Federal Bureau of Prisons Mission Statement

The Federal Bureau of Prisons protects society by

confining offenders in the controlled environments of

prisons and community-based facilities that are safe,

humane, and appropriately secure, and which provide

work and other self-improvement opportunities to

assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.

Cultural Anchors/Core Values

n Bureau family

The Bureau of Prisons recognizes that staff are the

most valuable resource in accomplishing its mission,

and is committed to the personal welfare and professional development of each employee. A concept of

“Family” is encouraged through healthy, supportive

relationships among staff and organization responsiveness to staff needs, The active participation of staff at

all levels is essential to the development and accomplishment of organizational objectives.

n Sound correctional management

The Bureau of Prisons maintains effective security and

control of its institutions utilizing the least restrictive

means necessary, thus providing the essential foundation for sound correctional management programs.

n Correctional workers first

All Bureau of Prisons staff share a common role as

correctional worker, which requires a mutual responsibility for maintaining safe and secure institutions and

for modeling society’s mainstream values and norms.

n Promotes integrity

The Bureau of Prisons firmly adheres to a set of values

that promotes honesty and integrity in the professional

efforts of its staff to ensure public confidence in the

Bureau’s prudent use of its allocated resources.

n Recognizes the dignity of all

Recognizing the inherent dignity of all human beings

and their potential for change, the Bureau of Prisons

treats inmates fairly and responsively and affords them

opportunities for self-improvement to facilitate their

successful re-entry into the community. The Bureau

further recognizes that offenders are incarcerated as

punishment, not for punishment.

n Career service orientation

The Bureau of Prisons is a career-oriented service,

which has enjoyed a consistent management philosophy and a continuity of leadership, enabling it to

evolve as a stable, professional leader in the field of

corrections.

n Community relations

The Bureau of Prisons recognizes and facilitates the

integral role of the community in effectuating the

Bureau’s mission, and works cooperatively with other

law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other

components of government.

n High standards

The Bureau of Prisons requires high standards of

safety, security, sanitation, and discipline, which

promote a physically and emotionally sound environment for both staff and inmates.
From the Attorney General

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is one of the paramount correctional

agencies in the United States, and it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce the 199I edition of the State of the Bureau.

In April 1992, the Department of Justice sponsored an Attorney

General’s Summit on Corrections, in which the Bureau played a

significant role. Among the participants were correctional administrators, prosecutors, legislators, judges, and community corrections

and victims’ representatives working at the Federal, State, and

local levels. Issues discussed at the Summit are vital to the eflectiveness of our Nation 5 criminal justice system-the expansion of

prison capacity for serious, repeat offenders; efSicient prison operations; emerging legal issues; intermediate punishments for

nonserious offenders; and efSective correctional programs.

American correctional systems face enormous challenges in the 1990’s. We must continue to ensure

that there will be suflicient capacity in our jails and prisons to handle the chronic predators who commit a staggering number of crimes. Thus, the leadership provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is

especially important. The Bureau is in the forefront of important correctional issues, such as inmate

classification, mandatory literacy, inmate work programs, and, as this issue illustrates, progressive

drug treatment to help offenders return to a drug-free and crime-free life in the community after the

completion of their terms of incarceration.

I personally observed the professionalism of Bureau staff during the August 1991 hostage-taking episode in Talladega, Alabama. While I was most thankful for the safe release of all the hostages, I was

also very impressed with the outstanding teamwork displayed by the Bureau, the FBI, and other Department of Justice personnel as a model for law enforcement.

This publication conveys the broad scope of Bureau programs, as well as more detailed information

about what the Bureau is doing to address one of the Department of Justice S major priorities-eradicating drug abuse in America. But the State of the Bureau also conveys a sense of the dedication of

Bureau staff as they meet one of the most diflicult challenges in the U.S. criminal justice system.

William P Barr

Attorney General

i

1991 has been a year of challenge and accomplishment for the

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Managing an ever-increasing inmate

population and an organization that continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, the Bureau’s almost 22,000 staff deserve the

credit for meeting these challenges. All of our employees should be

proud of their role in the Nation’s criminal justice system.

The year ended with the Bureau confining 71,998 inmates, a record

high. This population upswing continues a trend that has seen the

Bureau's population increase 200 percent since 1980-9.5 percent

in 1991 alone. Despite a crowding rate that hovered between 148

and I60 percent of capacity, Bureau staff managed 68 institutions

safely and securely.

Throughout 1991, the Bureau continued its productive relationships

with the many other agencies that make up the Federal criminal justice system. The Bureau and the

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) continued to support local and State corrections through a

broad range of technical assistance and training programs. While expanding reliance on community

corrections and intermediate punishments, the Bureau continued its efforts to bring mainstream values

into prison through volunteerism and outreach programs.

Because an increasing number of its inmates are committed with substance abuse problems, expanding

the availability of a wide range of drug treatment programs is a high priority for the Bureau. This issue

of the State of the Bureau highlights these treatment programs, and also describes major program and

management developments in the agency in 1991.

Americans can be proud of what the Federal Bureau of Prisons has accomplished in this past year:

More importantly, they should be proud of the men and women who make up the Bureau-and whose

untiring efforts make the organization what it is today.

J. Michael Quinlan

Director; Federal Bureau of Prisons

3


The evolving structure of drug treatment

Since the 1960’s, the Federal Bureau of

Prisons has provided drug treatment

programs for Federal inmates. What

began as limited assistance, primarily to

narcotic-dependent inmates, eventually

expanded into comprehensive substance

abuse programs.

Prior to the enactment of the Narcotic

Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA) of

1966, some Federal inmates who had

histories of narcotics abuse received

assistance in U.S. Public Health Service

hospitals located in Federal institutions

in Lexington, Kentucky, and Fort

Worth, Texas.

NARA mandated drug treatment for all

addicts who were incarcerated under its

provisions. It called for the creation of

unit-based programs (housing units

separate from the general inmate

population and staffed by teams that

included drug treatment professionals)

and for aftercare (postrelease counseling

and urinalysis). The first of five such

units was opened in March 1968, at the

Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in

Danbury, Connecticut.

Most of these drug treatment units were

based on the “therapeutic community”

model (a 24-hour learning environment

using both peers and staff as role

models), with an emphasis on group

therapy. All NARA participants were

required to participate in postrelease

aftercare-frequent urinalyses and

community-based counseling.

Long-term evaluations of the NARA

programs, published as recently as 1988,

concluded that the programs “. . . worked

reasonably well, or as well as any other

type of intervention has worked for the

narcotic addict.” However, many

inmates who could benefit from such

programs were not sentenced under the

restrictive NARA statutes-for example,

repeat offenders and inmates whose

current offense involved violence.

Beginning in 1971, drug treatment units

were opened to serve such inmates; by

1978, there were 33 of these units in

Federal institutions.

While these treatment programs were

not standardized, they generally included an orientation period, unit-based

programming (such as group therapy

sessions and individual counseling),

eventual participation in institution

programs (educational, vocational,

recreational), prerelease counseling, and

postrelease aftercare.

By 1979, the Bureau required drug

treatment programs in all its institutions

to meet the NARA standards. The Drug

Abuse Incare Manual, published in

1979, called for unit-based drug treatment programs in all institutions and

specified minimum standards in such

areas as program certification and staff

qualifications.

By the mid-1980’s, however, a climate

of skepticism was prominent regarding

the feasibility of any rehabilitative

programs (summed up by the slogan

“nothing works”). Evaluation efforts

during this period were less intensive;

evaluation techniques (e.g., controlling

for severity of addiction, motivation for

selection, and quality of program

delivery) were not built into the design

of these later programs, severely

restricting the possibility of a thorough

evaluation.

A task force, which met in 1985 to

review the Bureau’s drug treatment

programs, concluded that the programs

had begun to erode due to the diversion

of resources for other high-priority

purposes, the pressures of an increasing

inmate population, and a shortage of

properly trained staff.

In 1986, a policy statement called for the

establishment of a Drug Abuse Program

Coordinator in each institution. Each

warden was to decide on the type of

program to be offered and the number of

staff to devote to drug treatment. Most

institutions chose centralized programs,

in which inmates housed throughout the

institution participated in program

activities at a central location. By

1987, only three unit-based programs

remained.

Except for the NARA programs, most of

the Bureau’s substance abuse treatment

programs were considered “low intensity,” emphasizing drug education.

About one third of the institutions

utilized “12-step” programs such as

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and

Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Other

programs available included group

psychotherapy and training in communication skills, personal development,

values clarification, stress management,

positive thinking, and assertiveness.

Some programs offered individualized

counseling, vocational planning, and

prerelease planning. With the influx of
Hispanic inmates, some institutions

provided programs for those not fluent

in English.

This mix of programs continues, along

with the new programs described in the

next section. At the end of 1991, nearly

15,000 inmates—about 23 percent of the

total sentenced inmate population—

were enrolled in a substance abuse or

drug education program.

A multidimensional

treatment program

In 1988, the Bureau of Prisons reestablished the position of National Drug

Abuse Program Coordinator to oversee

the development and implementation of

new drug treatment strategies for

Federal inmates. In addition to continuing the existing low-intensity programs,

revised drug education programs and

new “unit-based” intensive treatment

programs (see p. 7) have been instituted.

In addition, each institution now has a

Drug Abuse Program Coordinator.

Among other duties, the coordinator

ensures that incoming inmates are

screened to assess treatment program

needs.

The Bureau’s emerging multidimensional approach to drug treatment builds

on the programs previously in existence

and adds some new ones:

n Drug education programs— A

classroom-oriented drug education

program is the only required substance

abuse program for inmates who have a

history of substance abuse. All inmates

for whom there is evidence that alcohol

or other drug use contributed to the

commission of their offense must

participate, as well as individuals whose

alcohol or other drug use was a reason

Pilot/Comprehensive programs

Current and projected for 1992

for a violation of parole or probation

supervision, and inmates who are

recommended by the court. About 7,500

inmates completed drug education

programs in 1991, up from 1,613 in

1990; approximately 9,000 completions

are projected for 1992.

Criteria for completion include maintaining class attendance and receiving a

passing score on a written test. As an

incentive to stay in the program, inmates

who fail to complete are restricted to the

lowest inmate pay grade.

n Drug counseling services— Nonresidential counseling services are available

on a voluntary basis at all institutions.

These services build on the “lowintensity” group and individual services

currently available at most facilities,

enhanced by additional staff and

resources. The low-intensity services

include self-help groups such as AA and

NA, group therapy sessions, stress

management and personal development

training, and vocational and prerelease

planning. Some programs have specific

lengths and completion criteria, while

others allow inmates to participate in

ongoing therapy. The contributions of

community volunteers are especially

important during this stage; many have

devoted thousands of hours in support of

AA, NA, and other self-help efforts.

A psychologist or drug abuse treatment

specialist coordinates all activities. The

frequency and duration of each inmate’s

participation in drug counseling services

is tracked using both the Bureau’s

computerized Psychological Data

System and a “drug assignment”

category on the SENTRY management

information system.

n Residential drug abuse treatment

programs— There are two types of

residential programs: comprehensive

programs and pilot programs. Both

accept volunteer inmate participants

only. Priority is given to inmates who

have 18 to 24 months remaining until

8
their release date, both to ensure that

there is sufficient time to complete the

program and to allow a smooth transition to community reintegration and

aftercare.

Inmates apply for admission through

their case managers, who must determine that the inmates have no detainers,

pending charges, or other obligations

that could interfere with placement in a

prerelease or aftercare program; no

history of assaultive behavior; and no

serious medical problems.

Inmates meeting these criteria are

referred to an institution psychologist

for assessment. Only inmates who have

a moderate to serious substance abuse

problem are eligible. The programs are

unit-based (placing inmates in fairly

self-contained living units, each with its

own custody/counseling staff “team,”

helps promote positive inmate/staff

interaction and resolve problems

quickly); each unit houses 1 OO- 125

offenders.

The residential programs are based upon

a “biopsychosocial” understanding of

substance abuse. In contrast to earlier

treatment models, a biopsychosocial

model takes into account a variety of

factors leading to substance abusehereditary, psychological, and sociological. Treatment includes a strong relapse

prevention component aimed at providing inmates with the skills to cope with

high-risk situations. Inmates are taught

how to take responsibility for their

choices, respond to a lapse (a single

incidence of return to drug use), and

achieve a positive lifestyle characterized

by a balance between work and recreation and by healthy habits (such as

exercise) to reduce stress.

Major features of residential programs

n Programs based in living units.

n Treatment staff-to-inmate ratio of

1:24 for comprehensive programs and

1:12 for pilot programs.

n Program duration of 9 months or

500 treatment hours for comprehensive programs, and 12 months or

1,000 hours for pilot programs.

n Prerequisite of 40 hours’ drug

education.

H About 3 hours of treatment programming per day.

n Up to 40 hours of comprehensive

assessment, beginning upon entry.

n 280 hours of group/individual

counseling.

n 40 hours of transitional living

issues.

n Full team reviews every 90 days

H Treatment program reviews ever:

30 days.

n 100 hours of health promotion/

disease prevention training.

n Increased urinalysis surveillance

n Individualized treatment plans

based on assessment.

n Preference to inmates who are

within 18-24 months of release.

n Comprehensive transitional

services upon release.

programs, but provide a more intensive

Three of the residential programs

treatment experience for participants.

Evaluation studies should thus be able to

involve larger investments of staff and

determine whether the level of resources

invested in the pilot or comprehensive

fiscal resources and are considered pilot

program produces the best results.

research programs. The pilot programs

are very similar to the comprehensive

those in Fiscal Year 1990 by approximately 39 percent.

custody to the supervision of U.S.

Probation. It is discussed on p.13.

Overall Drug Abuse Program enrollments in Fiscal Year 1991 exceeded

n Staffing issues-Spending for Bureau

Drug Abuse Programs increased from

approximately $8 million in Fiscal Year

1990 to slightly more than $10 million

in Fiscal Year 1991. Most of this is

accounted for by new substance abuse

treatment staff. Nationwide, 102 new

positions were added; more than 98

percent of these were direct-care

treatment positions.

During 1991, 7 additional comprehensive residential units were approved, for

a total of 12. With the 3 pilot units, there

are now 15 residential treatment programs. The total of residential treatment

openings more than doubled in Fiscal

Year 1991, from 925 to 1,863.

n Transitional sewices-Transitional

services are provided to both comprehensive and pilot residential program

participants after their release from

prison. The transitional services component ensures a continuum of treatment

for the inmate transferred to a Community Corrections Center or released from

A Transitional Services Coordinator was

hired at the headquarters level, and

strategies for implementing care for

offenders leaving the residential treatment programs have been developed as

a critical element designed to enhance

9
the inmates’ successful, drug-free

reintegration into the community after

release.

Recruitment for professional positions

such as doctors and psychologists has

often been difficult, due to widespread

misperceptions of prisons and often to

uncompetitive salaries. However, in

1991 the Bureau put an increased

emphasis on recruitment and training of

treatment specialists. Drug Abuse

Program staff increased 59 percent in

1991, from 73 to 123 staff members.

The demand for professional staff has

created a need for specialized drug

abuse training. In response, the Bureau

is developing a training program for

Drug Abuse Treatment Specialists that

focuses on continuing the professional

model of Drug Treatment Programming

for Bureau staff. To help further this, a

Clinical Fellowship was created to

attract a nationally recognized expert to

develop a sound and relevant training

curriculum that will lead to recognized

certification of programs and staff.

In addition, the Bureau is exploring the

possibility of developing a Drug Abuse

Treatment Staff Training Center in a

cooperative venture between the

University of North Carolina and the

Federal Correctional Institution, Butner,

North Carolina.

Bureau of Prisons staff have helped

develop some of the leading training

tools in the field, including a National

Institute of Drug Abuse Research

Monograph on Drug Treatment in

Prisons and Jails (published in 1992); a

Task Force Report on Substance Abuse

and Corrections, published by the

National Institute of Corrections; and

the book Understanding Substance

Abuse and Treatment, published by the

American Correctional Association.
The inmate's experience

with drug treatment

“Corrections must provide training in

literacy, work, and the avoidance of

substance abuse for those prisoners

who will assume the responsibility to

benefit from them. Corrections can

provide the opportunities for selfdevelopment, but only the offender

can make them work.”

J. Michael Quinlan

Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Drug abuse treatment programs can

assist inmates in restructuring their

values—ultimately, changing how they

think, feel, and view the world. A key

element in the change process is for an

inmate to understand that there is a

problem, that treatment is available for

that problem, and that success can be

achieved.

The Bureau of Prisons has adopted this

philosophy in its treatment programs:

the individual must accept responsibility

for his or her substance abuse. Successful treatment can thus lead to empowerment of the individual—rather than

“curing” him or her of a disease, under

the earlier treatment model.

It follows that treatment programs too

must be individualized as much as

possible. Not all addictions are the

same; there are marked differences in

the mechanisms that underlie their

development and maintenance—and,

realistically speaking, in the ability of

treatment staff to modify addictive

behavior patterns. Still, under this

treatment model, a relapse is not a total

failure. Relapse prevention training is

thus an important part of the program.

Each inmate entering the institution

receives a formal psychological screening, in which an assessment is made of

the severity of of any substance abuse

problems (based on a clinical interview

and, in some cases, a written instrument). An inmate is rated as having no

significant problem, a moderate problem

(the use of drugs or alcohol negatively

affected at least one major life area—

work, school, health, family, financial or

legal status—in the 2-year period prior

to arrest), or a serious problem (the

frequent or heavy use of drugs or

alcohol negatively affected two or more

major life areas in the 2-year period

prior to arrest).

In addition to self-referral, inmates are

often recommended for program

participation by their unit team. As

mentioned, the living units in most

Federal prisons are self-contained, each

with its own staff complement (usually a

unit manager, a case manager, and one

or more counselors, with psychologists

and education specialists in support at

the institution level). This “unit management” approach allows more direct and

regular contact between staff and

inmates, thus increasing the accuracy of

treatment staff’s assessments while

defusing many of the tensions that arise

in prison life. Priority for residential

treatment program participation is given

to inmates who have less time remaining

to serve.

11
Before the inmate begins any course of

treatment, he or she is required to sign a

“treatment contract.” The contract

outlines the purpose and methods of

treatment, and any requirements that a

participant should understand before

beginning. It also states that confidentiality ends when a major breach of

security (such as a threat of harm to self

or others) is brought to staff attention.

While individualized counseling is an

important part of an inmate’s treatment

program, the group format is the most

common, allowing interaction and

mutual reinforcement among the

participants.

For security reasons, small groups may

be the preferred way to conduct drug

education and counseling in a mediumor maximum-security facility. Small

groups usually include 8 to 12 participants and meet for 1 to 2 hours each

session. Typically, concepts of addiction

as well as the effects of each type of

drug are discussed. Videos and other

audiovisual aids help stimulate involvement. Inmates are encouraged to express

what they would like to obtain from

participation in the group, and, if

willing, to describe their experiences

with drugs.

Large groups of up to 40, using a more

formal “classroom” approach, can be

effective in relaying information, but are

more difficult to control except in

minimum-security situations. Structure

is essential in such larger groups, and

there is less opportunity for personal

disclosure. In fact, it has been helpful to

discourage personal disclosure in large

groups because confidentiality is more

difficult to enforce.

Groups that focus on attitude change

usually work better if they are more

frequent (even daily as opposed to

weekly or monthly), since the participants’ motivation is usually higher.

Daytime groups in which inmates are

“called out” from work or other duties

have a lower dropout rate than evening

groups. Evening groups have the added

advantage, however, of demonstrating

the participants’ commitment, since

each individual’s desire to participate is

the primary incentive for attendance.

At the end of each program, inmates are

given a certificate of completion. Some

programs also give small tokens such as

t-shirts or baseball caps. Other social

reinforcers—helping develop group

pride—might include sponsoring a

basketball team within the institution

or an art show related to drug abuse.

Flexibility and experimentation are

encouraged among program administrators to increase the involvement of

inmates who can benefit, with successful

methods being communicated to other

administrators.

Inmate participation throughout the

entire drug treatment program is tracked

using the Bureau’s automated data

system, SENTRY. A current and a

historic record for each inmate is

maintained on SENTRY, noting information such as whether the inmate

volunteers for the program. Information

is available at every step of the inmate’s

progress to those managers and treatment staff who have a need to know it.

Finally, the Bureau’s drug treatment

programs stress health promotion and

disease prevention in all their activities.

Such activities as exercise, smoking

cessation, and improved diet are expected of all program participants.

Health is not just the absence of sickness—it is a positive goal that all

inmates can strive for, and an appropriate symbol of the goals of the programs.

12
Reentering the community

All but a very few inmates now in

prison will eventually reenter the

community. For many inmates, away

from the more controlled institutional

environment for the first time in months

or years, this is when serious relapses—

or even the resumption of their old

lifestyles-are most likely.

The criminal justice system’s responsibility for these inmates does not stop at

the moment of their release from prison.

As mentioned previously, the final

transitional services segment of the

Bureau’s drug treatment program will

include two phases. The first phase,

prerelease services, consists of up to 6

months in a Bureau-contracted community corrections center (CCC), with

continued drug treatment provided by

contract community-based treatment

providers.

The second phase, aftercare services, is

coordinated with the U.S. Probation

Service. Community treatment services

are continued as the inmate is released

from Bureau custody to the supervision

of the U.S. Probation Service in the

community. Several requirements have

been adopted for the transitional phase:

n Communication from the institutional treatment provider to the community-based treatment provider.

n Individual and group counseling

sessions for varying time frames.

—A focus on family and work adjustment, residential issues, and relapse

prevention planning (coping with highrisk events) through written assignments

and group discussions.

—Random urinalysis four to six times

per month during the beginning of the

transitional services component and

decreasing in frequency over the

duration of this phase (which will vary

depending on the inmate’s needs).

Inmates who successfully complete

either the comprehensive or the pilot

residential program and who have a

good record of institutional conduct (no

serious rule infractions) will be given

priority for transitional services, which

will be established by contract in a

number of communities to which

inmates from the residential programs

will be released. The number of such

contracts is expected to increase substantially by the end of 1992.

The transitional services component of

the Bureau’s substance abuse treatment

programs is crucial. It eases the inmate’s

often abrupt and potentially unsettling

change from a confined to a free

lifestyle, maintains the continuity of

treatment in the institutional setting, and

enhances the likelihood of an ultimately

successful reentry into the community.

n A treatment plan based on the

individual inmate’s needs, which

includes:

1 3

Research and evaluation

Without information on program and

postrelease outcomes, administrators are

limited in their ability to determine

“what works”—and thereby effectively

invest taxpayers’ dollars in substance

abuse program resources. Without

process and outcome evaluations,

program directors do not receive enough

feedback to make good decisions about

program modification. Since the onset of

plans to expand drug treatment programs, the Bureau’s Office of Research

and Evaluation (ORE) staff have

participated in program planning in

order to design an optimal program

evaluation strategy. In addition, to help

guide the Bureau’s research and evaluation efforts, a Research Advisory Board

for substance abuse programs was set up

in 1991.

The importance of increasing the

knowledge base about drug-abusing

offenders is reflected in a unique

interagency agreement between the

National Institute on Drug Abuse

(NIDA), U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, and the Bureau of

Prisons. In this agreement, NIDA will

provide substantial long-term funding to

support a comprehensive evaluation of

the Bureau’s drug treatment programs.

This evaluation effort is also expected

to be useful to administrators of

other correctional systems and to

policymakers addressing drug use

and crime at the national level.

The evaluation project involves a

multidimensional assessment of program participants with appropriate

comparison groups. These comparison

groups will consist of inmates who do

not participate in treatment programs

and have drug abuse profiles and

demographic characteristics similar

to those of participants. Information

on both in-prison adjustment and

postrelease behavior will be collected

up to 5 years after release.

The research plan incorporates three

basic elements. The process evaluation

will document actual service delivery:

frequency and intensity of services, type

of services, staffing patterns, physical

condition of facilities, level of support

services, integration within the institutional environment, and so on. The

outcome evaluation will address questions about effectiveness: to what extent

did program participation result in

prosocial behavior, such as decreased

criminal behavior, decreased drug use,

and increased periods of employment

after release? Lastly, cost-benefit

analyses will address questions about

the relationship between resources

expended and outcomes achieved for

various programs.

Specific questions to be addressed

include:

n What type(s) of incarcerated offenders are more likely to volunteer for

programs?

n Do particular offender types benefit

more from participation in residential

programs?

n Are longer-duration (pilot) programs

more effective than shorter-duration

(comprehensive) programs?

n Are residential (pilot and comprehensive) programs more effective than

nonresidential (education and counseling) programs?

n What role do transitional services play

in preventing postrelease criminal

behavior or drug use?

n What are the relative effects of

pretreatment characteristics (both

psychological and behavioral), the

treatment program, and the postrelease

environment on the offenders’ outcomes?

The information from these extensive research efforts should assist

policymakers, program directors, and

administrators. For example, if it is

shown that the pilot residential programs

are no more effective than the comprehensive programs in decreasing

postrelease criminal behavior and drug

use, then the long-term programs can be

converted, saving staff and institution

resources.

Research Advisory

Board members

Douglas Anglin, Ph.D.

Drug Abuse Research Group

Los Angeles, California

Helen M. Annis, Ph.D.

Head of Psychology

Addiction Research Foundation

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

James Inciardi, Ph.D.

Division of Criminal Justice

University of Delaware

Newark, Delaware

Michael Maltz, Ph.D.

Department of Criminology

University of Illinois

Chicago, Illinois

G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

15

Outreach and public involvement

To many members of the public, prisons

are synonymous with rampant drug

use—a perception taken from movies

and TV with little basis in reality. One

way to correct such misperceptions is to

bring community members into institutions as volunteers. This has the added

benefit of placing inmates in regular

contact with persons who exhibit

mainstream values.

In the area of drug treatment, self-help

groups such as Alcoholics and Narcotics

Anonymous have traditionally been a

strong component of the services offered

at institutions. Volunteers from these

groups provide specialized services

(family therapy, Adult Children of

Alcoholics counseling, psychopharmacology education, Vietnam veterans’

services, AIDS education) that broaden

the drug education programs. Groups

such as Prison Fellowship and Prisoner

Visitation and Support that provide

spiritual counseling also play an important role in providing guidance to

inmates who want to stay drug-free.

Many staff members and inmates decide

to give something back to the community through participation in antidrug

activities, as these examples show:

n Institutions around the Nation support

participation by staff and inmates in the

national Red Ribbon campaign.

n At the Federal Correctional Institution, Memphis, Tennessee, “Project

Help” brings local high school students

who have been identified as “at risk” for

drug use to the institution for discussions with inmates.

n At the Federal Prison Camp, Yankton,

South Dakota, the Employees’ Club

donated a $100 award to each winner of

a drug awareness essay contest at each

local school.

n At the Federal Correctional Institution, Morgantown, West Virginia,

inmates helped prepare a video, “Grow

Up Drug Free,” that included original

rap music, interviews, and skits, and was

shown at various area schools.

n At the U.S. Penitentiary,

Leavenworth, Kansas, inmates in the

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Treatment

Program have become active in the local

Drug Abuse Resistance Education

(DARE) program. Inmates in the

Vietnam Veterans Association have

begun taping their life stories to provide

to community drug education programs.

n At the Federal Prison Camp, Tyndall,

Florida, inmates developed an antidrug

theatrical presentation for the community. An estimated 10,000 young people

in northern Florida have seen the

program. Congressman Earl Hutto

requested that the inmates present the

program in Washington, D.C., and they

did so in January, performing for

military families and representatives of

Congress at Andrews Air Force Base.

In 1988, the Bureau sponsored a National Drug Treatment Issues Forum in

Washington, D.C.—attended by researchers, administrators, program staff,

practitioners, legislators, and judges.

Bureau of Prisons staff have continued

to take a prominent role in the field,

sponsoring regional symposia, working

with criminal justice programs on the

university level, and presenting at

national conferences. Service providers

in State and local corrections agencies

are also benefiting from the Bureau’s

efforts; Bureau staff have helped

develop training tools and professional

publications used by a number of

agencies.

Looking to the future

In 1991, the Federal Bureau of Prisons’

multidimensional approach to drug

programming moved into full operation.

The program is regarded as a national

model, and its extremely comprehensive

evaluation should ensure that it can be

both replicated and fine-tuned.

Inmates, of course, receive direct

benefits from the program. They can

learn a new lifestyle, one based on

positive personal choice and health

rather than substance abuse, and they

can learn the personal skills necessary to

successfully reintegrate into the community after release.

But the ultimate beneficiaries will be

American citizens. Drug-related crime

has been an American scourge over the

past decade; its costs-not just to the

criminal justice system, but to the

educational system and the health care

system-are probably uncountable. The

Bureau’s program aims to reduce the

rate of drug-related recidivism, thus

helping to restore the health of

America’s communities.

17

1991: The year in review

Growth

In 1991, the Bureau of Prisons continued to grow at a substantial rate-9.5

percent in terms of numbers of inmates

and 6.8 percent for staff-over December 1990 levels. At the end of 1991, the

Bureau’s inmate population stood at

71,998, compared to 65,744 at the end

of 1990.

Due to increases in the numbers of beds

(from new construction and conversion

of noncorrectional facilities) and to

changes in the method of calculating

rated capacity (discussed below), the

systemwide crowding rate remains at

148 percent. The Bureau’s goal is to

reduce the crowding rate to 130 percent

by 1995.

About 60 percent of the Bureau’s inmate

population are serving time for drug

offenses. The population is now approximately 27 percent non-U.S.

citizens. The Federal pretrial detainee

population has exploded over the last

decade, from 4,000 in 1981 to more than

16,000 today. The proportion of female

offenders now totals 7.9 percent-a

growth rate of 233 percent since 1981

(in comparison, the male population

grew by 151 percent).

The growth in inmate population has

required growth in the number of staff

as well—to 21,923. Recruitment

remained a major emphasis. At year’s

end, the Bureau’s workforce included

Modular construction, used here at

the Federal Correctional Complex,

Florence, Colorado, is one of many

cost-effective construction techniques

employed by the Bureau.

36.2 percent correctional services staff,

with the remainder in such occupational

categories as health services, chaplaincy,

mechanical services, food service,

psychology, and education.

A new state-of-the-art medium security

Federal Correctional Institution (FCI)

opened in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania.

Throughout the Bureau in 1991, 2,100

beds were added through new construction, and 1,114 through conversions,

upgrades, and other enhancements at

existing institutions. The Federal

Correctional Institution in Sheridan,

Oregon, which opened in 1990, received

a Federal Design Achievement Award

from the National Endowment for the

Arts—the Government’s highest design

award. 

Coordination of functions— Although

the agency has always emphasized

effective coordination of its various

functions, its strong continued growth

has underlined the need for increased

emphasis in this area. The new MidAtlantic Regional Office, with headquarters near Baltimore, was dedicated

in February. In July 1991, two new

divisions were added to the Bureau’s

headquarters structure to provide

enhanced management focus and

emphasis on selected functions. The

Community Corrections and Detention

Division incorporated the offices of

Community Corrections, Detention

Programs, Community Contract Services Administration, and Community

Corrections Program Development. The

Information, Policy, and Public Affairs

Division incorporated Information

Systems, Policy Review, Research and

Evaluation, Security Technology,

Documents Control, Archives, and

Public Affairs. This division provides

information system services; coordinates

all policy issuance and review; conducts

research; disseminates information

about security technology; and issues

publications, videotapes, and other

media for both public and professional

audiences.

Planning and program review functions

are centered in the Program Review

Division. There, field-level planning

information is analyzed and aggregated

into agency-level plans that emphasize

cost-effective integration of program

and operational issues. In addition, the

division conducts onsite program

reviews and analyzes a wide range of

other data, developing management

information summaries that enable

19
Bureau executives to continually

evaluate the status of agency operations

and programs, and to achieve optimal

allocation of resources.

Rated capacity changes— In 1991, the

Bureau reviewed its system for rating

the capacity of its institutions to ensure

that figures used for planning and

reporting purposes accurately reflect the

ability of Bureau institutions to confine

inmates under safe, secure conditions.

A lengthy review process culminated in

the formation of a task force to ensure

that appropriate capacity rating guidelines were in place and to enable

consistent assessment of housing

capacity, facilitating efficient population

management and cost-effective future

planning activity.

In July 1991, many of the task force’s

recommendations were put into effect.

These resulted in an increase in the rated

capacity in most minimum-, low-, and

medium-security institutions, and a

modest reduction in rated capacity in

high-security facilities. From a rated

capacity of 38,703 prior to these

adjustments, the Bureau’s capacity

The Bureau of Prisons became one

of the first correctional agencies to

mandate high-school-level literacy

training for inmates lacking reading

skills (here, at the Federal Prison

Camp, Marianna, Florida).

was changed to 42,266, a figure that

is increasing as new institutions

are activated in accord with these

guidelines.

Inmates and inmate

programs

In the Bureau, many self-improvement

opportunities for inmates are available.

Work is a mandatory program for all

who are medically able; drug education

programs are mandatory for specific

inmates who have a history of substance

abuse; and literacy programs are

mandatory for the many inmates who

cannot read at a 12th-grade level.

n Individuals with substance abuse

histories are nowhere more strongly

concentrated than among the Nation’s

prisoners. Despite the fact that a large

proportion of inmates (almost 50 percent

in Federal prisons) have a lifelong

pattern of drug dependency, many

would like to change. As the number of

drug offenders in Bureau custody

continues to grow, it is increasingly

evident that society can gain tremendous

benefits from effective intervention in

the lives of properly motivated inmates,

while they are imprisoned.

To meet the needs of these offenders,

the Bureau offers a comprehensive

substance abuse treatment strategy that

presents every offender with a broad

range of treatment services that are of

varying length and intensity. The

Bureau’s multilevel drug treatment

strategy includes five components and is

discussed in detail in pages 8-10 of this

publication.

To detect and deter inmate drug use

while in custody, the Bureau operates a

program of random and targeted drug

testing. In 1991, 81,716 urine tests were

administered, resulting in a 1-percent

detection rate for random tests, primarily

2 0

for marijuana usage. This indicates a

low rate of drug use in Federal prisons.

n In Federal prisons, meeting inmate

literacy needs is a major area of program

emphasis. Inmates must attain a specified educational level before they can be

assigned to higher paying jobs in the

institution. This facet of the Bureau’s

educational program was implemented

in a progressive fashion, and is now set

at 12th-grade equivalency. As a result,

literacy program completions are up 600

percent since mandatory education

started in 1982.

In 1991, 10,828 inmates attended* and

4,843 completed GED programs, many

as a result of this mandatory program

strategy. In addition, 8,399 inmates had

completed Adult Basic Education

(ABE) programs by May 1.

n Perhaps the most important of all

correctional programs is the inmate

work program referred to as Federal

Prison Industries, or UNICOR, a wholly

owned Government corporation since

1934. While all able-bodied Federal

inmates must work, 25 percent of them

are employed by UNICOR (14,544 in

December 1991, up from 13,665 in

1990).

In 1990, UNICOR was mandated by

Congress to commission an independent

market study of the impact of Federal

prison industrial employment on the

private business sector and labor. This

study, conducted by the respected

accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche,

was released in August 1991.

*This high figure reflects new enrollments

from ABE courses as of May 1, 1991. Students

from ABE programs had below 8th-gradelevel educations, and were still in the process

of completing their GED’s by the end of 1991.
For many inmates, acquiring good

work habits is as important as learning

specific industrial skills (here, at the

Federal Prison Camp, Allenwood,

Pennsylvania).

The study concluded that UNICOR’s

impact on the furniture, textiles, printing, electronics, and apparel industries is

negligible. The report indicated that

current provisions mandating that, under

some circumstances, Federal agencies

purchase goods from UNICOR should

be retained, that there should be no

proportional expansion in UNICOR’s

“traditional” product groups, and that

most expansion should occur in “nontraditional” areas (for instance, products

currently produced offshore). The study

also concluded that continuing to

diversify its product lines could have

adverse effects on UNICOR’s ability to

remain self-sustaining, that—to meet its

mission to employ inmates—UNICOR’s

production is overwhelmingly laborintensive, and that there is no evidence

that UNICOR’s prices are higher than

current market prices.

In addition, the study identified strategies for future UNICOR growth:

enactment of a “source preference”

mandating Government purchases for

selected UNICOR services; enactment

of legislation permitting UNICOR to

sell on the open market products that

are currently produced offshore; and

consideration of mandatory set-aside

legislation for UNICOR, requiring

private sector Government contractors to

subcontract a portion of their awards to

UNICOR, a provision that would

replace UNICOR’s current mandatory

source preference.

A major study (discussed below) for the

first time offered empirical evidence of

the positive effects of inmate employment on recidivism, reinforcing the

importance of work programs for the

Bureau.

Inmates returned much of what they

earned in work programs to victims

through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, which seeks to collect

court-ordered fines, restitution orders,

and other judgments. In 1991, 18,905

participating inmates returned more than

$11.2 million through this program, and

more than $54.3 million has been

collected since the program’s inception

in 1987.

n A different type of prison experience

is the Intensive Confinement Center.

ICC’s, also known as “boot camps,” are

based on the military induction camp

model. The Bureau has developed two

ICC’s—for male offenders at the U.S.

Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and for female offenders at the

Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas.

Inmates must ordinarily be recommended by the sentencing judge to be

considered for designation to an ICC;

entry is restricted to volunteers 35 and

under (for the male ICC; there is no age

restriction in the female ICC) who are

serving a sentence of 12-30 months.

They must be serving their first period

of incarceration or have a minor history

of prior incarceration, be in minimumcustody status, and have no medical

restrictions.

The program consists of a due process

system of discipline using the Bureau’s

standard disciplinary policy; a strict

daily regimen of physical training,

military drill, and ceremony; laborintensive work assignments; adult basic

and secondary education; vocational

training; drug and alcohol counseling;

and other programs consistent with the

needs of the inmates. Amenities such as

television and radio are not available

during the 6-day work week; the highly

structured 16-hour day leaves little free

time, and visiting and telephone access

are restricted.

Prior to completion of the 6-month

intensive confinement period, staff refer

an inmate whom they anticipate will

successfully complete the program for

placement in a Community Corrections

Center (CCC). This allows for continuation of drug and other programming, as

well as provision of employment and

other assistance in re-entering the

community.

Discipline and drill are stressed at

the Intensive Confinement Center,

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

21
Staff

One of the major challenges facing the

Federal Bureau of Prisons is recruitment. Staffing levels, which almost

doubled between fiscal years 1986 and

1991, are expected to almost double

again—to about 40,000—between fiscal

years 1992 and 1995. Inadequate

staffing means possible compromises in

security as well as dramatic increases in

overtime costs. Meeting this challenge

has thus become one of the agency’s top

priorities, requiring concomitant

expansion of everything from training

facilities to information systems for

managing human resources.

In 1991, the recruitment of new staff

generally kept pace with the growth of

the inmate population—with 21,923

staff at year’s end, as compared to

19,258 in December 1990—and with 91

percent of authorized positions filled at

the end of the fiscal year. The Bureau’s

comprehensive recruitment strategy—

including a professional advertising

campaign based around the slogan “Do

Your Career Justice”—has resulted in

major increases in the number of

correctional officer applicants and the

number of bilingual applicants. The

percentages of minorities and women

employed in the Bureau have also grown

steadily, from 22.7 percent and 18

percent respectively in 1981 to 28.7

percent and 26.8 percent in 1991. In

some other highlights of the year:

n The Bureau reinforced expansion of

opportunities for female staff in the

workplace by allowing women to work

as correctional officers (including

supervisors) in high-security penitentiaries for the first time. As a result, by

1993, women will be eligible to work at

all Bureau facilities.

n Bureau’s “basic training” classes

at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, graduated 3,863 students—the highest figure

for a single year. The Management and

Specialty Training Center (MSTC) in

Aurora, Colorado, graduated 2,265

students in such fields as facilities

management, special investigations, and

recreation supervision.

n Development of executive and

managerial talent is a critical issue for

the Bureau in a time of rapid expansion.

For that reason, the agency has implemented a range of programs to identify,

train, and develop the administrative

skills of its employees, who, in comparison to their predecessors, must assume

supervisory and management-level

duties with less developmental experience in prior positions.

A unique management development

program was conducted by the

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and

International Affairs at Princeton

University for 40 Bureau executives and

10 executives from State correctional

systems. The course, “Public Leadership

and Management Skills Program for

Corrections,” dealt with public management issues, quantitative and information analysis, contemporary issues in

corrections, and leadership in public

service.

n Years of effort by human resource

specialists from the Bureau and other

agencies brought results on the national

level as sweeping pay reforms were

introduced for law enforcement officers.

In addition to a nationwide special

salary rate, law enforcement staff in a

number of locations will receive locality

pay increases, and a number of other

enhancements will be implemented in

the near future, such as foreign language

bonuses and retention allowances. These

adjustments are expected to have a very

favorable effect on retention and

recruitment.

22

n A tradition of excellent labormanagement relations continued in

1991, as a new Master Agreement was

negotiated and ratified between the

Bureau and the Council of Prison

Locals, American Federation of Government Employees. The Bureau’s LaborManagement Relations section added a

specialist in the Fort Worth area to

better serve the western institutions, and

plans to add additional specialists in the

future.

During the Talladega incident (see next

page), union officers and members

provided much-welcomed support for

their fellow staff members on duty and

the families of the hostages.

Research

In 1991, the Bureau released results of a

long-term study by its Office of Research, which tracked released Federal

inmates who had participated in Federal

Prison Industries (UNICOR) or vocational training programs while confined

in Federal prisons. This study compared

releasees who either had been assigned

to Federal Prison Industries for at least 6

months, had received Bureau vocational

Female inmates are often given training in

nontraditional occupations—here, at the

Federal Prison Camp, Marianna, Florida.
selected control group of releasees who

had not received the benefit of these

programs.

The study revealed that these programs

have a significant, positive effect on

offenders, enhancing inmates’ positive

conduct while incarcerated, reducing

recidivism, and increasing job-related

success after release from prison. The

project also demonstrated how Federal

Prison Industries’ value extends to the

community. Prior to incarceration, many

offenders have never held steady

employment or developed even the most

basic work habits. In Federal Prison

Industries-for the first time in their

lives-they learn not only specific

skills, but fundamental work habits they

can take with them after release from

prison, as a foundation for a productive

return to community life.

Community corrections

and intermediate

punishments

In 1991, the Bureau’s new Community

Corrections and Detention Division

focused both on traditional forms of

community corrections and on expanding options for intermediate punishments. The Division supervised about

30 offices around the Nation that

monitor Community Corrections Center

(CCC) or “halfway house” contracts;

256 contracts were awarded or renewed

during the year, providing more than

5,234 beds for inmates who are nearing

the end of their sentences or serving

short terms of confinement in the

community.

n Innovative intermediate punishment

work programs cosponsored with other

Federal agencies continued to expand.

Interagency agreements were signed

with the National Park Service and the

Kitty Suddeth, Unit Secretary, FCI

Talladega, was one of two hostages

to be released before the FBI and

BOP retook the unit on August 30.

She provided valuable information

for the rescuers. (Photo courtesy The

Miami Herald.)

National Forest Service that will allow

Federal inmates to work on projects for

those agencies across the country, as

they already have been doing for the

Alcatraz park and on National Forest

land near the Federal Correctional

Institution, McKean, Pennsylvania,

n Bureau staff continued to work closely

with the U.S. Probation Service in the

development of electronic monitoring

and home confinement programswhich provide appropriate, costeffective supervision for offenders in an

increasing number of judicial districts.

Cooperation with

other agencies

nineteen Cuban detainees took control

of the detention unit in which they were

housed and held as many as 11 hostages.

After a IO-day siege, personnel of the

FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), FBI

Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)

team, and Bureau of Prisons Special

Operations Response Teams (SORT)

forced their way into the building. The

nine hostages who had not been previously released were located and safely

removed; none were injured in the

retaking of the unit. No detainees were

killed or seriously injured in the assault.

This episode-as unfortunate as it

was-provided an excellent example of

the Bureau’s preparedness to work with

other Department of Justice (DOJ)

components (in this case especially the

FBI) and other non-DOJ agencies to

respond to a major crisis. A total of 260

Bureau of Prisons staff from around the

Nation were quickly reassigned to

Talladega to assist in managing the

crisis. Throughout the crisis, Bureau

staff were assisted by 184 FBI personnel, 12 U.S. Marshals Service employees, and 9 staff from the Immigration

and Naturalization Service.

From the beginning of the crisis, thenActing Attorney General William Barr

played an active role in the management

of the situation, convening regular

briefings that were conducted by the

BOP and FBI Directors. Attorney

General Barr’s decision to authorize the

use of force to rescue the hostages was

prompted by indications, after 9 days,

that the situation within the unit was

deteriorating and the probability of

serious harm to the hostages had

escalated.

Support for the families of staff becomes

particularly important during a crisis. At

The Talladega Incident-Between

Talladega, a Family Services Center

August 21 and 30, 1991, a major

provided counseling and regular inforhostage situation occurred at the Federal

Correctional Institution (FCI),

Talladega, Alabama. One hundred and

23
mation updates to families of the

hostages. An “800” line was set up in

Washington, DC. to allow families of

inmates to call about their loved ones.

That such a lengthy hostage situation

could be resolved with no loss of life,

and no serious injury to either staff or

detainees, is attributable to a number of

factors. First, from the 1987 Cuban

detainee riots, the Bureau learned

lessons that were applied effectively at

Talladega. Command structures were

functional, resources from around the

U.S. were deployed quickly and to good

effect, and coordination with other

agencies was exceptionally effective.

The Attorney General’s personal

involvement in the management of this

crisis was a major factor in its successful

solution. Finally, the performance of

BOP staff from Talladega and other

institutions was the indispensable

element in the successful, highly

professional resolution of this incident.

n To help enhance coordination with

the Federal judiciary, the Bureau

participated in a Sentencing Institute for

judges of the 9th Circuit in Los Angeles,

California, and a workshop for judges of

the 11th Circuit near Alderson, West

Virginia. Both events, cosponsored by

the Bureau and the Federal Judicial

Center, featured seminars, small-group

workshops, exhibits, and institutional

tours.

In 1991, the Bureau published the first

“Judicial Guide to the Bureau of

Prisons,” which offers Federal Judges,

other court personnel, and U.S. Probation Service staff an overview of the

Bureau and its operations. The publication is individualized for each judicial

district, providing each Judge with a

summary of the Bureau and community

corrections resources available in that

District. As the Bureau continues to

grow, this publication will be regularly

updated.

n The Department of Defense continued

its support for prison camps located on

military installations. These camps often

provide much-needed support for

military bases; for instance, the laundry

operation at the Federal Prison Camp, El

Paso, Texas, located on Ft. Bliss, was

praised as “one of the cleanest, most

cost-effective” of Government laundries.

Federal Prison Industries provided

substantial support for the military

during the Persian Gulf war, manufacturing such vital items as communications cable (some of which was used in

the Patriot missile). Factories in Memphis, Tennessee; Fairton, New Jersey;

and Lexington, Kentucky were among

those honored by the U.S. Army.

UNICOR also produced more than a

million blankets and towels as disaster

relief for Kurdish refugees.

n The Bureau worked closely with other

Department of Justice components in

1991. Detention issues were a major

focus of interagency efforts. The

Bureau, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Marshals

Service met regularly in support of an

interagency plan-the first of its kindto project detention needs to 1996. As

mentioned, another joint program was

the electronic monitoring project

managed by the Bureau in cooperation

with the U.S. Parole Commission and

the U.S. Probation Service for offenders

in home confinement status.

One of the Bureau’s largest interagency

projects is the prisoner transportation

program, operated in cooperation with

the U.S. Marshals Service, which carried

out 135,924 prisoner moves in 1991

using its “fleet” of buses and airplanes.

n On the international front, top Bureau

staff continued to meet regularly with

their counterparts from the Correctional

Service of Canada under an agreement

concluded in 1990 to share information

and undertake a number of joint

ventures.

n The National Institute of Corrections

continued its work with State and local

systems, training more than 1,315

correctional professionals at its National

Academy of Corrections in Boulder,

Colorado, and providing training to

another 1,822 through conferences and

At Sentencing Institutes, Federal Judges have an opportunity to meet with inmates

(here, at the Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, California) and

discuss details of their sentencing and incarceration.

24
workshops. NIC also responded to more

than 15,000 requests for information

from practitioners and policymakers,

and awarded 31 grants to State and local

agencies and private organizations for

such projects as facilitating the use of

intermediate punishments, training, and

developing and implementing classification systems.

NIC reviewed construction designs for

several new facilities in Panama and

also assisted the State of Montana in

analyzing a major disturbance at its

State Prison.

Public outreach and

community involvement

Prisons have long been perceived by

society as responsible for the success or

failure of inmates when they are released to the community. But rehabilitation is a three-way responsibility

between the institution, the community,

and the offender. While, in the final

analysis, the offender bears the ultimate

responsibility for success upon release,

if any of the three parties involved fails

to shoulder its responsibility, the

chances for success after prison are

diminished.

The concept of “partnerships” has

increasingly been recognized as one of

the keys to effective agency operations,

and the Bureau has implemented it in a

number of ways.

n Through contracting, Federal prisons

played an important role in local

economies, regularly purchasing many

goods and services from the community.

n Volunteerism received increased

emphasis in policy and practice. The

Bureau recognizes that community

volunteers make enormous contributions

Officials from the National Park Service

and the Federal Bureau of Prisons met

at Alcatraz to dedicate the new Bureau

history exhibit. More than a million

visitors come to the island each year.

to agency operations and to the wellbeing of offenders. Over the past year,

there has been a sizeable increase in the

number of people who regularly volunteer in institutions. A new national

volunteer policy emphasizes the importance of these programs and provides

local administrators with a consistent

framework for involving volunteersthe establishment of a volunteer coordinator position at each institution,

enhanced training opportunities for

volunteers, and the distribution of a new

publication, Volunteer Today. This

newsletter is intended to provide a

means of distributing information about

volunteer programs and Community

Relations Boards operating in the

Bureau, recognizing outstanding

volunteers and volunteer programs in

Federal institutions, and recruiting new

volunteers. A national planning group

has been established to enhance this

support network and expand volunteer

programs even further.

n The Bureau paid special attention to

its more than 60-year history in 1991,

sponsoring a national “Conference on

the History of Federal Corrections” in

Washington, D.C., that featured prominent Government officials, including

Attorney General Dick Thornburgh,

academics, and hundreds of attendees.

In April, a Bureau of Prisons historical

exhibit was dedicated on Alcatraz

Island, the second-most visited National

Park in the U.S. This exhibit will correct

many of the myths about the former

U.S. Penitentiary at Alcatraz and

educate visitors about the entire Federal

prison system.

n To further enhance outreach to the

community and foster effective partnerships in corrections, the Bureau instituted in 1991 what will be an ongoing

series of Community Forums. Forums

involve the Bureau’s Director in a series

of meetings, information exchange

sessions, and other activities that

provide opportunities to inform the

public, the media, and criminal justice

professionals about current BOP

operations and issues. A primary

emphasis in these Forums is responsibility and involvement of the community

in the correctional process.

Community Forums are planned

primarily for cities that have Federal

Courts and nearby Bureau institutions.

However, in the future, some will be

held in locations where the Bureau does

not have an institution, to ensure that

this outreach effort reaches the widest

possible audience.

n To promote an improved understanding of current and emerging issues in the

area of female offender programs, the

Bureau sponsored in 1991 another type

of forum, an Issues Forum on Female

Offenders, with participation by members of the judiciary, academia, other

Federal agencies, and top Bureau staff.

Drawing in part from this effort, the

Bureau planned to publish in 1992 a

special issue of the Federal Prisons

Journal focusing on the female offender.
The predominant theme that emerged

in the forum was the need to review

classification techniques for female

offenders, and the likelihood that

increased use can be made of community correctional sanctions. Other key

areas of interest were programs specifically targeted at parenting, intensive

confinement (boot camp) options for

women, and an examination of female

offender programs in the Canadian

correctional system.

n For the first time, the Bureau and

the National Institute of Corrections

received authority from Congress to

provide technical assistance and training

to foreign governments. A new Office of

External Liaison was created to coordinate such projects.

Program integrity

The Bureau has always emphasized

professionalism and integrity in its

operations. However, with the rapid

growth of the organization and the

relative inexperience of many staff, this

is an especially challenging issue.

Program integrity within the Bureau is

ensured through a well-developed

system of internal controls-such as

regular program reviews-and management systems for monitoring the quality

of programs throughout the Bureau and

the enhancement of operations at Bureau

institutions. Program integrity also is

safeguarded by the openness of Bureau

facilities-openness to the public, to the

press, to the academic community, and

to oversight by Government organizations, including Congress.

n The Bureau’s Program Review

Division and internal controls processes

were examined by the Department of

Justice, Office of the Inspector General

(OIG), and the Justice Management

Division (JMD). The OIG concluded,

“We believe that Bureau of Prisons

management is well served by the

efforts and results of Program Review

Branch reviews. Activities are carried

out in a professional and independent

manner; reviews are thorough, effective,

and well documented.” The JMD’s

report advised, “...the Bureau of Prisons

has made a major commitment of

resources to achieve a comprehensive

system of controls that functions at all

levels of management within the

BOP....The program is both well

conceived and well managed, and

provides a sound basis for the year-end

reasonable assurance provided by the

Director to the Attorney General.”

n The Bureau continues to support the

accreditation process of the American

Correctional Association. At present, 46

Bureau institutions are accredited by

ACA, with another 10 accreditations in

process. In addition, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations has accredited or is

preparing to accredit a number of

Bureau medical facilities-FCI Butner,

FMC Lexington, FMC Rochester, and

MCFP Springfield. This accreditation

helps ensure that high-quality medical

care is provided to all Bureau inmates

who require it.

n The Program Review Division has

initiated the connection of management

indicators (drawn from various management information systems) to many

phases of the program review process.

Indicators are now being evaluated in

terms of their connection to the maintenance of basic activities in support of

the Bureau’s long-term goals and

objectives.

n The Government Accounting Office

(GAO) released three major reports in

1991 related to BOP operations-on the

cost of building Federal prisons, Bureau

programs for the mentally ill, and drug

treatment services and programs in

Federal prisons. The Bureau is constantly seeking information on operational and program areas that can be

improved, in order to carry out its

mission in a more effective manner.

These and other GAO reports are

important tools in that process.

n A particularly important focus for the

Bureau in managing public moneys in a

time of tightening Federal budgets is

cost containment. With a major facility

expansion program underway, the

agency is focusing on achieving additional construction economies, and has

recently made several changes to its

building program: building correctional

complexes, where several institutions

are constructed on the same site,

offering many economies of scale;

increasing the rated capacity of institutions (as discussed earlier) and doublebunking about two-thirds of all inmates

in rooms and cells of 65 square feet or

more, thus reducing per capita inmate

costs by one-third; using inmate workers

on selected construction projects; and

reducing the amount of program space

in prison support areas to a level that

supports basic programming.

Construction costs typically represent 3

to 5 percent of the total expense for a

facility over its life; the major operational cost is staffing. Because of its

staff-efficient institution design philosophy and flexible use of employees,

Bureau institutions use an average of 27

percent fewer staff than comparable

State institutions-another example of

how the responsible use of public funds

is incorporated into Bureau planning.

26

Outstanding individual

achievements

During the past year, a number of

individuals were recognized for their

outstanding achievements. The

“Director’s Awards” for 1990-named

for the four previous Directors of the

Federal Bureau of Prisons-were

presented at the 1991 Wardens Conference. The Attorney General’s awards

were presented at the Department of

Justice in spring 1991.

The Sanford Bates Award

Granted annually, since 1967, to nonsupervisory employees for exceptionally

outstanding service or for incidents

involving extraordinary courage or

voluntary risk of life in performing an

act resulting in direct benefit to the

Bureau or to governmental operations.

William J.

McFadden

Senior Officer

Specialist, U.S.

Penitentiary,

Lewisburg,

Pennsylvania

On October 18,

1990, Officer McFadden responded to a

call for assistance involving two inmates

in a mutual assault with sharpened

instruments. He coordinated staff efforts

in separating the two inmates and in

forming a “human wall” between them

to prevent further assault. He also

physically took control of the more

aggressive inmate, who had continued to

swing his weapon in a threatening

manner. Officer McFadden’s courageous and decisive actions not only

prevented further injuries to the inmates,

but protected the staff members.

The James V. Bennett Award

Granted annually, since 1967, to

supervisory and management employees

for exceptionally outstanding service or

for incidents involving extraordinary

courage or voluntary risk of life in

performing an act resulting in direct

benefit to the Bureau or to governmental

operations.

Bobby L. Tyler

Lieutenant, Federal

Correctional

Institution, El

Reno, Oklahoma

On January 11,

1991, a group of

inmates began a

disturbance in the middle of El Reno’s

open compound after an inmate was

stabbed. Without knowing how many

inmates or weapons were involved,

Lieutenant Tyler strode through the

angry group and protected the injured

inmate until staff removed the inmate

for medical care and restored order to

the compound. Under his direction, staff

identified the inmates involved and

placed them in the Special Housing Unit

without injury to staff or further injury

to inmates. Lieutenant Tyler’s professional response demonstrated personal

courage and impressive leadership

ability.

The Myrl E. Alexander Award

Granted annually, since 1970, to any

employees who through their own

initiatives have been instrumental in the

development of new techniques in

Correctional Programs, or who have

succeeded exceptionally well in the

implementation of new and innovative

procedures.

Royce G. Pugh

Supervisor of Education, Federal

Correctional Institution, Milan,

Michigan

Royce G. Pugh has

expanded his

department to

record-setting

program levels.

During fiscal year

1990, more than

one-third of

Bachelors’ and

Associates’ degrees awarded to Federal

inmates were earned at FCI Milan. Mr.

Pugh led the successful effort for FCI

Milan’s initial accreditation, and

originated a half-day school/half-day

work program. He also presides over a

growing and diverse vocational training

program and the only bona fide high

school in a Bureau facility. Mr. Pugh’s

program is an invaluable service to the

inmates committed to FCI Milan.

The Norman A. Carlson Award

Granted annually, since 1987, to

employees who have shown excellence

in leadership and who have demonstrated the highest personal and professional standards of attainment.

Michael Ciolli

Captain, Federal

Correctional

Institution,

Terminal Island,

California

Captain Ciolli has

distinguished

himself as a leader, not only by his

personal commitment to maintaining

security under challenging circumstances, but by his sound correctional

services background, his broad knowledge of Bureau policy, and his sincere

interest in helping employees realize

their potential. Captain Ciolli’s own

supervisors have characterized him as

the kind of supervisor for whom they

would like to work. He is recognized as

a role model who is trusted and respected by all with whom he has

contact.

28
Equal Employment Opportunity Award

Granted to any employee who, through

exceptional achievements in training,

recruitment, management, or other

activity, advances equal employment

opportunity in the Federal Bureau of

Prisons.

Queen E. Thomas

Inmate Systems

Manager, Federal

Correctional

Institution, Memphis, Tennessee

Ms. Thomas

established a

comprehensive recruitment agenda that

was recognized for its excellence by

both the Southeast and South Central

Regional Offices. Through the area’s

Special Emphasis Program Managers,

she has coordinated a variety of programs that have developed greater

understanding of and appreciation for

cultural diversity among staff.

Attorney General’s Award

for Distinguished Service

Given annually to an employee who has

provided distinguished service to the

Bureau of Prisons.

Rebecca Zazueta

Education Technician, Federal Prison

Camp, Boron,

California

Ms. Zazueta plays a

vital role in the

development and

implementation of the Youth Awareness

Program, which links the institution and

the community in a positive manner.

She has given freely of her own time,

and the results have been positive for the

young people being served, the inmates,

and the community.

Attorney General’s Award

for Outstanding Service to DOJ

Handicapped Employees

Given annually to DOJ employees who

have provided such services as recruitment, employment, or provision of

services, accommodation, or equipment

to handicapped employees.

Wilbert Hupp

Woodworking

Machine Operator

Foreman, Federal

Prison Camp,

Allenwood,

Pennsylvania

At Allenwood, Mr.

Hupp, who had previously lost his right

hand and most of his left hand in an

accident, has been involved in building

numerous special, highly customized

pieces of furniture, including items for

the White House Law Library. He has

made a taped classroom program

depicting therapeutic methods of

retraining and self-care for handicapped

individuals, counsels other handicapped

people, and lectures on how he overcame his disability.

Attorney General’s Award

for Equal Employment Opportunity

Given annually to a Bureau employee

who has made a significant contribution

to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Program.

Richard Sanchez

Correctional

Counselor, Federal

Correctional

Institution, El

Reno. Oklahoma

Mr. Sanchez,

Hispanic Program

Coordinator at El Reno since 1989, has

energized the program, making numerous contacts with the Texas and New

Mexico Employment Commissions. He

has initiated action toward the establishment of IMAGE-a support group for

Hispanic employees-in the Oklahoma

City area. His extensive recruitment

work has enhanced job opportunities for

Hispanics in the Bureau.

Attorney General’s Award

for Upward Mobility

Given annually to a Bureau employee

who has made sign$cant contributions

to the Upward Mobility Program.

Janet Jacobson

Human Resource

Manager, Federal

Correctional

Institution,

Terminal Island,

California

Ms. Jacobson’s

management of the Human Resource

Department and her personal qualities

added greatly to the work environment

at the institution. During the 18 months

prior to the award, 75 percent of the 5 1

non-career promotions at Terminal

Island were minorities and women. Her

skills were evidenced by her temporary

assignment as Executive Assistant while

the position was vacant.

29
Community service

The following anecdotes show just some

of the ways in which Federal prisons—

and prisoners-gave something back to

their communities in 1991:

n Persian Gulf

More than 250 Bureau employees from

across the Nation left their jobs and

families behind to serve in the Persian

Gulf in 1990-91.

n Toys and crafts for the community

Inmates at a number of institutions raise

funds for the community through arts

and crafts shows. In one institution,

scrap wood from a furniture factory is

used to construct wooden toys, which

are donated to critically ill children.

n Housing renovations

Through organizations such as Habitat

for Humanity, inmates help renovate

low-income housing and other buildings

in a number of communities.

n Family literacy

Bureau staff have developed innovative

family literacy programs. In one program, inmates learn to read selected

books, then record them for their

children.

n Special Olympics

Staff and inmates in institutions across

the country support the Special Olympics, both as assistants during the event

and through fund-raising drives.

In April, at the Federal Prison Camp,

Boron, California, inmates and

supervising staff of the Inmate Emergency

Response Crew helped locate a child lost

in the Mojave Desert and return her to her

family. The inmate fire and rescue team is

the only one within 30 miles.

n Tapes and reading materials for the

blind

Inmates at several institutions record

news tapes for the blind each week;

some have learned Braille and help

produce reading materials in Braille.

n Inmate clubs

Jaycees, Toastmasters, and other

national organizations have many

inmate chapters, which raise money for

local charities-ambulance services,

community food banks, and centers for

abused children, to name a few.

n Recycling

As recycling projects are instituted at

more institutions, inmates have begun

recycling aluminum cans for charities.

In one case, proceeds were donated to a

local youth to help defray medical

expenses due to brain surgery.

30





Bureau institutions

FCC: Federal Correctional Complex

FCI: Federal Correctional

lnstltution

FDC: Federal Detention Center

FMC: Federal Medical Center

FPC: Federal Prison Camp

ICC: lntenslve Confinement

center

MCC: Metropolitan Correctional

center

MCFP: Medical Center for

Federal Prisoners

USP: U. S. Penitentiary

FPC Alderson

West Virglnia 24910

304-445-2901

Fax 304-445-2675

FPC Allenwood

Montgomery PennsylvanIa 17751

717-547-1641

Fax 717-541-1504

FCI/FPC Ashland

Ashland Kentucky 41101

606-928-6414

Fax 606-358-8552

USP/FPC Atlanta

601 McDonough Blvd, S.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30315-0182

404-622-6241

Fax 404-331-2137

FCI Bastrop

Box 730

Bastrop Texas 78602

512-321-3903

Fax 512-321-6565

FCI/FPC Big Spring

Big Spring, Texas 79720-7799

915-263-8304

Fax 915-267-5910

FPC Boron

PO Box 500

Boron, California 93516

619-762-5161

Fax 619-761-6409

MDC Brooklyn

167 41st Street

Brooklyn New York 11232

Contact through Northeast

Regional Office

FPC/ICC Bryan

P. 0. Box 2197. 1100 Ursuline

Bryan, Texas 77803-4951

409-823-l879

Fax: 409-260-9546

FCI/FPC Butner

PO Box1000

Butner, North Carolina 27509

919-575-4541

Fax 919-575-6341

FMC Carville

P.O. Box 68, FMC

Carville, Louisiana 70721

504-642-5044

Fax: 504-389-0637

MCC Chicago

71 West Van Buren

Chicago, Illinois 60605

312-322-0567

Fax: 312-322-0565

FCI/FPC Danbury

Danbury, Connecticut

06811-3099

203-743-6471

Fax: 203-746-7393

FPC Duluth

Duluth, Minnesota 55814

218-722-8634

Fax. 218-722-8792

FPC Eglin

Eglin Air Force Base,

Florida 32542

904-882-8522

Fax: 904-678-9291

FPC El Paso

P.O. Box 16300

El Paso, Texas 79906-0300

915-540-6150

Fax 915-540-6165

FCVFPC El Reno

PO Box1000

El Reno Oklahoma

73036-1000

404-262-4875

Fax: 404-743-1227

FCI/FPC Englewood

Littleton, Colorado 80123

303-985-l566

Fax 303-989-0663

FCI/FPC Estill

610 East Railroad Ave.

HIghway 321 South

Estill South Carolina 29918

FCI/FPC Fairton

P.O. Box 280

Fairton, New Jersey 08320

609-453-l177

Fax 609-453-4015

FCC Florence

5880 State Highway 67 South

Florence, Colorado 81290

FCI Fort Worth

3150 Horton Road

Fort Worth, Texas 76119-5996

817-535-2111

Fax: 817-531-2193

MDC Guaynabo

P.O. Box 34028

Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico 00934

809-783-2727

Fax: 809-782-3488

FPC Homestead

Homestead, Florida 33039-5000

305-258-9676

Fax: 305-258-7005

FCI/FPC Jesup

2600 Highway 301 South

Jesup, Georgia 31545

912-427-0870

Fax: 912-427-1226

FCI/FPC La Tuna

La Tuna, New Mexico-Texas 88021

915-886-3422

Fax. 915-886-4977

USP/FPC Leavenworth

Leavenworth, Kansas 66048

913-682-8700

Fax: 913-682-3617

USP/ICC/FPC

Lewisburg

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17837

717-523-1251

Fax: 717-524-5805

FMC Lexington

3301 Leestown Road

Lexington, Kentucky 40511

606-255-6812

Fax. 606-255-9860

USP/FPC Lompoc

3901 Klein Boulevard

Lompoc, California 93436

805-735-2771

Fax: 805-737-0295

FCI Lompoc

3600 Guard Road

Lompoc, California 93436

805-736-4154

Fax 805-735-4340

FCI Loretto

PO Box 1000

Loretto, Pennsylvania 15940

814-472-4140

Fax: 814-472-4580

MDC Los Angeles

535 N. Alameda Street

Los Angeles, California 90012-1500

213-485-0439

Fax: 213-626-5801

FCI/FPC Manchester

Route 8, P.0. Box 7, Suite 207

Manchester, Kentucky 40962

606-598-1412

Fax 606-598-1497

FCI/FPC Marianna

3625 FCI Road

Marianna, Florida 32446

904-526-2313

Fax 904-482-6837

USP/FPC Marion

Marion Illinois 62959

618-964-1441

Fax 618-964-1695

FPC Maxwell

Maxwell Air Force Base

Montgomery. Alabama 36112

205-834-3681

Fax: 205-269-1430

FCI/FPC McKean

P.0. Box 5000 [McKean County)

Bradford PA 16701

814-362-8900

Fax 814-362-3287

FCI Memphis

1101 John A Denie Road

Memphis, Tennessee

38134-7690

901-372-2269

Fax 901-228-8395

MCC/FPC Miami

15801 SW 137th Avenue

Mlaml FlorIda 33177

305-253-4400

Fax 305-822-1179

FCI Milan

Milan, Michigan 48160

313-439-1511

Fax: 313-439-1330

FPC Millington

6696 Navy Road

Millington Tennessee 38053

901-872-2277

Fax 901-873-8208

FCI Morgantown

Morgantown, West Virginia 26505

304-296-4416

Fax: 304-296-7549

FPC Nellis

Nellis Air Force Base Area II

Las Vegas, Nevada

89191-5000

702-644-5001

Fax 702-644-7483

MCC New York

150 Park Row

New York. New York 10007

212-791-9130

Fax 212-571-1034

FCI Oakdale

P.O. Box 5050

Oakdale, Louisiana 71463

318-335-4070

Fax 318-687.9181

FDC Oakdale

P.O. Box 5060

Oakdale, Louisiana 71463

318-335-4466

Fax: 318-335-4476

FCI Otisville

P.0. Box 600

Otisvllle, New York 10963

914-386-5855

Fax: 914-386-9455

FCI/FPC Oxford

Box 500

Oxford, Wisconsin 53952-0500

608-584-5511

Fax. 608-584-5315

FPC Pensacola

Saufley Field

Pensacola, FlorIda 32509-0001

904-457-1911

Fax: 904-456-1996

FCI/FPC Petersburg

P.0. Box 1000

Petersburg, Virglnia 23804-1000

804-733-7881

Fax 804-733-3728

FCI/FPC Phoenix

37900 N. 45th Avenue, Dept. 1680

Phoenix, Arizona 85027

602-256-0924

Fax. 602-465-7051

FCI/FDC/FPC

Pleasanton

Dublin, California 94568

415-833-7500

Fax 415-833-7592

FCI Ray Brook

P.0. Box300

Ray Brook, New York 12977

518-891-5400

Fax. 518-891-0011

FMC Rochester

P.O. Box 4600,

2110 East Center Street

Rochester, Minnesota 55903-4600

507-287-0674

Fax: 507-282-3741

FCI Safford

RR 2, Box 820

Safford, Arizona 85546

602-428-6600

Fax 602-428-1582

MCC San Diego

808 Union Street

San Diego. California 92101-6078

619-232-4311

Fax: 619-231-4913

FCI Sandstone

Sandstone, Minnesota 55072

612-245-2262

Fax: 612-245-5178

36
Regional Office FCI/FPC Schuylkill

P.O. Box 700

Minersville, Pennsylvania 17954

717-544-7100

Fax: 717-544-7225

FCI Seagoville

Seagoville, Texas 75159

214-287-2911

Fax 214-287-4827

FPC Seymour Johnson

Caller Box 8004

Goldsboro, NC 27533-8004

919-735-9711

Fax: 919-735-9267

FCI/FPC Sheridan

27072 Ballston Road

Sheridan, Oregon 97378-9601

503-843-4442

Fax: 503-843-3408

MCFP Springfield

P .O. Box 4000

Springfield, Missouri 65808

417-862-7041

Fax: 417-837-l717

FCI/FPC Talladega

565 East Renfroe Road

Talladega, Alabama 35160

205-362-0410

Fax: 205-362-8331

FCI Tallahassee

501 Capital Circle, N.E.

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

904-878-2173

Fax: 904-877-7260

FCI Terminal Island

Terminal Island, California 90731

213-831-8961

Fax: 310-547-0070

USP/FPC Terre Haute

Terre Haute, Indiana 47808

812-238-l531

Fax: 812-234-I643

FCI/FPC Texarkana

Texarkana, Texas 75501

214-838-4587

Fax: 903-838-4071

FCI/FPC Three Rivers

P.O. Box 4000

Three Rivers, Texas, 78071

512-786-3576

Fax: 512-786-4909

FCI Tucson

8901 South Wilmot Road

Tucson, Arizona 85706

602-741-3100

Fax: 602-574-0775

FPC Tyndall

Tyndall Air Force Base,

Florida 32403-0150

904-286-6777

Fax: 904-286-6603

FPC Yankton

Box 680

Yankton, South Dakota 57078

605-665-3262

Fax: 605-665-4703

Mid-Atlantic

Regional Office

10010 Junction Drive

Suite 100-N

Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701

301-317-7000

Fax: 301-317-7015

North Central

Regional Office

Air World Center

10920 Ambassador Drive

Suite 200

Kansas City, Missouri 64153

816-891-7007

Fax: 816-891-l349

Northeast

Regional Office

U.S. Customs House, 7th floor

2nd and Chestnut Streets

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

215-597-6317

Fax: 215-597-6315

South Central

Regional Office

4211 Cedar Springs Road

Suite 300

Dallas, Texas 75219

214-767-9700

Fax: 214-767-9724

Southeast

Regional Office

523 McDonough Boulevard, SE.

Atlanta, Georgia 30315

404-624-5202

Fax: 404-624-8151

Western

Regional Office

7950 Dublin Boulevard, 3rd floor

Dublin, California 94568-2929

510-803-4700

Fax: 510-803-4802

Central Office

Federal Bureau of Prisons

320 First Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20534

202-307-3198

Fax: 202-514-6620

37

Response sheet

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is pleased convey the important part that correcto be able to provide this 1991 State of tions plays in American criminal justice.

the Bureau report to its constituents, If you would like to receive information

other agencies, and organizations, as not contained in this issue, or if you

well as to the public. Our objectives are have other suggestions for improveto make corrections more understand- ments in how the information is preable to the American public, and to sented, please use this form.

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

Direct any responses or inquiries to:

Office of Public Affairs

Federal Bureau of Prisons

320 First Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20534

q I would like to receive the Federal Prisons

Journal, a quarterly publication on prison issues

q I would like to receive the Facilities Book,

an annual directory of BOP institutions

q I am not on the mailing list for this State of the

Bureau report, but would like to be added

State Zip

q Please send me additional information, as noted

Phone (Optional)

Comments:

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

State

Phone (Optional)

Zip

0 I would like to receive the Federal Prisons

Journal, a quarterly publication on prison issues

0 I would like to receive the Facilities Book,

an annual directory of BOP institutions

0 I am not on the mailing list for this State of the

Bureau report, but would like to be added

0 Please send me additional information, as noted

Comments:

q Administration

q Community Corrections

q Correctional Programs

q Health Services

q Human Resources

q Industries & Education

q Public Affairs

q Program Review

q Regional Offices

MARO SCRO

NCRO SERO

NERO WRO

Administration

Community Corrections

Correctional Programs

Health Services

Human Resources

Industries & Education

Public Affairs

Program Review

Regional Offices

MAR0 SCRO

NCR0 SERO

NERO WRO