BUREAU OF 

PRISONS

Growing Inmate 

Crowding Negatively 

Affects Inmates, Staff, 

and Infrastructure

A Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012

GAO-12-743

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-743, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2012 

BUREAU OF PRISONS

Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects 

Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure 

Why GAO Did This Study 

BOP operates 117 federal prisons to 

house approximately 178,000 federal 

offenders, and contracts with private 

companies and some state 

governments to house about another 

40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the 

number of prisoners that each BOPrun institution can house safely and 

securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO 

was asked to address (1) the growth in 

BOP’s population from fiscal years 

2006 through 2011 and BOP’s 

projections for inmate population and 

capacity; (2) the effects of a growing 

federal prison population on operations 

within BOP facilities, and the extent to 

which BOP has taken actions to 

mitigate these effects; and (3) actions 

selected states have taken to reduce 

their prison populations, and the extent 

to which BOP has implemented similar 

initiatives. 

GAO analyzed BOP’s inmate 

population data from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011, BOP’s 2020 long-range 

capacity plan, and BOP policies and 

statutory authority. GAO visited five 

federal prisons chosen on the basis of 

geographic dispersion and varying 

security levels. The results are not 

generalizable, but provide information 

on the effects of a growing prison 

population. GAO selected five states 

based on actions they took to mitigate 

the effects of their growing prison 

populations—and assessed the extent 

to which their actions would be 

possible for BOP. GAO makes no 

recommendations in this report. BOP 

provided technical clarifications, which 

GAO incorporated where appropriate. 

What GAO Found 

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) 9.5 percent population 

growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 exceeded the 7 percent increase in 

its rated capacity, and BOP projects continued population growth. Growth was 

most concentrated among male inmates, and in 2011, 48 percent of the inmates 

BOP housed were sentenced for drugs. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, 

BOP increased its rated capacity by about 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 

new facilities and closing 4 minimum security camps, but because of the 

population expansion, crowding (or population in excess of rated capacity) 

increased from 36 to 39 percent. In 2011 crowding was most severe (55 percent) 

in highest security facilities. BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects 

continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 

2020, with systemwide crowding exceeding 45 percent through 2018. 

According to BOP, the growth in the federal inmate population has negatively 

affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure, but BOP has acted within its authority 

to help mitigate the effects of this growth. BOP officials reported increased use of 

double and triple bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment 

programs, limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff 

ratios. These factors, taken together, contribute to increased inmate misconduct, 

which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff. BOP 

officials and union representatives voiced concerns about a serious incident 

occurring. To manage its growing population, BOP staggers meal times and 

segregates inmates involved in disciplinary infractions, among other things. 

The five states in GAO’s review have taken more actions than BOP to reduce 

their prison populations, because these states have legislative authority that BOP 

does not have. These states have modified criminal statutes and sentencing, 

relocated inmates to local facilities, and provided inmates with additional 

opportunities for early release. BOP generally does not have similar authority. For 

example, BOP cannot shorten an inmate’s sentence or transfer inmates to local 

prisons. Efforts to address the crowding issue could include (1) reducing the 

inmate population by actions such as reforming sentencing laws, (2) increasing 

capacity by actions such as constructing new prisons, or (3) some combination of 

both. 

A Triple-Bunked Cell in a BOP Facility 

View GAO-12-743. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Letter 1 

Background 6

BOP’s Population Grew More than Systemwide Capacity, and BOP 

Projects Continued Population Growth through 2020 12

BOP’s Population Growth Has Negatively Affected Inmates, Staff, 

and Infrastructure, but BOP Has Acted to Help Mitigate These 

Effects 18

States Have Taken Broader Actions Intended to Reduce Prison 

Populations than Those Taken at the Federal Level 32

Concluding Observations 39

Agency Comments 41

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II BOP’s Population Growth 48

Appendix III Effects of a Growing Inmate Population 64

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 84

Related GAO Products 85

Tables

Table 1: Site Visits to BOP Facilities 44

Table 2: Site Visits to State Correctional Facilities 47

Table 3: Offense Composition of the Inmate Population in BOP 

Facilities, by Year, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 50

Table 4: Offense Composition of the Non-U.S. Citizen Inmate 

Population in BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 51

Table 5: BOP’s Rated Capacity and Crowding, by Facility Security 

Level as of September 2011 52

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 6: BOP Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage 

Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 55

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and 

Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020 60

Table 8: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space by Institutional 

Security Level From Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 65

Table 9: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space of Selected 

BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 66

Table 10: Systemwide Inmate Participation Rates in Selected BOP 

Programs in September 2011 69

Table 11: BOP’s Drug Education Programs in Male Facilities: 

Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and 

Average Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from 

the End of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 71

Table 12: BOP’s Nonresidential Drug Treatment Programs in Male 

Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List 

Numbers, and Average Waiting Time, by Institutional 

Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 72

Table 13: BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Programs in Male 

Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List 

Numbers, and Average Waiting Time, by Institutional 

Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 73

Table 14: BOP Inmate to Total BOP Staff Ratios from Fiscal Years 

1997 through 2011 78

Table15: BOP’s Inmate to Total Institutional Staff Ratios from 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 79

Table 16: Snapshots of BOP’s Inmate to Correctional Officer 

Ratios, by BOP Region, from Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 80

Table 17: Guilty Findings for Prohibited Acts by Severity Level, 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 83

Figures

Figure 1: Illustration of a 20-Cell Medium Security Facility with 45 

Inmates and 50 Percent Crowding and a 20-Cell High 

Security Facility with 39 Inmates and 56 Percent 

Crowding 10
Page iii GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Figure 2: BOP Systemwide Population, Rated Capacity, and 

Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011 15

Figure 3: Examples of BOP’s Use of Temporary Bed Space 19

Figure 4: Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities from 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 by Institutional Security 

Level 53

Figure 5: BOP’s Projections for Population, Rated Capacity, and 

Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 

2020 57

Figure 6: Projected Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term 

Facilities from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020 by 

Institutional Security Level 58
Page iv GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Abbreviations

ACA American Correctional Association

ADP average daily population

ADX Administrative Maximum

BOP Bureau of Prisons

DHO disciplinary hearing officer

DOJ Department of Justice

ESL English as a Second Language

GED General Educational Development

IG Inspector General

NIC National Institute of Corrections

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PHS Public Health Service

RDAP Residential Drug Abuse Program

RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

RRC Residential Reentry Center

S&E Salaries and Expenses

UDC Unit Discipline Committee

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2012

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

As of December 2010, federal and state correctional facilities 

incarcerated more than 1.6 million persons (about 1 in 200 U.S. 

residents), according to the most recently available data from the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ).1 At the federal level, DOJ’s Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP) is responsible for approximately 218,000 of these inmates, 

with a fiscal year 2012 operating budget of about $6.6 billion—the second 

largest budget within DOJ.2 BOP’s population has increased by more 

than 400 percent since the late 1980s, and by about 50 percent since 

2000. According to BOP, this growth is primarily attributed to an increase 

in inmates’ sentence length over time.3

 

1

See Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2011). The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of DOJ.

At the end of fiscal year 2011, 

BOP housed nearly 178,000 inmates in the 117 institutions that it owns 

2

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has the largest budget within DOJ at $8 billion. 

BOP’s $6.6 billion includes $6.551 billion for salaries and expenses and $90 million for 

buildings and facilities. 

3

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987, changed the 

federal sentencing structure. The act was effective for offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987. The act abolished parole, and subsequent legislation established 

mandatory minimum sentences for many federal offenses, which limits the authority that 

BOP has to affect the length of the sentence or the size of the inmate population.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

and operates, and it contracted with other correctional facilities, such as 

those of states and private companies, to house nearly 40,000 inmates.4

BOP calculates the number of prisoners a given prison facility is built to 

house safely and securely and calls this its rated capacity.5 Crowding, as 

defined by BOP, is the extent to which a facility’s inmate population level 

exceeds its rated capacity.6 Systemwide, BOP prisons exceed their rated 

capacity by 39 percent, and crowding has been a significant ongoing 

concern. Assessments conducted through the Federal Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act have identified prison crowding as a material 

weakness since 2006.7 Further, since that same year, DOJ’s Inspector 

General (IG) has included detention and incarceration among DOJ’s top 

10 management and performance challenges departmentwide. In its 2011 

list of challenges, the IG noted its concerns regarding the impact of 

federal prison crowding and the related stresses on BOP’s prison staffing 

regarding BOP’s ability to safely manage the increasing federal inmate 

population.8

While federal inmate population growth has been steady, the overall 

growth of the state inmate population began to decline in 2009. DOJ 

reports that the overall state prison population increased from calendar 

The Attorney General has reported both of these findings 

annually in his performance and accountability report for the department.

 

4

BOP has established performance-based contracts with four private corrections 

companies. The private prisons in which BOP houses federal inmates operate in 

accordance with BOP policies. 

5

Rated capacity is the maximum population level at which an institution can make 

available basic necessities, essential services (e.g., medical care), and programs (e.g., 

drug treatment, basic education, and vocational education). According to BOP officials, by 

contract with BOP, privately run prisons cannot exceed 15 percent overcapacity. BOP also 

has agreements with state and local governments and contracts with privately operated 

facilities for the detention of federally adjudicated juveniles and for the secure detention of 

some short-term federal inmates. 

6

Unless noted otherwise, the term “crowding” in this report refers to BOP’s definition.

7

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Pub. L. No. 97-255, 96 Stat. 814 (1982), 

assessment process evaluates the effectiveness of internal controls to support effective 

and efficient program operations, reliable financial reporting, compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations, and whether financial management systems conform to financial 

system requirements. 

8

Since 1998, the IG has prepared lists of top management challenges for the department. 

By statute, the Attorney General is required to include each year’s list in the annual 

performance and accountability report. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

years 1977 through 2008, with the first decline of 0.2 percent (2,857 

prisoners) occurring in 2009. DOJ reported a second-year decline in 2010 

of 0.8 percent (10,881 prisoners), with 25 states reporting decreases in 

their prison populations.9 While not all states experienced reductions in 

their prison populations, in those states that did, changes in those states’ 

policies and practices are potential contributing factors to this decline. 

According to a 2008 study by the Pew Center on the States, a state may 

reduce its prison population growth while protecting public safety by (1) 

diverting a greater number of low-risk offenders from prison, (2) reducing 

the time that low-risk offenders are in prison, or (3) a combination of these 

approaches.10 In contrast to the prison populations of the states, the 

federal prison population has continued to grow. BOP is required by 

statute to provide for suitable housing and the safekeeping, care, and 

subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against 

the United States.11

We have previously reported on BOP’s population projections, the 

security and safety of inmates and staff, and inmate programs.

Thus, while the size of a prison population is, in part, 

a function of crime rates, sentencing laws, and law enforcement policies, 

these factors are all beyond BOP’s control. BOP’s population is expected 

to continually increase, given current incarceration rates, and safety and 

security concerns will remain paramount.

12 For 

example, in November 2009, having assessed how BOP developed its 

population projections and compared its projections with its actual inmate 

population growth from fiscal years 1999 through August 20, 2009, we 

concluded that BOP’s projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 

percent of the actual inmate population growth during this time period.13

 

9

See Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2011), and Prisoners in 2009 (Washington, D.C.: December 2010).

In February 2012, we reported on BOP’s use of its discretionary authority 

10The Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008 (Washington, 

D.C.: February 2008). The Pew Center on the States provides nonpartisan reporting and 

research, advocacy, and technical assistance to help states deliver better results. Among 

the issues it addresses are heath, the economy, revenue and spending, and public safety.

1118 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2).

12See Related GAO Products at the end of this report. 

13GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best Practices but 

Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making, GAO-10-94 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov.10, 2009).
 

Page 4 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

to reduce a prisoner’s period of incarceration.14

You asked us to review the impact of crowding in BOP facilities and any 

related lessons that BOP can learn from selected states. Specifically, this 

report addresses the following questions:

We recommended that 

BOP establish a plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring 

contractors to submit separate prices of beds in residential reentry 

centers—also known as halfway houses—and home detention services. 

BOP concurred and has actions under way to address the 

recommendation. 

1. What was the growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011, and what are BOP’s projections for inmate population 

and capacity?

2. What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison 

population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) within 

BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to mitigate 

these effects?

3. What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison 

populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar 

initiatives?

To address the first question, we analyzed policies and procedures that 

may affect the increased federal prison population (e.g., BOP’s inmate 

classification policy) and BOP’s statutory authority affecting its capacity 

and conditions of confinement. We also analyzed BOP’s inmate 

population data and crowding percentages by institutional security level 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity 

plan, which was issued in January 2012. We assessed the reliability of 

BOP’s inmate population and crowding data by reviewing relevant 

documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about how 

they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating previous 

assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We found BOP’s 

inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently reliable for the 

 

14For GAO reports on federal prisons, see, for example: GAO, Bureau of Prisons: 

Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison,

GAO-12-320 (Washington, D.C. Feb. 7, 2012).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

purposes of this report. We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials 

to discuss how BOP’s population has grown.

To address the second question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority, 

policies, and procedures pertinent to the effects of the growing population 

on operations in BOP facilities (i.e., effects on inmates, staff, and 

infrastructure) and BOP’s ability to mitigate the effects of a growing 

population. We also analyzed BOP studies on the effects of population 

growth and prison crowding on BOP operations, as well as BOP data 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 on available bed space, inmate 

program participation and waiting lists, inmate-to-staff ratios, and 

available infrastructure costs. We also present systemwide BOP staffing 

ratios from fiscal years 1997 through 2011 because officials believed that 

presenting the ratios for a longer period better illustrates the effect of 

BOP’s population growth relative to the number of staff.15 We assessed 

the reliability of BOP’s inmate, staff, and infrastructure data by 

interviewing knowledgeable agency officials to determine how BOP 

collects and maintains the integrity of these data. We found these data to 

be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We visited 5 of 

BOP’s 117 prisons that are located in four of BOP’s six regions, which we 

chose on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure geographic 

dispersion.16

To also address the second as well as the third question, we compared 

and contrasted BOP’s actions to mitigate the effects of its increased 

population and attempt to reduce its prison population with similar actions 

taken by five selected states––Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin––that had experienced prison population growth and had 

Because we did not randomly select the prisons we visited, 

our results are not generalizable to all BOP prisons; however, they 

provided important insights into BOP’s operations. We interviewed BOP 

headquarters officials and all six regional directors. Further, we discussed 

the effects of BOP’s population growth on correctional staff with officials 

from the Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents all 

nonmanagement staff working in BOP facilities.

 

15According to BOP officials, BOP also includes this information in its annual 

congressional budget request.

16We selected five federal prisons of different security levels, including one that was a 

complex and on whose grounds there was a low and a medium security facility. Thus, our 

five selected sites included six BOP facilities––one low, three medium, one high, and one 

administrative. We describe the distinctions among security levels later in this report. 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison populations. To 

select the states, among other things, we reviewed the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics’s (BJS) report on state prison inmate populations in 2010.17

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to 

September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We 

also reviewed relevant reports on actions that states have taken to 

mitigate the effects of their prison population growth, published from 2006 

through 2011 (e.g., those from the Pew Center on the States). Further, 

we assessed the extent to which actions in these selected states would 

be possible for BOP to undertake within its statutory authority. We also 

conducted site visits to three facilities in two of these five states. 

Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems—legally, 

structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined––limit the 

comparability between federal and state correctional systems, but we 

mitigated this limitation by the criteria we used to select the states in our 

sample (e.g., size of the prison population and diverse approaches to 

addressing increased prison populations). We are unable to generalize 

about the types of actions states have taken to mitigate the effects of 

state prison population growth or reduce their prison populations, but the 

information we obtained provides examples of state responses to prison 

population growth. Appendix I includes more details about our scope and 

methodology.

There are specific state and federal laws that define, prohibit, and 

penalize criminal behavior. Various factors, such as the nature and type 

of the crime committed and the relevant law, may determine whether the 

state or federal justice system is responsible for the prosecution, 

sentencing, and incarceration of an individual accused and found guilty of 

a crime. State and federal laws also define the potential sentences for 

those crimes to be imposed by judges and methods for reducing the 

period of incarceration, such as parole, probation, or good conduct time 

 

17See BJS, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2011).

Background
 

Page 7 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

credit. These laws and policies affect the growth of their respective prison 

populations and the level of crowding in state and federal prison 

populations. 

To carry out its responsibility for the custody and care of federal offenders, 

BOP currently houses inmates across six geographic regions in 117 federal 

institutions, 15 privately managed prisons, 185 residential reentry centers, 

and home detention.18 BOP’s central office consists of eight divisions that 

provide oversight of major BOP program areas and operations, such as 

correctional programs and health services, as well as the National Institute 

of Corrections (NIC).19

Mid-Atlantic, 

BOP has six regional offices, each led by a regional 

director, covering the North Central, Northeast, South Central, 

Southeast, and Western regions of the United States. 

BOP generally houses sentenced inmates in its long-term institutions. 

Male long-term institutions include four security level designations––

minimum, low, medium, and high––and female institutions include three 

security designations––minimum, secure, and high.20 The security level 

designation of a facility depends on the level of security and staff 

supervision that the institution is able to provide, such as the presence of 

security towers; perimeter barriers; the type of inmate housing, including 

dormitory, cubicle, or cell-type housing; and inmate-to-staff ratio. 

Additionally, BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative 

institutions, which specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with 

intensive medical or mental health conditions, regardless of the level of 

supervision these inmates require.21

 

18According to BOP officials, privately managed contract facilities are low security and 

primarily house non-U.S. citizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or 

illegally. Home detention describes all circumstances under which an inmate is serving a 

portion of his or her sentence while residing in his or her home.

From fiscal years 2006 through 

19NIC, a component of BOP, provides training, technical assistance, information services, 

and policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections 

agencies.

20In this report, data presented by institutional security level include information for male 

inmates by the four security levels and for females by the three security levels. Unless 

noted, these data do not include information on detention, medical, administrative, or 

Witness Security Program housing. 

21The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, houses offenders 

requiring the tightest controls. 

Federal Prison System
 

Page 8 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

2011, the distribution of facilities by security designation remained 

relatively constant. In fiscal year 2011, there were 7 stand-alone minimum 

security camps, 29 low security facilities, 46 medium security facilities, 16 

high security facilities, and 19 administrative facilities.22

BOP establishes a rated capacity for each of the facilities that it owns and 

operates.23 A facility’s rated capacity reflects the number of prisoners that 

it was designed to house safely and securely and in which BOP can 

provide inmates adequate access to services, necessities for daily living, 

and programs designed to support their crime-free return to the 

community.24 In determining a facility’s rated capacity, BOP considers 

American Correctional Association (ACA) occupancy and space 

requirements.25

 

22BOP has 7 stand-alone minimum security camps that are not colocated with higher 

security level facilities. BOP also has 73 minimum security satellite camps that are 

colocated with a secure institution or complex. Stand-alone camps usually have a rated 

capacity of 256 inmates, and colocated camps usually have a rated capacity of 128 

inmates. Female secure facilities are included in the low security level facility figure.

Since 1990, ACA has required 35 square feet of 

unencumbered space per inmate to ensure that each inmate has 

sufficient movement or exercise space within the inmate’s personal living 

space, whether in a cell, room, or open dormitory. In essence, rated 

capacity is the measure of inmate housing space and, therefore, does not 

include housing used for medical and special housing purposes (e.g., 

disciplinary segregation and administrative detention space). BOP also 

does not include in its rated capacity additional beds placed in areas such 

as a facility’s halls, gyms, mezzanines, or television rooms to address 

crowding. BOP excludes this use of space from its rated capacity 

calculation because it considers these beds to be temporarily converted 

housing space that is to be restored to its original purpose when 

circumstances permit. Further, for such temporary space to become 

permanent space and thus included in a facility’s rated capacity, the 

23BOP does not include privately contracted beds as part of its systemwide rated capacity, 

because the capacity of each of these facilities is based on its contract. 

24Basic necessities include safety, living space, and access to toilets, showers, and food. 

Essential services include medical care, visitation, and telephones to allow contact with 

family and other members of the community. Programs include drug treatment, work, 

education, vocational training, anger management, and parenting to prevent idleness and 

enable inmates to develop skills needed to return to the community following release.

25ACA’s mission includes the development and promotion of effective standards for the 

care, custody, training, and treatment of offenders.

Rated capacity reflects the number of 

prisoners that the institution was built 

to house safely and securely. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Crowding in BOP’s facilities is the extent to 

which a prison’s inmate population 

exceeds the institution’s rated capacity. 

facility would require infrastructure changes, such as additional toilet or 

shower facilities, to meet ACA standards.

According to BOP, rated capacity is the basis for measuring prison 

crowding and is essential to both managing the inmate population and 

BOP’s budget justifications for capital resources. BOP’s formula for 

calculating rated capacity has changed over time. Until 1991, the rated 

capacity of a facility was equivalent to the total number of cells, because 

the rated capacity was based on one inmate being housed in each cell. 

As a result of the growth in BOP’s population during the 1980s, BOP 

began to double-bunk (i.e., house two inmates in each cell) in many of its 

facilities, particularly those at the lower security levels. In 1991, BOP 

established a new rated capacity formula that allowed for stratified 

bunking across all security levels. BOP’s current rated capacity guidelines 

account for

• 25 percent double bunking and 75 percent single bunking of cells 

within high security facilities,

• 50 percent double bunking and 50 percent single bunking of cells 

within medium security facilities, and

• 100 percent double bunking of cells in low and minimum security 

facilities.

By way of illustration, figure 1 shows crowding in a medium security 

facility and a high security facility, each with 20 cells. The rated capacity 

of the medium security facility, which includes 50 percent double bunking, 

is 30 beds. With a population of 45 inmates, 67 percent of the inmates are 

double bunked, 33 percent are triple bunked, and the facility’s percentage 

crowding is 50 percent. The rated capacity of the high security facility, 

which includes 25 percent double bunking, is 25 beds. With a population 

of 39 inmates, 97 percent of the inmates are double bunked, 3 percent 

are single bunked, and the facility’s percentage crowding is 56 percent.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Figure 1: Illustration of a 20-Cell Medium Security Facility with 45 Inmates and 50 

Percent Crowding and a 20-Cell High Security Facility with 39 Inmates and 56 

Percent Crowding

BOP initially classifies an inmate to a particular institution based on

• the level of security and supervision the inmate requires;

• the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to 

provide;
 

Page 11 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

• the inmate’s program needs, such as residential drug treatment or 

intensive medical care;26

• where the inmate resides when sentenced;

• the level of crowding in an institution; and

• any additional security measures to ensure the protection of victims, 

witnesses, and the public.

In most cases, BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center 

staff calculates a point score for the inmate and then matches the inmate 

with a commensurate security level institution.27

As of December 31, 2011, BOP had a total staff of about 38,000, 

including correctional officers28 and administrative, program, and support 

personnel responsible for all of BOP’s activities nationwide.29 BOP’s 

philosophy is that all employees are correctional workers first, whether or 

not they serve as correctional officers. Accordingly, BOP trains all 

employees in basic correctional duties to secure the facility in the event of 

a disturbance and to provide inmate supervision. BOP also requires them 

to participate in annual refresher training.30

 

26For prior work related to BOP’s implementation of Second Chance Act provisions, which 

affect programming needs related to preparing inmates for eventual reentry into society, 

see GAO, Federal Bureau of Prisons: BOP Has Mechanisms in Place to Address Most 

Second Chance Act Requirements and Is Working to Implement an Initiative Designed to 

Reduce Recidivism, 

When circumstances warrant, 

a warden will require program and administrative staff members to serve 

in the capacity of a correctional officer––a practice that BOP calls 

augmentation. For example, under augmentation, a vocational education 

teacher or a psychologist may provide escort services for an inmate 

GAO-10-854R (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2010). 

27See GAO-12-320. 

28Correctional officers enforce the regulations governing the operation of a correctional 

institution, serving as both supervisors and counselors of inmates.

29These staff included all staff on-board funded under BOP’s appropriation for Salaries 

and Expenses (i.e., headquarters, regional, institutional, and Public Health Service staff), 

as well as Buildings and Facilities, Commissary, and Federal Prison Industries staff. 

30See GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective Equipment Could Help 

Enhance Officer Safety, GAO-11-410 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2011). 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

leaving the facility for specialized medical care or provide ancillary 

supervision in a recreational yard.

Selected state departments of corrections included in our review share 

similarities and exhibit differences with BOP. For example, both state 

departments of corrections and BOP are required to house, clothe, and 

feed inmates in a safe and secure setting, but selected states determine 

rated capacity and measure crowding differently. Several of the selected 

state departments of corrections’ methods are different from BOP’s 

methods. For example, New York calculates rated capacity using 

standards set forth by the New York State Commission of Correction and 

by subtracting temporary beds from the number of general population 

beds. In contrast, Wisconsin does not calculate rated capacity but instead 

uses design capacity and operational capacity.31 Furthermore, differences 

in state and federal authorities affect the types of actions that are taken to 

mitigate the effects of crowding. For example, state departments of 

corrections may have been granted certain state statutory authorities that 

are not currently available at the federal level (i.e., states may transfer 

inmates to county and local jails, but BOP does not have this option).

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate population in BOP-run 

facilities grew 9.5 percent, while capacity grew less than 7 percent. As a 

result, BOP’s overall crowding increased during this period from 36 

percent to 39 percent. BOP projects an additional 15 percent increase in 

its inmate population by 2020.

 

31Design capacity is the number of inmates that planners intended for a facility. 

Operational capacity is the number of inmates that can be accommodated based on a 

facility’s staff, existing programs, and services.

State Prison Systems

BOP’s Population 

Grew More than 

Systemwide Capacity, 

and BOP Projects 

Continued Population 

Growth through 2020
 

Page 13 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

The inmate population housed in BOP-run facilities steadily increased 

from 162,514 to 177,934 inmates—or 9.5 percent—from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011.32

• The number of male inmates housed in BOP institutions increased 

about 10 percent (151,003 to 165,595).

A variety of factors contribute to the size of BOP’s 

population. These include national crime levels, law enforcement policies, 

and federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control. 

During the 6-year period, growth occurred in BOP’s male, female, and 

both its U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen populations. Specifically,

• The number of female inmates housed in BOP institutions increased 

about 7 percent (11,511 to 12,339).

• The relative proportion of non-U.S. citizen to U.S. citizen inmates 

housed in BOP facilities remained constant (about 26 percent), 

although the approximately 16 percent (46,369 to 53,733) growth in 

the noncitizen inmate population surpassed the approximate 13 

percent growth in the U.S. citizen inmate population (135,074 to 

152,581).33

• Non-U.S. citizen inmates are housed in BOP-run low, medium, 

and high security level facilities, as well as in private contract 

facilities.34

• The largest number of these inmates are housed in low security 

facilities.

 

32These data include only those U.S. inmates housed in BOP-run facilities, not privately 

contracted facilities. 

33These data include only those U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen inmates housed in BOPrun facilities. The total number of non-U.S. citizen inmates, including those housed in 

BOP-run and private contract facilities, increased about 13 percent (50,275 to 56,933) 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and constituted about 26 percent of the total BOP 

population during this time period.

34BOP does not send non-U.S. citizen inmates to minimum security facilities because of 

their risk of flight.

BOP’s Population Grew 

Steadily because of a

Variety of Factors
 

Page 14 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

• Drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses constituted the 

largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were 

incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.35

• 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were serving sentences 

for drugs,

Specifically, in fiscal year 2011,

• 16 percent for weapons/explosives, and

• 12 percent for immigration.

Appendix II provides additional information on the growth of the federal 

inmate population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and the other 

offense categories for which BOP inmates have been sentenced.

BOP’s 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 

among inmates housed in BOP facilities exceeded the increase in its 

rated capacity, which grew less than 7 percent (from 119,510 beds to 

127,795). BOP’s rated capacity during this 6-year period grew because it 

opened five new facilities and closed four stand-alone minimum security 

camps, which BOP officials told us were less efficient to operate. As 

shown in figure 2, however, because the inmate population in BOP-run 

facilities grew at a faster rate than the growth in rated capacity, crowding 

in BOP-run institutions increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide.

 

35BOP officials explained that for reporting purposes, they categorize inmates according to 

the offense for which an inmate is serving the longest sentence (dominant sentence 

offense). For example, an inmate may be serving sentences for both drug and immigration 

offenses, but BOP will categorize the inmate by the offense having the longer sentence 

(e.g., the drug offense).

Rated Capacity Grew Less 

than 7 Percent, 

Contributing to Crowding
 

Page 15 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Figure 2: BOP Systemwide Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the percentage crowding in male 

medium security facilities increased from 37 percent to 51 percent and 

from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security level facilities. Table 5 in 

appendix II illustrates the range of crowding across BOP institutions of 

different security levels as of December 2011, and the double, triple, and 

quadruple bunking that has resulted. For example, the population in 

BOP’s high security population was about 21,000 in December 2011—or 

about 7,000 more than its rated capacity—resulting in 97 percent double 

bunking and a 55 percentage crowding.

According to BOP, BOP’s ability to increase rated capacity is directly 

affected by funding appropriated for new prison construction and to 

support contracts with private prison providers for additional inmate bed 

space. In fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

placed a moratorium on all new BOP prison construction. To address 

BOP’s bed space needs, OMB focused on contracting with private 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

prisons. BOP officials stated that, because of this moratorium, the yearly 

presidential budget submissions for BOP’s Buildings and Facilities 

account for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 did not include 

requests to begin construction on any new facilities. Instead, the Buildings 

and Facilities requests included what BOP considers to be baseline 

funding36 for ongoing expenses, which were generally about $25 million 

during each of the 6 fiscal years in this period.37 Congress, however, 

provided about $1.1 billion specifically to aid in the site selection, design, 

and construction of new BOP facilities—in addition to funding the baseline 

that BOP requested. According to BOP officials, the time from receiving 

the funding appropriation to building and opening—or activating—a facility 

is generally 3 to 5 years. 

In addition, according to BOP officials, funding was requested and 

provided to contract for private bed space during this period—with the 

exception of fiscal years 2008 and 2011. BOP officials explained that only 

low security inmates can be housed in privately managed facilities; thus, 

in years when BOP has received related funds, they have been able to 

move these lower security inmates to the contracted facilities. However, 

since they have not consistently received this money, BOP officials told 

us they designated some low security inmates to medium security 

facilities. As a result, BOP is currently housing 4,500 low security inmates 

in medium security facilities, contributing to crowding at that security level. 

According to BOP data, 81 percent of male inmates housed in low 

security facilities were triple bunked at the end of 2011. Officials noted 

that if they were able to add more contract beds they could reduce 

crowding in medium and low security facilities by moving (1) non-U.S. 

 

36BOP’s Building and Facilities budgetary account includes two “decision units”—one for 

“new construction” and one for “maintenance and repair.” Within the “new construction” 

decision unit, baseline funding includes about $10 million annually to support the lease 

payments on BOP’s federal inmate transfer center, as well as other costs associated with 

considering potential construction sites, studying environmental impact, and any facility 

expansion and conversion projects. These baseline funds also cover the salaries and 

administrative costs of architects, project managers, and procurement and other staff 

necessary to carry out the efforts. 

37During this period, the fiscal year 2008 budget submission was the outlier, when the 

request included $115 million to support construction that had already begun at the 

Mendota facility. Congress ultimately appropriated these funds, but did so as part of the 

fiscal year 2007 budget. Because of protracted budget negotiations in fiscal year 2007, the 

budget that year passed after the fiscal year 2008 budget had been submitted. 

BOP officials said that housing low security 

inmates in medium security institutions is 

contributing to crowding in medium 

security institutions, but BOP’s low security 

facilities are “just plain full.” 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

citizen inmates from low security facilities to contract facilities and (2) low 

security inmates from medium security facilities to low security facilities. 

(See table 6 in app. II for additional data on BOP’s population growth, 

rated capacity, and percentage crowding data for fiscal years 2006 

through 2011.) 

BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan assumes continued growth in the 

federal prison population from fiscal years 2011 through 2020, with about 

15 percent growth in the number of inmates BOP will house.38 To address 

some of this growth, BOP expects to activate five newly constructed 

prisons by 2014, adding about 6,720 beds.39 In addition, BOP is 

budgeting for additional contracted bed space—1,000 beds in 2013 and 

1,500 the next year, but the addition of these contracted beds is subject 

to future appropriations. Despite its plans to add capacity through 2014, 

given the expected inmate population growth, BOP projects crowding will 

increase from the current rate of 39 percent to 44 percent by 2015. 

Beyond 2015, BOP projects it will be able to bring crowding in BOP 

facilities down to 35 percent by 2020. BOP’s projections assume that 

BOP will receive additional funding for constructing new facilities. 

Specifically, BOP assumes an overall increase of over 17,500 beds from 

fiscal years 2016 through 2020, generally as a result of opening new high 

and medium security facilities, none of which is under construction. BOP 

has not requested funding for this additional bed space, and as a result, 

its plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations 

processes and are subject to change. Appendix II provides additional 

information on BOP’s population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 

2011 and projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. 

 

38These projections are from BOP’s 2020 capacity plan dated January 10, 2012. In 

November 2009, we concluded that BOP’s projections at the time were accurate, on 

average, to within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 

through August 20, 2009. See GAO-10-94. 

39According to BOP, these facilities include two medium security/camp facilities in 

Mendota, California (1,152 beds) and Berlin, New Hampshire (1,280 beds), that will open 

from 2012 through 2013; one female secure/low security camp facility in Aliceville, 

Alabama (1,792 beds), opening from 2012 through 2014; and one medium security/camp 

facility in Hazelton, West Virginia (1,280 beds); and one high security facility in Yazoo City, 

Mississippi (1,216 beds), scheduled to open from 2013 through 2014. 

BOP Projects Continued 

Population Growth 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

According to BOP and our observations, the growth of the federal inmate 

population and related crowding have negatively affected inmates housed 

in BOP institutions, institutional staff, and the infrastructure of BOP 

facilities, and have contributed to inmate misconduct, which affects staff 

and inmate security and safety. Nevertheless, BOP officials said that it is 

difficult to demonstrate or isolate the effects of crowding, per se, as 

distinguished from population growth or other factors such as staffing 

levels. 

The growth in the inmate population affects inmates’ daily living 

conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and 

visitation. Appendix III describes each in greater detail, and we present 

some highlights here.

To increase available bed space, BOP reports double bunking in excess 

of the percentages included in a facility’s rated capacity; triple and 

quadruple bunking; or converting common space, such as a television 

room, temporarily to housing space. As a result of BOP actions to 

increase available bed space in its institutions to accommodate the 

growing federal inmate population, more inmates are sharing cells and 

other living units, which brings together for longer periods of time inmates 

with a higher risk of violence and more potential victims.40

 

40BOP. The Effects of Changing Crowding and Staffing Levels in Federal Prisons on 

Inmate Violence Rates—Executive Summary (Washington, D.C.: October 2005).

Table 8 in 

appendix III illustrates the use of temporary beds by institutional security 

level, and shows, for example, that temporary beds, not including those 

used for disciplinary purposes, composed about 29 percent of the bed 

space in male high security facilities in fiscal year 2011. According to 

BOP headquarters officials, wardens have discretion to provide temporary 

beds by adding a third bunk within cells, converting a television room to 

bed space, or using both approaches. The facility’s infrastructure also 

BOP’s Population 

Growth Has 

Negatively Affected 

Inmates, Staff, and 

Infrastructure, but 

BOP Has Acted to 

Help Mitigate These 

Effects

Impacts of Population 

Growth

Inmates

Daily Living
 

Page 19 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

affects the approach the warden may implement. For example, the 

smaller cells in older BOP facilities make it more difficult to add a third 

bed, while the larger cells in newer facilities can be triple-bunked. The 

officials noted, however, that triple-bunking all cells in a unit presents a 

challenge to staff who have to manage the large number of inmates. 

Additionally, a regional director may have a preferred approach to 

providing temporary beds within his or her region. Figure 3 illustrates 

some of the options used.

Figure 3: Examples of BOP’s Use of Temporary Bed Space

All of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and continue to do so. At the time of our 

site visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary 

space. For example, we observed triple-bunked cells in a low security 

facility and a converted television room that housed 10 inmates in a 

medium security facility. In addition to experiencing crowding in a facility’s 

housing and common areas, inmates may experience crowded bathroom 

facilities, reductions in shower times, shortened meal times coupled with 

longer waits for food service, and more limited recreational activities 

because of the increased inmate population.

According to BOP officials, the growth in the inmate population affects the 

availability of program opportunities, resulting in waiting lists and inmate 

idleness. BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, 

Program Participation
 

Page 20 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

drug treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate 

inmates and support correctional management.41

According to BOP officials, facility staff provide a range of education 

programs, including mandatory General Educational Development (GED) 

courses; 8- to 10-week nonmandatory courses on topics such as 

parenting, word processing, and conversational Spanish; occupational 

training; and computer-based self-paced courses such as English. BOP 

reported that overall inmate participation in one or more programs was 36 

percent in September 2011 (see table 10 in app. III).

BOP officials said that 

two long-term benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety, 

attributable to enhanced inmate skill sets that can reduce future crime 

and inmate rearrest rates, and (2) institutional safety and security 

because of reduced inmate idleness.

42 BOP also offers 

residential drug abuse treatment in more than half of its facilities and 

nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs in all of its 

facilities. The percentage of participation, number of inmates on waiting 

lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by program. As tables 

11 through 13 in appendix III illustrate, all of the drug treatment and drug 

education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. 

For example, as of the end of fiscal year 2011, about 2,400 inmates in 

male medium security institutions participated in residential drug 

treatment, almost 3,000 more inmates were on the waiting list to 

participate, and the average wait for enrollment exceeded 3 months. 

According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the substance abuse 

treatment or education needs of inmates because it does not have the 

staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates will not receive 

programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012, long waiting lists 

for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), which provides 

sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully complete the 

program,43

 

41See 

constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants early enough to 

GAO-01-483. 

42BOP’s Monthly Participation Reports provide a snapshot of program participation levels 

of inmates within BOP facilities. Figures for overall inmate participation do not duplicate. 

That is, if an inmate is enrolled in more than one program area (for example GED and 

parenting), the inmate’s participation is counted only once.

4328 C.F.R. § 550.53(b) outlines the RDAP eligibility criteria. 28 C.F.R. § 550.55 outlines 

eligibility for early release. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

earn their maximum allowable reductions in times served.44

According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate 

population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to 

find meaningful work for all inmates, even though generally all inmates 

are required to have a job.

From fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011, BOP expanded RDAP capacity by 400 slots. 

Though wait times for enrollment have declined, the program continues to 

experience long waiting lists.

45

According to BOP headquarters officials, the quality of the interaction 

between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior 

in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community; 

however, crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit 

with their families. Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate 

the number of inmates that the facility was designed to house and a 

visitor capacity to enable staff to manage the visitation process. The 

infrastructure of the facility may not support the increase in visitors as a 

result of the growth in the prison population. For example, at one older 

facility we visited, officials said that the number of visitors was so great 

and the visiting room was so small that visitors had to wait hours to get 

into the visiting room.

BOP inmates participate in a variety of jobs. 

For example, at facilities we visited, we observed inmate workers 

preparing meals under the supervision of staff, sweeping the floors, and 

working in a factory that produced and printed a variety of government 

publications. BOP officials explained, however, that with the growth of the 

prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in meaningful work. 

This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy, resulting in inmate 

idleness, which can lead to additional tension and fighting between 

inmates. For example, officials at one facility told us that more inmates 

than needed may be assigned to a task and paid the same wage, but 

consequently, not everyone is engaged and equally busy.

 

44For more on RDAP, see GAO-12-320. 

45The Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 2905, 104 Stat. 4789, 4914 

(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4121 note) established a mandatory work requirement for all 

federal prisoners. A prisoner may be excused from this requirement only as necessitated 

by security considerations; disciplinary action; medical certification of disability; or a need 

to work less than a full schedule in order to participate in literacy training, drug 

rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work program.

Meaningful Work 

Opportunities

Visitation
 

Page 22 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

BOP headquarters officials said that with the primary exception of hiring 

staff when a new facility opens, the number of staff positions generally 

has not increased as BOP’s population has grown, affecting staff stress 

and overtime hours worked. BOP officials explained that BOP is required 

to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for inmates. After these costs 

are met, BOP funds staffing levels to the extent possible. As a result, 

BOP headquarters officials confirmed that overall staffing in BOP facilities 

systemwide is on average less than 90 percent of authorized levels, 

varying by the facility’s location. For example, a warden may staff 

correctional programs at the 97 percent level and the business office at 

the 60 percent level. In addition to funding, BOP officials identified 

recruitment challenges that affected staffing levels. For example, one 

regional director said that finding qualified staff to hire was an ongoing 

issue in his region because generally applicants did not meet BOP’s 

requirements. At two facilities we visited, officials noted that hiring 

professional staff (e.g., psychologists or medical staff) was difficult 

because BOP salaries were less than those paid in the community for the 

same position.

From fiscal years 1997 through 2011, BOP reported that the systemwide 

ratio of inmates to all BOP staff (i.e., at BOP headquarters, regional 

offices, institutions, and training centers) increased from 3.57:1 to 

4.94:1.46 This is not the only staffing ratio BOP calculates however. In 

addition, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates and institutional staff within its 

facilities.47

 

46BOP calculates the ratio for inmates and all BOP staff at the systemwide level; not by 

security level. The inmate population is the actual population at each facility on the last 

day of the fiscal year. The staffing level is the total number of staff on board as of the last 

pay period of the fiscal year and includes all staff funded by BOP’s Salaries and Expenses 

appropriations and Public Health Service staff at BOP headquarters, regional offices, 

institutions, and, training centers.

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate to total 

institutional staff ratio for all facilities systemwide and for all male facilities 

was generally 5.2:1. In fiscal year 2011, this ratio was lower in high 

security facilities (4.1:1) and higher in low and minimum security facilities 

47In fiscal year 2005, BOP began calculating overall institutional staffing ratios on the 

basis of (1) all staff under BOP’s Salaries and Expenses appropriations, including 

correctional officers, noncustody staff (e.g., teachers, psychologists, and administrative 

staff); and Public Health Service staff on board as of the last pay period of the fiscal year; 

and (2) the average inmate daily population at each BOP facility. These ratios exclude 

BOP Buildings and Facilities, Federal Prison Industries, Commissary, regional office, 

training center, and central office staff, as well as staff at facilities that were being 

activated.

Staff

The increased inmate-to-staff ratio can 

increase staff overtime and stress and 

reduce inmate and staff communication. 

This can affect the safety and security of 

the institution as a whole. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

(6.1:1 and 8.0:1, respectively). Further, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates 

to correctional officers. According to BOP, this ratio is 10:1 systemwide, 

but it varies depending on security level and mission of the facility. For 

example, in one Special Management Unit we visited, officials told us that 

there were about 6 inmates to each correctional officer.48

According to an August 2010 DOJ study of BOP’s staffing,

This contrasted 

to a medium security facility where officials told us the ratio of inmates to 

correctional officers was 14:1.

49 nearly all 

BOP facilities had fewer correctional staff on board than needed, with a 

BOP-wide staffing shortage in excess of 3,200.50

Nevertheless, the study stated that BOP’s use of a systemwide ratio had 

not been sufficiently effective in justifying additional annual budget 

requests, because the ratio did not convey operational realities at the 

institutional level. Specifically, the study found that there were variances 

in the number of daily correctional officer shifts based on the time of day 

and the day of the week that the overall ratio was not incorporating. Our 

observations illustrated this point. At one medium security facility we 

visited, officials reported a population of about 1,300 inmates, 56 percent 

crowding, an inmate to total staff ratio of 6.0:1. Facility officials explained, 

Moreover, even if BOP 

filled all authorized positions, the study reported that the shortage would 

exceed 1,800. The study team observed that the institutional staff was 

very lean, highly functional, and adept at managing large numbers of

inmates at a time, but there was also anecdotal evidence that 

understaffing was stressing the workforce. Thus, the study concluded that 

the systemwide inmate-to-staff ratio in BOP institutions—5.3:1 in 2009 

when the study was prepared—must, at a minimum, be maintained.

 

48A Special Management Unit operates as a more controlled and restrictive environment 

for inmates whose interaction requires greater management to ensure the safety, security, 

or orderly operation of BOP facilities, or protection of the public. 

49Justice Management Division, DOJ, BOP Staffing Study (Washington, D.C.: August 

2010).

50According to the study, BOP uses a staffing roster to determine the number of 

correctional officers needed to fill custody posts at its facilities. The roster process 

identifies a clear need of correctional services personnel that is typically higher than the 

numbers of both funded and authorized positions. The study states that there appears to 

be a disconnect between (1) establishing authorized and funded staff positions and (2) 

determining the number of correctional officers needed to ensure institutional safety and 

security through BOP’s staffing roster process.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

however, that about 17 correctional officers were on duty during nights 

and evenings to supervise the general population. Thus, in contrast to the 

reported ratio, the actual inmate-to-staff ratio during these occasions was 

about 76:1. The DOJ study goes on to state that an inmate-to-staff ratio 

can provide a valuable perspective when it is used to show how staffing 

varies during specific shifts at specific institutions. When ratios are used 

in this context, decision makers can more effectively determine the 

appropriate number of institution staff needed to safely manage an 

institution. Accordingly, for BOP to justify its staffing levels plus additional 

resources for increased staff—as the inmate population grows—the study 

recommended, among other things, that BOP set a minimum inmate-tostaff ratio that is required to run a safe, secure, and efficient prison 

system given operational realties. Partly in response to the DOJ report, 

BOP officials said that they had developed minimum staffing guidelines, 

and as of June 2012, BOP was in the process of applying these 

guidelines at each facility. Tables 14-16 in appendix III illustrate the 

various inmate-to-staff ratios and trends over time.

BOP headquarters officials and the union representatives said that 

correctional staff worked more overtime hours to meet additional staff 

needs as a result of the larger inmate population.51

 

51For fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, BOP reported a total of 1,480,713; 1,416,269.50; 

and 1,381,129.50 overtime hours charged by correctional officers in all facilities, 

respectively. BOP also maintains data on overtime costs for all BOP staff. Institutional 

overtime costs for all BOP regions totaled $102,877,891; $102,352,434; and $89,035,146 

for each respective year. BOP officials said that the decline in fiscal year 2011 was due, in 

part, to reduced appropriations that year. 

Alternatively, in lieu of 

paying overtime, facility management may divert other professional or 

administration staff, as trained correctional officers, from their primary 

duties to supervise other aspects of inmate care and confinement, such 

as meal times or medical trips. According to BOP headquarters officials, 

this practice, known as augmentation, affects programming. For example, 

if a teacher has to fill a correctional post, then the class does not occur or 

another teacher may be required to supervise the course. Headquarters, 

regional, and facility officials said that they generally used augmentation 

during annual correctional officers’ refresher training. For example, during 

our site visit to a Special Management Unit, we observed an 

administrative staff member serving as a correctional officer in the unit, 

replacing a correctional officer who was attending BOP-required annual 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

staff refresher training.52

The increased population taxes the infrastructure that was designed for a 

smaller inmate population, affecting use of toilets, showers, water, and 

electricity, and wear and tear on food service equipment (e.g., freezer 

units). According to BOP headquarters and regional officials, crowding 

affects the general usage and upkeep of the facility, which affects the 

facility itself, the environment, and the local community.

BOP facilities and regional offices have tracked 

the use of augmentation, but headquarters did not review or analyze this 

information centrally until February 2012, at the direction of the new BOP 

Director. Therefore, during the course of our audit work, BOP could not 

provide any trend analysis on the use of augmentation systemwide. 

BOP has also experienced increased maintenance and repair costs, with 

51 facilities over 30 years old and newer facilities also in need of 

maintenance and repair.53

BOP officials said the increasing inmate population and staffing ratios 

negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline, thereby 

affecting security and safety. A 2005 BOP report on the effects of 

crowding and staffing levels in federal prisons on inmate violence rates 

concluded that population pressures on both staffing levels and inmate 

living space have an upward impact on serious prison violence. 

Nevertheless, the study also found that systemwide violence rates 

remained stable, although measures of both percent rated capacity and 

BOP reported systemwide maintenance and 

repair costs of about $228 million in fiscal year 2006 and $262 million in 

fiscal year 2011—approximately a 15 percent increase. BOP 

headquarters officials stated that they are most concerned with “life safety 

issues,” such as ensuring that sprinkler systems work properly in the 

event of fire in the facility. These officials said that requests for repairs are 

often put off when BOP does not receive funding. (See app. III for 

additional information on the effects of BOP’s population growth on 

infrastructure.)

 

52BOP established a Special Management Unit at Lewisburg Penitentiary in fiscal year 

2008, and subsequently converted the entire facility to a Special Management Unit, with 

the exception of a unit housing general population high security inmates.

53In our previous work (GAO-10-94), we reported that BOP’s methods for estimating costs 

in its annual budget requests largely reflect the four best practices outlined in GAO, Cost 

Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital 

Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

Infrastructure 

Security and Safety
 

Page 26 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

inmate to correctional officers ratios rose in federal prisons during the 

latter part of the study.54 The study posits that this stability may stem from 

prison managers employing some operational practices, such as 

augmentation, that in the short term countered the negative effect of 

increased crowding. BOP officials told us that a follow-up to the 2005 

study is not necessary because they did not believe that the findings 

would change. 

BOP generally reported increases in the number of guilty findings for 

inmate misconduct from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but the number 

of findings for misconduct of the greatest severity (e.g., killing, serious 

assault, and possession of weapons) began to decline in fiscal year 2010. 

Additionally, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP systemwide 

imposed almost 4,000 lockdowns––a temporary situation in which all 

inmates are confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to 

assess the situation following a critical incident (e.g., a disturbance, 

assaults on staff by several inmates, or a food or work strike) and can 

safely return the institution to normal operations. Similar to the inmate 

misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from fiscal years 

2006 through 2009, and then began to decline. Appendix III provides 

information on BOP’s disciplinary system and data on inmate misconduct 

and lockdowns. 

BOP officials at all levels told us that they believe the establishment of 

Special Management Units beginning in fiscal year 2008 had contributed 

to the decrease in misconduct in the general population and the decline in 

the use of lockdowns, but that these facilities are too new to evaluate.55

Nevertheless, BOP officials stated that its Special Management Units are 

now crowded and experiencing waiting lists.56 Specifically, BOP reported 

that from March 1, 2012, through April 20, 2012, 231 inmates were 

approved for Special Management Unit placement and were awaiting a 

 

54The study used calendar quarter data for 73 federal low, medium, and high security all 

male prisons from July 1996 through December 2004, a period of increased prison 

crowding and increased inmate to correctional officer ratios. 

55 We have ongoing work that focuses on BOP’s Special Management Units and Special 

Housing Units. We expect to publish our results in early 2013. As part of our review, we 

are analyzing their effects on inmate misconduct. 

56As of January 31, 2012, BOP reported housing 1,664 male inmates in its Special 

Management Units. 

BOP places inmates in Special Housing 

Units for disciplinary or administrative 

reasons when their presence in the 

general inmate population would otherwise 

threaten the safety, security, or orderly 

operation of the facility or potentially cause 

harm to the public. BOP places inmates in 

Special Management Units when 

inmates need an even more restrictive and 

controlled environment—for even longer 

terms—than can be offered in a Special 

Housing Unit or among the general inmate 

population. 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

bed. The average wait time for placement in a Special Management Unit 

bed was 110 days. 

Officials said that waiting lists for transfers to a Special Management Unit 

contribute to crowding in the facility Special Housing Unit. According to 

BOP officials, without space for disciplinary segregation, they are limited 

in how they can address inmate misconduct. Officials further stated that 

when a facility has no Special Housing Unit space available, the regional 

office may move the inmate to a Special Housing Unit in another facility of 

a different security level—a practice referred to as trans-segregation. 

Alternatively, headquarters officials said that disciplinary hearing officers 

may dispense shorter time in segregation or use other sanctions or a 

combination of nonsegregation sanctions. As a result, the officials said 

that the imposed sanctions may not be as much of a deterrent with the 

inmates, which affects the security and safety of inmates and staff. 

Additionally, BOP headquarters officials and union representatives we 

spoke with expressed concerns about future effects of increased inmate 

population growth. First, officials raised concern about the possibility of a 

serious incident occurring, especially at a high security or medium level 

facility. A serious incident could occur in a high security facility because 

these facilities are extremely crowded and house the most serious 

inmates (i.e., those who have committed the most serious crimes in 

society or in prison). A union representative also said that medium 

security facilities were at risk of an incident because these facilities lack 

the better lockdown procedures found in high security facilities. 

Nevertheless, BOP officials did not discount an incident happening at a 

low security facility because of the high gang presence in these facilities. 

They said that although the criminal histories of low security inmates 

suggest that they are not a “high risk” for violence, these inmates may still 

be a high risk for problems because of frustrations resulting from crowded 

conditions. Second, BOP officials were also concerned that the federal 

BOP officials said they have both 

experienced and effective staff, but that 

they are reaching the highest crowding 

rates ever and have increasingly 

unfunded repair requests. They said that 

BOP cannot keep operating as it is 

without new capacity. 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

courts might require BOP to address conditions related to crowding or 

that ACA might revoke the accreditation of BOP institutions.57

BOP has taken actions to manage a growing population within its 

facilities—and its approaches were similar to those in selected states we 

reviewed. These have generally been aimed at

• increasing inmate and staff safety and security and

• utilizing resources efficiently.

Controlled inmate movement. BOP has implemented controlled 

movement for inmates, which is a practice that officials from one of the 

five states we reviewed also reported using, specifically to deal with 

crowded conditions. For example, because of crowded conditions, one 

way that BOP restricts inmates’ movement in high and medium security 

facilities is by instituting earlier in-cell hours at night for inmates.58

Disciplinary housing. As previously discussed, because escalating 

tensions in crowded facilities can cause increased security concerns, 

BOP utilizes Special Housing Units to segregate inmates involved in 

Further, 

BOP has a system of inmate movement in place to reduce potential 

tension and fighting and allow staff to better supervise inmates (i.e., 

staggering activities or meal times so that one cell block or unit of inmates 

proceeds at a time). Like officials at BOP, officials from Mississippi’s 

Department of Corrections stagger recreational activities to curtail inmate

fighting so that only one cell block or unit is released to the yard at a time.

 

57In May 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Brown, Governor of 

California, v. Plata, 131 S.Ct. 1910, that a court-mandated prison inmate population limit 

was necessary to remedy the violation of a federal right, specifically the severe and 

unlawful mistreatment of prisoners through grossly inadequate provision of medical and 

mental health care. The Court recognized that for years the medical and mental health 

care provided by California’s prisons had fallen short of minimum constitutional 

requirements and had failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs with needless suffering 

and death being the well-documented result. The Court stated that overcrowding had 

overtaken the limited resources of prison staff, imposed demands well beyond the 

capacity of medical and mental health facilities, and created unsanitary and unsafe 

conditions that made progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve. 

58Controlled movement in high security facilities is often called restricted movement. 

BOP Has Worked to 

Increase Inmate and Staff 

Safety and Security and 

Has Reported Utilizing 

Resources More Efficiently

Efforts to Increase Inmate and 

Staff Safety and Security
 

Page 29 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

disciplinary infractions.59 Officials in Kansas and New York also reported 

using disciplinary housing. BOP officials stated that the use of Special 

Housing Units has resulted in a decrease in inmate misconduct because 

those inciting tension within the general population have been removed.60

According to a 2006 New York State Department of Correctional 

Services’ report on prison safety, the department believed that the 

certainty of facing Special Housing Unit confinement for misbehavior 

contributed generally to improved inmate conduct, as reflected in inmates 

spending less time in these units without reductions in time to make room 

for other inmates.61

Preferential housing. To increase the safety and security of inmates and 

staff, BOP has encouraged positive behavior from inmates by rewarding 

them with preferential housing, and this was a practice we observed 

directly in a New York State Department of Corrections and Community 

Supervision facility. BOP officials described preferential housing as cells 

or dormitory rooms with fewer inmates than the facility’s general 

population housing and located close to the phones or showers. BOP 

union officials stated that, at some facilities, preferential housing is given 

to inmates directly in response to their good behavior, and officials 

explained that inmates highly coveted these rewards and modified their 

behavior accordingly. For example, in one facility we visited, inmates in 

the cleanest unit were rewarded by getting to eat meals before inmates in 

other units. At one state facility we visited in New York, officials rewarded 

well-behaved inmates by allowing them to live in the “honor block”—a 

preferential housing unit that allows inmates more freedom of movement 

and additional personal decision making (e.g., inmates are allowed to 

decide when they wish to shower and do their laundry).

Expanded program options and incentives. To accommodate growing 

inmate populations, reduce inmate idleness, and help inmates prepare for 

life outside of prison—all of which relate to institutional safety—BOP 

 

59As of January 31, 2012, BOP reported housing 11,624 male inmates and 179 female 

inmates in Special Housing Units. 

60As part of our review on BOP’s Special Management Units and Special Housing Units, 

we are analyzing their effects on inmate misconduct. We expect to publish our results in 

early 2013. 

61New York State Department of Correctional Services, Prison Safety in New York

(Albany, New York: April 2006).
 

Page 30 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

officials have expanded inmates’ program options. Officials from all five of 

the states we selected reported similar activities. Generally GED classes 

are held during the day, but, for example, two BOP facilities we visited 

have begun offering evening GED classes to accommodate the increase 

in inmates who are required to receive a GED education.62 Also, one BOP 

facility we visited had expanded its vocational training capacity by 

combining woodshop learning with classroom study, so that one group of 

inmates could be learning in the woodshop while another group of 

inmates could be participating in classroom lessons. According to the 

program director, when he ran the program from 2001 through 2005, 

about 30 inmates received certification each year for completing the 

program; currently, about 60 to 80 inmates receive certification annually. 

At one facility we visited, to encourage program participation, inmates in 

the Special Management Unit were given cash incentives for completing 

psycho-educational programs, such as stress/anger management classes 

or those designed to improve interpersonal relationships and help 

inmates focus on personal goals and maintaining positive conduct. 

Specifically, an inmate may earn $25 for completing these types of 

classes.63 Like BOP, both Ohio and Wisconsin have offered additional 

programming in the form of expanded program hours and expanded 

reentry programs; for example, classes on financial literacy, housing, and 

personal health care to teach inmates who are about to be released how 

to manage their daily lives in the community. 

Correctional complexes. BOP has established correctional complexes 

over the last 15 years to better leverage its staff. Officials from one state 

in our sample—Kansas—told us they employ this practice as well. BOP 

correctional complexes are institutions that are located on the same 

grounds and may include low, medium, and high security facilities. 

According to BOP officials, the use of correctional complexes helps in 

particular with the leveraging of medical services and supplies. It also 

 

62According to BOP Program Statement 5350.28, generally an inmate confined in a 

federal institution who does not have a verified GED credential or high school diploma is 

required to attend an adult literacy program for a minimum of 240 instructional hours or 

until a GED is achieved, whichever occurs first. 

63This program is funded by the BOP Inmate Trust Fund, which is maintained by profits 

from inmate purchases of commissary products, telephone services, and the fees inmates 

pay for using the inmate computer system. See GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Improved 

Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection,

GAO-11-893 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2011). 

Efforts to Utilize Resources 

Efficiently 

BOP’s Federal Correctional Complex in 

Florence, Colorado, comprises three 

secure facilities: an Administrative 

Maximum U.S. Penitentiary, a high 

security U.S. Penitentiary, and a medium 

security Federal Correctional Institution. 

The complex also includes a minimum 

security satellite camp 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

helps BOP manage crowding by sharing staff resources across the 

correctional complex, if one facility has greater needs than another for 

certain programs. 

Energy conservation. BOP has also taken actions to minimize the 

burden that crowding places on facilities’ infrastructure, and officials from 

one state in our sample—Ohio—acknowledged similar activities. 

According to BOP officials, BOP has aggressively pursued energy 

conservation following a 2009 governmentwide executive order to reduce 

energy usage.64 BOP officials stated that their energy-saving efforts have 

prevented BOP from experiencing a dramatic increase in energy usage 

despite the growing prison population. Examples of energy-saving actions 

that BOP officials reported include the installation of slower-flowing 

shower heads, which use 2 rather than 5 gallons of water per minute and 

flushing toilets every 5 to10 minutes rather than after each use. According 

to BOP officials, most BOP facilities have recycling programs. One BOP 

facility that we visited began a recycling program that, in addition to 

efficiently utilizing resources, created inmate jobs and benefitted the 

environment. Ohio officials told us that they have reduced utility costs with 

similar efficiency initiatives. 

Visitor accommodations. BOP has taken a variety of actions to 

accommodate the increased number of visitors within existing 

infrastructure, which is similar to the steps officials from two of the five 

states we reviewed. For example, at one BOP facility we visited, because 

the facility did not have money to enlarge the visiting room, it shortened 

the length of visits from 4 hours to 2 hours and changed visiting hours 

from an open schedule (i.e., where visitors can come during any visiting 

hours) to a rotating basis (i.e., visitors for a particular inmate may be 

allowed to visit on certain days and between certain hours). In an effort to 

supplement face-to-face visits, BOP has permitted the increased use of email between inmates and their loved ones.65 Ohio and Wisconsin have 

implemented scheduled visitation times rather than open visitation hours. 

 

64Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, Exec. Order 

No. 13514, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009). 

65An inmate is permitted to exchange electronic messages only with persons who have 

accepted the inmate’s request to communicate. For more information on BOP’s use of 

electronic messaging, see GAO-11-893. 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

In addition, Ohio officials told us that the state offers e-mail as a way to 

supplement visitation.

While BOP and the five selected states have taken a variety of similar 

actions to manage the growing number of inmates they incarcerate, these 

states have been able to take broader actions than BOP to reduce their 

prison populations because these states have legislative authority that 

BOP does not have.66

• modifying criminal statutes and sentencing,

These states’ actions can be grouped into three 

general categories: 

• relocating inmates (e.g., moving them from state to local facilities or 

community corrections, whereby their release is supervised at halfway 

houses or in-home detention), or

• providing inmates with good time credit or adjusting inmates’ 

sentences based on participation in certain programs or 

demonstration of positive behaviors. 

To take these actions, these state departments of corrections have 

generally worked with their state legislatures to propose and pass 

legislation that effects these changes. Officials from three of the five 

states we spoke with—Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin—told us their states 

also embarked on justice reinvestment efforts to facilitate legislative or 

other changes to their corrections approaches.67

 

66Actions taken by states and discussed in this section have been intended to reduce 

prison populations. However, a variety of factors and circumstances (e.g., new drug 

sentencing laws and a drop in drug-related crime) may also have contributed to decreases 

in prison populations. 

For example, in 2006, 

Kansas sought technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment 

67The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is administered by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, in coordination with related efforts supported by 

independent organizations (e.g., the Pew Center on the States). It provides technical 

assistance and competitive financial support to states and localities engaged in or well 

positioned to consider different investments in their justice and law enforcement dollars. 

When considering reinvestment, states and localities collect and analyze data on drivers 

of criminal justice populations and costs, identify and implement changes to increase 

efficiencies, and measure both the fiscal and public safety impacts of any changes. 

Wisconsin participated in the initiative in 2008, but was no longer participating in the 

initiative at the time of our review.

States Have Taken 

Broader Actions 

Intended to Reduce 

Prison Populations 

than Those Taken at 

the Federal Level 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Initiative to avert an increase of 700 new inmates in its prison population 

that it projected between 2007 and 2010. Using the justice reinvestment 

approach, as described below, Kansas (1) relocated inmates from staterun facilities by diverting them to nonprison alternatives and transferring 

them to county jails and community corrections facilities and (2) offered 

inmates credit for positive behavior thereby reducing inmates’ time in 

prison. As a result, the state experienced a net increase of 10 inmates 

rather than the 700 inmates it had anticipated during this period.

Officials in the five selected states generally believed that the actions 

taken had helped them to reduce their prison populations; however, 

because these initiatives were recent, empirical data showing the impact 

of these initiatives were generally not available. In contrast, federal law 

does not provide BOP with the authority to implement many of these 

measures and generally requires BOP to provide for suitable housing and 

the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or 

convicted of offenses against the United States.68 Unlike certain states’ 

laws, federal law does not provide BOP with the authority to transfer 

inmates to local prisons or move inmates to community corrections or 

supervised release beyond what current federal law permits.69

Additionally, because of the mandatory minimum sentences required for 

many federal offenses and the absence of parole for most federal inmates 

in the federal system, BOP generally does not have the authority to 

significantly modify an inmate’s period of incarceration.70

Two of the five states we reviewed have changed their sentencing 

statutes or guidelines. For example, in 2009, New York implemented 

 

6818 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2). See GAO-12-320. 

69The Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 251(a), 122 Stat. 657, 692-93, 

amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to enable BOP to place inmates in community corrections 

for up to 12 months and home detention for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of 

imprisonment or 6 months. 

70According to the U.S. Parole Commission, offenders who are under the supervision of 

the commission and eligible for parole include inmates currently incarcerated for federal 

offenses committed prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984; all District of Columbia 

offenders, as of August 5, 2000; the U.S. military prison population that has been 

transferred to federal correctional institutions; a few cases of Americans who have 

committed a crime in a foreign country; and offenders in the federal witness protection 

program.

Modifying Criminal 

Statutes and Sentencing
 

Page 34 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

changes to its drug statutes, which affected the sentencing of some drug 

felony offenders. These changes included revising the ranges for state 

prison sentences by lowering the minimum sentence allowable for certain 

nonviolent drug felony offenders. New York has reported decreases in its 

total custody population since 1999, when the population reached 71,472 

and drug offenders constituted 31.2 percent of this population. From the 

end of calendar year 2009 through 2011, New York reported a decrease 

in its total custody population from 58,378 to 55,090. This decrease 

included not only a decline in the number of drug offenders from 10,319 

to 7,509 but also in the percentage of drug offenders in custody from 17.7 

percent to 13.6 percent. In 2011, Ohio revised its sentencing laws to 

eliminate the differences between the penalties for crack and powder 

cocaine violations. Generally, the change provides for a uniform 

determination of the penalty for drug offenses based upon the amount of 

any type of cocaine (powder cocaine or any compound, mixture, 

preparation, or substance containing cocaine) an individual possesses. In 

effect, this change resulted in an increasing of the amount of crack 

needed to those of powder cocaine for lower-level offenses and a 

decreasing of the amounts of powder cocaine needed to crack levels for 

higher-level offenses.

While states may change their sentencing statutes or guidelines to reduce 

their prison populations, at the federal level, BOP does not determine 

which offenders are sentenced to prison and what the length of their 

sentences should be. On May 1, 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing 

guidelines.71 These guidelines became effective on November 1, 2007.72

 

71Under 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), the commission is to promulgate and distribute to all of the 

courts of the United States and to the United States Probation System guidelines for use 

of a sentencing court in determining the sentence to be imposed in a criminal case, 

including (1) whether to impose a sentence to probation, a fine, or a term of imprisonment 

and (2) the appropriate amount of a fine or the length of a term of probation or 

imprisonment, among other things. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(p), generally, the 

commission is to submit to Congress amendments to the guidelines and modifications to 

previously submitted amendments that have not taken effect. 

One of the amendments modified the drug quantity thresholds for crack 

72The federal sentencing guidelines provide federal judges with a set of consistent 

sentencing ranges to consult when determining a sentence. The guidelines consider both 

the seriousness of the criminal conduct and the defendant’s criminal record. Federal 

courts must consult the sentencing guidelines and take them into account when 

sentencing, but are not bound to apply the guidelines. 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

cocaine offenses. Generally, the commission lowered the sentencing 

guidelines for certain crack cocaine offenses. Subsequently, the 

commission made the amendment apply retroactively. As a result, some 

incarcerated offenders were eligible to receive a reduction in sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).73 The effect of this change was realized 

almost fully in fiscal year 2008.74

Selected states have also relocated inmates to relieve the crowding of 

their state prison facilities, such as through use of nonprison alternatives 

(e.g., drug treatment programs), expanded use of parole, the movement 

of inmates to county or local jails, or the wider reliance on community 

corrections (e.g., halfway houses). For example, Mississippi expanded 

use of house arrest and Kansas and New York expanded drug 

rehabilitation programs as an alternative to incarceration for certain lowlevel drug offenders. Other selected states have passed legislation that 

allows some inmates to be paroled sooner and made parole available to 

more inmates. For example, Mississippi has passed legislation that 

extended parole eligibility to (1) all nonviolent offenders irrespective of the 

offender’s first-time offender status and (2) certain drug sale offenders. 

New York allows well-behaved drug and other nonviolent offenders to 

appear before a parole board earlier. Additionally, Kansas and Wisconsin 

have moved some low-risk inmates to county jails for more localized 

management and relief for state prison crowding.

Three of the five selected states also reported using community 

corrections—also known as supervised release at halfway houses or inhome detention—as a way to either divert offenders from prison or move 

more inmates out of prison. For example, Ohio uses halfway houses, as 

is typical, to provide supervision and treatment services to inmates who 

are released from state prison or are sentenced to halfway houses by 

 

73See GAO-12-320. 

74The change to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine went into effect on November 

1, 2007. As of June 2011, the Sentencing Commission reported that of the 25,736 inmate 

applicants for a sentence reduction, 16,511 (64.2 percent) had been granted their 

requests. Eligible inmates received an average sentence reduction of 26 months. The 

Sentencing Commission was able to determine the origin of the motion for 15,016 of the 

inmates who were granted a sentence reduction. U.S. Sentencing Commission, U.S. 

Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Cocaine Retroactivity Data Report, June 2011

(Washington, D.C.: June 2011). 

Relocating Inmates
 

Page 36 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

courts for an offense or as a result of violating parole.75

At the federal level, BOP uses Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) to help 

inmates reintegrate into the community, as well as to reduce crowding in 

prisons, but is limited by what federal law allows as well as the capacity of 

these facilities.

Like Ohio, Kansas 

has diverted parole and probation violators to supervised release. 

Similarly, Mississippi uses an intensive supervised release program as an 

alternative to incarceration for low-risk and nonviolent offenders.

76 BOP may place inmates there in the final months of their 

sentences (not to exceed 12 months) under conditions that will afford the 

inmate a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for reentry into 

the community. BOP officials stated that BOP maximizes the use of 

RRCs to the extent possible but that there are not enough beds in RRCs 

to accommodate all eligible inmates. In February 2012, we reported that 

as of November 2011, BOP estimated 8,859 available RRC beds under 

contract.77 For each available RRC bed, BOP can transfer one inmate to 

the RRC for a maximum of 12 months, or BOP could send multiple 

inmates for shorter placements (e.g., three inmates for 4 months each). 

To provide all eligible inmates with the maximum allowable 12 months in 

an RRC, BOP would require about 29,000 available beds annually.78

Further, BOP places inmates according to a court’s or judge’s sentence, 

which may require some probation and supervised release violators to 

serve terms in community corrections.

Selected states have taken a variety of actions that reduce inmates’ time 

in prison by providing inmates with credit for positive behaviors. For 

example, in Mississippi, certain inmates may be eligible to receive a trusty 

time allowance of 30 days’ reduction of sentence for each 30 days’ 

participation during any calendar month in approved programs while in 

 

75In Ohio, generally parole is used for inmates convicted of crimes prior to July 1, 1996, 

when Ohio was under an indefinite sentencing structure. Most offenders who committed 

crimes after July 1, 1996, serve definite sentences, with a period of postrelease 

supervision for certain crimes upon their release from prison.

76BOP refers to halfway houses as RRCs.

77GAO-12-320. 

78GAO, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating Incarceration and Community 

Corrections Costs and Results of the Elderly Offender Pilot, GAO-12-807R (Washington, 

D.C.: Jul. 27, 2012). 

Providing Inmates with 

Credit for Positive 

Behaviors
 

Page 37 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

trusty status.79 According to Mississippi officials, these programs include 

alcohol and drug treatment, GED classes, faith-based programs, and 

vocational education. New York and Kansas allow inmates who complete 

certain rehabilitative programs to be released earlier, either through 

earned compliance credits in Kansas or by receiving a parole hearing 

earlier in New York. New York officials stated that since 1998, 

approximately 37,000 inmates have been released because of this policy. 

Ohio has an earned credit program that rewards an inmate for productive 

participation in educational programs, vocational training, prison 

industries work, substance abuse treatment, or any other constructive 

program with specific performance standards.80 Additionally, in Ohio, 

there is a mechanism for the possible release with sentencing court 

approval of certain department of corrections inmates who have served at 

least 80 percent of their prison terms.81

Officials from two of the five selected states also reported that their states 

award inmates credit toward the service of their sentence for good 

behavior—compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations—as a way 

to relieve prison crowding. For example, Kansas’s department of 

corrections offers good time credits and is authorized to adopt rules and 

regulations providing for a system of good time calculations. The system 

provides circumstances under which an inmate may earn good time 

credits and for the forfeiture of earned credits.82

We have previously reported on BOP’s use of its sentence reduction 

authority, noting that it is affected by both inmate eligibility and BOP 

 

79Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-138.1, a trusty time allowance is a reduction in 

sentence that may be granted in addition to any other administrative reduction in sentence 

to an offender in trusty status as defined by the classification board of the Department of 

Corrections. In this instance, “trusty” refers to those inmates who are eligible to receive an 

allowance of 30 days reduction of sentence for each 30 days of their participation during 

any calendar month in an approved program

80Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2967.193.

81Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2967.19.

82Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6821, generally, the good time credit, which can be 

earned by an inmate and subtracted from any sentence, is limited to 15 percent of the 

prison part of the sentence for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, and increased 

to 20 percent of the prison part of the sentence for certain crimes committed on or after 

January 1, 2008. 
 

Page 38 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

capacity.83

Further, as we reported in February 2012, BOP is authorized to award up 

to 54 days of good conduct time credit each year (which vests on the date 

the inmate is released).

Specifically, BOP’s RDAP offers sentence reductions of up to 

1 year to inmates convicted of a nonviolent offense who successfully 

complete the program. BOP officials told us that they strive to maximize 

RDAP programs as a management tool to reduce recidivism and because 

of the program’s ability to reduce an inmate’s sentence. RDAP programs 

are full, however, and BOP cannot keep up with demand for RDAP 

enrollment, which limits BOP’s ability to fully leverage this program. 

Additionally, because of long waiting lists, those eligible for a sentence 

reduction are generally unable to complete RDAP in time to earn the 

maximum reduction. Furthermore, federal law provides for the amount of 

time awarded for each inmate who successfully completes the program. 

Moreover, according to BOP officials, given BOP’s staffing shortages and 

in the absence of additional funding for the program, BOP has generally 

been unable to increase the number of RDAP’s staff to accommodate 

more inmates.

84 Good conduct time credit may be given to an 

inmate serving a sentence of more than 1 year, but less than life. BOP’s 

method of awarding good conduct time credit at the end of each year an 

inmate serves results in a maximum of 47 days earned per year of 

sentence imposed.85 From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, BOP data 

show that about 87 percent of inmates had earned all of their available 

good conduct time credit by the end of each year, and an additional 3 

percent of inmates earned at least 90 percent of the maximum available 

good conduct time credit.86

Some inmates have contested BOP’s methodology in court, maintaining 

that allowing inmates 54 days per year of sentence imposed was the 

 

83GAO-12-320. 

84GAO-12-320. 

85As authorized in statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), BOP awards “up to 54 days at the end of 

each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment,” or 54 days per year of sentence served. 

As applied by BOP, this results in 47 days earned per year of sentence imposed because 

inmates do not earn good conduct time for years they do not ultimately serve because of 

being released early. 

86BOP tracks inmates’ earned good conduct time credit throughout their terms of 

imprisonment. 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

original intent of the statute,87 but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld BOP’s 

approach. BOP officials told us that the agency was supportive of 

amending the statute related to good conduct time credit, and legislation 

pending before Congress would allow for 54 days to be provided for each 

year of the term of imprisonment originally imposed by the judge, which 

would result in inmates serving 85 percent of their sentence.88 BOP 

provided us with estimates in December 2011 showing that if the good 

conduct time credit allowance was increased from 47 to 54 days, as 

proposed, BOP could save over $40 million in the first fiscal year after the 

policy change from the early release of about 3,900 inmates. As of July 

2012, the legislative proposal has been introduced in the Senate but not 

the House.89 BOP officials told us that they are examining initiatives that 

would allow for the restoration of good conduct time, but that they are 

reluctant to pursue them. They explained that loss of good conduct time is 

one of the most powerful sanctions in BOP’s inmate discipline program, 

which helps ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of 

correctional facilities. 

Over the last 25 years, BOP’s population has grown more than 400 

percent, and BOP projects future growth through 2020. With more 

inmates, BOP’s spending to secure, feed, and provide services to a 

growing population has also been rising. BOP’s annual appropriation now 

exceeds $6.6 billion, and represents nearly a quarter of DOJ’s annual 

budgetary authority. Despite the continued growth in inmates and related 

expenses, in recent years, BOP has been adding capacity and staff at a 

lower rate than the inmate population has been growing. As a result, both 

 

87Under the Sentencing Reform Act, the U.S. Sentencing Commission established 

sentencing guidelines with the understanding that inmates would receive good conduct 

time credit so that their actual time served would be 85 percent of the length of the 

sentence imposed by the judge, assuming good behavior. BOP’s method of awarding 

good conduct time, however, results in inmates serving more than 85 percent of their 

imposed sentences, even after earning the maximum good conduct time credit. 

88The additional credit would be awarded retroactively to inmates sentenced under the 

Sentencing Reform Act prior to the legislative change. For the hypothetical inmate with a 

10-year sentence, the inmate would receive a total of 540 days of good conduct time. 

Thus the inmate would serve 3,110 days (85 percent) of the 3,650 days sentence. 

89Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2011, S.1231, 112th Cong. § 4(f) proposes to 

amend certain statutory provisions related to good conduct time in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). 

As of August 2012, the legislative proposal has been introduced in the Senate but not the 

House.

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 40 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

individual facilities and the federal prison system as a whole are 

experiencing increased crowding. Crowding has implications for inmates, 

staff, and infrastructure—as well as safety and security, and the potential 

for inmate disruptions or an even more serious security incident is a 

significant concern. BOP has taken steps to help mitigate the implications 

of crowding in the federal system, but does not have the authority to 

implement many of the reforms that several states have adopted to 

reduce crowding and, in some states, the size of their prison populations. 

BOP also requires congressional approval and appropriated funds to 

expand capacity in the federal system. As such, BOP has limited ability to 

address crowding in the federal prison system. We are not taking a 

position on matters of policy such as how crowding in the federal system 

should be addressed. However, as policy makers weigh whether and how 

to address crowding in the federal system, options that will be important 

to consider include (1) reducing the size of the projected inmate 

population by reforming sentencing laws, allowing alternatives to 

incarceration, and/or providing BOP greater sentencing flexibility; (2) 

increasing capacity in the federal system by constructing new prisons, 

contracting for additional private capacity, and adding additional staff; or 

(3) taking some combination of both approaches.
 

Page 41 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for official review and comment. 

BOP provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix IV.

David C. Maurer

Director

Homeland Security and Justice

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:

1. What was the growth in the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) population from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and what are BOP’s projections for 

inmate population and capacity?

2. What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison 

population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) within 

BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to mitigate 

these effects?

3. What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison 

populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar 

initiatives?

To address the first question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority and 

policies and procedures (e.g., BOP’s inmate classification policy) that 

potentially affect growth in the federal prison population and conditions of 

confinement in BOP facilities. We also analyzed BOP’s (1) inmate 

population data (e.g., demographics and offenses), (2) 2020 long-range 

capacity plan based on inmate population projections and future capacity 

estimates depending on funding,1

To determine how BOP developed its population and capacity projection 

estimates, we analyzed BOP’s program statements, performance goals, 

and congressional budget submissions for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 

We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials to discuss the extent to 

which BOP’s population has grown; the reasons for this growth; how BOP 

(3) percentage crowding at all 

institutional security levels, (4) staff-to-inmate ratios, and (5) available 

infrastructure costs (e.g., water and electricity costs). Unless otherwise 

noted, all of these data covered the period from fiscal years 2006 through 

2011. We also reviewed Department of Justice (DOJ) and BOP reports 

describing BOP’s population and staffing during this period. We assessed 

the reliability of BOP’s inmate population data and crowding data by 

reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency 

officials about how they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating 

assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We found BOP’s 

inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this engagement.

 

1

We analyzed BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan dated January 10, 2012.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

calculates the percentage crowding in its facilities; and how BOP develops 

its population growth and capacity projections, including any changes to 

this process since our November 2009 report.2

To address the second question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority, 

policies, and procedures pertinent to the effects of the growing prison 

population on BOP operations, including inmates, staff, and infrastructure, 

and that may affect BOP’s ability to mitigate the effects of a growing 

population. Further, we analyzed BOP studies on the effects of population 

growth and crowding on BOP operations. We also analyzed data 

provided by BOP on available bed space including temporary bed space 

for all security levels,

In that report, we assessed 

how BOP developed its population projections and capacity plans. We 

compared BOP’s projections with its actual inmate population growth from 

fiscal years 1999 through August 20, 2009, and concluded that BOP’s 

projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the actual 

inmate population growth within this time period. We also reviewed 

government and academic studies on federal incarceration determinants.

3 inmate program participation and waiting lists, 

inmate-to-staff ratios, and available infrastructure costs. Unless otherwise 

noted, these data covered the period from fiscal years 2006 through 

2011. We also present systemwide BOP staffing ratios from fiscal years 

1997 through 2011 because officials believed that presenting the ratios 

for a longer period better illustrates the effect of BOP’s population growth 

relative to the number of staff.4

 

2

See 

We assessed the reliability of BOP’s 

inmate, staff, and infrastructure data by interviewing knowledgeable 

agency officials to determine how BOP collects and maintains the 

integrity of these data. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report. In addition, we reviewed BOP’s fiscal year 

2011 congressional budget submission to identify past actions to address 

federal prison population growth and crowding, including any proposed 

legislative changes. To observe some of the effects of a growing federal 

prison population and crowding on current BOP inmates, staff, and 

GAO-10-94. 

3

BOP reports the use of additional cots in areas such as an institution’s halls, gyms, 

mezzanines, or television rooms—to address crowding in an institution—as temporary 

housing because this temporary living space is to be restored as program space when 

circumstances permit. Thus, such temporary use of space is not factored into BOP’s rated 

capacity calculation.

4

According to BOP officials, BOP also includes this information in its annual congressional 

budget request.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

infrastructure, we conducted visits to 5 of BOP’s 117 institutions. We 

chose these prisons on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure 

geographic dispersion. As shown in table 1, the five prisons we visited 

were located in four of BOP’s six regions. Additionally, to identify 

variations in the effects of increased prison populations, we selected 

facilities of different security levels (i.e., low, 1; medium, 3; high, 1; and 

administrative, 1); the Petersburg Complex included a medium and a low 

security facility.

Table 1: Site Visits to BOP Facilities 

Facility name Region Security level

Petersburg Complex Mid-Atlantic Region Low, medium

SeaTac Western Region Administrative—mixed security levels 

including men and women

Lewisburg Northeast Region High, Special Management Unit

Schuylkill Northeast Region Medium

Leavenworth North Central Region Medium (previously high)

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information.

During each site visit, we interviewed institutional management officials 

and toured the facility to observe inmate housing, recreational areas, food 

service, medical services, and educational and vocational programming. 

Because we did not visit all BOP facilities and did not randomly select the 

facilities we visited, our results are not generalizable to all BOP facilities. 

Nevertheless, these results provided us with examples of the effects of 

BOP’s population growth on a facility’s inmates, staff, and infrastructure, 

as well as examples of actions taken at the facility level to mitigate these 

effects. We also interviewed the six regional directors to obtain their 

perspectives on the increased prison population and the effects of this 

growth and crowding on BOP institutions within each region. Further, we 

discussed the effects of BOP’s population growth on correctional officers 

with officials from the Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents

all non-management staff working in BOP facilities. Additionally, we 

analyzed American Correctional Association’s (ACA) standards (e.g., 

minimum inmate space standards) and reviewed ACA audits from fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011 (the most recent audits available) of the BOP 

institutions we visited to try to identify potential effects of growing 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

populations in these facilities. We also met with ACA officials to identify 

any areas where BOP might not be meeting these standards.5

Further, to determine the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate 

the effects of a growing federal prison population, we analyzed BOP’s 

statutory authority to identify provisions that affect BOP’s ability to mitigate 

the effects of the growth of the prison population. We also analyzed BOP’s 

policies, DOJ and BOP studies, and BOP’s fiscal year 2011 congressional 

budget submission to identify actions BOP has taken, including any 

proposed legislative changes that could mitigate the effects of the growth of 

the prison population. We interviewed BOP headquarters officials to obtain 

information on these actions and proposals as well as to discuss the extent 

of their statutory authority, which affects their ability to mitigate the effects 

of the increased population. During our BOP site visits and interviews with 

BOP regional directors, we asked officials to identify any actions taken at 

the facility or regional level to mitigate the effects of the growth of the 

federal prison population and crowding in facilities in the region. Also, we 

discussed actions taken by BOP to mitigate the effects of prison population 

growth with officials from the Council of Prison Locals. We also interviewed 

corrections experts from DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections (NIC),6

To also address the second as well as the third questions, we compared 

and contrasted BOP’s actions to (1) mitigate the effects of its increased 

population and (2) attempt to reduce its prison population with similar 

actions taken by five states––Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and 

ACA, Pew Center on the States, and academia. We selected these experts 

from our review of the corrections literature and on the recommendation of 

BOP officials and other experts. While the views of these experts are not 

representative, they provided us with perspectives on BOP’s actions and 

ability to mitigate the effects of its increased prison population.

 

5

ACA’s mission includes the development and promotion of effective standards for the 

care, custody, training, and treatment of offenders. As part of its accreditation process, a 

visiting committee of ACA auditors (1) audits the corrections agency or correctional facility 

against standards and expected practices documentation and (2) evaluates the quality of 

life or conditions of confinement. An acceptable quality of life is necessary for an agency 

to be eligible for accreditation. The quality of life in a facility includes staff training, cell size 

and time inmates spend outside the cells, current population, adequacy of medical 

services, offender programs, recreation, food service, classification, sanitation, use of 

segregation, crowding, and reported and/or documentation of incidents of violence.

6

NIC, a component of BOP, provides training, technical assistance, information services, and 

policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Wisconsin––that had experienced prison population growth and had 

taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison populations. To 

select these states, we analyzed DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’s 

(BJS) report on 2010 state prison inmate populations.7

We selected these five states because they (1) reflected a range of prison 

population sizes (e.g., New York and Ohio have two of the largest state 

prison populations, with 56,656 and 51,712 inmates, respectively); (2) 

were involved in addressing prison crowding issues (e.g., Kansas and 

Ohio are working with the Council of State Governments and the Pew 

Center on the States to address prison crowding issues as part of the 

Justice Reinvestment Initiative); and (3) had taken actions to address 

population growth, including actions similar to BOP’s actions.

We also reviewed

relevant governmental and nongovernmental reports on state prison 

population growth and states’ actions taken to reduce or mitigate the 

effects this growth, which were published from 2006 through 2011 (e.g., 

the Pew Center on the States, Vera Institute, and Council of State 

Governments). We also interviewed (1) BOP, NIC, and BJS officials; (2) 

stakeholder interest groups (e.g., Pew Center on the States, Council of 

State Governments, ACA, and Association of State Correctional 

Administrators); and (3) academic corrections experts to obtain their 

perspectives on state efforts to mitigate the effects of prison population 

growth or reduce prison populations.

8

For each of the five selected states, we obtained available data (e.g., BJS 

state correctional population) and reviewed relevant studies on prison 

conditions for context. We then interviewed state corrections officials 

 

7

See BJS, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011) and Prisoners in 2009

(Washington, D.C. December 2010). BJS is the statistical agency of DOJ. 

8

The Justice Reinvestment Initiative, which is administered by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice 

Assistance in the Office of Justice Programs in coordination with related efforts supported 

by independent organizations (e.g., the Pew Center on the States), provides technical 

assistance and competitive financial support to states and localities engaged in or well 

positioned to undertake justice reinvestment. The purpose of justice reinvestment is to 

manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings 

that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while 

holding offenders accountable. States and localities engaging in Justice Reinvestment 

Initiative activities collect and analyze data on drivers of criminal justice populations and 

costs, identify and implement changes to increase efficiencies, and measure both the 

fiscal and public safety impacts of those changes. According to Wisconsin officials, 

Wisconsin participated in the initiative in 2008, but was no longer participating in the 

initiative at the time of our review.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

regarding actions taken in their states to reduce the prison population, as 

well as to mitigate the effects of prison population growth. We analyzed 

correctional statutes and policies identified by these officials during our 

interviews. As shown in table 2, we also conducted site visits to three 

facilities in two states.

Table 2: Site Visits to State Correctional Facilities

State Facility name Security level

Kansas Lansing Maximum, medium, and minimum

New York Edgecombe Low (parole violators; substance abuse)

New York Sing Sing Maximum 

Source: GAO, based on state data. 

During our site visits, we discussed with correctional administrators and 

observed actions taken within these facilities to mitigate the effects of the 

growth of the prison populations.

Additionally, to further address the third question, we assessed the extent 

to which actions implemented in the five states to reduce their prison 

populations would be possible under current federal law for BOP to 

implement. Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems—

legally, structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined––

limit the comparability between federal and state correctional systems. 

We mitigated the effects of these limitations by the criteria used to select 

the five states. We are unable to generalize about the types of actions 

states have taken to mitigate the effects of state prison population growth 

or reduce their prison populations. Nevertheless, the information we 

obtained through these visits provided examples of state responses to 

prison population growth. Further, to determine the extent to which BOP 

has implemented similar initiatives from states’ experiences, we analyzed 

BOP documentation describing BOP initiatives to address the growth of 

federal prison populations. We also discussed with BOP officials the state 

actions we identified, including the extent to which these actions would be 

possible under current federal law for BOP to implement.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to 

September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 48 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on BOP’s 

population growth. Specifically, it addresses

• factors contributing to growth,

• offense composition of BOP’s population,

• BOP’s rated capacity and percentage crowding trends, and

• BOP’s long-range capacity plan.

Among the factors that contribute to the size of the federal prison 

population are national crime levels, law enforcement policies, and 

federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control. According 

to BOP officials, the length of the sentences that federal inmates serve is 

one of the single most important factors in prison population growth. Prior 

to the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, most federal 

statutes provided only for broad maximum terms of imprisonment and 

federal judges had broad discretion in sentencing.1

According to BOP, the increase in sentence length is the primary reason 

for the growth in the federal inmate population from 42,000 in 1987 to 

over 218,000 today. Drug offenses constitute the largest component of 

admissions to BOP. The average time an inmate served for drug offenses 

increased 250 percent after 1987, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

revised the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in order to implement the 

Federal law outlined 

the maximum sentence, federal judges imposed a sentence within a 

statutory range, and federal parole officials eventually determined the 

actual duration of incarceration. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 

abolished parole, and subsequent legislation established mandatory 

minimum sentences for many federal offenses; these federal laws limit 

the ability of BOP to affect the length of the sentence or the size of the 

inmate population.

 

1

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987, changed the 

federal sentencing structure. The act was effective for offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987.

Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Factors Contributing to 

Growth
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 49 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.2 Most recently, the Administrative Office 

of the U. S. Courts reported to BOP that for the year ending March 31, 

2012, federal courts had ordered over 8,000 sentences of 6 or more 

years, and nearly 3,000 of those prison sentences were for 12 or more 

years.3 Beyond drug offenses, BOP reported that length of sentence for 

almost all federal offenders had increased since the implementation of the 

act. For example, immigration offenders currently serve much longer 

sentences than they did in the 1980s.

As shown in table 3, drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses 

composed the largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were 

incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.4

 

2

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of 

government. Its principal purposes are (1) to establish sentencing policies and practices 

for the federal courts, including guidelines to be consulted regarding the appropriate form 

and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; (2) to advise and 

assist Congress and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient 

crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of 

information on federal crime and sentencing issues.

3

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the central support entity for the judicial 

branch. It provides a wide range of administrative, legal, financial, management, program, 

and information technology services to the federal courts. 

4

BOP officials explained that for reporting purposes they categorize inmates according to 

the offense for which an inmate is serving the longest sentence (dominant sentence 

offense). For example, an inmate may be serving sentences for both drug and immigration 

offenses, but BOP will categorize the inmate by the offense having the longer sentence 

(e.g., the drug offense).

Offense Composition of 

BOP’s Population
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 50 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 3: Offense Composition of the Inmate Population in BOP Facilities, by Year, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

Offense

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Drugs 91,690 95,321 94,456 96,415 96,094 97,164

Weapons/explosives 27,036 28,901 30,256 31,454 32,188 33,136

Immigration 18,992 19,862 20,165 22,298 21,767 24,800

Fraud/bribery/extortion 8,426 9,268 10,229 10,493 10,930 11,462

Sex offenses 3,824 4,754 5,989 7,308 8,610 9,653

Robbery 9,428 9,099 8,965 8,712 8,493 8,289

Burglary/larceny 6,381 6,417 6,499 6,694 6,747 7,136

Homicide/aggravated assault 4,895 4,942 4,940 4,894 4,900 5,114

Court/corrections 2,174 2,209 2,192 2,180 2,183 2,200

Miscellaneous 2,374 a 2,298 2,305 2,281 2,064 2,006

Counterfeiting/embezzlement 1,066 1,016 1,017 945 928 948

Continuing criminal enterprise 430 b 416 412 390 374 364

National security 108 103 105 98 97 95

Total offender population 176,824 184,606 187,530 194,162 195,375 202,367

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Notes: Sentencing information is not available for all inmates, for example, pretrial inmates whose 

information has not been entered into the data system. 

a

Miscellaneous offenses include criminal civil rights violations; food and drug violations; economic 

espionage; destruction of an energy facility; District of Columbia offenses, such as driving while 

intoxicated, malicious mischief, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and violations of fish 

and game laws. 

b

Continuing criminal enterprise refers to sentencing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO) Act (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961), for example, drug kingpins. 

BOP explained that the offense composition of BOP’s population 

generally shows a higher number of drug offenses than immigration 

offenses, because drug offenses carry longer sentences than immigration 

offenses. For example, BOP data show that the number of drug offenses 

in fiscal year 2011 was four times greater than the number of immigration 

offenses that year, although the yearly admission to BOP for each of 

these offenses is usually about the same. Further, the number of 

admissions for weapons offenses is generally about one-fourth that of 

immigration offenses, but the number of weapons offenders in the BOP 

population is significantly higher than the number of immigration offenders 

because of the much longer sentences for weapons offenses.

The distribution of offenses varied by institutional security level, although, 

with the exception of high security facilities, drug violations constituted the 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 51 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

largest number of offenses. In medium and low security facilities, drugs, 

weapons/explosives, and immigration were among the three largest 

offense categories. In minimum security facilities, drug offenses were 

followed by fraud/bribery/extortion and weapons/explosives offenses.5

As shown in table 4, drug and immigration offenses accounted for the 

largest numbers of offenses among non-U.S. citizen inmates in each year 

of the 6-year period. Violent and property offenses increased during the 

same period, but were a smaller number of the total offenses.

In 

high security facilities, weapons/explosives offenses constituted the 

largest number of offenses, followed by drugs, robbery, 

homicide/aggravated assault, and immigration.

Table 4: Offense Composition of the Non-U.S. Citizen Inmate Population in BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011 

Dominant offense

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Drug offenses 19,980 21,450 21,501 21,690 20,931 22,135

Immigration offenses 15,509 16,819 16,570 18,227 17,978 21,451

Violent offenses 1,908 2,086 2,288 2,387 2,481 2,696

Property offenses 1,047 1,190 1,470 1,423 1,429 1,532

Miscellaneous 1,505 1,615 1,656 1,621 1,655 1,746

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: Drug offenses include the distribution of narcotics to a minor and possession of narcotics. 

Immigration offenses include illegal entry and illegal reentry into the United States. Violent offenses 

include assault, homicide, bank robbery, and firearms/weapons/explosive violations. Property 

offenses include embezzlement, auto theft, larceny, and destroying government property. Other 

offenses include sex offenses (e.g., obscene mailing and white slavery); justice system offenses (e.g., 

perjury, obstruction of justice, and jumping bail); racketeering; general offenses (e.g., bribery, 

extortion, and failure to pay child support); and regulatory offenses (e.g., customs law violations, 

espionage, sabotage, and violations of national defense laws), among other things. 

During each year of the 6-year period, the largest number of non-U.S. 

citizen inmates (ranging from about 28,000 to 33,000) were incarcerated in 

low security facilities for drug offenses. Among non-U.S. citizen inmates 

incarcerated in medium and high security facilities, immigration, followed by 

drugs, constituted the largest number of offenses. As to why these inmates 

were housed in medium and high security facilities, BOP officials explained 

 

5

BOP does not send non-U.S. citizen inmates to minimum security facilities because of 

their risk of flight.
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 52 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

that offenders who were convicted of violent offenses, had a history of 

violent behavior, or had been found guilty of serious misconduct while in 

BOP custody were usually sent to higher security level facilities. These 

officials said that over 45 percent of non-U.S. citizen inmates who were 

placed in higher security level facilities had a history of violence.

Table 5 below shows BOP’s rated capacity and double, triple, and 

quadruple bunking levels as of September 30, 2011.

Table 5: BOP’s Rated Capacity and Crowding, by Facility Security Level as of September 2011

Facility 

type

Rated 

capacity 

Actual 

population

Actual inmates 

double bunked 

Actual inmates 

triple bunked Actual inmates 

quadruple 

bunked

Percentage 

Number Percentage Number Percentage crowding

Malea 

Minimum 18,476 21,091 13,246 63% 7,845 37% 0 14%

Low 32,242 44,174 8,384 19% 35,790 81% 0 37%

Medium 41,039 61,908 40,338 65% 21,570 35% 0 51%

High 13,570 b 20,978 20,244 97% 0 0% 0 55%

Femalec 

Minimum 4,207 5,086 2,449 48% 2,637 52% 0 21%

Secure 3,808 5,866 0 0% 5,250 89% 616 54%

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Notes: According to BOP, rated capacity is the maximum population level at which an institution can 

make available basic necessities, essential services (e.g., medical care), and programs (e.g., drug 

treatment, basic education, and vocational education). BOP calculates rated capacity only for the 

prisons that it operates; therefore, private institutions are excluded. Further, BOP does not calculate 

rated capacity for residential reentry centers or inmates in home confinement because BOP does not 

assign security levels to these confinement arrangements. The capacity figures used to calculate 

percentages and determine double and triple occupancy for this table are from BOP end of fiscal year 

2011 historical information from BOP’s 2020 long range capacity plan. 

a

Male long-term institutions include four security level designations––minimum, low, medium, and 

high. 

b

The remaining 3 percent of inmates in high security facilities are single-bunked. 

c

Female facilities include three security designations––high, secure, and minimum, but female high 

security facilities are single bunked. 

BOP’s Rated Capacity and 

Percentage Crowding 

Trends
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth 

Page 53 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

As a result of the growth in the inmate population in BOP-run facilities 

relative to the increased rated capacity, crowding in BOP-run institutions 

increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011. Nevertheless, within male facilities, the percentage 

crowding varied by security level, as shown in figure 4. For example, the 

percentage crowding in male medium security facilities increased from 37 

percent to 51 percent, and from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security 

level facilities (see table 6). Additionally, the percentage crowding in 

minimum security facilities more than doubled from fiscal year 2009 

through 2010 because of a population increase of more than 1,400 

inmates while capacity increased by 69 beds. 

Figure 4: Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011 by Institutional Security Level 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 54 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

During the 6-year period, the overall percentage crowding in female longterm facilities decreased from 39 to 36 percent, but there were some 

variations by facility security level (i.e., minimum, secure, and high). 

Specifically, the percentage crowding in secure facilities decreased from 

73 to 54 percent and the percentage crowding in minimum security 

facilities increased from 17 to 21 percent. BOP headquarters officials 

explained that BOP was able to increase the number of female secure 

facility beds by converting a male facility at Waseca, Minnesota, to a 

female facility.6

Table 6 shows BOP’s male and female populations, rated capacity, and 

percentage crowding data by institutional security level for fiscal years 

2006 through 2011.

 

6

BOP officials explained that BOP was able to convert the male facility because it had 

opened a new male facility and converted older male high security facilities to medium 

security facilities, thereby increasing the number of beds available for male inmates.
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 55 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 6: BOP Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Security 

level of 

facility Pop Cap %Cro Pop Cap %Cro Pop Cap %Cro Pop Cap %Cro Pop Cap %Cro Pop Cap %Cro

Total 

inmates in 

BOP-run 

institutions

162,514 119,510 36% 167,323 122,189 37% 165,964 122,366 36% 172,423 125,778 37% 173,289 126,713 37% 177,934 127,795 39% 

Males 151,003 111,067 36% 155,254 113,111 37% 153,992 113,288 36% 160,315 116,050 38% 161,295 117,171 38% 165,595 118,596 40% 

Long-Term 133,331 97,439 37% 137,195 100,170 37% 136,138 100,361 36% 142,005 102,867 38% 143,059 104,003 38% 148,151 105,327 41% 

 Minimum 20,046 16,963 18% 20,003 17,271 16% 18,556 17,353 7% 18,904 17,768 6% 20,329 17,837 14% 21,091 18,476 14% 

 Low 43,723 31,037 41% 41,646 30,791 35% 41,825 31,081 35% 45,153 32,294 40% 44,264 32,302 37% 44,174 32,242 37% 

 Medium 51,972 37,911 37% 56,492 39,680 42% 55,543 38,479 44% 57,904 39,375 47% 57,708 40,294 43% 61,908 41,039 51% 

 High 17,590 11,528 53% 19,054 12,428 53% 20,214 13,448 50% 20,044 13,430 49% 20,758 13,570 53% 20,978 13,570 55% 

Florence 

ADX

462 a 490 -6% 476 490 -3% 476 490 -3% 458 490 -7% 444 490 -9% 451 490 -8% 

Marion 0 804 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 

Medical 2,715 2,646 3% 2,642 2,657 -1% 2,622 2,604 1% 2,683 2,604 3% 2,505 2,487 1% 2,501 2,517 -1% 

Detention 14,085 9,349 51% 14,521 9,455 54% 14,335 9,494 51% 14,741 9,721 52% 14,877 9,823 51% 14,085 9,878 43% 

Witness 

security

410 b 339 21% 420 339 24% 421 339 24% 428 368 16% 410 368 11% 407 384 6% 

Females 11,511 8,443 36% 12,069 9,078 33% 11,972 9,078 32% 12,108 9,728 24% 11,994 9,542 26% 12,339 9,199 34% 

Long-Term 10,060 7,253 39% 10,691 7,847 36% 10,690 7,847 36% 10,730 8,497 26% 10,691 8,311 29% 10,971 8,039 36% 

 Minimum 5,192 4,429 17% 5,362 4,429 21% 5,134 4,429 16% 5,026 4,479 12% 5,003 4,479 12% 5,086 4,207 21% 

 Secure 4,853 2,800 73% 5,311 3,394 56% 5,537 3,394 63% 5,690 3,994 42% 5,671 3,808 49% 5,866 3,808 54% 

 High 15 24 -38% 18 24 -25% 19 24 -21% 14 24 -42% 17 24 -29% 19 24 -21% 

Medical 393 378 4% 574 378 52% 466 378 23% 521 378 38% 481 378 27% 435 378 15% 

Detention 1,058 812 30% 804 853 -6% 816 853 -4% 857 853 0% 822 853 -4% 933 782 19% 

Legend: 

Pop refers to inmate population. 

Cap refers to rated capacity of the facility. 

% Cro refers to the percentage crowding. 

Source: BOP.

Notes: BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative institutions, which specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with intensive medical or 

mental health conditions, regardless of the level of supervision these inmates require. 

a

The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, houses offenders requiring the tightest controls. 

b

Witness security refers to BOP housing for inmates in the federal Witness Security Program. 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 56 

BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the 

federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020.1

As shown in figure 5, BOP expects the overall inmate population in BOPrun institutions to continue to grow from approximately 182,600 inmates in 

fiscal year 2012 to about 204,410 inmates in fiscal year 2020. The plan 

also projects an increase in systemwide capacity from 128,433 beds in 

2012 to 151,895 beds in 2020, with a projected reduction in crowding 

from 42 percent to 35 percent.

The plan 

relies on multiple approaches to house the increased federal prison 

population, including contracting with the private sector for certain inmate 

populations; expanding existing institutions where infrastructure permits; 

and acquiring, constructing, and activating new facilities as funding 

permits. BOP officials explained that BOP changes its capacity plan 

several times each year. For example, rated capacity figures may change 

as a result of the reclassification of a facility to address population needs. 

BOP also adjusts its actual capacity and population figures each year.

 

1

These projections are from BOP’s 2020 capacity plan dated January 10, 2012. In 

November 2009, we concluded that BOP’s projections were accurate, on average, to 

within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 through 

August 20, 2009. See GAO-10-94. 

BOP’s 2020 Long-Range 

Capacity Plan
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 57 

Figure 5: BOP’s Projections for Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020 

Specifically, BOP’s 2020 capacity plan projects the male inmate 

populations in long-term institutions at all security levels to continue to 

grow or remain stable; however, BOP projects variations in the changes 

in rated capacity across the security levels, resulting in respective 

differences in crowding percentages. For example, as shown in figure 6, 

from fiscal years 2017 through 2020, BOP’s plan projects a decrease in 

crowding in male medium security facilities from 71 percent to 58 percent 

and in high security facilities from 55 percent to 12 percent, as a result of 

the projected increased capacity.2

 

2

BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan, dated January 10, 2012, projects an increased 

capacity of 5,808 (43,239 to 49,047) beds and increased population of 3,812 (73,737 to 

77,549) inmates in male medium security facility between fiscal years 2017 and 2020. In 

male high security facilities, the plan projects an increased capacity of 7,200 (15,485 to 

22,685) beds and increased population of 1,320 (24,012 to 25,332) inmates from fiscal 

years 2017 and 2020.

Congressional budget requests have 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 58 

not included funding for this additional bed space, and as a result BOP’s 

plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations 

processes and are subject to change. During the same period, BOP also 

projects crowding in low security facilities to be about 35 percent. 

Figure 6: Projected Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities from Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2020 by Security Level
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 59 

BOP’s plan also projects an increase in the female long-term inmate 

population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, but anticipates variations 

in percentage crowding across security levels. Specifically, the 

projections show an increase in the percentage crowding in female 

minimum security facilities from 24 to 37 percent and a decrease in the 

percentage crowding in female secure facilities from 58 to 32 percent. 

BOP noted that this reduction in crowding is contingent on appropriations 

to fund the opening of a secure female facility in Aliceville, Alabama, in 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014. According to BOP officials, BOP’s projections 

do not include any additional long-term facilities for women, because the 

percentage crowding in female facilities is well below the percentage 

crowding in, for example, male medium security facilities. Nevertheless, 

officials said that BOP will review and adjust capacity needs as it 

develops its plan beyond fiscal year 2020.

Table 7 shows BOP’s rated capacity, population, and percentage 

crowding projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. According to 

BOP officials, BOP’s long-term population projections are always 

conservative; therefore, the actual number of inmates would likely be 

higher than the projections. Additionally, they said that other factors that 

may affect the accuracy of these projections include legislation affecting 

federal crimes and sentencing as well as new law enforcement initiatives 

leading to more arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 60 

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014

Security level of 

facility

2012 2013 2014 

Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro 

Total BOP inmates 222,768 229,268 233,765 

BOP institutions 182,624 128,433 42% 188,051 131,435 43% 190,187 134,175 42% 

Males 169,921 119,177 43% 174,958 120,973 45% 176,873 123,177 44% 

Long-term 152,414 105,923 44% 157,353 107,719 46% 159,202 109,923 45% 

Minimum 21,795 18,604 17% 22,597 18,796 20% 22,816 18,988 20% 

Low 43,105 32,211 34% 44,045 32,211 37% 43,824 32,211 36% 

Medium 65,993 40,583 63% 68,501 42,137 63% 69,873 43,239 62% 

High 21,521 14,525 48% 22,210 14,575 52% 22,690 15,485 47% 

Florence ADX 441 a 490 -10% 444 490 -9% 444 490 -9% 

Medical 2,566 2,552 1% 2,647 2,552 4% 2,704 2,552 6% 

Detention 14,085 9,828 43% 14,085 9,828 43% 14,085 9,828 43% 

Witness securityb 415 384 8% 429 384 12% 438 384 14% 

Females 12,703 9,256 37% 13,093 10,462 25% 13,315 10,998 21% 

Long-term 11,322 8,096 40% 11,697 9,302 26% 11,909 9,838 21% 

Minimum 5,285 4,264 24% 5,470 4,470 22% 5,550 4,470 24% 

Secure 6,017 3,808 58% 6,207 4,808 29% 6,339 5,344 19% 

High 20 24 -19% 20 24 -16% 21 24 -14% 

Medical 448 378 19% 462 378 22% 472 378 25% 

Detention 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 

Contract 40,144 41,218 43,578 

Males 38,330 39,334 41,630 

Juveniles 144 148 152 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

7,609 7,609 8,215 

Long-term 

(criminal aliens) 

24,186 25,186 26,686 

Taft 2,347 2,347 2,347 

D.C. felons 0 0 0 

Jail-detention 1,783 1,783 1,783 

Home Confinement 2,261 2,261 2,448 

Females 1,814 1,883 1,948 

Juveniles 21 21 22 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

1,219 1,288 1,317 

Long-term 0 0 0 

D.C. felons 0 0 0 

Jail-detention 208 208 208 

Home Confinement 366 366 ,,, 401 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 61 

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017

Security level of 

facility

2015 2016 2017 

Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro 

Total BOP inmates 237,884 242,003 246,122 

BOP institutions 192,567 134,175 44% 194,947 134,675 45% 197,327 135,175 46% 

Males 179,074 123,177 45% 181,220 123,677 47% 183,366 124,177 48% 

Long-term 161,344 109,923 47% 163,430 109,923 49% 165,517 109,923 51% 

Minimum 23,260 18,988 22% 23,704 18,988 25% 24,149 18,988 27% 

Low 43,755 32,211 36% 43,687 32,211 36% 43,619 32,211 35% 

Medium 71,198 43,239 65% 72,467 43,239 68% 73,737 43,239 71% 

High 23,131 15,485 49% 23,572 15,485 52% 24,012 15,485 55% 

Florence ADX 443 a 490 -9% 444 490 -9% 443 490 -10% 

Medical 2,755 2,552 8% 2,806 2,552 10% 2,858 2,552 12% 

Detention 14,085 9,828 43% 14,085 10,328 36% 14,085 10,828 30% 

Witness securityb 446 384 16% 454 384 18% 463 384 20% 

Females 13,493 10,998 23% 13,727 10,998 25% 13,962 10,998 27% 

Long-term 12,079 9,838 23% 12,304 9,838 25% 12,529 9,838 27% 

Minimum 5,598 4,470 25% 5,703 4,470 28% 5,807 4,470 30% 

Secure 6,459 5,344 21% 6,580 5,344 23% 6,700 5,344 25% 

High 21 24 -13% 21 24 -11% 22 24 -9% 

Medical 481 378 27% 490 378 30% 499 378 32% 

Detention 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 

Contract 45,317 47,055 48,794 

Males 43,336 45,042 46,747 

Juveniles 155 157 160 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

8,371 8,527 8,683 

Long-term 

(criminal aliens) 

28,186 29,686 31,186 

Taft 2,347 2,347 2,347 

D.C. felons 0 0 0

Jail-detention 1,783 1,783 1,783 

Home Confinement 2,495 2,541 2,588 

Females 1,981 2,014 2,047 

Juveniles 22 22 23 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

1,342 1,367 1,392 

Long-term 0 0 0 

D.C. felons 0 0 0 

Jail-detention 208 208 208 

Home Confinement 408 416 424 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 62 

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2018 through 2020

Security level of 

facility

 2018 2019 2020 

Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro Pop Cap % Cro 

Total BOP inmates 250,241 254,360 258,479 

BOP institutions 199,710 138,111 45% 202,088 145,871 39% 204,470 151,895 35% 

Males 185,514 127,113 46% 187,659 134,873 39% 189,805 140,897 35% 

Long-term 167,605 112,859 49% 169,691 120,619 41% 171,777 126,643 36% 

Minimum 24,593 19,884 24% 25,037 21,932 14% 25,482 22,700 12% 

Low 43,551 32,211 35% 43,482 32,211 35% 43,414 32,211 35% 

Medium 75,010 43,839 71% 76,279 46,191 65% 77,549 49,047 58% 

High 24,452 16,925 44% 24,893 20,285 23% 25,332 22,685 12% 

Florence ADX 443 a 490 -10% 442 490 -10% 443 490 -10% 

Medical 2,909 2,552 14% 2,961 2,552 16% 3,012 2,552 18% 

Detention 14,085 10,828 30% 14,085 10,828 30% 14,085 10,828 30% 

Witness securityb 471 384 23% 479 384 25% 488 384 27% 

Females 14,196 10,998 29% 14,430 10,998 31% 14,665 10,998 33% 

Long-term 12,755 9,838 30% 12,980 9,838 32% 13,205 9,838 34% 

Minimum 5,912 4,470 32% 6,016 4,470 35% 6,121 4,470 37% 

Secure 6,821 5,344 28% 6,941 5,344 30% 7,062 5,344 32% 

High 22 24 -8% 23 24 -6% 23 24 -4% 

Medical 508 378 34% 517 378 37% 526 378 39% 

Detention 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 933 782 19% 

Contract 50,533 52,272 54,010 

Males 48,453 50,159 51,864 

Juveniles 163 166 169 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

8,840 8,996 9,152 

Long-term 

(criminal aliens) 

32,686 34,186 35,686 

Taft 2,347 2,347 2,347 

D.C. felons 0 0 0

Jail-detention 1,783 1,783 1,783 

Home Confinement 2,634 2,681 2,727 

Females 2,080 2,113 2,146 

Juveniles 23 24 24 

Residential Reentry 

Centers

1,417 1,442 1,467 

Long-term 0 0 0 

D.C. felons 0 0 0 

Jail-detention 208 208 208 

Home Confinement 431 439 446 
Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

Page 63 

Legend: 

Pop refers to inmate population.

Cap refers to rated capacity of the facility.

% Cro refers to the percentage crowding. 

Source: BOP.

Notes: BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative institutions, which 

specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with intensive medical or mental health 

conditions, regardless of the level of supervision these inmates require. 

a

The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, houses offenders 

requiring the tightest controls. 

b

Assumptions: 

Witness security refers to BOP housing for inmates in the federal Witness Security 

Program. 

1. The population projections for fiscal year 2012 and beyond have been adjusted. 

2. BOP will activate Federal Correctional Institution Mendota, California, and Federal Correctional 

Institution Berlin, New Hampshire, during fiscal year 2012. 

3. BOP will activate Federal Correctional Institution Hazelton, West Virginia, during fiscal year 2013. 

4. BOP will activate U.S. Penitentiary Yazoo City, Mississippi, during fiscal year 2013. 

5. No additional contract beds are projected to be added in fiscal year 2012. 

6. One thousand additional contract beds are projected in fiscal year 2013, and 1,500 additional 

contract beds annually in fiscal year 2014 and beyond. 

7. No increase to Residential Reentry Centers and Home Confinement is projected from fiscal years 

2011 through 2013. 

8. Future capacity increases are dependent upon future funding to construct new prisons and to 

expand the use of private prison contracts. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 64 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on the 

effects of a growing inmate population on

• inmates,

• staff,

• infrastructure, and

• security and safety.

The growth in the inmate population has affected inmates’ daily living 

conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and 

visitation.

BOP uses double bunking in excess of the percentages included in a 

facility’s rated capacity; triple bunking or converting common space (e.g., 

a television room) temporarily to house its growing population. BOP 

counts these additional beds as temporary space rather than increased 

rated capacity.1 As a result of these actions to increase available bed 

space, more inmates are sharing cells and other living units, bringing 

together for longer periods of time inmates with a higher risk of violence 

and more potential victims.2

 

1

BOP reports the use of additional cots in areas such as an institution’s halls, gyms, 

mezzanines, or television rooms—to address crowding in an institution—as temporary 

housing because (1) this temporary living space is to be restored as program space when 

circumstances permit and (2) the additional bathrooms and other facilities required to 

meet permanent housing space specifications are not added to the infrastructure. Thus, 

such temporary use of space is not factored into BOP’s rated capacity calculation. 

Table 8 shows the temporary bed space 

BOP added from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 by security level and 

male and female facilities. During the 6-year period, the use of temporary 

space generally increased in male medium, and high security facilities 

and in female minimum security facilities, but the number of temporary 

beds fluctuated with changes in the number of general population beds 

(e.g., rated capacity). 

2

BOP. The Effects of Changing Crowding and Staffing Levels in Federal Prisons on 

Inmate Violence Rates (Washington, D.C.: October 2005).

Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population 

Inmates

Daily Living
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 65 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 8: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space by Institutional Security Level from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 

Facility 

type

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem

Male a 

Minimum 16,963 3,030 17,271 2,679 17,353 1,150 17,768 1,083 17,837 2,439 18,476 2,562 

Low 31,037 11,083 30,791 9,252 31,081 9,078 32,294 11,306 32,302 10,409 32,242 10,329 

Medium 37,911 10,178 39,680 12,894 38,479 13,146 39,375 14,611 40,294 13,376 41,039 16,831 

High 11,528 4,367 12,428 4,781 13,448 4,830 13,430 4,678 13,570 5,252 13,570 5,472 

Female b 

Minimum 4,429 737 4,429 862 4,429 679 4,479 521 4,479 498 4,207 853 

Secure 2,800 1,947 3,394 1,811 3,394 2,081 3,994 1,540 3,808 1,707 3,808 1,902 

Legend: 

RC refers to rated capacity. 

Tem refers to temporary bed space, not including disciplinary housing beds. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Notes: Total bed space, not including disciplinary housing beds, is the sum of RC plus Tem. 

a

Male long-term institutions include four security level designations––minimum, low, medium, and 

high. Female facilities include three security designations––high, secure, and minimum. 

b

Female high security facilities did not experience crowding during the 6-year period. 

BOP officials told us that they were aware of the use of temporary beds in 

BOP’s 117 institutions, but BOP does not track whether a facility uses 

television rooms or triple bunks in a cell. Instead, when temporary beds 

are added, BOP generally refers to this as triple bunking. As shown in 

table 9, all of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds 

during the period from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. At the time of our 

visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary space, 

with the exception of SeaTac.
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 66 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 9: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space of Selected BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

Facilitya

Year

 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem RC Tem

Petersburg (low) 858 356 834 414 834 381 834 413 834 225 834 371

Petersburg 

(medium) 

1,152 364 1,152 481 1,108 686 1,108 759 1,108 596 1,108 557

SeaTac 736 152 768 179 768 56 768 39 722 (59) 722 (71)

Lewisburg 

(Special 

Management 

Unit)b

72

 

(21) 72 (11) 72 25 528 237 720 281 720 429

Lewisburg 

(general 

population)

698 607 698 648 698 615 242 (40) 160 (47) 160 41

Schuylkill 

(medium)

720 473 848 382 848 379 848 446 848 293 848 400

Leavenworth 

(medium)

1,193 476 1,193 372 1,193 556 1,193 516 1,193 515 1,193 505

Legend: 

RC refers to rated capacity. 

Tem refers to temporary bed space, not including disciplinary housing beds. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Notes: The parentheses represent beds available above the rated capacity, but not used. The beds 

were available because of specific institutional changes, such as the conversion of Lewisburg to a 

Special Management Unit. During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the temporary female beds at SeaTac 

were not used.

a

The Petersburg, Lewisburg, Schuylkill, and Leavenworth facilities are male long-term institutions. 

Male long-term institutions include four security level designations––minimum, low, medium, and 

high. SeaTac is an administrative facility that specifically serves inmates awaiting trial, or those with 

intensive medical or mental health conditions, regardless of the level of supervision these inmates 

require. 

b

A Special Management Unit operates as a more controlled and restrictive environment for inmates 

whose interaction requires greater management to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of 

BOP facilities, or protection of the public. BOP established a Special Management Unit at Lewisburg 

Penitentiary in fiscal year 2008, and subsequently converted the entire facility to a Special 

Management Unit, with the exception of a unit housing general population high security inmates. 

According to all of the regional directors and wardens in the two facilities 

we visited, different regions and facilities used different approaches to 

temporary bed space. For example, one regional director said that all 

facilities in his region used some temporary space to house inmates, but 

generally, institutions were no longer using television rooms to house 

inmates. He said that it is safer to manage 3 inmates in one cell through 

triple bunking than to manage 16 inmates in a converted television room. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 67 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Alternatively, at a medium security facility we visited in another region, 

officials told us that all inmates were double bunked in cells and the 

facility had converted four former television rooms to temporarily house 8 

to 10 inmates in each. In each housing unit, all televisions were relocated 

to a single common room. BOP headquarters officials noted that having a 

single television room is a common cause of disciplinary incidents 

because fighting may erupt among groups of inmates who want to watch 

different programs.

In addition to crowding in a facility’s housing and common areas, inmates 

may experience crowded bathroom facilities, reductions in shower times, 

shortened meal times coupled with longer waits for food service, and 

more limited recreational activities because of the increased inmate 

population. For example, with more inmates, it takes longer for 

correctional officers to escort inmates to the dining hall and for each 

inmate to be served in the food service line. According to BOP officials, 

extended wait times at meals in particular can be problematic because 

BOP attempts to keep inmates on strict schedules and extended waits 

may cause inmates to arrive late for vocational classes or work 

assignments, which can delay the start of the class or assignment. The 

increased inmate population also affects recreation space and activity 

time.3 For example, according to staff at one BOP facility we visited, in a 

crowded arts room, inmates may accidentally bump elbows, resulting in 

tension or friction, which may lead to a security incident. At another BOP 

facility, with a rated capacity of 850 but housing 1,300 inmates, officials 

said that crowding affects accessibility to recreational activities such as 

team sports, especially during warmer weather, when 500 inmates may 

be in a recreational area supervised by one or two staff.

 

3

Non-U.S. citizens or deportable aliens can participate in recreation programs (e.g., 

leisure, fitness, wellness, or sports activities). A deportable alien is an alien in the United 

States and admitted to the United States subject to any grounds of removal specified in 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227. This includes any alien illegally in 

the United States, regardless of whether the alien entered the country by fraud or 

misrepresentation or entered legally but subsequently violated the terms of his or her 

nonimmigrant classification or status. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 68 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, drug 

treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate 

inmates and support correctional management.4 According to BOP 

officials, two benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety, and (2) 

institutional safety and security because of reduced inmate idleness. 

These officials said, however, that the growth in the inmate population 

had increased program waiting lists, contributing to inmate idleness.5

BOP officials said facility staff offer a variety of education programs, such 

as mandatory General Educational Development (GED) courses; 8- to 10-

week nonmandatory courses on topics such as parenting, word processing, 

and conversational Spanish; occupational training; and computer-based 

self-paced courses (e.g., English).6 According to BOP data, overall inmate 

participation in one or more programs ranged from 35 to 37 percent from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011.7

 

4

See 

The percentage participation, number of 

inmates on waiting lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by 

program. For example, BOP snapshots from fiscal years 2008 through 

2012 of the total population at BOP-run facilities showed that between 13 

and 14 percent of inmates were enrolled in literacy programs, while

GAO-01-483. 

5

BOP also houses low security non-U.S. citizens in private contract facilities. BOP’s 

contracts require the private providers to provide all programs (1) in accordance with the 

contract, which requires compliance with ACA standards and (2) as outlined in the 

contractors’ technical proposals. According to BOP, most private contract facilities provide 

work and self-improvement opportunities to inmates.

6

According to BOP, non-U.S. citizens or deportable aliens housed in BOP facilities are 

exempt from the required participation in the GED program, but are encouraged to attend 

these courses. These inmates can also participate in English as a Second Language 

courses, adult continuing education classes (e.g., typing and computer literacy), a release 

preparation program, and parenting classes. Additionally, these inmates may participate in 

BOP’s occupational education programs if BOP resources permit after meeting the needs 

of other eligible inmates.

7

BOP’s Monthly Participation Reports provide a snapshot of program participation levels 

of inmates within BOP facilities. Figures for overall inmate participation do not duplicate. 

That is, if an inmate is enrolled in more than one program area (for example GED and 

parenting), the inmate’s participation is counted only once.

Program Participation
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 69 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

between 11 and 12 percent remained on waiting lists.8

Table 10: Systemwide Inmate Participation Rates in Selected BOP Programs in September 2011

Table 10 shows 

systemwide participation rates in selected BOP education and training 

programs as of September 2011.

At least one 

program GED classes

Adult continuing 

education

Occupational 

training

Parent 

education

Postsecondary 

programs

Inmate participation rate

a

36% b 13% 11% 7% 2% 1%

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

a

Post Secondary Education is a program category that is funded by inmates’ personal funds rather 

than through BOP’s salaries and expenses budget account. The curriculum extends through an 

associate’s degree. 

b

Some programs are not offered year-round (for example parenting), and if the participation snapshot 

occurs when a program is not in session, the participation level will be zero. 

BOP provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in a variety of 

drug treatment programs. In more than half of its facilities, BOP offers a 

residential drug abuse treatment program. In all of its facilities, BOP offers 

nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs. All of the drug 

treatment and drug education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years 

2006 through 2011. According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the 

substance abuse treatment or education needs of inmates because it 

does not have the staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates 

will not receive programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012, 

long waiting lists for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), 

which provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully 

 

8

Enrollment figures include participation in GED classes and programs BOP is piloting but 

has not yet implemented on a wider scale. BOP defines the literacy wait list to include 

those inmates who are capable of participating and willing to participate in the literacy 

program and who are not enrolled in the GED program, English as a Second Language 

(ESL) program, or a literacy pilot program. Snapshots of the literacy program waiting lists 

in January and February 2012 at the facilities we visited were Petersburg medium (250), 

Petersburg low (93), Lewisburg (13), Schuylkill (36), Leavenworth (187), and SeaTac (78). 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 70 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

complete the program,9 constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants 

early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times 

served.10 From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the number of slots for 

inmates to participate in RDAP increased by 400. According to BOP 

officials, as RDAP capacity has increased, BOP has reduced waiting lists 

even with continued growth in the inmate population, thereby enabling 

inmates to enter the program sooner and increasing the number of 

inmates (from 14 to 25 percent) who complete the program and receive a 

sentence reduction. Nevertheless, the program continues to experience 

long waiting lists, although the average wait has declined. For example, in 

low security facilities in fiscal year 2006, 3,547 inmates participated in the 

RDAP program, 3,378 inmates were on the waiting list, and the average 

waiting time was about 205 days. In contrast, in low security facilities in 

fiscal year 2011, 3,082 inmates participated in the program, 3,723 were 

on the waiting list, but the average waiting time was approximately 80 

days. Tables 11-13 provide additional data on participation, waiting lists, 

and average waiting time for BOP drug education and treatment 

programs in male facilities.

 

9

Under 28 C.F.R. § 550.53(b), to be admitted into RDAP, inmates must meet the following 

criteria: (1) inmates must have a verifiable substance use disorder; (2) inmates must sign an 

agreement acknowledging program responsibility; and (3) when beginning the program, the 

inmate must be able to complete all components of the program. Under 28 C.F.R. § 550.55, 

inmates may be eligible for early release by a period not to exceed 12 months if they meet 

the following criteria: (1) were sentenced to a term of imprisonment under either (i) 18 U.S.C. 

Chapter 227, Subchapter D for a nonviolent offense (i.e., an inmate who committed a federal 

offense on or after November 1, 1987, after the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act 

of 1987, also known as “new law.”); or (ii) D.C. Code § 24-403.01 for a nonviolent offense, 

meaning an offense other than those included within the definition of “crime of violence” in 

D.C. Code § 23-1331(4); and (2) successfully complete a RDAP during their current 

commitment. To receive the full-sentence reduction of 12 months, inmates are required to 

participate in the program for 27 months. “Old law” inmates who are parole eligible, may, at 

the U.S. Parole Commission’s discretion, be considered for an advanced release date 

through an award of Superior Program Achievement. 

10For more on RDAP, see GAO-12-320. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 71 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 11: BOP’s Drug Education Programs in Male Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and Average 

Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

Program participation by security level

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

High

Participation 2,578 2,394 2,378 3,716 3,195 3,198

Waiting list 2,984 3,700 3,808 6,268 5,129 4,681

Average wait in days 324.5 333.6 298.1 209.2 190.5 105.0

Medium

Participation 9,016 9,159 9,344 11,448 14,074 12,523

Waiting list 10,436 12,193 12,467 17,948 17,474 18,231

Average wait in days 230.2 228.6 192.0 159.5 123.7 82.6

Low

Participation 7,804 7,826 8,560 10,490 11,263 10,130

Waiting list 9,892 9,200 9,749 17,909 18,527 19,992

Average wait in days 223.4 197.7 160.4 168.7 143.1 84.4

Minimum

Participation 4,959 4,872 4,084 5,423 5,291 5,183

Waiting list 6,269 5,857 5,124 7,104 7,043 7,400

Average wait in days 141.5 136.8 130.4 102.4 90.5 63.2

Administrative

Participation 833 813 646 746 628 769

Waiting list 789 756 669 1,088 1,118 1,295

Average wait in days 180.5 150.7 153.2 130.9 111.2 73.7

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: Drug education programs are distinct from residential and nonresidential drug treatment 

programs. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 72 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 12: BOP’s Nonresidential Drug Treatment Programs in Male Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List 

Numbers, and Average Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

Program participation by security level

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

High

Participation 493 585 554 818 566 946

Waiting list 160 197 397 465 699 1,388

Average wait in days 253.4 264.7 310.4 395.0 199.1 101.3

Medium

Participation 2,480 3,281 4,195 3,411 3,446 4,852

Waiting list 568 774 997 2,723 3,688 4,707

Average wait in days 299.2 266.1 214.1 204.4 178.0 98.5

Low

Participation 4,088 4,747 4,127 3,717 3,538 4,931

Waiting list 1,070 1,615 1,704 2,691 3,570 3,842

Average wait in days 160.9 184.4 188.2 211.4 169.9 79.8

Minimum

Participation 2,475 2,820 2,559 3,040 3,055 3,984

Waiting list 596 676 980 1,989 2,531 3,115

Average wait in days 223.0 217.5 165.8 171.7 151.4 85.3

Administrative

Participation 224 239 247 218 195 759

Waiting list 111 184 172 202 200 523

Average wait in days 121.8 268.0 244.3 226.2 125.6 59.3

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 73 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 13: BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Programs in Male Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and 

Average Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

Program participation by security level

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Higha

Participation 63 1 0 2 0 0 

Waiting list 354 298 305 277 226 245

Average wait in days 377.0 322.5 324.9 292.8 231.3 131.1

Medium

Participation 1,772 1,884 2,008 2,114 2,220 2,379

Waiting list 2,577 2,770 3,054 2,745 2,546 2,928

Average wait in days 242.3 226.5 213.6 194.8 147.1 92.8

Low

Participation 3,547 3,326 3,256 2,987 3,398 3,082

Waiting list 3,378 3,409 3,773 3,185 3,264 3,723

Average wait in days 205.3 174.6 178.0 166.2 125.3 80.2

Minimum

Participation 3,704 3,443 3,789 3,764 3,719 3,231

Waiting list 4,104 3,931 3,998 3,440 3,379 3,758

Average wait in days 258.8 237.6 223.9 202.9 145.6 83.8

Administrative

Participation 64 31 92 56 75 65

Waiting list 145 87 149 108 92 106

Average wait in days 279.6 224.2 199.8 187.7 156.6 87.1

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

a

According to BOP officials, high security facilities currently do not offer a Residential Drug Abuse 

Program, but because the program is offered near an inmate’s release date, high security inmates 

may apply for the program and may be able transfer to a lower security level facility that offers the 

program by the time they are ready for release. BOP plans to activate Residential Drug Abuse 

Programs in high security facilities in fiscal year 2013 and has requested funding for this program in 

its fiscal year 2013 budget submission. 

BOP also implements two faith-based reentry programs through its 

Religious Services Branch. Life Connections is BOP’s 18-month 

residential program, begun in 2002, that offers a core curriculum taught 

by spiritual guides hired from different faiths. The number of enrollments 

in the program ranged from 345 to almost 400 inmates systemwide. The 

program waiting lists for each security level were generally equal to or 

greater than the number of participants. Threshold is BOP’s 

nonresidential faith-based program, which began in 2008. Over 550 

inmates were enrolled in the program as of January 2012; maintaining a 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 74 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

waiting list for Threshold program participation is at the discretion of 

participating institutions’ wardens.

According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate 

population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to 

find meaningful work for all inmates in a crowded facility, even though 

generally all inmates are required to have a job.11

Facility officials underscored that the most desirable jobs in the facilities 

were those in UNICOR factories.

They said that with the 

growth of the prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in 

meaningful work. This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy, 

resulting in inmate idleness, which can lead to additional tension and 

fighting between inmates. Inmate discord can then affect the security and 

safety of other inmates and staff. For example, BOP headquarters 

officials and the warden at one facility we visited explained that inmate 

wages vary with the job. Specifically, wages may range from 12 cents per 

hour for sweeping the facility to $1.15 per hour for some jobs in factories 

that Federal Prison Industries, also known as UNICOR, runs on the 

prison grounds. Tensions may arise because inmates want to be 

reassigned from lower- to higher-paying jobs. According to BOP officials, 

BOP has tried to develop an index of idleness; however, measuring 

idleness is difficult because inmates are usually engaged in some activity, 

even though that activity may not be meaningful to their development 

(e.g., filling salt shakers in the cafeteria).

12

 

11The Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 2905, 104 Stat. 4789, 4914 

(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4121 note) established a mandatory work requirement for all 

prisoners. Specifically, this section provided that in general, it is the policy of the federal 

government that convicted inmates confined in federal prisons, jails, and other detention 

facilities shall work. The type of work in which they will be involved shall be dictated by 

appropriate security considerations and by the health of the prisoner involved. A federal 

prisoner may be excused from the requirement to work only as necessitated by security 

considerations; disciplinary action; medical certification of disability such as would make it 

impracticable for prison officials to arrange useful work for the prisoner to perform; or a 

need for the prisoner to work less than a full work schedule in order to participate in 

literacy training, drug rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work program.

These factories (1) produce items 

such as furniture, office supplies, and uniforms for sale to government 

customers and (2) perform services for both government and private 

sector purchase. Officials at one medium security facility we visited told 

12Non-U.S. citizens who are currently under an order of deportation, exclusion, or 

removal from the United States are precluded from participating in the UNICOR program, 

under 28 C.F.R. § 345.35.

Meaningful Work 

Opportunities 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 75 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

us that these jobs teach inmates valuable reentry skills, such as coming 

to work on time.13 Such jobs can also teach money management and 

budgeting, and because the earnings are higher than those for other 

prison jobs, inmates have the opportunity to send money home to their 

families. As a result, officials said there is less idleness among inmates 

with UNICOR jobs, which helps to support security and safety in the 

facility, and that the recidivism rate for participants is lower.14 Facility 

officials also noted that the decline in the number of UNICOR jobs has 

resulted in waiting lists and challenged staff to create jobs to support 

industrial work programming. Systemwide, the number of UNICOR 

factories peaked at 110 in 2007, declining to 88 in 2011. These factories 

employed over 23,000 inmates in 2007, declining to 14,200 inmates in 

2011. In May 2010 the waiting list for UNICOR jobs was over 26,000 

inmates, with an average waiting time of 16 months.15 According to BOP 

officials, a UNICOR waiting list includes inmates from the facility where 

the factory is located. An inmate transferring to a facility may be placed 

on the waiting list, but an inmate cannot be transferred to a facility to 

participate in the UNICOR program. At one facility we visited, officials told 

us that approximately 200 inmates were on the waiting list. They 

explained that the waiting list consisted of three groups: inmates with 

financial responsibilities, inmates with prior UNICOR experience, and 

inmates on the general waiting list. When slots opened up, inmates were 

selected equally from each of the three lists.

 

13 Reentry refers to the transition of inmates from prisons or jails back into the community. 

It is BOP’s philosophy that preparation for reentry begins on the first day of an inmate’s 

incarceration.

14William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes. PREP: Training Inmates through Industrial Work 

Participation, and Vocational and Apprenticeship Instruction, Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 1996), and Saylor and Gaes. The Differential Effect of 

Industries and Vocational Training on Post Release Outcome for Ethnic and Racial 

Groups, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1999). Recidivism 

generally refers to a former inmate’s relapse into criminal behavior, and although agencies 

may measure recidivism in different manners, recidivism measures can include the 

rearrest, reconviction, or re-incarceration of former inmates.

15The waiting lists by security level were minimum (638), low (2,549), medium (13,154), 

high (9,439), and maximum (569). The source for these data is Marketing Research & 

Corporate Support.
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 76 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit with their 

families. BOP headquarters officials said the quality of the interaction 

between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior 

in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community. 

Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate the number of 

inmates that the facility was designed to house and a visitor capacity to 

enable staff to manage the visitation process. The infrastructure of the 

facility may not support the increase in visitors as a result of the growth in 

the prison population. Further, with more inmates, the visitation process 

requires more staff resources. BOP officials explained that the visiting 

process requires at least four staff––one in the front lobby to process 

visitors, one to escort inmates in and out of the visiting room and search 

the inmate for contraband following the visit, one to document and search 

visitors to prevent the introduction of contraband, and one to walk around 

the visiting area supervising interactions.

Limited visiting capacity and the larger numbers of inmates can lead to 

frustrations for inmates and visitors, such as when visits are shorter or 

visitors are turned away because there are too many visitors on a 

particular day. Five of the regional directors and officials at four of the 

facilities we visited reported that the effect of the population growth on 

visitation varied by region and facilities within the region because of a 

number of factors, including proximity of the facility to inmates’ families. If 

a large percentage of the inmate population is from the area where the 

facility is located, the visiting room is used at a greater frequency. 

Conversely, if inmates’ families do not live near the facility, the increase in 

the number of inmates does not have a similar effect on visitation. For 

example, one regional director told us that the increase in the number of 

inmates had not affected overall visitation in the region because of the 

large number of inmates who were non-U.S. citizens and whose families 

did not visit. In another region, the regional director told us that some 

facilities have problems with visitation only on holidays, when families 

wish to be together, while others have problems regularly. According to 

officials, allowing all inmates rather than none or some inmates to have 

visitors helps inmates’ morale and facility management.

Additionally, the larger number of inmates also limits inmate access to the 

telephone to call home and computer to e-mail family members and other 

Visitation
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 77 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

contacts.16 For example, at one facility we visited, each housing unit had 

three telephones for about 156 inmates. We reported in September 2011 

that BOP provided a variety of options to its inmates for making phone 

calls to friends and families; nevertheless, the number of contraband cell 

phones in prisons had risen. Given the potential that these phones 

provide for furthering criminal activity (e.g., selling drugs), the illicit use of 

cell phones can pose a danger to staff and inmates, as well as the public 

at large.17

Facility officials told us that because of the large prison population, 

correctional officers do not have time to use their interpersonal 

correctional skills and maintain communication between staff and 

individual inmates. Representatives of the correctional workers’ union and 

officials at three of the five prisons we visited specifically emphasized the 

importance of interaction and communication between inmates and 

correctional staff for purposes of inmate reentry and facility management. 

During one site visit, we observed that facility department heads and unit 

managers stand along the cafeteria serving line during meals to provide 

the opportunity for inmates to speak with staff about problems and 

concerns.18

Tables 14 through 16 provide historical data on inmate to total BOP staff 

ratios, inmate to BOP institutional staff ratios, and inmate to BOP 

correctional staff ratios.

A union representative observed that inmates used to tell 

correctional staff about problems (e.g., where other inmates were storing 

contraband), but with more than one inmate in a cell, inmates may not 

want to talk to the correctional officer in front of the other inmates.

 

16Through BOP’s system for e-mail, inmates can communicate with a list of contacts, but 

they cannot access the Internet. Both inmates and persons in the community with whom 

they correspond must consent to having all incoming and outgoing electronic messages 

monitored and retained by BOP staff.

17GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could 

Improve Cell Phone Detection, GAO-11-893 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2011).

18According to BOP, this practice also affords security additional to that provided by 

uniformed correctional officers, as these administrators and staff are also trained 

correctional officers.

Correctional Staff
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 78 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 14: BOP Inmate to Total BOP Staff Ratios from Fiscal Years 1997 through 

2011

Year 

Total S&E staff 

onboard

BOP institution 

population

Inmate to staff ratio by 

fiscal year

1997 28,302 101,091 3.57

1998 28,870 108,207 3.75

1999 29,176 117,295 4.02

2000 30,382 125,560 4.13

2001 31,806 130,327 4.10

2002 31,823 137,527 4.32

2003 32,265 146,212 4.53

2004 32,746 152,518 4.66

2005 32,735 159,501 4.87

2006 33,114 162,514 4.91

2007 33,994 167,323 4.92

2008 34,139 165,964 4.86

2009 34,914 172,423 4.94

2010 35,972 173,289 4.82

2011 35,987 177,934 4.94

Source: BOP data.

Note: The President’s annual budget justification to Congress for BOP includes a systemwide inmate 

to total BOP staff ratio. This ratio is systemwide rather than by facility security level. BOP calculates 

this ratio using (1) the inmate population at each facility on the last day of the fiscal year and (2) the 

total number of BOP staff on board as of the last pay period of the fiscal year. The total number of 

BOP staff includes all staff at BOP institutions, regional offices, training centers, and the central office 

(i.e., staff funded by BOP’s Salaries & Expenses (S&E) appropriation and Public Health Service 

(PHS) staff). 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 79 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table15: BOP’s Inmate to Total Institutional Staff Ratios from Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Systemwide 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

Administrative 6 5.7 5.5 5.1 5 4.9

Complex 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.3

Detention 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6

High 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1

Low 6.6 6.1 6 6.1 6.2 6.1

Medical 3 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8

Medium 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6

Minimum 8 8 7.6 7.6 7.6 8 

Female facilities 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.2

Male facilities 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: For purposes of this table, a ratio of “x:1” is expressed more simply as “x.” These ratios were 

calculated using the following information. The inmate population used to calculate the ratio is based 

on the Fiscal Year Average Daily Population (ADP) for each facility. ADP is calculated by totaling the 

total inmate days recorded at each facility for the fiscal year and dividing that number by the number 

of days in the fiscal year. The staffing level used to calculate the ratio is based on the fiscal year end 

onboard staffing level at each facility as of the last pay period of the fiscal year. S&E and PHS staff 

onboard at year end were included in this calculation. The calculation excludes Buildings and 

Facilities, UNICOR, and Trust Fund staff as well as all staff at regional offices, training centers, and 

central office locations and facilities that were in the activation process. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 80 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 16: Snapshots of BOP’s Inmate to Correctional Officer Ratios, by BOP Region, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

Region Ratios 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mid-Atlantic Low ratio 7.8 3.6 8.1 7.4 7.9 7.5

High ratio 24.4 26 23.3 22.5 24.6 25.3

Average ratio 11.5 10.5 11 10.8 10.3 10.6

North Central Low ratio 1.6 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.0 5.3

High ratio 37 26 25.8 28.2 26.7 28.6

Average ratio 9 8.8 9.1 9.3 8.8 9.3

Northeast Low ratio 6.9 5.5 4.6 5.9 5.5 5.9

High ratio 21.7 17.2 17.8 24.6 19.8 14.6

Average ratio 11.8 10.4 10.3 10.6 10.3 10.1

South Central Low ratio 7.6 7.5 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.8

High ratio 31.7 29.6 24.2 24.1 22.3 24.4

Average ratio 13.2 12.9 11.7 12.5 12.5 12.7

Southeast Low ratio 9.3 9.4 8.4 9.7 9.2 9.9

High ratio 34.9 28.1 26.2 27.4 25.6 30.4

Average ratio 12.4 12 11.8 11.8 11.6 12.2

Western Low ratio 5.9 4.7 5.9 6.5 5.4 5.9

High ratio 16.5 18.1 17 17.8 14.6 16.5

Average ratio 10.4 10 9.7 9.7 9.4 10.3

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: Correctional officer refers to those BOP staff who enforce the regulations governing the 

operation of a correctional institution. All values imply an inmate to correctional officer ratio of “x:1.” 

For purposes of this table, we have omitted the “1” from the ratio and just reported the “x.” BOP 

includes facilities not yet fully activated in its data. Thus, where a facility had an inmate-to-staff ratio of 

some number less than 1:1, we omitted that facility from our analysis of the high, low, and average 

ratios for the respective region. For example, in fiscal year 2010 and 2011, BOP listed a facility called 

Mendota in its listing for the Western Region. In fiscal year 2010, BOP recorded the inmate to 

correctional officer ratio for Mendota as 00:1 and in fiscal year 2011, BOP reported the ratio as 0.6:1. 

This facility was not fully activated in either year, so we omitted it from our table. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 81 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

More inmates results in greater water usage for heating, laundry, 

showers, toilets, sanitation, and food service. As a result, BOP is the 

largest energy and water consumer in DOJ. Specifically, BOP estimated 

that each inmate uses approximately 150 gallons of water per day. BOP’s 

electricity costs also increased about 35 percent, from about $79 million 

in fiscal year 2005 to more than $107 million in fiscal year 2011. 

According to BOP, the main reason for this increase is the rising cost of 

electricity over the last 6 years, although more inmates with more laundry

also have had a marginal impact. BOP regional and facility officials said 

that with the increased population, the food service equipment is used to 

prepare more meals, thereby shortening the life of the equipment.

In February 2012, BOP reported 150 major unfunded repair projects (i.e., 

each project had an estimated repair cost of $300,000 or more) for a total 

projected repair cost of almost $346 million. These included unfunded 

repairs totaling about $30 million for four of the five prisons we visited, such 

as replacement of a roof, repairs to the perimeter wall, replacement of the 

perimeter fence, and upgrading a sewer system. One regional director 

observed, however, that when BOP does not have funding for repairs, staff 

find a way to “make do.” For example, at one older facility in that region, 

staff built a second roof over the computer room, rather than undertake the 

more costly roof repair, because the main roof of the facility leaked.

BOP officials said facilities are so crowded that closing older facilities is 

not an option. These officials explained that BOP’s goal is to reduce 

crowding to 15 percent systemwide. Because BOP projects continued 

population growth and does not anticipate a large increase in facility 

capacity, a significant decrease in the population would have to occur 

before BOP would be able to consider facility closures. Officials said that 

before closing BOP-run facilities, BOP would reduce its private prison 

contracts, but reductions in facility space would also depend on the 

security level of the population where reductions occurred.

According to BOP officials, the increasing inmate population and staffing 

ratios negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline, 

thereby affecting security and safety. BOP maintains an inmate discipline 

program for all inmates in BOP custody, which is to help ensure the 

safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, as well as 

the protection of the public, by allowing BOP staff to impose sanctions on 

Infrastructure

Security and Safety

Systemwide, water costs were over $25 

million in fiscal year 2005 and more than 

$37 million in fiscal year 2011, an increase 

of about 48 percent. Water usage 

increased from 7.9 billion gallons in 2005 

to 9.9 billion gallons in 2011. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 82 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

inmates who commit prohibited acts.19 BOP classifies prohibited acts into 

four levels according to the severity of the offense and provides a range 

of sanctions.20 Available sanctions are based on the severity of the 

offense and include disallowance and forfeiture of good conduct time 

credit, disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges (e.g., visitation, 

telephone, and commissary).21 BOP disciplinary hearing data show an 

increase from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and a decline in fiscal year 

2011.22

 

19 BOP’s inmate discipline program is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3).

Table 17 shows the trends in the number of guilty findings for 

each level of prohibited acts from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. 

According to BOP officials, moderate severity (300-level) prohibited acts 

include less serious but more frequently committed types of inmate 

misconduct, such as insolent behavior toward staff, thus explaining the 

large number of findings reported for this category.

20 BOP has four levels of offenses, ranging from level 100 to level 400: greatest severity 

level (100) offenses (e.g., killing, serious assault, and possession of weapons), high 

severity level (200) offenses (e.g., fighting or threatening bodily harm), moderate severity 

level (300) offenses (e.g., being in an unauthorized area, refusing an order, or insolence), 

and low severity level (400) offenses (e.g., feigning illness). 

21 Generally, BOP is authorized to award up to 54 days of good conduct time credit for 

each year served (which vests on the date the inmate is released). Good conduct time 

credit may be awarded to an inmate serving a sentence of more than 1 year, but less than 

life. The credit may be disallowed for an inmate found to have committed a prohibited act. 

Loss of good conduct time credit is a mandatory disciplinary sanction for Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 violent inmates, Prison Reform Litigation Act 

inmates, and D.C. Code offenders pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.4. The amount of good 

conduct time disallowed is based upon the severity level of the offense and is a sanction 

that may only be imposed by the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO). The DHO may also 

sanction an inmate to forfeiture of good conduct time, if available, as good conduct time 

does not vest until the inmate is released.

22BOP has two types of disciplinary hearings. One is conducted by the Unit Discipline 

Committee (UDC), which consists of two or more institution staff. The other type of 

hearing is conducted by the DHO, who works for the regional director. Initially, the UDC 

reviews the incident report. Depending on the severity of the prohibited act, the UDC may 

make a finding that the inmate did or did not commit the prohibited act or the UDC may 

refer the report to the DHO for a hearing. The DHO must make a final disposition on all 

greatest (100) and high (200) severity level offenses. The total number of UDC hearings 

increased from about 67,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about 72,700 in fiscal year 2010, 

declining to about 70,800 in fiscal year 2011. The total number of DHO hearings increased 

from about 53,000 in fiscal year 2006 to over 60,600 in fiscal year 2010 and then declined

to about 59,600 in fiscal year 2011. 
Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate 

Population

Page 83 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Table 17: Guilty Findings for Prohibited Acts by Severity Level, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011

Fiscal years

Guilty findings 

for 100-level 

prohibited acts

Guilty findings 

for 200-level 

prohibited acts

Guilty findings 

for 300-level 

prohibited acts

Guilty findings 

for 400-level 

prohibited acts

2006 7,711 23,731 54,219 1,929

2007 8,361 24,112 51,519 2,025

2008 9,552 24,980 50,633 1,933

2009 11,021 27,386 54,043 2,125

2010 10,677 28,915 59,462 2,042

2011 10,195 27,168 60,269 1,731

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Note: This table reflects only the most serious prohibited act for each incident report. One 

hundred-level prohibited acts are of the greatest severity (e.g., killing or assaulting a 

person) and 400-level acts are of the lowest severity (e.g., feigning illness).

During the 6-year period, BOP data indicated that the most frequently 

imposed sanctions for guilty findings were loss of privileges, disallowance 

of good time credit, and segregation.

In addition to maintaining individual discipline, BOP facility management 

may lock down a facility––a temporary situation in which all inmates are 

confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to assess the 

situation following a critical incident (e.g., a, assaults on staff by several 

inmates, or a food or work strike) and can safely return the institution to 

normal operations. According to BOP data, BOP systemwide imposed 

almost 4,000 lockdowns from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Similar to 

the inmate misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2009, peaking at 1,042 that year and then 

declining to 824 in fiscal year 2011.
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 84 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director; 

Pedro Almoguera; Willie Commons; Eric Hauswirth; Lara Miklozek; Linda 

Miller; Meghan Squires; Barbara Stolz; and Greg Wilmoth made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 85 GAO-12-743 Federal Prison Crowding 

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating Incarceration and 

Community Corrections Costs and Results of the Elderly Offender Pilot. 

GAO-12-807R. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2012. 

Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to 

Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison. GAO-12-320. Washington, D.C. 

February 7, 2012.

Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination 

Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. GAO-11-893. Washington, D.C.: 

September 6, 2011.

Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective Equipment Could 

Help Enhance Officer Safety. GAO-11-410. Washington, D.C.: 

April 8, 2011.

Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best 

Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making. 

GAO-10-94. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2009.

Prison Construction: Clear Communication on the Accuracy of Cost 

Estimates and Project Changes is Needed. GAO-08-634. Washington, 

D.C.: May 29, 2008.

Cost of Prisons: Bureau of Prisons Needs Better Data to Assess 

Alternatives for Acquiring Low and Minimum Security Facilities. 

GAO-08-6. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2007.

Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs.

GAO-01-483. Washington, D.C. June 18, 2001. 

State and Federal Prisoners: Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 1991 

and 1997. GAO/GGD-00-117. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2000.

Related GAO Products

(441010)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our . Podcasts

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.