORS

$

$

2008
8,540,532
803,680
287,365

Year Ended June 30,
2007
9,879,415
1,776,810
279,262

2006
13,410,821
929,749
148,285

27,000

30,000

0

0
9,658,577

0
11,965,487

51,307
14,540,162

Board of Probation and Parole
Division of Adult Institutions
Division of Human Services
Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services

-52-

Appendix D
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES (FROM APPROPRIATIONS)

Salaries and wages
$
Travel, in-state
Travel, out-of-state
Fuel and utilities *
Supplies
Professional development
Communication services and supplies
Services:
Professional
Housekeeping and janitorial
Maintenance and repair
Equipment:
Computer
Motorized
Office
Other
Property and improvements
D bt service
Debt
i
Real property rentals and leases
Equipment rental and leases
Miscellaneous expenses
Rebillable expenses
Refunds
Program distributions **
Total Expenditures
$

2008
340,529,402
2,582,667
311,862
706,258
62,903,710
395,506
1,544,935

Year Ended June 30,
2007
2006
330,544,165
319,754,601
2,783,679
2,798,146
294,917
256,643
29,975,057
31,743,136
53,786,031
50,961,615
402,888
470,646
1,750,336
2,476,109

2005
326,319,243
2,708,348
298,474
28,528,733
52,885,471
538,509
2,514,211

2004
311,361,338
2,679,154
208,817
27,250,748
53,723,922
627,217
2,519,305

130,287,332
1,673,396
2,802,256

113,517,046
1,578,607
3,793,701

110,821,193
1,596,275
4,215,871

109,407,269
1,585,443
4,519,259

105,337,196
1,753,216
5,666,818

299,014
1,134,093
1,254,039
5,081,105
27,688,417
200
200,833
833
6,419,595
226,920
6,040,763
0
7,901
40,863,555
632,953,559

38,788
1,440,920
1,533,143
4,862,573
22,308,004
302
302,111
111
6,561,445
337,311
6,098,524
0
0
40,170,116
622,079,362

1,998,057
1,431,285
1,314,778
2,990,228
16,757,007
66
66,971
971
5,907,620
459,356
5,595,936
0
22
0
561,615,495

2,297,413
1,269,197
2,424,431
6,408,657
11,157,503
66,155
155
6,610,494
329,885
5,727,681
0
0
0
565,536,376

3,605,561
1,601,383
1,572,807
5,814,961
6,267,510
153
153,437
437
6,433,150
1,298,613
5,873,389
48,161
0
0
543,796,703

* Beginning in fiscal year 2008, expenditures for fuel and utilities are primarily paid by the Office of Administration (OA) as part of the
consolidation of maintenance resources. Funds are transferred to the OA to cover the expenses.
** In fiscal year 2007, appropriations to reimburse counties and the City of St. Louis for certain costs incurred in the prosecution and
incarceration of defendants sentenced to imprisonment in the DOC, costs of transporting prisoners to the reception and diagnostic
centers, and costs of transporting extradited prisoners were transfered from the OA to the DOC.

-53-

Appendix E
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME,
INCOME EXPENSES
EXPENSES, AND NET INCOME
INMATE CANTEEN FUND

2008
Income
Canteen sales
Vending machine income
I
Interest
Miscellaneous
Total Income

$

Expenses
C off sales
Cost
l
Operating expenses
I
Inmate
t bbenefit
fit
Total Expenses
Net Income (Loss)

$

Y E
Year
Ended
d d JJune 30
30,
2007

2006

29,577,165
413 048
413,048
632,682
632,682
589 201
589,201
31 212 096
31,212,096

29,360,786
438 043
438,043
575,423
575,423
176 439
176,439
30 550 691
30,550,691

29,401,054
398 041
398,041
454,780
454,780
297 580
297,580
30 551 455
30,551,455

22,666,827
22
,666,827
1 470 428
1,470,428
4 646 046
4,646,046
28,783,301

22,624,472
22
,624,472
1 089 098
1,089,098
4 415 266
4,415,266
28,128,836

23,360,719
23
,360,719
1 041 589
1,041,589
3 523 078
3,523,078
27,925,386

2,428,795

2,421,855

2,626,069

Note: Income and expenses on this statement will not agree to receipts and disbursements on
App di A bbecause thi
Appendix
this statement
t t
t was pprepared
p d using
i g th
the accruall bbasis
i off accounting
ti g and
d
Appendix A was prepared using the cash basis of accounting.

-54-

Appendix F
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME, EXPENSES, AND NET INCOME
WORKING CAPITAL REVOLVING FUND

2008
Income
S l - regular
Sales
g l
Sales - interdepartmental
Other
Total Income

2006

35,001,609
35
001 609
2,843,632
1 008 658
1,008,658
38 853 899
38,853,899

28,399,355
28
399 355
2,226,589
991 173
991,173
31 617 117
31,617,117

27,362,419
27
362 419
2,391,834
963 527
963,527
30 717 780
30,717,780

Cost of Goods Sold
Material
Inmate labor
M f t i g overhead
Manufacturing
h d
Freight
Subtotal
Physical inventory adjustment
MVE central
t l office
ffi overhead
h d
Total Cost of Goods Sold

18,669,953
18
669 953
1 664 323
1,664,323
5 154 539
5,154,539
71,881
25,560,696
(644 870)
(644,870)
(5 163 828)
(5,163,828)
19,751,998
, ,

13,493,637
13
493 637
1 504 422
1,504,422
4 778 584
4,778,584
51,946
19,828,589
(459 807)
(459,807)
(4 844 006)
(4,844,006)
14,524,776
, ,

12,903,259
12
903 259
1 540 166
1,540,166
4 224 611
4,224,611
29,899
18,697,935
(69 590)
(69,590)
(4 176 549)
(4,176,549)
14,451,796
, ,

Gross Profit Margin

19 101 901
19,101,901

17 092 341
17,092,341

16 265 984
16,265,984

Expenses
Salaries and wages
B fit
Benefits
Other
Total Expenses

66,557,544
557 544
2 863 228
2,863,228
7,655,804
, ,
17,076,576

66,208,687
208 687
2 853 712
2,853,712
8,143,741
, ,
17,206,140

66,730,026
730 026
2 972 856
2,972,856
7,522,148
, ,
17,225,030

N IIncome (L
Net
((Loss))

$

Year Ended
d d June 30,,
2007

$

2 025 325
2,025,325

(113 799))
((113,799)

(959 046))
((959,046)

Note: IIncome,, cost off ggoods
N
d sold,
ld, and
d expenses
p
on this
hi statement will
ill not agree
g to receipts
ip and
d
disbursements on Appendix A because this statement was prepared using the accrual basis of
accounting and Appendix A was prepared using the cash basis of accounting.
accounting

-55-

Appendix G
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF GENERAL CAPITAL ASSETS

Asset Type:
Buildings
Equipment
Land Improvements
Land
Tools
Vehicles
Total

Department of Corrections *
June 30,
2008
2007
2006
$ 943,235,904 927,452,496 924,073,462
65,885,855
65,718,206
67,325,107
19,895,642
19,526,705
19,506,997
6,781,403
6,781,403
6,670,348
38,443
38,443
23,897
7,406,142
6,899,292
5,972,957
$ 1,043,243,389 1,026,416,545 1,023,572,768

Fund of Acquisition:
June 30, 2008
General Revenue Fund
$ 698,459,225
Elementary and Secondary Education - Federal and Other Fund
89,567
Division of Youth Services - Federal and Other Fund
206,320
Facilities Maintenance Reserve Fund
30,791,167
Department of Corrections Fund
41,932,350
Department of Natural Resources - Federal and Other Fund
3,204
Revenue Sharing Trust Fund
7,352,072
Federal and Other Fund
513,000
Gaming Proceeds for Education Fund
59,878
Bi
Bingo
P
Proceeds
d ffor Ed
Education
ti F
Fund
d
11,998
998
Board of Public Buildings - Series A 2003 Bond Proceeds - Projects Fund
3,575,480
Third State Building Fund - Pre Tax Act 1986 Fund
4,006,235
Third State Building Trust Fund
72,862,355
Fourth State Building - Series A 1995 Fund
22,521,167
Fourth State Building - Series A 1996 Fund
67,564,933
Fourth State Building - Series A 1998 Fund
32,226,167
Department of Natural Resources Cost Allocation Fund
7,351
Working Capital Revolving Fund
0
Inmate Revolving Fund
2,607
State School Moneys Fund
42,265
Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance Fund
2,707,647
Board of Public Buildings - Series A 2001 Bond Proceeds - Projects Fund
2,170,255
Board of Public Buildings - Series A 2006 Bond Proceeds - Projects Fund
44,634
Board of Public Buildings - Capital Assets Fund
56,103,512
Total All Funds
$ 1,043,243,389

Missouri Vocational Enterprises
June 30,
2008
2007
2006
6,361,377
6,385,795
6,385,794
3,509,444
3,671,862
3,612,367
62,453
62,453
62,453
40,500
40,500
40,500
16,480,455
16,813,889
16,327,488
3,735,786
3,716,069
3,450,012
30,190,015
30,690,568
29,878,614

June 30, 2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,190,015
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,190,015

* This statement does not include the Inmate Canteen Fund Capital Assets. See finding number 3.D.

-56-