# U. S. Department of Justice

# 

# FY 2008 PERFORMANCE BUDGET

# 

# ![](media/image1.png){width="4.566666666666666in" height="4.566666666666666in"}

# 

# Office of the Federal Detention Trustee

# 

# [Congressional Budget Submission]{.underline} 

# 

# Table of Contents

[I. Overview 3](#__RefHeading___Toc135793182)

II\. Summary of Program Changes 11

[III. Appropriation Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language
12](#iii.-appropriation-language)

[IV. Decision Unit Justification
1](#iv.-ofdt-decision-unit-justification)3

[Program Description 13](#a.-program-description)

[Detention Services 13](#a.1-detention-services)

[Transportation 15](#a.2-jpats-transportation)

[Performance Resource Table 18](#__RefHeading___Toc135793215)

Strategic Objectives, Challenges, Strategies, and Performance
.....................\....22

[V. Program Increases by Item](#__RefHeading___Toc135793216) Not
Applicable

VI\. Exhibits

> A: Organizational Chart
>
> B: Summary of Requirements
>
> C: Increase Offsets
>
> D: Strategic Goals & Objectives
>
> E: Adjustments to Base Justification
>
> F: 2006 Cross-walk
>
> G: 2007 Cross-walk
>
> H: Reimbursable Resources
>
> I: Permanent Positions
>
> J: Financial Analysis - Not Applicable
>
> K: Summary by Grade
>
> L: Summary by Object Class
>
> M: Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports
>
> N: Resource Summary

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135793182 .anchor}I. Overview

## 1. Introduction

The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) requests a total of
21 permanent positions, 21 full-time equivalents (FTE), and
\$1,294,226,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. The request represents an
increase of \$4,660,000 over the FY 2007 Estimated Level. The requested
increase includes \$5,185,000 for adjustments-to-base, \$2,475,000 for a
technical adjustment, and \$3,000,000 for program offsets. In addition,
language is included allowing up to \$5,000,000 to be made available for
the Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP). The request by strategic goal
follows:

+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **DOJ Strategic      | **OFDT**             | **Request**           |
| Goal**               |                      |                       |
|                      | **Program Activity** |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4.3                  | DetentionServices    | 1,262,391,000         |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4.1                  | JPATS Transportation | 31,835,000            |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Total Request**    |                      | **\$1,294,226,000**   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

## OFDT is not requesting any enhancements for information technology (IT). However, the request includes 3 positions, 3 FTE and \$2,633,258 for base IT activities (see page17). Beginning in FY 2007, electronic copies of the Department of Justice's congressional budget justifications and Capital Asset Plan and Business Case exhibits can be viewed or downloaded from the Internet using the Internet address: http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/.

## 2. Background

![](media/image1.png){width="1.1875in" height="1.1875in"}The OFDT was
established as a Department of Justice (DOJ) organization in September
2001 by Congressional directive in response to growing concerns
regarding federal detention. Congress believed that the size and scope
of federal detention demanded a central organization that could direct
resources and facilitate the implementation of programmatic changes.
OFDT's mandate is the oversight of detention management and the
improvement and coordination of detention activities for DOJ and the
Department of Homeland Security.

In 2005, Congress directed OFDT to assume the responsibility of managing
the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS). This is a
clear mandate to improve JPATS management to ensure equality among
agencies while allowing unimpeded prisoner transportation operations.

## 3. Mission

***[Mission Statement]{.underline}***

***Manage and regulate the Federal detention programs and JPATS by
establishing a secure and effective operating environment that drives
efficient and fair expenditure of appropriated funds.***

OFDT was created to avoid duplication of effort and cost of detention
activities by competing agencies. OFDT focuses on process and
infrastructure improvements. OFDT has developed a strategic approach
that crosses organizations to meet the increasing demands on the
detention community of aggressive immigration and law enforcement
initiatives. In an effort to meld the many requirements of the USMS, the
BOP, and ICE, OFDT is implementing a national detention strategy
characterized and driven by an *enterprise perspective.* OFDT's
Strategic Plan lays out the foundation for this strategy.

## 4. FY 2008 Budget Request by Strategic Goal

The OFDT budget includes resources that support the President's
immigration/border initiative, the Attorney General's initiatives
focusing on drugs and child pornography, and internal initiatives
identified in the strategic plan that continue efforts in containing and
managing detention and transportation costs. The budget is aligned with
DOJ and OFDT strategic and performance goals and objectives, which are
clearly displayed in the Performance and Resources Table (*See page*
[*18*](#performance-resource-ta)). The mission is defined by two program
activities: 1) Detention Services; and 2) JPATS Transportation. These
program activities correspond directly with DOJ Strategic Goals as shown
below. Further, each program activity clearly displays the related
performance objectives as well as the full program funding to accomplish
the mission objectives within each activity. All of this information as
well as the critical performance targets and workload projections are
included in the Performance and Resources Table *(See page 18)*. The
alignment of DOJ Strategic Goals, OFDT program activities, and OFDT
Strategic Goals follows.

#### DOJ Strategic Goal 4.3 *Provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of detained persons awaiting trial and/or sentencing*

#### OFDT Program Activity: Detention Services

> *[OFDT Strategic Goal 1]{.underline}: Meet the Nation's Detention
> Requirements in the most economical manner*
>
> *[OFDT Strategic Goal 2:]{.underline} Ensure safe, secure, and humane
> confinement*

#### DOJ Strategic Goal 4.1 *Ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement*

**OFDT Program Activity: JPATS Transportation**

> *[OFDT Strategic Goal 3]{.underline}. Increase efficiency of the JPATS
> program*

### *4.A Budget Request - DOJ Strategic Goal 4.3/ Detention Services*

**FY 2008 Request:** OFDT requests \$1,262,391,000 in appropriated
resources for detention services for detained prisoners. This amount
includes \$1,148,899,000 for costs associated with detention and care of
prisoners. Program costs for health care and medical guards are
\$80,102,000 and \$15,850,000, respectively. Also included in the total
cost for this program activity is \$14,114,000 for intra-district
transportation and \$3,426,000 for other associated costs.

**Increases (above FY 2007 estimate):** The request is \$4,660,000
higher than the estimated enacted FY 2007 level. The estimated enacted
level includes \$5,185,000 as adjustments-to-base, a \$2,475,000
technical adjustment, and \$3,000,000 in program offsets. With the
resources requested, the OFDT estimates it will be able to house
detainees for 16,854,300 jail days in non-federal facilities, house an
average of 59,200 detainees on a daily basis, and provide the detainee
population with medical and hospital care, guard services and other
detention-related items.

#### *4.A.1 Adjustments-to-Base* 

OFDT requests a base adjustment for price increases in basic commodities
and compensation. The base adjustment reflects an increase for medical
services and other specific commodities. (*See Exhibit B*). The
requested increase by expense category is reflected in the *"Resource
Summary*" *(See Exhibit N)*.

**Adjusted Health Care Related Costs:** Costs for detention-related
services have increased proportionately to the increase in the Average
Daily Population (ADP) and as a result of increases in relevant price
indices. Accordingly, anticipated costs for health care services reflect
the growth in the detention population and the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate of increases in Medicare/Medicaid
service rates.

#### [Anticipated Increase in FY2008 Average Daily Population]{.underline}

For FY 2008, the ADP is projected to reach 63,145. This ADP is
predicated on an estimated 193,088 arrests during FY 2008. This
projection assumes that 82% of those arrested will be detained for more
than 4 days and, the average length of detention will be 137 days. Also
included are the President and Attorney General's initiatives involving
immigration, drugs and child pornography.[^1]

From FY 2000 -- FY 2007, the USMS detention population (actual and
projected) increased at an average of 8.5% annually. However, in FY 2008
the projected increase is only 2.1% above the FY 2007 level. The slowing
rate of growth in the detention population is largely the result of a
moderating growth rate for the number of persons arrested by the federal
law enforcement agencies and decreases in (1) the proportion of
defendants ordered detained by the courts and (2) the length of time
defendants are detained pending adjudication and subsequent transfer to
the BOP following conviction and sentencing.

NOTE: As a result of several proactive initiatives undertaken by the
OFDT and the U.S. Attorneys, such as fast-tracking the prosecution of
selected offenses, reducing the number of defendants ordered detained,
and expediting the designation and transfer of sentenced prisoners to
BOP correctional institutions, the detention rate decreased from
approximately 85% of persons arrested during FY 2004 to 82% during FY
2005-2006; and the length of time defendants are detained pending
adjudication and subsequent transfer decreased from 159 days during 2004
to 145 days during FY 2005-2006.

### *Detention Population Forecasting Model* 

The OFDT population forecasting model uses a statistical approach for
predicting detention needs based on factors such as; population and
demographic trends, number and type of criminal cases processed, average
processing time per type of case; and, the authorized positions of
federal law enforcement, U. S. Attorneys, U.S. District Court judges,
and immigration judges. These factors allow for the development of
impact scenarios that address proposed legislation and DOJ law
enforcement initiatives.

##### [Rate and Category of Bookings]{.underline}

Between FY 2000 and 2006, the number of persons arrested by federal law
enforcement agencies and booked by the USMS increased an average of 4.8%
annually, from 134,901 to 179,417. The growth rate in federal arrests
varies considerably by region and offense category, reflecting the law
enforcement challenges and priorities of the U.S. Attorneys. It is
anticipated that the growth rate for arrests and booking will moderate
during FY 2007 and 2008 and will increase at an average annual rate of
3.7%.

While OFDT is continually monitoring the federal criminal caseload and
undertaking efforts to improve the reliability of its projection
methodologies, not all policy, program, and/or environmental factors may
be known when projecting future levels of federal arrests. For example,
between FY 2003 and 2004 arrests and bookings increased by 13.4% (or by
20,500). By comparison, between FY 2000 and 2003, arrests and bookings
increased an average of 4.3% annually. More than half of the
unanticipated increase in bookings observed during FY 2004 involved
arrests for immigration offenses. Currently (as of March 31, 2006), only
24% of the arrests/bookings are for immigration offenses. Of the
remaining categories 37% include arrests for drug, weapons, and violent
offenses. While unanticipated fluctuations remain outside of our control
and are not predictable, OFDT can mitigate the impacts by continuing to
drive efficiencies in areas where we can exert some control; i.e.,
length of stay and transportation.

**[Implementation of Core Rate IGA]{.underline}**

The OFDT has developed a core rate plan to standardize the amount and
the way Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) rates for State and local
facilities are calculated. The core rate plan establishes a negotiated
fixed per diem rate for each facility based on rates of similar
facilities and limits future adjustments to the per diem rate. It will
allow the cost of housing detainees to be more predictive as historical
trends and set prices are integrated to provide more comprehensive
bedspace requirements.

OFDT has revised the core rate program to spread the implementation over
a 3- 4 year period, thus spreading program costs over a longer period.
The FY 2008 budget projections were recalculated to incorporate the
impact of the standardized pricing. OFDT will begin to phase in the IGA
beginning in FY 2007 *(See page 25).*

##### [Cooperative Agreement Program]{.underline}

CAP provides resources to select State and local governments to
renovate, construct, and equip detention facilities in return for
guaranteed bedspace for a fixed period of time for federal detainees in
or near federal court cities. The long-term nature of CAP enhances
OFDT's ability to contain costs more effectively than private facility
contracts since private facilities have generally higher per diem rates.

Historically, CAP funds were awarded in large amounts (average \$1
million, but up to \$9 million) to a small number of state and local
governments. The USMS would then negotiate per diem rates which allowed
the local government to request increases every year, further driving up
the value of those beds and making it more costly in the long run. OFDT,
however, believes that awards could be leveraged for a lower long-term,
fixed per diem rate mirroring the length of the CAP agreement so the
capital investment pays for itself within a short period of time. OFDT
also believes that awards should be geared towards aiding communities in
close proximity to federal court cities facing critical bed space
shortages in small numbers. (Citing the economies of scale, finding beds
for larger populations -- more than 500 -- is easier to resolve because
outsourcing, or private contracting, is advantageous for both the
federal government and private industry and is generally easier to
negotiate.)

It is virtually impossible to outsource smaller populations, because it
is not in the best interest of private industry to provide small numbers
of beds. Locations that are difficult to fund are smaller populations in
remote areas, such as Marquette, MI. This USMS district has a need for
only 15 beds and the closest option is 4.5 hours away -- too far for the
AUSAs and federal public defenders to meet regularly with the detainee
and too far for detainees to travel back and forth in one day food and
showers aren't available for the detainees on return at those late
hours). A capital investment of \$250,000 by OFDT would allow the local
county to build those beds and make them available to us, resolving our
housing issue there for 15 years. However, the local government wants to
take the current USMS 15 beds for their own utilization, and without CAP
funds the OFDT is at an impasse.

**[Detention Services Efficiencies]{.underline}**

In the past 13 years, the Federal detainee population has experienced
unprecedented growth as a result of expanded Federal law and border
enforcement initiatives. This has been a major challenge for Federal
agencies detaining prisoners. To meet this challenge, OFDT works with
the detention community to identify and implement efficiencies to reduce
the ADP and detention expenditures.

OFDT has successfully implemented efficiencies in several areas
including: eDesignate, which reduces post-sentencing time in detention;
core-rate IGA, which standardizes the pricing strategy for paying for
non-federal detention space in order to control costs and provide
greater certainty in rates to be paid; and, Quality Assurance Review
Program, which ensures non-federal facilities' housing meet DOJ
requirements for safe, secure and humane confinement.

OFDT continually seeks ways to realize efficiencies without hampering
operations and strives for savings that can be reinvested in
infrastructure improvements that provide cost containment over the
long-term. A complete discussion of OFDT accomplishments, efficiencies
and cost containment measures is provided in *Section IV Decision Unit
Justification (See pages 22-32).*

#### *4.B* *Budget Request - DOJ Strategic Goal 4.1/ JPATS Transportation*

**FY 2008 Request:** OFDT requests \$31,835,000 for JPATS prisoner
transportation. This includes \$28,225,000 for air transportation and
\$3,610,000 for transportation support. Transportation resources include
transportation by air for long distance movements and resources for
districts supporting the JPATS airlift. The Department proposed transfer
of USMS resources to OFDT in the FY 2007 President's Budget.

#### [FY 2008 Transportation Moves]{.underline}

Transportation needs are directly related to the distance between
courts, district offices, JPATS, and medical facilities. As the number
of detainees and facilities has grown, transportation usage has
increased.

**[JPATS Efficiencies]{.underline}**

In FY 2005 and 2006 and into 2007, OFDT funded special airlift missions
to relieve pressure points in the JPATS transportation system. Through
these supplementary airlifts, prisoners were transported to their BOP
designated correctional facilities more expeditiously, resulting in a
noticeable reduction in post-sentencing detention time.

OFDT's long term goal of increasing the efficiency of JPATS includes
several primary projects for equitable distribution of costs and faster
prisoner movement with available resources. For example, the Pricing
Methodology and Staffing Model project for JPATS ensures financial
management integrity and efficiency and the equitable distribution of
costs and expenses for customers of JPATS as it relates to the JPATS
workforce. Beginning in FY 2006, OFDT began a pilot program of
in-transit housing and transportation hubs. The program will be expanded
in 2007 if data validation shows efficiencies *(See pages 24,30)*.

## 5. PART

OFDT was reviewed in FY 2006 and received an "Effective" rating. The
newly established Improvement Plan includes automation of the detention
billing and payment system, revitalizing and restructuring the
Cooperative Agreement Program, and researching a stronger capacity for
program evaluation which will meet PART requirements.

## Full Program Cost

+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| **Full Program Cost by   |                       |                   |
| Program Activity**       |                       |                   |
|                          |                       |                   |
| **(OFDT Total Request:   |                       |                   |
| \$1,294,226,000)**       |                       |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| **Program Activity**     | **Dollars**           |                   |
|                          |                       |                   |
|                          | **In Thousands**      |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| **Detention Services**   | Housing &             | \$1,148,899       |
|                          | Subsistence\*         |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
|                          | Health Care           | 80,102            |
|                          | Services\*            |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
|                          | Medical Guards        | 15,850            |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
|                          | Transportation\*      | 14,114            |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
|                          | Other                 | 3,426             |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
|                          | **Subtotal**          | **\$1,262,391**   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| **JPATS Transportation** | JPATS                 | 31,835            |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| **Grand                  |                       |                   |
| Total............        |                       |                   |
| ........................ |                       |                   |
| ........................ |                       |                   |
| \$1,294,226**            |                       |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| \*Note: Support Costs    |                       |                   |
| are prorated across the  |                       |                   |
| appropriate program      |                       |                   |
| activity.                |                       |                   |
+--------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+

## 

## 7. OFDT Organization

## OFDT is comprised of 4 divisions and 2 supporting offices and has a full-time permanent staff of 21 employees. The organization chart is shown at Exhibit A.

## 

## 8. Mission Challenges

The internal and external mission challenges are incorporated into
Section IV Decision Unit Justification *(See pages 22-32)*.

**II. Summary of Program** Changes

  ------------------ -------------------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ----------
  **Item Name**      **Description**                  **Pos.**   **FTE**   **Dollars   **Page**
                                                                           (\$000)**   

  **Prisoner                                          **...**    **...**   **...**     
  Housing**                                                                            

  **Prisoner                                          **...**    **...**   **...**     
  Transportation**                                                                     
  ------------------ -------------------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ----------

# III. Appropriation Language

*For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee,
\[\$1,332,326,000\] [\$1,294,226,000]{.underline}, \[of which
\$45,000,000 shall be derived from prior year unobligated balances from
funds previously appropriated,\] to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the Trustee shall be responsible for managing the Justice
Prisoner and Alien Transportation System \[and for overseeing housing
related to such detention\]: Provided further, \[That any unobligated
balances available in prior years from the funds appropriated under the
heading "Federal Prisoner Detention" shall be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation under the heading "Detention Trustee" and shall
be available until expended.\] [That not to exceed \$5,000,000 shall be
considered "funds appropriated for State and local law enforcement
assistance" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4013(b)]{.underline}.* *(Department
of Justice Appropriations Act, 2006.)*

**Analysis of Appropriations Language**

# Language is proposed to include the Cooperative Agreement Program funding in the OFDT appropriation. This will relieve OJP of the audit responsibility for funds over which it has no control, alleviate duplication of work and allow OFDT direct management of all detention resources.

The FY 2008 President's Budget uses the FY 2007 President's Budget
language as a base so all language is presented as new.

#  

# IV. OFDT Decision Unit Justification

  ------------------------------------ -------- ---------- ---------------
  Office of the Federal Detention      Perm.    FTE        Amount
  Trustee                              Pos.                

  2006 Enacted with Rescissions        21       21         \$1,161,967

  2007 Estimate                        21       21         1,289,566

  Adjustments to Base and Technical    ...      ...        7,660
  Adjustments                                              

  2008 Current Services                21       21         1,297,226

  2008 Program Increases               ...      ...        ...

  2008 Offsets                         ...      ...        -3,000

  2008 Request                         21       21         1,294,226

  Total Change 2007-2008               ...      ...        4,660
  ------------------------------------ -------- ---------- ---------------

## A. Program Description

### *A.1 Detention Services*

The mandate of the Detention Trustee is to manage resource allocations,
exercise financial oversight of detention operations, and set
government-wide detention policy. OFDT has overall management and
oversight responsibility for federal detention services relating to the
detention of federal prisoners in non-federal institutions or otherwise
in the custodial jurisdiction of the USMS.

Historically, the USMS has administered the federal prisoner detention
program for the federal government using funding appropriated
specifically for the care of federal prisoners. These resources have
provided the housing, medical care, and medical guard services for
federal detainees remanded to USMS custody. Costs begin at the time a
prisoner is brought into USMS custody and extends through termination of
the criminal proceeding and/or commitment to BOP. The USMS is
responsible for processing, housing, and producing federal detainees for
all court actions. The number of detainees remanded to its custody is
the direct result of the number of arrests made by federal law and
border enforcement agencies, and the prosecutorial efforts of the U.S.
Attorneys. The decision to detain an individual is by order of the
court.

The Federal Government relies on various methods to house detainees.
Detention bed space for federal detainees is acquired at the lowest cost
to the government through: (1) federal detention facilities, where the
government pays for construction and operation of the facility; (2)
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with State and local jurisdictions
who have excess prison/jail bed capacity and where a daily rate is paid
for the use of the bed; (3) private jail facilities where a daily rate
is paid; and, 4) CAP, where capital investment funding was provided to
State and local governments for detention space in exchange for
guaranteed bed space where a daily rate was paid.

In recent years, the Department has not been able to rely solely on IGAs
and Federal facilities to meet the surge in the detention population,
primarily because State and local governments are increasingly using
their facilities for their own detention requirements. With space not
available in areas where more federal bedspace is needed, the Department
faces a severe challenge and has increasingly turned to the private
sector. OFDT will continue to work cooperatively with the private sector
and state and local governments to establish and maintain capacity to
detain persons in federal custody in cost-effective, safe, secure and
humane facilities that meet appropriate standards, at a slower rate than
inflation. A detailed look at this issue follows.

-   During FY 2006, 56,413 prisoners were under the custodial
    jurisdiction of the USMS, on an average daily basis. Of these, an
    average of 11,898 prisoners were housed in facilities owned and
    operated by the BOP and an additional (43,563) were housed in a
    combination of detention facilities operated by state and local
    governments (36,620) and private correctional facility operators
    (6,943).

-   The BOP is appropriated for and has provided beds for detention.
    Historically, the beds were provided in specific facilities.
    However, in December 2004, OFDT reached agreement with the BOP
    whereby the USMS could place detainees in any available and empty
    BOP beds. Based on current agreements, the BOP will be able to house
    an annual average of 12,300 USMS detainees. The FY 2007 and 2008
    budgets are based on maintaining the average daily population of
    12,300 detainees in BOP facilities.

-   Since BOP has no plans to construct additional detention beds, all
    anticipated growth in the detention population will need to be
    accommodated by state/local governments and/or private facility
    operators. For FY 2008, the USMS will be required to house 49,845
    prisoners in non-federal facilities.

-   By 2008 the capacity provided by the BOP will accommodate only 19.5%
    of the USMS detention population. By contrast, during FY 2000, the
    BOP housed approximately 30% of the USMS detention population. As
    available capacity in State and local facilities becomes
    increasingly limited due to local demands, the USMS will be required
    to increasingly rely on the private sector to house federal
    prisoners. Of the 6,732 prisoner growth anticipated in the USMS
    detention population between FY 2006 and 2008, it is anticipated
    that a minimum of 31% will be housed in private
    correctional/detention facilities. With the increased use of private
    facilities, OFDT would need to detail staff to these facilities to
    ensure the detention facility meets established standards for
    confinement. Given OFDT's small permanent staff, this would be an
    enormous workload, especially since this function is inherently
    governmental and cannot be outsourced.

While increases to the average daily detainee population is outside of
OFDT's direct control, we will continue to coordinate the acquisition of
sufficient detention space in the most cost efficient manner. The
National Repository for Detention Space Availability, first implemented
in March 2004, is a resource available to OFDT, USMS and ICE to locate
cost effective space. OFDT is currently enhancing and redesigning it to
become the DSNetwork. This will be a one-stop eGovernment site where
agencies and facility owners can: 1) contract a facility; 2) update a
facility's listing; 3) discover contractual vehicle efficiency
opportunities; and, 4) navigate a variety of new detention services.

Additionally, OFDT will continue the long-established partnership with
the Federal Judiciary to ensure that adequate funds are available for
the courts to place defendants who would otherwise be detained, into
non-secure detention settings (e.g., halfway house and home
confinement), with an electronic monitoring component. Use of non-secure
detention is significantly less expensive than secure detention.

### *A.2 JPATS Transportation*

JPATS is responsible for moving federal prisoners and detainees by air,
including sentenced, pretrial, and deportable aliens, whether in the
custody of the USMS, BOP, or the ICE, in the most cost efficient manner
possible.

On October 1, 1998, JPATS began operating as a revolving fund activity
with total operating costs reimbursed by customer agencies. Costs are
reimbursed using a cost-per-flight-hour methodology that: identifies
costs that are inclusive to each customer agency; differentiates the
costs by fixed and variable rates; and, establishes the hourly cost
based on large and small aircraft usage. In general, BOP and ICE do not
utilize JPATS small jet aircraft; however, if the need arises for the
use of a small plane, BOP and ICE will reimburse the fund for actual
costs. In FY 2006, OFDT instituted San Bernadino, CA, and Grady, OK as
hub locations to increase in-transit capabilities for JPATS. These
actions resulted in a reduction of 4 days on transportation.

In FY 2007, the Department proposed a transfer of USMS transportation
resources to OFDT, believing that oversight of both detention and
transportation resources could lead to greater efficiencies and
economies. The transfer included a total of \$27,935,000 in base
resources. At the time, OFDT incorrectly reported that \$22,685,000 was
for JPATS transportation and \$5,250,000 was for USMS district
transportation in support of the JPATS airlift. Since the President's
request was formulated, with more time having passed and more actual
data having been received, it is clear that the resources were
disproportionately allocated. The new distribution is based on the
average of the prorata spreads for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. See
the detail below.

+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Tr   |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| anspor |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| tation |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Base** |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|        | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    | **FY    | **Ori   | **Readj |
|        | 2003**  | 2004**  | 2005**  | 2006**  | ginal** | usted** |
|        |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|        |         |         |         |         | **FY    | **FY    |
|        |         |         |         |         | 2007**  | 2007**  |
+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *      | \$24,   | \$25,   | \$24,   | \$27,   | \$22,   | 24,     |
| *JPATS | 575,000 | 287,000 | 597,000 | 254,000 | 685,000 | 325,000 |
| Air**  |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Di   | 3,      | 3,      | 3,      | 3,      | 5,      | 3,      |
| strict | 866,000 | 714,000 | 982,000 | 714,000 | 250,000 | 610,000 |
| Sup    |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| port** |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Resources were also requested in FY 2007 for fuel increases, additional
flight hours for the increase in the detainee population, and for buses
to be staged in areas where efficiencies can be gained by using ground
transportation instead of air. These 2007 program increases total
\$3,900,000, bringing the total transportation resources to
\$31,835,000.

### *A.3 Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure*

Expanding eGovernment for the purpose of driving efficiencies within the
detention community is a key strategy within the OFDT. However, one of
the OFDT mission challenges is the state of technology within the
detention community: multiple agencies with disparate and incompatible
legacy IT systems and capabilities. Many of the data processes used by
these entities are either manual or were created within a local IT
environment that does not easily lend itself to electronic information
sharing. Developing a strategy that aligns the operational needs of the
detention community with emerging eGovernment technologies and
integrating an IT Infrastructure that takes advantage of new
commercial-off-the-shelf solutions while leveraging current IT assets,
will assist in streamlining detention operations and reducing costs. To
accomplish these goals, OFDT is developing a comprehensive IT
environment that addresses the business requirements of detention
operations, establishes the foundation for future technology
requirements, and integrates enterprise solutions with existing legacy
systems.

OFDT has established a comprehensive IT Program and funded cross-agency
IT initiatives such as eDesignate and the DSNetwork. DSNetwork, in
addition to providing current bedspace information to the Federal
Detention Community, will soon provide "One-stop shopping" for detention
facilities and services such as:

-   Electronic Intergovernmental Agreements (eIGA) -- e-government
    application and contractual initiation process that enables jailers
    and the government to establish IGAs via technology.

-   Detention Services Schedule, (DSS) -- A concept similar to the GSA
    schedule that focuses on detention bed space and services.

-   An Automated Multi-year Acquisition Plan, (MAP) - available for
    detention agency utilization for long-range planning.

OFDT's IT base is being established in FY 2008. The IT investments
outlined were pilot projects funded from the OFDT operating budget. Now
that these pilots are proven, OFDT is migrating to production across
agencies within the judicial districts. In that these systems directly
drive efficiencies in detention operations and processes, the savings
realized to the overall detention account will be reinvested to sustain
and improve these technology programs.

The following represents OFDT's Information Technology Program Base:

+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **Information Technology Base**                       |              |
|                                                       |              |
| ** **                                                 |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Detention Services Network (DSN) formerly the *Nat\'l | 1,035,000    |
| Repository*                                           |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| OFDT Workflow Systems (OWS)                           | 338,000      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| IT Maintenance, Development, Security                 | 400,000      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Reimbursable Agreement - IT Support- Mgmt & Oversight | 125,906      |
| of Critical Projects -- *OCIO*                        |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Reimbursable Agreement - E-Gov -- OCIO                | 317,520      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Reimbursable Agreement - IT Security- OCIO            | 31,832       |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| IT Division Salaries                                  | 385,000      |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **Total**                                             | **\          |
|                                                       | $2,633,258** |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+

###  Resources & Strategies

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><ol start="2" type="A">
<li><p><span id="__RefHeading___Toc135793215"
class="anchor"></span><strong>PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
TABLE</strong></p></li>
</ol></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13"><strong>Decision Unit: Office of the Federal Detention
Trustee</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective(s):</strong>
4.3 Provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of detained
persons awaiting trial and/or sentencing.</p>
<p>4.1 Ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial
proceedings or confinement</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Workload/Resources</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Final Target</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Estimate</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Changes</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Requested (Total)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Current Services Adjustments and</strong></p>
<p><strong>FY 2008 Program Change</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2008 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Workload:</strong> Total Average Daily
Population:</td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>58,362</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>56,413</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>61,816</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>63,145</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">State &amp; Local Gov’t (IGA) Facilities</td>
<td colspan="2">---</td>
<td colspan="2">36,620</td>
<td colspan="2">40,240</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">40,819</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">Private Facilities</td>
<td colspan="2">---</td>
<td colspan="2">6,943</td>
<td colspan="2">8,276</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">9,026</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><em><strong>Subtotal Non-Federal
Facilities</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>46,362</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>43,563</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>48,516</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>49,845</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><em><strong>Federal (BOP) Facilities</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>12,000</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>11,888</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>12,300</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>0</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>12,300</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><em><strong>Non-Paid Beds</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>---</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>952</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>1,000</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>0</strong></em></td>
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>1,000</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Total Costs and FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">(Reimbursable FTE are included, reimbursable costs are
bracketed and not included in the total)</td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,161,967</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,125,067</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,289,566</strong></td>
<td><strong>…</strong></td>
<td><strong>4,660</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>1,294,226</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Type/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Strategic Obj.</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Performance/Resources</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>2007 President’s Budget</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Current Services Adjustments</strong></p>
<p><strong>FY 2008 Program Change</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2008 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>DOJ SO 4.3</td>
<td rowspan="4"><strong>Detention Services</strong></td>
<td><strong>Resources</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Program Activity</strong></td>
<td>Direct:</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>1,153,936</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>1,153,936</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>1,248,523</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>88,020</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>1,252,719</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Support:</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>8,031</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>8,031</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>9,208</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>464</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>9,672</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Total:</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,161,967</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,161,967</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,257,731</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>88,484</strong></td>
<td><strong>21</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,262,391</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"># Paid Jail Days - IGA</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p>Total</p>
<p>16,922,130</p></td>
<td colspan="2">13,588,950</td>
<td colspan="2">14,514,590</td>
<td colspan="2">120,085</td>
<td colspan="2">14,634,675</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"># Paid Jail Days - Private</td>
<td colspan="2">2,602,085</td>
<td colspan="2">3,193,750</td>
<td colspan="2">365,000</td>
<td colspan="2">3,558,750</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Efficiency</strong></p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2">Per Day Jail Cost (Non-Federal)</td>
<td colspan="2">$63.35</td>
<td colspan="2">$62.73</td>
<td colspan="2">$67.09*</td>
<td colspan="2">+$2.30</td>
<td colspan="2">$69.39</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Efficiency</strong></p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Health Care Cost Per Capita</p>
<p>(Non-Federal)</p></td>
<td colspan="2">$1,796</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,820</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,817</td>
<td colspan="2">+$111</td>
<td colspan="2">$1,928</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"># Targeted Non-Federal Facility* Reviews Completed</td>
<td colspan="2"><p>65%</p>
<p>13 of 20</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>100%</p>
<p>20 of 20</p></td>
<td colspan="2">22</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td colspan="2">24</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>DOJ SO 4.1</td>
<td rowspan="4"><p><strong>JPATS Transpor-</strong></p>
<p><strong>tation</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Resources</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Program Activity</strong></td>
<td>Direct:</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>31,835</td>
<td>-</td>
<td></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>31,835</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Support:</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Total:</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>-</strong></p>
<p><strong>[ ]</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>-</strong></p>
<p><strong>[ ]</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>31,385</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>31,835</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Workload</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"># Transportation Moves of USMS Prisoners - Air</td>
<td colspan="2">61,055</td>
<td colspan="2">61,245</td>
<td colspan="2">65,603</td>
<td colspan="2">+1.312</td>
<td colspan="2">66,915</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Workload</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"># Transportation Moves of USMS Prisoners - Ground</td>
<td colspan="2">82,274</td>
<td colspan="2">81,703</td>
<td colspan="2">86,832</td>
<td colspan="2">+1,302</td>
<td colspan="2">88,134</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measure</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Reduce “Wait Time”</p>
<p>Designation to Commitment</p></td>
<td colspan="2">20</td>
<td colspan="2">16</td>
<td colspan="2">17</td>
<td colspan="2">-2</td>
<td colspan="2">15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>OUTCOME Measure(New)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">Per Day Detention Cost</td>
<td colspan="2">$68.27</td>
<td colspan="2">$67.72</td>
<td colspan="2">$72.07</td>
<td colspan="2">+$2.60</td>
<td colspan="2">$74.67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>OUTCOME Measure(New)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>Targeted Non-Federal</p>
<p>Facilities Meeting Min Stds</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>65%</p>
<p>13 of 20</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>90%</p>
<p>18 of 20</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>86%</p>
<p>19 of 22</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>2%</p>
<p>2 of 24</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>88%</p>
<p>21of 24</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>OUTCOME Measure(New)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">Transportation Unit Cost</td>
<td colspan="2">N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">N/A</td>
<td colspan="2">Hold unit costs below inflation</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

### Performance Resource Ta

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

\* The FY 2007 target revision was required to accommodate the
proportionate increase in the use of private facilities as well as
increases in the cost of related services as discussed previously.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="12"><strong>PERFORMANCE MEASURE TABLE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="12"><strong>Decision Unit: Office of the Federal Detention
Trustee</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><strong>Workload</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2001</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2002</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2003</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2004</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2005</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2008</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Estimate</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Estimate</strong></td>
<td><strong>Estimate</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Non-Federal</strong> (IGA and Private)</td>
<td>24,578</td>
<td>26,107</td>
<td>28,958</td>
<td>33,094</td>
<td>37,752</td>
<td>41,770</td>
<td>46,062</td>
<td>43,563</td>
<td>48,516</td>
<td>49,845</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Federal</strong> (BOP)</td>
<td>10,329</td>
<td>11,017</td>
<td>11,350</td>
<td>11,354</td>
<td>11,848</td>
<td>12,351</td>
<td>12,300</td>
<td>11,898</td>
<td>12,300</td>
<td>12,300</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><em><strong>Non-Paid Beds</strong></em></td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>---</td>
<td>952</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total ADP</strong></td>
<td><strong>34,907</strong></td>
<td><strong>37,124</strong></td>
<td><strong>40,308</strong></td>
<td><strong>44,448</strong></td>
<td><strong>49,600</strong></td>
<td><strong>54,121</strong></td>
<td><strong>58,362</strong></td>
<td><strong>56,413</strong></td>
<td><strong>61,816</strong></td>
<td><strong>63,145</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">% Change (from Prior Year)</td>
<td>+8.6%</td>
<td>+6.4%</td>
<td>+8.6%</td>
<td>+10.3%</td>
<td>+11.6%</td>
<td>+9.1%</td>
<td>+7.8%</td>
<td>+4.2%</td>
<td>+9.5%</td>
<td>+2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><strong>Performance Report &amp; Performance
Plan Targets</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2001</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2002</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2003</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2004</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2005</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2006</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td><strong>FY 2008</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Target</strong></td>
<td><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td><strong>Target</strong></td>
<td><strong>Target</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Performance Measure</td>
<td># Paid Jail Days - IGA</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td rowspan="2">16,922,130</td>
<td>13,588,950</td>
<td>14,514,590</td>
<td>14,674,404</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Performance Measure</td>
<td># Paid Jail Days - Private</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>2,602,085</td>
<td>3,193,750</td>
<td>3,568,500</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Efficiency Measure</strong></td>
<td>Per Day Jail Costs (Non-Federal)</td>
<td>$56.53</td>
<td>$59.01</td>
<td>$60.07</td>
<td>$60.87</td>
<td>$61.87</td>
<td>$61.92</td>
<td>$63.35</td>
<td>$62.73</td>
<td>$67.09</td>
<td>$69.39</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>New</p>
<p><strong>Efficiency Measure</strong></p></td>
<td><p>Health Care Cost Per Capita</p>
<p>(Non-Federal)</p></td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>$1,522</td>
<td>$1,640</td>
<td>$1,495</td>
<td>$1,529</td>
<td>$1,610</td>
<td>$1,796</td>
<td>$1,820</td>
<td>$1,817</td>
<td>$1,928</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>New</p>
<p>Performance Measure</p></td>
<td><p># Targeted Facility Reviews</p>
<p>(Non-Federal)</p>
<p>(New Quality Assurance Program)</p></td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td><p>65%</p>
<p>13 of 20</p></td>
<td><p>100%</p>
<p>20</p></td>
<td>22</td>
<td>24</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>New</p>
<p>Workload Measure</p></td>
<td># Transportation Moves of USMS Prisoners - Air</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>57,465</td>
<td>61,188</td>
<td>59,227</td>
<td>61,055</td>
<td>63,353</td>
<td>65,603</td>
<td>66,915</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>New</p>
<p>Workload Measure</p></td>
<td># Transportation Moves of USMS Prisoners - Ground</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>67,397</td>
<td>74,061</td>
<td>78,033</td>
<td>82,274</td>
<td>81,584</td>
<td>86,832</td>
<td>88,134</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>New</p>
<p>Performance Measure</p></td>
<td>Reduce “Wait Time” in Detention from Designation to Commitment</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>New</p>
<p><strong>OUTCOME Measure</strong></p></td>
<td><p>Per Day Detention Cost</p>
<p>(Non-Federal)</p></td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>$63.18</td>
<td>$64.56</td>
<td>$64.97</td>
<td>$66.06</td>
<td>$66.33</td>
<td>$68.27</td>
<td>$67.72</td>
<td>$72.07</td>
<td>$74.67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>New</p>
<p><strong>OUTCOME Measure</strong></p></td>
<td><p>Facilities Meeting Minimum Stds</p>
<p>(Non-Federal)</p>
<p>(New Quality Assurance Program)</p></td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td><p>65%</p>
<p>13 of 20</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>18 of 20</p></td>
<td><p>86%</p>
<p>19 of 22</p></td>
<td><p>88%</p>
<p>21 of 24</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>New <strong>OUTCOME Measure</strong></td>
<td>Transportation Unit Costs</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>N/A</td>
<td>Hold unit costs below inflation</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

###  

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Definitions, Validation, Verification, and Limitations**:      |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Paid Jail Days (IGA and Private)**             |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition:**  Total number of prisoners housed by the USMS in |
| non-federal detention facilities on a daily basis.  IGA jail days     |
| represent the number of prisoners housed on a daily basis in          |
| facilities operated by state and/or local governments.  Private jail  |
| days represent the number of prisoners housed on a daily basis in     |
| facilities operated by non-governmental entities (such as for-profit  |
| corporations).                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage**: Data describing prisoners booked and |
| taken into custody by the USMS are maintained by the USMS in their    |
| Prisoner Tracking System (PTS).  Aggregate statistics describing the  |
| number of prisoners housed in each detention facility utilized by     |
| each of the 94 districts are reported to OFDT on a daily basis.  OFDT |
| compiles reports describing the detention population on a weekly and  |
| monthly basis.  Data are reported on both district and national       |
| levels.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification**: Data reported to OFDT are       |
| validated and verified against monthly reports describing             |
| district-level jail utilization and housing costs prepared by the     |
| USMS.                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations**: Maintaining prisoner movement data is a         |
| labor-intensive process.  The reliability of the reported data is     |
| often compromised by time lags between the actual movement of         |
| prisoners and key-punching of those events into the PTS system.       |
| Accordingly, it is often necessary to delay reporting of official     |
| statistics several weeks to ensure that prisoner movement records     |
| have been properly updated.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Per Day Jail Cost**                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition**:  Actual average price paid (over a 12-month      |
| period) by the USMS to house federal prisoners in non-federal         |
| detention facilities.  IGA jail cost represents the average cost paid |
| by the USMS to house prisoners in facilities operated by state and/or |
| local governments.  Private jail costs represent the average cost     |
| paid by the USMS to house prisoners in facilities operated by         |
| non-governmental entities (such as for-profit corporations).  Average |
| price paid is weighted by actual jail day usage at individual         |
| detention facilities.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage:** Data describing the actual price     |
| charged by state, local, and private detention facility operators is  |
| maintained by the USMS in their Prisoner Tracking System (PTS) and it |
| is updated on an as-needed, case-by-case basis when rate changes are  |
| implemented.   Rate information for specific facilities is maintained |
| by USMS headquarters staff.  In conjunction with daily reports to     |
| OFDT of prisoners housed, OFDT compiles reports describing the price  |
| paid for non-federal detention space on a weekly and monthly basis.   |
| Data are reported on both district and national levels.               |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification**: Data reported to OFDT are       |
| validated and verified against monthly reports describing             |
| district-level jail utilization and housing costs prepared by the     |
| USMS.                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations**: Maintaining prisoner movement data is a         |
| labor-intensive process.  The reliability of the reported data is     |
| often compromised by time lags between the actual movement of         |
| prisoners and key-punching of those events into the PTS system.       |
| Accordingly, it is often necessary to delay reporting of official     |
| statistics several weeks to ensure that prisoner movement records     |
| have been properly updated.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Health Care Cost Per Capita**                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition:** Cost of health care services provided to federal |
| prisoners under the custodial jurisdiction of the USMS.  Total health |
| care costs include the costs of health services provided by medical   |
| practitioners, medical guard services, and transportation of          |
| prisoners for medical services.  Per capita health care costs are     |
| determined by dividing total health care expenditures for the         |
| reporting period by the average daily prisoner population for that    |
| reporting period.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Methodology**: Data describing funds obligated  |
| for prisoner health care services are reported to OFDT by the USMS    |
| through reports generated from the USMS STARS financial system.       |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification:** In accordance with generally    |
| accepted accounting principles, the USMS routinely monitors its       |
| financial data for new obligations and de-obligations.                |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitation:** Data reported reflect the anticipated cost of    |
| services provided to USMS prisoners.  In the event that the actual    |
| cost is different from the anticipated cost, additional funds may     |
| need to be obligated or obligated funds, de-obligated.  Because of    |
| the time lag between the rendering of services and the payment of     |
| invoices, several weeks may lapse before the actual cost of health    |
| care services provided to an individual prisoner can be dispositively |
| determined.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Per Day Detention Cost**                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition:** Total detention costs represent the aggregation  |
| of paid jail costs and health care costs on a per capita, per day     |
| basis.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage:** See, Paid Jail Costs and Health Care |
| Costs, above.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification**:  See, Paid Jail Costs and       |
| Health Care Costs, above.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations:**  See, Paid Jail Costs and Health Care Costs,    |
| above.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Targeted Non-Federal Facilities Reviews and    |
| Targeted Non-Federal Facilities Meeting Minimum Standards**           |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition:** Targeted Non-Federal Facilities: Includes all    |
| Private Facilities, all high volume (ADP\>500) State and Local        |
| Government (IGA) Facilities, and all agency requested facility        |
| reviews. Percentages are based on the number of facilities existing   |
| during the fiscal year (as noted).                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage:** Data describing the facility ratings |
| and standards that are met by the individual facilities will be       |
| maintained in the FRMS system. In conjunction with the QAR reviews,   |
| state, local, and other agency inspection reports will be maintained. |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification:** Data reported to OFDT are       |
| validated and verified against QAR reports, repository information,   |
| state, local or other agency reported data (i.e. BOP Sentry, USMS     |
| PTS).                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations**: Data reported often reflect a delay in          |
| reporting due to reporting systems not accessible to OFDT.            |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Transportation Moves (Air and Land)**          |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition**: A prisoner transportation movement represents a  |
| single leg of a transport between the point of origin and the final   |
| destination; multiple movements may be required to transport a        |
| prisoner to his destination.  Air movements are transports involving  |
| a JPATS operated aircraft; excluded are commercial charters.  Ground  |
| movements are transports involving a bus or other vehicle.            |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage:** Data describing prisoner             |
| transportation movements are maintained by JPATS in their APPS.       |
| These data are currently reported to OFDT on a quarterly basis as     |
| part of quarterly and annual reports describing the activities of     |
| JPATS.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification:** Transportation movement data    |
| are reported to OFDT by JPATS.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations:** Data are limited to movements of prisoners      |
| conducted by JPATS and do not include in-district movements           |
| coordinated by USMS district offices without the assistance of JPATS. |
|                                                                       |
| **Performance Measure: Transportation Unit Cost** (the data           |
| definitions and costing methodology for this measure is currently     |
| under development)                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Definition:** Inflation as it relates to Transportation Unit   |
| Cost includes standard inflation as well as adjustments for fuel      |
| increases.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Collection and Storage:** TBD                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Validation and Verification:** TBD                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Data Limitations**: TBD                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### 

#### *B. Strategic Objectives, Challenges, Strategies, and Performance*

**Program Activity: Detention Services**

#### To measure success toward achieving this strategic goal, OFDT established a performance goal of holding per day detention costs at or below the rate of inflation. This chart reflects the targeted level required to achieve that goal. The discussions below specify the mission challenges and strategies required to make the targeted level attainable. In addition, the graphs depict the specific performance level required for each contributing initiative. 

**Performance Report:**

**Measure:** Per Day Detention Cost (Housing and Medical Services)

**FY 2006 Target:** \$68.27

**FY 2006 Actual:** \$67.72

#### Challenge: Adequate Detention Beds

Historically, State and local government detention facilities have
provided over 60 % of the total federal detention space. However, in
many cities, State and local governments are requiring more of their
available capacity to house their own prisoners leaving fewer facilities
available to accommodate federal detainees. This saturation of State and
local facilities forces an increased reliance on private facilities that
are historically higher in cost. For example, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2005) indicated that on June 30, 2004, the Nation's local
jails were operating at 94% of available capacity, on average. Of the 50
largest jail jurisdictions, 21 were operating above their rated
capacity. Some of these facilities were located within areas with the
greatest federal need, *e.g.*, Arizona, Baltimore-Washington
Metropolitan Area, Central District of California, Southern District of
California, Middle District of Florida, New Mexico, and the Western
District of Texas.

> ***Strategy: Maximize the use of available bedspace via the
> DSNetwork***
>
> OFDT will ensure the ability to maximize the use of available bedspace
> by expanding the capabilities of the Detention Services Network
> (DSNetwork). The original goal of the DSNetwork (as the National
> Repository) was to serve as a vehicle for State and local governments
> and private detention bedspace providers to electronically post the
> availability of detention bedspace and related services for federal
> use. The DSNetwork's goals have been enhanced to include, on a
> real-time basis, a full-service detention housing tool to monitor
> detention bedspace usage and to allow for oversight of non-federal
> facility contracts and services. As a consolidated detention services
> site, the DSNetwork will also provide a vehicle for automated
> processing of IGAs, provide a Detention Services Schedule, post
> detention facility review information, and house other detention
> services and procurement data for agencies to assess, monitor and
> manage detention bedspace.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> This initiative will allow field agencies increased flexibility to
> determine the best value to the Government by better leveraging
> available space, transportation, and care capabilities. It will result
> in securing beds and related services easier and faster and is vital
> to maintaining detention costs below inflation levels.
>
> ***Strategy:** **Multi-year Acquisition Plan (MAP)***
>
> The OFDT is strategically planning detention procurement needs
> utilizing MAP. An effective MAP will provide a foundation to identify
> the agencies' anticipated bedspace needs and the impact the bedspace
> requirements will have on OFDT. In addition, the MAP will provide OFDT
> with the ability to consolidate and coordinate bedspace and find the
> most effective detention space.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> The MAP will allow future rate increases to be planned, eliminate
> discretionary negotiations for actual costs, and help determine the
> amount needed in future budget requests. As a result, MAP will create
> a unified process which will lead to equality in rates.

**Challenge: Reliable Population Projections**

DOJ, acting through both the USMS and OFDT, has historically had
difficulty projecting the size of future detention populations. These
difficulties have primarily resulted from the agencies\' inability to
reliably forecast the number of persons to be arrested by federal law
enforcement. OFDT recognizes that reliable projections for the detainee
population will not be achievable without identifying measurable and
accurate leading indicators and incorporating those into the projection
methodology. Such leading indicators include (1) increases in the number
of new law enforcement officers and assistant U.S. attorneys, and (2) an
understanding of future law enforcement initiatives that would increase
the number of arrests/bookings and/or the types of cases prosecuted by
U.S. Attorneys, e.g., the President's initiative on the border and
immigration and the Attorney General's initiatives concentrating on drug
offenders and child pornographers. Such increases in resources and new
law enforcement initiatives need to be better coordinated to provide a
clear nexus between planned law enforcement initiatives and subsequent
detention needs.

> ***Strategy: Improve the accuracy of projections***
>
> Specific approaches to improving this data include: *identifying key
> detention indicators* from U.S. Government components that affect
> detention and integrating them into current detention forecasting
> models; *analyzing case law and proposed legislation* to determine the
> impact on future detention population trends; and, *refining the
> detention population forecasting model* to more effectively merge
> trend analysis with out-year projections, thereby reducing the degree
> of error at budget formulation and submission points.
>
> **Program Highlight: US Attorney Survey**
>
> Beginning in 2005, OFDT, coordinating with the BOP, EOUSA, and the
> Office of the Deputy Attorney General, initiated an annual survey of
> the U.S. Attorneys to ascertain their input on expected criminal
> caseloads and substantial "environmental" factors that affect caseload
> and case processing time. The data collected as part of this survey
> are incorporated into OFDT's detention population projection model to
> inform and validate projection of future arrests based on statistical
> methods.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> ADP projections are the linchpin of all OFDT operations and resource
> planning. Data accuracy clearly impacts all OFDT performance and
> resource requirements.

**Challenge: Insufficient bedspace at mission critical locations**

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.125in" height="2.5in"}Currently, JPATS
uses a single transfer Federal Transfer Center (FTC) which often
operates at full capacity. When the facility is unable to process
additional incoming prisoners, delays are created that retard prisoner
movements in other districts.

> ***Strategy: Increase bedspace in mission critical locations***
>
> By increasing in-transit housing capabilities, JPATS will be able to
> move prisoners faster, resulting in a decrease in the number of days
> in detention
>
> **Program Highlight: In -- transit facility - Grady**
>
> **County Detention Center**
>
> Historically, JPATS's capability to route USMS prisoners through
> Oklahoma City for transfer and commitment to BOP has been limited by
> the capacity of *FTC Oklahoma*, particularly for female prisoners.
> OFDT facilitated the identification and implementation of Grady for
> use as an overflow facility for *FTC Oklahoma* -- one that has a
> substantial number of beds for female prisoners. JPATS has since been
> able to increase the number of prisoner movements routed through
> Oklahoma City. Increased prisoner movements have the effect of
> reducing detention time for sentenced offenders. This accomplishment
> addresses the transportation needs and infrastructure challenges.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> Reducing the number of days in detention has an obvious and direct
> impact on detention costs and the efficiency measure of Per Day Jail
> Cost and the outcome measure of Per Day Detention Cost.

**Challenge: Projection of IGA Increases**

The Department of Justice utilizes the IGAs to establish the
relationship with a State or local government for the use of excess
bedspace at a per diem rate established pursuant to OMB Circular A-87.
Per diem rates are subject to change. Accordingly, when a State or local
government wants a rate adjustment, the agency submits amended cost
information to the Department of Justice. Historically, it was unknown
how many or at what frequency the State or local governments would
request such an adjustment or the magnitude of the adjustment, making it
difficult to project rate increases for budgeting purposes other than
through historical trends.

> ***Strategy: Fixed-Rate IGA agreements (Core rate program)***
>
> To address this challenge, OFDT has developed a core fixed-rate IGA
> plan. The IGA establishes a standardized pricing strategy for
> procuring detention services from State and local governments. This
> will allow for more accurate budget projections and bedspace
> requirements for out-years.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> This effort contributes to the overall performance goal of holding
> costs at or below inflation levels and the achievement of related
> performance measures
>
> ***Strategy: Reduce prisoner processing time (via: eDesignate)***
>
> Developed by OFDT, *e*-Designate provides for a more efficient
> workflow between the U.S. Probation offices, the USMS, and the BOP
> during the sentence-to-commitment process. Operationally,
> *e*-Designate accelerates the movement of prisoners from detention to
> BOP facilities thereby reducing the number of days in detention and
> the corresponding pressure on appropriated resources. . In addition,
> *e*-Designate also reduces workload of agency personnel involved in
> the administratively taxing designation process. To date,
> *e*-Designate has been implemented in the federal
>
> judicial districts of Arizona, Southern California, Maryland, New
> Mexico, Southern Texas, Montana, Oregon, Northern California, Idaho
> and Eastern Washington. In the District of Arizona, implementation of
> *e*-Designate has resulted in the reduction in detention time from
> sentencing-to-designation from an average of 41 days during FY 2004 to
> 22 days during FY 2005 with an associated cost avoidance of
> approximately \$6 million. The roll-out of *e*Designate is scheduled
> to be complete by the end of FY 2007.

+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Reduction  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in Number of |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Days in      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Detention    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| and          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| C            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| orresponding |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Detention    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Cost         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Avoided**    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|              | 2004   | 2005   | 2006   | 2006   | 2007   | 2008   |
|              |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|              | Actual | Actual | Target | Actual | Target | Target |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Sentencing   | 27     | 27     | 27     | 28     | 27     | 26     |
| to           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Designation  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Designation  | 21     | 20     | 20     | 16     | 17     | 15     |
| to           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Commitment   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Total**    | **48** | **47** | **47** | **44** | **44** | **41** |
|              |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| **\# Days    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Post         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Sentencing** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \# Days      | N/A    | 1      | 0      | 3      | 0      | 3      |
| Reduced      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Detention  | *      | **\$2  | **0**  | **\$13 | **0**  | **\$22 |
| Cost         | *N/A** | ,892** |        | ,051** |        | ,008** |
| Avoided\*    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| (\$000)**    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> **Program Highlight: Short Term Sentences**
>
> Historically, sentenced prisoners along the Southwest Border with less
> than 180 days left on their sentences served their sentences in
> detention facilities with the detention cost being borne by the USMS.
> In coordination with the BOP, OFDT has established procedures for
> identifying prisoners with short-term sentences in the districts of
> Arizona, Southern Texas, and Western Texas, and expediting their
> transfer to the BOP.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> As discussed previously, eDesignate has been highly effective in
> reducing potential detention costs by reducing the number of days in
> detention. The impact on performance, efficiency, and outcome measures
> is obvious. Another example is the initiative to reduce post-sentence
> time-in-detention, in which the in-transit facility in Grady,
> Oklahoma, is a part. Through that initiative, time-in-detention is
> expected to be reduced by an average of 4 days nationwide.
>
> ***Strategy: Maximize use of most cost effective space via full BOP
> bed utilization*** The BOP is appropriated for and has been provided
> beds for detention. Historically, the beds were provided in specific
> facilities. However, in December 2004, OFDT reached an agreement with
> the BOP whereby the USMS could place detainees in any available BOP
> beds nationwide, allowing the USMS to use an additional 123 beds per
> day.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> The FY 2006 and 2007 budgets are based on maximizing utilization of
> BOP bedspace by maintaining the average daily population of 12,300
> detainees in BOP facilities. As noted in the performance and resources
> table, all performance measures are based upon BOP bed space at the
> 12,300 level. This assumption provides the basis for the targets in
> the performance measure Number of Paid Jail Days, the efficiency
> measure of Per Day Jail Cost, and the outcome measure of Per Day
> Detention Cost.
>
> ***Strategy: Increase use of detention alternatives***
>
> OFDT will continue to provide funding to the Federal Judiciary to
> support alternatives to pretrial detention such as electronic
> monitoring, halfway house placement, and drug testing and treatment.
> During FY 2005, OFDT provided the Judiciary \$1.7 million which
> supported detention alternatives for 3,065 criminal defendants who
> were supervised a total of 454,325 days. In FY 2006, OFDT increased
> alternative funding to the Judiciary to \$4.0 million. Of this amount,
> the Judiciary utilized \$2.6 million, delivering 2,644 defendants from
> detention to pretrial release. This diversion resulted in a cost
> avoidance of approximately \$28.2 million.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> In FY 2005 alone, if the defendants who were in the detention
> alternative program were detained in secure facilities, the Federal
> Detention Account would have incurred additional detention costs of
> approximately \$28 million. The success of these initiatives is
> critical to achieving the performance targets for the Number of Paid
> Jail Days (IGA and Private) and to a lesser extent the targets for the
> Per Day Jail Rate and Per Day Detention Cost performance targets.
>
> ***\
> Performance and Budget***
>
> ***Impact of all strategies:***
>
> As stated above, each of these program initiatives under Strategic
> Objective 1.1 contributes to achievement of the efficiency measure of
> per day jail cost.

**Performance Report:**

> **Measure:** Per Day Jail Cost
>
> **FY 2006 Target:** \$63.35

**FY 2006 Actual:** \$62.73

####  

#### Challenge: Rising Medical Costs

> An important facet of the conditions of confinement is ensuring the
> appropriate medical care for detainees at or near detention
> facilities. The challenge is to provide a uniform approach to these
> services at the best value to the government and to reduce the
> cumbersome process for field operations.
>
> ***Strategy: National Medical Contract***
>
> To the extent possible, the USMS is leveraging a re-pricing strategy
> to achieve the best practice. However, a national medical contract
> will provide a uniform, systematic approach that will reduce staff
> work hours and track medical savings nationwide. Accordingly, OFDT is
> in the process of establishing and awarding a national medical
> contract to meet the needs of the USMS, the legislative requirements
> of Medicare and Medicaid, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:***
>
> This effort will contribute directly to the efficiency measure and
> goal of holding medical costs at or below inflation level (for medical
> services).

**Performance Report:**

> **Measure: Health Care Cost Per Capital (Medical Treatment,
> Transportation and Security)**

**FY 2006 Target:** \$1,796

**FY 2006 Actual:** \$1,820

**Discussion:** Although the target was exceeded slightly, it did not
have an impact on the overall detention rate. The amount of overage
(+1.3%) is not considered significant.

#### To measure success toward achieving this strategic goal, OFDT established a performance goal of ensuring that 100% of all private detention facilities meet minimum standards annually and 100% of high volume IGA facilities meet minimum standards by FY 2008. The discussions below specify the mission challenge and strategies required to make the targeted levels attainable. 

**Challenge: Varying Detention Standards**

Concurrent with the desire to create efficiencies within detention is
the need to ensure facilities can provide for the safe, secure, and
humane confinement of detainees. This is especially challenging
considering the vast number (over 1,900) of state, local, and private
facilities in use. The standards for confinement of these facilities
vary as there is no unified set of standards that all facilities are
required to adhere to. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that the
facilities that provide detention bedspace to the Federal government
meet a minimum condition of confinement standard.

> ***Strategies:***
>
> ***Adherence to National Detention Standards via Performance Based
> Contracts***
>
> To ensure adequate and acceptable conditions of confinement, OFDT
> implemented Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards (FPBDS). The
> FPBDS, developed in cooperation and coordination with the BOP, USMS
> and ICE, provide a system of objective checks and balances to ensure
> that all providers achieve and maintain the standards while ensuring
> the Government receives the quality services for which it paid.
> Federal contract vehicles will be written or modified to reflect the
> FPBDS for all private contract facilities and high-volume (ADP \>500)
> State and local facilities. Private contractor performance evaluation
> and compensation will be based on each facility's ability to
> demonstrate alignment with the standards.
>
> ***Implementation of the Quality Assurance Program***
>
> The comprehensive Quality Assurance Review Program includes
> assessment, follow-up, and training to ensure that the safe, secure,
> and humane confinement criteria are met, as well as to address
> Congress' concerns for public safety as it relates to violent
> prisoners (*e.g., Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals
> Act, also known as Jenna's Act).* The goal of the Quality Assurance
> Program is to conduct reviews for 100% of Targeted Non-Federal
> Facilities, defined as all private facilities, all high volume (ADP
> \>500) IGA facilities, and all agency requested reviews. The reviews
> will identify detention facility deficiencies and financial weaknesses
> related to delivery of contract services and necessary actions to
> correct those concerns. OFDT will track the resolution of those
> deficiencies.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact***
>
> The effectiveness of this program is essential to assuring facilities
> meet the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards as shown in the
> outcome above.

+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Outcome     |            |            |             |             |
| Measure:**    |            |            |             |             |
|               |            |            |             |             |
| **Percent of  |            |            |             |             |
| Targeted      |            |            |             |             |
| Non-Federal   |            |            |             |             |
| Facilities    |            |            |             |             |
| Meeting       |            |            |             |             |
| Minimum       |            |            |             |             |
| Standards**   |            |            |             |             |
+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Facility    | 2006       | 2006       | 2007        | 2008        |
| Type**        |            |            |             |             |
|               | Target     | Actual     | Target      | Target      |
+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| IGA           | 36%        | 81%        | 85%         | 85%         |
| (ADP\>500)    |            |            |             |             |
|               | (4 of      | (9 of      | (11 of 13   | (11 of 13   |
|               | 11f        | 11f        | facilities) | facilities) |
|               | acilities) | acilities) |             |             |
+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Private       | 100%       | 100%       | 89%         | 91%         |
|               |            |            |             |             |
|               | (9 of 9    | (9 of 9    | (8 of 9     | (10 of 11   |
|               | f          | f          | facilities) | facilities) |
|               | acilities) | acilities) |             |             |
+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total       | **65%**    | **90%**    | **86%**     | **88%**     |
| Targeted Non  |            |            |             |             |
| Federal**     | **(13 of   | **(18 of   | **(19 of 22 | **(21 of 24 |
|               | 20         | 20         | fa          | fa          |
|               | fac        | fac        | cilities)** | cilities)** |
|               | ilities)** | ilities)** |             |             |
+---------------+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+

**Performance Report:**

**Measure:** Percent of Targeted Non-Federal Facilities Meeting Minimum
Standards

**FY 2006 Target:** 13 of 20 (65%)

**FY 2006 Actual:** 18 of 20 (90%)

#### Program Activity: JPATS Transportation

#### To measure success toward achieving this strategic goal, OFDT established a performance goal of holding detention transportation costs at or below inflation. However, the methodology for capturing the data has not yet been determined. The milestones leading the attainment of this goal are indicated below. The discussions that follow specify the mission challenge and strategies required to make the targeted level attainable. 

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Outcome Measure: Transportation Unit    |                          |
| Cost Milestones**                         |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **2007 Targets**                          | **2008 Targets**         |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Define Transportation Unit Cost and Data  | Calculate Impact of      |
| Collection Methodology                    | strategies to unit cost  |
|                                           |                          |
| Establish Baseline                        | Target \< (2008 unit     |
|                                           | costs X inflation)       |
| Test/Refine Methodology                   |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| Resolve data quality issues               |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Implement Strategies                      |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

**Challenge: Increasing demands on limited resources**

As stated previously, the demand for transportation increases with the
detainee population. With limited resources and uncontrollable increases
in fuel prices, OFDT must look for innovative solutions to create
greater efficiency within the current infrastructure.

+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Reduction |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in "Wait    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Time" in    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Detention   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| from        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Designation |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| to          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| C           |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ommitment** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Designation | 2004   | 2005   | 2006   | 2006   | 2007   | 2008   |
| to          |        |        | Target |        |        |        |
| Commitment  | Actual | Actual |        | Actual | Target | Target |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|             | 21     | 20     | 20     | 16     | 17     | 15     |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

> ***Strategies:***
>
> ***Reduce "choke points" for in-transit prisoners***
>
> As stated previously, a critical on-going weakness for JPATS is
> insufficient bed space at key "choke points" for in-transit prisoners.
> OFDT plans to expand upon the successful strategy used in FY 2005 in
> Grady County, Oklahoma, where an underused local jail facility
> relieves the bottleneck.
>
> ***Maximize efficiency of the transportation system***
>
> OFDT will lead and facilitate a thorough review of all JPATS
> scheduling (e.g., ground, air) processes and procedures to determine
> potential transportation efficiencies. One area under consideration is
> a shift in the balance of land to air moves, with the goal of
> maximizing air moves for longer distances and ground moves for less
> lengthy moves. This however, requires a further analysis of
> capabilities, the impact of detention locations, and choke points.
> This capability is necessary to support the outcome measure:
> Transportation Unit Costs, which is currently under development.
>
> ***Performance and Budget Impact:*** The cost savings for reducing
> "choke points" is captured in the discussion of Strategic Objective
> 1.2 above.

#### *C. Discontinued Measures*

***Rate of Assaults (Federal Detention)***

This measure is being discontinued as it is cost prohibitive to develop
a reliable data collection methodology. However, the newly implemented
(FY 2006) Quality Assurance Program will provide detention facility
oversight to ensure conditions of confinement are safe and humane. All
deficiencies will be closely monitored to the point of correction. The
success of these efforts is captured in the Outcome Measure: Percent of
Targeted Non-Federal Facilities Reviews Meeting Minimum Standards shown
above.

***Number of Escapes During Confinement in Federal Detention***

This measure is also being discontinued. Upon review it is evident that
this measure is much too stringent for detention facilities that are not
intended nor constructed to address high security requirements (such as
the BOP facilities). While every effort is made to ensure security, a
minimum number of escapes are unavoidable under these conditions.
Eliminating this measure will not in anyway lessen the ongoing efforts
of OFDT and USMS to ensure that every inmate is accounted for and that
security measures and practices are in place to minimize escapes and
protect the community.

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
  **Number of                                           
  Escapes During                                        
  Confinement in                                        
  Federal                                               
  Detention**                                           

  2003              2004              2005              2006

  1                 0                 6                 11
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

**Performance Report:**

**Measure:** Number of Escapes During Confinement in Federal Detention

**FY 2006 Target:** 0

**FY 2006 Actual:** 11

**Discussion:** In FY 2006, they were 11 escapes from detention custody.
Three detainees escaped from local jails, one from a medical facility,
and one during transportation. All of these 5 escapees were "recaptured"
within a relatively short period of time. The remaining six escapes
occurred at the East Hidalgo Detention Center, Hidalgo, TX. The escapes
appeared to be coordinated and occurred when a Guard did not properly
secure man-trap doors that separated prisoner area from the pod lobby.
Two of escapees exited through these doors and overpowered the guard
with a shank and tied him up. They then summoned the four other escapees
who had in their possession a cell phone and wire cutters. These were
smuggled into the facility by a commissary worker for \$240. The six
escapees exited the pod and cut through four electric (900Volt) fences.
A fifth fence was cut through from the outside by an accomplice, whom it
is believed was notified via the cell phone. Individuals jumped into a
waiting vehicle driven by the accomplice and are believed to have fled
to Mexico. The commissary worker and relatives who provided the money to
the commissary worker were arrested and the Guard has been terminated.

[^1]: These estimates account for further decreases in detention time
    resulting from OFDT initiatives.