U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Promotional Practices of the Mississippi Department of Corrections From January 1, 1992, Through February 1, 1993, Resulted in Questioned Costs of $123,990

NCJ Number
149850
Date Published
1993
Length
25 pages
Annotation
The Mississippi Legislature created the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER) by statute in 1973.
Abstract
The PEER Committee is authorized to review any entity, including contractors supported in whole or in part by public funds, and to address any issue requiring legislative action. The Committee has statutory access to all State and local records and has subpoena power to compel testimony or the production of documents. As an integral part of the Mississippi Legislature, the PEER Committee provides such services as program evaluations, economy and efficiency reviews, investigations, briefings to individual legislators, testimony, and other governmental research and assistance. The Committee reviewed the promotional practices of Mississippi's Department of Corrections (DOC) between January 1, 1992, and February 1, 1993. Objectives were to determine if the DOC justified salary increases when personnel were promoted and to ascertain if the DOC used State new hire policies efficiently. It was found that the DOC had not properly implemented the State Personnel Board's Employee Performance Appraisal System and did not use performance appraisals when making promotional salary increases. In addition, the DOC awarded employees and new hires the maximum allowable employee compensation without providing documentation to justify the additional expense. In 9 of 15 instances involving new hire promotional pay increases, the DOC failed to support the additional expense. The PEER Committee questioned $123,990 in DOC costs. Recommendations to improve and monitor the DOC's promotion policies are offered. 2 exhibits