prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The House of Representatives has standing rules that govern how bills and resolutions are to be taken up and considered on the floor  However, to expedite legislation receiving floor action, the House may temporarily set aside these rules for measures that are not otherwise privileged for consideration  This can be done by agreeing to a special order of business resolution (special rule) or by adopting a motion to suspend the rules and pass the underlying measure  In general, special rules enable the consideration of complex or contentious legislation, such as major appropriations or reauthorizations, while the suspension of the rules procedure is usually applied to broadly supported legislation that can be approved without floor amendments or extensive debate in the chamber  Most bills and resolutions that receive floor action in the House are called up and considered under suspension of the rules  The suspension procedure allows nonprivileged measures to be raised without a special rule, waives points of order, limits debate, and prohibits floor amendments  Motions to suspend the rules and pass the measure require a two-thirds vote, so the procedure is typically reserved for bills and resolutions that can meet a supermajority threshold  Decisions to schedule bills for consideration under suspension are generally based on how widely supported the measures are, how long Members wish to debate them, and whether they want to propose floor amendments  These decisions are not necessarily related to the subject matter of the measure  Accordingly, measures brought up under suspension cover a wide range of policy areas but most often address government operations, such as the designation of federal facilities  This report describes the suspension procedure, which is defined in clause 1 of House Rule XV, and provides an analysis of measures considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress (2015-2016)  Figures 1- 8 display statistical data, including the prevalence and form of suspension measures, sponsors of measures, committee consideration, length of floor debate, voting, and resolution of differences between the chambers  Table 1 summarizes the final legislative status of measures initially considered in the House under the suspension of the rules  Finally, Figure A-1 depicts the use of the suspension procedure from the 110 th through the 114 th Congresses (2007-2016)  The suspension of the rules procedure is established by clause 1 of House Rule XV  Bills, resolutions, House amendments to Senate bills, amendments to the Constitution, conference reports, and other types of business may be considered under suspension, even those "that would otherwise be subject to a point of order … [or have] not been reported or referred to any calendar or previously introduced " Suspension motions are in order on designated days  As Rule XV states, "the Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of Congress " Suspension measures, however, may be considered on other days by unanimous consent or under the terms of a special order of business (special rule) reported by the Committee on Rules and agreed to by the House  A motion to suspend the rules is a compound motion to suspend the House rules and pass a bill or agree to a resolution  When considering such a motion, the House is voting on the two questions simultaneously  Once recognized, the Member making the motion will say, "Mr  [or Madam] Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass___ " The House rules that are suspended under this procedure include those that "would impede an immediate vote on passage of a measure … such as ordering the previous question, third reading, recommittal, or division of the question " A measure considered under the suspension procedure is not subject to floor amendment  The motion to suspend and pass the measure, though, may provide for passage of the measure in an amended form  That is, the text to be approved may be presented in a form altered by committee amendments or by informal negotiations  Suspension measures that are passed with changes incorporated into the text are passed "as amended " There are no separate votes on the floor approving such amendments  Suspension motions are "debatable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto " However, in most instances, a true opponent never claims half the time, and most speakers come to the floor to express support for the measure  Debate time is controlled by two floor managers, one from each party, who sit on a committee of jurisdiction  Each manager makes an opening statement and may yield increments of the 20 minutes they control to other Members to debate the measure  Once debate has concluded, a single vote is held on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the measure  The motion requires approval by "two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present " Should the vote fall short of the two-thirds required for passage (290, if all Members vote), the measure is not permanently rejected  Before the end of the Congress, the House may consider the measure again under suspension, or the Committee on Rules may report a special rule that provides for floor consideration of the measure  As illustrated in Figure 1 , the majority of measures considered on the House floor during the 114 th Congress were called up under the suspension of the rules procedure  Sixty-two percent of all measures that received floor action were considered under suspension (743 out of the 1,200), compared to those under the terms of a special rule (14%), unanimous consent (7%), or privileged business (16%)  Figure 2 displays the form of suspension measures  Most of the measures considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress (94%) were bills  House bills made up 83% of the suspension total, Senate bills 11%  As represented in Figure 3 , most suspension measures were sponsored by members of the majority party during the 114 th Congress  House or Senate majority-party members sponsored 69% of all bills and resolutions initially considered in the House under suspension, while House majority-party members sponsored 467 (71%) of the 660 House-originated measures (designated with an H R , H Res , H Con Res  or H J Res  prefix)  Suspension is, however, the most common procedure used to consider minority-sponsored legislation in the House by a wide margin  In the 114 th Congress, 85% of the minority-sponsored measures that were considered on the House floor were raised under the suspension procedure  Members of the House or Senate minority parties sponsored 31% of all suspension measures originating in either chamber, compared to 9% of legislation subject to different procedures, including privileged business (17 measures), unanimous consent (21 measures), and special rules (one Senate bill)  Minority-party House Members sponsored 193 (29%) of the 660 House measures considered under suspension  No minority-party House Member sponsored a House-originated measure that was considered under a special rule  Most suspension measures are referred to at least one House committee before their consideration on the chamber floor  In the 114 th Congress, 710 out of the 743 suspension measures considered (96%) were previously referred to a House committee  Of the 33 measures that were considered without a referral, 31 were Senate bills that were "held at the desk," and two were House resolutions that provided concurrence to Senate amendments  Measures may be referred to multiple House committees before receiving floor action  When a bill or resolution is referred to more than one House committee, the Speaker will designate one committee as primary, meaning it is the committee exercising jurisdiction over the largest part of the measure  Generally, the chair of the committee of primary jurisdiction works with majority party leadership to determine if and when a measure should be considered under suspension  Figure 4 shows the number and percentage of measures brought up under suspension from each House committee of primary jurisdiction  The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (now Oversight and Reform) was the committee of primary jurisdiction for the plurality of measures considered under suspension in the 114 th Congress: 106, or 14%, of the total number of suspension measures considered  Many of these bills designated names for post offices or other federal properties  For most House committees, the majority of their referred measures that reached the floor were raised under the suspension procedure  In the 114 th Congress, the four exceptions were the Committee on House Administration—which had several measures considered by unanimous consent—and the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Armed Services, which had at least half of their measures considered pursuant to special rules  For the other committees, suspension measures ranged from 57% to 100% of the total number of the committee's measures receiving floor action ( Figure 5 )  Since suspension motions require a two-thirds majority for passage, House committees that handle less contentious subjects tend to have more of their measures considered under the suspension procedure in comparison to other committees  In the 114 th Congress, high-suspension committees included Small Business (100% of measures receiving floor action) and Veterans' Affairs (92%)  The Small Business Committee's measures sought to authorize new business development programs  Veterans' Affairs measures included authorizations, reauthorizations, and bills designating federal facilities  While suspension measures are not subject to floor amendments, committees may recommend amendments to legislative texts during markup meetings or through informal negotiations  The motion to suspend the rules can include these proposed changes when a Member moves to suspend the rules and pass the measure "as amended " In the 114 th Congress, 396 suspension measures (53% of the total) were considered "as amended," meaning that the text to be approved differed from the measure's introduced text  Clause 2 of House Rule XIII requires that measures reported by House committees must be accompanied by a written report  Otherwise, they are not placed on a calendar of measures eligible for floor consideration  However, the written report requirement is among those rules suspended under the suspension procedure  Thus, measures may be called up on the floor under suspension of the rules even if a committee never ordered them to be reported or wrote an accompanying committee report  Instead, the motion to suspend the rules discharges the committee and moves the legislation directly to the House floor  In the 114 th Congress, 517 (70%) suspension measures were ordered to be reported by a House committee  Of this number, 398 were reported with an accompanying House committee report  Twenty measures that did not have a House report did have a Senate report, while 325 measures had no written report from either chamber (43% of the total number of suspension measures)  Pursuant to Rule XV, motions to suspend the rules are regularly in order on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays or on the last six days of a session of Congress  However, suspension motions may be considered on other days by unanimous consent or under the terms of a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and agreed to by the House  As displayed in Figure 6 , in the 114 th Congress, the plurality of suspension measures were considered on Tuesdays (312, 42% of the total number considered), followed by Mondays (291, 39%) and Wednesdays (114, 15%)  In addition, 25 suspension measures were considered on Thursdays and one on a Friday  Of these, one was considered by unanimous consent, while 25 were called up under suspension pursuant to permission included in a special rule reported by the Rules Committee and agreed to by the full House  Such special rules included a provision stating, "It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of ___ for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV " Pursuant to Rule XV, suspension measures are "debatable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto " In practice, there is rarely a true opponent to a motion to suspend the rules, and the time is divided between two floor managers, usually one from each party, who both favor the motion  The floor managers each control 20 minutes of debate  The managers may be their parties' sole representative for or against the motion, or they may yield increments of the 20-minute allotment to other Members  Typically, the relevant committee chairs and ranking members select the majority and minority floor managers for particular bills and resolutions  These managers may be the measure's sponsor, the chair or ranking member of the measure's committee of primary jurisdiction, or another committee member  In the 114 th Congress, the measure's sponsor served as the majority manager on 26% of the suspension measures receiving floor action  The committee chair managed 29% of the measures  The minority manager was the measure's sponsor for 11% of the measures and the committee's ranking member for 26% of the measures considered  Occasionally, floor managers controlling time on a motion to suspend the rules ceded their control to other Members during debate  In two identified cases, both the majority and minority floor managers favored the measure, and another Member claimed the time in true opposition during the initial floor consideration of the measure  In at least one other instance, the minority manager asked unanimous consent to yield managerial control to another Member  A majority floor manager makes the motion to suspend the rules by stating, "Mr  [Madam] Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill [or resolution] ____ " The Speaker [or Speaker pro tempore] responds, "Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman[woman] from [state] and the gentleman[woman] from [state] each will control twenty minutes " The majority and minority managers then, in turn, make opening statements regarding the measure using the 20 minutes each controls  If the majority and minority managers have secured additional speakers, the speakers generally alternate between the parties within the 40-minute limit  During the 114 th Congress, on a motion to suspend the rules, the average number of speakers in addition to the floor managers was fewer than two  On 83% of the measures (620) considered, there were one or two additional speakers  On 27% of the measures (199) considered, there were no additional speakers, and in 16% of the measures (120) considered, there were 3 to 12 additional speakers  Three measures had 20, 21, and 25 additional speakers, respectively  At the start of the debate period, the majority manager may request "unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous materials on this bill [resolution] " This request enables general leave statements to be inserted into the Congressional Record   In 29% of the suspension measures considered in the 114 th Congress, a written general leave statement appeared in the Record following in-person remarks, indicating that the remarks were submitted on the day the legislation was considered  General leave statements submitted on a day other than the day of consideration appear in the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record   Suspension measures are limited to a maximum of 40 minutes of debate under Rule XV  However, if there are time gaps between speakers or procedural interruptions, such as a vote on a motion to adjourn, the time period between the start of the first speaker's remarks and the conclusion of debate may exceed 40 minutes  The statistics displayed in Figure 7 show the length of consideration of suspension measures as documented in Congress gov, not the accumulated length of statements, as kept by official timekeepers in the chamber  In the 114 th Congress, the average length of consideration on a motion to suspend the rules was 13 minutes and 10 seconds, and half of the measures considered had a debate period of 10 minutes or less  Thus, while overall debate is limited to 40 minutes under the rule, on most suspension measures, only a fraction of that time was actually expended during consideration  Seventeen measures, however, had consideration periods that exceeded 40 minutes due to procedural delays or, in the case of one measure, a request for unanimous consent to extend debate by 10 minutes to each side  House leaders generally choose measures for suspension that are likely to achieve the two-thirds majority threshold for passage  Thus, almost all suspension measures were passed by the House in the 114 th Congress  The full House approved all House resolutions (28), concurrent resolutions (12), joint resolutions (2), and Senate bills (82) that were considered under suspension  The House also passed, via motions to suspend the rules, 612 of the 619 House bills that were initially considered under suspension  Seven bills did not receive the requisite supermajority  Two of these bills were later considered and approved under the terms of a special rule  The remaining five bills did not return to the floor and therefore did not pass the House  Most suspension motions are agreed to in the House by voice vote, which is the chamber's default method of voting on most questions  In 2015 and 2016, this method of voting led to the final approval of 72% (531) of the motions to suspend the rules and pass the measures (see Figure 8 )  After the initial voice vote, Members triggered an eventual record vote (often called a roll call vote) on 212 (28%) of the suspension measures considered in the 114 th Congress  This was done by demanding the "yeas and nays," objecting to the vote "on the grounds that a quorum is not present," or, in one case, demanding a recorded vote  In most instances, the chair elected to postpone the vote to a later period, within two additional legislative days, pursuant to clause 8 of House Rule XX  Of the 212 record votes, 3 immediately followed debate on the measure  The remaining 209 votes were postponed to another time on the legislative schedule, usually later the same day  In the 114 th Congress, 205 suspension motions were adopted by record vote, and 7 motions to suspend the rules were defeated by record votes  The defeat of a motion to suspend the rules, however, does not necessarily kill the legislation  The Speaker may choose to recognize a Member at a later time to make another motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, or the House may consider the measure pursuant to a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules  Accordingly, two of the initially unsuccessful measures were later called up and passed under the terms of a special rule  Five measures were not considered again, via any House floor procedure, before the end of the 114 th Congress  Although suspension measures generally receive broad support, measures that receive the requisite two-thirds majority in the House are not guaranteed passage in the Senate  As noted in Table 1 , in the 114 th Congress, the Senate passed 197 of the 619 House bills initially considered under suspension (32%)  Additionally, the Senate agreed to 1 of the 2 House joint resolutions and 5 of the 11 House concurrent resolutions considered under suspension of the rules  Of the number of suspension measures that passed the House and Senate, 60 required a resolution of differences between the chambers  Forty-four House measures and 15 Senate bills were subject to an amendment exchange process, and on one occasion, a conference committee was used to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of a House bill  The Senate passed three House bills, initially approved in the House under suspension, that did not become public law because the House did not agree to the final bill text, as amended by the Senate  In those instances, the House did not reconsider the bills once the Senate returned the Senate-amended versions to the House chamber  Thus, 194 House bills were presented to the President for signature  Of the measures initially considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress, President Obama was presented with 194 House bills, 82 Senate bills, and 1 House joint resolution for signature or veto  The President vetoed H R  1777 (Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2016) and S  2040 (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act)  The House chose not to attempt a veto override on H R  1777 , so the measure did not become public law  Both the Senate and House voted to override the veto of S  2040 , enabling it to become law without the President's signature ( P L  114-222 )  Thus, of the 703 law-making measures (bills and joint resolutions) initially considered under suspension of the rules, 193 House bills, 82 Senate bills, and 1 House joint resolution became public law (see Table 1 ) 


Report 2:  Institutions respond to the report with corrective actions that the institution will take to address the findings  When the institution has resolved all corrective actions from the audit, the audit is closed  Additionally, each quarter, PRD provides HRMD with a report that summarizes its quarterly audit findings  According to BOP officials, HRMD uses these reports to identify any agency-wide trends that need to be addressed  Our review of BOP data showed that between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, PRD conducted nearly 200 audits  For example, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, PRD audited five institutions’ and regional offices’ human resource management functions  During these audits, PRD identified nine deficiencies, one of which pertained to retention incentives  Specifically, it found that one audited institution did not terminate an employee’s retention incentive after the employee had relocated to another institution  To correct the deficiency, the institution cancelled the retention incentive which discontinued future disbursements  According to BOP officials, a bill was generated to recoup the overpayment from the employee  BOP institutions conduct annual operation reviews of internal functions, such as human resources  BOP officials told us that each institution conducts annual operational reviews of various internal functions, such as human resources  According to BOP’s Program Review Guidelines for Human Resource Servicing Offices, during these reviews, institutions are required to review supporting documentation for staff currently receiving an incentive to determine if the incentives are still warranted  If the initial request for the retention incentive was made over the preceding 12 months, institutions are also required to ensure that it was approved  According to BOP officials, the results of these reviews are reported to PRD through the Central Office  DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD) audits BOP’s human resources programs  According to BOP officials, JMD conducts audits of component-level human resources programs to determine whether BOP’s systems are compliant with DOJ policy and aligned with DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Plan  JMD’s most recent audit of BOP’s human resources programs that included a review of BOP’s retention incentives occurred in September 2010 at BOP’s Human Resource Service Center in Grand Prairie, Texas  JMD found that in some cases BOP granted retention incentives prior to the signing of service agreements  JMD also found that BOP lacked documentation to authorize a group retention incentive for employees at its Victorville, California institution  BOP’s written response to the findings stated that JMD incorrectly applied the service agreement requirement, as service agreements were not warranted in the specific case that it identified  Additionally, BOP stated that the documents JMD identified as missing from the case files in question were kept in separate files and not required to be part of the retention incentive application  JMD agreed with BOP’s responses and in January 2013, JMD closed out the audit’s findings noting that these responses satisfied all required corrective actions  While BOP takes a number of steps to determine current workforce needs and how to fill those needs, BOP does not strategically plan for how retention incentives can be used to meet long-term human capital goals  BOP officials stated that planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly workforce utilization meetings or manpower salary meetings  During these meetings, executive staff at the institution discuss the current state of the institution’s workforce  According to the BOP officials, while considering attrition, hiring, and turnover rates, the executive staff decide strategies they will employ to attract and retain employees for their current needs  While officials we spoke with at four institutions have discussed retention incentives at their workforce utilization meetings, details about the content of these discussions ranged  According to these officials and our review of meeting minutes from the four institutions, discussions about retention incentives respond to each institution’s short-term staffing situation rather than address future staffing needs based on an overall strategic human capital plan  For example: USP Atwater officials told us that they review the current turnover rate, budget, projected vacancies, and use of retention incentives at annual budget development meetings  Meeting minutes reflected the following on retention incentives: “retention … still necessary to retain staff and hard-to-fill positions ” FCC Butner is a medical facility that offers retention incentives to all medical officers (all types of doctors) and nurses (practitioners, registered, etc ) at the institution  According to Butner officials, during workforce utilization meetings, Butner officials discuss recruitment and staffing trends for the institution and plans for how to address any staffing challenges  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  FCC Pollock executive staff discuss current institutional salary expenditures and projections and the status of vacant positions at workforce utilization meetings  While meeting minutes we reviewed indicated discussions about projected expenditures for incentive awards, the minutes did not differentiate between retention incentive awards, and other incentive awards such as recruitment or relocation incentive awards  FCI Phoenix officials stated that in their workforce utilization meetings, executive staff discuss salary projections and vacancy statuses  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  BOP decisions about retention incentives are currently not tied to any strategic human capital plan for how to use human capital flexibilities— such as retention incentives—to address their ongoing challenge of retaining staff in hard-to-fill positions  According to officials, retention incentives are awarded on an as-needed basis, determined by an institution’s warden, if funds are available  According to key principles for effective strategic human capital planning, such planning is an important component of an agency’s effort to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff needed for an agency to achieve its goals  Specifically, senior leaders should be involved in developing, communicating, and implementing strategic human capital plans  Within an agency’s strategic human capital plan, the human capital policies, practices, and programs—for example, an agency’s retention incentive program—should clearly link to the human capital and program goals of the organization  By not having a strategic human capital plan that clearly establishes strategies that will be used to achieve specific human capital goals, BOP cannot ensure that its institutions are strategically managing their workforces in a manner that meets the agency’s human capital needs  In August 2017, BOP officials told us that they began drafting a strategic human capital operating plan that will include strategic objectives, action plans, performance objectives and measures, and evaluation/reporting requirements  Officials stated that the plan will also include planning regarding the use of human capital flexibilities, such as retention incentives  BOP officials told us that they anticipate that the strategic human capital operating plan will be a supplement to their workforce utilization meetings and that an agency-wide plan will provide a set of strategies for all institutions to consider  However, BOP could not provide documentation of the project beginning or whether it would include a strategic approach specific to retention incentives  Including retention incentives in BOP’s strategic human capital operating plan would create a roadmap for the agency and the institutions to use to move from being reactive in their current workforce needs—for example, awarding retention incentives on an ad hoc basis when funds are available—to being strategic in how retention incentives are used and to ensure that these and other flexibilities help the agency achieve its long-term workforce goals  From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, BOP spent more than $59 million on retention incentives but has not established any measures to evaluate their effectiveness  According to officials, BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives because BOP officials consider a retention incentive successful if an employee does not leave the agency  However, BOP also uses other human capital flexibilities along with retention incentives to help retain staff  For example, BOP uses physician and dental comparability allowances—additional pay to a physician or dentist who enters into an agreement for a specified period of service—to help retain these medical personnel  According to officials, it would otherwise be difficult to compete with private sector salaries without the use of all available incentives  However, BOP has not studied whether or how retention incentives have contributed to employees’ retention in relation to other incentives such as physician and dental comparability allowances  According to our work on strategic human capital management and OPM’s guidance, it is crucial for organizations to evaluate the success of their human capital strategies, such as the use of retention incentives  In measuring the performance of these strategies and their contribution to key programmatic results, agencies can make adjustments, if necessary  For example, agencies can use evaluation results to make targeted investments in certain human capital strategies—such as the use of retention incentives—creating a cycle of strategic workforce management, where evaluation informs planning, planning dictates strategies, and strategies are evaluated for effectiveness  While BOP uses retention incentives to address critical skills gaps—such as with medical professionals—evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help BOP determine whether and how retention incentives, as well as other human capital flexibilities, contribute to an employee’s continued employment at BOP or if adjustments to BOP retention strategies must be made for improved results  BOP officials agreed that evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help them be more strategic about their human capital needs and spending on incentives  By including and implementing such an evaluation in its upcoming strategic human capital operating plan, BOP could better determine if it is making maximum use of its funds to retain the necessary qualified personnel or if changes must be made to most effectively retain its staff  As the largest employer within DOJ with some staff working in remote locations and undesirable conditions, BOP relies on a number of available flexibilities, including retention incentives, to help retain its employees  However, BOP currently lacks a strategic approach for using and evaluating retention incentives to address human capital goals  Given BOP’s ongoing staffing challenges, for example, retaining staff in hard-to- fill medical positions, developing a plan that includes a thoughtful blueprint for using retention incentives could help BOP better anticipate and address staffing needs  Moreover, evaluating its use of retention incentives could help BOP determine whether these incentives are effective or whether adjustments are needed to better retain its employees  By using evaluation results to inform planning, and planning to inform how retention incentives are used, BOP would be better positioned to achieve its long-term human capital goals and address its critical staffing needs  We are making two recommendations to BOP: 1  The Director of BOP should include in the forthcoming strategic human capital operating plan, 1) human capital goals and 2) strategies on how human capital flexibilities—including retention incentives—will be used to meet these goals  (Recommendation 1) 2  The Director of BOP should evaluate the effectiveness of BOP’s use of retention incentives to help determine whether the incentives have helped BOP achieve its human capital goals or if adjustments in retention incentives are needed  (Recommendation 2) We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ  In an email received November 15, 2017, the DOJ liaison stated that DOJ concurred with our recommendations  The Department did not provide official written comments to include in our report, but did provide written technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Attorney General and the Director of BOP  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  This report examines (1) how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) what internal controls are in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives  To determine how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives, we reviewed BOP’s July 2012 report on its use of recruitment, relocation, and retention (3R) incentives  We then obtained underlying retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ’s Justice Management Division because it serves as the focal point for performance and financial information for all Department of Justice components and employees, including BOP  In particular, we obtained employee-level retention incentive payroll data for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We selected this time period because it includes the most recent five complete fiscal years for which data were available and because we believe five years is sufficient time to identify trends in BOP’s retention incentive expenditures  We analyzed and aggregated the employee-level data by institution, occupation, and employee grade level  To identify trends, we compared per fiscal year expenditures across the various categories of occupations and locations across the five years  Additionally, we categorized institutions by BOP region, institutions that use group retention incentives, and institutions that use individual retention incentives  We also categorized occupations as medical professionals, correctional officers, and all other occupations and compared aggregate retention incentive expenditures for the different groups  Using information from BOP’s website and testimonial evidence from BOP officials on its health care system, for the purposes of this report, we defined medical professionals as BOP employees in occupations that provide medical, dental, and mental health care services and who do not solely provide these services in an administrative function  For the purposes of our analyses, medical professionals are dentists, dental assistants and hygienists, diagnostic radiological technologists, health aid and technicians, medical doctors (including psychiatrists), medical technologists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physician assistants, and practical nurses and psychologists  To assess the employee-level retention incentive payroll data’s reliability, we obtained and analyzed documentation on systems’ capabilities and data control, interviewed data users and managers responsible for maintaining data, conducted checks for completeness and logical consistency, and compared the employee-level data to aggregated institution-level retention incentive expenditure data from BOP’s Financial Management Information System  We found the employee-level data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  Additionally for this objective, we reviewed documents such as the DOJ’s Financial Management Information System Sub-Object Classification Code Guide and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families to respectively identify the system codes used to track retention incentives expenditures and to identify the names for each occupational series code in the datasets  We also interviewed BOP Human Resource Management headquarters officials to obtain information on the primary purposes for BOP’s use of retention incentives and their views on identified retention incentive expenditures trends  We also interviewed U S  Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) officials to better understand how BOP and PHS manage costs, including retention incentive expenditures, for PHS staff assigned to BOP  BOP partners with PHS to acquire medical staff to provide medical care for BOP’s inmate population  BOP reimburses PHS for the costs of compensation and benefits—including retention incentive payments, if applicable—for PHS staff assigned to BOP  PHS has final approval authority for retention incentives paid to PHS staff assigned to BOP facilities  Furthermore, we obtained aggregated retention incentive expenditure data from PHS on the total amount of funds BOP reimbursed PHS for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  For the reliability of PHS’s data, we reviewed the system’s data fields to check that the appropriate fields were used to provide data and interviewed data users and managers to discuss how expenditures are recorded and maintained  We found the PHS data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  To identify and describe the internal controls that BOP has in place related to retention incentives, we obtained and analyzed documentation regarding BOP requirements and guidance for the use of retention incentives  We also interviewed officials from BOP’s Central Office who are responsible for the administration, management, and oversight of BOP’s human capital management systems, including retention incentives  We focused on the management and administrative controls used by BOP to review, approve, re-certify, and monitor retention incentives  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at 4 of the 122 institutions to obtain illustrative examples regarding the internal controls in place at these institutions to ensure the proper disbursement of retention incentives  We interviewed BOP officials at Federal Correctional Complex Pollock in Pollock, LA; Federal Correctional Complex Butner in Butner, NC; United States Penitentiary, Atwater in Atwater, CA and Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix, in Phoenix, AZ  These institutions were selected to ensure variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP region, and security-level  Although the information we obtained from the interviews with officials at these four institutions cannot be generalized to other BOP institutions, these interviews provided important insights and perspectives about the use of retention incentives at BOP institutions  We also reviewed a non-generalizable random sample of 40 retention incentive application packet case files to determine the extent to which these files contained documentation on the internal control activities in place to monitor the application, approval, and funds disbursement processes of BOP’s retention incentive program  To identify our sample, we used employee-level expenditure data to randomly select 40 application files from the universe of BOP employees who received retention incentives from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Each application file was reviewed by two GAO analysts who each assessed the extent to which each application contained the appropriate justification, approval signatures, and other documentation such as an application checklist and whether the application was an initial or continuation application  To determine the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives, we interviewed BOP officials regarding their experiences with retention incentives, how they use retention incentives to strategically manage their workforce needs, how the agency evaluates the effectiveness of retention incentives, and how retention incentives contribute to BOP’s broader human capital goals  We then compared these efforts to our work on strategic human capital planning, specifically in terms of planning for and evaluating the use of human capital flexibilities  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at four BOP institutions mentioned above to obtain illustrative examples of how workforce planning occurs at these institutions  We also reviewed the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General Report 16-02 “Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges” (March 2016) and our past work to better understand the challenges that BOP faces in retaining medical professionals and other staff  Table 2 provides the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) fiscal year 2016 retention incentive expenditures by various occupations and groups of occupations, such as medical professionals, correctional officers, and other occupations  A range of occupations are reflected in the table primarily as a result of four California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex Victorville—providing retention incentives to all employees at General Schedule grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System  In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director) and Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge) managed the work  Also, David Alexander, Renee Caputo, Willie Commons III, Jamarla Edwards, Robert Goldenkoff, Chelsa Gurkin, Eric Hauswirth, Janice Latimer, Lerone Reid, Rachel Stoiko, and Adam Vogt made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Suspension of the rules is the most commonly used procedure to call up measures on the floor of the House of Representatives. As the name suggests, the procedure allows the House to suspend its standing and statutory rules in order to consider broadly supported legislation in an expedited manner. More specifically, the House temporarily sets aside its rules that govern the raising and consideration of measures and assumes a new set of constraints particular to the suspension procedure. The suspension of the rules procedure has several parliamentary advantages: (1) it allows nonprivileged measures to be raised on the House floor without the need for a special rule, (2) it enables the consideration of measures that would otherwise be subject to a point of order, and (3) it streamlines floor action by limiting debate and prohibiting floor amendments. Given these features, as well as the required two-thirds supermajority vote for passage, suspension motions are generally used to process less controversial legislation. In the 114th Congress (2015-2016), measures considered under suspension made up 62% of the bills and resolutions that received floor action in the House (743 out of 1,200 measures). The majority of suspension measures were House bills (83%), followed by Senate bills (11%) and House resolutions (4%). The measures covered a variety of policy areas but most often addressed government operations, such as the designation of federal facilities or amending administrative policies. Most measures that are considered in the House under the suspension procedure are sponsored by a House or Senate majority party member. However, suspension is the most common House procedure used to consider minority-party-sponsored legislation regardless of whether the legislation originated in the House or Senate. In 2015 and 2016, minority-party members sponsored 31% of suspension measures, compared to 9% of legislation subject to different procedures, including privileged business (17 measures), unanimous consent (21 measures), and under the terms of a special rule (one Senate bill). Most suspension measures are referred to at least one House committee before their consideration on the floor. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform) was the committee of primary jurisdiction for the plurality of suspension measures considered in the 114th Congress. Additional committees—such as Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs—also served as the primary committee for a large number of suspension measures. Suspension motions are debatable for up to 40 minutes. In most cases, only a fraction of that debate time is actually used. In the 114th Congress, the average amount of time spent considering a motion to suspend the rules was 13 minutes and 10 seconds. The House adopted nearly every suspension motion considered in 2015 and 2016. Approval by the House, however, did not guarantee final approval in the 114th Congress. The Senate passed or agreed to 40% of the bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions initially considered in the House under suspension of the rules, and 276 measures were signed into law. This report briefly describes the suspension of the rules procedure, which is defined in House Rule XV, and provides an analysis of measures considered under this procedure during the 114th Congress. Figures and one table display statistics on the use of the procedure, including the prevalence and form of suspension measures, sponsorship of measures by party, committee consideration, length of debate, voting, resolution of differences between the chambers, and the final status of legislation. In addition, an Appendix illustrates trends in the use of the suspension procedure from the 110th to the 114th Congress (2007-2016).

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2: DOJ and its components, as well as the judiciary, play important roles in requesting and collecting restitution  DOJ and select components: Prosecutors in DOJ’s Criminal Division and the Criminal Divisions of the 94 USAOs are responsible for overseeing criminal matters, including identifying and notifying victims, determining their losses as part of a case investigation, prosecuting cases and negotiating the terms of plea agreements, of which restitution may be a part  Within DOJ’s Criminal Division, the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section manages DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program  As previously stated, FLUs within each USAO undertake activities to collect restitution from offenders in their district  Additionally, all USAOs have asset forfeiture staff responsible for forfeiting property seized by law enforcement agencies because the property was used in criminal activities or purchased with the proceeds of criminal activities  According to EOUSA guidance, coordination between the FLU and Asset Forfeiture units is highly encouraged to use forfeited assets as a means to collect on unpaid restitution debts  DOJ requires each USAO to have its own policies and procedures related to debt collection efforts but allows them discretion in developing these policies and procedures to ensure that they are appropriate for local conditions  DOJ also requires USAOs to have policies and procedures to make early, effective, and coordinated asset investigations and recovery a routine part of every case involving victims but allows USAOs to specify these policies and procedures  DOJ’s EOUSA provides USAOs with management assistance, guidance, training, and administrative support  Among other activities, EOUSA provides management assistance to USAOs by administering internal evaluations for each USAO, which are intended to provide on-site management support for that office  Further, EOUSA provides guidance to enhance offices’ efforts to request and collect restitution  Judiciary: Within the judiciary, the 94 federal district courts order restitution, receipt restitution payments, and disburse restitution to victims  Within the federal district where the offender was convicted, a probation officer prepares the presentence investigation report (PSR) for the court, which includes information on the victim’s losses and an offender’s financial information  Probation officers may obtain this information from DOJ, which has the statutory responsibility for the enforcement and collection of criminal debt  The court uses the PSR, among other things, to determine whether to order restitution  If an offender is released to the community by the court and placed on supervision, probation officers are responsible for ensuring the offender abides by the terms of release, including paying any restitution owed to victims  The Clerk of each District Court is responsible for the receipt of restitution from offenders and for disbursing payments to victims  The Judicial Conference is the national policy-making body for the federal courts  The Conference operates through a network of committees created to address and advise courts on a wide variety of subjects such as information technology, personnel, probation and pretrial services, space and facilities, security, judicial salaries and benefits, budget, defender services, court administration, and rules of practice and procedure  The Judicial Conference has taken policy positions on restitution-related issues and has supported legislative proposals to improve the restitution process  AOUSC is the agency within the judiciary that provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts  AOUSC is responsible for carrying out Judicial Conference policies and a primary responsibility of AOUSC is to provide staff support and counsel to the Judicial Conference and its committees  USSC is an independent agency within the judiciary which, among other activities, establishes and promulgates detailed sentencing guidelines that judges are to consider in sentencing offenders convicted of federal crimes, including guidelines on when and how to order restitution  Additionally, each district court is required to submit to USSC a report of each offender’s sentence that includes, among other information, details on the offenses for which the offender was convicted; the sentence imposed on the offender; and if the judge departed from the sentencing guidelines, information on reasons why  USSC maintains a database containing sentencing data on federal offenders convicted of felonies or serious misdemeanors, analyzes it and publishes these data on an annual basis  USSC is also statutorily required to annually report to Congress its analysis of sentencing-related documents, including an accounting of districts USSC believes have not submitted appropriate information to the commission, among other things  During the course of a federal criminal investigation, federal prosecutors identify and notify victims, as well as determine their losses in conjunction with the federal agents investigating the case  If a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proving the victims’ losses in court  To facilitate this, a Victim-Witness coordinator within the USAO responsible for the case provides victims the opportunity to explain their losses in detail, usually through a Victim Impact Statement  This information is then to be provided to a federal probation officer who uses it to begin a PSR  To develop the PSR, probation officers use information provided by the USAO and may contact victims and verify the loss amounts  Additionally, probation officers will investigate an offender’s economic circumstances— such as if the offender has a job, any assets or any dependents  If a judge determines that restitution is to be ordered, the judge must order restitution for the full amount of a victim’s losses for offenses without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant  Judges may decline to order restitution in certain instances, for example, where restitution is discretionary, or in certain cases where the number of identifiable victims makes restitution impracticable or the complexity of calculating restitution would unduly prolong the sentencing process  If the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the judge must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in a written Statement of Reasons document  Figure 1 provides an overview of the federal restitution process  Upon imposition of a restitution debt by the court, FLU staff use two mechanisms to determine the collectability of the debt and what collection actions to take  First, FLU staff classify the debt into one of four categories to determine the extent to which the FLU will pursue enforcement actions to collect upon the debt  FLUs classify debts from a Priority Code 1 debt (indicating that FLUs will make collection of this debt the highest priority) to a Priority Code 4 debt (indicating that FLUs will make collection of this debt the lowest priority)  Second, FLUs may suspend collection action on criminal debts, regardless of their categorization, under certain circumstances if they determine the debts are uncollectible  FLU staff may also determine that debts are permanently uncollectible and categorize them as Priority Code 4 debts  If a debtor does not provide payment, FLU staff then use various enforcement actions to collect the restitution debt  These can include, among other actions, filing liens against an offender’s property, coordinating with asset forfeiture staff to use forfeited assets to pay the restitution debt, and garnishing wages an offender may earn  Victims can be compensated for losses with the proceeds of forfeited assets through DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program and in accordance with law and regulation  Federal regulations provide that the proceeds from forfeited assets are first used to cover program costs associated with forfeiture-related activities and next to pay valid owners, lien-holders, and federal financial regulatory agencies  Forfeited assets can then be distributed to other victims of crime as compensation for their losses if their loss is a direct result of the commission of the offense underlying forfeiture or a related offense  Any remaining funds from the forfeited asset may be placed into official use, distributed to foreign governments, state or local law enforcement agencies as part of the equitable sharing program to enhance cooperation with federal investigations  When victims are eligible for compensation using forfeited assets, DOJ employs two processes: restoration and remission  The restoration process involves the USAO staff requesting funds on behalf of a victim when there is both an order of forfeiture and an order of restitution  Under the restoration process, USAO staff request DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section to use the forfeited asset to pay a restitution debt  If DOJ approves the request for restoration, the funds from the forfeited property are then transferred to the Clerk of the Court who disburses this money to the victim  The remission process requires a victim of a crime to directly petition DOJ to receive funds from the forfeited property  According to officials in DOJ’s Criminal Division, the courts may not order restitution on behalf of victims who suffered a specific actual loss as a direct result of a crime for a variety of reasons, and therefore the remission process serves as a complement to the restoration process to ensure victims are made whole  For example, these officials stated that, among other reasons, the courts may not order restitution if a defendant dies prior to sentencing or if the case is one in which a court is not required to, and does not, order restitution, but the victim has suffered eligible losses  EOUSA and USAO officials in all six of the offices with whom we spoke told us that prosecutors document requests for restitution in their case files and that their offices employ other internal controls, such as the use of templates and forms, throughout the prosecution process to ensure that prosecutors request restitution as appropriate  EOUSA officials told us that although the agency does not track this information, they believed all USAOs generally document requests for restitution in their offices’ case files  Further, USAO officials in all six offices told us that prosecutors document requests for the court to order restitution in their case files by including this information in a written memorandum  To support prosecutors in documenting this information, all six offices we selected provide prosecutors with a prosecution memorandum template  Of the six templates we reviewed, four explicitly include a section for prosecutors to indicate whether victims have been identified and the extent of any victim losses  In addition to these templates, four of six USAOs we selected had forms that prosecutors could use to identify whether cases have victims and their need for restitution when drafting criminal charging documents  Moreover, officials from two of the six USAOs told us their offices use this form as an internal control to ensure prosecutors have identified all victims and considered their need for restitution, if applicable  All six offices we selected also provided prosecutors templates for drafting plea agreements, and templates we reviewed from all six USAOs included language requesting the offender pay restitution, if applicable  However, prosecutors are not required to use plea agreement templates, nor are they required to request restitution as part of a plea agreement  USAO officials from one office stated that including this language in the plea agreement template served to remind prosecutors of their requirement to consider requesting restitution as stated in the U S  Attorney’s Manual  Select USAO officials also described various forms of management oversight to ensure prosecutors request restitution as appropriate  Specifically, four USAOs we selected require supervisory review of the form that prosecutors fill out when drafting criminal charging documents, which includes information on victims  Additionally, officials in all six USAOs told us that they require supervisory review of plea agreements for every case  For example, officials from two USAOs told us their office requires the Criminal Chief, the supervisor of all criminal cases, to approve documents in the plea agreement, which may include requests for restitution  Federal courts sent information on sentencing decisions to USSC and USSC had information on restitution decisions for 95 percent of all offenders from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  According to our analysis of USSC data, 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 and restitution was ordered for 33,158 of those offenders, or 15 percent  Collectively, courts ordered these offenders to pay $33 9 billion in restitution during this period  Courts did not order restitution for the remaining 181,420 offenders, or 85 percent  Table 1 shows the number of federal offenders sentenced and ordered to pay restitution for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, as well as the total amount of restitution ordered by the courts  The majority of federal offenders were sentenced for immigration or drug- related offenses, and USAO officials in all six offices we selected told us that these types of offenses do not typically have victims with actual losses  For example, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, USSC data showed that 131,088 offenders, 61 percent of offenders sentenced, were sentenced for immigration or drug-related offenses and courts ordered 999 (or less than 1 percent) of these offenders to pay restitution  USSC data show that courts ordered restitution more often for offenders sentenced for other offenses, such as fraud  For example, courts sentenced 21,551 offenders for fraud offenses from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, and courts ordered restitution for 15,902 of these offenders, or 74 percent  Table 2 shows the number of offenders sentenced and the number ordered to pay restitution by offenses for which restitution was most often and least often ordered by courts from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The percentage of federal offenders ordered to pay restitution varied across federal court districts; from 2 percent of offenders in one district to 42 percent in another district  USAO officials we interviewed stated that some of this variation may be due to the types of offenses prosecuted within different districts  For example, officials from one USAO stated that their office, which had a high volume of immigration–related offenders, had few cases in which restitution was applicable  Our analysis of USSC data showed that from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 and across all districts, districts with a higher than average rate of immigration-related offenders had lower than average rates of restitution ordered  Conversely, districts with above-average rates of offenders convicted of financial offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, tax offenses, counterfeiting or bribery had higher than average rates of restitution ordered, as shown in table 3  Judges indicated on documents sent to USSC that restitution was not applicable and thus did not order it for most offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016—167,230 offenders—or 78 percent of all offenders sentenced during this time period  Our analysis of sentencing information for the remaining offenders found that courts ordered restitution at a higher rate as compared to all offenders  Specifically, after excluding offenders for whom restitution was not applicable and were not ordered to pay it, we found that courts ordered restitution for 70 percent of the remaining 47,348 offenders  EOUSA and USAO officials told us that in cases where there are identifiable victims, restitution may not be ordered for other reasons  EOUSA officials told us that restitution may not be ordered for several reasons, such as when victims provide no proof of their losses or when victims recover compensation through other means, such as through civil proceedings  Further, officials from one USAO told us that victims must provide documentation of their losses for restitution and, if victims are not able to provide this documentation, courts may decline to order restitution  Also, in certain cases, courts are not required to order restitution—such as when there is no identifiable victim or, on the other hand, when the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impractical, among other reasons  Additionally, the court might not order, or order only partial restitution for other reasons, such as when the value of property the defendant returned to the victim was deducted from the restitution award or because the victim received compensation from insurance  If a court does not order restitution, or orders partial restitution, it is required to provide the reason for its decision and to provide that reason to USSC, but our analysis showed USSC did not always have these data  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, we found that restitution was not ordered—and no reason was documented in USSC data for that decision—for 9,848 offenders (5 percent of the 214,578 offenders sentenced during this time period)  Information on offenders’ sentences, including restitution, assists USSC in its continuous reexamination of its guidelines and policy statements and ensures that various sentencing practices are achieving their stated purposes  Further, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should evaluate issues identified through monitoring activities or reported by personnel to determine whether any of the issues rise to the level of an internal control deficiency  In response to our questions about the missing information on reasons why restitution was not ordered, AOUSC and USSC officials stated that they were unaware of the missing information or why it was missing  Judiciary officials stated that because various entities within the judiciary participate in the process of collecting and recording information on reasons restitution was not ordered, they did not know which entities could take action to improve USSC data  However, as previously discussed, if the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the judge must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in a written Statement of Reasons form  The Judicial Conference, along with USSC, has developed guidance to help judges fill out the Statement of Reasons form and AOUSC supports the Judicial Conference in carrying out its policies  Further, courts must provide USSC the written Statement of Reasons form for sentences imposed  USSC is also responsible for collecting, analyzing, and distributing information on federal sentences provided by each district court, including information related to orders for restitution  However, judicial officials, including from the entities listed above, agreed that further studying the missing data may inform the judiciary of the cause of the missing data, as well as any efforts needed to improve USSC information  Courts are required to provide reasons for not ordering restitution and to provide this information to USSC so that the agency can analyze and report on sentencing data  Determining why USSC data are incomplete could help inform the judiciary whether the issue rises to the level of an internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to improve the transparency of sentencing decisions  Doing so could help the judiciary ensure reasons for not ordering restitution are provided consistently in all cases and potentially improve data provided to USSC, in turn supporting its mission to promote transparency in sentencing decisions  Our analysis of DOJ data showed that DOJ collected $2 95 billion in restitution debt from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, half of which was collected on debts imposed during this period  The extent of collections across the 94 USAOs ranged from a high of $848 million in one USAO to a low of $1 2 million in another USAO  The median amount collected for USAOs was $10 7 million  DOJ was more successful at collecting restitution on newer debts—debts imposed from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Of the $2 95 billion in restitution debt collected, about half was collected from new debts imposed by courts during this time period  Specifically, DOJ collected $1 5 billion (4 percent), of the $34 billion ordered from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The remaining half of the debt collected during this time frame was collected from debts imposed between fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 2014  New debts—imposed in fiscal years 2014 through 2016—were also more likely to be fully paid during this time period compared to all debts  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, DOJ collected the full amount of restitution on 4,003 of the 24,950 debts imposed during this time, 16 percent  However, across all debts, including debts imposed prior to fiscal year 2014, DOJ collected the full amount of restitution ordered on only 5 percent of debts  Across all restitution debts, DOJ collected at least some of the debt for one-third of debts and did not collect any restitution on the remaining two-thirds  More than 60 percent of the restitution DOJ collected in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 was owed to non-federal victims ($1 8 billion), including individuals, corporations and state and local governments  An additional 37 percent of restitution was collected on behalf of federal agencies that were victims of crimes  One percent of restitution collected was community restitution, which is restitution collected for drug offenses that otherwise have no victims and which is disbursed to state victim assistance agencies and state agencies dedicated to the reduction of substance abuse, as shown in table 4  AOUSC officials noted that some collected restitution is not disbursed to non-federal victims due to a lack of accurate contact information for these victims  Specifically, according to AOUSC, as of June 2017, courts had more than $132 million in restitution due to 113,260 victims that could not be disbursed because of a lack of accurate contact information for these victims  DOJ is required to provide courts with victim contact information, and victims are to notify DOJ if their contact information changes  However, AOUSC and USAO officials told us that this notification by victims may not always occur  For example, officials in one USAO told us that due to the length of court proceedings, victims may move without notifying the court prior to the disbursement of restitution and, as a result, the court is unable to disburse restitution to those victims  According to our analysis of DOJ data, at the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in restitution was outstanding and USAOs had identified $100 billion of that debt as uncollectible, as shown in figure 2  USAOs may identify debts as uncollectible and suspend collection actions on a debt for a variety of reasons, including that the offender has no, or only a nominal, ability to pay the debt  Probation officials, EOUSA officials, and officials from five of six USAOs we interviewed stated that most outstanding restitution debt is identified as uncollectible and collection action is suspended because many offenders have little ability to pay the debt—a conclusion supported by USSC data  For example, according to USSC data, 95 percent of offenders ordered to pay restitution from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 received a waiver from paying a court-ordered fine, indicating their inability to pay  While courts are allowed to take an offender’s economic circumstances into consideration when issuing fines, they generally may not do so when ordering restitution  As a result, EOUSA and federal probation officials with whom we spoke stated that offenders ordered to pay restitution often do not have an ability to do so and therefore a large amount of restitution orders is uncollectible  Through various guidance documents, DOJ has identified and recommended numerous practices for DOJ prosecutors and FLU staff to use throughout the restitution process to help ensure full and timely restitution for victims  USAO officials in all six offices with whom we spoke stated that, based on their experience, these practices were generally effective  Specifically, DOJ and EOUSA officials identified practices for prosecutors and FLU staff to use when requesting restitution, facilitating court orders for restitution, and collecting restitution and documented these practices in several guidance manuals  Officials we interviewed from all six USAOs stated they were generally satisfied with the guidance from EOUSA and that they thought most of DOJ’s recommended practices were effective when requesting restitution, facilitating court orders for restitution, and collecting restitution  Requesting restitution  Officials we interviewed from three USAOs identified coordination between prosecutors and case investigators prior to sentencing to identify victims and their losses as an important practice for requesting restitution  USAO officials from three of the six offices stated that gathering detailed information on an offender’s financial resources, which include assets that could be forfeited and used to pay a restitution debt, was a very effective practice related to requesting restitution  Facilitating court orders of restitution  Although the courts, and not prosecutors, are responsible for ordering restitution, DOJ guidance identifies several practices that prosecutors can use to facilitate orders of restitution that may increase the likelihood of full and timely restitution for victims  Officials from three of six USAOs stated that the most effective practice related to ordering restitution was ensuring courts ordered restitution as due and payable immediately  Specifically, when offenders cannot pay restitution in an immediate lump-sum payment, the courts must specify a payment schedule through which the offender will pay restitution based on the offender’s ability to pay  In these cases, USAO officials stated that it is effective for prosecutors to ensure the restitution order specifies that restitution is due and payable immediately  According to an EOUSA official, this permits the agency to immediately pursue all collection remedies allowed by law whenever the debtor has or subsequently obtains the ability to pay  Collecting restitution  Officials from all six USAOs stated that using the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), a program that allows for the reduction or withholding of a debtor’s federal benefits, such as a tax refund, was one of the most effective practices for collecting restitution  Specifically, officials in one USAO told us that TOP requires minimal effort for FLU staff and can result in a high amount of collections  As an example, officials from two USAOs told us their respective offices each recovered more than $500,000 dollars in restitution debt in fiscal year 2016 through TOP  Officials from three of the six offices also identified using wage garnishment as an effective practice for collecting restitution  Across all parts of the restitution process, USAO officials we spoke with also consistently identified DOJ recommended practices related to internal and external communication and collaboration as effective for improving the restitution process  Specifically, the officials identified collaboration between various units in the USAO as an effective practice to ensuring restitution for victims  For example, USAO officials in two of the six offices highlighted coordination between Victim-Witness coordinators and prosecutors to help identify victims and quantify their losses as effective to assisting in the request for restitution  Additionally, USAO officials in all six offices stated that strong coordination between FLU personnel and criminal prosecutors to identify an offender’s financial resources and available assets was an effective practice to help ensure FLU staff could collect restitution using those resources or assets  USAO officials from five of six offices identified external communication between FLU and the federal probation office as an effective practice  Specifically, officials from these USAOs stated that FLUs coordinating with probation officers during the offender’s supervision period to enforce restitution terms was an effective practice for collecting restitution  Additionally, according to EOUSA guidance, FLU staff can use outreach and training with other partners such as the probation office to facilitate information sharing on restitution collection issues and officials from five of six USAOs told us that FLUs conducting training and outreach is a very effective practice  In addition, probation officials we interviewed in each of the six federal judicial districts we selected stated that ongoing communication between USAO staff and probation officers is effective to ensuring victims are identified and receive full and timely restitution  Probation officials from one court district emphasized the importance of a good working relationship with the USAO, stating that the probation office and USAO are better able to ensure victims and their losses are accurately identified and defendants’ ability to pay is adequately addressed when working collaboratively  A probation official from another office said that probation officers regularly coordinated with the USAO’s FLU, and this coordination was particularly important on cases involving complex financial crimes, where the offender has a complicated financial portfolio  Further, probation officials from five of six probation offices also stated that attending training conducted by the FLU is a very effective practice  EOUSA and selected USAO officials told us that while these practices may be useful in some circumstances, they may not be effective or applicable in all cases or in all districts  Specifically, practices DOJ recommends may be effective when offenders have the ability to pay restitution but are simply unwilling to do so; however, USAO officials in five of six offices stated that these practices cannot mitigate the fact that many offenders lack the ability to pay restitution because they lack assets and income  Additionally, while EOUSA guidance recommends that FLU staff contact co-defendants or victims for information on the whereabouts or assets of offenders who owe restitution, officials from three USAOs told us this was not effective  According to one official, although co- defendants are sometimes eager to share information, the information is usually unreliable  USAO officials also identified some recommended practices as not applicable to their district  For example, EOUSA recommends that FLU units request Asset Investigation assistance from EOUSA for complex cases involving large amounts of valuable assets  However, USAO officials in a small, rural district with whom we spoke stated that the types of cases their office prosecutes tend not to be the type of financial cases that warranted use of this resource  DOJ has identified improving debt collection—including court-ordered restitution—as a major management initiative in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan  However, it does not have any measures or goals in place to assess its performance in meeting this initiative or meet requirements that it evaluate its performance in seeking and recovering restitution as required by statute  In 2001, we recommended that DOJ adequately measure its criminal debt collection performance against established goals to help improve collections and stem the growth in uncollected criminal debt  DOJ concurred with this recommendation, and as of fiscal year 2003, annually assessed each district based on established collection goals for that district  However, as of September 2017, DOJ no longer evaluates each district based on established goals  EOUSA officials stated that DOJ no longer uses these performance goals and that the agency did not maintain records for when or why it stopped  EOUSA officials stated that while the agency does not have any measures or goals to assess USAOs’ performance in improving debt collection, including the collection of federal restitution, they are working with DOJ’s Justice Management Division to develop a suite of analytical tools to monitor the collection of debt across all offices  According to DOJ, some of these analytical tools have been implemented and additional tools will be implemented by March 2018  EOUSA officials stated that these tools will help the agency determine which cases are most likely to result in significant collections and the types and timing of enforcement actions that generate maximum debt recovery results  EOUSA officials further stated the analytical tools will allow the agency to compare districts’ efforts based on a variety of factors (e g , caseload, staff size, and enforcement actions)  These analytical tools may provide EOUSA with valuable insight into the present condition of the collection of restitution across USAOs, but they will not provide DOJ with a baseline performance standard that could be used to indicate if USAOs’ efforts to collect restitution debts are having a measurable impact in meeting DOJ’s objective of improving debt collection  Additionally, EOUSA conducts evaluations of each USAO every 4 years, which include a review of FLU operations, but EOUSA officials stated that these reviews do not include oversight of the collection of restitution  Among other aspects of USAO operations, these internal evaluations review the extent to which each FLU is complying with statutory and DOJ requirements related to debt collection, has sufficient program resources, and adequately manages its caseload  However, DOJ and EOUSA officials told us that it did not plan to use these internal evaluations to meet the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 requirement to evaluate each USAO on its performance in seeking and recovering restitution for victims  Specifically, the officials stated that these internal evaluations are not an appropriate mechanism to meet the law’s requirements because the internal evaluations do not specifically review the seeking and recovery of restitution for victims  According to DOJ officials responsible for the internal evaluation program, these evaluations are largely intended to provide onsite management assistance and analysis of how the USAO allocates its administrative and legal personnel resources rather than the office’s efficacy in collecting restitution  Consistent with requirements outlined in the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments—particularly towards pre-established, objective and quantifiable goals—and agencies are to establish performance measures to assess progress towards those goals  While GPRAMA is applicable to the department or agency level, performance measures and goals are important management tools at all levels of an agency, including the program, project, or activity level  Agencies can use performance measurement to make various types of management decisions to improve programs and results, such as developing strategies and allocating resources, including identifying problems and taking corrective action when appropriate  Further, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 requires DOJ to evaluate each USAO in its performance in recovering restitution for victims  DOJ and EOUSA officials told us that DOJ does not require USAOs to establish performance measures or goals to assess their progress in improving the collection of restitution  DOJ and EOUSA officials also told us that each USAO could develop performance goals but that they were unaware of the extent to which USAOs did so, and further, they do not track the extent to which USAOs met performance goals  Additionally, these officials stated that because each USAO faces different constraints in its ability to collect restitution, establishing a uniform and consistent performance measure and goal would be challenging  EOUSA officials noted that some USAOs may have more resources, such as more FLU staff or specialized asset investigators, available to pursue collections as compared to other offices and therefore offices with fewer resources could have difficulty meeting a performance goal  Further, EOUSA and USAO officials stated that the extent to which DOJ can collect on a debt is heavily influenced by factors outside of the agency’s control, such as an offender’s ability to pay  USAOs could use information provided by performance measures and goals—such as an office’s ability to meet a performance goal—to make managerial decisions to help address these constraints, such as by increasing the allocation of staff resources  Further, to avoid comparing USAOs to a nationally set performance goal that does not account for specific constraints faced by each office, DOJ could—as it did in fiscal year 2003—require each USAO to establish its own objective, quantitative collection goals based on historical, district-specific collection statistics  Finally, as previously discussed, each USAO already accounts for external factors that affect the collectability of a debt, such as an offender’s ability to pay, by suspending collection action on debts it identifies as uncollectible  Therefore, any performance measures and goals developed could be based solely on debts that the USAO already has determined to be collectible  Stakeholders we interviewed—including officials from one USAO, probation officials in two districts, and officials with DOJ’s Office of Crime Victims—noted that receiving restitution is both emotionally and financially important to victims  Specifically, officials from one USAO and one probation office noted that while many victims may never receive the full amount of restitution ordered, receiving even a minimal amount of restitution is a symbolic victory and that it is important for victims to know the government is making efforts to collect restitution on their behalf  The legislative history of the MVRA echoes these sentiments, providing that even nominal restitution payments have benefits for the victim of crime, and that orders of restitution are largely worthless without enforcement  Yet, according to our analysis, $10 billion of restitution debt DOJ identified as collectible remained outstanding at the end of fiscal year 2016  Further, the extent to which USAOs collected restitution varied widely— from a high of one USAO district collecting nearly 350 percent of all collectible debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to a low of one district collecting less than one percent of collectible debt in the same period  Without performance measures, including the establishment of goals, DOJ cannot assess if this variation is due to factors outside the control of USAOs or due to management deficiencies that require corrective action  Developing performance measures and goals for each USAO related to the collection of restitution would allow DOJ to assess its progress in achieving its major management initiative in improving debt collection— including debts owed to victims as court-ordered restitution  Doing so would also better position DOJ to meet the requirements of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to evaluate offices in their performance in recovering restitution on behalf of victims and to use performance information to improve the practices of offices as needed  Although asset forfeiture and restitution are separate parts of a criminal sentence, DOJ guidance states that using forfeited assets to benefit victims is a way that DOJ can help ensure eligible victims of crime are compensated for their losses  Further, DOJ regulations and policy require that eligible victims receive compensation from forfeited assets before certain other uses, such as official use or equitable sharing  However, while DOJ tracks the amount of compensation provided to victims through forfeited assets, it does not have assurances that forfeited assets are being used to compensate victims to the greatest extent possible  According to DOJ information, the agency made payments of about $595 million to eligible victims other than owners of the property from the Assets Forfeiture Fund from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, or 15 percent of $3 9 billion in paid expenditures during this period, as shown in table 5  As table 5 shows, DOJ can account for cases in which forfeited assets were used to compensate eligible victims who were not owners or lienholders  However, DOJ does not have information on the overall universe of victims who could have been eligible to receive compensation from forfeited assets  Further, it does not have insight into any reasons why funds from forfeited assets were not used for these victims  Specifically, DOJ officials stated that the department collects information on whether victims have been identified in cases associated with forfeited assets, and if restitution is anticipated in these cases, but it does not track the extent to which these victims were ultimately compensated using forfeited assets  Further, DOJ also does not collect information on reasons why victims were not compensated using funds from forfeited assets  While DOJ is required to use forfeited assets to compensate victims before using those assets for certain other purposes, the agency is unable to provide assurances that it is always doing so because it does not have information on the overall universe of victims or reasons why victims were not compensated using forfeited assets  As a result, DOJ does not have a basis to know whether the $595 million provided to victims from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 is the maximum amount of compensation the agency could have provided to victims using forfeited assets  Full use of forfeited assets for victim compensation has long been, and continues to be, a goal of DOJ  In 2005, an interagency task force—led by DOJ and including the Department of Treasury, Office of Management and Budget and AOUSC—developed a strategic plan to improve the collection of criminal debt  Among other goals included in its strategic plan, the task force stated a goal of examining how asset seizure and forfeiture procedures can be used to maximize recoveries for victims  More recently, DOJ reported in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan that it would make every effort to recover full and fair restitution for victims using the federal forfeiture statutes to preserve and recover criminal proceeds  Specifically, DOJ stated that using federal forfeiture statutes to recover full and fair restitution for victims is one part of its strategy to protect the rights of the American people and enforce the rule of law  Finally, DOJ officials told us they considered providing compensation to victims as one goal of the Asset Forfeiture Program and EOUSA stated in guidance that asset forfeiture is the most widely available and effective tool to seize assets for restitution purposes  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call on federal managers to design control activities to achieve the agency’s objectives  These controls can include using quality information to make informed decisions, evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives, and address risks  DOJ officials told us that they do not track the extent to which victims were not compensated using forfeited assets because USAO staff are not required to request that these assets be used for victim compensation  DOJ officials explained that staff are required to indicate in the agency’s forfeited asset database, the Consolidated Asset Tracking System, if victims exist in cases associated with forfeited assets and if restitution is anticipated in these cases  However, these officials stated that staff are not required to then compensate these victims using the forfeited assets or to indicate why these assets were not used for this purpose  DOJ officials told us that decisions to compensate victims using forfeited assets are best left to the judgment of the USAO staff familiar with the case, such as the prosecuting attorney or asset forfeiture staff  DOJ officials pointed to informal communication and coordination among prosecutors, the FLU, and the Asset Forfeiture unit in each USAO as a means to provide compensation to victims as appropriate  However, communication and coordination among these groups has been a challenge for USAOs, as the DOJ Inspector General found in a June 2015 review of DOJ’s debt collection program  Similarly, during our current review, EOUSA and USAO officials we spoke with identified communication and coordination as an area for improvement  EOUSA officials told us that while they thought that FLU staff and Asset Forfeiture unit staff were collaborating more frequently to use forfeited assets to collect restitution debts since the issuance of the DOJ Inspector General’s report, the extent of collaboration between these two units still varied across USAOs  Further, officials we talked to in two USAOs and one probation office noted that USAO staff could improve their use of forfeited assets for restitution payments  For example, officials in one probation office noted that it was their practice to identify forfeited assets that could be used for compensation in the PSR because they had observed that USAO staff were frequently not applying such assets to victim compensation  While DOJ may allow USAO staff to use discretion when requesting restoration or alerting victims to assets available for compensation, increasing the agency’s understanding of the extent to which assets could have been—but were not—used for victim compensation, and the reasons for those decisions, does not affect that discretion  There are legitimate reasons why victims might not be compensated using forfeited assets; for example, the assets may have other owners or lienholders that must be compensated prior to victims, or offenders may have other means by which to pay victims restitution  However, there are also instances where victims may have not received compensation through forfeited assets as a result of unintentional circumstances  For example, according to DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Manual, forfeiture actions can proceed faster than the parallel criminal case  Consequently, assets might be equitably shared, placed into official use, or remitted to victims who file petitions long before restitution is ordered, and therefore would not be available for other victims who wait for restitution to be ordered after an offender is sentenced  To avoid this outcome, DOJ recommends that USAOs coordinate to ensure the retention of property for victim compensation  However, although DOJ officials responsible for leading DOJ’s asset forfeiture efforts highlighted the need for expedient coordination when USAO staff are considering using forfeited assets to compensate victims, they stated this may not always occur  As a result, otherwise eligible victims may not always be compensated through forfeited assets  By gathering information about the extent to which assets were used for victim compensation—including when they were not used and reasons why not—DOJ could have a better understanding of potential instances where victims could be, but are not, receiving compensation through forfeited funds and could take steps to address them accordingly  Options for gathering such information could include doing a one-time retrospective study of forfeited assets with victims or anticipated restitution to determine the extent that assets were used for victim compensation, or creating a tracking mechanism through its forfeited assets database, or another system  Gathering information on the extent to which forfeited assets were used for victim compensation, including when not used and reasons why not, could position DOJ to take action to increase the use of these assets for victim compensation if warranted  These actions could include providing funds for increased asset forfeiture staff in USAOs, providing additional training or changing policies or procedures for using forfeited assets to compensate victims  Fully and systematically understanding the extent to which issues, such as a lack of coordination within USAOs, result in victims not being compensated using forfeited assets would give DOJ a basis upon which to develop improvements to the Asset Forfeiture Program  Such information would also provide DOJ and staff at all USAOs with information to evaluate its performance in achieving one of the goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program and taking action to meet the agency goal of protecting the rights of the American people—including the right to full and fair restitution for victims  Restitution serves the criminal justice goal of holding offenders accountable and, to the extent possible, restoring victims of federal crimes to their prior position had the crime not occurred  Many victims are unlikely to receive any meaningful portion of court-ordered restitution owed to them because of offenders’ inability to pay these debts  However, the fact that restitution is difficult to collect does not negate the important responsibilities of the judiciary and DOJ to properly manage and oversee all aspects of the restitution process  By law, courts are to state why they did not order restitution and provide that information to USSC  While this information was collected and recorded in USSC data for most offenders, we found that this information was missing for thousands of offenders  It is important for the judiciary to ensure that this information is consistently collected and recorded to assist USSC in its continuous re-examination of its guidelines and policy statements and ensure that various sentencing practices are achieving their stated purposes  The judiciary could support USSC in this endeavor by determining why this information is missing  Results from this study could help inform the judiciary whether this issue rises to the level of an internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to improve the transparency of sentencing decisions  While DOJ has delegated collection activities for restitution to USAOs, it could provide better oversight to ensure it is making reasonable efforts to collect restitution and meeting its responsibility to victims  USAOs have identified a significant portion of outstanding restitution debt as uncollectible, but they have also identified $10 billion of outstanding restitution debt that could be collected  Developing and implementing performance measures and goals for each USAO would allow DOJ to gauge USAOs’ success in collecting this restitution and, by extension, the department’s success in achieving its major management initiative to increase the collection of debt  Further, DOJ could use performance information to improve the practices of offices in seeking and recovering restitution, consistent with a requirement in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016  Finally, DOJ could gain greater visibility into the use of forfeited assets to compensate victims by gathering information on cases in which victims have been identified and restitution is anticipated but forfeited assets are not used, and any reasons why  Doing so would better position DOJ to take action to increase the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible victims if warranted and to provide assurance that it is maximizing the use of asset forfeiture in satisfying restitution debts, one of the agency’s most effective mechanisms for satisfying restitution  We are making three recommendations, including one to the judiciary and two to DOJ  Specifically: Judiciary officials, including AOUSC, USSC, and the Judicial Conference, should determine why USSC data on the reasons restitution was not ordered are incomplete  Additionally, if warranted based on this information, judiciary officials should take action to ensure USSC data records include all required information for orders of restitution  (Recommendation 1) To improve oversight of the collection of restitution we recommend that the Attorney General: Develop and implement performance measures and goals for each USAO related to the collection of restitution, and measure progress towards meeting those goals  (Recommendation 2) In cases where forfeited assets were not used to compensate victims, gather information on reasons why forfeited assets were not used for victims  If warranted based on this information, take action to increase the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible victims  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOJ, the Judicial Conference of the United States, AOUSC, USSC, and the Federal Judicial Center  DOJ concurred with our recommendations and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  AOUSC provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III  In its written comments, AOUSC noted that it would work with the USSC to address our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Attorney General, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Directors of AOUSC, the Staff Director of USSC, the Federal Judicial Center and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you and your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions are listed in appendix IV  According to our analysis of data from the U S  Sentencing Commission (USSC), 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Table 6 shows the number of offenders sentenced and the number and percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution for each primary offense of conviction in fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified and recommended numerous practices for federal prosecutors and Financial Litigation Unit (FLU) staff to use throughout the restitution process through various guidance documents  We conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from six U S  Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to obtain their views on the restitution process and the extent to which they believed DOJ- recommended restitution practices related to the restitution process were effective  In particular, we spoke with USAO officials from the District of Connecticut; the Southern District of California; the District of New Jersey; the Southern District of Ohio; the District of South Dakota; and the District of Wyoming  Tables 7 through 9 show the results of our semi-structured interviews  In particular, table 7 shows practices related to requesting restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Table 8 shows practices related to facilitating orders of restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Table 9 shows practices related to collecting restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Each table also indicates practices that officials we interviewed considered as most important or effective for helping ensure victims receive full and timely restitution  In addition to the contact named above, Chris Ferencik (Assistant Director); Kathleen Donovan (Analyst-in-Charge); Enyinnaya David Aja; David Alexander; Lacinda Ayers; Carla Brown; Emily Hutz; Janet Temko- Blinder; and Adam Vogt, made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  Institutions respond to the report with corrective actions that the institution will take to address the findings  When the institution has resolved all corrective actions from the audit, the audit is closed  Additionally, each quarter, PRD provides HRMD with a report that summarizes its quarterly audit findings  According to BOP officials, HRMD uses these reports to identify any agency-wide trends that need to be addressed  Our review of BOP data showed that between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, PRD conducted nearly 200 audits  For example, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, PRD audited five institutions’ and regional offices’ human resource management functions  During these audits, PRD identified nine deficiencies, one of which pertained to retention incentives  Specifically, it found that one audited institution did not terminate an employee’s retention incentive after the employee had relocated to another institution  To correct the deficiency, the institution cancelled the retention incentive which discontinued future disbursements  According to BOP officials, a bill was generated to recoup the overpayment from the employee  BOP institutions conduct annual operation reviews of internal functions, such as human resources  BOP officials told us that each institution conducts annual operational reviews of various internal functions, such as human resources  According to BOP’s Program Review Guidelines for Human Resource Servicing Offices, during these reviews, institutions are required to review supporting documentation for staff currently receiving an incentive to determine if the incentives are still warranted  If the initial request for the retention incentive was made over the preceding 12 months, institutions are also required to ensure that it was approved  According to BOP officials, the results of these reviews are reported to PRD through the Central Office  DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD) audits BOP’s human resources programs  According to BOP officials, JMD conducts audits of component-level human resources programs to determine whether BOP’s systems are compliant with DOJ policy and aligned with DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Plan  JMD’s most recent audit of BOP’s human resources programs that included a review of BOP’s retention incentives occurred in September 2010 at BOP’s Human Resource Service Center in Grand Prairie, Texas  JMD found that in some cases BOP granted retention incentives prior to the signing of service agreements  JMD also found that BOP lacked documentation to authorize a group retention incentive for employees at its Victorville, California institution  BOP’s written response to the findings stated that JMD incorrectly applied the service agreement requirement, as service agreements were not warranted in the specific case that it identified  Additionally, BOP stated that the documents JMD identified as missing from the case files in question were kept in separate files and not required to be part of the retention incentive application  JMD agreed with BOP’s responses and in January 2013, JMD closed out the audit’s findings noting that these responses satisfied all required corrective actions  While BOP takes a number of steps to determine current workforce needs and how to fill those needs, BOP does not strategically plan for how retention incentives can be used to meet long-term human capital goals  BOP officials stated that planning for human capital needs is conducted at institutions during quarterly workforce utilization meetings or manpower salary meetings  During these meetings, executive staff at the institution discuss the current state of the institution’s workforce  According to the BOP officials, while considering attrition, hiring, and turnover rates, the executive staff decide strategies they will employ to attract and retain employees for their current needs  While officials we spoke with at four institutions have discussed retention incentives at their workforce utilization meetings, details about the content of these discussions ranged  According to these officials and our review of meeting minutes from the four institutions, discussions about retention incentives respond to each institution’s short-term staffing situation rather than address future staffing needs based on an overall strategic human capital plan  For example: USP Atwater officials told us that they review the current turnover rate, budget, projected vacancies, and use of retention incentives at annual budget development meetings  Meeting minutes reflected the following on retention incentives: “retention … still necessary to retain staff and hard-to-fill positions ” FCC Butner is a medical facility that offers retention incentives to all medical officers (all types of doctors) and nurses (practitioners, registered, etc ) at the institution  According to Butner officials, during workforce utilization meetings, Butner officials discuss recruitment and staffing trends for the institution and plans for how to address any staffing challenges  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  FCC Pollock executive staff discuss current institutional salary expenditures and projections and the status of vacant positions at workforce utilization meetings  While meeting minutes we reviewed indicated discussions about projected expenditures for incentive awards, the minutes did not differentiate between retention incentive awards, and other incentive awards such as recruitment or relocation incentive awards  FCI Phoenix officials stated that in their workforce utilization meetings, executive staff discuss salary projections and vacancy statuses  Meeting minutes we reviewed did not indicate specific discussions about the use of retention incentives  BOP decisions about retention incentives are currently not tied to any strategic human capital plan for how to use human capital flexibilities— such as retention incentives—to address their ongoing challenge of retaining staff in hard-to-fill positions  According to officials, retention incentives are awarded on an as-needed basis, determined by an institution’s warden, if funds are available  According to key principles for effective strategic human capital planning, such planning is an important component of an agency’s effort to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff needed for an agency to achieve its goals  Specifically, senior leaders should be involved in developing, communicating, and implementing strategic human capital plans  Within an agency’s strategic human capital plan, the human capital policies, practices, and programs—for example, an agency’s retention incentive program—should clearly link to the human capital and program goals of the organization  By not having a strategic human capital plan that clearly establishes strategies that will be used to achieve specific human capital goals, BOP cannot ensure that its institutions are strategically managing their workforces in a manner that meets the agency’s human capital needs  In August 2017, BOP officials told us that they began drafting a strategic human capital operating plan that will include strategic objectives, action plans, performance objectives and measures, and evaluation/reporting requirements  Officials stated that the plan will also include planning regarding the use of human capital flexibilities, such as retention incentives  BOP officials told us that they anticipate that the strategic human capital operating plan will be a supplement to their workforce utilization meetings and that an agency-wide plan will provide a set of strategies for all institutions to consider  However, BOP could not provide documentation of the project beginning or whether it would include a strategic approach specific to retention incentives  Including retention incentives in BOP’s strategic human capital operating plan would create a roadmap for the agency and the institutions to use to move from being reactive in their current workforce needs—for example, awarding retention incentives on an ad hoc basis when funds are available—to being strategic in how retention incentives are used and to ensure that these and other flexibilities help the agency achieve its long-term workforce goals  From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, BOP spent more than $59 million on retention incentives but has not established any measures to evaluate their effectiveness  According to officials, BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of its use of retention incentives because BOP officials consider a retention incentive successful if an employee does not leave the agency  However, BOP also uses other human capital flexibilities along with retention incentives to help retain staff  For example, BOP uses physician and dental comparability allowances—additional pay to a physician or dentist who enters into an agreement for a specified period of service—to help retain these medical personnel  According to officials, it would otherwise be difficult to compete with private sector salaries without the use of all available incentives  However, BOP has not studied whether or how retention incentives have contributed to employees’ retention in relation to other incentives such as physician and dental comparability allowances  According to our work on strategic human capital management and OPM’s guidance, it is crucial for organizations to evaluate the success of their human capital strategies, such as the use of retention incentives  In measuring the performance of these strategies and their contribution to key programmatic results, agencies can make adjustments, if necessary  For example, agencies can use evaluation results to make targeted investments in certain human capital strategies—such as the use of retention incentives—creating a cycle of strategic workforce management, where evaluation informs planning, planning dictates strategies, and strategies are evaluated for effectiveness  While BOP uses retention incentives to address critical skills gaps—such as with medical professionals—evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help BOP determine whether and how retention incentives, as well as other human capital flexibilities, contribute to an employee’s continued employment at BOP or if adjustments to BOP retention strategies must be made for improved results  BOP officials agreed that evaluating the effectiveness of retention incentives would help them be more strategic about their human capital needs and spending on incentives  By including and implementing such an evaluation in its upcoming strategic human capital operating plan, BOP could better determine if it is making maximum use of its funds to retain the necessary qualified personnel or if changes must be made to most effectively retain its staff  As the largest employer within DOJ with some staff working in remote locations and undesirable conditions, BOP relies on a number of available flexibilities, including retention incentives, to help retain its employees  However, BOP currently lacks a strategic approach for using and evaluating retention incentives to address human capital goals  Given BOP’s ongoing staffing challenges, for example, retaining staff in hard-to- fill medical positions, developing a plan that includes a thoughtful blueprint for using retention incentives could help BOP better anticipate and address staffing needs  Moreover, evaluating its use of retention incentives could help BOP determine whether these incentives are effective or whether adjustments are needed to better retain its employees  By using evaluation results to inform planning, and planning to inform how retention incentives are used, BOP would be better positioned to achieve its long-term human capital goals and address its critical staffing needs  We are making two recommendations to BOP: 1  The Director of BOP should include in the forthcoming strategic human capital operating plan, 1) human capital goals and 2) strategies on how human capital flexibilities—including retention incentives—will be used to meet these goals  (Recommendation 1) 2  The Director of BOP should evaluate the effectiveness of BOP’s use of retention incentives to help determine whether the incentives have helped BOP achieve its human capital goals or if adjustments in retention incentives are needed  (Recommendation 2) We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ  In an email received November 15, 2017, the DOJ liaison stated that DOJ concurred with our recommendations  The Department did not provide official written comments to include in our report, but did provide written technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Attorney General and the Director of BOP  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  This report examines (1) how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives; (2) what internal controls are in place for the use of retention incentives; and (3) the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives  To determine how BOP has used its authority to pay retention incentives, we reviewed BOP’s July 2012 report on its use of recruitment, relocation, and retention (3R) incentives  We then obtained underlying retention incentive expenditure data from DOJ’s Justice Management Division because it serves as the focal point for performance and financial information for all Department of Justice components and employees, including BOP  In particular, we obtained employee-level retention incentive payroll data for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We selected this time period because it includes the most recent five complete fiscal years for which data were available and because we believe five years is sufficient time to identify trends in BOP’s retention incentive expenditures  We analyzed and aggregated the employee-level data by institution, occupation, and employee grade level  To identify trends, we compared per fiscal year expenditures across the various categories of occupations and locations across the five years  Additionally, we categorized institutions by BOP region, institutions that use group retention incentives, and institutions that use individual retention incentives  We also categorized occupations as medical professionals, correctional officers, and all other occupations and compared aggregate retention incentive expenditures for the different groups  Using information from BOP’s website and testimonial evidence from BOP officials on its health care system, for the purposes of this report, we defined medical professionals as BOP employees in occupations that provide medical, dental, and mental health care services and who do not solely provide these services in an administrative function  For the purposes of our analyses, medical professionals are dentists, dental assistants and hygienists, diagnostic radiological technologists, health aid and technicians, medical doctors (including psychiatrists), medical technologists, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physician assistants, and practical nurses and psychologists  To assess the employee-level retention incentive payroll data’s reliability, we obtained and analyzed documentation on systems’ capabilities and data control, interviewed data users and managers responsible for maintaining data, conducted checks for completeness and logical consistency, and compared the employee-level data to aggregated institution-level retention incentive expenditure data from BOP’s Financial Management Information System  We found the employee-level data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  Additionally for this objective, we reviewed documents such as the DOJ’s Financial Management Information System Sub-Object Classification Code Guide and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families to respectively identify the system codes used to track retention incentives expenditures and to identify the names for each occupational series code in the datasets  We also interviewed BOP Human Resource Management headquarters officials to obtain information on the primary purposes for BOP’s use of retention incentives and their views on identified retention incentive expenditures trends  We also interviewed U S  Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Public Health Service (PHS) officials to better understand how BOP and PHS manage costs, including retention incentive expenditures, for PHS staff assigned to BOP  BOP partners with PHS to acquire medical staff to provide medical care for BOP’s inmate population  BOP reimburses PHS for the costs of compensation and benefits—including retention incentive payments, if applicable—for PHS staff assigned to BOP  PHS has final approval authority for retention incentives paid to PHS staff assigned to BOP facilities  Furthermore, we obtained aggregated retention incentive expenditure data from PHS on the total amount of funds BOP reimbursed PHS for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  For the reliability of PHS’s data, we reviewed the system’s data fields to check that the appropriate fields were used to provide data and interviewed data users and managers to discuss how expenditures are recorded and maintained  We found the PHS data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report  To identify and describe the internal controls that BOP has in place related to retention incentives, we obtained and analyzed documentation regarding BOP requirements and guidance for the use of retention incentives  We also interviewed officials from BOP’s Central Office who are responsible for the administration, management, and oversight of BOP’s human capital management systems, including retention incentives  We focused on the management and administrative controls used by BOP to review, approve, re-certify, and monitor retention incentives  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at 4 of the 122 institutions to obtain illustrative examples regarding the internal controls in place at these institutions to ensure the proper disbursement of retention incentives  We interviewed BOP officials at Federal Correctional Complex Pollock in Pollock, LA; Federal Correctional Complex Butner in Butner, NC; United States Penitentiary, Atwater in Atwater, CA and Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix, in Phoenix, AZ  These institutions were selected to ensure variation in the number and types of employees receiving retention incentives, BOP region, and security-level  Although the information we obtained from the interviews with officials at these four institutions cannot be generalized to other BOP institutions, these interviews provided important insights and perspectives about the use of retention incentives at BOP institutions  We also reviewed a non-generalizable random sample of 40 retention incentive application packet case files to determine the extent to which these files contained documentation on the internal control activities in place to monitor the application, approval, and funds disbursement processes of BOP’s retention incentive program  To identify our sample, we used employee-level expenditure data to randomly select 40 application files from the universe of BOP employees who received retention incentives from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Each application file was reviewed by two GAO analysts who each assessed the extent to which each application contained the appropriate justification, approval signatures, and other documentation such as an application checklist and whether the application was an initial or continuation application  To determine the extent to which BOP plans for and evaluates the use of retention incentives, we interviewed BOP officials regarding their experiences with retention incentives, how they use retention incentives to strategically manage their workforce needs, how the agency evaluates the effectiveness of retention incentives, and how retention incentives contribute to BOP’s broader human capital goals  We then compared these efforts to our work on strategic human capital planning, specifically in terms of planning for and evaluating the use of human capital flexibilities  Additionally, we interviewed the warden and human capital officers at four BOP institutions mentioned above to obtain illustrative examples of how workforce planning occurs at these institutions  We also reviewed the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General Report 16-02 “Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Medical Staffing Challenges” (March 2016) and our past work to better understand the challenges that BOP faces in retaining medical professionals and other staff  Table 2 provides the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) fiscal year 2016 retention incentive expenditures by various occupations and groups of occupations, such as medical professionals, correctional officers, and other occupations  A range of occupations are reflected in the table primarily as a result of four California institutions—United States Penitentiary (USP) Atwater, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Herlong, FCI Mendota, and Federal Correctional Complex Victorville—providing retention incentives to all employees at General Schedule grades level 12 and below and those in the Federal Wage System  In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director) and Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge) managed the work  Also, David Alexander, Renee Caputo, Willie Commons III, Jamarla Edwards, Robert Goldenkoff, Chelsa Gurkin, Eric Hauswirth, Janice Latimer, Lerone Reid, Rachel Stoiko, and Adam Vogt made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: One of the goals of federal criminal restitution is to restore victims of federal crimes to the position they occupied before the crime was committed by providing compensation. Various entities within the federal government are involved in the process of requesting, ordering, and collecting restitution for crime victims, including DOJ and the judiciary. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to review the federal criminal restitution process for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the extent to which information is available on restitution requested by DOJ and ordered by courts; (2) the amount of restitution debt DOJ collected and the amount that remains outstanding; and, (3) the extent to which DOJ has conducted oversight on the collection of restitution. GAO analyzed laws, policies and procedures as well as USSC data on restitution orders and DOJ data on restitution collected from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. GAO also selected a non-generalizable sample of six federal judicial districts based on restitution collections and spoke with USAO officials and federal probation officers. Officials from selected U.S. Attorney's Offices (USAO) stated that they document requests for restitution in case files and employ other internal controls, such as the use of templates and forms, throughout the prosecution process to ensure that prosecutors request restitution as appropriate. GAO's analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) data—an agency within the judiciary—showed that information on restitution orders was available for 95 percent of all offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Specifically, 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced during this time period and restitution was ordered for 33,158, or 15 percent, of those offenders. Collectively, courts ordered these offenders to pay $33.9 billion in restitution. Most federal offenders sentenced during these years were sentenced for immigration or drug-related offenses. In interviews, USAO officials stated that these offenses do not typically have victims requiring restitution. GAO found that data on reasons why restitution was not ordered were incomplete for 5 percent of all offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Determining why data on restitution orders are incomplete may inform the judiciary of the cause of the incomplete data and any efforts needed to improve USSC data. GAO's analysis of Department of Justice (DOJ) data showed that USAOs collected $2.95 billion in restitution debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016, see figure below. However, at the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in previously ordered restitution remained outstanding, and USAOs identified $100 billion of that outstanding debt as uncollectible due to offenders' inability to pay. DOJ identified improving debt collection—including restitution—as a major management initiative in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. While DOJ is developing analytical tools to monitor the collection of restitution, it has not established performance measures or goals. Performance measures and goals would allow DOJ to gauge USAOs' success in collecting restitution and, by extension, the department's success in achieving a major management initiative. GAO is making three recommendations. GAO is making one to the judiciary to determine why data on restitution orders are incomplete. GAO is making two recommendations to DOJ, including one to implement performance measures and goals for the collection of restitution. The judiciary and DOJ concurred with the recommendations.