(hat c,Itc~r’ I ‘N 9 . 1 

\ 

PRISON COSTS 

Opportunities Exis 

Lower the Cost of 

Building Federal 

Prisons 
__ ._^. ___.._...._.. - ...“I . I,“... ““” . ..I “I. I,. .^.. l*...ll-.. .” “-.1 .__ _ I..-.-..-- ..__--. --..-__--- -.... .----- - 
General Government Division 

B-244494 

October 25, 1991 

The Honorable Dennis DeConcini 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Bob Graham 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard Bryan 

IJnited States Senate 

The Honorable Joe Lieberman 

IJnited States Senate 

The Honorable Herb Kohl 

United States Senate 

In response to your joint request, this report compares federal and state prison construction 

and operations costs for new medium-security prisons and discusses the reasons for any 

differences. The report identifies opportunities for cost savings in the federal system. 

As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 

after the date of this letter, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier. At that time, 

we will send copies to the other appropriate congressional committees, the Attorney General, 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the Office of Management and Budget, and other 

interested organizations and parties. 

Major contributors are listed in appendix V. If you have any questions on this report, please 

call me on (202) 566-0026. 

Harold A. Valentine 

Associate Director, Administration of 

Justice Issues 

. 
Executive Summary 

Purpose To accommodate the rapidly increasing federal prison population, the 

Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion program that will double its inmate capacity by 1995 

at a cost of about $3 billion. State prison populations are also soaring, 

and states are building and renovating hundreds of prisons to keep pace. 

At the request of five Senators, GAO compared federal and state prison 

construction and operations costs for new medium security prisons to 

determine the reasons for any differences and to identify any opportunities for cost savings in the federal system. 

Background The nation’s prison systems have just completed a decade of record population growth, and the growth is expected to continue throughout the 

1990s. The number of prisoners in federal and state correctional facilities reached 710,054 at the end of 1989, which represents an increase of 

about 82,000 for the year. According to the Department of Justice, the 

1989 increase was roughly equivalent to a demand for 1,600 new prison 

beds per week nationwide. 

To meet the population surge, many jurisdictions have boosted spending 

for correctional facilities to record levels. In fiscal years 1989 through 

1991, the Bureau received a total of $2.4 billion for prison expansion, 

and its fiscal year 1992 budget requested an additional $315 million for 

further prison expansion- mostly through new construction. The states 

are spending billions of dollars on hundreds of new prisons and on major 

renovations to existing prisons. But construction costs are only the 

down payment on a prison’s total cost to society. The Bureau estimates 

that operating its prisons over their useful lives costs 15 to 20 times the 

construction costs. 

Prisons can vary widely in size, design, and costs of construction. There 4 

is no standard or “cookie-cutter” prison design. They come in many 

shapes and sizes, and many factors can influence design. Important considerations in designing a prison include its capacity, security level, 

urgency of need for prison beds, desire to meet the accreditation standards of the American Correctional Association, cost, and the corrections policy and philosophy of the jurisdiction. 

The Bureau feels strongly about its approach to prison design and the 

environment it hopes to create for inmates. Federal prisons are designed 

to provide a “normalized,” campus-like setting with recreation areas and 

landscaped grounds that permit freedom of movement for inmates and 

direct interaction between inmates and staff. In this regard, the Bureau 

Page2 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Executive Summary 

Results in Brief 

sees itself as a leader in the corrections field and believes that any substantive change in its prison design would have an adverse effect on 

inmates and staff. 

To compare federal and state prison construction and operations costs, 

GAO prepared and sent a questionnaire to the Bureau and to selected 

states on construction and operating costs of medium security prisons 

built between 1985 and 1989. GAO also did detailed case studies in two 

federal and two state prisons and discussed prison construction and 

operations costs with knowledgeable government and private sector 

officials, GAO did not review in detail the various jurisdictions’ philosophies on the amount of space that inmates should have, inmate quality 

of life issues associated with cell size or type of housing, or the effectiveness of inmate programs (e.g., education and vocational training). 

Federal medium security prisons opened between 1985 and 1989 cost 

more per bed to build than similar state prisons, They averaged $70,000 

per bed compared with $55,000 per bed for the state prisons. The major 

reasons for the difference were that federal prisons were designed to 

provide 55 percent more space per inmate and federal designs called for 

inmates to be housed in single cells rather than multiple-occupancy cells 

or dormitories. Another reason was that federal prisons had more dedicated space for inmate programs. 

However, these federal prisons cost less to operate per inmate per day 

than the state prisons, Salaries comprise the bulk of operations costs, 

and federal salaries were on average 5 percent lower than the state salaries, Also, federal prisons operated with about a 27 percent higher 

inmate-to-staff ratio than state prisons. Once federal law enforcement 

pay reform is fully implemented, differences between federal and state 4 

salaries should diminish and locality pay could make siting prisons in 

some geographic areas more costly. 

The Bureau is considering ways to reduce construction costs. It has 

recently changed its policy on using single cells to permit some doublebunking in new medium security prisons. Meanwhile, the Bureau is also 

considering several other proposals that could achieve cost savings. 

While implementation of these proposals would be useful, GAO believes 

they do not address certain important opportunities that could substantially reduce prison construction costs. These opportunities include 

reducing the amount of space provided to inmates, making greater use 

of multipurpose space, and siting prisons in lower cost geographic areas. 

Page 3 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
ExecutiveSummary 

GAO’s Analysis 

Federal Prisons Provided 

More Space Per Inmate 

Than State Prisons 

One reason why these federal prisons cost more to build than the state 

prisons is that they were designed to provide inmates with substantially 

more space. Overall, the federal prisons provided an average of 643 

square feet per inmate versus 415 square feet for the state prisons (see 

p. 32). The federal prisons were more generous with space than the state 

prisons in almost every category of space, particularly in housing areas. 

If the four federal prisons opened since 1985 had been designed with 

housing space equal to even the highest cost state prisons, over $20 million-about $8,500 per bed-might have been saved in construction 

costs (see p. 47). 

Federal Prisons Used More Another reason the federal prisons cost more to build is that they were 

Costly Designs Than Most designed to house all medium security inmates in single cells. In conState Prisons trast, 17 of the 32 state prisons in GAO'S sample were designed to house 

some or all inmates in either multiple-occupancy cells or dormitories. 

The federal prisons also provided dedicated space for many program 

and recreation activities. In contrast, the lower cost state prisons 

reduced the need for dedicated space by making greater use of multipurpose rooms for a variety of activities (see pp. 37-43). 

Geographic Cost 

Differences Affect 

Construction Costs 

Construction cost indexes and GAO'S analysis showed that construction 

costs can vary across different regions of the country as a result of differences in labor and material costs. Construction costs generally tended 

to be higher in the Northeast and West and lower in the South and Midwest. Consideration of such cost differences is not currently part of the 

Bureau’s site selection criteria (see p. 43). a 

According to the Bureau, the most important factor in determining 

where to build prisons is that they be near inmates’ homes, thereby 

facilitating family visits. While this is the Bureau’s policy, its data show 

that over 60 percent of inmates are serving sentences more than 250 

miles from home and 35 percent were more than 500 miles from home. 

Opportunities Exist to During GAO'S review, the Bureau revised its single cell standard to 

Reduce Construction Costs permit some double-bunking in new medium security prison cells having 

90 or more square feet. The new guidelines call for half the cells to be 

Page4 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Executive Summary 

double-bunked to house two-thirds of the inmates, The other cells will 

be single-bunked. This limited double-bunking will reduce per-bed construction costs by increasing capacity relative to cell size. Also, in July 

1991, the Bureau revised its design standards for existing facilities, as 

recommended by GAO in an earlier report. The new policy calls for 

double-bunking in one-half of the medium security prison cells having 

75 or more square feet. The other cells will be single-bunked. 

Since GAO'S review was initiated, a Bureau task force has identified 12 

options for cutting construction costs. These options include the 

increased use of inmate labor; reduced square footage in support areas; 

deleting gymnasiums, dental clinics, and x-ray facilities in adjacent minimum security camps; deleting certain indoor recreation areas; and using 

cubicles instead of cells to house inmates. The task force recommended 

several of the options for Bureau approval. If adopted, the Bureau estimates they could reduce construction costs by about 6 percent (see pp. 

49-50). 

While these options could be useful, they do not address certain important opportunities that exist to reduce construction costs. For example, 

reducing square footage in support areas does not address the difference 

in housing and program space between federal and state prisons, and 

using cubicles instead of cells does not address the extent to which 

double-bunking in appropriately sized cells could be used to reduce 

prison construction costs. 

Lower Salaries, Smaller 

Staffs Resulted in Lower 

Federal Operations Costs 

Personnel expenses account for two-thirds of operations costs at federal 

prisons and three-fourths at state prisons. Two factors that affect personnel expenses are salaries and inmate-to-staff ratios. Salaries at the 

federal prisons were on average 5 percent less than state prison salaries. a 

When broken down into geographic areas, however, salaries at the federal prisons were about the same as at the Northeastern prisons, higher 

than at the Midwestern and Southern prisons, and lower than at the 

Western prisons. In addition, inmate-to-staff ratios at the state prisons 

were about 27 percent lower than at the federal prisons. As a result, the 

federal prisons, on average, had lower operating costs per inmate per 

day than the state prisons. Recently passed legislation will raise starting 

salaries for some Bureau staff by about 16 percent over 2 years and 

provide for pay differentials ranging from 4 to 16 percent in eight locations. When these changes are fully implemented, the differences 

between federal and state salaries should diminish (see pp. 54-61). 

Page 5 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Executive Summary 

Recommendations GAO recommends that the Attorney General require the Director, Bureau 

of Prisons, to 

. reassess current prison design standards to determine if the amount of 

space provided to federal inmates could be reduced, 

l promote the use of multipurpose space where feasible, and 

l amend prison site selection criteria to include consideration of geographical differences in material and labor costs, including locality pay 

differentials. 

Agency Comments GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for 

written comment. Justice generally agreed with GAO'S recommendations. 

Concerning GAO'S recommendation to reassess the amount of space provided to inmates, Justice said the Bureau had determined that substantially expanding the use of double-bunking was feasible. And as GAO 

previously noted, in July 1991 the Bureau revised its policy on design 

standards to permit some double-bunking in existing medium security 

facilities, which include the prisons reviewed in this report. 

While encouraged by the revision, GAO is concerned that the revision and 

the Bureau’s design standards for newly constructed medium security 

facilities are inconsistent. The Bureau’s standards now require new cells 

or rooms to have 90 or more square feet for double-bunking while 

requiring only 75 or more square feet in existing facilities. GAO believes 

that the Bureau’s design standards for comparable facilities should be 

consistent. Further, as it has stated previously, GAO believes the 

Bureau’s standards should provide for double-bunking where feasible 

and limit single-bunking to situations where double-bunking is clearly 

not feasible. 

While it generally agreed with GAO'S recommendations, Justice took 

exception to some of the analysis. But GAO does not believe the issues 

affect its recommendations. Justice’s comments and GAO'S responses are 

included as appendix IV. 

Page 6 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Page 7 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Contents 

Executive Summary 2 

Chapter 1 

Introduction Spending for Prison Construction Is at Record Levels 

Prison Designs Vary Considerably 

Prison Operations Costs Exceed Construction Costs 

Within a Few Years 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

12 

13 

14 

23 

24 

- 

Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost Prison Construction Costs Vary, but Federal Prisons 

More to Build Than Generally Cost More 

State Prisons Why Prison Construction Costs Differ 

Opportunities Exist to Reduce Federal Prison 

Construction Costs 

BOP’s Cost-Cutting Proposals Have a Narrower Scope 

Conclusions 

Recommendations to the Attorney General 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

29 

29 

32 

45 

49 

51 

51 

52 

Chapter 3 

Federal Prisons Cost Operations Costs Varied Widely, but Federal Costs Were 

Less to Operate Per Generally Lower 

Lower Personnel Costs Accounted for Lower Federal Inmate Day Than Operations Costs 

State Prisons Life-Cycle Costs Could Not Be Determined 

State Prison Operations Costs Differed by Geographic 

Region 

Conclusions 

Recommendation to the Attorney General 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

Appendixes Appendix I: Examples of Standards of the American 

Correctional Association 

Appendix II: The 32 State Prisons Submitting 

Questionnaires Used in Analysis of Construction 

costs 

Appendix III: The 21 State Prisons Submitting 

Questionnaires Used in Analysis of Operations Costs 

53 

53 

54 

58 

59 

61 L 

61 

61 

62 

64 

65 

Page 9 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Contents 

Appendix IV: Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

66 

Appendix V: Major Contributors to This Report 76 

Tables Table 2.1: Cost Groups for State Prisons 

Table 2.2: Comparison of Inmate Space and Construction 

costs 

Table 2.3: Distribution of Square Feet Per Inmate 

Table 2.4: Population Density in Housing Areas 

Table 2.5: Distribution of Square Feet Per Inmate for Case 

Study Prisons 

Table 2.6: Housing Configuration at the Case Study 

Prisons 

Table 2.7: State Construction Costs Per Bed by 

Geographic Region 

Table 2.8: Estimated Cost Savings at Selected Federal 

Prisons From Using Space Allowances of State 

Prisons by Cost Group 

Table 3.1: Ranges of Daily Operations Costs Per Inmate 

by Cost Groups 

Table 3.2: Average Daily Operations Costs Per Inmate by 

Cost Groups, With Associated Percentages 

Table 3.3: Range of Staff Salaries and Average Salaries 

Table 3.4: Inmate-to-Staff Ratios by Cost Group 

Table 3.5: Average Daily Inmate Operations Costs by 

Geographic Region 

Table 3.6: Average State Prison Staff Salary by 

Geographic Region 

Figures Figure 1.1: Dining Hall and Chapel at FCI Marianna 

Figure 1.2: Clockwise, From Left: Medical and Counseling, 

Laundry, Administration, Guard Tower, Education, 

and Dining Hall at Calhoun Correctional Institution, 

Florida 

Figure 1.3: Housing Unit Exterior at FCI Phoenix 

Figure 1.4: Housing Unit Exterior at Arizona State Prison 

Complex, Winslow 

Figure 1.6: Building Configurations 

Figure 1.6: Typical Housing Layouts 

Figure 2.1: Inmate Cells at FCI Marianna Open Onto a 

Triangular Dayroom 

31 

32 

34 

35 

35 

38 

44 

47 

54 

55 

55 

56 

60 

60 

- 

14 6 

16 

16 

17 

19 

21 

38 

Page 9 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costs 
Contents 

Figure 2.2: Dormitory Housing and Adjacent Dayroom At 

Calhoun Correctional Institution, Florida 

Figure 2.3: Pool Tables in Dayroom of Housing Unit at FCI 

Phoenix 

40 

42 

Figure 2.4: Gymnasium at FCI Marianna 43 

Abbreviations 

ACA American Correctional Association 

AIA American Institute of Architects 

IUS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

HOI' Bureau of Prisons 

ITI Federal Correctional Institution 

GSA General Services Administration 

WAG Wardens’ Advisory Group 

Page 10 GAO/GGDSZ-3 Prison Costs 
4 

Page 11 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

htroduction 

Prison populations have grown at unprecedented rates in recent years. 

During the SO-year period between 1926 and 1974, federal and state 

inmate populations increased from 91,669 to 218,466-an overall 

increase of 138 percent and an average annual rate of only 2.8 percent. 

Between 1974 and 1989, however, inmate populations grew to 

710,064-an increase of 225 percent in only 14 years and an annual rate 

of 16 percent. According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (FIJS), 

the 1989 increase alone is equivalent to a demand for about 1,600 new 

prison beds per week nationwide. 

These staggering increases are expected to continue through the 1990s. 

The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) projects that its inmate population 

will increase from about 60,000 in January 1991 to more than 98,800 by 

1996. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency projects that by 

1994, state prisons will hold over l,lOO,OOO inmates; and even further 

prison population increases are expected in the years beyond. 

Page 12 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

introduction 

Spending for Prison Spurred by the prison population surge, and facing court orders against 

\ Construction Is at 

overcrowded prison conditions, many jurisdictions are spending for new 

prison construction at an unparalleled rate. Between 1985 and 1989, ROP 

Record Levels opened four new federal correctional institutions (FCI) at a cost of about 

$183 million. The four new prisons were designed to add about 2,600 

beds to the federal prison system’s capacity and represent the early 

stage of the most extensive and costly expansion in BOP’S history. In 

fiscal years 1989 through 1991, BOP received a total of $2.4 billion, 

mostly for new prison construction. 

Page 13 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

- 

Figure 1.1: Dining Hall (Left) and Chapel at FCI Marlanna 

Costs could reach about $3 billion by fiscal year 1995 and could be 

substantially more than that if additional expansion is approved to 

accommodate the more than 125,000 new inmates BOP projects for 

1999. 

The 1990 American Correctional Association (ACA) Directory reported 

that from 1985 to 1989,43 states opened a total of 154 new adult correctional facilities, including 119 prisons, 12 camps, and 23 other facilities such as prerelease centers, health facilities, reception centers, and 

4 

Close-up of Dining Hall detention centers. A total of about 89,000 beds were added to the states’ 

capacity. As of June 1989, the states were funding 260 major new 

projects and 645 major renovations that would cost over $4 billion and 

would house an additional 108,000 adult inmates. 

Prison Designs Vary 

Considerably 

Prisons are not built in a “cookie cutter” fashion, but rather are built in 

many different sizes, shapes, and descriptions (see figs. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 

1.4). Some consist of a single building; others are made up of several 

interconnected buildings, and still others of several unconnected 

buildings. 

Page 14 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Figure 1.2: Clockwise, From Left: Medical and Counseling, Laundry, Administration, Guard Tower, Education, and Hall at Calhoun 

Correctional Instltutlon, Florida 

Medlcal and Counaellng Laundry and Admlnlstratlon 

Page 16 

Dining Hall 
chapter 1 

Introduction 

Flgun 1.3: Hourlng Unit Exterior at FCI Phoenix 

m 

Y 

Page 16 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
7 

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Figure 1.4: Housing Unit Exterior at Arizona State Prison Complex, Winslow 

Page 17 GAO/GGD92-9 Prison Costa 
Prisons can vary widely in size, both in terms of inmate capacity and the 

physical area encompassed by the prison buildings. The National Directory of Corrections Construction, published by the National Institute of 

Justice, classified the prisons it lists into the following general types 

(see fig. 1.6 for illustration): 

integrated structure: one building; 

high rise: one building, more than four stories in height; 

ladder, telephone pole: linear cell blocks arranged in parallel configuration off a central connecting corridor; 

wheel, spoke, or radial: linear cell blocks that emanate from one central 

control area like spokes from the hub of a wheel; 

courtvard: linear cell blocks interconnected around a central enclosed 

courtyard; 

clusters: a number of individual buildings that are interconnected; and 

campus style: a number of individual buildings that are not connected. 

Page 18 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Flgure 1.5: Building Configurations 

t 

Campus 

Ladder, telephone pole 

Wheel, spoke or radial 

Clusters 

Courtyard 

0 L I 

I 

I I 

d 

Page 19 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costa 
chapter 1 

htVOdUCttOll 

A variety of housing area design concepts also add to the ways prisons 

can differ. Some of these designs are 

linear-outside cells: cells have windows on outside walls, permitting in 

direct light; 

linear-inside cells: cells are not on outside walls, and light to cells is 

indirect; 

module/pod: cells are arranged around a common dayroom with cell 

doors opening into the dayroom area. 

These design concepts can be used with single cells, double- and multiple-occupancy cells, dormitories, and combinations. Figure 1.6 shows 

an example of the design types. 

Many Factors Influence 

Prison’s Design 

The design of a new prison is the result of a variety of factors. A major 

factor in prison design is its intended capacity, which can influence the 

size of the housing area, size of the kitchen, size of the dining room, the 

number of classrooms, and the size of records rooms and office space. 

A second factor is the security levels of inmates expected to be housed 

in the new prison. For example, if the facility is to house predominantly 

minimum security inmates, it may be appropriate to design dormitory 

housing. For medium security inmates a more secure housing design, 

such as single or double cells, may be considered more appropriate. Maximum security inmates may require single cell housing designs. 

Page 20 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costa 
chapter 1 

lwoduction 

Figure 1.6: Typical Housing Layoutr 

Linear, with Outside Cells 

Linear, with inside Cells Dormitory 

Page 2 1 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Cllflptm 1 

Introduction 

The security levels of the inmates can also affect the design of a 

facility’s inmate control systems and perimeter security. The design for 

a minimum security facility may permit inmates to move about with 

little or no restrictions and may call for little or no perimeter security. 

Higher security facilities are designed for closer monitoring and control 

of inmate movements within the facility and should have formidable 

perimeter fences and sensing devices. 

A third factor that influences design choice is how soon the facility must 

be ready to receive inmates. If the need for additional capacity is urgent 

due to overcrowding, obsolete facilities, or high inmate population 

growth projections, a jurisdiction may choose a design that will hasten 

construction by allowing simple construction methods and the use of 

prefabricated components. 

A fourth factor is a decision on whether to seek accreditation for the 

new prison from the American Correctional Association (ACA). This is a 

private, nonprofit organization that administers the only national 

accreditation program for all components of adult and juvenile corrections. Building a facility to meet the ACA standards can affect the 

facility’s design. For example, ACA standards (1) call for single cells for 

housing inmates at all security levels except minimum, although this is 

not mandatory for ACA accreditation; (2) require that each cell or living 

area provide 35 square feet per inmate of unencumbered space; and (3) 

require at least 80 square feet of total floor space per occupant when 

inmates are confined to their cells in excess of 10 hours per day. AC.4 

standards also require that inmate dayrooms be situated immediately 

adjacent to the sleeping areas and that the dayrooms must provide a 

minimum of 35 square feet of space per inmate and cannot be smaller 

than 100 square feet. 

Although no authoritative guidelines exist for what a prison should look 

like or how big it should be, the ACA standards do require that institutions of more than 500 inmates be divided into distinct management 

units of 600 inmates or less, but do not place an upper limit on the 

number of units per institution. For housing units containing single cells, 

the ACA standard for accreditation is an 80-inmate limit (i.e., no more 

than 80 one-person cells in one housing unit). 

The AC.4 accreditation process is voluntary. Two of the 4 federal prisons 

built and opened since 1985 were accredited by AC& and 6 of the 32 

state prisons built during this period and included in our analysis of construction costs were accredited. 

Page 22 GAO/X&92-3 PrisonCosts 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

A fifth factor that can affect a prison’s design is cost. The cost of 

building a prison can be staggering, and in some jurisdictions, voters 

have refused to approve the general obligation bonds that are the usual 

means of financing prison construction projects. As a result, some jurisdictions have turned to prison designs that call for such cost-saving 

measures as simple construction methods; less expensive material and 

hardware; prefabricated components; use of precast, modular construction; and dormitory housing. 

The corrections philosophy of a given jurisdiction is a sixth factor that 

can influence a prison’s design. For example, BOP'S overall philosophy is 

that the term of confinement is the punishment, not the conditions of 

confinement, and that inmates should find their surroundings safe, 

humane, and “normalized.” Thus, federal prisons are designed to provide a campus-like setting, with recreation areas and landscaped 

grounds that give the inmates space for some freedom of movement. 

Other jurisdictions use designs that house inmates safely and humanely, 

but are not as concerned about freedom of movement. 

Also, designs can differ depending on how inmates and staff members 

interact. BOP has a design philosophy that encourages direct interaction 

between staff and inmates, including the reduction of physical barriers 

that tend to separate them. Living units for the general inmate population in ROP’S medium security prisons require only basic security hardware sufficient to secure inmates in their quarters during a disturbance. 

Other jurisdictions prefer indirect supervision designs that separate 

staff and inmates and rely on heavy security features for inmate 

control. 

Prison Operations 

Costs Exceed 

Construction Costs 

Within a Few Years 

A prison’s construction costs are only the down payment on its total cost 

to society, and is often surpassed by operations costs within 2 to 4 

years. Since a prison will usually operate for decades, its operations cost 

will add up to many times its construction cost over its useful life. One 

study estimated that, not considering inflation, the operations costs for 

100,000 new prison beds would be $70 billion over the next 30 years. 

A 

Operations costs vary widely from one prison to another. A late 1970’s 

study of interstate variations in prison operations costs concluded that 

most of the variations could be accounted for by differences in inmateto-staff ratios and staff salaries. A similar conclusion was reached by 

the New York Department of Corrections in a study aimed at determining why New York’s prisons cost more to operate than prisons in 

Page 23 GAO/X%929 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

other states, Other significant operations expenses included services, 

communications, utilities, supplies, and materials. 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology Graham, Herb Kohl, and Joseph Lieberman to compare construction and 

operations costs for state and federal prisons. Specifically, they asked 

us to compare and analyze construction and operations costs of recently 

opened federal and state medium security prisons, and to identify 

opportunities, if any, for cost savings for the federal system. 

To accomplish these objectives we used a three-faceted approach. First, 

we sent to ROP and the states a mail-out questionnaire on the construction and operations costs of prisons built between 1985 and 1989. 

Second, we did detailed case studies that compared and analyzed the 

construction and operations costs of two federal and two state prisons 

built during the same period. Third, we discussed prison design, construction, and operations issues with officials from BOP, the General Services Administration (GSA), and architectural and construction firms 

that specialize in these areas. The convergence of this information enabled us to make overall comparisons of federal and state costs, point out 

possible reasons for significant cost variations, and identify potential 

cost savings for the federal system. 

Our questionnaires were designed to obtain reliable and comparable construction and operations cost data for each state and federal prison that 

met the criteria listed on page 25. We took several steps to ensure that 

sufficient data were obtained to permit meaningful comparisons 

between a wide array of reporting jurisdictions. In designing the questionnaire, we met with architects, engineers, and cost accountants to 

identify the key information that would reveal differences in design and 

cost. To encourage participation in our study and lessen the burden of 4 

responding, the questionnaires focused on data that were (1) readily 

available at BOP and the states’ departments of corrections, (2) for the 

most part consistently defined and captured in standard government 

cost accounts, and (3) objective and could be measured and compared 

(size, populations, number of rooms, etc.). 

We pretested the questionnaires at BOP and three state corrections 

departments to further increase the likelihood that the respondents 

would understand how to complete them and provide comparable and 

reliable data. We also followed up with nonrespondents to encourage 

Page 24 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

their participation and with respondents who appeared to have submitted incomplete or erroneous data. In analyzing differences in design 

and cost, we divided the state prisons into low, medium, and high cost 

groups to further ensure that any undetected errors or unusual 

responses did not distort our analysis. 

We used ACA’S 1990 Directory of Juvenile and Adult Correctional 

Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Paroling Authorities as our 

source for states and prisons to receive the questionnaires. We then sent 

questionnaires to BOP for the four federal prisons opened since 1985 and 

to states with prisons that met the following criteria: 

. opened between 1985 and 1989; 

l new, independent facilities; 

l designed to house adult males; 

l designed to house mostly medium security inmates; 

l designed for a population of 200 inmates or more; and 

. in operation for 1 full year at or near design capacity (operations costs 

only). 

We identified 97 state prisons that met the selection criteria. However, 

some states with several new prisons chose not to complete questionnaires for all of them and agreed to participate in the study only after 

we made it clear that we would accept any degree of participation they 

were willing to provide. 

We mailed questionnaires to 37 states and the District of Columbia. This 

distribution covered 62 prisons. Of the 62 questionnaires mailed, 11 

were not used because we later found that the projects did not meet our 

selection criteria. Six were additions or renovations to existing facilities, 

one wits a women’s facility, two were not institutions, one was opened 4 

before 1985, and one was opened after 1989. In addition, two states voluntarily completed questionnaires for prisons that met our selection criteria but that were not listed in the Directory. Thus, we expected to 

receive questionnaires from 53 prisons. 

Of the 53 prisons we expected to participate, 46 (from 30 states and the 

District of Columbia) returned the construction cost portion of our questionnaire, and 29 (from 21 states and the District of Columbia) returned 

the operations cost portion. However, the operations costs sample was 

reduced to 28 because one jurisdiction did not isolate operations costs 

for individual departments, and thus that questionnaire was not usable. 

After we reduced the sample to those prisons designed to house a 

Page 25 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 

, 

” 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

majority of medium security inmates, our final tally was construction 

cost data for 32 prisons in 20 states and the District of Columbia, and 

operations cost data for 21 prisons in 16 states. We reduced the state 

prison sample to those that housed predominately medium security 

inmates in order to provide better comparisons with the federal prisons 

in our sample, which were all designed to house a majority of medium 

security inmates. 

BOP provided construction cost information for all four medium security 

prisons opened between 1986 and 1989. These prisons are FCI Phoenix, 

Arizona’; ~,,J&rianna, Florida; 1p’c1 McKean, Pennsylvania; and h Sheridan, Oregon. BOP’S construction cost information on FCI Phoenix and our 

analysis did not include a 126-bed temporary dormitory built in 1990 at 

a cost of $608,000. BOP also provided operations cost information for the 

two prisons that had been in operation for at least 1 year at or near 

their design capacity. These prisons are FCI Phoenix and FCI Marianna. 

We also did on-site case studies in Arizona and Florida. Those states 

were selected for case studies, because (1) of the four federal prisons 

built in the target period, only the prisons in Arizona and Florida had 

been in operation for at least a year; and (2) each of those states had 

built a medium security state prison during our target period. In the case 

studies, we matched the federal prisons with the state prisons in Arizona and Florida in order to bolster the questionnaire data. We interviewed the key federal and state corrections officials at these federal 

and state prisons and obtained documentary support for some sections 

of the questionnaires. The Arizona prisons were FCI Phoenix and the Arizona State Prison Complex at Winslow. The Florida prisons were FCI 

Marianna and Calhoun Correctional Institution, Blountstown. State corrections officials represented these prisons as the prototypical design 

for medium security facilities in their respective states. a 

We also discussed prison design, construction, and operations issues 

with officials who specialize in these issues. We also discussed with 

them our methodology for obtaining prison construction and operations 

costs. Specifically, we contacted officials from the following organizations and locations: 

. BOP headquarters, Washington, D.C.; 

l GSA Building Technical Standards Group, Washington, D.C.; 

. American Correctional Association, Laurel, MD; 

l California Department of Corrections, Sacramento, CA; 

Page 26 GAO/GGLM2-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

l Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Baltimore, MD; 

l Virginia Department of Corrections, Richmond, VA; 

l Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, AZ; 

l Federal Correctional Institution, Marianna, FL; 

l Arizona Department of Corrections, Phoenix, AZ; 

. Arizona State Prison Complex - Winslow, Winslow, AZ; 

l Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, FL; 

l Calhoun Correctional Institution, Blountstown, FL; 

. Kitchell Capital Expenditure Management Company, Sacramento, CA; 

and 

l American Institute of Architects (AIA), Washington, D.C. 

Limitations of Data Our questionnaires did not address subjective and policy-related issues 

that might impact on prison design and operations. For example, we did 

not ask why a given jurisdiction chose a specific prison design, number 

of square feet, staffing pattern, or salary schedule. In addition, we did 

not review the validity of the various jurisdictions’ philosophies on the 

amount of space that inmates should have or inmate quality of life 

issues that may be associated with cell size or type. We also did not 

assess what effect, if any, prison design and construction may have on 

such issues as enhancing prisoner rehabilitation and the incidence of 

prison violence. Further, we did not review the effectiveness of inmate 

programs such as education, recreation, and vocational training. 

Since the study queried many different state governments that finance 

prison construction in a variety of ways, the costs associated with 

financing the construction projects and servicing the debt were not 

included in our analyses of construction and operations costs. Also, our 

questionnaires asked BOP and the states to describe any designs, con- & 

struction methods, or materials that were selected to minimize life-cycle 

costs. However, they did not provide the detailed responses necessary to 

do a life-cycle costing analysis. The life cycle of a prison depends on 

many noncost variables, such as the discipline maintained in the facility 

and the quality of maintenance done, that cannot be accurately captured 

by a questionnaire. 

We designed the questionnaires to identify nonconstruction costs such 

as site acquisition, architect and engineering fees, inspections and fees, 

environmental impact studies, and other costs not directly related to the 

costs of construction labor, material, and equipment. Our objective was 

Page 27 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

to exclude such costs from our analyses and compare only actual construction costs. However, many of the state prisons were unable to separate such costs from total project costs. Consequently, to ensure that our 

data were as comparable as possible, our analyses of construction costs 

were actually based on total project costs. 

Most of the state prisons that responded to our questionnaire did not 

report expenses for depreciation or overhead expenses. To ensure that 

our data was as comparable as possible, our analyses of operations costs 

excluded depreciation and overhead at all of the prisons we analyzed. 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the 

Department of Justice. Its comments and our evaluation are addressed 

on pages 52 and 61. In addition, Justice’s letter is reprinted in appendix 

IV along with our detailed evaluation of its comments. 

We did our work between October 1989 and April 1991 and in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 28 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 

.:, ,. ,.( ,’ 
Chapter 2 

Federal prisons Cost More to Build Than 

statr! Fvisons 

Although prison construction costs varied widely, the federal prisons we 

analyzed cost more per bed to build than the state prisons. Federal 

prisons averaged about $70,000 per bed compared with about $56,000 

for the state prisons. We identified two major reasons for the cost difference. First, the four federal prisons were designed to provide on average 

about 55 percent more space per inmate than the 32 state prisons we 

analyzed. Second, the federal prisons were designed to house 100 percent of the inmates in more costly single cells, compared with 69 percent 

overall for the state prisons. Another reason for higher federal prison 

construction costs was the use of more dedicated space for programs 

and amenities. 

The comparisons between federal and state prisons were made to identify reasons for cost differences, not to endorse any particular jurisdiction’s prison construction policy. Some of the state prison designs we 

reviewed may not be desirable or suitable for the federal system. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the state prison designs reveal opportunities 

for reducing the cost of building federal prisons. These opportunities 

include increasing the use of multiple-occupancy cells, providing less 

space per inmate, increasing the use of multipurpose space for inmate 

programs and recreation, and siting prisons in lower cost geographic 

areas. 

HOP is now considering ways to reduce prison construction costs. It has 

revised its design standards for new medium security prisons so rated 

capacity will be calculated using some double-bunking. BOP has also 

identified several proposals that would achieve a 6-percent reduction in 

the cost of building its prisons, but these have a narrower scope than the 

opportunities we identified. BOP needs to reconsider some of its correctional policies in order to achieve major cost savings. 

Prison Construction Our comparison of construction costs for four federal prisons and 32 

Costs Vary, but state prisons opened between 1985 and 1989 found that costs varied 

widely. This variance was especially true among the state prisons we 

Federal Prisons analyzed, which ranged from about $11,000 to $93,000 per bed, with an 

Generally Cost More overall average of about $66,000. Construction costs for the four federal 

prisons ranged from about $50,000 to $86,000 per bed and averaged 

about $70,000. 

We analyzed prison construction costs in terms of cost per bed (construction costs divided by the design capacity of the facility). Construction costs can also be measured in terms of cost per square foot 

Page 29 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Frisona Cost More to Build Than 

state Plisom 

(construction costs divided by the gross square feet’ of the facility’s 

buildings). Using that measure, BOP prisons cost less than state prisons. 

Construction costs at the federal prisons ranged from $83.73 to $127.42 

per square foot and had a weighted average of about $109. At the state 

prisons, cost per square foot ranged from $58.06 to $215.60 and had a 

weighted average of about $133. 

We believe the cost per bed is a more appropriate measure than cost per 

square foot. Prisons are not built merely to add square footage to a 

prison system, but rather to incarcerate a planned number of inmates. 

Cost per square foot might provide insight into material, labor, equipment, and other items that went into the cost of building the prison. 

However, cost per bed is the standard measure of prison construction 

costs used in the corrections community, as evidenced by a wide variety 

of reports and studies we reviewed in the course of this study. Moreover, we believe that cost per bed is a better reflection of total construction costs, because BOP'S lower average cost per square foot is eclipsed 

by the fact that it provided, on average, 65 percent more space per 

inmate than the state prisons. We used rated capacity as the standard 

measure for computing the construction cost per bed for both the federal and state prisons in our sample. The rated capacity of a prison is 

the number of inmates the facility was designed to hold. Rated capacity 

is commonly used in the corrections community as a basis for computing 

construction cost per bed. 

As a practical matter, BOP and 11 of 16 states in our sample expected to 

and did operate their prisons with inmate populations greater than the 

rated capacity. The two federal prisons and 21 state prisons in our 

study that had been in operation for a year or more had average occupancy rates of 71 percent and 30 percent, respectively, above rated 

capacity. To recognize that their prison systems will not expand to the 6 

point at which all prisons operate at rated capacity, BOP and 3 of the 16 

states specified “acceptable levels of crowding” ranging from 20 percent 

to 30 percent for systemwide planning and budgeting purposes. BOP has 

suggested that we use acceptable crowding levels in calculating construction costs. Had we done so, the $16,000 cost per bed difference 

would have narrowed to about $7,600. 

‘Gross square feet is defined by the American Institute of Architects as the sum of the areas of the 

several floors of a building, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the centerline 

of walls separating buildings. The areas of covered walkways, porches, and similar space are multiplied by a factor of 5. 

Page 30 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Prisons 

We chose not to use the acceptable crowding levels for several reasons. 

First, these are systemwide planning factors that are not based on the 

size or capacity of any particular prison, Local conditions might result in 

specific prisons operating above or below that level. Second, the percentages cited are subject to change, and any change could significantly 

affect the cost per bed calculation, For example, before 1989, BOP'S 

acceptable crowding level was 20 percent over rated capacity. In 1989, 

BOP and the Office of Management and Budget made an executive decision to change the acceptable crowding level to 30 percent, with no corresponding change to the infrastructure at existing prisons. This lopercent change would have caused a $4,500 reduction in cost per bed. 

Third, many states operated their prisons above the rated capacity but 

did not officially state an acceptable crowding level. For example, Pennsylvania did not specify an acceptable crowding level, but operated its 

new prison at Frackville at 79 percent above the rated capacity of 504. 

States like Pennsylvania would compare less favorably with other jurisdictions that did specify an acceptable crowding level. Lastly, some 

states that did not specify an acceptable crowding level incurred additional construction costs to oversize some elements of the physical plant 

(e.g., dining room and water and sewer lines) to accommodate crowding 

and/or future expansion. Plant oversizing varied considerably in nature 

and extent, and its effect on construction cost was not determined. 

To facilitate our analysis of construction costs, we divided the state 

prisons in our sample into three cost groups-low, medium, and high. A 

natural breakpoint existed between the low and medium groups. 

Between the medium and high groups, a breakpoint was selected primarily to define high cost state prisons as those that exceed the average 

for the four federal prisons. Table 2.1 shows the number of prisons and 

range of costs in each group. 

4 

Table 2.1: Cost Qroups for State Prisons 

Prison group Number of prisons Cost per bed range 

Low cost states 8 $11,243 - $24,679 

Medium cost states 

--___ 

High cost states 

--- 

Federal 

17 $45,007 _ $67,006 

7 $70,188 - $93,933 

4 $49,966 - $85,391 

Source GAO analysis of questionnaire data, 

Page 31 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal PrIsona Cost More to Build Than 

state Prisons 

Why Prison 

Construction Costs 

Differ 

Officials managing the acquisition of a new prison can directly influence 

its cost through their control over the design of the facility. As discussed 

in chapter 1, there is no “cookie cutter” prison design, and different 

jurisdictions may opt for different designs on the basis of a variety of 

factors. However, identifying and measuring the specific effects of 

design on construction costs at the prisons we reviewed would have 

required a detailed audit at each prison, which was not practicable. 

Nevertheless, analysis of our questionnaire data revealed that the most 

important determinant of construction costs was the prison’s physical 

size relative to its inmate population. Thus, the main reason why the 

federal prisons cost more on average to build than state prisons is that 

they were designed to provide more space per inmate. Another major 

reason federal prisons cost more is that they used more costly designs, 

such as housing inmates in single cells rather than multiple-occupancy 

cells or dormitories and providing more dedicated space for inmate programs. Differences in architectural features in the prisons contributed to 

construction cost differences, but we could not isolate a dollar amount. 

It is important to note that the federal prisons in our sample might not 

be prototypes for all future BOP prison designs. Size and feature comparisons based on these prisons may not be applicable to prisons designed 

and constructed after 1989. 

Federal Prisons Provided Of the various factors that determine the construction costs of a prison, 

More Space Per Inmate the primary cost determinant was the amount of space afforded to each 

Than State Prisons inmate. The strong link between space and construction costs was confirmed by our analysis of the questionnaires. Table 2.2 compares inmate 

space to construction costs for the 4 federal and 32 state prisons. The 

four federal prisons were designed to provide, on average, about 55 per- 4 

cent more space per inmate than the 32 state prisons. 

Table 2.2: Comparison of Inmate Space 

and Construction Costs 

Prison group 

-_-~ 

Low cost states 

Medium cost states 

Average gross 

square f;;;tp;; 

215 

447 

Average cost per 

bed 

$17,730 

$56.794 

Hiah cost states 544 $86,332 

Average for all 32 state prisons 

kderal 

415 $55,043 

643 $70.140 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data. 

Page 32 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter2 

Federal Prbons Cost More to Build Than 

State Frhns 

A comparison of the federal and high cost state groups in table 2.2 

shows an inverse relationship between cost and space-that is, the high 

cost state prisons provided less space per inmate but cost more per bed 

than the federal prisons. We are not totally certain of the reasons for 

this difference, but it appears to be the result of a combination of factors. First, all seven of the high cost state prisons contained guard 

towers, which add little space but can add as much as $1 million to a 

prison’s construction costs. None of the federal prisons in our sample 

had guard towers. Second, six of the seven high cost state prisons were 

integrated structures or clusters (see fig. l-5), which, on average, we 

found to be a more costly prison design than the campus style design at 

the four federal prisons. However, construction costs varied for each 

design style because of factors such as size and geographic location. 

Third, an average of about 15 percent of the housing area at the high 

cost state prisons was designed to house maximum security inmates. 

None of the federal prisons in our sample included facilities designed for 

maximum security inmates. According to the American Institute of 

Architects (AIA) director of design programs, maximum security cells are 

very expensive compared to other types of inmate housing because of 

the expensive security equipment required for each cell, such as high 

security doors and locks, stainless steel plumbing fixtures, and security 

window glazing. 

Table 2.3 illustrates how the prison space was distributed among the 

various prison functions at the 4 federal prisons and at 26 of the state 

prisons. Six of the state prisons did not provide this information. 

Page 33 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prbonm Cost More to Build Than 

state Prl80n.s 

~ ..____- -. -~~ - -~ -~~ 

Table 2.3: Distribution of Sauare Feet Per Inmate 

Average gross square feet per inmate 

Adminietration & Prison All otherb 

Priron group Housing Segregation0 management Medical Kitchen indwtrle8 space Total l.l”..” -.-... --.---- 

Low cost states (8) 112 10 13 7 11 16 46 215 

Medium cost states(14) 174 9 51 9 32 37 130 442 

High cost states (4) 182 59 22 18 12 25 214 531 _... ___-l"ll - -- 

Average for all 26 states 

WV 159 22 33 11 21 28 128 401 

-. _._-.-.- 

Federal 

..__ -._-.__ 

261 21 32 17 31 113 167 643 

3egregated housing is used to detain inmates who are being investigated for rule infractions, who are 

being punished for violating institution rules, and those who would be in danger if they were housed 

with the main population. 

bThis category includes space not specifically included in the other categories, such as space for education services, maintenance shops, recreation, religious services, vocational training, visiting rooms, 

and warehouses, 

Note: Totals may be off as a result of rounding. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data 

The table shows that, overall, the four federal prisons in our sample 

averaged about 242 square feet per inmate more than the 26 state 

prisons. The federal prisons provided more space than the state prisons 

in most categories. Consistent with our findings on the relationship of 

space and cost, the largest differences in the amount of space provided 

to inmates were between the federal and low cost state prisons. Compared with inmates at the federal prisons, the average inmate in the low 

cost state prisons had about one-third as much space overall and less 

than half as much housing space. In addition, compared with the other 

state cost groups and the federal prisons, the low cost state prisons were 

particularly conservative with space for prison industries and inmate 

programs (included in “All other space” in tab. 2.3). 

Over 40 percent of the overall difference illustrated by table 2.3 was 

accounted for by the more generous housing space provided by the federal prisons.2 The 26 state prisons that provided data on space distribution by function were designed to be more densely populated than the 

federal prisons, with an average of 6.31 inmates per 1,000 square feet 

compared with 3.82 inmates per 1,000 square feet at the four federal 

prisons. Table 2.4 shows overall population density per 1,000 square 

feet for the housing areas of each of the cost groups. 

‘In addition to cells, housing areas include such space as showers, janitor closets, central multiuse 

space, TV/activity rooms, counseling rooms, storage rooms, and vending rooms. 

Page 34 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prlsom~ Coat Mom to Build Than 

Stnte Phons 

Table 2.4: Population Denrlty In Housing 

AtWS’ Inmates per 1,000 

Prison group square feet 

High cost states 5.49 

Medium cost states 5.76 

Low cost states 8.93 

Weiahted averaae for all 26 states 6.31 b 

Federal 3.82 

‘Based on design capacity. 

bThis number is a weighted average. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data. 

The federal prisons we reviewed provided significantly more space for 

prison industries than the state prisons (see tab. 2.3). The difference, 

about 85 square feet per inmate, accounted for about 35 percent of the 

overall difference between the federal and state prisons in the number 

of square feet per inmate. Although most of the 26 state prisons that 

provided data on space distribution by function had prison industry 

programs, only about 7 percent of the overall gross square feet was set 

aside for prison industry, compared with about 18 percent at the four 

federal prisons. 

Our case studies also confirmed the relationship between inmate space 

and cost and that federal prisons afforded their inmates far more space 

than the state prisons. Winslow and Calhoun were each represented to 

us as the prototypical design for medium security prisons in their 

respective states and were selected for our case studies on that basis.g 

Table 2.6 shows the space allocations for the case study prisons. 

Table 2.5: Distribution of Square Peet Per Inmate for Case Study Prisons 6 

Average gross square feet per inmate 

Administration 81 Prison All other 

Prlson Housing Segregation management Medical Kitchen industries space Total 

_..--.-_I--- 

.-...- 

Phoenix FCI __ 280 29 12 12 24 88 151 59i 

Winslow 141 6 50 4 25 0 26 251 

Marianna FCI 252 17 30 22 20 119 209 671 

Calhoun 78 

- 

9 11 18 

Note: Totals are rounded. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data 

____. 

8 47 46 219 

“Both Winslow and Calhoun were in the low cost state group. We included the case study data solely 

as a means of comparing and contrasting different approaches to prison expansion. 

Page 35 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costa 
chapter 2 

Federal Prison6 Coet More to Build Than 

stnte lJl4sons 

The case studies also show a dramatic difference between federal and 

low cost state prisons in the space allocated for housing and prison 

industries. Phoenix was designed to provide 74 square feet in each 

single-bunked cell, compared with 40 square feet per inmate for the 

double-bunked cells at Winslow. At Phoenix, the total housing area, 

including dayroom and other support space, provided about twice as 

much space per inmate as at Winslow. 

Marianna provided over three times more housing space per inmate than 

Calhoun, and its single-cell housing design provided 84 square feet per 

inmate. In contrast, Calhoun housed its inmates in 12%bed dormitories, 

which provided an average of about 42 square feet per inmate. 

The relatively large amount of space devoted to prison industries at the 

federal prisons is a reflection of the importance BOP attaches to this correctional program. Marianna had a furniture and upholstery factory and 

an automated data processing operation. Phoenix had an electronics and 

connector assembly factory. In contrast, Winslow did not have a prison 

industry. Instead, medium security inmates did manual labor and landscaping duties at the facility, and any minimum security inmates 

worked on public projects in local communities. Calhoun also provided 

workers for local public works programs, and, in addition, had a prison 

industry program called PRIDE (for Prison Rehabilitative Industry 

Diversified Enterprises), which operated a garment factory and a 

printing facility. 

Analysis of the “All other space” category-which includes space for 

such activities as education services, maintenance shops, recreation, 

religious services, and vocational training, showed that the federal 

prisons allocated, on average, about 39 square feet (16 percent) more 

per inmate than the state prisons did for these activities. As shown in * 

table 2.5, compared with the federal prisons, Winslow and Calhoun set 

relatively little space aside for the programs and functions that made up 

this category. In fact, Marianna had almost as many square feet per 

inmate in this category (209) as Calhoun had in the entire facility (219). 

Despite their modest allocation of space in this category, Calhoun and 

Winslow provided adult basic education programs and vocational 

training to interested and qualified inmates. At Calhoun, vocational 

training was provided in such trades as masonry, printing, heat and air 

conditioning repair, and cabinet making, while Winslow offered vocational training in landscape/horticulture, building trades, and engineering technology. Winslow also offered college-level classes leading to 

Page 36 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
chrcpt8r2 

R&walPrhonaCvatMomtoBuildThm 

state Prisons 

an Associate of Arts degree. Both Winslow and Calhoun provided 

library services. 

Federal Prisons Use More Prison design and layout are other key determinants of cost. Our analCostly Designs Than Most ysis of questionnaire data found that the federal prisons used more 

State Prisons costly designs than many of the state prisons. For example, the medium 

security federal prisons we reviewed were designed to house all inmates 

in single cells with built-in plumbing in each cell. In contrast, about 69 

percent of the beds in the 32 state prisons were in single cells, and only 

about half of the cells had built-in plumbing. Further, 17 of the 32 state 

prisons were designed to house some or all inmates in either multipleoccupancy cells or dormitories, both of which have central toilet facilities. An AIA official told us that single cell housing is more costly than 

multiple-occupancy cells and dormitories and that providing each cell 

with plumbing greatly increases costs. The AIA official also said the triangular pod design (see fig. 1.6) used for the housing units at the federal 

prisons is being questioned by the AIA because it provides more dayroom 

space than is needed by the number of inmates housed in the pod. 

Page 37 

, 

GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

State Prisons 

Vgure 2.1: Inmate Cell8 at FCI Mwlanna Open Onto a Triangular Dayroom (Opposite) 

The case study prisons illustrate the relationship of design to cost. Table 

2.6 compares housing designs for the two federal and two state prisons 

and shows that Winslow and Calhoun made much greater use of 

multiple-occupancy cells and dormitories. Except for the dormitory 

housing design at the minimum security camp adjacent to Marianna, 

both Phoenix and Marianna were designed using all single cell housing. 

Table 2.6: Housing Configuration at the Case Study Prisons 

Desi n 

Prison caoac B tv costl!:ci 

Distribution of inmates 

Single cell Multiperson cell Dorms 

FCI Phoenix 518 $49,666 518 0 0 

. . . .~ ..~~~ - . 

Wmslow 650 $24,679 0 400 250 

-.-.-. ~..._.~___ ...__________ 

FCI Marlanna 698 $67,446 550 0 148 _... .-.--..-- --.- 

Calhoun 7% $13,825 0 0 768 

Y Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire and case study data. 

Page 38 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prlmna Cost More to BuUd Than 

state Pri6ons 

A typical housing unit at Marianna consists of two tiers of rooms, or 

cells, opening onto a triangular dayroom (see fig. 2.1). The rooms, which 

were generally double-bunked despite the single-bunk design, have a full 

window, painted concrete block walls, and a regular door with a small 

opening for observation, as well as a toilet and sink, lockers, linen 

storage area, and desk space for the inmates’ use. In contrast, Calhoun’s 

dormitories consist of a single open room with 64 beds, either doublebunked or single (see fig. 2.2). Each dormitory contains a dayroom, 

shower, and toilet. Inmates possessions are stored in a drawer below 

their beds. 

Page 39 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Pri6oM 

Flaure 2.2: bormltory Housing and Adjacent Dayroom (Opposite) At Calhoun Correctional Inetitutlon, Florida 

Phoenix and Marianna provided more space than Winslow and Calhoun 

for religious and recreational activities. For example, both Phoenix and 

Marianna had chapels for religious services, At Phoenix, a large room in 

the education and training building served as chapel, while at Marianna, 

the chapel had a steeple and regular church pews and could be opened 

to provide access to a spacious carpeted auditorium. In contrast, 

Winslow provided space for religious services in a multipurpose room in 

which a portable lectern served as an altar and a cross was hung on the 

wall during Christian services. At the time of our visit, religious services 

at Calhoun were conducted in the visiting area. A chapel was planned 

for the prison but had not yet been built. 

Page 40 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Frimons Cost More to Build Than 

state Prleons 

For indoor recreation, Phoenix had a music room, a painting room, a 

ceramics room, and a copper crafts room, as well as a game area for pool 

and ping pong. Pool tables were also available in some housing area 

dayrooms (see fig. 2.3). Winslow had no space dedicated to such activities. For outdoor recreation, Phoenix had handball courts, tennis courts, 

basketball courts, a running track, a weight-lifting area, and a baseball 

field. Winslow had a small, inmate-constructed weight-lifting area; bas- h 

ketball courts; volleyball courts; and a large open area for other sports. 

All of these areas were outdoors. 

Page 41 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Prlsont3 

Figure 2.3: Pool Table8 in Dayroom of Howing Unit at FCI Phoenix 

At Marianna, dedicated space for indoor recreation included several 

music rooms, a room for leather crafts, a ceramics room, and an arts and 

crafts room. In addition, Marianna had a large gymnasium with a 

wooden floor and bleachers (see fig. 2.4) for basketball, racquetball, and 

social functions, Near the gymnasium was a large room containing pool 

tables and foosball tables.4 Outdoor recreation space included handball 

courts, a weight-lifting area, a baseball field, a running track, and a 

soccer field (which was under construction at the time of our review). 

Calhoun had no dedicated space for arts or crafts. There was a small 

multipurpose activities room that was used for indoor games, especially 

cards. Calhoun also had no gymnasium or billiards room; instead, outdoor recreation areas were provided for basketball, weight lifting, and 

baseball. 

4After our visit to IX1 Marianna, HOP officials said this recreation room was converted to an education chi.ssroom and several small hobby/craft rooms. 

Page 42 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Cmts 

4 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Prisons 

Fiaun, 2.4: Qvmnssium at FCI Madanna 

Geographic Cost 

Differences Can Add to 

Construction Costs 

Construction costs can vary from one region of the country to another. 

Several companies publish construction cost indexes that allow cost 

estimators to adjust for regional differences in the costs of labor, materials, and equipment. Among the states, construction costs generally tend 

to be higher in the Northeast and West and lower in the South and Midwest. For example, if a building cost $10,000,000 to build in California 

in 1989, the identical building would probably have cost about 

$7,438,000 to build in Florida and about $24,711,000 if built in Alaskas6 

%omputed using area modification indexes published in the 1989 National Construction Estimator, 

37th Edition, edited by Kiley and Moselle, Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, CA. 

Page 43 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 

, , ” 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cmst More to Build Than 

state Prisons 

Our sample of four federal prisons was not large enough to determine 

geographic cost trends. However, our sample of 32 state prisons 

affirmed the link between cost and geographic location. Table 2.7 shows 

that the prisons located in the West cost over two and one-half times as 

much per bed as those in the South and were also more costly than the 

prisons located in the Northeast and Midwest. 

Table 2.7: State Constructlon Cortr Per 

Bed by Geographic Region 

Qeographic Region 

West 

-- 

Northeast 

Number of prisons 

Average cost:;; 

6 $73,814 

6 70.832 

. 

. 

. 

. 

Midwest 11 52,924 

South 9 26,522 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data. 

Although analyses of regional cost differences indicate that prisons 

might be built less expensively in certain areas of the country, labor and 

material cost savings were not cited by BOP as factors used in selecting 

the geographic location for a new facility. When asked during the 1991 

budget hearings as to the criteria it used to select the sites for new FCIS, 

BOP cited the following criteria: 

location in an area of the country in which BOP is experiencing current 

overcrowding or a region in which projections indicate that large numbers of federal offenders will come into the system in the future; 

a minimum of 200 to 250 acres of relatively flat buildable land of reasonable configuration (i.e., with roughly equal length and width) and 

with adequate visual buffers along the boundaries; 

available at no cost to the government; 

free from environmental difficulties, including protected “wetlands 

areas,” significant archaeological or historic resources, habitat of 

threatened or endangered species, farmland preservation areas, and 

prime agricultural land, and not located within a flood plain area; 

located within 50 miles of a large population center to ensure the facility 

the availability of community resources for staff, goods, and services; 

adequate public utility services to the site; 

adequate fire protection services nearby, with a public-service fire company preferred; 

an accredited full-service hospital recognized and licensed by the state 

within 1 hour’s driving time; 

close proximity to interstate highway systems and public transportation, preferably with commercial ground and air service nearby; and 

Page 44 GAO/GGD-92-3 prison Costa 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Prison4 

. community support, including endorsement by local officials and Members of Congress. 

According to BOP, the most important factor in choosing a site is proximity to areas where inmates are being sentenced, BOP officials believe 

that visits by family and friends can be a stabilizing force on inmate 

behavior. However, it should be noted that inmates are assigned to and 

transferred from facilities for a variety of reasons, including inmate 

security needs, a reassessment of the inmate’s security classification, or 

crowding levels at a particular facility. As of May 1991,38 percent of 

EWP’S inmates assigned to prison were within 250 miles of home, 27 percent were between 251 and 500 miles of home, and 35 percent were 

more than 500 miles from home. 

Opportunities Exist to As stated in chapter 1, BOP is undertaking the largest and most expenReduce Federal Prison sive prison expansion program in its history. By 1996, BOP expects to 

spend about $3 billion on construction and expansion, thus more than 

Construction Costs doubling 130~‘s January 1991 capacity of 37,421 to about 75,000. But 

despite this expansion, BOP projects that by 1995 the federal prison 

system will still be about 30 percent over rated capacity-its acceptable 

level of crowding-because of continued population growth. Clearly, it 

would be beneficial to BOP to revise its design standards and justifications so that the $3 billion invested in prison construction acquires as 

much additional capacity as possible, while remaining consistent with 

the need to maintain safe and humane conditions. 

One way to maximize the use of construction funds would be to reconsider the use of single-bunking as a standard for computing the rated 

capacity of the federal prisons. Although the rated capacities of the federal prisons we reviewed were based on a single-bunking standard, BOP 4 

routinely double-bunked the cells to accommodate increasing inmate 

populations. If the capacities of the four federal prisons we examined 

had been adjusted to reflect double-bunking as the standard, the 

average cost per bed and average square feet per inmate would have 

dropped substantially-even after BOP enlarged common-use areas (e.g., 

dining hall, medical unit) to accommodate double-bunking. This adjustment also would have brought these prisons more in line with the space 

provided to state inmates. Further, applying a double-bunking standard 

to new and existing facilities would reduce BOP’S future facilities construction requirements because the need for new facilities would be 

computed on that basis. 

Page 45 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prbous Cost More to Build Than 

State Prleons 

nor recognized that its definition of prison capacity and its adherence to 

a uniform single-bunking standard needed review. As a result, BOP has 

taken two significant steps. First, it adopted a limited double-bunking 

standard, using one-half of the 90-square-foot cells or living units for 

two-thirds of the inmates in new medium security facilities, BOP is considering adopting a similar standard for new minimum and low security 

facilities. Secondly, it created a Rated Capacity Task Force to review 

and update the capacity of existing facilities. 

We discussed the double-bunking issue in our report, Federal Prisons: 

Revised Design Standards Could Save Expansion Funds, (GAO/GGD-91-54, 

Mar. 14, 1991), which was jointly requested by the Senate Governmental 

Affairs’ Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House 

Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. We questioned the 

need to provide 90 square feet per cell since BOP was double-bunking in 

practice in smaller cells without unmanageable problems. We also questioned the need for BOP to reserve one-half of the cells for single-bunking 

exemplary and problem inmates or to accommodate unexpected surges 

in the inmate population. We recommended that BOP adopt a doublebunking standard where feasible and use it to determine rated capacity 

and the need for additional facilities. 

It remains to be seen how far BOP will go in adopting a double-bunking 

standard in its new and existing facilities, As previously mentioned, the 

federal prisons we reviewed might not be prototypes for all future BOP 

prison designs. The medium security prisons built in the future might 

provide inmates with significantly different amounts of housing and 

program space as a result of double-bunking. All general population cells 

in the FCIS included in our review were designed as single cells and 

ranged in size from 74 to 84 net square feet.6 The new double-bunking 

standard would require more space for inmate cells and common use e 

areas. With respect to the federal prisons we reviewed, their rated 

capacities and space allowances will be governed by the new doublebunking standard for existing facilities that the Rated Capacity Task 

Force has had under consideration. 

A second way to reduce prison construction costs is to use designs that 

reduce the amount of space per inmate. While the low cost state prisons 

“Net square feet excludes spaces not used by staff and/or inmates and represents how much of the 

total square footage is actually devoted to everyday useful purposes. Single cell sizes for the FCIs we 

reviewed, in net square feet, were as follows: FCI Phoenix, 74; FCI McKean, 78; FCI Sheridan, 80; and 

FCI Marianna, 84. 

Page 46 GAO/GGD-92-3 prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Coet More to Build Than 

state Prisons 

we reviewed may not be the best model for determining space requirements for federal prisons, significant savings could result even if the 

average space in the high cost prisons was used. For example, the four 

BOP prisons in our sample, collectively, would have had over 207,000 

fewer gross square feet if their housing areas had averaged the same 

amount of space per inmate as the housing areas at the four high cost 

state prisons, At an average cost per gross square foot of about $109, 

the savings in construction costs could have amounted to over $22 million, or about $8,500 per bed. Even greater savings would have resulted 

if the averages for the medium and low cost groups were used in the 

estimate and if other departments or areas were considered. Table 2.8 

shows estimated savings from reducing the housing areas of the federal 

prisons to equal the average of each of the state cost groups. 

Table 2.8: Estimated Cost Savings at 

Selected Federal Prisons From Using 

Space Allowances of State Prisons by 

Cost Group Federal prison 

FCI McKean 

Estimated Savings 

Using high cost Using medium Using low cost 

standards cost standards standards 

$7,655,340 $8,313,864 $13,417,424 

FCI Sheridan 5,633,555 6,337,749 11,795,255 

FCI Phoenix 4,206,949 4,553,914 7,242,892 

FCI Marianna 4,914.604 5,476,273 9,829,208 _____- 

Total savings $22,410,448 $24,681,800 $42,284,780 

Cost per bed savings $8,573 $9,442 $16,176 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Because the average space for housing at the federal and state prisons 

varied so widely, achieving savings such as estimated in table 2.8 would 

require substantial space reductions at the federal prisons. For example, 

to equal the state high cost group average, the housing areas in the federal prisons would have to be reduced by 30 percent; to equal the 8 

medium and low cost groups’ averages the percentage reductions would 

have to be 33 percent and 57 percent, respectively. It is important to 

note that adopting a double-bunking standard would result in a space 

reduction. 

We were told by corrections officials in Arizona and Florida, who we 

visited as part of our case studies, that neither state has a formal standard governing the overall size of its prisons in terms of square feet per 

inmate. Arizona uses an unwritten and flexible “rule of thumb” of about 

300 square feet per inmate per facility that can range from 250 to 350 

depending on the security level of the planned facility. In Florida, 

because a “core” amount of program space may be used in different 

Page 47 GAO/?&D-92-3 Prison C!mts 
Chapter 2 

Federal P&one Cost More to Build Than 

State Prison 

capacities, prison size does not vary directly with capacity. In determining prison size, they use a “ground up” design process that considers 

the types of programs and the number and type of staff that will be 

needed, as well as the expected capacity of the facility. Legislative and 

public pressure to be conservative with respect to prison size is also an 

important factor in Florida. 

While this review was in progress, BOP took another look at how large it 

builds its prisons and decided to maintain its current policies. The current BOP position is that its programs and the space allocated for those 

programs act to reduce operations costs because the inmates have many 

worthwhile activities to pursue and thus fewer staff are needed to 

supervise them, Our review was not designed to evaluate the relative 

merits of inmate programs at the federal and state prisons or how 

inmate programs were affected by the amount of space provided. BOP 

believes that state prisons with less inmate space have high staff costs 

because of the additional staff required to supervise inmates who have 

fewer programs to keep them busy. Accordingly, BOP contends that on a 

life-cycle cost basis, the higher capital construction costs are more than 

offset by the reduced staffing and operations costs in subsequent years. 

However, BOP had no analysis to support this point. 

Our questionnaire data do not show a direct relationship between the 

amount of space per inmate and prison operations costs, which are 

largely a function of staffing costs. We analyzed the amount of space 

and number of staff at the state prisons in our sample and found no 

statistical correlation between the two. We also reviewed these factors 

at the two federal prisons in our operations costs analysis-Marianna 

and Phoenix. We found that the operations costs and inmate-to-staff 

ratio were about the same at these prisons even though Phoenix had 

about 10 percent less space than Marianna. Thus, our analysis does not 

support BOP’S assertion that more space leads to lower operations costs 

and lower life-cycle costs. We discuss the issue of prison staffing levels 

further in chapter 3. 

A third way to reduce federal prison construction costs is to make 

greater use of multipurpose space for educational, vocational, assembly, 

and recreational purposes. The federal prisons we visited had dedicated 

space for most programs and activities. We observed that the rooms 

dedicated for indoor recreation purposes, such as music, ceramics, and 

painting, were not being used during our tours of Phoenix and Marianna. 

Page 48 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

State Prisons 

Prison officials told us that the rooms were generally used in the evenings and on weekends. In contrast, the state prisons we visited used 

multipurpose space for their assembly and recreation activities. 

A fourth way to reduce federal prison construction costs would be to 

build more facilities in lower cost geographic locations. This approach 

could result in locating prisons in areas that do not match BOP’S current 

site selection criteria, which emphasize placing prisons near areas where 

inmates are being sentenced. Our work showed that construction costs 

can vary considerably from one region of the country to another as a 

result of differences in labor, materials, and equipment costs. We believe 

HOI should seriously consider taking advantage of the lower labor and 

material costs that certain areas of the country may offer. 

BOP’s Cost-Cutting 

Proposals Have a 

Narrower Scope 

Since our review was initiated, BOP has launched an effort to reduce 

prison construction costs. The Director, BOP, issued a directive for BOP to 

identify and implement steps to cut construction costs by 10 percent. In 

response to this directive, BOP convened an Administration Wardens’ 

Advisory Group (WAG) to identify and consider several options aimed at 

reducing construction costs for medium security prisons. In December 

1990, the BOP executive staff considered the following 12 options developed by the WAG: 

1. Utilize inmate labor to construct staff training centers. 

2. Delete construction of gymnasiums at satellite camps. 

3. Reduce programmed square footage in the following support areas: 

outside and inside warehouses, maintenance shop, recreation, commissary, and laundry. A 

4. Replace sloping roofs with flat roofs or, at a minimum, utilize composition shingles on sloped roofs. 

5. Delete landscaping and irrigation beyond basic seeding and make 

landscaping inmate labor intensive. 

6. Although an actual savings would not be realized, certain equipment 

items could be paid from other funds. 

7. Reduce the quality of exterior walls/insulation. 

Page 49 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
chapter2 

Federal Prisons Cost More to Build Than 

state Ph3ons 

8. Delete indoor “active recreation,” such as weight lifting and gymnasium; make open air recreation available. 

9. Delete the central utility plant and go to an all electric facility. 

10. Utilize cubicle housing in lieu of individual rooms; delete large multiuse space. 

11. Delete x-ray and dental areas at all satellite camps. 

12. Delete paving of perimeter patrol road and parking lots and use 

gravel only. 

According to BOP'S cost impact analysis, if adopted, options 1 through 5 

would amount to a cost saving of about 6 percent. These options were 

recommended for approval by the executive staff. BOP also estimated 

that if option 6 were adopted, thereby deleting equipment items from 

the building and facility funds, another 4 percent could be saved on construction costs, but these costs would be shifted to operations costs. 

According to BOP, adopting options 7 through 10 could realize an additional savings of 10 percent. The executive staff recommended that 

options 6 through 10 be given further consideration only on a case-bycase basis, considering such factors as geographic location and climate. 

HOP estimated that options 11 and 12 would save less than 1 percent in 

construction costs and so dropped them as viable options. We did not 

assess the viability of any of these options or verify BOP'S estimates of 

potential construction cost savings. 

The measures identified by the WAG could be useful in reducing prison 

construction costs. However, these measures do not address certain 

other important opportunities that exist to cut costs. For example, 

option 3 envisions reducing square footage in warehouses and services 

areas but does not address the significant difference in space that exists 

between housing or program areas in federal versus state prisons. As a 

second example, option 10 calls for using cubicles instead of cells, but 

does not address the more fundamental issue of single- versus doublebunking and how many square feet are provided in a cubicle or cell. 

Moreover, these 12 options are largely silent on the use of multipurpose 

space and on geographic differences in construction materials and labor 

costs. 

4 

Page 50 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 2 

Federal Prbous Cost More to Build Than 

State Prisous 

Conclusions The federal prisons we analyzed cost more per bed to build than the 

state prisons. They averaged about $70,000 compared with about 

$65,000 for the state prisons. The major reasons why the federal prisons 

cost more is that their designs provide inmates with substantially more 

space than most state prisons and that their designs called for 100 percent of inmates to be housed in single cells, compared with 59 percent 

overall for the state prisons. Another reason for higher federal prison 

construction costs was the use of more dedicated space for programs 

and amenities. 

These differences present opportunities for reducing the cost of building 

federal prisons. Such opportunities include designing prisons with less 

space per inmate, increasing the use of multiple-occupancy cells, promoting the use of multipurpose space, and siting prisons in lower cost 

geographic areas. 

HOP is now considering several measures to reduce prison construction 

costs. It has revised its design standards for new medium security 

prisons so rated capacity will be calculated using some double-bunking. 

BOP is considering extending this policy to minimum and low security 

levels. It has also created a task force to explore a possible conversion to 

a double-bunking standard in existing facilities.7 Further, BOP has identified several proposals they believe would achieve a 6-percent cost 

reduction, but these have a narrower scope than the opportunities we 

identified. To achieve major cost savings, BOP needs to reconsider some 

of its current guidelines for housing and program space for inmates and 

its policy that limits the use of double-bunking. 

- 

Recommendations to We recommend that the Attorney General require the Director, BOP, to 

the Attorney General . reassess current prison design standards to determine if the amount of 4 

space provided to federal inmates could be reduced, 

l promote the use of multipurpose space, where feasible, and 

l amend prison site selection criteria to include consideration of geographic differences in labor and material costs. 

71’ht: issue of revised design standards and their effect on prison capacity are discussed in our prcviously mentioned March 14, 1991, report. 

Page 5 1 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costs 
chapter 2 

Federal hiaona Cost More to Build Than 

state Prhous 

Agency Comments and The Department of Justice, in its written comments, generally agreed 

Our Evaluation with our recommendations, although it took exception to some of the 

analysis. Justice’s comments and GAO'S detailed responses are included 

as appendix IV. 

We should point out that Justice, in its letter, misstated our second recommendation, which was to promote the use of multipurpose space 

where feasible, not reduce it. Justice said that adopting a doublebunking standard makes the second recommendation inconsequential 

from a cost perspective. While the savings would not be as substantial 

as those resulting from double-bunking, we believe Justice should consider the opportunity to achieve further reductions in construction 

costs. Even in the federal prisons we visited that were double-bunked on 

a wide scale, the education and recreation areas were vacant or 

underutilized for much of the day. We believe that construction costs 

could be further reduced by designing multipurpose space in which different activities could reasonably be conducted in the same space at different times. 

Page 62 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 3 

Federal Prisons Cost Less to Operate Per Inmate 

Day Than State Prisons 

Federal prisons built since 1985 and in operation for a year or more at 

the time of our review cost less to operate per inmate day than state 

prisons that met the same criteria. The cost of operating the federal 

prisons averaged about $37 per day per inmate, compared with an 

overall average of about $42 at the state prisons we reviewed. The 

majority of operations costs in federal and state prisons were attributable to staffing costs. Staffing costs were less as a percentage of total 

expenses at the federal prisons for two reasons. First, salaries at the two 

federal prisons we reviewed were lower overall than at the state 

prisons.’ Second, the two federal prisons had a higher overall inmate-tostaff ratio than the 21 state prisons. These findings are generally consistent with the conclusions of the April 1990 Report of the National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement. 

Largely because of differences in salaries, state prison costs varied by 

geographic region. HOP salaries have historically been determined on the 

basis of a uniform nationwide pay scale. Recently enacted legislation 

will increase starting salaries for BOP staff by about 16 percent. The 

increase is to be phased in over 2 years beginning in January 1992. The 

legislation also provides locality pay differentials ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent for eight high-cost locations. When these provisions 

are fully implemented, the differences between federal and state salaries should diminish. At that time, BOP should consider siting prisons, 

when possible, in areas not affected by locality pay differentials. 

Operations Costs 

Varied Widely, but 

Federal Costs Were 

Generally Lower 

Operations costs varied widely among the two federal and 21 state 

prisons opened between 1985 and 1989 and in operation for a year or 

more. Daily operations costs per inmate in the state prisons ranged from 

$22.25 to $81.08 per inmate per day, with a weighted average of 

$42.38.2 Daily operations costs at the two federal prisons-Phoenix and 6 

Marianna-were $37.57 and $36.26 per inmate per day, respectively, 

with a weighted average of $36.93. The average daily per inmate operations costs at the two federal prisons were lower than at 14 of the 21 

state prisons. 

In analyzing the daily operations costs per inmate, we used the average 

daily population instead of rated capacity because most prisons became 

lIic~ferencrs to salary or salaries include employee-related expenses. 

2Wc computed these figures by dividing the total period costs by the average daily population for the 

period, t,hon dividing the answer by 365. 

Page 53 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 3 

Federal Prisons hit Lees to Operate Per 

Inmate Day Than State Prisons 

overcrowded soon after opening and had little or no experience operating at rated capacity. At the time of our review, the two federal 

prisons operated at 43 percent and 108 percent above rated capacity; 

the average was 78 percent above capacity. At the 21 state prisons, 

average daily population ranged from 7 percent under to 88 percent 

over rated capacity; the overall average across these prisons was 29 percent over capacity. Per-inmate-day costs at the individual prisons would 

increase if they were operating at rated capacity, since fixed costs 

would be spread over fewer inmates. 

Because operations costs varied so widely, for analysis purposes, we 

divided the state prisons in our sample into three cost groups-low, 

medium, and high. The division was judgmental, with daily operations 

costs per inmate in the $20 to $37 range classified as low cost, those in 

the $42 to $51 range classified as medium cost, and those in the $59 to 

$81 range classified as high cost. Table 3.1 shows the number of prisons 

and range of daily operations cost per inmate in each group. We found 

no direct relationship between the cost groups described in table 3.1 and 

the construction cost groups discussed in chapter 2. 

_--- 

Table 3.1: Ranges of Daily Operations 

Costs Per Inmate by Cost Groups 

Prison group 

Low cost states 

-.-.-~____.-- 

Medium cost states 

- --.-__________---. 

High cost states 

_ .--- I_-- --- 

Federal 

Tlepreciation and overhead excluded. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data 

Number of 

prisons 

Daily operations cy;Atp;; 

a 

IO $22.25 $37.89 

______-- 

8 $42.12 - $50.91 

________- 

3 $59.34 - $81.08 

2 $36.25 - $37.57 

Lower Personnel Costs The basic components that determine operations costs at a prison are b 

Accounted for Lower salaries and related expenses, services, rent, communications, utilities, 

supplies and materials, and other miscellaneous expenses. As shown in 

Federal Operations table 3.2, salaries and related employee expenses account for the bulk of 

costs operations costs, Our analysis showed that, on average, the daily operations cost per inmate at the two federal prisons was $5.45 lower (13 

percent) than at the 21 state prisons. The lower federal operations costs 

were attributable to the difference between the federal and state personnel expenses, which amounted to $8.23 per inmate per day. 

Page 64 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 3 

Federal Prlson~ Cost Lees to Operate Per 

Inmate Day Than State Prisons 

Table 3.2: Average Dally Operation8 Costs Per Inmate by Cost Groups, With Associated Percentages 

Expense Category 

Prison group 

Hiah cost states 

.._ ..*_._ ._-.._.-... --. . .- .__ _.-.- .--_- ..--- 

Percentages 

._. .” ._. - .._....__... -.__ 

Medium cost states 

Percentages 

Low cost states 

Percentages 

State averages 

Percentages 

Federal 

Percentages 

Rent, 

Sala;rardd communications, Supplies 81 

a Servicesb 81 utilities materials All other Total 

-~ 

$4660 $6.47 $1.75 $7.22 $0.77 $62.61 

74% 

$36.25 

79% 

$22.51 

72% 

$32.26 

76% 

$24.03 

65% 

10% 3% 11% 1% 100% 

$86 $1 .a6 $5.24 $1.62 $45.63 

-___ 

2% 4% 11% 4% 100% 

$2.37 $1.60 $4.41 $0.41--$31.31 

a% 5% 14% 1% 100% 

$2.16 -$1.75 $5.17 $1.04 $42.36 

----..-.-- 

5% 4% 12% 2% 100% 

---.-.-.-- ~- ____- ~--.-__ 

$3.16 $2.16 $6.20 $1.39 $36.93 ~----- --___ 

9% 6% 17% 4% 100% 

aRelated salary expendrtures include employee benefits, insurance, and hazardous duty pay. 

bServlces rncludes trash drsposal, laundry and dry cleaning, repair and maintenance of equipment, and 

medical treatment from outsrde sources 

Note: Totals are rounded. 

Source. GAO analysis of questionnaire data 

Two major reasons account for the differences in federal and state personnel costs. First, average salaries at the federal prisons were about 5 

percent lower than those at the 21 state prisons, which varied from 

about $18,000 to $44,000 a year. Table 3.3 shows salary ranges and 

weighted averages for the state and federal prisons. 

Table 3.3: Range of Staff Salaries and 

Average Salaries Prison group 

--- ..- ___-- 

High cost states 

Medium cost states 

Salary range Weighted average 

$27,976 - $34,399 $29,802 

$18,380 - $44,024 $35,871 b 

Low cost states 

-- 

Average for all 21 state prisons 

--- 

Averaae for 2 federal prisons 

$18,021 - $38,619 $25,321 __- .- _-__ 

$16,021 - $44,024 $31,193 

$29,360 - $29,640 .-- $29,535 

Source. GAO analysis of questronnaire data 

Second, federal prisons had a higher inmate-to-staff ratio than most 

state prisons. The two federal prisons we analyzed operated with about 

27 percent fewer staff members relative to their inmate populations 

than the state prisons. The federal prisons had an average of about 3.37 

inmates for every staff member, compared with an overall average of 

about 2.65 for the 21 state prisons. As shown in table 3.4, the inmate-toPage 66 GAO/GGD93-3 Prison Costs 
chapter 8 

FcderdPrJmmCiWLfsstoOperatePer 

INnate Day Than state mmms 

staff ratio varied considerably between the high, medium, and low cost 

groups and the higher inmate-to-staff ratios were found in the low cost 

group. For example, the inmate-to-staff ratio at the federal prisons was 

almost double the ratio for the high cost state prisons but less than 10 

percent more than for the low cost group. 

Table 3.4: Inmate-to-Staff Ratios by Cost 

Group 

Prison group Inmate-to-staff ratio 

As per;;;ceri; 

Low cost states 3.08 92% 

Medium cost states 2.71 81 

High cost states 1.75 52 

Averaae for all states 2.65 79 

Averaae for federal 3.37 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire data. 

Total personnel costs are a function of both the salary paid and the 

number of staff employed. Thus, employing many low paid staff could 

account for higher overall personnel costs, while employing relatively 

few higher paid staff could result in lower overall personnel costs. This 

is why the salary averages and ranges in table 3.3 do not exactly align 

within and among the state cost groups. For example, the average salary 

and the top of the salary range for the medium cost group was higher 

than for the high cost group. We believe this discrepancy can be mainly 

attributed to the comparatively low inmate-to-staff ratios at the high 

cost prisons. 

Our analysis of staffing at these prisons showed that the state prisons 

with higher crowding levels operated with higher inmate-to-staff ratios 

than the less crowded prisons. Therefore, staffing levels were not 

adjusted proportionately to increases in inmate population. Our analysis I 

of staffing at the two federal prisons showed they operated with the 

same inmate-to-staff ratio despite wide difference in crowding levels. 

We do not know whether a larger sample of federal prisons would show 

a trend similar to the one found in the states. 

Our findings about salary and inmate-to-staff ratios are generally consistent with the conclusions of the April 1990 Report of the National 

Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement.3 The Commission compared 

“Report of the National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement (GAO/OCG-90-2, April 1990). 

Page 56 GAO/GGB92-3 Prison Costs 
Chapter 3 

Federal Prisons Cost Less to Operate Per 

1nnutt.e Day Than State Prisons 

the pay of federal law enforcement personnel, including corrections personnel, to that of state and local law enforcement personnel and concluded that state and local law enforcement positions offer higher 

average salaries than federal positions both at the entry level and at full 

performance levels. The Commission attributed the difference, at least 

in part, to accelerated progress through the rate ranges for state personnel because most state personnel obtain maximum pay in half the 

time it takes federal employees. 

Our findings are also consistent with the conclusions of a report published in the February 1989 issue of Research in Corrections, which concluded that variations among states in per capita operations costs 

stemmed primarily from the cost and use of staff labor.4 The study 

found that the most expensive prisons reported higher salaries and 

lower inmate-to-staff ratios than less expensive prisons. 

It is not clear why federal prisons can operate with a higher inmate-tostaff ratio. ROP’S position is that higher ratios are possible because BOP 

provides more programs and more living space to its inmates. A BOP official stated that BOP provides a wide variety of educational, recreational, 

and work programs that keep the inmates busy and reduce the amount 

of direct supervision required, which in turn reduces staffing requirements. However, BOP had no empirical evidence to support the relationship of space to staffing. As discussed in chapter 2, at the state prisons 

in our sample, we found no statistical correlation between the amount of 

space per inmate and staffing levels. Further, Phoenix operated with the 

same inmate-to-staff ratio as Marianna, yet Phoenix had about 10 percent less space per inmate. 

Also, BOP maintains that its inmate classification system lessens the need 

for security staff by separating inmates who are potentially dangerous 4 

from inmates who do not require the same degree of direct supervision. 

A comparison of the types of staff employed by the federal and state 

prisons showed that, relative to other prison functions, the security 

function is heavily staffed at both state and federal prisons. Compared 

with the federal prisons, however, the state prisons gave much greater 

emphasis to staffing the security function. They allotted about 67 percent of their overall staff resources to security compared with about 41 

percent at the federal prisons. On the other hand, the states allotted relatively few staff-5 percent-for counseling, compared with 18 percent 

4Douglaa C. McDonald, The Cost of Corrections: In Search of the Bottom Line (Research in Corrections, Feb. 1989). 

Page 57 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 3 

Federal Prh~ Chat km to operate Per 

Inmate Day Than State Prisons 

at the federal prisons. Prison industries staffing was also markedly different in the state versus the federal prisons-the federal prisons 

apportioned 9 percent of their staff resources to that function compared 

with 1 percent at the state prisons. 

Aside from ~0~‘s assertions, we believe that to some extent BOP can 

operate with a higher inmate-to-staff ratio because federal inmates tend 

to be less violent than state inmates. About 19 percent of federal 

inmates were serving time for a violent crime, compared with 55 percent 

for state prisons. Also, federal inmates tend to be older than state 

inmates. The median age for federal inmates was 37, while for state 

inmates it was 28. These differences are suggestive of a federal inmate 

population that needs less direct supervision than the more volatile 

populations in state facilities.” Thus, BOP might not need as many prison 

staff to supervise its inmate population. 

Life-Cycle Costs Could As discussed in chapter 1, operations costs will far exceed initial conNot Ek Determined struction costs over the useful life of the prisons. However, efforts to 

reduce costs are normally directed at initial construction costs, even 

though these savings may result in higher operating costs over the 

facility’s life. Life-cycle costing considers a facility’s operations costs as 

well as its initial construction and future capital costs. Future costs are 

based on cost estimates for the years in which such costs would be 

incurred. These cost estimates are then discounted to their present 

values and combined with initial investment costs to arrive at the total 

present value cost of the proposed design. Thus, the present value lifecycle cost would provide a common basis for comparing various designs 

and would be an important part of our overall analysis. 

We attempted to determine what consideration, if any, was given to life- 6 

cycle costing in designing federal and state prisons. We asked all questionnaire respondents to cite measures that would impact on the lifecycle costs of the prisons we reviewed. However, neither HOP nor the 

state respondents provided the information required for the analysis. 

BOP responded that life-cycle costs were considered for three of the four 

federal prisons we reviewed and that the focus was on durability. But 

noPs response did not describe the designs, construction techniques, or 

materials selected to minimize life-cycle costs, as requested in the questionnaire. BOP did not list reduced staffing levels and costs as a life-cycle 

costing factor. Of the 32 states responding to our questionnaire, 18 

“‘I’he differences noted are based on the most recent data available. 

Page 58 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
cllapter 3 

Federal Phone Cost Lees to Operate Per 

Inmate Day Than State Prhona 

reported that they considered life-cycle costing and 14 reported that 

they did not. As was the case with BOP, the states cited durability but 

not staffing as a life-cycle costing factor. 

While it is unfortunate that the respondents did not provide more complete information on life-cycle costing considerations, we have no reason 

to believe it would have affected our recommendation on reducing the 

amount of space provided to federal inmates. Table 3.5 shows that the 

operations costs at the federal prisons were, on average, higher than 

those at the state prisons in every category except salary costs, which 

were substantially less. As previously discussed, we found that the federal prisons used fewer staff relative to their inmate populations, but 

that no statistical relationship existed in either federal or state prisons 

between the space provided to inmates and the staffing levels. BOP officials relied on subjective assessments to support such a link. 

State Prison 

Operations Costs 

Differed by 

Geographic Region 

For the state prisons in our sample, operations costs were affected by 

the geographic regions in which the prisons were located. However, 

unlike our results for construction costs, our results for operations costs 

showed the Midwest state prisons- not those in the South-reported 

the lowest operations cost per inmate day. The federal prisons did not 

appear to be affected by regional differences in operations costs, probably because of the uniform national pay scales in effect at the time of 

our review. Table 3.6 shows the average daily operations cost per 

inmate by geographic region for the participating prisons and the associated percentages for each category of expense. 

Page 59 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costa 
Chapter 8 

Federal Prisons Cost. Lens to Operate Per 

Inmate Day Than State P&on@ 

Table 3.5: Average Daily inmate Operation8 Costs by Geographic Region 

Expense category 

Rent, 

Salarza;;: communications, Supplies and 

Category Services and utilities materials All other Total 

._.. . _..--._.--.-. ..-- - . . . . ..-... --- 

State prisons 

- ..----.-. - ----..---___ 

West (3) $34.21 $0.64 $2.01 $5.68 $1.79 $44.33 

.__- 

Percentages 77% 1% 5% 13% 4% 100% 

.~. _...__ -- .._. --_ ..-... -. .._____ 

Midwest (7) $24.36 $1.78 $1.74 $4.37 $0.58 $32.83 ___..-.. ___-.----.-~ .-.---.. ~. 

Percentages 74% 5% 5% 13% 2% 100% 

_ __. - -.... --.. -~. 

Northeast (6) $41.25 $3.89 $1.02 $5.66 $0.47 $52.29 

Percentages 79% 7% 2% 

, , % _._. ~...-- --~6~/o~. --- ioo% 

South (5) $29.38 $4.28 $1.97 $4.64 $0.66 $40.93 

Percentages 72% 10% 5% 1 1% 2% 100% 

Federal prisons 

West (1) 

Percentages 

$37-137 

South (1) - 

Percentaaes 

._ ...--.-.-~~~ 

$24.30 $4.22 $1.71 $6.08 $1.25 . ._. 

..--- --- 

65% 11% 5% 16% 3% 106% 

.____--_--- .-.. -----.. 

$23.73 $2.01 $2.65 $6.32 $1.54 $36.25 __.__ __.- 

65% 6% 7% 17% 4% 100% 

Notes: The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of pnsons in each region. Totals are rounded 

Source. GAO analysis of questionnaire data. 

Our analysis also showed that the average annual salaries at the state 

prisons in our sample were highest in the West and lowest in the South. 

Table 3.6 shows average salaries by geographical region for the 21 state 

prisons. 

Table 3.6: Average State Prison Staff 

Salary by Geographic Region 

Region 

Northeast 

Midwest 

-_-- 

South 

West 

Source: Analysis of GAO questionnaire data. 

Number of 

prisons 

6 

7 

5 

3 

Average salary 

$29,315 

$25,659 

$24,757 

$40,714 

In the past, most federal law enforcement agencies determined salary 

levels using a uniform nationwide pay scale. Congress has recently 

passed legislation that will raise starting salaries of BOP staff by about 

16 percent, to be phased in over 2 years beginning in January 1992. The 

Page 60 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 
chapter 3- 

Federal Prisons Cost Less to Operate Per 

Inmate Day Than state Prisons 

legislation also provides locality pay differentials ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent for eight high-cost locations6 When these provisions 

are fully implemented, the differences between federal and state salaries should diminish. BOP does not now consider differences in federal 

salary levels when siting federal correctional facilities, BOP should consider siting prisons, when possible, in areas not affected by locality pay 

differentials. 

Conclusions The federal prisons we reviewed operated at a lower overall cost per 

inmate day than the state prisons. Personnel costs comprised the bulk of 

prison operations costs, and the two federal prisons we reviewed generally paid lower salaries and used fewer staff relative to their inmate 

populations than the state prisons. 

With regard to our objectives, we did not identify any conditions or 

practices at the state prisons that could be used to further reduce federal prison operations costs. However, the full implementation of 

locality pay differentials will provide BOP with an incentive to revise its 

site selection criteria. Salary costs might be curbed by locating new 

prisons in geographic areas not affected by the special pay adjustments 

for law enforcement officers. 

Recommendation to We recommend that the Attorney General require the Director, BOP, to 

the Attorney General consider prevailing labor costs and locality pay differentials when 

selecting sites for new prison construction. 

Agency Comments and In its written comments, Justice generally agreed with our recommendaOur Evaluation tion. Justice’s comments and our detailed responses are included in b 

appendix IV. 

%$ecial pay adjustments for law enforcement officers have been approved for the following areas: 

Boston, 16 percent; Chicago, 4 percent; Los Angeles, 16 percent; New York, 16 percent; Philadelphia, 

4 percent; San Francisco, 16 percent; San Diego, 8 percent; and Washington, DC., 4 percent. Cities in 

these Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas are also entitled to the special pay adjustment. 

Page 61 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
Appendix I 

Examples of Standards of the America 

Correctional Association 

Adult Correctional Institution 

3-4120 The institution conforms to applicable federal, state, and/or local 

buildina codes. (Renovation, addition, and new construction only) 

3-4121 The institution conforms to applicable federal, state, and/or local fire 

safety codes. Compliance is documented by the authority having 

iurisdiction. 

3-4 123 

3-4125 

institutions of more than 500 inmates are divided into distinct, 

semiautonomous management units that encourage positive staff/ 

inmate interactions. Staff within each management unit are delegated 

the authoritv to make decisions reqardinn security classification, 

services, and programs for inmates withi: the unit. 

Single-cell living units shall not exceed 80 inmates. (New construction 

onlv) 

3-4126 

-- 

3-41 27 

3-4128 

The number of inmates does not exceed the facility’s rated bed 

capacity. 

The institution is located within 50 miles of a civilian population center of 

at least 10,000 people, or minimally within one hour’s driving time of a 

hospital, fire protection, and public transportation. (New construction 

only) 

Single cells are required for all security levels except minimum. All cells 

or sleeping areas in which inmates are confined conform with the 

followina reauirements: 

Number of OccuDants Amount of Unencumbered Space 

1 35 SF. 

- 

2 _ 50 

(minimum custody status only) 

35 SF. per occupant* 

“Sleeping area partitions required if more 

than four people in one sleepinq area. 

When confinement exceeds 10 hours per day there are at least 80 

square feet of total floor space per occupant. “Unencumbered space” 

is usable space that is not encumbered by furnishings or fixtures. At 

least one dimension of the unencumbered space is no less than seven 

feet. In determining unencumbered space, all fixtures must be in 

operational position and must provide the following minimum areas per 

person: bed, plumbing fixtures, desk, and locker. 

3-4130 Dayrooms with space for varied inmate activities are situated 

immediately adjacent to the inmate sleeping areas but are separated 

from them bv a floor-to-ceiling wall. 

Dayrooms provide a minimum of 3.5 square feet of space per inmate 

(exclusive of lavatories, showers, and toilets) for the maximum number 

of inmates who use the dayroom at one time, and no dayroom 

encompasses less than 100 square feet of space (exclusive of 

lavatories, showers, and toilets). 

3-4136 

----.__... 

All cells/rooms in segregation provide a minimum of 80 square feet, of 

which 35 square feet is unencumbered space. 

3-4146 Temperatures in indoor living and work areas are appropriate to the 

summer and winter comfort zones. 

3-4151 Dining space is sufficient to serve all inmates in four or fewer shifts per 

meal while giving each inmate the opportunity to have at least 20 

minutes of dinina time for each meal. 

Page 62 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 

(continued) 

,” 
Appendix I 

JZ%amplmu of Standards of the American 

Correctional Association 

3.4164 The institution’s perimeter is controlled by appropriate means to provide 

that inmates remain within the perimeter and to prevent access by the 

aeneral public without proDer authorization. 

3-4410 

-..- 

3-4447 

Written policy, procedure, and practice provide for a comprehensive 

education program, available to all inmates who are eligible, that 

includes the following: 

-educational philosophy and goals 

-communications skills 

-general education 

-basic academic skills 

-GED preparation 

-special education 

-vocational education 

-postsecondary education 

-other education programs as dictated by the needs of the institutional 

population 

The institution maintains and/or provides access to comprehensive 

library services that include, but are not limited to, a reference collection 

containing general and specialized materials, and planned and 

continuous acquisition of materials to meet the needs of the institutional 

staff and inmates. 

Source: Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 3rd Edition, American Correctional Association/ 

Commission on Accreditation. 

Page 63 GAO/GGD-823 Prlaon Costa 
Appendix II 

The 32 State Prisons Submitting Questionnaires 

Used in Analysis of Construction Costs 

State Priron 

- 

Arkansas Varner Unit, Gradv 

Anzona Arizona State Prison Complex - Winslow, Winslow 

- _. . ..-_. ..- ~-- 

California California State Prison, Corcoran 

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, Blythe 

Mule Creek State Prison, lone 

Colorado 

D;stnct of Columbia 

Flo&a 

Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, Crowley 

Modular Facility, Lorton, Virginia 

Calhoun Correctional Institution, Blountstown 

lllrnois Danville Correctional Center, Danville 

Hill Correctional Center, Galesbur 

Illinois River Correctional Center, 8 anton 

Western Illinois Correctional Center, Mt. Sterling 

Indiana 

Kentucky 

L&r&aria 

Correctional Industrial Complex, Pendleton ~- 

Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, West Liberty 

Avovelles Correctional Center, Cottenport 

Massachusetts Old Colony Correctional Center, Bridgewater 

Michigan E. C. Brooks Regional Facility, Muskegon 

Carson Cit Regional Facility, Carson City 

Chippewa f emporary Correctional Facility, Kincheloe 

- -.----- ---- 

Nevada Ely State Prison, Ely New’Je;sey. . .._...-.- ..-.. 

Northern State Prison, Newark 

Riverfront Correctional Facility, Camden 

New York Cayuga Correctional Facility, Moravia 

_. I_. _. ._ _ --_--..-.--.-~- 

North Carolina Craggy Correctional Center, Asheville 

Ghio Dayton Correctional I%$tution, Dayton 

Ross Correctional Institution, Chillicothe 

Pennsylvania 

South Carolrnc’ 

Wrsoonsin 

State Correctional Institution at Frackville, Frackville 

State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Huntingdon 

-- __. ~- 

McCormick Correctional Institution, McCormick 

Allendale Correctional Institution, Fairfax 

Evans Correctional Institution, Bennettsville 

Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Oshkosh 

b 

Page 04 

‘. 

” 

;,, !. 

GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Cbsts 
Appendix III 

The 21 Stak Prisons Submitting Questionnaires 

Used in Analysis of Operations Costs 

State Prison ______-__....._ - _.._ -...-- _... 

California California State Prison, Corcoran 

Mule Creek State Prison, lone 

Colorado Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, Crowley 

_ .._ _. ..^ .._.. _.__. . ..- .- -. -. .._. --- ..-- 

Florida Calhoun Correctional Institution, Blountstown 

_ __-_ .._ .__-_ ~. -..- .._ --..--_ 

Georgia Al Burruss Correctional Training Center, Forsyth .” __..__ ._.. _..._ .- . -. --... ~-- 

Illinois Danville Correctional Center, Danville 

Hill Correctional Center, Galesburg 

Kansas Hutchinson Correctional Work Facility, Hutchinson 

,.._. I._ . .“... -.. ..-.I ..---.....-1.1- 

Maryland Eastern Correctional Institution, Westover 

.._._ _- ..-..- .~_~ . . .-..- ~. - 

Massachusetts Old Colony Correctional Center, Bridgewater ^.._.._- _ .,,.__ l__l .- 

Michrgan Chippewa Temporary Correctional Facility, Kincheloe 

___.___.. ._ ..~ -.. -- - --. - 

New Jersey Northern State Prison, Newark 

Riverfront Correctional Facility, Camden 

,.__ 

New York 

_ .~ _.. -...--- 

Cayuga Correctional Facility, Moravia 

_..-.._ ..._.. ---. 

North Carolrna Craggy Correctional Center, Asheville 

____....._.... _-.-.. .--.-.-.-.-.- 

Ohro Dayton Correctional Institution, Dayton 

Ross Correctional Institution, Chillicothe 

Pennsyivanra State Correctional Institution at Frackville, Frackville 

State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, Huntingdon 

South Carolina McCormick Correctional Institution, McCormick 

_.- ..__” _“._. -. . . - 

Wisconsin Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Oshkosh 

--- 

Page 66 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Cc&a 

‘^ .1 

““,. I 
Appendix IV 

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those rn the 

report text appear at the 

end of thrs appendrx. U.S. Department of Justice 

JUL 29 1991 Wo$hingfon, D.C. 20330 

Richard L. Fogel 

Assistant Comptroller General 

U. S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Fogel: 

This letter responds to your request for comments on the draft 

report entitled "PRISON COSTS: Opportunities Exist to Lower the 

Cost of Building Federal Prisons." Before discussing the 

Department's specific concerns with the draft report we would 

like to make some general observations and discuss the framework 

of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operating philosophy. 

The Department is pleased with the GAO finding that the operating 

costs of BOP facilities in the study are much lower than the 

average costs of the state prisons involved. Since operating 

costs are many times the cost of construction over the long life 

of a typical prison, we can conclude that the overall cost of 

imprisoning federal offenders is very economical when compared to 

state systems. Most notably, GAO finds that BOP uses 27 nercent 

fewer stnef to operate its medium security prisons than the 

state8 use. This fact reflects very positively on the BOP's 

emphasis on prudent use of resources. The Department believes 

this finding should have received greater attention in the 

report, and the possible reasons for the success of the Bureau's 

resource utilization examined in more detail. In fact, BOP's 

design considerations, in part, permit the Bureau's frugal 

staffing pattern. The increased space enhances security by 

increasing internal visibility. BOP's institution designs also 

promote positive interaction between staff and inmates, and 

inmate participation in programs, thereby keeping inmates 

productively occupied and improving their post-release chances 

for successful reintegration into community life. Further, BOP 

strives to construct institutions conducive to hiring and 

retaining professional staff. 

The Department is cognizant of the high cost of imprisonment and 

shares GAO's concerns about decreasing costs. However, prison 

design standard decisions must be considered in the context of 

providing a safe, secure, and constitutional prison environment 

for offenders in our custody. If the need to minimize 

construction costs is not balanced with the requirements of 

federal law and good security, we risk serious incidents or 

disturbances which could result in considerable human suffering, 

very high costs, disruption to federal law enforcement efforts, 

and harm to the public interest. 

Pa8r68 GAO/GGD92-3 Prison Costs 
AppendixIV 

CommentsFmmtheU.S.Department 

of Justice 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See p. 52 

See comment 5. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Mr. Richard L. Fogel 2 

BOP ham concluded its review of the extent to which capacity of 

current institutions should be rated for double occupancy 

(placing two inmates in a room or cell, also known as "doublebunking"). As of July 1, 1991, BOP implemented policy changes 

which increased the rated capacity of low and medium security 

institutions (with housing space comparable to the institutions 

in this study) by substantially expanding the use of double 

occupancy. BOP wa8 stimulated in its review by the issues raised 

by GAO, especially with regard to the use of double occupancy. 

Within the above context, we believe BOP's activities will 

alleviate GAO’s basic concerns. With its new policy in effect, 

the cost par inmate and space per inmate for the BOP institutions 

analyzed in this study will be reduced by 33 percent. This meets 

GAO's key recommendation that standards be substantially changed 

to reduce building costs. The report's second recommendation, to 

consider reducing multi-purpose space, becomes inconsequential 

from a cost perspective. While GAO’s third recommendation would 

cut costs, it reflects current BOP practice. At present, BOP has 

some 30 sites for building long-term prisons in various stages of 

development; none of these sites are in locality pay areas. If 

future Federal Detention Centers (for pre-trial offenders) are 

located in higher pay areas it will be unavoidable. 

While the Department generally agrees with GAO's recommendations, 

some aspects of the analysis to reassess design standards are 

disappointing. Many important issues were either not addressed 

or inadequately integrated into findings. In this study, GAO 

analyses four BOP facilities built from 1985 to 1989 and makes 

recommendations to change "current prison design standards." As 

noted, the Department agrees that it should plan to provide less 

space per inmate than it did when these four institutions were 

designed and constructed. Present design standards for future 

prison construction have been changed significantly already. 

BOP d-dsion to im.rease rated catxdty by exl3andina use of 

double. Based on an extensive staff review, BOP has 

concluded that it would be able to effectively and securely 

manage the inmate population in medium security institutions by 

double bunking 50 percent of rooms having over 75 square feet of 

space. Reserving rooms for single occupancy will improve 

security and provide an important incentive for positive inmate 

behavior. In addition, BOP will need flexibility to handle the 

surges in the inmate population the Department expects are very 

likely to occur. 

For the institutions in this study, the effect of this policy 

change is to reduce the construction cost per bed from $70,000 to 

$46,667. Significantly, this figure is 15 percent below the 

average state cost of $55,000. Space per inmate will decrease 

from 643 square feet per inmate to 429 square feet per inmate: 

Pa@?67 GAO/GGD92-3 PrisonCosts 
AppendixN 

CommentsFrom the U.&Department 

ofJustice 

See comment 6. 

See pp. 54-56 

See comment 7 

See comment 8 

Page68 GAO/GGD-92-3PrisonCosts 

/ '; 

Mr. Richard L. Fogel 3 

however, it will remain 7 percent higher thar the average 401 

square feet per inmate for state facilities. This is the result 

of the much lower cost per square foot of BOP construction. 

CVCle costs need to be awessed more fu A more 

thorough examination of life cycle costs should reflect favorably 

upon BOP's design policies. Though the report indicates that 

overall BOP institution operating costs are 13 percent lower than 

those of comparable states, the significance of this finding is 

ignored in the report. If one projects the lVcurrent dollar" 

savings of $5.45 per inmate per day over 40 years for a typical 

institution of 750 inmates, then V1lifetimelt savings for a BOP 

institution would be almost $60 million dollars over the average 

state institution. Even if the current difference in BOP salary 

level6 and those of the states is reduced, the savings would 

still be in the neighborhood of $50 million dollars over the l'.fe 

of the facility. 

Although far fewer resources are involved, GAO's dismissal of the 

issue of durability of prison construction is a flaw in its 

analysis. Though a broad inquiry into construction durability 

might have been beyond the scope of the study, it should have 

been discussed more thoroughly. One of the design principles of 

BOP is to build durable institutions which will last for many 

yeare with a minimum of maintenance. We think BOP compares very 

favorably with most states in this regard. In addition, BOP 

facility designs are much more likely to allow for secondary use 

(such as a home for the elderly), should any be eventually closed 

as prisons. Certainly, this fact may eventually make these 

structures even more valuable to society. 

'8 ruction cost comtzarisons is iIlggI2ronriate. 

In the draft report GAO uges the original design capacity to 

determine scost per bed". This position is problematic, for 

' Additional construction or renovation at the four 

facilities in the study will not be planned as a result of this 

policy change. Therefore, computing cost figures in this 

retrospective manner is appropriate, because in no instance does 

BOP anticipate or plan that future population levels will be less 

than the revised rated capacity levels. 

* BOP's "acceptable level of crowding@8 position was a 

defensible and appropriate one. Of course, the issue is now moot 

because of the change in rated capacity policy. However, it is 

puzzling that GAO explicitly rejected BOP's position in this 

study, since GAO had previously accepted just such a rationale in 

their 1989 report entitled "PRISON CROWDING: Issues Facing the 

Nation's Prison Systems" (see page 17). 
Appendix IV 

Comments FromtheU.S.Department 

ofJustice 

See comment 7 

See comment 2 

See comment 9. 

Page 69 GAO/GGD-92-3 PrisonCost. 

Mr. Richard L. Fogel 4 

reasons that are evident from information to be found in the 

report itself. The cost figures which should be used for 

comparison ought to be those which will most accurately estimate 

the actual costs to be incurred by the governments involved. 

While determining these cost figures may be as difficult as 

predicting future inmate populations, it is preferable to using 

figures that are irrelevant to the actual number of inmates 

incarcerated. As GAO indicated, the study prisons were operating 

well above capacity, but at rates that varied considerably. 

Therefore, the comparisons that GAO made do not reflect actual 

differences. 

II outout II va 

Although the Department agrees with the primary theme of this 

report, we disagree with the analysis by which GAO reached its 

conclusions. For its comparison to be considered complete, GAO 

should discuss system output variables and integrate them into 

the analysis of design and construction cost issues. For 

example, the study does not address how design changes or 

construction cost reductions might affect BOP's capability to 

perform its statutory mission. BOP is required to "provide 

suitable quarters and provide for the safekeeping, care, and 

subsistence of all (prisoners) . . . provide for the protection, 

instruction, and discipline of all (prisoners)." (See 18 U.S.C. 

54042). Design changes might affect the security of a prison or 

ite capability to deliver educational programs. GAO should 

review these crucial issues in its evaluation of BOP's position 

and policies. GAO's failure to discuss these issues limits its 

analysis and its data. All of the comparisons of cost data are 

questionable without reference to output or product variables. 

An important indicator of the impact of design standards on the 

ability of a prison system to carry out its responsibilities is 

the nature and number of lawsuits brought in federal courts. 

Currently, over 40 state correctional systems have one or more 

consent decrees or court judgments concerning conditions of 

confinement pending against them. BOP has none. Litigation is 

not only disruptive, it is expensive, especially if the 

government agency is on the losing side. If BOP has been able to 

avoid losing important lawsuits, it may in large measure be due 

to the design and operational philosophies of the organization. 

Surely, these important policies should not be changed simply 

because there are prison design differences with state 

facilities; however, this is precisely what GAO is suggesting. 

The Calhoun, Florida, facility that GAO relied on heavily as a 

comparison in this study, is under an extensive court order 

(&&Q& ye I]uaaer) involving overcrowding, medical, food 

services, and mental health issues. 

4 
- 

Appendix IV 

CommentsFromtheU.S.Department 

of Justice 

/ 

See comment 10 

See comment 5. 

Mr. Richard L. Fogel 5 

Other- The GAO assertion that the BOP population is 

"more tractable" is an example of the danger of using only one 

piece of data to make a general conclusion. Since the nature of 

federal criminal jurisdiction differs from that of the states, 

one would expect fewer medium security inmates to have been 

imprisoned in the BOP for a violent offense. However, a large 

percentage of federal medium security inmates have a history of 

violence, and their offenses are much more criminally 

sophisticated. Federal inmates at this level spend much more 

time imprisoned than state inmates do, surely a measure of the 

seriousness of the population. For example, inmates at the 

Calhoun, Florida, facility spend on the average only 10 to 12 

months there. Over half of the inmates at the BOP facility in 

Marianna, by contrast, have an expected length of incarceration 

in excess of 5 years. While there are clearly differences 

between the federal and state inmates, those differences most 

definitely are not indicative of a need for fewer staff. BOP'S 

operating philosophy is the principal factor in the need for 

fewer staff. 

GAO's analysis on the issue of locating prisons close to inmate 

homes is also lacking. GAO suggests that BOP deemphasize this 

factor (it is only one of many currently used) and reports that 

many BOP inmates are a considerable distance from home already. 

The implication, never stated or analyzed, is that it is 

acceptable for inmates to be even farther from their homes. The 

Department does not accept this proposition. GAO does not 

mention, much less discuss, the possible effects of such a 

policy. 

The Department believes that the BOP has taken the actions 

necessary to respond to GAO concerns. BOP will continue to 

review its design plans for the future to ensure that prison 

construction and operating costs are as low as is in the interest 

of the organization and the federal criminal justice system. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on this 

important draft report. 

Sincerely, 

A&i&ant Attorney General 

for Administration 

Page 70 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costa 

4 
Appendix N 

Commentrr From the U.S. Department 

of Justice 

7. Justice said that the per-bed construction costs we reported should 

have been based on actual inmate populations. We believe this approach 

would have been inappropriate because the calculations would change 

significantly with normal fluctuations in population or when additional 

prison construction increases systemwide capacity and lowers the 

crowding rate of particular facilities. In our opinion, the most appropriate cost measurement standard is the one that measures costs in 

terms of the number of inmates the facility was designed, funded, and 

constructed to house. This measure is the one commonly used in the corrections community to calculate cost per bed. 

8. Justice said they believe BOP’S use of the “acceptable level of 

crowding” as a basis for computing cost per bed was defensible and 

appropriate. Justice said that we explicitly rejected BOP’S position in this 

study, but that we had previously accepted just such a rationale in our 

1989 report, Prison Crowding: Issues Facing the Nation’s Prison System 

(GAO/GGDBO-lBR, Nov. 2, 1989). 

We believe it would be inappropriate to use acceptable crowding rates in 

a cross-jurisdictional analysis because (1) these rates are systemwide 

planning factors that are not based on the size or capacity of any particular prison; (2) the percentages used as the acceptable crowding rates 

have been subject to change, and any change significantly affects the 

cost calculations; (3) many states operated their prisons above the rated 

capacity but have not officially stated an acceptable crowding rate; and 

(4) some states that did not specify an acceptable crowding rate planned 

to accommodate some overcrowding by oversizing some elements of the 

facilities (e.g., dining room, sewer lines) and incurring additional construction costs in doing so. Moreover, cost per bed on the basis of 

planned capacity is the measure commonly used in the corrections community to compare construction costs. With respect to our earlier report, a 

we showed per-bed construction costs from the perspectives of both 

rated capacity and the 30 percent acceptable crowding rate. We did not 

accept or endorse the latter rate. Further, that report did not attempt to 

compare and contrast BOP’S construction costs with those of the states. 

9. Justice noted that the Calhoun Florida facility that we used in our 

comparison of construction costs is “under an extensive court order.” 

Justice implied that the court order resulted from Calhoun’s low cost 

design. However, information furnished us by the State of Florida indicates that this is not the case. The court order in question was issued in 

Costello v. Dugger, a lawsuit filed in 1972 by Florida state prisoners 

alleging the denial of medical treatment and other unsuitable conditions 

Page 74 GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costa 

.’ 
Appendix IV 

Commenta From the U.S. Department 

of Justice 

of confinement. The Calhoun facility is subject to the court order outstanding in the Costello case only because it is part of the Florida state 

prison system. However, Calhoun, which opened 2 years ago, was built 

as part of Florida’s recent prison construction program aimed at alleviating overcrowding- one of the conditions at issue in Costello. We have 

no reason to believe that Calhoun’s design in any way contributed to 

overcrowding or the other prison conditions at issue in the lawsuit. 

10. Justice took exception with a phrase in the draft report that characterized the BOP population as “more tractable.” We did not mean to 

imply that there are no violent inmates in medium security federal 

prisons. However, available evidence showed that state prisons contained a much higher percentage of inmates serving sentences for violent crimes than federal prisons. Also, state prison inmates, on average, 

are much younger than federal inmates. It seems reasonable to conclude 

that younger, more violent inmates would require more supervision and 

that this need would contribute in part to the need for relatively higher 

staffing levels at state prisons. Further, Justice’s assertion about shorter 

average sentences served by state inmates in general, and inmates at the 

Calhoun facility in particular, does not consider differences among jurisdictions in possible sentences for similar crimes, the lack of parole for 

newly convicted federal inmates, and the fact that some state inmates 

might be released before their entire sentence is served to achieve a 

court-ordered cap on the prison population. Nevertheless, we deleted the 

phrase “more tractable” from the final report because tractability was 

not the main issue. 

Page 75 

, 

GAO/GGD-92-3 Prison Costs 

‘. 
Ppe 

): kz; Contributors to This Report 

General Government Richard M. Stana, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice Issues 

(202) 666-0026 

Division, Washington, Gail T,‘Trisler, Assignment Manager 

i D.C. Thomas H. Givens, DMTAG Analyst 

Katherine Kitzmiller, Secretary/Typist 

Los Angeles Regional Danny M. Bullock, Evaluator-in-Charge 

Richard R. Griswold, Senior Evaluator 

Office Jean M. Orland, Evaluator 

David G. Artadi, Evaluator 

(ll#2ROA) Page 76 GAO/GGD-923 Prison Costa 
Ortttving Inforrnatiorr 

Ortlt~rs may also be platvtl by stalling (202) 275-624 1. 
~---....-_---...---------- 

_ ..__ . .^ ..* I ,,.. _-. ” . ...” -._.... ---__“-..------ .__..._....-_... ..-- ..- .