BUREAU OF 

PRISONS

Eligibility and 

Capacity Impact Use 

of Flexibilities to 

Reduce Inmates' Time 

in Prison

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2012

GAO-12-320

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-320, a report to 

congressional requesters

February 2012

BUREAU OF PRISONS

Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities 

to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison

Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Justice’s Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible 

for the custody and care of federal 

offenders. BOP’s population has 

increased from about 145,000 in 2000 

to about 217,000 in 2011 and BOP is 

operating at 38 percent over capacity. 

There is no longer parole for federal 

offenders and BOP has limited 

authority to affect the length of an 

inmate's prison sentence. BOP has 

some statutory authorities and 

programs to reduce the amount of time 

an inmate remains in prison, which 

when balanced with BOP’s mission to 

protect public safety and prepare 

inmates for reentry, can help reduce 

crowding and the costs of 

incarceration. GAO was asked to 

address: (1) the extent to which BOP 

utilizes its authorities to reduce a 

federal prisoner’s period of 

incarceration; and (2) what factors, if 

any, impact BOP's use of these 

authorities. GAO analyzed relevant 

laws and BOP policies; obtained 

nationwide data on inmate participation 

in relevant programs and sentence 

reductions from fiscal years 2009 

through 2011; conducted site visits to 

nine BOP institutions selected to cover 

a range of prison characteristics and at 

each, interviewed officials responsible 

for relevant programs; and visited four 

community-based facilities serving the 

institutions visited. Though not 

generalizable, the information obtained 

from these visits provided insights.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that BOP establish 

a plan, including time frames and 

milestones, for requiring contractors to 

submit prices of RRC beds and home 

detention services. BOP concurred 

with this recommendation. 

What GAO Found

BOP’s use of authorities to reduce a federal prisoner’s period of incarceration 

varies. BOP primarily utilizes three authorities—the Residential Drug Abuse 

Treatment Program (RDAP), community corrections, and good conduct time. 

• Eligible inmates can participate in RDAP before release from prison, but 

those eligible for a sentence reduction are generally unable to complete 

RDAP in time to earn the maximum reduction (generally 12 months). During 

fiscal years 2009 through 2011, of the 15,302 inmates who completed RDAP 

and were eligible for a sentence reduction, 2,846 (19 percent) received the 

maximum reduction and the average reduction was 8.0 months. BOP officials 

said that participants generally do not receive the maximum reduction 

because they have less than 12 months to serve when they complete RDAP.

• To facilitate inmates’ reintegration into society, BOP may transfer eligible 

inmates to community corrections locations for up to the final 12 months of 

their sentences. Inmates may spend this time in contract residential re-entry 

centers (RRCs)—also known as halfway houses—and in detention in their 

homes for up to 6 months. Based on the most recently available data, almost 

29,000 inmates completed their sentences through community corrections in 

fiscal year 2010, after an average placement of about 4 months; 17,672 in 

RRCs, 11,094 in RRCs then home detention, and 145 in home detention 

only. RRCs monitor inmates in home detention and charge BOP 50 percent 

of the daily RRC cost to do so. However, BOP does not require RRC 

contractors to separate the price of home detention services from the price of 

RRC beds and thus, does not know the actual costs of home detention. BOP 

officials stated that they are developing a process to review and amend 

existing RRC contracts and require new contractors to submit proposals 

separating out RRC and home detention prices, but did not document the 

specifics of the review process or establish time frames or milestones for the 

review. Thus, BOP does not have a roadmap for how it will achieve this goal.

• Most eligible inmates receive all of their potential good conduct time credit for 

exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations—54 days 

taken off their sentence, per year served, if an inmate has earned or is 

earning a high school diploma; 42 days if not. As of the end of fiscal years 

2009, 2010, and 2011, about 87 percent of inmates had earned all of their 

available credit.

BOP also has other authorities, such as releasing prisoners early for very 

specialized reasons, but has used these less frequently for various reasons. 

Inmate eligibility and lack of capacity impact BOP’s use of certain flexibilities and 

programs that can reduce an inmate’s time in prison. BOP officials cited inmate 

ineligibility for RRC placement (e.g., inmates who are likely to escape or be 

arrested or with sentences of 6 months or less, among other things) as the 

primary reason that some inmates are not released through community 

corrections and one of the main reasons that some inmates are not able to 

participate in RDAP. BOP’s lack of additional RRC space has prevented it from 

increasing the length of its RRC placements. According to BOP, lack of program 

capacity also prevents eligible inmates from entering and completing RDAP early 

enough to earn their maximum allowable sentence reductions, which prevents 

BOP from maximizing the cost savings provided by the authority.

View GAO-12-320. For more information, 

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

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Letter 1 

Background 5

BOP’s Use of Authorities That Can Reduce a Federal Prisoner’s 

Period of Incarceration Varies 10

Inmate Eligibility and Lack of Capacity Impact BOP’s Use of 

Certain Flexibilities 30

Conclusions 35

Recommendation for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Comments from the Federal Bureau of Prisons 38

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Tables

Table 1: Statutory Provisions Available to BOP to Reduce a Federal 

Prisoner’s Period of Incarceration or Time in BOP Custody 8

Table 2: Number of Eligible Inmates Placed in Community 

Corrections Who Complete Their Sentences, and Average 

Length of Stay for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 17

Table 3: GCT Credit Disallowance Guidelines, by Infraction 

Severity Level 22

Table 4: Illustration of BOP’s Calculation of GCT Credit for an 

Imposed Sentence of 10 years for an Inmate Earning the 

Maximum GCT Credit 24

Figures

Figure 1: BOP Regional Map 6

Figure 2: RDAP Participation Process 12

Figure 3: Daily Cost per Inmate of BOP Facilities Compared with 

Community Corrections 19

Figure 4: Number of Inmates Ineligible for RRC Placement from 

April 2008 to March 2011 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Abbreviations

BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons

DAP Drug Abuse Program

DHO Disciplinary Hearing Officer

DOJ Department of Justice

GCT Good Conduct Time

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

RDAP Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program

RRC Residential Reentry Center

USSC United States Sentencing Commission

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-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 7, 2012

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is 

responsible for the custody and care of federal offenders.1 BOP’s mission 

is to confine federal offenders in the controlled, safe, secure, humane, 

and cost-efficient environments of prisons and community-based facilities, 

and to provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist 

offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. BOP’s population has 

increased by 50 percent from about 145,000 in 2000 to about 217,000 at 

the close of fiscal year 2011, and BOP projects a net increase of roughly 

6,000 inmates annually for the next 3 years. In addition, BOP reports that 

it is operating at 38 percent over capacity with higher rates of crowding in 

its high- and medium-security institutions than in its low- and minimumsecurity institutions.2

The size of the federal prison population is a function of many factors, 

including the nation’s crime levels, sentencing laws, and law enforcement 

policies, all of which are beyond the control of BOP. In addition, the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole for federal offenders, 

 

1 The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. 

L. No. 105-33, § 11201, 111 Stat. 712, 734-37, transferred the responsibility and costs 

associated with certain state criminal justice functions, including housing, parole, and 

supervised release of adult felons convicted under the D.C. Code from the District of 

Columbia to various federal government agencies, including BOP.

2 The figure refers to capacity in institutions operated by BOP. Security level classification 

depends on factors such as staff supervision the institution is able to provide; the 

presence of security towers; perimeter barriers; the type of inmate housing (e.g., 

dormitories, cubicles, or cells); and the staff-to-inmate ratio. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

and subsequent legislation established mandatory minimum sentences 

for many federal offenses, which limit the authority BOP has to affect the 

size of the prison population or the length of prison sentences.3 However, 

BOP has some statutory authorities whereby it can reduce the period 

during which an inmate is incarcerated or remains in BOP custody.4

You asked us to review the authorities BOP has to reduce a federal 

prisoner’s period of incarceration and how it is using its authorities. 

Specifically, this report addresses the following questions:

These programs and authorities are primarily intended to rehabilitate 

inmates and prepare them for reentry into society, and encourage good 

behavior while in BOP custody. Effective BOP use of these authorities, 

while adhering to the agency’s stated mission to protect society by 

confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and 

community-based facilities, has the potential to help reduce overcrowding 

and the associated costs of incarceration.

• To what extent does BOP utilize its authorities to reduce a federal 

prisoner’s period of incarceration?

• What factors, if any, impact BOP’s use of these authorities?

To address the first question, we analyzed relevant federal statutes to 

identify what discretionary authorities BOP has to reduce a prisoner’s 

period of incarceration.5

 

3 Prior to passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 

1987, federal judges generally had broad discretion in sentencing. Most criminal statutes 

provided only broad maximum terms of imprisonment. Federal law outlined the maximum 

sentence, federal judges imposed a sentence within a statutory range, and the federal 

parole official eventually determined the actual duration of incarceration.

We also analyzed BOP policies, program 

statements, and guidance memos, and interviewed officials from BOP’s 

4 In this report, we use the term “incarceration” to refer to inmates housed in federal 

correctional institutions or privately managed prisons. Most inmates serve out the last 

portion of their sentences under BOP custody in a prerelease placement in a communitybased facility or in home detention.

5 We limited our review to authorities that apply to inmates who committed a federal 

offense on or after November 1, 1987, after the effective date of the Sentencing Reform 

Act of 1984, also known as “new law.” BOP also has in its custody offenders sentenced 

under “old law,” some of whom are parole eligible, and may not be eligible to benefit from 

some of the authorities we discuss in this report. “Old law” refers to offenses committed 

before November 1, 1987, and to the statutory, regulatory, and BOP provisions followed 

prior to the enactment of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-

473, 98 Stat. 1976. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Information, Policy, & Public Affairs Division; Office of General Counsel; 

Designation and Sentence Computation Center; and Correctional 

Programs Division to determine how BOP implements programs that 

utilize its discretionary authorities. We obtained nationwide data regarding 

inmate participation in relevant BOP programs, program capacity, and 

sentence reductions received for program participation, or through other 

authorities, during fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. We also obtained 

population and cost projections BOP has developed related to various 

alternative uses of its authorities. We compared BOP’s methods for 

estimating the costs of supervising inmates in home detention with 

standard practices for program and project management to determine 

whether BOP has a planning process in place to achieve reliable 

estimates of these costs.6

To address the second question, we interviewed BOP Central Office and 

program officials as well as subject matter experts in community 

corrections, inmate rights, and in-prison rehabilitation programs identified 

through a review of the literature and through subsequent discussions 

with these experts. We also conducted site visits to six BOP institutions, 

and one privately managed institution overseen by BOP, to observe 

operations and to obtain perspectives from prison officials about the 

implementation of these discretionary authorities and any challenges they 

faced. We selected facilities to cover a range of prison characteristics, 

including management (e.g., BOP and private), security classification 

(e.g., minimum, low, medium, and high), medical care level, inmate 

gender, geographic variability (e.g., region, urban/rural), and the presence 

of relevant BOP programs.

We obtained information from relevant BOP 

officials about the steps taken to ensure the accuracy of all of the data, 

and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report.

7

 

6 The Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management © (2006).

The sites include four BOP institutions and 

one privately managed institution in BOP’s Western Region (all in 

California); and four institutions in BOP’s Mid-Atlantic Region (all in 

7 According to BOP officials, care-level categories are based on both medical treatment 

capacity and proximity to an outside hospital. Care-level 1 facilities can treat limited 

medical needs, and are generally about 40-60 miles from a hospital; care-level 2 facilities 

can treat stable diseases, and are generally about 20-30 miles from a hospital; care-level 

3 facilities can provide nursing care and assisted living, as well as mental health 

treatment, and are generally about 5-10 miles from a hospital; care-level 4 facilities are 

generally hospitals, of which there are six in BOP’s system.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia). Five of the nine institutions 

contained multiple facilities which housed offenders classified at different 

security levels.8

• conducting disciplinary hearings which could result in the 

disallowance of sentence-reduction credit received by inmates for 

good conduct while incarcerated;

At each institution, we obtained perspectives on 

challenges from those officials responsible for the following activities:

• administering BOP’s substance abuse treatment programs, including 

the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) which 

provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully 

complete the program; and

• reviewing inmates’ cases to make recommendations regarding the 

length of placement in residential re-entry centers (RRCs), also known 

as halfway houses, or in home detention at the end of an individual’s 

sentence.

We also visited four RRCs in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan areas—the closest major metropolitan areas to the prisons 

we visited, and thus serving inmates released to community corrections 

from these prisons—to discuss with BOP community corrections officials 

overseeing the operation of these RRCs and RRC managers any factors 

that facilitate or hinder placing inmates in the community. We cannot 

generalize our work from the facilities and offices we visited to BOP 

facilities nationwide, but the information we obtained provides insights 

into how BOP implements its discretionary authorities in various locations.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 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 

 

8 The nine institutions we visited contained the following 15 facilities housing offenders at 

different security levels: 1 high-security facility, 3 medium-security facilities, 4 low-security 

facilities, 5 minimum-security facilities, 1 facility housing female offenders of various 

security levels, and 1 administrative facility housing both male and female inmates. BOP 

designates certain institutions with special missions as “administrative,” such as the 

detention of pretrial offenders; the treatment of inmates with serious or chronic medical 

problems; or the containment of extremely dangerous, violent, or escape-prone inmates. 

These institutions may house offenders at several different security levels.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In fiscal year 2012, BOP had a budget of about $6.6 billion for salaries 

and expenses and as of December 2011, BOP had a staff of about 

38,000, which includes administrative, program, and support staff 

responsible for all of BOP’s activities nationwide. BOP houses inmates 

across six geographic regions in 117 federal institutions, 15 privately 

managed prisons, 185 RRCs (also known as halfway houses), and home 

detention.9 At the close of fiscal year 2011, about 94 percent of BOP’s 

inmate population was incarcerated in either federal institutions or 

privately managed prisons, operating at four different security level 

designations: minimum, low, medium, and high. The designations depend 

on the level of security and staff supervision 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 the staff-to-inmate ratio. Some BOP institutions include multiple 

prison facilities with different security classifications under common

management, in part to increase cost efficiencies.10 According to BOP, 

privately managed low-security facilities primarily house criminal aliens.11

Figure 1 shows the distribution of BOP institutions, privately managed 

prisons, and RRCs across BOP’s six geographic regions.

 

9 BOP contracts with four private corrections companies. BOP’s privately managed

prisons operate under performance-based contracts in accordance with some BOP 

policies. 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.

10 BOP has 13 federal correctional complexes systemwide that include separate prisons 

under common management, and many prisons include an adjacent minimum-security 

satellite camp under common management.

11 Criminal aliens are noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or 

illegally.

Background 

BOP Population and 

Institutions 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Figure 1: BOP Regional Map, Fiscal Year 2011
 

Page 7 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

To house inmates in community corrections locations, BOP contracts with 

private organizations to manage 185 RRCs around the country.12 These 

RRCs allow BOP to house inmates outside of a prison environment to 

either serve out their full sentence or their remaining sentence prior to 

release in the community.13 Inmates are authorized to leave for approved 

activities, such as seeking employment, working, counseling, visiting, or 

recreation, but are monitored 24 hours a day through sign-out 

procedures, regular head counts, staff visits to the approved locations, 

and random phone contacts. Inmates in RRCs are also required to work, 

or be actively seeking work, and to pay a percentage of their salaries as a 

subsistence fee to cover some of their expenses at the RRC. Some 

federal inmates are placed on home detention at the end of their prison 

term, either directly from an institution, or following some time in an RRC. 

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. 

Home detention inmates are held to strict schedules and curfews and are 

monitored by a nearby RRC or the U.S. Probation Office through random 

staff visits, phone contacts, and occasionally through the use of electronic 

monitoring.14 At the close of fiscal year 2011, about 5 percent of the 

inmate population was housed in RRCs or home detention.

BOP has a number of discretionary authorities it can use to impact the 

period during which an inmate is incarcerated or remains in BOP custody. 

According to BOP officials, many of the programs that arise from these 

authorities are primarily intended to rehabilitate inmates and prepare 

them for reentry into society, as well as encourage good behavior while in 

BOP custody. The authorities can be classified into two main categories: 

(1) authorities that reduce the length of the inmate’s sentence, and (2) 

 

12 As of December 1, 2011, BOP contracted with 105 providers to manage its inmates in 

RRCs and home detention.

13 According to BOP officials, inmates serve out their full sentences in an RRC only if 

recommended by the sentencing judge, if the inmate does not pose a threat to public 

safety, and as bed space in RRCs allow. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 30 

inmates served out their full sentences in an RRC.

14 BOP’s community-based programs are administered by staff of the Correctional 

Programs Division (CPD) in Central Office (in Washington, D.C.), community corrections 

regional management teams in each of BOP's 6 regional offices, and the employees of 22 

community corrections management (CCM) field offices serving specific judicial districts 

within their regions.

BOP Discretionary 

Authorities That Can 

Reduce a Prisoner’s Period 

of Incarceration or Time in 

BOP Custody
 

Page 8 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

authorities that allow BOP to transfer an inmate out of prison to serve the 

remainder of his or her sentence in an RRC or home detention. Table 1 

provides the statutory provisions allowing for BOP discretion to reduce a 

federal prisoner’s period of incarceration.15

Table 1: Statutory Provisions Available to BOP to Reduce a Federal Prisoner’s Period of Incarceration or Time in BOP 

Custody

Discretionary flexibilities and associated statutory provisions Description 

Sentence credits and sentence reduction

Good Conduct Time (GCT)

18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)

BOP is authorized to award credit toward the service of an 

inmate’s sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days 

per year of sentence served if the inmate has displayed 

exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary 

regulations. To be eligible to earn credit, the inmate must be 

serving a sentence of more than 1 year other than a term of 

imprisonment for life. 

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) 

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)

BOP is required to provide substance abuse treatment for 

each inmate it determines has a treatable condition of 

substance abuse. BOP must, subject to the availability of 

appropriations, provide residential substance abuse treatment 

(and make arrangements for appropriate aftercare) for all 

eligible inmates, with priority for the treatment provided based 

on proximity to release date. BOP may reduce the sentence of 

an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense who successfully 

completes residential substance abuse treatment for a period 

of up to 1 year.

 

15 Under 18 U.S.C. § 4102, the Attorney General is authorized to transfer offenders under 

a sentence of imprisonment, on parole, or on probation to the foreign countries of which 

they are citizens or nationals, and to delegate such authority to officers in DOJ. The 

United States currently has treaties with 76 countries to return American citizens 

incarcerated in those countries to the United States to serve out their sentences, and to 

transfer foreign national inmates serving sentences in the United States to serve out their 

terms in the countries where they are citizens or nationals. Within DOJ, BOP shares 

responsibility with the Criminal Division, the United States Attorneys’ Offices, and the 

United States Marshals Service for administering the treaty transfer program. BOP is 

responsible for explaining the program to foreign national inmates, determining if a current 

treaty agreement exists for interested inmates and if those inmates are eligible for 

transfer, and preparing application packets for eligible inmates which are reviewed by the 

Criminal Division’s International Prisoner Transfer Unit. Because DOJ’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) conducted a separate review of this program during the course of our work, 

we do not discuss this program in our report. See: Department of Justice, Office of 

Inspector General, The Department of Justice’s International Prisoner Transfer Program

(Washington, D.C.: December 2011).
 

Page 9 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Discretionary flexibilities and associated statutory provisions Description 

Modification of an Imposed Sentence

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

Upon motion of the Director of BOP, the court may reduce a 

term of imprisonment after considering certain factors if it finds 

that either (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant 

such a reduction; or (2) the inmate is at least 70 years of age, 

has served at least 30 years in prison for the offense or 

offenses for which the inmate is imprisoned, and a 

determination has been made by the Director of BOP that the 

inmate is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community; and that such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission (USSC).a

Weekend and Holiday Release

The Director may also motion the court 

for an inmate who has been sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the USSC and the court may 

reduce the term of imprisonment.

18 U.S.C. § 3624a

BOP is authorized to release inmates whose release date falls 

on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday on the last preceding 

weekday.

Sentence Computation Authority to Allow Concurrent Service of 

Federal and State Sentences

18 U.S.C. § 3584 (Multiple sentences of imprisonment)

If multiple sentences are imposed as the result of a single trial 

from a single indictment, generally the terms run concurrently 

(with a concurrent sentence, two or more sentences of 

imprisonment are to be served simultaneously) unless the 

federal court or a statute requires the terms to be served 

consecutively. However, if multiple sentences are imposed as 

a result of different trials, as when federal and state sentences 

are imposed on a defendant, generally the terms run 

consecutively (with consecutive sentences, two or more 

sentences of imprisonment are to be served in sequence) 

unless the federal court or a statute requires the terms to be 

served concurrently. When both a federal and a state court 

have imposed prison sentences on an offender, BOP may 

credit time served in a state institution towards an inmate’s 

federal sentence in certain circumstances.

Credit for Time Served in Custody

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

An inmate must be given credit toward his or her prison term 

for any time spent in official detention prior to the date the 

sentence commences as a result of the offense for which the 

sentence was imposed, or as a result of any other charge for 

which the inmate was arrested after commission of the offense 

for which the sentence was imposed.

Transfer from prison to community setting

Residential Reentry and Home Detention

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)

The Director of BOP must, to the extent practicable, ensure 

that an inmate spends a portion of the final months of that 

inmate’s term (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. This may include a 

prisoner being placed in an RRC. In addition, a prisoner may 

be placed in home detention for the shorter of 10 percent of 

the term of imprisonment or 6 months. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Discretionary flexibilities and associated statutory provisions Description 

Elderly Offender Pilot Program

42 U.S.C. § 17541(g)

The Attorney General was required to conduct a pilot program 

during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to determine the 

effectiveness of removing eligible elderly offenders from a BOP 

facility and placing such offenders on home detention until the 

expiration of the prison term to which the offender was 

sentenced. 

Both sentence credit and transfer to community setting

Shock Incarceration Program

18 U.S.C. § 4046 

BOP may place in a shock incarceration program (also known 

as a boot camp) any person who is sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment of more than 12, but not more than 30, months, 

if such person consents to that placement. BOP discontinued 

all shock incarceration programs in 2005, though it continues 

to retain the statutory authority to institute such programs. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal statutes.

a Created in 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) was charged with developing 

the federal sentencing guidelines to limit disparities in sentencing among offenders with similar 

criminal backgrounds found guilty of similar crimes.

BOP is required, subject to the availability of appropriations, to provide 

residential substance abuse treatment and make arrangements for 

appropriate aftercare for all eligible prisoners.16 Generally, the process to 

determine inmate eligibility for RDAP participation begins when inmates 

express interest in the program.17

 

16 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). During the 500-hour institution component of RDAP, participants 

are separated from the inmate general population in order to support prosocial attitudes 

and behaviors and isolate program participants from negative peer pressure in the larger 

prison environment.

In June 1995, BOP began offering 

nonviolent participants a sentence reduction incentive of up to 12 months 

17 Court documents, such as the Presentence Investigation Report, often include 

substance use information, but other documentation may be sufficient, such as from a 

medical provider, probation officer, or social service professional.

BOP’s Use of 

Authorities That Can 

Reduce a Federal 

Prisoner’s Period of 

Incarceration Varies

Eligible Prisoners Can 

Participate in RDAP in 

Time to Complete the 

Program; Few Receive the 

Maximum Sentence 

Reduction 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

for successful completion of the program.18 The amount of sentence 

reduction awarded upon completion is based on the length of an inmate’s 

sentence.19 Figure 2 displays the process by which inmates enter and 

complete RDAP, and receive a sentence reduction if eligible.

 

18 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 32001, 

108 Stat. 1796, 1896-98. RDAP was originally developed in 1989 and the first participants 

completed the program in fiscal year 1990. Once requested, BOP is to determine an 

inmate’s early release eligibility status based on a review of the inmate’s current offense 

and prior convictions. BOP reviews current and prior offenses for both U.S. Code and D.C. 

Code felony offenders. According to BOP headquarters officials, the legal review is 

ordinarily completed within 30 days, but may take longer for more complicated cases.

19 BOP implemented the RDAP maximum sentence reduction categories based on an 

inmate’s sentence length in fiscal year 2009 as a policy decision, but the first inmates to 

receive sentence reductions based on the new policy completed the program in fiscal year 

2010; the authorizing statute gives BOP discretion over how to provide up to a 12-month 

sentence reduction to eligible RDAP participants. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Figure 2: RDAP Participation Process
 

Page 13 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

According to BOP’s annual reports to Congress on substance abuse 

treatment programs, during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 all eligible 

inmates who expressed interest in RDAP were able to participate in the 

program in time to complete it before their release from BOP custody. 

BOP officials stated that all eligible inmates were again able to participate 

in RDAP in fiscal year 2011. BOP estimates that 40 percent of inmates 

entering federal custody each year will have a substance abuse disorder 

and thus may be eligible to participate in RDAP, provided the other 

eligibility criteria are met.20

While BOP has reported that all eligible and interested inmates are able 

to complete RDAP before their release from BOP custody, those eligible 

for a sentence reduction incentive for successful completion are generally 

unable to complete the program in time to benefit from the maximum 

allowable reduction. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 15,302 RDAP 

participants completed the program and were eligible to receive a 

sentence reduction. Of those 15,302 participants eligible for a sentence 

reduction, 14,034 were eligible for a maximum sentence reduction of 12 

months, 596 were eligible for 9 months, and 672 were eligible for 6 

months. However, in these three fiscal years, 2,846 inmates (19 percent) 

received the maximum sentence reduction that corresponded to their 

sentence length, while 190 (1 percent) received no sentence reduction. 

BOP data show that from fiscal years 2009 

through 2011, on average, 18,709 inmates participated in RDAP in the 62 

program locations throughout BOP each year. However, BOP reports 

RDAP participation numbers as an aggregate count of every inmate who 

participated in the program at some point during a given fiscal year. This 

includes inmates who failed to complete the program—for example in 

fiscal year 2011, according to BOP, 17 percent of inmates left the 

program due to expulsion, withdrawal, disciplinary transfers, or other 

reasons—and inmates who entered the program in a prior fiscal year or 

who will complete the program in a subsequent fiscal year. As a result, 

inmates may be double-counted—reported as participants in multiple 

fiscal years. The participation numbers reported annually to Congress 

thus do not reflect how many individual inmates participate in or 

successfully complete RDAP each fiscal year. However, BOP provided us 

with data showing that from fiscal years 2009 through 2011, on average, 

6,875 inmates completed RDAP each year.

 

20 BOP’s projection is based on a study of inmates entering federal custody from fiscal 

years 2002 through 2003.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

The average sentence reduction received by eligible participants was 8.0 

months.21

Eligible participants generally do not receive the maximum allowable 

sentence reduction because, according to BOP officials, by the time they 

complete RDAP, they have fewer months remaining on their sentences 

than the maximum allowable reduction. For example, to allow enough 

time for completion of RDAP in the institution (9 to 12 months) and 

transitional drug abuse treatment in an RRC, BOP policy recommends 

that Drug Abuse Program (DAP) Coordinators initiate the eligibility 

screening process no less than 24 months prior to the inmate’s projected 

release date. However, some inmates may have to wait for clinical 

interviews, for program slots to open, or both.22 For example, at one 

institution we visited, BOP officials told us they had a queue of 50 inmates 

waiting to be interviewed by the DAP Coordinator to determine program 

eligibility. At another institution we visited, BOP officials told us they had a 

queue of 66 inmates who had been approved for participation and were 

waiting for program slots to open. According to BOP, delays resulting 

from this systemwide demand can prevent timely inmate entry into RDAP 

and can reduce the number of eligible inmates receiving the maximum 

allowable sentence reduction.23

 

21 The maximum average sentence reduction would be 11.6 months, since 1,268 of the 

15,302 inmates who completed the program in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 were 

eligible for a maximum reduction of 6 or 9 months, based on the length of their sentences.

22 The RDAP program is available in 62 locations. BOP officials stated that potential 

needs for substance abuse treatment are considered by BOP in initial designation to a 

BOP institution following sentencing. Also, eligible inmates residing in facilities without 

RDAP may have to wait to transfer to a facility offering the program. 

23 According to BOP officials, inmates enter RDAP as cohorts, with 24 inmates per staff 

member, and programs may have several cohorts participating concurrently. Inmates on 

the waiting list wait until the next available cohort begins.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

As a part of an inmate’s reintegration into the community, BOP attempts

to provide all eligible inmates the opportunity to participate in community 

corrections, defined as RRCs and home detention services.

24 BOP’s 

program statements for RRCs and home detention lay out the steps all 

BOP institutions are required to follow to assess each inmate for 

community corrections suitability and appropriate length of placement.

During an assessment for RRC placement, BOP policy requires 

prerelease RRC placement decisions be made on an individual basis and 

conducted in a manner consistent with certain statutory criteria. The 

criteria are: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated, (2) the nature 

and circumstances of the offense, (3) the history and characteristics of 

the prisoner, (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence, 

and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the USSC.25

• BOP has applied a public safety factor, indicating that the inmate has 

demonstrated certain behaviors that require increased security 

measures to ensure the protection of society;

According 

to BOP officials, these factors are applied to all inmates regardless of 

security level or offense. However, to place inmates on home detention, 

BOP uses these factors as well as other factors stated in its home 

detention program statement. The Program Statement requires 

community corrections personnel to consider whether:

• BOP has designated the inmate as a Central Inmate Monitoring case, 

indicating that the inmate requires a higher level of review prior to any 

movement outside the institution;

• the inmate’s case is sensitive or high profile and might generate 

undue public concern;

• the inmate has a history of escape or prior community corrections 

failure; or

• the inmate is unlikely to be employed.

 

24 The 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 (previously limited to 6 months or 10 percent of an inmate’s 

sentence), and home detention for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment 

or 6 months. The statute does not guarantee an inmate a 1-year RRC placement or 

placement in home detention for any portion of the inmate’s sentence, but only directs 

BOP to consider placing an inmate in a RRC for up to the final 12 months of the sentence, 

and to consider using home detention as part of an inmate’s reiintegration into the 

community.

25 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

BOP Refers Eligible 

Prisoners to Community 

Corrections, but Has Not 

Assessed Home Detention 

to Determine Potential 

Cost Savings
 

Page 16 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

BOP reported that it begins the process for community corrections 

placement approximately 17 to 24 months prior to an inmate’s projected 

release date.

Based on the most recently available data, during fiscal year 2010, almost 

29,000 inmates completed their sentences through community 

corrections. Of those inmates who were placed in community corrections, 

over 60 percent were placed in RRCs only while the remainder received a 

combination of RRC placement followed by home detention, or home 

detention only. For those inmates who did not receive placement in 

RRCs, BOP officials stated that these inmates, while eligible, may decline 

RRC placement or RRCs may not be able to accommodate them. For 

example, BOP officials stated that sex offenders are difficult to place 

since there are only a limited number of RRCs able to accept them. In 

fiscal year 2010, the average length of stay for inmates who were placed 

in community corrections ranged from approximately 147 days for those 

inmates who were placed in an RRC followed by home detention, to 95 

days for inmates placed in an RRC not followed by home detention. 

Moreover, inmates who are eligible for home detention can be placed for 

up to 6 months or 10 percent of their sentences, whichever is less. In 

fiscal year 2010, of the 11,239 inmates who were placed in home 

detention either directly or following an RRC placement, 119 served either 

6 months or 10 percent of their sentence in home detention. According to 

BOP officials at institutions we visited, decisions about length of stay in 

home detention are made on an individualized basis. It may take some 

inmates longer than others to have the necessary resources in place—

such as a residence, a supportive family, and a job—to increase the 

likelihood of a successful home detention placement. In addition, inmates 

who have served longer sentences often have more serious needs upon 

release from prison that can best be met through participation in 

programs offered by RRCs rather than in home detention. Table 2 shows 

the number of eligible inmates placed in community corrections and the 

average length of stay during fiscal years 2009 and 2010.26

 

26 According to BOP officials, data for fiscal year 2011 are not yet available because, as of 

December 2011, some inmates placed during fiscal year 2011 have not yet completed 

their sentences and been released from community corrections and BOP custody.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Table 2: Number of Eligible Inmates Placed in Community Corrections Who Complete Their Sentences, and Average Length 

of Stay for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010

Type of placement

Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010

Number placed

Average length of 

stay (days) Number placed

Average length of 

stay (days)

RRCs only 17,618 96 17,672 95

RRCs then home detention 10,452 150 11,094 147

Home detention only 143 83 145 103

Total placements in 

community corrections 28,213 116 28,911 115

Source: GAO analysis of BOP RRC and home detention utilization data.

According to BOP officials, strategic goals are set for RRC utilization at 

each security level BOP operates.27 From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 

BOP set goals of 65 percent utilization for high security, 70 percent for 

medium security, 75 percent for low security, and 85 percent for minimum 

security. According to BOP officials, high-security inmates may be more 

difficult to place than their counterparts at other security levels, due to the 

greater likelihood that inmates with high-security classifications are more 

likely to be violent offenders than inmates at other security levels. BOP 

documented that in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 it exceeded its goals 

in each security level.28

The average length of stay in an RRC for inmates at each security level 

also varied, with minimum-security inmates receiving longer stays than 

inmates at other security levels. Recognizing that inmates at higher risk 

for reoffending may be placed less often and may have shorter lengths of 

placements than inmates at lower risk of reoffending, a June 2010 

memorandum from the BOP Correctional Programs Division states that 

higher risk inmates are more likely to benefit from RRC placement than 

lower risk inmates, in terms of their likelihood of reoffending.29

 

27 Utilization refers to the percentage of eligible inmates BOP is able to place in RRCs.

Therefore, 

the memorandum recommends that RRC resources be focused on those 

higher risk inmates most likely to benefit from placements.

28 BOP Residential Re-Entry Utilization Reports. 

29 Memorandum for Chief Executive Officers: Revised Guidance for Residential Reentry 

(RRC) Placements. Assistant Director Scott Dodrill, BOP Correctional Programs Division, 

June 24, 2010.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

BOP has also recently developed strategic goals for home detention. For 

fiscal year 2011, BOP had a goal to place 40 percent of all inmates 

eligible for community corrections in home detention. This goal includes 

direct designations to home detention as well as a combination of 

placement in an RRC followed by home detention. Moreover, in a June 

2010 memorandum, BOP management encouraged institutions to 

consider opportunities to place minimum-security inmates in home 

detention. Specifically, the memo states that institution staff should 

evaluate minimum-security inmates to determine if direct transfer from an 

institution to home detention is appropriate. BOP officials told us that 

placing more minimum-security inmates in home detention would free up 

space in RRCs for higher risk inmates. Although BOP does not track 

home detention placements by security level, BOP data show that most of 

the inmates placed directly to home detention have a minimum-security 

designation.30

BOP reported that housing inmates in community corrections was more 

costly, on a per diem basis, than housing inmates in minimum- and lowsecurity facilities. Based on the most recently available data, in fiscal year 

2010 the daily cost of a community corrections bed on average was 

$70.79. Only the per diem costs for inmates in medium- and high-security 

facilities exceeded per diem costs for community corrections.31 For 

example, BOP’s per diem costs to house inmates in institutions of varying 

security levels were $57.55 for minimum, $69.53 for low, $71.91 for 

medium, and $92.76 for high security as reflected in figure 3.

 

30 Although BOP does not routinely track home detention placement by security level, 

BOP was able to provide us with a snapshot of the data as of November 25, 2011. Of 

inmates on home detention, 1 percent were designated as high security, 14 percent as 

medium security, 22 percent as low security, and 63 percent as minimum security. 

31 We have ongoing work looking at facility and RRC costs in more detail, which we will 

report on later this year.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Figure 3: Daily Cost per Inmate of BOP Facilities Compared with Community Corrections

For inmates in community corrections, the RRC is required to collect a 

subsistence fee of 25 percent of an inmate’s gross income if that inmate 

is employed, to help defray the costs of community corrections 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

placement. The subsistence payment is to be subtracted from the amount 

the RRC bills BOP for providing supervision of inmates. For example, one 

RRC we visited stated that they collected about $75,000 in fiscal year 

2010 from working inmate residents. This translates to a little over $6,000 

a month subtracted from the RRC’s monthly billing statement.

In contracting with RRCs for community corrections, BOP pays a rate of 

50 percent of the overall per diem rate negotiated with the RRC for each 

inmate in home detention. For example, if BOP pays a contractor the 

average community corrections per diem rate of $70.79, BOP would pay 

$35.39 per day for that contractor’s supervision of each inmate in home 

detention. However, according to BOP, the agency does not require 

contractors to provide the actual costs for home detention services as 

part of their contract and therefore does not know the cost of home 

detention. In addition, officials at two of the RRCs we visited told us that 

they were uncertain as to the actual costs of the home detention 

supervision services they provided to BOP and had not explicitly 

examined these costs.

BOP officials stated that they are currently reviewing open solicitations 

and new requirements for RRC contracts, to determine locations in which 

cost proposals could be amended. According to BOP, the amended 

solicitations would require potential contractors to submit separate line 

items outlining the costs for RRC beds and home detention services 

separately. BOP has stated that it has a process underway to start to 

review contractors’ proposals that would separate the price of home 

detention from the price of RRC beds, but BOP has not provided 

documentation of the review process or time frames and milestones for 

when it expects to finalize the process for requiring contractors to 

separate the price. In accordance with standard practices for program 

and project management, specific desired outcomes or results should be 

conceptualized and defined in the planning process as part of a road 

map, along with the appropriate projects needed to achieve those results, 

and milestones.32

 

32 The Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management © (2006).

Without a plan for the development of this process, 

including time frames and milestones for when it will require contractors 

to submit separate prices for RRC beds and home detention services, 

BOP has no road map for how this will be achieved. Furthermore, setting 

time frames for developing its process could better position BOP to set a 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

level of reimbursement to the RRCs that reflects the price of home 

detention, as well as weigh the costs and benefits of alternative options 

for supervising inmates in home detention.

Most eligible inmates receive all of their potential GCT credit for 

compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. An inmate who is 

serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, other than a term of 

life imprisonment, may receive credit toward the service of his or her 

sentence, beyond the time served, known as GCT credit. Inmates who 

have earned, or are making satisfactory progress toward earning, a high 

school diploma or equivalent degree are eligible to receive 54 days of 

sentence credit at the end of each year served; otherwise, inmates are 

eligible to receive 42 days of sentence credit at the end of each year 

served. Sentence credit is prorated for the last partial year of a sentence 

served. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, BOP data show that about 

87 percent of inmates had earned all of their available GCT credit by the 

end of each year, and an additional 3 percent of inmates earned at least 

90 percent of the maximum available GCT credit.33

Inmates may be disallowed from earning a certain number of days of 

GCT credit for committing disciplinary infractions of a certain severity 

level. An institution’s Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) is the sole official 

with the authority to disallow an inmate’s GCT credit. If the DHO finds an 

inmate guilty of an infraction following a disciplinary hearing, the amount 

of GCT credit he or she disallows is to be based on the severity of the 

infraction and the number of times an inmate has committed an offense of 

the same level of severity.34

 

33 BOP tracks inmates’ earned GCT credit throughout their terms of imprisonment.

For example, an inmate has to commit a lowseverity infraction three times within the same year for disallowance of 

GCT credit to occur. However, an inmate who commits a greatest severity 

infraction once is subject to GCT disallowance. Table 3 shows the GCT 

credit disallowance guidelines by infraction severity level.

34 DHO hearings are held for infractions at the 100-level (greatest severity) and 200-level 

(high severity) as well as for repeated lower severity infractions or any cases referred by 

institution staff. Inmates may appeal the DHO’s decision through BOP’s administrative 

remedy process, which may include reviews at the regional and headquarters levels.

Most Inmates Earn the 

Maximum Sentence 

Reduction for Good 

Conduct, and BOP Has 

Proposed Changes to the 

Amount 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Table 3: GCT Credit Disallowance Guidelines, by Infraction Severity Level

Infraction severity level Infraction examples Repetition during year Minimum disallowance

100-Level (Greatest severity) 

a

Assaults; escapes; riots; drug or 

alcohol use

1 41 days or 75% of remaining GCT

200-Level (High severity) Fights; bribes; theft; tattooing 1 27 days or 50% of remaining GCT

300-Level (Moderate severity) Insolence; gambling; lying; gang 

activities

2 14 days or 25% of remaining GCT

400-Level (Low severity) Obscene language; disruptive 

conduct

3 7 days or 12.5% of remaining GCT

Source: BOP Program Statement 5270.09: Inmate Discipline Program.

a

For certain infractions, GCT credit that was earned in prior years may 

also be forfeited.

If an inmate has less than 54 days of GCT credit remaining during a given year, the minimum 

disallowance for an infraction is set at a percentage of the inmate’s remaining GCT credit.

35 GCT credit that has been disallowed or forfeited may 

not later be restored. The DHO has discretion to depart from the GCT 

credit disallowance guidelines or to forfeit an inmate’s earned GCT credit 

based on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. If an inmate is a firsttime offender and is involved in BOP programs, demonstrating a 

commitment to rehabilitation, a DHO may elect to reduce the amount of or 

refrain from a GCT credit disallowance. Alternatively, if an inmate is a 

repeat offender or commits an egregious act, the DHO may increase the 

GCT credit disallowance or forfeit the inmate’s earned GCT credit. 

Whenever the DHO departs from the disallowance guidelines, he or she 

is required to provide justification for the departure and an explanation of 

the mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the DHO hearing report 

filed with the regional management office.36 For example, in fiscal year 

2011, BOP DHOs departed from the disallowance guidelines 17,571 

times, or in 37 percent of DHO hearings, most often disallowing less GCT 

credit than called for in the corresponding guideline.37

 

35 Earned GCT credit does not vest until an inmate’s release date, meaning that all credit 

is vulnerable to forfeiture for disciplinary cause.

The six DHOs we 

spoke with in BOP’s Western and Mid-Atlantic regions described the 

discipline process in consistent terms and five of the six DHOs recounted 

the same types of mitigating and aggravating circumstances they 

36 The decision of the DHO is final and subject to review by the Regional Director to 

ensure conformity with the discipline policy.

37 In fiscal year 2011, of the 17,571 times DHOs departed from the guidelines, 14,227 

were downward departures and 3,344 were upward departures.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

generally considered for departures.38

Although most prisoners receive all of their potential GCT credit, BOP’s 

method of awarding GCT credit at the end of each year an inmate serves 

results in a maximum of 47 days of GCT credit earned per year of 

sentence imposed rather than the 54 days that inmates who have 

contested BOP’s method in court maintain was the original intent of the 

statute.

For example, DHOs cited first-time 

offenses and being taken advantage of as common mitigating 

circumstances. One DHO we spoke with reduced a newer inmate’s 

disallowance because the inmate was manipulated by a fellow inmate to 

make a prohibited phone call for him. DHOs cited repeated offenses, 

egregious acts, and violence against correctional officers as common 

aggravating circumstances. One DHO we spoke with recalled forfeiting 

over 300 days of an inmate’s earned GCT credit after the inmate was 

involved in a prison riot. The six DHOs we spoke with told us that the 

disallowance guidelines were clear, and that the discretion to depart from 

the guidelines offered them sufficient flexibility and latitude to successfully 

impact inmate behavior.

39 Under the Sentencing Reform Act, the USSC established 

sentence guidelines with the understanding that inmates would receive 

GCT credit so that their actual time served would be 85 percent of the 

length of the sentence imposed by the judge, assuming good behavior.40

BOP’s method of awarding GCT, however, results in inmates serving 

more than 85 percent of their imposed sentences, even after earning the 

maximum GCT credit, as can be seen in table 4, for a hypothetical 

sentence of 10 years imposed by the sentencing judge.

 

38 One of the six DHOs did not recall departing from the guidelines in recent years.

39 As 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 GCT credit for years they do not ultimately serve due to being 

released early. 

40 United States Sentencing Commission, Supplementary Report on the Initial Sentencing 

Guidelines and Policy Statements, 23 (1987).
 

Page 24 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Table 4: Illustration of BOP’s Calculation of GCT Credit for an Imposed Sentence of 

10 years for an Inmate Earning the Maximum GCT Credit

Sentence completed

GCT granted at end of 

year

Time remaining on sentence, in 

years and days

0 years Not applicable 10 years (3,650 days) 

1 year 54 8 years, 311 days

2 years 54 7 years, 257 days

3 years 54 6 years, 203 days

4 years 54 5 years, 149 days

5 years 54 4 years, 95 days

6 years 54 3 years, 41 days

7 years 54 1 year, 352 days

8 years 54 298 days

Inmate released during 

9th year, after completing 

8 years and 260 days

38 (GCT for the 

remaining 298 days is 

prorated to conform to 

the ratio of 54 days per 

365 served)

Total GCT days granted 470

Total GCT days granted 

per year of sentence 

imposed

470/10=47

Total time served (days) 3,650-470=3,180

Percent of sentence 

served

3,180/3,650 = 87.1 %

Source: GAO analysis of BOP GCT credit calculation.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld BOP’s methodology against a challenge 

brought by inmate petitioners.41 However, BOP officials told us that the 

agency was supportive of amending the statute, and had submitted a 

legislative proposal to Congress such that 54 days would 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.42

 

41 Barber v. Thomas, 130 S. Ct. 2499 (2010).

BOP 

42 The 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 described in table 4, the inmate would receive a total of 540 days of 

GCT. Thus the inmate would serve 3,110 days (85 percent) of the 3,650 days sentence 

imposed by the judge. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

provided us estimates in December 2011 showing that if the GCT credit 

allowance was increased by 7 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 December 2011, the legislative 

proposal had not been introduced on the floors of the House or Senate.43

Modification of an imposed sentence: BOP has authority to motion the 

court to reduce an inmate’s sentence in certain statutorily authorized 

circumstances, but that authority is implemented infrequently, if at all.

• The court, upon motion of the Director of BOP, may reduce the term 

of imprisonment after considering certain statutory factors to the 

extent that they are applicable,44 if it finds that “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” (also known as 

“compassionate release”) and the reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the USSC.45 According to BOP 

officials, the Director has motioned sentencing judges for inmates’ 

early releases in a limited number of cases. For instance, BOP has 

historically interpreted “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” 

as limited to cases where the inmate has a terminal illness with a life 

expectancy of 1 year or less or has a profoundly debilitating medical 

condition. The USSC issued guidance that listed a number of 

additional circumstances, such as the death or incapacitation of the 

inmate’s only family member capable of caring for the inmate’s minor 

child or children.46

 

43 Second 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). 

The bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 21, 2011, and is 

awaiting full Senate action. Similar legislation has not yet been introduced in the House. 

As of December 2011, BOP had not revised its 

written policy to explicitly include all of the circumstances noted in the 

USSC guidance although, according to BOP officials, the agency is 

reviewing two cases that would fall within these circumstances. Where 

“extraordinary and compelling circumstances” may exist, inmates 

44 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

45 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

46 Under 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), the USSC, in promulgating general policy statements 

regarding the sentencing modification provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), is required 

to describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence 

reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples. 

BOP Has Used Other 

Authorities Less 

Frequently to Reduce 

Federal Prisoners’ Periods 

of Incarceration
 

Page 26 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

generally must submit a request explaining their circumstances and 

their plans for housing, financial support, and medical care if granted 

an early release. The request is to proceed through multiple layers of 

review, including the inmate’s warden, the Regional Director, BOP’s 

Office of General Counsel, and the BOP Director, who may ultimately 

motion the court.47 BOP officials recorded that from calendar years 

2009 through 2011, 55 requests for early release were approved by 

the BOP Director and brought as motions to a sentencing judge out of 

89 requests approved at lower levels and received at BOP 

headquarters.48

• The court, upon motion of the Director of BOP, may reduce a prison 

term after considering certain statutory factors to the extent that they 

are applicable, if (1) an inmate is over 70 years old, (2) has served at 

least 30 years in prison pursuant to certain sentences imposed by 

statute,49 (3) a determination has been made by the BOP Director that 

the inmate is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the 

community as provided by statute,50 and (4) such a reduction is 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the USSC.51

• Generally, where a term of imprisonment is based upon a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered by the USSC, upon motion 

of the BOP Director, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment.

However, according to BOP officials, since the authority was enacted, 

BOP has had no inmates in its custody meeting these criteria and is 

considering how to implement this authority in the future if an inmate 

qualified.

52

 

47 A denial at the warden or Regional Director level may be appealed within BOP through 

an administrative relief process. A denial by BOP’s Office of General Counsel or Director 

is considered a final agency decision and can be appealed by motion to the federal court. 

According to BOP officials the BOP Director does not directly motion 

the sentencing judge because this is generally accomplished by the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office as the litigating body of DOJ. In addition, BOP 

officials also stated that it is not necessary for the BOP Director to 

48 Additionally, as of December 2011, five requests submitted in fiscal year 2011 were still 

under review at BOP headquarters.

49 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c).

50 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

51 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii).

52 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court may also act upon the motion of the defendant or its 

own motion to reduce the term of imprisonment. 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

motion the judge because inmates and their counsel generally initiate 

the process. BOP supports the process in other ways, including 

educating inmates about the relevant guidelines changes, notifying 

the U.S. Attorneys Offices if inmates who appear to be eligible are 

missed, and processing inmate sentence reductions if granted by a 

sentencing judge. BOP has estimated that the retroactive change to 

the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses that went into 

effect on November 1, 2011, will result in 2,391 additional inmates 

being released from BOP custody from fiscal years 2012 through 

2014, yielding an estimated cost savings of $160 million.53

Early release prior to a weekend or holiday: BOP releases inmates on 

the last preceding weekday prior to a release date that falls on a 

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Shock Incarceration Program: Although BOP retains the authority to 

operate the shock incarceration program, also known as boot camps, it 

discontinued the program in 2005 due to its cost and research showing 

that it was not effective in reducing inmate recidivism. Nonviolent, 

volunteer, minimum-security inmates serving sentences of more than 12 

months but not more than 30 months were eligible for the program, which 

combined features of military basic training with traditional BOP 

correctional values to promote personal development, self-control, and 

discipline.54

 

53 A similar retroactive change to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine went into 

effect on November 1, 2007. As of June 2011, the USSC reported that of the 25,736 

inmate applicants for a sentence reduction, 16,511 (64.2 percent) had been granted. 

Eligible inmates received an average sentence reduction of 26 months. The USSC was 

able to determine the origin of the motion for 15,016 of the inmates who were granted a 

sentence reduction. The BOP Director brought the motion in none of those cases. U.S. 

Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Cocaine Retroactivity Data Report, June 2011.

Throughout the typical 6-month program, inmate participants 

were required to adhere to a highly regimented schedule of strict 

discipline, physical training, hard labor, drill, job training, educational 

programs, and substance abuse counseling. BOP provided inmates who 

successfully completed the program and were serving sentences of 12 to 

30 months with a sentence reduction of up to 6 months. All inmates who 

successfully completed the program were eligible to serve the remainder 

of their sentences in community corrections locations, such as RRCs or 

54 Inmates serving sentences of 30 to 60 months and within 24 months of their projected 

release dates were also eligible to participate in the program, but were not eligible for the 

sentence reduction upon completion.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

home detention. A study of one of BOP’s shock incarceration programs, 

published in September 1996, found that the program had no effect on 

participants’ recidivism rates.55

Elderly Offender Pilot Program: Authorization for BOP’s elderly 

offender home detention pilot program expired in September 2010. 

Generally, the 2-year pilot program enabled BOP to transfer to home 

detention inmates who were at least 65 years old, had served at least 10 

years and 75 percent of their non-life sentences, had no history of 

violence, sexual offenses, or escape or attempted escape from a BOP 

institution, and who BOP determined would be of no substantial risk of 

engaging in criminal conduct or endangering any person or the public if 

released and with respect to whom BOP had determined that release to 

home detention will result in a substantial net reduction of costs to the 

federal government.

According to BOP officials, those and 

other evaluation findings and the cost of the program led BOP to 

discontinue its use in 2005.

56

Concurrent versus consecutive sentences: When both a federal and a 

state court have imposed prison sentences on an offender, BOP has the 

authority to credit time served in a state institution towards an inmate’s 

federal sentence in certain circumstances, thus resulting in a concurrent 

sentence, but this authority applies to a relatively limited number of 

inmates.

During the program, 71 inmates were transferred to 

home detention. The statute requires the Attorney General to monitor and 

evaluate each eligible elderly offender placed on home detention, and 

report to Congress concerning the experience with the program. 

According to BOP officials, this report has not been completed. We have 

ongoing work looking at the results and costs of the pilot in more detail, 

which we will report on later this year.

57

 

55 Federal Bureau of Prisons, An Evaluation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Lewisburg 

Intensive Confinement Center (September 1996).

According to BOP’s program statement, multiple terms of 

imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the 

56 42 U.S.C. § 17541(g)(5)(A).

57 With a concurrent sentence, two or more sentences of imprisonment are to be served 

simultaneously. For example, generally, if a defendant receives concurrent sentences of 

10 years and 15 years, the total amount of time for imprisonment is 15 years.
 

Page 29 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

federal sentencing judge orders that they run concurrently.58 This includes 

cases when a federal judge has not stated whether a state and federal 

sentence should run concurrently or consecutively. However, BOP may 

review, or the inmates may petition BOP to review, their cases to 

determine a federal sentencing judge’s intent. BOP reviews the inmate’s 

sentencing documents and custody history, and may also contact the 

federal sentencing judge to determine whether the judge intended that the 

state and federal sentences should be served consecutively or 

concurrently. For example, of the 538 cases BOP reviewed in fiscal year 

2011, 99 requests to serve sentences concurrently were granted, for a 

total of about 118,700 days of sentence credit, 386 were not granted, and 

53 were still under review as of the end of fiscal year 2011.59

Credit for criminal custody: BOP has the authority to grant credit for 

time served in criminal custody (such as time spent awaiting trial), and 

according to BOP policy, it considers detention by Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purposes of deportation to be 

administrative custody until criminal charges are brought against a 

detainee. According to BOP officials, BOP reviews inmate records for any 

criminal custody time that could be credited towards an inmate’s federal 

sentence. BOP reviewers may contact ICE for clarification of an inmate’s 

custody record, but, according to BOP officials, the various ICE districts 

keep records differently and a clear determination of when a federal 

charge was filed and an inmate’s criminal custody began may be difficult 

to achieve.

 

58 With consecutive sentences, two or more sentences of imprisonment are to be served 

in sequence. For example, generally, if a defendant receives consecutive sentences of 10 

years and 12 years, the total amount of time for imprisonment is 22 years.

59 Although BOP considers the federal judge’s recommendation, if obtained, BOP officials 

stated that each case is evaluated on an individual basis, using factors such as the history 

and characteristics of the prisoner, the resources of state facilities where the inmate will 

be serving the federal sentence concurrent with the state sentence, the inmate’s 

disciplinary record while at the state institution, and whether the federal statute under 

which an inmate is convicted precludes the sentences from being served concurrently, for 

example, conviction for aggravated identity theft combined with a conviction for any other 

offense.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

BOP officials cited inmate ineligibility for placement in community 

corrections as the number one reason that all inmates do not get released 

through RRCs and one of the chief reasons that some inmates are 

precluded from participating in RDAP.60 Specifically, BOP’s RRC program 

statement prohibits certain inmates from placement in an RRC. For 

example, inmates with detainers, with sentences of 6 months or less, who 

refuse to satisfy BOP’s Financial Responsibility Program, or who are in 

civil commitment status are all ineligible for RRC placement.61 According 

to BOP, inmates with detainers are deemed inappropriate for placement 

in community corrections due to the increased risk of escape and for 

those with immigration detainers, the likelihood of deportation. Moreover, 

all inmates who have financial obligations, whether court-ordered 

restitution, court fees, or tax liabilities, must comply with the Financial 

Responsibility Program to participate in programming including 

community corrections.62

 

60 To participate in the RDAP program, inmates must be able to complete all components 

of the program, including the RRC portion.

This ineligibility for RRC placement also 

disqualifies an inmate from placement in home detention. Figure 4 shows 

the number of inmates ineligible for RRC placement from April 2008 to 

March 2011.

61 A detainer is a document issued by a law enforcement entity, a jail, or correctional 

facility to seek custody of an individual for purposes of instituting legal proceedings. The 

Financial Responsibility Program assists inmates in meeting any financial obligations 

imposed by the sentencing court. An inmate who has a commitment status is held as a 

material witness; held due to an administrative commitment (holdover and pretrial

inmates); or held by BOP for ICE. 

62 The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the 

Victims of Crime Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2170, the Comprehensive 

Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1976 and the Federal Debt 

Collection Procedures Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4933, require a diligent 

effort on the part of all law enforcement agencies to collect court-ordered financial 

obligations. 

Inmate Eligibility and 

Lack of Capacity 

Impact BOP’s Use of 

Certain Flexibilities

Certain Inmates’ 

Ineligibility for Community 

Corrections Impacts BOP’s 

Use of RRCs and RDAP
 

Page 31 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Figure 4: Number of Inmates Ineligible for RRC placement from April 2008 to March 2011

a Data provided by BOP for the following periods: 2009: April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009; 2010: April 

1, 2009, to March 31, 2010; 2011: April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011.

b 

BOP officials stated that certain offenses committed by inmates may also 

make it difficult for BOP to place them in RRCs. For example, according 

to BOP officials, some RRCs are required to enter into agreements with 

communities regarding the type of inmates they will house and some 

communities have enacted local laws that prohibit the placement of 

certain inmates such as sex offenders and arsonists in a communal 

setting. Other reasons inmates may not be placed in RRCs include the 

inmate’s refusal to be placed or the inmate’s medical or mental health 

needs that could not be accommodated at the RRC. According to BOP 

officials, inmates may refuse RRC placement for a variety of reasons but 

the reasons for refusal cited most often by officials during our site visits to 

BOP facilities included:

Some inmates are counted in more than one category.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

• some RRC accommodations are perceived by some inmates to be 

subpar compared to prisons;

• some minimum-security and low-security inmates do not want to 

reside in RRCs with higher security inmates; and

• some inmates do not want to pay the 25 percent subsistence fee.

To participate in RDAP, inmates must be able to complete both the 

institution and the RRC components of the program. As a result, inmates 

who are prohibited from transferring to RRCs are excluded from RDAP. 

For instance, BOP estimates that 2,500 criminal aliens would participate 

in RDAP each year, but are ineligible due to immigration detainers. Prior 

to a 1996 BOP policy change, inmates with detainers could complete the 

program by participating in transitional treatment within a BOP institution. 

However, according to BOP officials, transitional treatment within an 

institution is ineffective because the inmate remains sheltered from the 

partial freedoms and outside pressures experienced during an RRC 

placement.

Realizing that potential cost savings could result from early releases of 

criminal aliens, among other reasons, BOP is considering changing its 

policy and allowing eligible nonviolent criminal aliens to complete the 

RDAP program without the RRC component and receive sentence 

reductions of up to 1 year for successful completion.63 According to BOP, 

this policy shift would require a rule change and the development of 

procedures to ensure that no U.S. citizen was displaced from participating 

in RDAP. BOP officials stated that decisions on this issue would not be 

made until expanded program capacity becomes available, which is 

currently uncertain.

A lack of RRC beds limits BOP’s ability to further utilize RRC placements. 

Based on the most recently available data, in fiscal year 2010, about 

29,000 inmates spent time in an RRC prior to release from BOP custody. 

Although BOP officials at institutions we visited stated that they assessed 

inmates on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate RRC 

placement length, the officials stated that referrals can be reduced due to 

RRC capacity constraints. According to BOP officials, in fiscal year 2010, 

about 2.7 percent of eligible inmates were denied placement due to a lack 

of bed space. BOP faces challenges in increasing its RRC bed space 

 

63 BOP provided us estimates of savings of $25 million per year. 

Lack of Available Capacity 

Impacts BOP’s Use of 

RRCs and RDAP
 

Page 33 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

capacity, which limits its ability to increase the length of RRC placements. 

According to BOP community corrections officials, BOP has difficulty 

acquiring new RRC contracts and increasing its RRC capacity because of 

local zoning restrictions and the unwillingness of many communities to 

accept nearby RRCs.

Although the Second Chance Act increased BOP’s flexibility to place 

inmates in RRCs for up to 12 months, as reported by BOP officials, 

challenges facing the expansion of its RRC capacity limit the impact of 

this increased flexibility.64

Some inmates are more affected by capacity constraints than others, 

such as those with criminal records of sex offenses or those being

released into urban areas with few RRCs. According to BOP, only a 

limited number of RRCs are able to accept sex offenders, and thus BOP, 

at the onset, has a limited number of RRC beds for sex offender 

placement. In addition, inmates releasing to urban areas may have their 

placement lengths reduced due to capacity constraints. For example, 

BOP staff we interviewed during our site visits identified shortages of 

RRC beds in Southern California, North Carolina, and the Washington, 

D.C. metropolitan area affecting the length of RRC placements. When 

referring inmates for RRC placements, BOP considers the inmate’s 

original sentencing location to facilitate transition and successful reentry. 

As such, BOP’s utilization of RRC placements is limited in geographical 

areas that do not have enough RRC beds to accommodate returning 

inmates.

As of November 2011, BOP reported that 

available contracted RRC bed space was 8,859 estimated beds. 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). As such, for this 

increased flexibility to have an impact on the average length of RRC 

placements, RRC capacity would need to increase. To provide all eligible 

inmates with the maximum allowable 12 months in an RRC, BOP would 

require about 29,000 available beds annually.

According to BOP officials, systemwide program capacity similarly 

constrains BOP’s utilization of RDAP sentence reductions—specifically, 

BOP’s ability to admit RDAP participants early enough to earn their 

 

64 Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657, 692-93.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

maximum allowable sentence reductions. BOP officials stated that the 

RDAP sentence reduction incentive caused a backlog for entry into the 

program. Long wait lists resulted in inmates entering RDAP with 

insufficient time to complete the program in time to receive the maximum 

sentence reduction. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, BOP reported to 

Congress that long wait lists (over 7,600 systemwide) prevented some 

eligible inmates from participating in the program at all—20 percent and 7 

percent unable to participate, respectively. RDAP capacity, as measured 

by the number of program slots open to inmates at one time throughout 

BOP (6,685 in fiscal year 2011), has grown at a relatively steady rate

since the program began in fiscal year 1989, and increased by 400 slots 

from fiscal years 2009 to 2011. According to BOP officials, as program 

capacity has increased in recent years, wait lists have been reduced, 

even with continued growth in the inmate population. This has enabled 

inmates to enter the program sooner and resulted in an increase in the 

percentage of eligible inmates who complete RDAP and receive the 

maximum sentence reductions from 14 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 25 

percent in fiscal year 2011. However, according to BOP officials, RDAP is 

still catching up to the increased demand and continues to have wait lists.

According to BOP officials, wait lists for entry into RDAP are currently 

prioritized in accordance with statute based on inmates’ proximity to their 

projected release dates which include GCT credit expected to be earned, 

but do not include the potential RDAP sentence reduction that eligible 

participants may earn. Two subject matter experts who advocate for 

inmate interests whom we spoke with stated that BOP could consider 

including the potential RDAP sentence reduction in inmates’ projected 

release date calculations. This could ensure that eligible inmates would 

enter the program sooner and in enough time to receive the maximum 

reduction. For example, if two inmates have the same projected release 

date, after accounting for GCT credit, but one inmate would be eligible for 

a 1-year sentence reduction on completion of RDAP while the other 

would not be eligible for a sentence reduction upon completion of RDAP, 

the inmate eligible for the sentence reduction would have a higher 

position on the wait list for entry into RDAP than the inmate ineligible for a 

sentence reduction. BOP has stated that if it were to prioritize RDAP entry 

in this way, some inmates who are not eligible for the sentence reduction 

would not be able to enter the program at all, as they would continually be 

displaced on the wait lists by inmates who are eligible for the sentence 

reduction. BOP is required by statute, subject to the availability of 

appropriations, to provide residential substance abuse treatment for all 

eligible inmates, regardless of their eligibility for the sentence reduction 

incentive, and thus must ensure that all eligible inmates are able to 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

participate in the program prior to their release from custody. However, 

BOP was unable to provide documentation that including RDAP sentence 

reduction in computation of the projected release date would continually 

displace inmates eligible for RDAP but ineligible for the associated 

sentence reduction.

BOP’s fiscal year 2012 budget request included an increase of $15 million 

for RDAP, which was not funded. According to BOP, the funding would 

have reduced RDAP wait lists and enabled eligible inmates to enter the 

program early enough to earn their maximum allowable sentence 

reductions. BOP stated that the $15 million increase would have covered 

125 new drug treatment staff positions and would have allowed an 

additional 4,000 inmates to complete RDAP annually.65

Timely program admission would result in future cost savings through 

additional sentence reductions. For example, if every eligible RDAP 

participant who completed the program in fiscal year 2011 had received 

their maximum sentence reduction, BOP would have been responsible for 

15,729 fewer months of inmate incarceration, yielding an estimated cost 

savings of about $13.2 million. BOP estimated that allowing criminal 

aliens to participate in RDAP and earn sentence reductions could offer 

about $25 million of additional cost savings each year.

BOP officials also 

told us that if BOP changes its policy to allow criminal aliens to participate 

in RDAP, the funding increase for RDAP proposed in the 2012 budget 

request would have been sufficient to allow this additional inmate 

population to participate in RDAP without impacting the ability of U.S. 

citizens to participate and receive the maximum available sentence 

reductions.

Federal inmate populations have been increasing and BOP is operating 

at more than a third over capacity. In addition, the absence of parole in 

the federal system and other federal statutes limit BOP’s authority to 

modify an inmate’s period of incarceration. Inmates, who earn their good 

conduct time, as most do, end up serving about 87 percent of their 

sentences. BOP’s housing of inmates in community-based facilities or 

home detention is a key flexibility it uses to affect a prisoner’s period of 

 

65 BOP has stated that it is unable to isolate the cost of RDAP programs from all BOP 

substance abuse treatment programs because staff who provide RDAP treatment also 

provide nonresidential and other drug treatment and education programs. 

Conclusions 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

incarceration. However, BOP does not require its RRC contractors to 

separate the price of home detention services from the price of RRC 

beds. As a result, BOP lacks information on the price of home detention 

that could assist it in weighing the costs and benefits of alternative 

options for supervising inmates in home detention. While BOP is working 

to develop a process to require contractors to submit separate prices for 

the price of RRC beds and home detention services, without establishing 

a plan, including a time frame for development, BOP does not have a 

road map for how it will achieve this goal.

To determine the cost of home detention and potentially achieve cost 

savings, we recommend that the Director of BOP establish a plan, 

including time frames and milestones for completion, for requiring 

contractors to submit separate prices of RRC beds and home detention 

services. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for its review and comment. 

BOP provided written comments on the draft report, which are 

reproduced in full in appendix I. BOP concurred with the findings in the 

report. Prior to receiving BOP’s comment letter, on January 20, 2012, 

BOP’s audit liaison requested that the wording of our recommendation be 

changed from “requiring contractors to identify RRC costs and home 

detention costs separately” to “requiring contractors to submit separate 

prices of RRC beds and home detention services.” He stated that BOP 

was requesting this change because contractors are not required to 

disclose financial information, such as the actual costs to them of 

providing services to inmates, to BOP. Furthermore, the liaison stated 

that obtaining separate prices of RRC and home detention services will 

enable BOP to determine the price reasonableness of these services. We 

believe that BOP’s proposed language addressed the intent of our 

recommendation, and thus we modified the recommendation language. 

BOP concurred with our recommendation, as revised, and also provided 

technical comments which we incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this 

report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

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 II.

David C. Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Comments from the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons

Page 38 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

Appendix I: Comments from the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-12-320 BOP Use of Sentencing Flexibilities

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Chris Currie, Assistant Director; 

Tom Jessor; Bintou Njie; Michael Kniss; Billy Commons, III; Pedro 

Almoguera; and Lara Miklozek made significant contributions to this 

report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440984)
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 (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 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: 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.