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 restricttve 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 andintegrity 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, Bureau  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  

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,

_ Cover Photo: Among the tools that the Bureau of prisons has

integrated into the planning process are automated information

systems. Pictured, left to right: Nathan W. Carrington, Unit

Manager; Gene Harris, Executive Assistant; and Lieutenant

Brenda Hearn, Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.
From the Attorney General

I

' m very pleased to be able to

introduce the 1992 edition of the

State of the Bureau. Since I became Attorney General earlier this year.

one of my priorities has been to acquaint myself with the Federal Bureau

of Prisons and its many and varied

operations. For the past few years the

Bureau has been the largest component

of the Department of Justice, certainly

it is the component that has undergone

the most significant growth.

That the inevitable growing pains have

been handled as smoothly as they have

is a tribute to the professionalism and sense of service ot

the more than 25,000 men and women who make up

the Bureau’s workforce. The American people can consider themselves fortunate to have such dedicated

public servants.

Last summer I, along with hundreds of thousands of other

south Floridians, witnessed first-hand the incredible devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew. The only value to

this tragedy was that it brought out the best in so many

people—prominent among them the Bureau of Prisons

staff members at Miami and Homestead, who stuck to

their posts maintained security, and kept their inmate

charges safe, although many staff members could not

even contact their own families.

we must harness every bit of creativity we possess to find

workable, cost-effective solutions to very large problems. We must treat prison bedspace as a scarce resource,

used for the protection of society by housing offenders

who truly threaten our communities. For those who pose

no risk to the public, community-based alternatives to

incarceration better serve the goals of justice and the

needs of the offender. We must develop prevention and

early intervention programs that will reduce strains on the

prison system by reducing the number of people who

enter the criminal justice system in the first place. We in

the criminal justice system must be sensitive to the needs

of victims in everything we do.

After the hurricane, Bureau staff from around the Nation

responded to their coworkers’ loss of homes and possesio ns with an outpouring of support. Despite the se losses,

and the total destruction of the Homestead prison camp.

Bureau staff went right to work rebuilding the detention

I am confident that Federal Bureau of Prisons staff will

help meet these challenges, as they have met so many

others outlined here in the 1992 State of the Bureau.

center in Miami, and I am proud to announce that it was Janet Reno

rededicated in February of this year—a major feat of Attorney General

logistics, coordination, and plain hard work.

Although 1993 brings a new administration. a new Attomey General. and a

new Director of the Bureau of Prisons.

under our system of government there

is always a great deal of continuity.

Principles we all cherish will remain

the foundation of our work—accessibility and openness to all citizens, a

workforce that rellects the true diversity and strength of America, and sound

decision-making that is guided by what

is right under the law.

At the same time we alI know that we

are in an era of limited resources. and

From the Director

t the A

end of 1992, a major transition occurred in the Federal

Bureau of Prisons. On December 4, I was named the Bureau’s 6th

director. J. Michael Quinlan, who had

served with the Bureau for 21 years—and

as director since 1987—stepped down to

move into retirement. Mike Quinlan took

on the daunting task of steering the Bureau through a period of unprecedented

growth—a near-doubling of the inmate

population and the addition of more than 20 new correctional facilities—while developing the organizational structures to support this huge increase in size.

Despite these sweeping changes, the Bureau remains an

excellent organization, with a strong sense of family. Mike

Quinlan’s working philosophy was that staff are our most

important resource—and he supported enhancements to

our recruitment, training, career development, and affirmative action programs. He increased the Bureau’s reliance on

strategic planning and management information systems to

help ensure that leaders made informed decisions. He led

outreach efforts to other law enforcement agencies and the

community, spearheaded the Bureau’s exploration of various intermediate sanctions, and stressed the importance of

offenders’ reintegration into the community.

Transition is often a challenging time for any organization;

however, the Bureau’s strong foundation will serve us very

well. This time of transition will be characterized not by

dramatic changes, but by continued professional growth

and organizational improvement.

Throughout the Bureau’s history, it has always been a

career agency, with leaders who develop by moving up

through the ranks and a variety of different positions. In my

career, I began in 1976 as a psychologist at the Federal

At left: Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.

Correctional Institution (FCI),

Morgantown, West Virginia, and in 1983

became chief of psychology services

there. I was an instructor and later director of staff training at the Staff Training

Academy in Glynco, Georgia; associate

warden of FCI Ft. Worth, Texas; warden

of FCI Butner, North Carolina; and assistant director for the Program Review

Division, which coordinates and facilitates the Bureau’s strategic management,

program oversight, and planning processes.

The Bureau’s program review and strategic planning systems have been integral in meeting the recent challenges of

rapid growth in our inmate population. This State of the

Bureau details the enhanced management focus and the

mechanisms designed to ensure that every aspect of our

operations receives informed oversight—by all levels of

management (the field, the regional offices, and the central

office). This constant “fine-tuning” is absolutely necessary

to help us continue to progress and to preserve not only the

safe, secure, and humane institutions we are so proud of

during the period of Government cost containment that lies

ahead, but also the emphasis on programs that facilitate

inmates’ preparation for a productive—and hopefully

crime-free—return to life in the community after release.

Having been the Bureau’s Assistant Director for the Program Review Division from May 1989 to December

1992—and now being the Bureau’s 6th Director—I am

very proud to introduce to the readers of the State of the

Bureau this issue’s special focus on program review and

planning. I welcome your comments on this issue, as well

as on other aspects of the Bureau and its operations.

Kathleen M.Hawk, Director

3

Program Evaluation

and Planning in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

P

risons are unique organizations

At left: Federal Prison Industries,

in many ways, with an overridor UNICOR, which employs roughly a

fifth of the inmate population (exing need to consider security in

ciuding minimum-security inmates)

all aspects of their operations, and a need

in producing goods and services for

the Federal Government, is one of 14

to offer employment and other programs

separate areas with its own evaluasuch as education and drug treatment to

tion guidelines. Pictured: Warden J.D.

Lamer with Linda McReynolds, Actrain inmates, prevent idleness while

counting Technician, and Lisa Ognilla,

incarcerated, and prepare them for what

Fabric Worker Foreman, Federal Correctional lnstitution, Jesup, Georgia.

will hopefully be a productive return to

the community upon release. Yet there are also ways in

which prisons resemble corporations, hospitals, military

bases, and other complex organizations. Prisons share

with these other organizations a need to contain costs, to

increase operational efficiencies, and to make hard choices

about allocating resources in an era when they are increasingly scarce.

The Bureau has doubled in size in less than a decade as the

battle against drug-related crime brought increased law

enforcement and prosecutorial initiatives, as well as

changes in Federal sentencing. Since 1988 alone, the

agency’s inmate population has increased by 95 percent—with proportional increases in budget and staffing.

The Bureau’s tradition has always been to provide safe

and humane conditions of incarceration and a variety of

programs to help those inmates who want to change. But

such traditions inevitably come under pressure from

population and organizational growth of this magnitude.

Taxpayers are rightly concerned about the significant

increases in national spending for prisons. But the twin

objectives of protecting the public while providing meaningful programs such as work, literacy, and drug treatment for inmates—95 percent of whom will eventually

return to the community—have always been the core of

the Bureau’s mission and cannot be compromised.

To preserve the quality of its programs

and maintain a good working environment for its employees in the face of

inmate population growth, the Bureau

had to explore ways to increase its operational efficiencies. As the recent history of American business has shown, a

successful way to do that is by developing enhanced methods of planning and

evaluating operations and opening new channels of communication—from the correctional officer on the line all

the way up to the most senior managers. The Bureau

developed a flexible planning/evaluation/reporting structure—outlined in this publication—that incorporates

various data systems to provide clear, concrete feedback

to managers at all levels of the organization.

Management information is only worth collecting if it is

put to use effectively. The thrust of the Bureau’s efforts

in the 1990’s has been to combine program evaluation

information with strategic planning into one “strategic

management cycle.” Planning is no longer a top-down

mechanism: it occurs at the level of the individual department or housing unit in an institution, bringing line staff

in touch with the mission of the organization—and

keeping senior managers apprised of concerns, constraints, and new initiatives suggested by the field.

The Bureau evaluates its programs for a number of

reasons:

n To assure itself (and the Attorney General) that its

programs are in compliance with law and organizational

policy; are managed effectively; and are achieving the

agency’s strategic goals.

n To ensure that its operations maintain strong internal

controls in the face of unprecedented staffing and inmate

population levels, a younger workforce, an influx of more

5
sophisticated and violent offenders, and 

	 Good management in- The systems now in place not only meet

a more diverse inmate population requirvolves all departments and levels

of staff in every institution. Picthe requirements of the Federal

ing varied and intensive programs and tured: Correctional Officer Allen Manager’s Financial Integrity Act

services in such areas as education, health

Noey with three inmates, Federal

Correctional Institution. Peters-

(FMFIA),* but have strengthened,

standardized, and expanded the

Bureau’s review process. Broadly, the

care, detention, and drug treatment. burg, Virginia.

n To ensure that it responds effectively to increased levels

of scrutiny from Congress, the Department of Justice’s

Office of the Inspector General, the General Accounting

Office (GAO), and other outside agencies, as well as

private citizens and the media.

n To justify the resource requirements needed to carry out

its mission at a time when public revenues are shrinking.

Ultimately, as a component of the U.S. Department of

Justice, the Bureau of Prisons is responsible to the taxpayers. This publication

Bureau has attempted

public stewardship.

Background

outlines the ways in which the

to live up to its responsibility for

The Bureau has, throughout its history, used a variety of

evaluation tools, ranging from periodic formal assessments (such as audits and surveys) to monitoring tools

that allow continuous tracking of programs. In 1988,

then-Director J. Michael Quinlan integrated the Bureau’s

audit, review, evaluation, and planning functions by

creating the Program Review Division.

The creation of this new division gave program review an

importance in the organization equal to that of such

traditional correctional operations as correctional programs and health services. The Program Review Division

has continued its search for ways to integrate functions

and bring useful information to Bureau managers. This

article will discuss aspects of the program review process—strategic planning, independent evaluation, selfevaluation, climate assessment, external oversight, and

program monitoring—and how they have become interrelated in a single Strategic Management Cycle.

ongoing process now includes:

n The identification of “high-risk” areas.

n An annual opportunity to refine evaluation guidelines

in each of 14 program areas: correctional services, correctional programs, psychology, chaplaincy, inmate systems, community corrections, health services, food service,

safety, UNICOR (prison industries), education, facilities

(maintenance), financial management, and human resource management (personnel, training, and affirmative

action).

n A plan for correcting all significant systemic problems

identified over the past year.

n An annual “letter of assurance” in which the program

head personally assures the Attorney General that programs are working 

 and that any areas that may

need improvement have plans in place to correct them.

Strategic planning

Never have the demands on the Bureau been more

challenging. The challenge for Bureau staff is to find

ways to accomplish the organization’s goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. Increasingly, large

organizations have come to rely on strategic planning as

a means of ensuring that the processes of goal development and fulfillment are linked in an organized fashion.

In 1988, the Office of Strategic Planning was established

to introduce this methodology to the Bureau.

*FMFIA, passed in 1983, requires that individual managers establish internal controls to help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse of public

funds and resources; that agency heads provide annual “assurance

reports” to Congress and the President that their controls are working; and that agencies comply with Government Accounting Office

(GAO) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) auditing and

reporting standards.

6


For the first 2 years, institutions were

encouraged but not required to adopt

strategic planning, and each institution

was allowed to develop its own strategic

planning mechanisms. As more and more

institutions set up planning processes,

the level of expertise increased until, in

1991, it was decided that strategic planning could be institutionalized Bureauwide.

The current strategic planning process

entails a two-way flow of information.

Line staff identify critical issues, which

are passed through wardens to their superiors, the six regional directors, and

through program administrators to assisAt left: 4 Food service is another of

the 14 program areas with its own

evaluation guidelines. A smoothly

functioning food service operation is

essential to the safe and orderly running of any prison. Pictured: inmate

workers with Raymond Simmons, Assistant Food Service Administrator,

in background; Federal Correctional

Institution, Jesup, Georgia.

Under the streamlining initiative, a

number of functions were targeted

for reduction. For example, in 1993,

the Bureau has reduced its training

budget by 22 percent, eliminated conferences, trimmed administrative

travel and staff overtime, and instituted salary funding and staff reductions of 10 percent at the central and

regional offices, and 5 percent at

each of the 70 institutions.

tant directors. Conversely, once Bureau goals are established by the executive staff (based on input they receive

from the field), supporting action steps within each

discipline are developed by regional and institutional

program managers. While the Bureau has long-term

strategic goals—and all subcomponents share these

goals—individual subcomponents, such as institutions,

regions, or divisions, are likely to have distinctive

objectives and action plans related to their respective

responsibilities.

Progress towards the achievement of these goals is reported to the executive staff every quarter. In 1992, the

Strategic Planning Office began to reduce reporting

requirements for managers by introducing an automated

strategic planning program that could be used on personal

computers. In 1993, this program will be used Bureauwide.

The Bureau’s evaluation programs begin and end with

strategic planning. Planning sets the agenda for new

initiatives and is required when program needs are identified through evaluation. The development of evaluation

guidelines is another critical component of the strategic

management process. To ensure that evaluation resources

are assigned where they are most needed, guidelines for

the 14 program areas (see section 2) are reviewed at least

once a year  the program managers and program review

staff.

During this past year, planners asked

staff, in effect, to reevaluate the

Bureau’s purpose. At all levels of the

agency, they were to review individual

responsibilities and determine whether

they were performing functions that

directly related to the achievement of

Bureau goals and objectives, and, if

not, whether there was still a reason to

continue them. These strategic issues

were presented to the Bureau’s executive staff—the director, and the assistant and regional directors—who used

this input to formulate goals for 1993

and beyond.

As a result, the Bureau reaffirmed its

long-term goals in six important areas: population management, human resource management, security and

facility management, correctional leadership and effectivepublic administration, inmate programs and services,

and building partnerships. Under the fourth area, for

example, a grassroots streamlining initiative was launched.

Staff from all institutions, regional offices, training centers, and central office (headquarters) participated in

identifying functions that should be considered for potential reduction or elimination.

Independent evaluation

At regular intervals, program review teams (PRT) coordinated by the Program Review Division evaluate every

Federal institution, regional office, central office branch,

and community corrections office throughout the country. PRT’s are made up of subject-matter experts who

work at other locations, headed by experienced central

office reviewers. The central office-based reviewers are

field technicians who are selected on average for 2-year

assignments, after which they typically return to the field

as program managers.

The benefits of an impartial review by the PRT’s are

obvious:
n With so many new line staff, managers, and institutions, the Bureau’s need

for a consistent interpretation of policy,

management expectations, and evaluation standards has never been greater.

n Because of the consistency with which

program review evaluations are conducted, review findings are catalogued

and monitored across regions, institution security levels, time periods, and

disciplines. In this way, trends are identified and monitored, and feedback is

provided to program administrators so

that modifications can be made locally,

regionally, or Bureau-wide.

At right: b “Double-bunking” is increasingly the norm in Federal prisons. As the pressures of crowding

increased dramatically during the

1990's, the Bureau’s planning processes developed appropriate ways

to manage the increasing population

without compromising security,

safety, or essential program activities. Pictured: inmates in a two-per

son room at the Federal Correctional

Institution, Petersburg, Virginia.

n All reviews include procedures to

assess safety, security, human resource

management, responsiveness, and costefficiency. The information collected

last year is presently being studied to

determine if trends could be identified across different programs and

institutions.

To meet its goal of population management, the Bureau attempts to reduce crowding whenever possible.

Accordingly, the Bureau has developed a streamlined “capacity planning” process—the process by which

inmate population projections are

married to short- and long-term institution capacity plans to allow the

optimally efficient use of the

Bureau’s population capacity. In

1991, the process was modified to

allow “double-bunking” (more than

one inmate per room or cell) up to

100 percent in minimum- and lowsecurity facilities, 50 percent in medium-security facilities, and 25 percent in high-security and detention

facilities. This “rated capacity” approach to the management of the

Bureau’s inmate population is very

cost-effective, while appropriately focused on the security and program

needs of the inmate population.

In addition, plans have been developed regarding the mission of new

institutions (what mix of inmates, at

what security level, they will hold),

as well as for changing the mission

of existing institutions. In all, these

design and capacity changes will reduce the funding required for construction over the next 10 years by

hundreds of millions of dollars.

n Although the independent evaluation is conducted by Bureau staff who

come from outside the institution being

evaluated, an important aspect of the

evaluation prevents it from being “disowned” by institution staff. The evaluation guidelines—the reviewer’s “road

map”—are developed primarily by program staff, not by outside reviewers. The program staff

responsible for the development of guidelines form an

organizational structure that includes the institutions and

the six regional offices and central office as well. Within

this structure, issues for guideline development are identified at the institution level. Regional and central office

staff bring these issues to the formal meetings with the

evaluation staff to build and modify the evaluation guidelines. In this way, program staff have a direct investment

in the guidelines and, thus, the evaluation process.

Local staff, using the same evaluation

guidelines as the independent program

review teams, assemble review teams

and examine documentation, interview

staff, observe meetings and activities, quantify data,

measure productivity, and conduct surveys. Self-examinations are required at least once between reviews by

program review teams, but institutions are greatly encouraged to conduct them more frequently, on an ongoing basis.

In 1992 alone, more than 420 self-evaluations occurred at

the department level. As with the independent, outside

PRT evaluations, the major objectives of the self-evaluation are to:

10

At the end of 1992, the Bureau refined its

review policy to allow differing time

schedules for reviews, based upon situations at individual institutions. Previously, each institution had been reviewed

every 2 years. Under the new policy,

indicator data for institution programs

with “superior” or “good” ratings will be

examined at the 2-year point; if the examination warrants, those programs will

then be reviewed every 3 years. Those

with lesser ratings will be reviewed more

frequently—targeting Program Review

Division resources where they are most

needed.

Self-evaluation

Another essential component of the

Bureau’s program review process is selfevaluation. While the program review

teams coordinated by the Program Review Division perform regular evaluations at every Federal institution, regional

office, central office branch, and community corrections office throughout the

country, field staff responsible for managing the 14 targeted program areas also

conduct their own evaluations.


n Determine whether the program is

functioning successfully.

n Ascertain whether it will continue to

perform at this level.

n Highlight exemplary programs.

n Point to specific areas requiring corrective action.

At left: Paul Barnard, Central Tool

Room Officer (standing) and an inmate worker replace tools on a

“shadow board, which displays an

outline of all tools used in the facility

and allows instant inventorying. Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup,

Georgia.

P L A N N I N G I N A C T I O N

Correcting problems identified by the

self-evaluations may involve staff training, procedural changes, additional management attention, or additional

resources.

Strict tool control is one of the vital

security functions in any prison.

While inmates must use tools in their

daily work, the possibilities for converting them to weapons or escape

implements are obvious.

The self-evaluation process benefits the

Bureau in a number of ways. First, it

places program “ownership” where it

belongs—on local managers and supervisors. Second, self-evaluation provides

an outstanding way for new staff to

become familiar both with the program

and with management’s expectations

for it. Third, it is a cost-effective extension of the central office program review

function. Finally, self-evaluation allows

local staff to identify and correct problems before they become issues that

must be addressed by senior managers.

Continued program review findings

for tool control problems provided

the impetus for the Bureau to develop an automated tool control program that is presently operational in

90 percent of all facilities. The new

system allows an institution to track

possible deficiencies in identification, classification, supervision and

storage of tools, and increase or

decrease internal controls accordingly-thus enhancing institution

safety and security.

To ensure that managers understand the

self-evaluation process, the Program

Audits conducted by the Department

of Justice’s Office of the Inspector

General revealed that “life safety”

projects conducted by some institutions were not receiving the priority

they should have. Data generated by

program reviews in the Facilities area

enabled Bureau of Prisons program

managers in the Facilities and Safety

disciplines to better track ongoing

life safety projects and monitor their

completion.

Review Division has developed a course of instruction

conducted at the Bureau’s Management and Specialty

Training Center in Aurora, Colorado. In 1992, 330 department heads, wardens, associate wardens, and program administrators received formal training in how to

conduct a self-evaluation.

attitude of the inmates towards the institution, the staff, and other inmates? Are

the lines of communication between

management and staff open or closed?

One of the most important ways that

Bureau staff assess the interpersonal

dynamics in an institution is through

MBWA—“management by walking

around.” This means that department

heads and institution senior staff are out

and about, interacting with staff and

inmates and observing operations firsthand. Managers are on the floor, in the

classrooms and clinics, and walking

the compound with inmates and line

staff. They are present at the dining hall

for inmates’ meals. They are periodically assigned duty officer responsibilities that require them to inspect,

observe, and assess institution-wide

programs, services, housing units, and

facilities.

Climate assessment

In 1992, and for the preceding 4 years,

the Bureau has added more formal climate assessment measurements to these

informal, time-tested methods of prison

management. Since 1988, the Bureau’s

Office of Research and Evaluation has

conducted annual “prison climate surveys” 



a large cross-section of institution staff. Because

the surveys are uniformly administered, the Bureau can

analyze the results in a variety of ways to help create a

picture of each institution’s climate, compare the overall

climate against selected staff subgroups (such as correctional officers), and note any changes in morale from

previous years. This information is closely monitored by

staff at all management levels.

While refining and expanding program-evaluation initiatives such as those previously discussed, the Bureau :

recognizes that management must also be tuned in to the :

interpersonal dynamics or “climate” of each institution. :

Are the staff generally upbeat, or resigned; relaxed, or

tense? Do they feel safe on the job? What is the overall

In addition to climate surveys, the Bureau also instituted

other, more informal methods to help capture the dimensions of institution functioning that “hard” data might

otherwise fail to reflect. Interview teams led by a regional

13
director periodically visit each institution, meeting with a random sampling

of managers, line staff, and inmates.

The interviewers evaluate such interpersonal concerns as mood, morale, professionalism, communication up and

down the line, and responsiveness.

	


A program review in the

Education Department, Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.

Program review team member Marty

Cannon, Supervisor of Education, Federal Correctional Institution, Milan,

Michigan, interviews an inmate.

These interview-based assessments were

used in 1992 by regional office staff as

a followup and extension of the climate

surveys; for the first time they also were

included in every evaluation by program review teams. While the results of

these face-to-face surveys could not be

measured statistically, the interviews

did allow evaluators to go beyond the

initial data provided by surveys to provide more in-depth, qualitative insights.

Some examples from the Bureau’s

South Central Region show how climate assessment works in practice:

n The Federal Detention Center and

Federal Correctional Institution,

Oakdale, Louisiana, are located in an

economically depressed area of the

State. As part of the climate assessment process, the South Central Regional Director met with spouses of

staff members to find out their concerns, one of which was the area

schools. As a result, the wardens of

FDC and FCI Oakdale established a

task force to work with local educators and help bring parents into the

schools as volunteers.

Like policy and performance problems,

morale and institution climate can profoundly affect the overall success of a

program. Climate assessment helps management understand the “big picture.”

The Bureau’s local self- and program

review evaluation methods used this

year allowed managers to identify incidents of policy noncompliance, the

strength of the controls in place to keep

the operation going, and the underlying

technical causes of program failures.

Climate assessment helped managers to

better understand and monitor attitudinal shifts and trends, and, when necessary, intervene before a problem

occurred.

n As the population of Hispanic inmates increases, so does the need

for Spanish-speaking staff members. The Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, located in a heavily

Hispanic area of Texas, had a larger

pool of Spanish-speaking recruits

than it needed. As a result of the

assessment process, La Tuna has

now become a “feeder” institution,

continuing to recruit Spanish-speaking staff who then go to work at other

institutions.

n Staff perceptions gathered through

a climate assessment helped support the decision to change the

mission of the Federal Correctional

Institution, Bastrop, Texas, from

medium- to low-security. A number

of staff stated that they thought

the institution’s physical layout

could create potential security problems when holding medium-security

inmates.

External oversight

In addition to the massive expansion of prisons and

prisoners, the Bureau has experienced a substantial increase in the number of external reviews, audits, and

inquiries. In 1992, this scrutiny came primarily from

Congress, the GAO, and the Department of Justice. This added another

level of independent review that Bureau managers could draw upon.

The Bureau carefully coordinates all

external audits through one office in

its Program Review Division, which

shares the results with appropriate administrators so that the results of these

reviews may be integrated with other

findings. In fact, the results of one such

1992 audit, conducted by the Justice

Management Division, Department of

Justice, concerned the Bureau’s program review function itself. The audit

concludes:

“...The Bureau of Prisons has made a

major commitment of resources to

achieve a very comprehensive system

of control that functions at all levels of

management within the BOP. The decision to make such a commitment

seems most appropriate in view of the

difficult nature of BOP programs and

extensive growth in recent years of the

BOP workload and corresponding management control problems....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.”

Program monitoring

Consistent with the principles of quality-oriented management systems used in many private- and public-sector

organizations, the Bureau has made significant strides

over the past 3 years to move away from “reaction

management” toward a more proactive, program-monitoring approach to managing prisons. The term “program

monitoring” here refers to oversight that relies on the

frequent monitoring of important measures used by managers at all levels of the organization. This year Bureau

14


staff routinely monitored program performance, financial indicators, population characteristics, and other essential

indicators. By constantly taking the

pulse of the organization, staff were

better able to project needs and circumvent crises.

At left: “Management by walking

around” is a traditional way for wardens to keep informed about the activities of every institutional department. Pictured: Warden Carolyn

Rickards (center), with Darlene Ely,

Accounting Supervisor, and Jim

Wagner, Controller, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg,

Virginia.

Access to information and staff involvement are critical components of quality-oriented systems. It would be

inefficient to have the Bureau’s most

senior managers monitor programs if

mid-level managers and line staff do

not. In this regard, a management-indicator tracking system—Key Indicators—developed by the Office of

Research and Evaluation first implemented in 1988, continued to serve the

Bureau very well in 1992. This tracking

system has become a vehicle for disseminating key data elements, from a

number of information sources, to Bureau managers. The system contains data elements relating to inmate characteristics, behavior and programs,

staff demographics, financial management, and community corrections. Data can be reviewed by institution,

region, and institution security level, and displayed in

tabular or graphic form (see chart).

Since 1990, senior managers in the

Correctional Services Branch have

used Key Indicators to closely track

all uses of force by Bureau staff.

Data on uses of force—including, for

instance, whether a staff team was

needed to control the situation, what

type of restraints was used, and the

total time any inmate spends under

restraint—are entered daily at the

institution level, reviewed at both

the regional and Central Office level,

and aggregated to provide a Bureauwide monthly report. Managers are

alert for any unusual patterns that

might indicate a need for upper-level

intervention; as an example, a highsecurity penitentiary that reported

significant increases in uses of force

over other penitentiaries might require additional training for staff.

During the past several years, an automated “information

module,” extracted from Key Indicators, has been developed that provides a concise summary of important

institution management data, thus permitting the identification of important trends. This year’s improvements to

the module allowed executive staff members to quickly

review as many as 50 important indicators for each of the

Bureau’s institutions, representing various program areas. Furthermore, when reviewing any facility, they were

able to scan data relative to similar Bureau institutions,

and to skip over data within normal ranges to focus

selectively on indicators that diverge from the norm,

having unusually high or low values. Through automation, the same modules reviewed by the executive staff

were made available to other managers. For example,

each warden could view his or her own institution’s trend

data and comparison data for other institutions.

One of the great strengths of the Key Indicators system is

that it requires no special data entry work by Bureau staff.

The system pulls in data from pre-existing sources, runs

statistical programs on these data, and reformats the

information in ways useful for managers.

Additionally, Key Indicators displays data patterns over

time in monthly, quarterly, or yearly increments, enabling trend analysis. This tracking system has an advantage over “hard copy” reports in that it allows staff to

make comparisons that have specific relevance to their

needs, as opposed to relying on more standardized reporting information. Staff can use this system to justify

resource requests, establish and monitor goals, gain additional perspective on their own operations, and monitor

critical characteristics and program performance.

Key Indicators Monthly Schedule

Quality assurance for program

components and data

Key Indicators database updating

and quality control

v

CD-ROM production

v

Distribution to users

development. and enhancements

17
The Bureau’s executive staff tracks program trends and accomplishments and

provides divisional strategic planning

briefings to the director. These briefings

may involve the use of charts, graphs,

and brief narratives that illustrate trends

for a wide range of program components. For example, the Correctional

Programs Division may report on such

key areas as inmate security level, race,

citizenship, age, sentence length, furloughs, residential drug treatment, escapes, and assaults.

In 1992 as in 1991, significant time at

executive staff meetings was dedicated

to a close review of trend data, one

institution at a time. In light of this

information, the focus of executive staff

discussions includes not only systemic

program issues but operational issues

concerning the overall functioning

of each region and its respective

institutions.

Conclusion

When an inmate has a complaint, he

or she is required first to contact

staff and try to informally resolve it.

If this is unsuccessful, the inmate

may then file a formal request for

“administrative remedy,” which must

be responded to within 15 calendar

days. Using Key Indicators, wardens

can monitor—on a monthly, quarterly,

or yearly basis—the number of administrative remedies filed by inmates, and can compare the filings

at their institution against comparable filings at other institutions. If

an increase in filings is seen, wardens can quickly identify the specific area (e.g, quality of the food,

access to educational programs or

medical services) and follow up with

the appropriate administrative staff.

If necessary, the warden may decide

to speak personally to the inmate(s)

involved, or even call a “town meeting” with the inmates to get at the

source of the problem. Key Indicators enables Bureau managers to

monitor many such trends and quickly

identify areas in need of management attention.

The administrative nature of strategic

planning and management systems may

at first glance seem far removed from the often tense and

sometimes dangerous “real world” of prisons. However,

both research and the empirical experiences of prison

managers lead to the conclusion that well-managed prisons are also safer, more secure, and more humane. Given

the Bureau’s commitment to good management and the

empowerment of staff at all levels of the organization, the

question then becomes: what techniques help achieve

these goals?

In 1991, the Strategic Planning Office

became part of the Program Review

Division. In 1992, strategic planning,

for the first time, was formally integrated with the program review process.

As a result, grassroots initiatives were

considered both for formulating strategic plans and identifying potential weaknesses that should be targeted in

upcoming reviews. Plans for corrective

action and strategic initiatives were crosslinked for the first time. Program monitoring tools were redesigned to correlate

to the Bureau’s strategic goals. And, in

1992, guidelines for enhanced policy

development were approved, requiring a justification for

any proposed new policies in light of the Bureau’s

strategic goals.

A number of evaluation and planning strategies and

accomplishments have been touched upon in these pages.

To think of these initiatives as autonomous would be

misleading; the whole—these coordinated, interdepen1992 was a most challenging year for the Bureau of

Prisons. It was also the year that saw a number of

promising strategies and tools continue to move toward

an optimal, agency-wide, integrated system; a system

that strives to replace conjecture with knowledge and

empowerment. In an unprecedented way, the Strategic

Management Cycle challenges all Bureau staff to be

accountable for, and involved in, the management and

continuous improvement of their programs.

At Right: b Many Bureau recycling

programs began through staff initiatives formalized through the strategic planning process. Pictured: Inmates from the Federal Prison Camp,

Petersburg, Virginia, work at a recycling operation at nearby Fort Lee.

The joint operation-prison and military base—recycles 12 truckloads of

waste each month.

dent planning and evaluation systems—

is much more than the sum of the parts.

They achieve their maximum potential

only when used as an integrated process,

which the Bureau calls the “Strategic

Management Cycle”; it establishes a

framework for all of the agency’s program-review strategies. Self-evaluations

and independent evaluations complement each other; both are enriched by

climate assessments. Monitoring instruments both support and are supported by

the other evaluation tools.

18

The Year in Review

Growth and transition

I

n December 1992. the Bureau of

Prisons underwent a major transition in leadership, as Kathleen

M. Hawk was named to head the organization as its sixth director upon the

retirement of J. Michael Quinlan. Director Hawk—the first woman to head

the Bureau—had previously served as

warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina; chief of

Bureau staff training, Staff Training

Academy, Glynco, Georgia; and assistant director, Program Review Division, among other positions in her

16-year career.

In 1992, the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ inmate population grew by 11

Keeping inmates productively occupied

is one of the major challenges the Bureau

faces as the population continues to

grow.

percent over December 1991 levels; staffing levels grew

by 9 percent. At the end of 1992, the Bureau’s inmate

population stood at 79,859, compared to 71,998 at the end

of 1991.

Due to increases in the number of beds (from expansion

of existing Bureau institutions, new construction, or

conversion of noncorrectional facilities) and to changes

in the method of calculating rated capacity (discussed

below), the systemwide crowding rate remains at 137

percent. The Bureau’s goal is to reduce the crowding rate

to 130 percent by 1995.

Throughout the Bureau in 1992, 1,736 beds were added

through new construction, and 758 through conversions,

upgrades, and other enhancements at existing institutions. A new medium-security Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) opened in Manchester, Kentucky.

About 60 percent of the Bureau’s

inmate population are serving time

for drug offenses. The population is

approximately 25 percent non-U.S.

citizens. The Federal pretrial detainee

population has exploded over the last

decade, from 4,000 in 1981 to 7,000

today. The proportion of female

offenders now totals 8 percent—

representing a growth rate considerably higher than that of the male

population.

The growth in inmate population and

numbers of facilities have required

increases in the number of staff as

well—to 23,846, from 21,923 in 1991.

Recruitment remained a major emphasis. At year’s end. the Bureau’s

workforce included 38.6 percent correctional services

staff. with the remainder in such occupational categories

as health services, chaplaincy, mechanical services, food

service, psychology. and education.

n The first elements of what will be an increasingly

important organizational concept for the Bureau of Prisons came on line in 1992. Federal Correctional Complexes (FCC’s) have several institutions of diffferent

security levels on a common site. As well as sharing

utilities, administrative services. and an inmate labor

pool. FCC’s will provide increased career opportunities

 employees and for spouses who are both employed by

the Bureau, without the disruption of moving families to

other Bureau locations.

The Federal Prison Camp (FPC), one of four facilities

being constructed at FCC Florence, Colorado, opened in

July 1992. The other facilities at that location—to be

opened in 1993 and 1994 will be a medium-security

20
Federal Correctional Institution, a high-security peni- medically able. Participation in drug education programs

tentiary, and an administrative maximum-security peni- is mandatory for specific inmates who have a history of

tentiary, designed to replace the U.S. Penitentiary, substance abuse, and involvement in literacy programs is

Marion, Illinois, as the most secure facility in the Federal mandatory for the many inmates—45 percent—who do

system. not have a high school diploma or a GED.

Two existing Bureau facilities—in Allenwood, Pennsyl- n Individuals with substance abuse treatment needs are

vania, and Butner, North Carolina—are being expanded nowhere more strongly concentrated than among the

to FCC status. The existing Federal Prison Camp at I Nation’s prisoners. Because a substantial proportion of

Allenwood is being integrated with newly constructed : Federal inmates have a lifelong pattern of drug depenlow-, medium-, and high-security Federal institutions. ! dency, it is evident that society benefits from effective

The existing Federal Correctional Institution and camp at : intervention in the lives of properly motivated inmates.

The Federal Correctional Institution, Manchester, Kentucky, the Bureau’s newest medium-security institution, opened in 1992.

Butner will be complemented with a medical center for

female prisoners. Two additional FCC’s are in the developmental stages in Beaumont, Texas, and Coleman,

Florida.

n The Bureau has often adapted former military properties to penal use (and has a number of prison camps on

active military bases). In 1992, the Bureau signed an

agreement with the Department of the Army to convert a

large part of Ft. Dix, New Jersey, which was designated

for closure, to low- and minimum-security use. Two lowsecurity institutions and a satellite camp, with a capacity

of more than 3,500 inmates, will operate under a supervising warden and supporting associate wardens—making

Ft. Dix overall the largest facility in the Federal system.

Inmates and inmate programs

In the Bureau, many self-improvement opportunities for

inmates are available. Work is mandatory for all who are

To meet the needs of such offenders, the Bureau offers a

comprehensive substance abuse treatment strategy that

presents every offender with a broad range of treatment

options of varying length and intensity. The Bureau’s

multilevel drug treatment strategy includes education,

counseling, residential programs (in which inmates live

in special units and receive about 3 hours of intensive

drug treatment programming per day, for a total of 500

treatment hours), and transitional services to ensure a

continuum of treatment when an inmate is transferred to

a Community Corrections Center or placed on probation.

Sixteen residential programs were opened in 1992, bringing the total systemwide to 31.

To detect and deter inmate drug use while in custody, the

Bureau operates a program of random and targeted drug

testing. In 1992, more than 47,000 random tests were

administered, resulting in only a 1.3-percent detection

rate.

21
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 1992, 5,450 inmates completed GED programs as a result of

this mandatory program strategy.

Above. One of Fede r a l Pri son

Industries’ major objectives is to teach

inmates good work habits, not just

specialized industrial skills.  A

class at the Intensive Confinement

Center, Bryan, Texas.

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,

about 22 percent of them are employed by UNICOR

(15,897 in December 1992, up from 14,610 in 1991).

in postal automation. More than 10 million pieces of

automation-compatible mail will be processed by FCI

Fort Worth’s UNICOR operation in the next fiscal year,

saving Federal agencies more than $1 million in that year

alone.

In June, the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.,

sponsored a Prison Industries Summit to bring together

Bureau and Department of Justice officials; representatives of labor and trade associations; business executives;

and Congressional staff to discuss public policy issues

related to prison industries. Participants in the Brookings

summit have continued to focus on UNICOR issues in

regular Workgroup meetings.

In October, the National Prison Industries Task Force met

at the Supreme Court, chaired by former Attorney General Griffin Bell. The Task Force meeting was attended

by high-level representatives from the executive and

legislative branches of Government, the criminal justice

system, and the private sector. Participants in these

meetings discussed such issues as the Congressionally

mandated independent market study

of Federal Prison Industries operations completed in 1991, its recommendations for the future growth of

prison industries, specific industry and

labor concerns related to UNICOR

operations, and the development of

strategies to ensure that the growth in

inmate employment will parallel the

rising inmate population in ways designed to minimize any negative impact upon the private sector.

Many UNICOR field operations had

notable achievements in 1992. 
	

instance, the Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth, Texas, was nominated for the “Partnership 
 Progress

Award” by the U.S. Postal Service,

given for outstanding achievements

n 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

1992, 18,505 participating inmates returned more than

$14.16 million through this program, and more than $67

million has been collected since the program’s inception

in 1987.

In April, the Department of Justice’s Office for Victims

of Crime recognized Bureau facilities and staff for their

outstanding contributions in the collection of fines for

deposit in the Crime Victims Fund. Receiving awards

were the Federal Prison Camp, Eglin, Florida; the Federal

Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky; and Paul Horner,

former chief of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), Central Office.

n The Bureau’s first Intensive Confinement Center (ICC)

for female offenders opened at the Federal Prison Camp,

22
Bryan, Texas, in July 1992. The first inmate team graduated in January 1993. The Bryan ICC houses 120 female

inmates, with a staffing complement of 29. The first ICC,

for male offenders, opened in 1991 at the U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and had graduated 417

inmates as of year’s end.

The ICC program, the Bureau’s adaptation of the “boot

camp” concept, is designed to teach inmate participants

self-discipline and self-respect and prepare them for a

successful adjustment to society upon release. Inmates

who successfully complete the 6-month program will be

permitted to serve the remainder of their sentence in

community-based correctional facilities (rather than more

secure facilities) until they become eligible for prerelease

programming.

Programming consists of physical labor and intensive

self-improvement programming for 17 hours a day, 6

days a week. A labor-intensive work assignment for the

Bryan ICC was established with the U.S. Forest Service

in New Waverly, Texas; inmates work in the forest.

clearing brush. maintaining trails

facilities for the

public, and performing other duties 3 days per week. The other 3

days of their regimen, as is the

case with the ICC program for

males, include physical conditioning, drug abuse counseling, religious services, and training in life coping

skills, literacy, and vocational skills. Because physical

health is an important component of the progam, the ICC

is a smoke-free environment for inmates and staff.

Participation in the ICC is voluntary—with the approval

of the sentencing judge. Living conditions are strict:

inmates have few privileges; Sundays and Federal holidays are the only days that inmates are permitted to

receive visits and participate in recreational activities;

personal property and telephone calls are very limited.

n An old health threat. tuberculosis, reemerged in a new

drugresistant form in 1992; because of its ability to

spread among confined populations, its prevention has

become a major concern for Bureau medical operations

(although there were no multi-drug-resistant cases in the

Bureau in the last year). The Department of Health and

Human Services convened a task force on which the

Bureau served to provide a correctional perspectivethat resulted in the Natnonal Action Plan to Conhat

Mlilti-Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis

n The agency’s successful management of HIV-infected

inmates (“mainstreaming” them in the general population in all cases except for the predatory or promiscuous)

is regarded as a national model. The Bureau is continuing

to collaborate with other Federal health agencies and

other correctional systems in addressing this extremely

serious health issue.
“Basic training” for all new Bureau employees at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia, includes

role-playing exercises, firearms and self-defense instruction, and classroom work.

n The Bureau’s chaplaincy staff undertook a major

project in 1993: a series of work groups focusing on the

“multicultural” spiritual needs of the increasingly diverse

inmate population. Work groups on Hispanics, Native

Americans, African-Americans, and women developed a

solid knowledge base for use by staff in the field and made

a number of recommendations for enhancements in chaplaincy programs.

Staff

One of the major challenges facing the Federal Bureau of

Prisons is recruitment. Staffing levels, which almost

doubled in the 5 years from 1986 to 1991, are expected to

almost double again by 1995. Inadequate staffing can

potentially mean compromises in security as well as

dramatic increases in overtime costs. Meeting this challenge has become one of the agency’s top priorities,

requiring additional expansion of everything from training facilities to information systems for managing human

resources.

In 1992, the recruitment of new staff generally kept pace

with the growth of the inmate population—with 23,846

staff at year’s end, as compared to 21,923 in December

1991. 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, as well as the numbers of minority and

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 198 1 to

28.6 and 27.1 percent in 1992. In other highlights of the

year:

n Bureau efforts in Affirmative Action produced significant advances in minority recruitment and promotion.

Affirmative Action Programs (AAP) were significantly

enlarged and restructured to reflect the increasing importance of cultural diversity to the agency. In addition to its

current responsibilities—which include minority recruitment, diversity training, and special emphasisprograms—

the AAP branch will have a strong research mission

involved in tracking the career development and advancement, job satisfaction, and work environment experienced by minorities in the Bureau. AAP will also assess

24
the impact of Bureau policies and practices on minority

staff. The branch will be tasked with proposing and

advocating changes to Bureau policies and strategic plans

to ensure staff representation.

On July 1, the League of United Latin American Citizens

presented then-Director J. Michael Quinlan with its highest award to honor excellence in Bureau of Prisons

operations, services provided to staff, commitment to

cultural diversity, and the quality of the programs and

opportunities offered to inmates. Currently, 8.3 percent

of the Bureau’s staff are of Hispanic origin. In the past

year, the number of GS/GM- I3 Hispanic managers in the

Bureau grew by 43 percent. Then-Arkansas Governor

Bill Clinton and Texas Governor Ann Richards addressed conference participants.

n In May, the Bureau’s training facility at the Federal

Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia,

celebrated its 10th anniversary. With a staff of only 18,

the academy provided training for 1,400 employees in its

first year. In 1992, the academy’s 72 staff members

provided introductory and specialty training to

more than 6,000 Bureau employees. Eighty

percent of the Bureau’s current workforce

are Glynco graduates.

At the Management and Specialty

Training Center (MSTC) in Aurora. Colorado, 4,570 students

attended classes in such fields

as facilities management, special investigations, food service,

paralegal support. and recreation

supervision.

n Development of executive and

managerial talent is a critical issue.

given the Bureau’s 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

tions. As an example, 41 Bureau executives attended a

course sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of

Public and International Affairs of Princeton University.

The course. entitled “Public Leadership and Management Skills for Corrections.” focused on global and

domestic policy issues that affect corrections. The

Brookings Institution also sponsored a program for the

Bureau’s senior managers entitled “Political Realities in

Public Management.”

A tradition of excellent labor-management relations

continued in 1992, as a new Master Agreement was

negotiated and ratified between the Bureau and the Council of Prison Locals. American Federation of Government Employees. Warden Pat Keohane, U.S. Penitentiary,

Terre Haute, Indiana, received the 1992 AFGE Council

of Prison Locals National Labor Relations Award, presented annually to Bureau Chief Executive Officers.

Warden Keohane was nominated for his tireless efforts at

creating positive labor/management relations in the institutions he supervised.

Technology and

research

n A major new telephone system

for inmates promises both enhanced security and increased serpredecessors, must assume supervisory

and management-level duties with less

on-the-job experience in prior posivices. The new Inmate Telephone

System (ITS), installed first at the

Federal Correctional Institution,

Butner, North Carolina, will be in place

throughout the Bureau in about 3 years.

Among the system’s numerous security and control capabilities are control

over telephone numbers called, duration of calls, location from which calls

may be placed, and call accounting

audit trails. The direct-dial ITS will

place the financial responsibility for

Recruitment of minorities and women

r e m a i n s a m a j o r e m p h a s i s f o r t h e

expanding Bureau workforce.

25
the payment of calls on the inmates. (In traditional BOP

phone systems, all outgoing calls were “collect,“ placing

the financial burden on family members in most cases.)

 new system greatly reduces accounting costs through

its ability to “sell” telephone credits to inmates in the

institution commissary or inmate store. These credits are

then automatically transferred to the ITS on the following

morning. The ITS can give account balances and the cost

of the last completed call through a voice response

system. allowing inmates to check on the status

of their accounts.

n The Bureau began to distribute nonsensitive program

(policy) statements and operations memoranda electronically, via CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory).

This technology allows users to access the most current

policy quickly and easily and-in the long tern-will

greatly reduce the bulk associated with paper distribution. CD-ROM enables users to conduct name or word

string searches to rapidly identify relevant policies and

retrieve portions of those policies that address their

specific needs.

n In August, experts from the AFGE

Council of Prison Locals (CPL) and the

this will dramatically reduce the costs and security

risks associated with transporting inmates.

n In October, the Bureau’s Office of

Security Technology completed the

installation of avideo teleconferencing system between the U.S. Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida, and

the new Federal Detention Center

(FDC) in Tallahassee. The system

enables the court to conduct certain

pretrial procedures without having to

move offenders from the FDC to the court;

resource training performed via teleconference—at

less than one-fourth the cost of an in-person conference.

Bureau’s labor-management relations

staff gathered at a local television

studio in Denver for a video teleconference to review changes and

answer staff questions about the

new Master Agreement between

the CPL and the Bureau. Staff were

able to watch the teleconference live at

most Bureau institutions and phone in

questions. This program was the first human

The Tallahassee system is the first of such systems that

the Bureau will pilot for the Department of Justice.

Similar systems are being considered to link the Metropolitan Detention Centers in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, and

New York City with their respective courthouses. A

fourth system is planned to link the Federal Medical

Center, Lexington, Kentucky, with the Immigration and

Naturalization Service Regional Office in Chicago to

permit Executive Office of Immigration Review judges

to conduct detention and deportation hearings.

n As Bureau information systems are increasingly placed

on personal computer networks, the threat of data contamination by virus increases. To help counter these

dangers, and to increase the level of protection from

inmate abuses, the Bureau’s Information, Policy, and

Public Affairs Division established a Computer Security

Office within the Office of Information Systems.

n On July 16, the National Institute of Corrections’

National Academy of Corrections conducted a nationwide satellite video teleconference, entitled “Ethics in the

‘90’s.” More than 2,300 State and local correctional

professionals and educators from 28 States participated

via satellite. The 2-hour program included taped segments in which correctional administrators from around

the Nation expressed their views; viewers in remote

locations were able to participate live by phoning in their

questions and comments.

Community corrections and

intermediate sanctions

In 1992, the Bureau’s Community Corrections and Detention Division focused both on traditional forms of

community corrections and on expanding options for

intermediate sanctions. The Division supervised 33 offices around the Nation that monitor Community Corrections Center (CCC) or “halfway house” contracts; 250

26
contracts were awarded or continued during the year,

providing 5,O14 beds for inmates who are nearing the end

of their sentences or serving short terms of confinement

in the community.

n Innovative intermediate sanction/work programs co- 1

sponsored with other Federal agencies continued to expand. Two examples:

The Federal Correctional Institution,

Loretto, Pennsylvania, signed an interagency agreement with the Department of the Interior, National

Park Service (NPS), and the Allegheny Portage Railroad that will allow

an inmate work cadre to assist the

NPS in maintaining the grounds and

facilities of the Allegheny Portage

Railroad National Historical Site.

establish several Comprehensive Sanctions Centers

(CSC’s). CSC’s will provide judges and wardens with a

full range of sanctions—creating environments that may

be less restrictive than imprisonment, but more restrictive

than traditional Community Corrections Centers—without compromising community safety. The program will

contain six different levels of supervision, ranging from

day-reporting to 24-hour confinement. CSC’s also will

have an intensive treatment component. A key compoA probation officer and Community Corrections Center resident, Volunteers of

America Regional Correctional Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

As a result of an informal arrangement between the National Weather

Service (NWS) and the Federal Correctional Institution, Schuylkill,

Pennsylvania, the FCI has recently

become a weather observatory for

the NWS. Inmate volunteers measure and record weather

data at least twice each day. The Schuylkill observatory

provides important information because of the site’s

elevation and location and because there are no other

NWS observatories in the area. The project also provides

information to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for Schuylkill County, which maintains local

highways. Schuylkill camp inmates also maintain a Forest Fire Observation Point, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Resources

(DER).

nent of the program will be helping offenders reintegrate

into the community by working closely with family

members and a support network of community-based

volunteers, who will work in conjunction with program

staff.

Cooperation with other agencies

The worst natural disaster ever to affect the agency

occurred in 1992—Hurricane Andrew. Thanks to advance weather warnings and successful emergency preparedness plans—and a great deal of help from other

Federal, State, and local agencies—Federal Prison Camp

(FPC), Homestead, and Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), Miami, staff and inmates were kept safe from

Hurricane Andrew’s destruction. However, Miami’s

n Bureau staff continued to work closely with the U.S.

Probation Service in the development of electronic monitoring and home confinement programs—which provide

appropriate, cost-effective supervision for offenders in

an increasing number of judicial districts.

n The Bureau and the U.S. Probation Office in the

Northern District of Ohio developed a pilot project to

27
buildings and grounds suffered significant damage, By 10:00 p.m. on August 26—just 2 days after the storm

while Homestead’s were totally destroyed. Tragically, a hit—Bureau staff, assisted by the U.S. Marshals Service,

third of the 400 Bureau staff members in south Florida had safely transported nearly 1,400 inmates to other

lost their homes. Bureau and non-Bureau correctional facilities throughAbove: Staff clean up after the hurricane, Metropolitan Correctional Center,

Miami, Florida. Below: A UNICOR truck split in half by the hurricane.

On August 23, the day before the hurricane hit south

Florida, 146 FPC Homestead inmates and 63 institution

staff were moved to MCC Miami. When Hurricane

Andrew reached Miami at 5:00 a.m. on the 24th, there

were 1,402 inmates and 408 staff members at the MCC.

In addition, more than 200 family members had gathered

in the institution’s visiting room and training center to

“ride out” the storm. The hurricane immediately knocked

out electricity, water, and phone service. Fortunately, no

one suffered serious injuries.

The Bureau had begun emergency evacuation procedures as the storm approached, positioning staff and

vehicles near South Florida to be ready to move in after

the hurricane passed. Airlifts werealso arranged when the

Bureau identified a Miami-area airport that was operational. As the buses and airplanes moved toward the

institution, MCC Miami and FPC Homestead staff—

who had just endured a terrifying storm—undertook

procedures to ensure security, and began assessing the

damage and preparing for an orderly evacuation.

out the Southeast Region. This astonishing feat was accomplished through

hours of hard work and outstanding

interagency teamwork.

The staff of FPC Homestead and MCC

Miami remained on the job at the institution during the hurricane and the

time required to evacuate inmates and

secure the facility. Despite the fact that

many lost their homes and all their

possessions to the storm—and, in a

number of cases, had no idea of the

whereabouts of family members and

no way of contacting them—they remained focused on their professional

duties.

MCC Miami came back on line early in 1993; FPC

Homestead will not be reopened. A bright spot to the

disaster was the outpouring of support from Bureau staff

and friends of the Bureau for the Miami and Homestead

employees who suffered so greatly and lost so much. By

the end of the year, institutions around the Nation had

raised $295,000 in disaster relief and collected many

truckloads of food, clothing, and personal items.

n In April and May, Los Angeles was swept by some of

the worst riots in modern U.S. history. In response to a

presidential order to dispatch Federal law enforcement

personnel to south-central Los Angeles to keep the peace,

20 of the Bureau’s Special Operations Response Teams

(SORT’s) from Federal institutions nationwide traveled

to the riot-torn

area on Friday,‘May 1.

28
The SORT’s were actively involved

in protecting property, patrolling

neighborhoods, searching burned-out

buildings for possible victims, and

serving as support for the Los Angeles

Police Department (LAPD). SORT’s

also were responsible for apprehending four individuals possessing cocaine, preventing an individual from

stabbing a woman, and apprehending

a sniper who had been shooting at

residents. In this incident, which occurred at night, the SORT surrounded

the building where the sniper was

hiding, and, using a “stealth entry

maneuver,” captured the individual

and placed him in the custody of the

LAPD. In the absence of the SORT’s,

staff onsite at the home institutions

maintained security; there were no

disturbances during the riot period.

A The N/C Academy in Boulder, Colorado,

trains State and local corrections

professionals.

n To help enhance coordination with the Federal judiciary, the Bureau participated in a Sentencing Institute for

about 65 judges of the 2nd and 8th Circuits in Lexington,

Kentucky. Co-sponsored by the Bureau of Prisons and

the Federal Judicial Center, the Institute focused on the

relationship between the U.S. Sentencing Commission

and the courts, sentencing guideline issues and the amendment cycle, hearing factors, the role of the probation

officer in guideline sentencing, intermediate sanctions

and conditions of supervision, and plea bargaining factors. Bureau staff sponsored exhibits about matters of

mutual concern. In addition, the Bureau published an

enhanced second edition of the Judicial Guide to the

Bureau of Prisons.

n The Department of Defense continued its support for

conversions of military property to prison use and for

prison camps located on military installations, which

often provide much-needed work crews and services for

base maintenance. As mentioned, a portion of Ft. Dix,

New Jersey, is in the process of conversion from an Army

base to a major complex of minimum- and low-security

institutions-the largest in the Federal system.

n The Bureau worked closely with

other Department of Justice components in 199 1. Detention issues were a

major focus of interagency efforts.

The Bureau, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office of

Immigration Review, and the Community Relations Service met regularly as the Department’s Joint

Detention Planning Committee, under the auspices of the Office of the

Deputy Attorney General, in continuing support of an interagency plan to

project the Department’s detention

needs to 1996. Anotherjoint program,

as previously described, 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.

n The National Institute of Corrections continued its

work with State and local systems, training more than

1,360 correctional professionals at its NIC Academy in

Boulder, Colorado, and providing training to another

3,187 through conferences and workshops. NIC also

responded to more than 8,700 requests for information

from practitioners and policymakers, awarded 38 grants

to State and local agencies and private organizations (for

such projects as facilitating the use of intermediate sanctions, training, and developing and implementing classification systems), and conducted 60.5 technical assistance

visits to State and local agencies.

n 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 157,454

prisoner moves in 1992 using Bureau buses and U.S.

Marshals airplanes.

29
To support this critical operation, a Federal Transfer

Center (FTC), to be located at the Will Rogers World

Airport in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, will be privately

built, then leased to and operated by the Bureau of

Prisons. The FTC will provide temporary confinement

for about 1,000 prisoners in transit from either the courts

to designated facilities or between facilities. Locating this

operation at the Will Rogers World Airport will relieve

the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno of this

operational task.

n In May, a special program was held at the Federal

Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Texas, to observe the

50th anniversary of the Mexican/American Prisoner Transfer program. The program included representatives from

the Government of Mexico and U.S. Federal law enforcement officials from the Bureau, the U.S. Attorney’s

Office in northern and western Texas, the U.S. Marshals

Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and

the U.S. Parole Commission.

n This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Witness

Security Program. Many individuals in the program are

incarcerated in Bureau facilities—currently, more than

400 inmates. Administered by the U.S. Marshals Service

and coordinated with the Department of Justice’s Office

of Enforcement Operations (Criminal Division) and the

Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Monitoring Section, this program has been a vital tool in the battle against

organized crime for many years. The conviction rate in trials where the testimony of protected witnesses was offered is more than

86 percent. More than 5,800

as well as 7,200 of their

members, have entered the

ness Security Program since

1971. During that time, not

one witness in the program

has been harmed because of

his or her testimony.

n Last year, the Bureau and the National Institute of

Corrections received legislative authority to provide technical assistance to foreign governments. A Bureau/NIC

team spent 2 weeks in Romania surveying Romania’s

correctional system and formulating recommendations

for its localized and systemic improvements. The team

visited nine institutions to meet with their commanders

and support staffs, and made recommendations regarding

Romania’s inmate classification scheme, inmate work

and program assignments, the stratification of institutions (by security level), organizational management,

and conditions of confinement. In addition, the team

reviewed draft legislation concerning prison management and confinement. Formal training in confrontation

avoidance and inmate searching procedures was provided for training instructors.

Another assessment team visited Jamaica in September

to assist Jamaican corrections staff in such areas as

management and organizational structure, inmate classification, and security and custody methods. In addition,

the Bureau provided short-term technical assistance to

the corrections agencies in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia,

and Panama. All technical assistance is conducted in

coodination with the U.S. Department of State.

Public outreach and

community involvement

n In April, the Department of Justice hosted the Attorney

General’s Summit on Corrections in McLean, Virginia.

The summit focused on increasing prison capacity for

offenders in a costropriate use of interments for nonserious,

nonviolent offenders; trends in the

role of the courts in corrections; and

effective institutional programming,

including work, drug treatment, and

education/literacy programs. Bureau

staff played a major role in preparing for the conference and presenting at many of the sessions.

Parker Evatt, Director, South

Carolina Department of Corrections,

speaks at the Attorney General’s

Summit on Corrections.

30
Former Attorney General William P.

Barr was keynote speaker at the Summit. Other primary speakers were former

Solicitor General of the United States

Kenneth W. Starr; Chairman of the U.S.

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration William J. Hughes; Massachusetts Governor William Weld; South

Carolina Department of Corrections Director Parker Evatt; and then-Bureau of

Prisons Director J. Michael Quinlan. In

addition, the conference included workshops and plenary sessions on capacity

expansion strategies, efficient management, effective institutional programming, intermediate sanctions, and legal

issues in corrections.

A Scrap wood from the UNlCOR

factory is turned into toys for charity

at the Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon.

Guests included State legislators; members of the judiciary; Federal, State, and

local officials involved in corrections

and intermediate sanctions in the community; and representatives of related

professional associations, victims of crime, local police :

and prosecution agencies, and the media. Altogether, :

about 300 public policy officials from around the Nation :

attended the Summit.

n Volunteerism received increased emphasis in policy 1

and practice in 1992. Community volunteers make enor- :

mous contributions to agency operations and to the well- 1

being of offenders. Over the past year, there have been :

significant efforts to increase the number of people who :

regularly volunteer in institutions, augmenting existing :

academic, counseling, and religious programs.

ons Journal focused on the female offender—a growing

segment of the Bureau’s inmate population and that of

correctional systems nationwide. The issue immediately

became a leading resource in an area that has received too

little attention, discussing the need to review classification techniques for female offenders, parenting programs, women’s health care in prison, management of

women’s institutions, and other topics.

In May, the Bureau established the National Office of :

Citizen Participation (NOCP) to help expand the role of :

volunteerism within the Bureau of Prisons. The NOCP :

will foster new partnerships with the private sector; :

strengthen existing linkages with public and charitable :

organizations; provide support to institutions and Re- 1

gional Offices; and act as a liaison to national service !

organizations. A priority for the office will be the devel- 1

opment of new programs and initiatives to provide a :

n The AmericanCorrectional Association (ACA) awarded

the Bureau of Prisons’ video “Toymakers” first place in

the “Special Interest” category of its annual film awards.

The 18-minute program, written, directed, and produced

by the Bureau’s Office of Public Affairs, highlights the

Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon’s innovative toy building operation. Inmates involved in this

program make toys out of scrap wood generated at the

institution’s furniture factory and, through the local

support network for released inmates

who are attempting to reintegrate into

the community and remain crime-free.

n Renew America, a national environmental organization, announced that the

UNICOR Strategic Recycling program

located at the Federal Prison Camp,

Duluth has been selected to receive a

Certificate of Environmental Achievement. The Duluth program was chosen

for its success in protecting the environment, while serving as a model that can

be replicated around the country. Items

recycled throughout the camp include

cardboard, office paper, tin cans, aluminum cans, fabric swatches, and pallets. UNICOR Strategic Recycling will

be listed in Renew America’s I992

Environmental Success Index, the most

comprehensive guide to the Nation’s

environmental programs.

n A special issue of the Federal Pris31
Kiwanis Club, donate them to a nearby 	 Inmates using the telechildren’s hospital and other local

phones at the Federal Correctional

Institution, Jesup, Georgia. A new

charities.

Program integrity

direct-dial inmate telephone system

is beginning to be installed and will

be in place throughout the Bureau in

about 8 years. The new system places

financial responsibility for the payment of calls on inmates.

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 and important issue. See the front section of this

publication, “Program Review and Planning in the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” for further discussion.

Program integrity within the Bureau is ensured through a

well-developed system of internal controls—such as

regular program reviews—and managementsystemsfor

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—to the public, to the press,

to the academic community, and to oversight by Government organizations, including Congress.

n The Bureau continues to support the accreditation

process of the American Correctional Association. At

present, 52 Bureau institutions are accredited by ACA,

with another 6 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-in Butner, North

Carolina: Lexington, Kentucky; Rochester, Minnesota

and Springfield, Missouri. This accreditation helps ensure that medical care commensurate with community

health care delivery standards is provided to all Bureau

inmates who require it.

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 (as discussed earlier) that offer

many economies of scale; increasing the

rated capacity of institutions and doublebunking about two thirds of all inmates,

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.

n Federal Prison Industries hired an ombudsman to

examine and report on private sector concerns, serve as an

unbiased mediator and conciliator, and look for opportunities for partnerships that benefit both the private sector

and FPI. The new ombudsman reviews and makes final

decisions on customer waiver appeals and reports to

FPI’s Board of Directors regarding FPI’s impact on the

private sector. He works with private companies and

trade associations, striving to find mutually beneficial

methods of resolving problems and complaints in order

for FPI to achieve its correctional mission without unduly

affecting the private sector.

32

Outstanding individual

achievments

D

uring the past year, a number of individuals

were recognized for their outstanding achievements. The “Directors’ Awards”—named for

the first four directors of the Federal Bureau of Prisons—

and the Equal Employment Opportunity Award are the

highest honors given by the Bureau. The Attorney

General’s awards are presented by the Attorney General

in a ceremony at the Department of Justice.

The Sanford Bates Award

Granted annually, since 1967, to non-supervisory 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.

David Marshall and Robert Perdue

Correctional Officers, Federal Correctional

Institution, Phoenix, Arizona

Officers Marshall and Perdue risked their own lives to

help prevent the escape of two heavily armed inmates

from FCI Phoenix in October 1991. Their courage and

professionalism exemplify the highest standards of the

Federal Bureau of Prisons.

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.

Thomas Wilson

Correctional Supervisor, Federal Correctional

Institution, Jesup, Georgia

In July 1991, while working as operations lieutenant at

the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Miami, Florida,

Mr. Wilson was held at gunpoint by inmates who threatened to kill him in their escape attempt. His calmness and

clear thinking under extreme pressure demonstrated true

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.

Donna M. Henke

Financial Manager, Federal Correctional Institution,

Otisville, New York

Ms. Henke, on her own initiative, implemented several

new programs within her department that increased the

efficiency of institutional operations, and has shown

consistent success in tackling unresolved problems.

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.

Rita K. Suddeth

Unit Secretary, Federal Correctional Institution,

Talladega, Alabama

While being held hostage by Cuban detainees during the

Talladega incident in August 1991, Ms. Suddeth demonstrated extraordinary courage and resourcefulness in

support of her fellow hostages and of the rescue effort.

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.

34
Frederick Menifee

Associate Warden, Federal Correctional Institution,

Oakdale, Louisiana

At FCI Oakdale, Mr. Menifee developed a very progressive recruitment program. He is active in the community

through the National Association of Blacks in Criminal

Justice and has increased staff involvement and participation in Affirmative Action programs.

Distinguished Service

For accomplishing assigned duties in such an exemplary

manner as to set a record of achievement that will inspire

others to improve the quality of their work.

Audrey Hartwell

Legal Technician, Metropolitan Correctional Center,

San Diego, California

Outstanding Service to Disabled Employees

For providing such services as recruitment, employment,

or provision of services, accommodation, or equipment

to disabled employees of the Department of Justice.

Arthur F. Pulford

Case Management Coordinator, Federal Prison Camp,

Duluth, Minnesota

Attorney General’s Award for Upward Mobility

For making significant contributions to the Upward

Mobility Program—in leadership, training, program development or implementation, or other areas that enhance

mobility for lower-grade employees.

Diane Schatz

Employee Development Manager, Metropolitan

Correctional Center, New York, New York

The John Marshall Award (Providing Legal Advice)

recognition of outstanding legal achievement in furnishing sound legal opinions and expertise in areas involving significant litigation or matters of importance to

the Government.

Excellence in Management

For extraordinary achievements in the improvement of

operational or program effectiveness, efficiency, or productivity; the reduction of costs through innovative administrative initiatives; or the reduction of fraud, waste,

mismanagement, or abuse.

David A. Chapman

Administrator, Intensive Confinement Center,

U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Kathleen M. Hawk

Then-Assistant Director, Program Review Division

Excellence in Administrative Support

For outstanding performance over a sustained period or

extraordinary achievements that overcame unusual difficulties in unique situations of high importance to the

organization’s mission.

Mary (Kathy) Grabowski

Warden’s Secretary, Federal Correctional Institution,

Otisville, New York

Clarita J. Rodriguez

Secretary, Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas

Meritorious Public Service

In recognition of the most significant contributions

of citizens and organizations who have assisted the

Department of Justice in accomplishing its missions and

objectives.

Sandra J. Menley

Chairperson, Community Relations Board, Federal

Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas

Attorney General’s Medallion

In recognition of outstanding achievements in support of

the mission of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Thomas R. Kane

Assistant Director, Information, Policy, and Public

Affairs Division (Acting Director, July-December, 1992)

Dominique Raia

Staff Attorney, Metropolitan Correctional Center,

New York, New York

35
Statistical data

December 31,1992

Inmate characteristics

Institution design capacity Average costs of confinement per inmate

Percent of capacity occupied 137%

Inmates under Bureau jurisdiction

Annual $20,830

Median months expected to be served

In Bureau institutions 71,671 Drug offenses 64

Sentenced 88.3%

Type of commitments (%)

Probation violation

State, Territorial .8

Property offenses 48

Violent offenses

White-collar offenses

Courts or corrections 28

National security 58

Gender (%)

Fema l e 8

36
Race/ethnicity (%)

Black 32.3 Cannabis 26.2 6.0

Asian 1.0 Other narcotics 12.5 6.2

Citizenship (%)

Mexico 8.4

Cuba 3.4

Nigeria 1.1

Inmates held by security levels (%)

Low 14.2

High

Pretrial 6.7

INS 2.4

Substance abuse before commitment (%)

Used in past Reported problem

Amphetamines 7.0 2.9

Barbiturates

Hallucinogens 2.7 0.3

Inhalants 0.8

Substance abuse estimates are based on a sample of new commitments

0.3

37
New law/old law

comparative figures

Inmate characteristics

New law Old law All BOP

Average age 36 40 37 Robbery 7.0 13.4 9.1

Sentence length (%) Extortion, fraud, bribery 6.5 7.0 6.7

1-3 years 23.2 5.4 18.8 Firearms, explosives, arson 8.7 3.0 6.8

5- 10 years 24.9 14.6 22.3 Immigration 2.6 0.3 1.8

15-20 years 6.3 15.7 8.6 Sex offenses 0.6 0.7 0.6

Life 0.9 5.2 2.0

Type of offense (%)

New law Old law All BOP

Continuing criminal enterprise 0.4 1.5 0.7
Employees

Gender (%)

Female 27.1

Institution department (%)

CEO’s Office

Race/ethnicity (%)

Black

Mechanical Services

American Indian

Business Office 6.8

Records/Inmate Systems

Personnel

Psychological Services

Unit/Case Management 9.2

Training/Staff Development 0.8

39
Bureau institutions

FCC:

FCI:

FDC:

FMC:

FPC:

ICC:

LSCI:

MCC:

	












  

	








 !"#$%&

' (*)+*,-.+/
01
 2


346571
8:93;;< =3>	

  3

?<;3@3	 => 




2


A&A&B	CDB	B

EGFGHGFJILKGMJNO

BrPGQLRSOGOyan TGTVUW XYZ [ \] ^_ `abc defagih*h*j*k*l*m*n*o*prq

sGTGPGtLuGNGvGtO uGQGP

wGxGMGyLsGTGPGtGNGzLTGtGPG{GsGz

FCI/FPC Butner EGFGHGFVILKGMO TGTGT

|}~  KGLGJGxGGKLGGGxJNGQL{GTGP

 L

wGxGMGyLPO PGtG{GQL{GtGzGvGsO

F

GGGGGGLGGG G¡£¢¤¥G¦L§GG ̈

CI/FPC Florence ©a«¬­® ̄­L°2±«a«¬3 ́«¶μ · ̧

F

©«¬12o»1⁄4°3⁄41⁄2¿ÁÀ	Â	Ã	Ä	À

CI Fort Dlx zGTGPGtLQGNGvGtOLO TGT

ÅafÆJÇ ̧G·G  ̧

ÈrÉ

FC

**Ê*¦*Ë**¦*Ì2Í*¦**Î

I Fort Worth

ÏÐÑ Ò6Ó*Ô2Õ*Ö*×.Ø Ù2Ú*Û*Ü2ÝßÞÃáà	àâáã	äâ	â	Ã

μ GåG ·

wGxGMGyæuÁO QGtG{GvO tGNO PGv

çáèéêèIGKGM%vGsGTGNLu

MDC Guaynabo ëGìGíGî%ïGðGñGòGóLôGóGôGõ%öGðG÷GíGîGìøù úû

uGTGPGtLQGuGNGtGzL{GvGN

wGxGMGyLuGTGPGtGQLsGPGtGsGvGzLv

FCI/FPC Manchester üýþÿ  
	ý
 
þ ÿ  ·G ̧

GLÌG ̈GLGGËLGÌGG§G

zLTGzGtG{GPGuLtO PGTGT

©G31⁄4 Ç ̧ÇLμLL  å

 "!$#"%"&

FCI Oak

äÀáäÀ

dale ' (*)G +*,-.*/0G*1GG 2 43"5"6"7"8

vO uGtGvGvG{GtLsGTGQGT

wGxLMGyGvO uGtLzGuGQGtGPO uO

FDC Oakdale 9:;:<G¦=GLG

>?@A?Z ] BDCG¦G§EEGGÌGGFÉ GÈ

vO uGtGvGvG{GtLsGsGzGz

©31⁄4æå μGååÇ

FCI/FPC Marlanna HÃJI{K*L*M4N*O*PRQ

SababbaRTVUW ¦LËEGÎGÈ

PLTGsGtG{GNGzLtGNGvO v

XJYRZJ[]\^_ ` _ a ` bc

FCI Otisville 9:;:<G¦=LG

HGLdeGGGfGRhgRi*j4klRmRn O TGPGzGv

PO sGtGvGuGzGtL{GuG{G{

©31⁄4S GåμÇG

F

9:;:<

MC

G¦

C

= arvL

i



lleUo

p?WqWZ Z ] rtsuvw gx aba ÞÀ Þ I	à

{GTGsGtGzLsGNGtG{GTLsGs

ÅafÆ  ̧G åμL  ̧ÇåG

U

yzS{ 

Pý|~}/FPC

  

M|ýa rtobna\\

Ç* μG ÇGL 

wGxLMGyGzO uLtGPGzGsGtO zGPG{

 F

RRRRR

PC MaxwÕ ell

GKLGGKfGGRGLx GxGx¡8"7"5"5"¢

· ̧ μåG åÇμ

wGxLMGyGNGTG{LtGNGzGPGtO sGvGT

F

R

C



I

	

/ýFPC

äÀ	À	À

Mc¤£Ke¥ ̄aR¦n­3®

±«§®1 ̈© aG¬3 ́R««¬ ́G°­¬R®  Ç ̧

uO sGtGvGzGNLtGuGPGTGT

wGxLMGyGuO sLtGvGzGNGtGvLNGuGQ

F

OGO

C

TO

I

° ̄

M

LKGG em

p

GF

h

±f

isGGft2GKGx3

 ́μ¶· ̧1oo

vLuO vGsGtGQLzGPGT

PLTO tGvGQGNLtGNGNGzGP

wGxLMGyGQGTGTLtGNGNGuGtGuLvGPG{

MCC/FPC Miami

q p*j*krq»1⁄21⁄4 3⁄41⁄21⁄4*q l*h¿ ·ÁÀÂoÃ

¥G»3ÄG»G°2©a«¬» ́3¶åå 

vLTG{GtGNG{GvLtGsGsGTGT

Å1⁄2ÆÇ ÈÉ Ê Ë Ì Ì ÊÍ ÌÈÎ

F

¥»a3®L°

CI M

Ï¥

il

G» ̄

anÐ»RÑ3® μ Ç ̧

å	 åGåG *G

wGxLMGyGvO vLtGsGvGPGtO PGsGs

ÒÒ

FP

o

C

ÒÁÓ

Mi

ÂÔÁÕÖ

llington y    |×ÿ ý|R Ø|| 8"ÙRÚJÛ"8

PLTO tGuGQGNLtGNGNGQGQ

U=ÜGÉ ÝGFGÈGL

FCI/FPC Oxford

Þßà {TT

áý{â ã äý| | äHâáä"I	ã T{TT

Ç ̧μGμG

wGxLMGyGzGTGuGtL{GuGsGtG{GvÁO {

QO

M

æå*ç

CC

èÒêé

Chi

xGJI cagëoLfG

GGìLxGKGRGí í í îï ð ñ zGTLzGTG{

vO NGtLvGNGNGtGTG{LzGQ

wGxGMGyGvÁO NGtGvGNLNGtGTG{GzG{

F

o3®

C

Rò*§

I/F

¬

P

 ̈°V±«®®­ ̄1» ̄

C Danbur§y

1

TGzGuOLO tGvGTGPGP

·G ̧GåGGåÇG*

wGxGMGyGNLTGvGtGQGsLzGtGQGvGPGv

ó1⁄2ôöõ÷1⁄2ø?<Rù&=>	 9<<;ûú3;

"üL1ý
ý

USP: þRÿ      

F

NGzGTGT

CI

	

/FP

G

C

G


J

GxesLvGTO

up


GKëGG

 ̄fdëGRfGKLGGx vO {LsG{

PO NGtLsGNGQGtGTLuGQGT

wGxGMGyLPO NGtGsLNGQGtO NGNLz

F



P

 ̧

C

ÍG

P

e nsaGGÌG§G cola ebgaux ac Åx u_ w a H I	äÀ	âáã

{O NGQ

G ̧LLGL* 2G

©31⁄4S ̧GμG·

FCI/FPC La Tuna #§®3G°¥1⁄2­  ́Å ̧m 1Å

μGμG ̧G·	

PO {GtLuGuGzGtGvLsGNGN

wGxGMGyVPÁO {GtGuGuLzGtGsGPGQGQ

 "!$#&%(')#(*)#,+

FPC Alderson ¢û6&- 5Ú

åL ̧GGL·GG ̧2

wLxGMGyGvGTGsLtGsGsG{GtGNLzGQG{

F

¥G«®1

PC

RÑ

/

G«

LSÄG­¬C

 ̈

I

°

All

¬­®® en/.w ̈Ga

oo0L3®»3d

O QGQG{GN

* LL ÇG2

wLxGMGyGQO QLtG{GsGQGtÁO {GTGs



F

G ̈

CI

W

/F

GÌLÎ

P



C

GGÌGL§

Ash



lanÁÉGÉd

G

zLTGzGtGPGNLuGtGzGsO s

wLxGMGyGQGTGTLtGvG{GuGtLuG{G{GN

U

7RÚJ5Gì±

SP/FP

GKGGK

C A

ëGxL

tlant

^

aÍ 1

 T32RT 4T

GGGxGGLxGRfGKGGGx vGTGvO {GtGTO uGN

L ̧GÇG·L·ÇG·G2

wLxGMGyGsGTLsGtGvGvO tLNO vGQ

F

5Gð678

CI/F

LôGõ

D

:9

C

Gó

/F

(78;

PC

GìGíLô

D

8

uGób

â	ÄáäÃ	Â

lin sO {GtLuGvGvGtGQG{LTGT

wGxGMGyGsÁO {GtGuGvLvGtGQG{GPGP 9:;:<

FCI/F

G¦

P

=É

C

GG

Petersburg

*ÿ*R{/<þ*{× =R{R×*|*Rz

NGvLuGTGsGtO TLTGT

μ ̧GååGμμ

wGxLMGFGuGTGsGtLQGvGvGtGvGQLNGu

U

>­3

S

?0

P

G­®

/F

?L«¬1

PC

RÐL°

Le¦3®a@.vG3e?.nw7"7RÚJ6"Ù orth

PO vGtLzGuGNGtGuLQGTGT

wGxGMGyLPO vGtGzLuGNGtGvGzO Q

U

>L­@

S

».

P

ò§

/lC

L¬*Ñ

C/FPC

A?BC@D EFGH I/JLKBMMEN?O P@QM?D Q 5"3"Ù"83

* LG·Gå ·L*

wGxGMGyLQO QGtG{LNGsGtG{GuGTL{

FMC Lexington l*l*krqSRÿ ýT| ÕÖ

UfGMGLGGKGLRWVfLGëìXsGTL{OGO

zGTGzGtLNG{G{GtGzLuO N

©31⁄4 Ç ̧ÇG ·G μÇ ̧

vGPGTO

USP

ZY7

/FP

G÷GíGô

C LoIGKmëLp

feoGxG c 3

>«Ä[« ̄G°±3a»R««¬®»3£ååÇ

μG ̧LLGåLL·G*

wGxGMGyLuGTG{GtGQGvLQGtGTGNGPL{

F

±ëG

P

ë

C

GGLR

D

uGGG

lut

fd

h

GKLGx Û"Û"Ù"5"6

NO uGtLQGNGNGtGuGzLvGs

wGxGMGyGNÁO uGtGQGNLNGtGuGQGPGN

ÈF

FC

GG

I/F

]\

PCT ^ ÉP

_

h

` oeGGÌG§L nix :

o­?[1: Çμ ̧

a&b)c&d*)#e)f"g)%&#hc*)+ Ù ÛÚ¢ 3

zGTLNGtGsGzG{GtLPGQG{GQ

i/j?klm@n@op?q@m/r/p?s@n/rt

F

uv78

PC

Gôw8

Eg

Gí

lin wGKGìfJIGxdfLR

wGGKGG3Lx lyx*p*nyx

PGTGsGtLuGuGNGtGuG{LNGN

©31⁄4 ̧G·Gμ·Ç

F

zy{

PC

Å

El P

q Òal*k*k so | ~}>3$L<@>
/@@/@/@/

    

©31⁄4 *  ̧G Ç Ç

FCI Ray Brook

RT È #"%"&"HÀ	À

ÍG <GËG¦G¦G(G¦GË

O NGPLQGQ

{O uGtGuGPO tL{GsGTGT

©31⁄4  μG μ*   ̧ ̧*



F

{y

CI

h*l*k

Rastrop

ILxdGGGK(GFfGMGxdGQGuGzGTGN

{ÁO NGtGvGNÁO tGvGPGTGv

wLxGM {O NGtGvLNO tGzG{LzG{

F



C



I/F

	ý

PêàÀ	À	ÀC El Reno aS­®G«G°@a3Ð«ÄL3

QGvGTGvLzGtO TGTGT

sGTGsGtLNGzGNGtGsGuLQG{

©31⁄4  ̧GåGL ··

F

R

C

ÿ ÿ

I



/FÿPýC

|

Enýg

 ý

l{ezwâý¤oad

^/ ac

vGTGvGtGPLuG{GtO {LzGz

wGxGMGyGvLTGvGtGQGzLvGtGNG{G{Gv

FCI/FPC Estill

b@ ^zÿüz  { ýzâ  ÊEG ̈(GGÈÉ G¦L§GG ̈

ÿ   hýþÿ z{ ý  |zVa\\@ 

F

9:;:<

CI/F

G¦

P

=

C

LG

Fairton  ¡ ¢£ ¤¥¦§ ̈©~a ̈ ¢ «? ̈¬3⁄4À	ÂH IÀ

zGTGPGtLsG{GvGtOGO QGQ

©31⁄4æÇ ̧G åG  ̧* 

FMC Rochoater "!#"%"&Ä	Ã	À	À

xrq*q k®­ ̄°±2(3 ́(μ(3(¶"»¿ ¿

2GKìGfdGfLGR GfdGKLGx

{G{LPGTGvGtGsGzLTGT

{GTLQGtGNGuGQGtLTGzGQGs

XJYRZJ[t^  ` aa ` c_/

F

· ̧@1@o/»@1⁄4@1⁄2 ̧

CI Mor3⁄41⁄4(¿À(Á/Â1⁄2ÄÃÅ@1@o/Å@1⁄4/Å@»gantown Nz{T{

vGTLsGtGNGPGzLtGsGsO z

wGxLMGyGvGTGsGtLNGPGzGtGQL{GsGP

FPC Nellis Æí í ð ñÄEGË U¦GËG®ÇÈÉÊ?Ë~ËÍÌyÌ

UGxdéfGxdGR feLx3Gx

uGPÁO PO tG{LTGTGT

G ̧G·ÇGG ̧G ̧2

wGxLMGy£QGTLNGtGzGsGsGtLQGsGuGv

F

^_

C

ÎSÏ@[

I/F

¬¬®

PC

*ÑL°

Big Spring

­1⁄4L3?.S· ̧G

QQPP

PÁO {GtGNGzLvGtGuGvGTGs

wLxGM PO {GtGNLzGQGtG{GPÁO T

F

lÒ

C

k*k

I

yÐ

LoÃÖÕÖ mpoc >«Ä[« ̄G°±3a»R««¬®»3 ååÇ

uGTG{GtLQGvGzGtGsÁO {Gs

©31⁄4 μ ̧å μ ̧μ

9:;:<

FCI L

G¦o=retÉ

t

GG o Rý{ ÿ ÿ ý ||Ñ z| z 5"Û-"6RÚ

uO sGtLsGQGNGtGsÁO sGT

Å1⁄2Æ   _ ` _ a ` _ ^

GÈG

MD



C

:

L

:osW Ò

A

GGÎG ngel

»¿es¿

RýÓ|× ]z  áý{| z \^^/ a

NO vGtLsGuG{GtGTLsGvGP

wGxGMGyLNO vGtGzLNGzGtG{GuGTÁO

ÔÕÔ

F

NLFGIGKGMGuGNLT

CI Safford

Safford, ÖØ× ÙÚ?ÛÝÜÞ

Ù Û Û 6 7

zGTGNLtGsGNGuGtLzGzGTGT

Å1⁄2Æ b^a ` _a `   a

F

9:;:<

PC

G¦

B

=LGG oron 	ý{ ý|z  á ý{| z \c ? b

Ç* GÇ·G Ç

wLxGMæzO PGtGQLzO tGzGsLTGP

M

 ^

D

^

C

a\ÿ

B

G

rooÿk{lyÿn <LËG¦G¦W LÌàß/áâäã@åæçêÉÉ È

±«®13 ̄11RÐG¬«§RÑ*Ð 1⁄2«¬1*Ð­3?.1

ü×{ ý|zéèê ê w e

M

μ ̧μ

C

ìë

C

®»«®

SaZÏ n 1G¬­­1Diego íY@îðïw eÎu c3ñax w ê u_ bw a ·*  ̧ Ç ̧μ

Ç G ·å·G å

©31⁄4SÇ G ̧å ̧

MCC òó,ô York

q p*kzyõÕyö

÷øùú"%ûüþý@÷øùú"%ûü àÂ	À	À Þ

NO NGtGQGPO tGPO vGT

wGxLMGy£NO NLtG{GQO tÁO TGvGs

40
l TALLADEGA

FCI Sandstone MCFP Springfield

Sandstone, 	

 

 "!" "#"$"!" " "" %'&)('* +',)-'*'./'0	132)* 4'4'5'6)('*87)9 :';':

<=>?A@B CDCEFDFB GH EB GDH@CDGIEB

J"K"L"M"# N"!"O"P"N"! N N

FCI/FPC Schuylkill

QSR TSR UVWXYY

2)* +).'( 4Z* /'/).[]\).+'+'4Z)/ Z^+)*'^

 N"_"$"#

N N"!"$"#"#"!"N `"`

J"K"L"M"N N"!"$"#"#"!"N" " "$

FCI Seagoville %).'^,'5Z)/'/'/).1 a.b)^4dcfefgfe'h

CB E"D"C"H"G"D"C"iB"B

J"K"L"M"  #"!" "O"N"!"#"O" "N

FPC Seymour Johnson j=kklmonp>qHIIE

rpkstupmpvxwj CGFyyDHIIE

iB iDGyFDiGBB

<=>?AiB iDGyFDIB @i

FCI/FPC Sheridan zXYXz3{|} } ~ V

  ' 	 _"N"P"N"O"!"_""`

$"`"P"!"O"#"P"!"#"#"#" 

FIyDHEyDyEIH

FCI/FPC Talladega effe¡ ¢£f¤¥¦¢ ̈§©a«

¬=kk=sl­=® ̄k=u=°=2± efgf'3

 "`"$"!"P"" "!"`"# `

<=>?CIFDy@CDHyyB

FCI Tallahassee FIB j= ́μ¶=k ̧·1 o »1⁄4 1⁄2 3⁄4¿wvÀv

Á"K"Â"Â"K"Ã"K"Ä"Ä"Å"Å"ÆxÇÈ ÉÊ Ê ËÌ ̧Í'Î'Í ;ÐÏ [ P"$"N" 

_"`"#"!"_""$"!" "`"`"`

ÑWSÒÔÓ ;'ÕÖ Ó Õ Î Ö :Í)× Õ

FCI Terminal Island

Ø'ÙÚ ÛÜ ÝÞàß"Ä"Â"K"á"â"ÆAã|} ä å æ ä | i"I"G"yB

CB yDHyB DHi@B

J"K"L"M"P `"!"$"#"N"!"`"`"N"`

USP/FPC Terre Haute çèééèAê'ë'ì'íî'ï
ð ñòóôñôöõX÷Y÷

HB CDCyHDB FyB

<=>?øHB CDCyHDiHGy

FCI/FPC Texarkana Á"Å"L"K"ù"ú"K"á"K"Æ"Á"Å"L"K"ÄûGFFIG

_"`"P"!"O"P"O"!"#"$"O"N

<=>?iIyDHyHDEIGB

FCI/FPC Three Rivers 

a)ü)('.'.öý)* Z.'( 4	1 ̧a.b)^4	1 × :'; × Ï

$ "!"N"O""!"P"$"N"

ÇÌþÿÔ$ "!"N"O""!"#"_"`"_

FCI Tucson ÷YV
	
 V

¬tp®o ̄mμp= efc'3 

"`" "!"N"# !"P `"`

ÑWSÒ 7';Î Ö 9 × ÕÖ ; ×'× 9

FPC Tyndall

 !"$#&%'(&)+*,&-)

<kpmμs=ÔyCEIyDIB FI

_"`"#"!" "O""!""N"N"N

<=>?øiIEDCH@D@@Iy

FPC Yankton .©0/3

1=2¶pD3p¶4657V98XYX÷

:Y8;::8;<z:z

J"K"L"M""`"$"!"""$"!"#"N"`"P

Mid-Atlantic

Regional Office YYY>=?Ý@A Ü BÝCD E F&G

3μ¶løB IIDw

Há"á"KIJ"ÂK"ÄMLNO ä P

QéRSTzYXY

P"` !"P N"!"N"`"`"`

UVWYX ̧P"` !"P N"!"N"` $

North Central

Regional Office  ̄μmZpmks jl¶lm

 `"_" "`H[\K"Ä"Ä"K"âJ"ù^]"ùK_"Å"Æ

`?Ü A Ù zYY

aTbb>cd e fg 2)* 4'4'5'6)('*

"# $"P

O "!"O"_ !"N"`"`"N

<=>?øHB @DHiB DB yEi

Northeast

Regional Office hijikl"ÄmJ[ÄMnJl"Ä"Åi"Nm"Ã

o Þ BBÚ p&q«Aaq«^rtsuvwxzyw|{}~&&}

ä } |} ä |"Å"á"á"Ä"Â_"K"áK"K

 

  $"!"$"_"N"!""P N

J"K"L"M¡  $"!"$"_"N"!""P $

South Central

Regional Office p g&0f«fa09000 q00 §f©faf«

%'6)* ). Í ;';

^/'/)^4	1 a.b)^4 X8z

  #"!"N""N"!"_"N"`"`

<=>? CB EDG@GDiGCE

Southeast

Regional Office 8z<6Q5VTVxUVSèé

Hm"Â"K"ám"K"Æ rlpm­μ=qP"`"P $

#"`"#"!"" "#"!"$" "`" 

J"K"L"M¡#"`"#"!"" "#"!"O $

Western Regional Office X8Y
? Þ Ü Ý¡5'6'/).Z^'( 0	1 Í ( 0£¢SVVé

6&¤'/)* +	1¦¥'^/)*'- 5)( +)*'^ Ó Õ)9 7':

$ `"!"O"`"P"!"#"N"`"`

<=>?øFB IDHIyDEHIC

Federal Bureau of Prisons Í'Î ;+§)*'( 4& ̧%&)('.'.	1© ̈a"[

«"K"Ä"ÃK"á¬mJ"á"Æ9]kø "`"$"P"#

 "`" "!"P"`"N"!"P _"O

41

Response sheet

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is pleased to be able to

provide this 1992 State of the Bureau report to its constituents, other agencies, and organizations, as well as to

the public. Our objectives are to make corrections more

understandable to the American public, and to convey the

important part that corrections plays in American criminal justice. If you would like to receive information not

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

Phone (Optional)

Comments:

State Zip

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

Phone (Optional)

Comments:

State Zip

. . . .

. . . .

contained in this issue, or if you have other suggestions

for improvements in how the information is presented,

please use this form.

Direct any responses or inquiries to: Office of Public

Affairs, 
	 Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20534

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 ̈ I would like to receive the

Federal Prisons Journal, a

quarterly publication on prison

issues

 ̈ I would like to receive the

Facilities Book, an annual

directory of BOP institutions

 ̈ I am not on the mailing list for

this State of the Bureau

report, but would like to be added

 ̈ Please send me additional

information, as noted

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 ̈ I would like to receive the

Federal Prisons Journal, a

quarterly publication on prison

issues

 ̈ I would like to receive the

Facilities Book, an annual

directory of BOP institutions

 ̈ I am not on the mailing list for

this State of the Bureau

report, but would like to be added

 ̈ Please send me additional

information, as noted

. . .

Administration

Community Corrections

Correctional Programs

Health Services

Human Resources

Industries & Education

Public Affairs

Program Review

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

MARO SCRO

NCRO SERO

NERO WRO