Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure
Published: 2012-09-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: BOP operates 117 federal prisons to house approximately 178,000 federal offenders, and contracts with private companies and some state governments to house about another 40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the number of prisoners that each BOP run institution can house safely and securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO was asked to address (1) the growth in BOPs population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOPs projections for inmate population and capacity; (2) the effects of a growing federal prison population on operations within BOP facilities, and the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate these effects; and (3) actions selected states have taken to reduce their prison populations, and the extent to which BOP has implemented similar initiatives.
GAO analyzed BOPs inmate population data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOPs 2020 long-range capacity plan, and BOP policies and statutory authority. GAO visited five federal prisons chosen on the basis of geographic dispersion and varying security levels. The results are not generalizable, but provide information on the effects of a growing prison population. GAO selected five states based on actions they took to mitigate the effects of their growing prison populationsand assessed the extent to which their actions would be possible for BOP. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. BOP provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Justices Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 exceeded the 7 percent increase in its rated capacity, and BOP projects continued population growth. Growth was most concentrated among male inmates, and in 2011, 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were sentenced for drugs. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP increased its rated capacity by about 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 new facilities and closing 4 minimum security camps, but because of the population expansion, crowding (or population in excess of rated capacity) increased from 36 to 39 percent. In 2011 crowding was most severe (55 percent) in highest security facilities. BOPs 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, with systemwide crowding exceeding 45 percent through 2018.
According to BOP, the growth in the federal inmate population has negatively affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure, but BOP has acted within its authority to help mitigate the effects of this growth. BOP officials reported increased use of double and triple bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment programs, limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff ratios. These factors, taken together, contribute to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff. BOP officials and union representatives voiced concerns about a serious incident occurring. To manage its growing population, BOP staggers meal times and segregates inmates involved in disciplinary infractions, among other things.
The five states in GAOs review have taken more actions than BOP to reduce their prison populations, because these states have legislative authority that BOP does not have. These states have modified criminal statutes and sentencing, relocated inmates to local facilities, and provided inmates with additional opportunities for early release. BOP generally does not have similar authority. For example, BOP cannot shorten an inmates sentence or transfer inmates to local prisons. Efforts to address the crowding issue could include (1) reducing the inmate population by actions such as reforming sentencing laws, (2) increasing capacity by actions such as constructing new prisons, or (3) some combination of both.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As of December 2010, federal and state correctional facilities  incarcerated more than 1.6 million persons (about 1 in 200 U.S.  residents), according to the most recently available data from the U.S.  Department of Justice (DOJ). At the federal level, DOJ’s Bureau of  Prisons (BOP) is responsible for approximately 218,000 of these inmates,  with a fiscal year 2012 operating budget of about $6.6 billion—the second  largest budget within DOJ. BOP’s population has increased by more  than 400 percent since the late 1980s, and by about 50 percent since  2000. According to BOP, this growth is primarily attributed to an increase  in inmates’ sentence length over time.BOP housed nearly 178,000 inmates in the 117 institutions that it owns   At the end of fiscal year 2011,  and operates, and it contracted with other correctional facilities, such as  those of states and private companies, to house nearly 40,000 inmates.
BOP calculates the number of prisoners a given prison facility is built to   Crowding, as  house safely and securely and calls this its rated capacity. defined by BOP, is the extent to which a facility’s inmate population level  exceeds its rated capacity. Systemwide, BOP prisons exceed their rated  capacity by 39 percent, and crowding has been a significant ongoing  concern. Assessments conducted through the Federal Managers’  Financial Integrity Act have identified prison crowding as a material  weakness since 2006. Further, since that same year, DOJ’s Inspector  General (IG) has included detention and incarceration among DOJ’s top  10 management and performance challenges departmentwide. In its 2011  list of challenges, the IG noted its concerns regarding the impact of  federal prison crowding and the related stresses on BOP’s prison staffing  regarding BOP’s ability to safely manage the increasing federal inmate  population.annually in his performance and accountability report for the department.
The Attorney General has reported both of these findings  While federal inmate population growth has been steady, the overall  growth of the state inmate population began to decline in 2009. DOJ  reports that the overall state prison population increased from calendar  years 1977 through 2008, with the first decline of 0.2 percent (2,857  prisoners) occurring in 2009. DOJ reported a second-year decline in 2010  of 0.8 percent (10,881 prisoners), with 25 states reporting decreases in  their prison populations. While not all states experienced reductions in  their prison populations, in those states that did, changes in those states’  policies and practices are potential contributing factors to this decline.  According to a 2008 study by the Pew Center on the States, a state may  reduce its prison population growth while protecting public safety by (1)  diverting a greater number of low-risk offenders from prison, (2) reducing  the time that low-risk offenders are in prison, or (3) a combination of these  approaches. In contrast to the prison populations of the states, the  federal prison population has continued to grow. BOP is required by  statute to provide for suitable housing and the safekeeping, care, and  subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against  the United States. Thus, while the size of a prison population is, in part,  a function of crime rates, sentencing laws, and law enforcement policies,  these factors are all beyond BOP’s control. BOP’s population is expected  to continually increase, given current incarceration rates, and safety and  security concerns will remain paramount.
We have previously reported on BOP’s population projections, the  security and safety of inmates and staff, and inmate programs. For  example, in November 2009, having assessed how BOP developed its  population projections and compared its projections with its actual inmate  population growth from fiscal years 1999 through August 20, 2009, we  concluded that BOP’s projections were accurate, on average, to within 1  percent of the actual inmate population growth during this time period.
In February 2012, we reported on BOP’s use of its discretionary authority  to reduce a prisoner’s period of incarceration.BOP establish a plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring  contractors to submit separate prices of beds in residential reentry  centers—also known as halfway houses—and home detention services.  BOP concurred and has actions under way to address the  recommendation.
You asked us to review the impact of crowding in BOP facilities and any  related lessons that BOP can learn from selected states. Specifically, this  report addresses the following questions:  1.  What was the growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006  through 2011, and what are BOP’s projections for inmate population  and capacity?  2.  What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison  population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) within  BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to mitigate  these effects?  3.  What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison  populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar  initiatives?
To address the first question, we analyzed policies and procedures that  may affect the increased federal prison population (e.g., BOP’s inmate  classification policy) and BOP’s statutory authority affecting its capacity  and conditions of confinement. We also analyzed BOP’s inmate  population data and crowding percentages by institutional security level  from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity  plan, which was issued in January 2012. We assessed the reliability of  BOP’s inmate population and crowding data by reviewing relevant  documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about how  they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating previous  assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We found BOP’s  inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials  to discuss how BOP’s population has grown.
To address the second question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority,  policies, and procedures pertinent to the effects of the growing population  on operations in BOP facilities (i.e., effects on inmates, staff, and  infrastructure) and BOP’s ability to mitigate the effects of a growing  population. We also analyzed BOP studies on the effects of population  growth and prison crowding on BOP operations, as well as BOP data  from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 on available bed space, inmate  program participation and waiting lists, inmate-to-staff ratios, and  available infrastructure costs. We also present systemwide BOP staffing  ratios from fiscal years 1997 through 2011 because officials believed that  presenting the ratios for a longer period better illustrates the effect of  BOP’s population growth relative to the number of staff. We assessed  the reliability of BOP’s inmate, staff, and infrastructure data by  interviewing knowledgeable agency officials to determine how BOP  collects and maintains the integrity of these data. We found these data to  be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We visited 5 of  BOP’s 117 prisons that are located in four of BOP’s six regions, which we  chose on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure geographic  dispersion. Because we did not randomly select the prisons we visited,  our results are not generalizable to all BOP prisons; however, they  provided important insights into BOP’s operations. We interviewed BOP  headquarters officials and all six regional directors. Further, we discussed  the effects of BOP’s population growth on correctional staff with officials  from the Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents all  nonmanagement staff working in BOP facilities.
To also address the second as well as the third question, we compared  and contrasted BOP’s actions to mitigate the effects of its increased  population and attempt to reduce its prison population with similar actions  taken by five selected states––Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and  Wisconsin––that had experienced prison population growth and had  taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison populations. To  select the states, among other things, we reviewed the Bureau of Justice  Statistics’s (BJS) report on state prison inmate populations in 2010. We  also reviewed relevant reports on actions that states have taken to  mitigate the effects of their prison population growth, published from 2006  through 2011 (e.g., those from the Pew Center on the States). Further,  we assessed the extent to which actions in these selected states would  be possible for BOP to undertake within its statutory authority. We also  conducted site visits to three facilities in two of these five states.  Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems—legally,  structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined––limit the  comparability between federal and state correctional systems, but we  mitigated this limitation by the criteria we used to select the states in our  sample (e.g., size of the prison population and diverse approaches to  addressing increased prison populations). We are unable to generalize  about the types of actions states have taken to mitigate the effects of  state prison population growth or reduce their prison populations, but the  information we obtained provides examples of state responses to prison  population growth. Appendix I includes more details about our scope and  methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to  September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: There are specific state and federal laws that define, prohibit, and  penalize criminal behavior. Various factors, such as the nature and type  of the crime committed and the relevant law, may determine whether the  state or federal justice system is responsible for the prosecution,  sentencing, and incarceration of an individual accused and found guilty of  a crime. State and federal laws also define the potential sentences for  those crimes to be imposed by judges and methods for reducing the  period of incarceration, such as parole, probation, or good conduct time  credit. These laws and policies affect the growth of their respective prison  populations and the level of crowding in state and federal prison  populations.
subsections: section_title: Federal Prison System
paragraphs: To carry out its responsibility for the custody and care of federal offenders,  BOP currently houses inmates across six geographic regions in 117 federal  institutions, 15 privately managed prisons, 185 residential reentry centers,  and home detention. BOP’s central office consists of eight divisions that  provide oversight of major BOP program areas and operations, such as  correctional programs and health services, as well as the National Institute  of Corrections (NIC). BOP has six regional offices, each led by a regional  director, covering the  North Central, Northeast, South Central, Mid-Atlantic,  Southeast, and Western regions of the United States.
BOP generally houses sentenced inmates in its long-term institutions.  Male long-term institutions include four security level designations–– minimum, low, medium, and high––and female institutions include three  security designations––minimum, secure, and high. The security level  designation of a facility depends on the level of security and staff  supervision that the institution is able to provide, such as the presence of  security towers; perimeter barriers; the type of inmate housing, including  dormitory, cubicle, or cell-type housing; and inmate-to-staff ratio.  Additionally, BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative  institutions, which specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with  intensive medical or mental health conditions, regardless of the level of  supervision these inmates require.
From fiscal years 2006 through  2011, the distribution of facilities by security designation remained  relatively constant. In fiscal year 2011, there were 7 stand-alone minimum  security camps, 29 low security facilities, 46 medium security facilities, 16  high security facilities, and 19 administrative facilities.
BOP establishes a rated capacity for each of the facilities that it owns and   A facility’s rated capacity reflects the number of prisoners that  operates. it was designed to house safely and securely and in which BOP can  provide inmates adequate access to services, necessities for daily living,  and programs designed to support their crime-free return to the  community. In determining a facility’s rated capacity, BOP considers  American Correctional Association (ACA) occupancy and space  requirements. Since 1990, ACA has required 35 square feet of  unencumbered space per inmate to ensure that each inmate has  sufficient movement or exercise space within the inmate’s personal living  space, whether in a cell, room, or open dormitory. In essence, rated  capacity is the measure of inmate housing space and, therefore, does not  include housing used for medical and special housing purposes (e.g.,  disciplinary segregation and administrative detention space). BOP also  does not include in its rated capacity additional beds placed in areas such  as a facility’s halls, gyms, mezzanines, or television rooms to address  crowding. BOP excludes this use of space from its rated capacity  calculation because it considers these beds to be temporarily converted  housing space that is to be restored to its original purpose when  circumstances permit. Further, for such temporary space to become  permanent space and thus included in a facility’s rated capacity, the  facility would require infrastructure changes, such as additional toilet or  shower facilities, to meet ACA standards.
According to BOP, rated capacity is the basis for measuring prison  crowding and is essential to both managing the inmate population and  BOP’s budget justifications for capital resources. BOP’s formula for  calculating rated capacity has changed over time. Until 1991, the rated  capacity of a facility was equivalent to the total number of cells, because  the rated capacity was based on one inmate being housed in each cell.  As a result of the growth in BOP’s population during the 1980s, BOP  began to double-bunk (i.e., house two inmates in each cell) in many of its  facilities, particularly those at the lower security levels. In 1991, BOP  established a new rated capacity formula that allowed for stratified  bunking across all security levels. BOP’s current rated capacity guidelines  account for
25 percent double bunking and 75 percent single bunking of cells  within high security facilities,
50 percent double bunking and 50 percent single bunking of cells  within medium security facilities, and
100 percent double bunking of cells in low and minimum security  facilities.
By way of illustration, figure 1 shows crowding in a medium security  facility and a high security facility, each with 20 cells. The rated capacity  of the medium security facility, which includes 50 percent double bunking,  is 30 beds. With a population of 45 inmates, 67 percent of the inmates are  double bunked, 33 percent are triple bunked, and the facility’s percentage  crowding is 50 percent. The rated capacity of the high security facility,  which includes 25 percent double bunking, is 25 beds. With a population  of 39 inmates, 97 percent of the inmates are double bunked, 3 percent  are single bunked, and the facility’s percentage crowding is 56 percent.
BOP initially classifies an inmate to a particular institution based on  the level of security and supervision the inmate requires;  the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to  provide;  the inmate’s program needs, such as residential drug treatment or  intensive medical care; where the inmate resides when sentenced;  the level of crowding in an institution; and any additional security measures to ensure the protection of victims,  witnesses, and the public.
In most cases, BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center  staff calculates a point score for the inmate and then matches the inmate  with a commensurate security level institution.
As of December 31, 2011, BOP had a total staff of about 38,000,  including correctional officers and administrative, program, and support  personnel responsible for all of BOP’s activities nationwide. BOP’s  philosophy is that all employees are correctional workers first, whether or  not they serve as correctional officers. Accordingly, BOP trains all  employees in basic correctional duties to secure the facility in the event of  a disturbance and to provide inmate supervision. BOP also requires them  to participate in annual refresher training. When circumstances warrant,  a warden will require program and administrative staff members to serve  in the capacity of a correctional officer––a practice that BOP calls  augmentation. For example, under augmentation, a vocational education  teacher or a psychologist may provide escort services for an inmate  leaving the facility for specialized medical care or provide ancillary  supervision in a recreational yard.
section_title: State Prison Systems
paragraphs: Selected state departments of corrections included in our review share  similarities and exhibit differences with BOP. For example, both state  departments of corrections and BOP are required to house, clothe, and  feed inmates in a safe and secure setting, but selected states determine  rated capacity and measure crowding differently. Several of the selected  state departments of corrections’ methods are different from BOP’s  methods. For example, New York calculates rated capacity using  standards set forth by the New York State Commission of Correction and  by subtracting temporary beds from the number of general population  beds. In contrast, Wisconsin does not calculate rated capacity but instead  uses design capacity and operational capacity. Furthermore, differences  in state and federal authorities affect the types of actions that are taken to  mitigate the effects of crowding. For example, state departments of  corrections may have been granted certain state statutory authorities that  are not currently available at the federal level (i.e., states may transfer  inmates to county and local jails, but BOP does not have this option).
section_title: BOP’s Population Grew More than Systemwide Capacity, and BOP Projects Continued Population Growth through 2020
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate population in BOP-run  facilities grew 9.5 percent, while capacity grew less than 7 percent. As a  result, BOP’s overall crowding increased during this period from 36  percent to 39 percent. BOP projects an additional 15 percent increase in  its inmate population by 2020.
subsections: section_title: BOP’s Population Grew Steadily because of a Variety of Factors
paragraphs: The inmate population housed in BOP-run facilities steadily increased  from 162,514 to 177,934 inmates—or 9.5 percent—from fiscal years 2006  through 2011. A variety of factors contribute to the size of BOP’s  population. These include national crime levels, law enforcement policies,  and federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control.  During the 6-year period, growth occurred in BOP’s male, female, and  both its U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen populations. Specifically,
The number of male inmates housed in BOP institutions increased  about 10 percent (151,003 to 165,595).
The number of female inmates housed in BOP institutions increased  about 7 percent (11,511 to 12,339).
The relative proportion of non-U.S. citizen to U.S. citizen inmates  housed in BOP facilities remained constant (about 26 percent),  although the approximately 16 percent (46,369 to 53,733) growth in  the noncitizen inmate population surpassed the approximate 13  percent growth in the U.S. citizen inmate population (135,074 to  152,581).
Non-U.S. citizen inmates are housed in BOP-run low, medium,  and high security level facilities, as well as in private contract  facilities.
The largest number of these inmates are housed in low security  facilities.
Drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses constituted the  largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were  incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.Specifically, in fiscal year 2011,
48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were serving sentences
16 percent for weapons/explosives, and
12 percent for immigration.
Appendix II provides additional information on the growth of the federal  inmate population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and the other  offense categories for which BOP inmates have been sentenced.
section_title: Rated Capacity Grew Less than 7 Percent, Contributing to Crowding
paragraphs: BOP’s 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011  among inmates housed in BOP facilities exceeded the increase in its  rated capacity, which grew less than 7 percent (from 119,510 beds to  127,795). BOP’s rated capacity during this 6-year period grew because it  opened five new facilities and closed four stand-alone minimum security  camps, which BOP officials told us were less efficient to operate. As  shown in figure 2, however, because the inmate population in BOP-run  facilities grew at a faster rate than the growth in rated capacity, crowding  in BOP-run institutions increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide.
From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the percentage crowding in male  medium security facilities increased from 37 percent to 51 percent and  from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security level facilities. Table 5 in  appendix II illustrates the range of crowding across BOP institutions of  different security levels as of December 2011, and the double, triple, and  quadruple bunking that has resulted. For example, the population in  BOP’s high security population was about 21,000 in December 2011—or  about 7,000 more than its rated capacity—resulting in 97 percent double  bunking and a 55 percentage crowding.
According to BOP, BOP’s ability to increase rated capacity is directly  affected by funding appropriated for new prison construction and to  support contracts with private prison providers for additional inmate bed  space. In fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  placed a moratorium on all new BOP prison construction. To address  BOP’s bed space needs, OMB focused on contracting with private  prisons. BOP officials stated that, because of this moratorium, the yearly  presidential budget submissions for BOP’s Buildings and Facilities  account for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 did not include  requests to begin construction on any new facilities. Instead, the Buildings  and Facilities requests included what BOP considers to be baseline  funding for ongoing expenses, which were generally about $25 million  during each of the 6 fiscal years in this period. Congress, however,  provided about $1.1 billion specifically to aid in the site selection, design,  and construction of new BOP facilities—in addition to funding the baseline  that BOP requested. According to BOP officials, the time from receiving  the funding appropriation to building and opening—or activating—a facility  is generally 3 to 5 years.
In addition, according to BOP officials, funding was requested and  provided to contract for private bed space during this period—with the  exception of fiscal years 2008 and 2011. BOP officials explained that only  low security inmates can be housed in privately managed facilities; thus,  in years when BOP has received related funds, they have been able to  move these lower security inmates to the contracted facilities. However,  since they have not consistently received this money, BOP officials told  us they designated some low security inmates to medium security  facilities. As a result, BOP is currently housing 4,500 low security inmates  in medium security facilities, contributing to crowding at that security level.
According to BOP data, 81 percent of male inmates housed in low  security facilities were triple bunked at the end of 2011. Officials noted  that if they were able to add more contract beds they could reduce  crowding in medium and low security facilities by moving (1) non-U.S.  citizen inmates from low security facilities to contract facilities and (2) low  security inmates from medium security facilities to low security facilities.  (See table 6 in app. II for additional data on BOP’s population growth,  rated capacity, and percentage crowding data for fiscal years 2006  through 2011.)
section_title: BOP Projects Continued Population Growth
paragraphs: BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan assumes continued growth in the  federal prison population from fiscal years 2011 through 2020, with about  15 percent growth in the number of inmates BOP will house. To address  some of this growth, BOP expects to activate five newly constructed  prisons by 2014, adding about 6,720 beds. In addition, BOP is  budgeting for additional contracted bed space—1,000 beds in 2013 and  1,500 the next year, but the addition of these contracted beds is subject  to future appropriations. Despite its plans to add capacity through 2014,  given the expected inmate population growth, BOP projects crowding will  increase from the current rate of 39 percent to 44 percent by 2015.
Beyond 2015, BOP projects it will be able to bring crowding in BOP  facilities down to 35 percent by 2020. BOP’s projections assume that  BOP will receive additional funding for constructing new facilities.  Specifically, BOP assumes an overall increase of over 17,500 beds from  fiscal years 2016 through 2020, generally as a result of opening new high  and medium security facilities, none of which is under construction. BOP  has not requested funding for this additional bed space, and as a result,  its plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations  processes and are subject to change. Appendix II provides additional  information on BOP’s population growth from fiscal years 2006 through  2011 and projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020.
section_title: BOP’s Population Growth Has Negatively Affected Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure, but BOP Has Acted to Help Mitigate These Effects
paragraphs: According to BOP and our observations, the growth of the federal inmate  population and related crowding have negatively affected inmates housed  in BOP institutions, institutional staff, and the infrastructure of BOP  facilities, and have contributed to inmate misconduct, which affects staff  and inmate security and safety. Nevertheless, BOP officials said that it is  difficult to demonstrate or isolate the effects of crowding, per se, as  distinguished from population growth or other factors such as staffing  levels.
subsections: section_title: Impacts of Population Growth
subsections: section_title: Inmates
paragraphs: The growth in the inmate population affects inmates’ daily living  conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and  visitation. Appendix III describes each in greater detail, and we present  some highlights here.
To increase available bed space, BOP reports double bunking in excess  of the percentages included in a facility’s rated capacity; triple and  quadruple bunking; or converting common space, such as a television  room, temporarily to housing space. As a result of BOP actions to  increase available bed space in its institutions to accommodate the  growing federal inmate population, more inmates are sharing cells and  other living units, which brings together for longer periods of time inmates  with a higher risk of violence and more potential victims. Table 8 in  appendix III illustrates the use of temporary beds by institutional security  level, and shows, for example, that temporary beds, not including those  used for disciplinary purposes, composed about 29 percent of the bed  space in male high security facilities in fiscal year 2011. According to  BOP headquarters officials, wardens have discretion to provide temporary  beds by adding a third bunk within cells, converting a television room to  bed space, or using both approaches. The facility’s infrastructure also  affects the approach the warden may implement. For example, the  smaller cells in older BOP facilities make it more difficult to add a third  bed, while the larger cells in newer facilities can be triple-bunked. The  officials noted, however, that triple-bunking all cells in a unit presents a  challenge to staff who have to manage the large number of inmates.  Additionally, a regional director may have a preferred approach to  providing temporary beds within his or her region. Figure 3 illustrates  some of the options used.
All of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds from  fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and continue to do so. At the time of our  site visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary  space. For example, we observed triple-bunked cells in a low security  facility and a converted television room that housed 10 inmates in a  medium security facility. In addition to experiencing crowding in a facility’s  housing and common areas, inmates may experience crowded bathroom  facilities, reductions in shower times, shortened meal times coupled with  longer waits for food service, and more limited recreational activities  because of the increased inmate population.
According to BOP officials, the growth in the inmate population affects the  availability of program opportunities, resulting in waiting lists and inmate  idleness. BOP provides programs including education, vocational training,  drug treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate  inmates and support correctional management. BOP officials said that  two long-term benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety,  attributable to enhanced inmate skill sets that can reduce future crime  and inmate rearrest rates, and (2) institutional safety and security  because of reduced inmate idleness.
According to BOP officials, facility staff provide a range of education  programs, including mandatory General Educational Development (GED)  courses; 8- to 10-week nonmandatory courses on topics such as  parenting, word processing, and conversational Spanish; occupational  training; and computer-based self-paced courses such as English. BOP  reported that overall inmate participation in one or more programs was 36  percent in September 2011 (see table 10 in app. III). BOP also offers  residential drug abuse treatment in more than half of its facilities and  nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs in all of its  facilities. The percentage of participation, number of inmates on waiting  lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by program. As tables  11 through 13 in appendix III illustrate, all of the drug treatment and drug  education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.  For example, as of the end of fiscal year 2011, about 2,400 inmates in  male medium security institutions participated in residential drug  treatment, almost 3,000 more inmates were on the waiting list to  participate, and the average wait for enrollment exceeded 3 months.  According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the substance abuse  treatment or education needs of inmates because it does not have the  staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates will not receive  programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012, long waiting lists  for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), which provides  sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully complete the  program, constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants early enough to  earn their maximum allowable reductions in times served. From fiscal  years 2009 through 2011, BOP expanded RDAP capacity by 400 slots.  Though wait times for enrollment have declined, the program continues to  experience long waiting lists.
According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate  population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to  find meaningful work for all inmates, even though generally all inmates  are required to have a job. For example, at facilities we visited, we observed inmate workers  preparing meals under the supervision of staff, sweeping the floors, and  working in a factory that produced and printed a variety of government  publications. BOP officials explained, however, that with the growth of the  prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in meaningful work.  This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy, resulting in inmate  idleness, which can lead to additional tension and fighting between  inmates. For example, officials at one facility told us that more inmates  than needed may be assigned to a task and paid the same wage, but  consequently, not everyone is engaged and equally busy.
BOP inmates participate in a variety of jobs.
According to BOP headquarters officials, the quality of the interaction  between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior  in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community;  however, crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit  with their families. Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate  the number of inmates that the facility was designed to house and a  visitor capacity to enable staff to manage the visitation process. The  infrastructure of the facility may not support the increase in visitors as a  result of the growth in the prison population. For example, at one older  facility we visited, officials said that the number of visitors was so great  and the visiting room was so small that visitors had to wait hours to get  into the visiting room.
The Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 2905, 104 Stat. 4789, 4914  (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4121 note) established a mandatory work requirement for all  federal prisoners. A prisoner may be excused from this requirement only as necessitated  by security considerations; disciplinary action; medical certification of disability; or a need  to work less than a full schedule in order to participate in literacy training, drug  rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work program.
section_title: Staff
paragraphs: BOP headquarters officials said that with the primary exception of hiring  staff when a new facility opens, the number of staff positions generally  has not increased as BOP’s population has grown, affecting staff stress  and overtime hours worked. BOP officials explained that BOP is required  to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for inmates. After these costs  are met, BOP funds staffing levels to the extent possible. As a result,  BOP headquarters officials confirmed that overall staffing in BOP facilities  systemwide is on average less than 90 percent of authorized levels,  varying by the facility’s location. For example, a warden may staff  correctional programs at the 97 percent level and the business office at  the 60 percent level. In addition to funding, BOP officials identified  recruitment challenges that affected staffing levels. For example, one  regional director said that finding qualified staff to hire was an ongoing  issue in his region because generally applicants did not meet BOP’s  requirements. At two facilities we visited, officials noted that hiring  professional staff (e.g., psychologists or medical staff) was difficult  because BOP salaries were less than those paid in the community for the  same position.
From fiscal years 1997 through 2011, BOP reported that the systemwide  ratio of inmates to all BOP staff (i.e., at BOP headquarters, regional  offices, institutions, and training centers) increased from 3.57:1 to  4.94:1. This is not the only staffing ratio BOP calculates however. In  addition, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates and institutional staff within its  facilities. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate to total  institutional staff ratio for all facilities systemwide and for all male facilities  was generally 5.2:1. In fiscal year 2011, this ratio was lower in high  security facilities (4.1:1) and higher in low and minimum security facilities  (6.1:1 and 8.0:1, respectively). Further, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates  to correctional officers. According to BOP, this ratio is 10:1 systemwide,  but it varies depending on security level and mission of the facility. For  example, in one Special Management Unit we visited, officials told us that  there were about 6 inmates to each correctional officer. This contrasted  to a medium security facility where officials told us the ratio of inmates to  correctional officers was 14:1.
According to an August 2010 DOJ study of BOP’s staffing, BOP facilities had fewer correctional staff on board than needed, with a  BOP-wide staffing shortage in excess of 3,200. Moreover, even if BOP  filled all authorized positions, the study reported that the shortage would  exceed 1,800. The study team observed that the institutional staff was  very lean, highly functional, and adept at managing large numbers of  inmates at a time, but there was also anecdotal evidence that  understaffing was stressing the workforce. Thus, the study concluded that  the systemwide inmate-to-staff ratio in BOP institutions—5.3:1 in 2009  when the study was prepared—must, at a minimum, be maintained.
Justice Management Division, DOJ, BOP Staffing Study (Washington, D.C.: August  2010). however, that about 17 correctional officers were on duty during nights  and evenings to supervise the general population. Thus, in contrast to the  reported ratio, the actual inmate-to-staff ratio during these occasions was  about 76:1. The DOJ study goes on to state that an inmate-to-staff ratio  can provide a valuable perspective when it is used to show how staffing  varies during specific shifts at specific institutions. When ratios are used  in this context, decision makers can more effectively determine the  appropriate number of institution staff needed to safely manage an  institution. Accordingly, for BOP to justify its staffing levels plus additional  resources for increased staff—as the inmate population grows—the study  recommended, among other things, that BOP set a minimum inmate-to- staff ratio that is required to run a safe, secure, and efficient prison  system given operational realties. Partly in response to the DOJ report,  BOP officials said that they had developed minimum staffing guidelines,  and as of June 2012, BOP was in the process of applying these  guidelines at each facility. Tables 14-16 in appendix III illustrate the  various inmate-to-staff ratios and trends over time.
BOP headquarters officials and the union representatives said that  correctional staff worked more overtime hours to meet additional staff  needs as a result of the larger inmate population. Alternatively, in lieu of  paying overtime, facility management may divert other professional or  administration staff, as trained correctional officers, from their primary  duties to supervise other aspects of inmate care and confinement, such  as meal times or medical trips. According to BOP headquarters officials,  this practice, known as augmentation, affects programming. For example,  if a teacher has to fill a correctional post, then the class does not occur or  another teacher may be required to supervise the course. Headquarters,  regional, and facility officials said that they generally used augmentation  during annual correctional officers’ refresher training. For example, during  our site visit to a Special Management Unit, we observed an  administrative staff member serving as a correctional officer in the unit,  replacing a correctional officer who was attending BOP-required annual  staff refresher training. BOP facilities and regional offices have tracked  the use of augmentation, but headquarters did not review or analyze this  information centrally until February 2012, at the direction of the new BOP  Director. Therefore, during the course of our audit work, BOP could not  provide any trend analysis on the use of augmentation systemwide.
The increased population taxes the infrastructure that was designed for a  smaller inmate population, affecting use of toilets, showers, water, and  electricity, and wear and tear on food service equipment (e.g., freezer  units). According to BOP headquarters and regional officials, crowding  affects the general usage and upkeep of the facility, which affects the  facility itself, the environment, and the local community.
BOP has also experienced increased maintenance and repair costs, with  51 facilities over 30 years old and newer facilities also in need of  maintenance and repair. BOP reported systemwide maintenance and  repair costs of about $228 million in fiscal year 2006 and $262 million in  fiscal year 2011—approximately a 15 percent increase. BOP  headquarters officials stated that they are most concerned with “life safety  issues,” such as ensuring that sprinkler systems work properly in the  event of fire in the facility. These officials said that requests for repairs are  often put off when BOP does not receive funding. (See app. III for  additional information on the effects of BOP’s population growth on  infrastructure.)
BOP officials said the increasing inmate population and staffing ratios  negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline, thereby  affecting security and safety. A 2005 BOP report on the effects of  crowding and staffing levels in federal prisons on inmate violence rates  concluded that population pressures on both staffing levels and inmate  living space have an upward impact on serious prison violence.  Nevertheless, the study also found that systemwide violence rates  remained stable, although measures of both percent rated capacity and  inmate to correctional officers ratios rose in federal prisons during the  latter part of the study. The study posits that this stability may stem from  prison managers employing some operational practices, such as  augmentation, that in the short term countered the negative effect of  increased crowding. BOP officials told us that a follow-up to the 2005  study is not necessary because they did not believe that the findings  would change.
BOP generally reported increases in the number of guilty findings for  inmate misconduct from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but the number  of findings for misconduct of the greatest severity (e.g., killing, serious  assault, and possession of weapons) began to decline in fiscal year 2010.  Additionally, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP systemwide  imposed almost 4,000 lockdowns––a temporary situation in which all  inmates are confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to  assess the situation following a critical incident (e.g., a disturbance,  assaults on staff by several inmates, or a food or work strike) and can  safely return the institution to normal operations. Similar to the inmate  misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from fiscal years  2006 through 2009, and then began to decline. Appendix III provides  information on BOP’s disciplinary system and data on inmate misconduct  and lockdowns.
BOP officials at all levels told us that they believe the establishment of  Special Management Units beginning in fiscal year 2008 had contributed  to the decrease in misconduct in the general population and the decline in  the use of lockdowns, but that these facilities are too new to evaluate.  Nevertheless, BOP officials stated that its Special Management Units are  now crowded and experiencing waiting lists. Specifically, BOP reported  that from March 1, 2012, through April 20, 2012, 231 inmates were  approved for Special Management Unit placement and were awaiting a  bed. The average wait time for placement in a Special Management Unit  bed was 110 days.
Officials said that waiting lists for transfers to a Special Management Unit  contribute to crowding in the facility Special Housing Unit. According to  BOP officials, without space for disciplinary segregation, they are limited  in how they can address inmate misconduct. Officials further stated that  when a facility has no Special Housing Unit space available, the regional  office may move the inmate to a Special Housing Unit in another facility of  a different security level—a practice referred to as trans-segregation.  Alternatively, headquarters officials said that disciplinary hearing officers  may dispense shorter time in segregation or use other sanctions or a  combination of nonsegregation sanctions. As a result, the officials said  that the imposed sanctions may not be as much of a deterrent with the  inmates, which affects the security and safety of inmates and staff.
Additionally, BOP headquarters officials and union representatives we  spoke with expressed concerns about future effects of increased inmate  population growth. First, officials raised concern about the possibility of a  serious incident occurring, especially at a high security or medium level  facility. A serious incident could occur in a high security facility because  these facilities are extremely crowded and house the most serious  inmates (i.e., those who have committed the most serious crimes in  society or in prison). A union representative also said that medium  security facilities were at risk of an incident because these facilities lack  the better lockdown procedures found in high security facilities.  Nevertheless, BOP officials did not discount an incident happening at a  low security facility because of the high gang presence in these facilities.  They said that although the criminal histories of low security inmates  suggest that they are not a “high risk” for violence, these inmates may still  be a high risk for problems because of frustrations resulting from crowded  conditions. Second, BOP officials were also concerned that the federal  courts might require BOP to address conditions related to crowding or  that ACA might revoke the accreditation of BOP institutions.
section_title: BOP Has Worked to Increase Inmate and Staff Safety and Security and Has Reported Utilizing Resources More Efficiently
paragraphs: BOP has taken actions to manage a growing population within its  facilities—and its approaches were similar to those in selected states we  reviewed. These have generally been aimed at  increasing inmate and staff safety and security and utilizing resources efficiently.
Controlled inmate movement. BOP has implemented controlled  movement for inmates, which is a practice that officials from one of the  five states we reviewed also reported using, specifically to deal with  crowded conditions. For example, because of crowded conditions, one  way that BOP restricts inmates’ movement in high and medium security  facilities is by instituting earlier in-cell hours at night for inmates. Further,  BOP has a system of inmate movement in place to reduce potential  tension and fighting and allow staff to better supervise inmates (i.e.,  staggering activities or meal times so that one cell block or unit of inmates  proceeds at a time). Like officials at BOP, officials from Mississippi’s  Department of Corrections stagger recreational activities to curtail inmate  fighting so that only one cell block or unit is released to the yard at a time.
Disciplinary housing. As previously discussed, because escalating  tensions in crowded facilities can cause increased security concerns,  BOP utilizes Special Housing Units to segregate inmates involved in  disciplinary infractions. Officials in Kansas and New York also reported  using disciplinary housing. BOP officials stated that the use of Special  Housing Units has resulted in a decrease in inmate misconduct because  those inciting tension within the general population have been removed.  According to a 2006 New York State Department of Correctional  Services’ report on prison safety, the department believed that the  certainty of facing Special Housing Unit confinement for misbehavior  contributed generally to improved inmate conduct, as reflected in inmates  spending less time in these units without reductions in time to make room  for other inmates.
Preferential housing. To increase the safety and security of inmates and  staff, BOP has encouraged positive behavior from inmates by rewarding  them with preferential housing, and this was a practice we observed  directly in a New York State Department of Corrections and Community  Supervision facility. BOP officials described preferential housing as cells  or dormitory rooms with fewer inmates than the facility’s general  population housing and located close to the phones or showers. BOP  union officials stated that, at some facilities, preferential housing is given  to inmates directly in response to their good behavior, and officials  explained that inmates highly coveted these rewards and modified their  behavior accordingly. For example, in one facility we visited, inmates in  the cleanest unit were rewarded by getting to eat meals before inmates in  other units. At one state facility we visited in New York, officials rewarded  well-behaved inmates by allowing them to live in the “honor block”—a  preferential housing unit that allows inmates more freedom of movement  and additional personal decision making (e.g., inmates are allowed to  decide when they wish to shower and do their laundry).
Expanded program options and incentives. To accommodate growing  inmate populations, reduce inmate idleness, and help inmates prepare for  life outside of prison—all of which relate to institutional safety—BOP  officials have expanded inmates’ program options. Officials from all five of  the states we selected reported similar activities. Generally GED classes  are held during the day, but, for example, two BOP facilities we visited  have begun offering evening GED classes to accommodate the increase  in inmates who are required to receive a GED education. Also, one BOP  facility we visited had expanded its vocational training capacity by  combining woodshop learning with classroom study, so that one group of  inmates could be learning in the woodshop while another group of  inmates could be participating in classroom lessons. According to the  program director, when he ran the program from 2001 through 2005,  about 30 inmates received certification each year for completing the  program; currently, about 60 to 80 inmates receive certification annually.  At one facility we visited, to encourage program participation, inmates in  the Special Management Unit were given cash incentives for completing  psycho-educational programs, such as stress/anger management classes  or those designed to improve interpersonal relationships and help  inmates focus on personal goals and maintaining positive conduct.  Specifically, an inmate may earn $25 for completing these types of  classes. Like BOP, both Ohio and Wisconsin have offered additional  programming in the form of expanded program hours and expanded  reentry programs; for example, classes on financial literacy, housing, and  personal health care to teach inmates who are about to be released how  to manage their daily lives in the community.
Correctional complexes. BOP has established correctional complexes  over the last 15 years to better leverage its staff. Officials from one state  in our sample—Kansas—told us they employ this practice as well. BOP  correctional complexes are institutions that are located on the same  grounds and may include low, medium, and high security facilities.  According to BOP officials, the use of correctional complexes helps in  particular with the leveraging of medical services and supplies. It also  helps BOP manage crowding by sharing staff resources across the  correctional complex, if one facility has greater needs than another for  certain programs.
Energy conservation. BOP has also taken actions to minimize the  burden that crowding places on facilities’ infrastructure, and officials from  one state in our sample—Ohio—acknowledged similar activities.  According to BOP officials, BOP has aggressively pursued energy  conservation following a 2009 governmentwide executive order to reduce  energy usage. BOP officials stated that their energy-saving efforts have  prevented BOP from experiencing a dramatic increase in energy usage  despite the growing prison population. Examples of energy-saving actions  that BOP officials reported include the installation of slower-flowing  shower heads, which use 2 rather than 5 gallons of water per minute and  flushing toilets every 5 to10 minutes rather than after each use. According  to BOP officials, most BOP facilities have recycling programs. One BOP  facility that we visited began a recycling program that, in addition to  efficiently utilizing resources, created inmate jobs and benefitted the  environment. Ohio officials told us that they have reduced utility costs with  similar efficiency initiatives.
Visitor accommodations. BOP has taken a variety of actions to  accommodate the increased number of visitors within existing  infrastructure, which is similar to the steps officials from two of the five  states we reviewed. For example, at one BOP facility we visited, because  the facility did not have money to enlarge the visiting room, it shortened  the length of visits from 4 hours to 2 hours and changed visiting hours  from an open schedule (i.e., where visitors can come during any visiting  hours) to a rotating basis (i.e., visitors for a particular inmate may be  allowed to visit on certain days and between certain hours). In an effort to  supplement face-to-face visits, BOP has permitted the increased use of e- mail between inmates and their loved ones. Ohio and Wisconsin have  implemented scheduled visitation times rather than open visitation hours.
In addition, Ohio officials told us that the state offers e-mail as a way to  supplement visitation.
section_title: States Have Taken Broader Actions Intended to Reduce Prison Populations than Those Taken at the Federal Level
paragraphs: While BOP and the five selected states have taken a variety of similar  actions to manage the growing number of inmates they incarcerate, these  states have been able to take broader actions than BOP to reduce their  prison populations because these states have legislative authority that  BOP does not have. These states’ actions can be grouped into three  general categories: modifying criminal statutes and sentencing,  relocating inmates (e.g., moving them from state to local facilities or  community corrections, whereby their release is supervised at halfway  houses or in-home detention), or providing inmates with good time credit or adjusting inmates’  sentences based on participation in certain programs or  demonstration of positive behaviors.
To take these actions, these state departments of corrections have  generally worked with their state legislatures to propose and pass  legislation that effects these changes. Officials from three of the five  states we spoke with—Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin—told us their states  also embarked on justice reinvestment efforts to facilitate legislative or  other changes to their corrections approaches. For example, in 2006,  Kansas sought technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment  Initiative to avert an increase of 700 new inmates in its prison population  that it projected between 2007 and 2010. Using the justice reinvestment  approach, as described below, Kansas (1) relocated inmates from state- run facilities by diverting them to nonprison alternatives and transferring  them to county jails and community corrections facilities and (2) offered  inmates credit for positive behavior thereby reducing inmates’ time in  prison. As a result, the state experienced a net increase of 10 inmates  rather than the 700 inmates it had anticipated during this period.
Officials in the five selected states generally believed that the actions  taken had helped them to reduce their prison populations; however,  because these initiatives were recent, empirical data showing the impact  of these initiatives were generally not available. In contrast, federal law  does not provide BOP with the authority to implement many of these  measures and generally requires BOP to provide for suitable housing and  the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or  convicted of offenses against the United States. Unlike certain states’  laws, federal law does not provide BOP with the authority to transfer  inmates to local prisons or move inmates to community corrections or  supervised release beyond what current federal law permits.  Additionally, because of the mandatory minimum sentences required for  many federal offenses and the absence of parole for most federal inmates  in the federal system, BOP generally does not have the authority to  significantly modify an inmate’s period of incarceration.
subsections: section_title: Modifying Criminal Statutes and Sentencing
paragraphs: Two of the five states we reviewed have changed their sentencing  statutes or guidelines. For example, in 2009, New York implemented  changes to its drug statutes, which affected the sentencing of some drug  felony offenders. These changes included revising the ranges for state  prison sentences by lowering the minimum sentence allowable for certain  nonviolent drug felony offenders. New York has reported decreases in its  total custody population since 1999, when the population reached 71,472  and drug offenders constituted 31.2 percent of this population. From the  end of calendar year 2009 through 2011, New York reported a decrease  in its total custody population from 58,378 to 55,090. This decrease  included not only a decline in the number of drug offenders from 10,319  to 7,509 but also in the percentage of drug offenders in custody from 17.7  percent to 13.6 percent. In 2011, Ohio revised its sentencing laws to  eliminate the differences between the penalties for crack and powder  cocaine violations. Generally, the change provides for a uniform  determination of the penalty for drug offenses based upon the amount of  any type of cocaine (powder cocaine or any compound, mixture,  preparation, or substance containing cocaine) an individual possesses. In  effect, this change resulted in an increasing of the amount of crack  needed to those of powder cocaine for lower-level offenses and a  decreasing of the amounts of powder cocaine needed to crack levels for  higher-level offenses.
While states may change their sentencing statutes or guidelines to reduce  their prison populations, at the federal level, BOP does not determine  which offenders are sentenced to prison and what the length of their  sentences should be. On May 1, 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission  submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing  guidelines. These guidelines became effective on November 1, 2007.  One of the amendments modified the drug quantity thresholds for crack  cocaine offenses. Generally, the commission lowered the sentencing  guidelines for certain crack cocaine offenses. Subsequently, the  commission made the amendment apply retroactively. As a result, some  incarcerated offenders were eligible to receive a reduction in sentence  under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The effect of this change was realized  almost fully in fiscal year 2008.
section_title: Relocating Inmates
paragraphs: Selected states have also relocated inmates to relieve the crowding of  their state prison facilities, such as through use of nonprison alternatives  (e.g., drug treatment programs), expanded use of parole, the movement  of inmates to county or local jails, or the wider reliance on community  corrections (e.g., halfway houses). For example, Mississippi expanded  use of house arrest and Kansas and New York expanded drug  rehabilitation programs as an alternative to incarceration for certain low- level drug offenders. Other selected states have passed legislation that  allows some inmates to be paroled sooner and made parole available to  more inmates. For example, Mississippi has passed legislation that  extended parole eligibility to (1) all nonviolent offenders irrespective of the  offender’s first-time offender status and (2) certain drug sale offenders.  New York allows well-behaved drug and other nonviolent offenders to  appear before a parole board earlier. Additionally, Kansas and Wisconsin  have moved some low-risk inmates to county jails for more localized  management and relief for state prison crowding.
Three of the five selected states also reported using community  corrections—also known as supervised release at halfway houses or in- home detention—as a way to either divert offenders from prison or move  more inmates out of prison. For example, Ohio uses halfway houses, as  is typical, to provide supervision and treatment services to inmates who  are released from state prison or are sentenced to halfway houses by  courts for an offense or as a result of violating parole.has diverted parole and probation violators to supervised release.  Similarly, Mississippi uses an intensive supervised release program as an  alternative to incarceration for low-risk and nonviolent offenders.
At the federal level, BOP uses Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) to help  inmates reintegrate into the community, as well as to reduce crowding in  prisons, but is limited by what federal law allows as well as the capacity of   BOP may place inmates there in the final months of their  these facilities. sentences (not to exceed 12 months) under conditions that will afford the  inmate a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for reentry into  the community. BOP officials stated that BOP maximizes the use of  RRCs to the extent possible but that there are not enough beds in RRCs  to accommodate all eligible inmates. In February 2012, we reported that  as of November 2011, BOP estimated 8,859 available RRC beds under  contract. For each available RRC bed, BOP can transfer one inmate to  the RRC for a maximum of 12 months, or BOP could send multiple  inmates for shorter placements (e.g., three inmates for 4 months each).  To provide all eligible inmates with the maximum allowable 12 months in  an RRC, BOP would require about 29,000 available beds annually.Further, BOP places inmates according to a court’s or judge’s sentence,  which may require some probation and supervised release violators to  serve terms in community corrections.
section_title: Providing Inmates with Credit for Positive Behaviors
paragraphs: Selected states have taken a variety of actions that reduce inmates’ time  in prison by providing inmates with credit for positive behaviors. For  example, in Mississippi, certain inmates may be eligible to receive a trusty  time allowance of 30 days’ reduction of sentence for each 30 days’  participation during any calendar month in approved programs while in  trusty status. According to Mississippi officials, these programs include  alcohol and drug treatment, GED classes, faith-based programs, and  vocational education. New York and Kansas allow inmates who complete  certain rehabilitative programs to be released earlier, either through  earned compliance credits in Kansas or by receiving a parole hearing  earlier in New York. New York officials stated that since 1998,  approximately 37,000 inmates have been released because of this policy.  Ohio has an earned credit program that rewards an inmate for productive  participation in educational programs, vocational training, prison  industries work, substance abuse treatment, or any other constructive  program with specific performance standards. Additionally, in Ohio,  there is a mechanism for the possible release with sentencing court  approval of certain department of corrections inmates who have served at  least 80 percent of their prison terms.
Officials from two of the five selected states also reported that their states  award inmates credit toward the service of their sentence for good  behavior—compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations—as a way  to relieve prison crowding. For example, Kansas’s department of  corrections offers good time credits and is authorized to adopt rules and  regulations providing for a system of good time calculations. The system  provides circumstances under which an inmate may earn good time  credits and for the forfeiture of earned credits.
We have previously reported on BOP’s use of its sentence reduction  authority, noting that it is affected by both inmate eligibility and BOP  capacity.1 year to inmates convicted of a nonviolent offense who successfully  complete the program. BOP officials told us that they strive to maximize  RDAP programs as a management tool to reduce recidivism and because  of the program’s ability to reduce an inmate’s sentence. RDAP programs  are full, however, and BOP cannot keep up with demand for RDAP  enrollment, which limits BOP’s ability to fully leverage this program.  Additionally, because of long waiting lists, those eligible for a sentence  reduction are generally unable to complete RDAP in time to earn the  maximum reduction. Furthermore, federal law provides for the amount of  time awarded for each inmate who successfully completes the program.  Moreover, according to BOP officials, given BOP’s staffing shortages and  in the absence of additional funding for the program, BOP has generally  been unable to increase the number of RDAP’s staff to accommodate  more inmates.
Specifically, BOP’s RDAP offers sentence reductions of up to  Further, as we reported in February 2012, BOP is authorized to award up  to 54 days of good conduct time credit each year (which vests on the date  the inmate is released). inmate serving a sentence of more than 1 year, but less than life. BOP’s  method of awarding good conduct time credit at the end of each year an  inmate serves results in a maximum of 47 days earned per year of  sentence imposed. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, BOP data  show that about 87 percent of inmates had earned all of their available  good conduct time credit by the end of each year, and an additional 3  percent of inmates earned at least 90 percent of the maximum available  good conduct time credit.
GAO-12-320. original intent of the statute, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld BOP’s  approach. BOP officials told us that the agency was supportive of  amending the statute related to good conduct time credit, and legislation  pending before Congress would allow for 54 days to be provided for each  year of the term of imprisonment originally imposed by the judge, which  would result in inmates serving 85 percent of their sentence. BOP  provided us with estimates in December 2011 showing that if the good  conduct time credit allowance was increased from 47 to 54 days, as  proposed, BOP could save over $40 million in the first fiscal year after the  policy change from the early release of about 3,900 inmates. As of July  2012, the legislative proposal has been introduced in the Senate but not  the House. BOP officials told us that they are examining initiatives that  would allow for the restoration of good conduct time, but that they are  reluctant to pursue them. They explained that loss of good conduct time is  one of the most powerful sanctions in BOP’s inmate discipline program,  which helps ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of  correctional facilities.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Over the last 25 years, BOP’s population has grown more than 400  percent, and BOP projects future growth through 2020. With more  inmates, BOP’s spending to secure, feed, and provide services to a  growing population has also been rising. BOP’s annual appropriation now  exceeds $6.6 billion, and represents nearly a quarter of DOJ’s annual  budgetary authority. Despite the continued growth in inmates and related  expenses, in recent years, BOP has been adding capacity and staff at a  lower rate than the inmate population has been growing. As a result, both  individual facilities and the federal prison system as a whole are  experiencing increased crowding. Crowding has implications for inmates,  staff, and infrastructure—as well as safety and security, and the potential  for inmate disruptions or an even more serious security incident is a  significant concern. BOP has taken steps to help mitigate the implications  of crowding in the federal system, but does not have the authority to  implement many of the reforms that several states have adopted to  reduce crowding and, in some states, the size of their prison populations.  BOP also requires congressional approval and appropriated funds to  expand capacity in the federal system. As such, BOP has limited ability to  address crowding in the federal prison system. We are not taking a  position on matters of policy such as how crowding in the federal system  should be addressed. However, as policy makers weigh whether and how  to address crowding in the federal system, options that will be important  to consider include (1) reducing the size of the projected inmate  population by reforming sentencing laws, allowing alternatives to  incarceration, and/or providing BOP greater sentencing flexibility; (2)  increasing capacity in the federal system by constructing new prisons,  contracting for additional private capacity, and adding additional staff; or  (3) taking some combination of both approaches.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for official review and comment.  BOP provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:  1.  What was the growth in the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) population from  fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and what are BOP’s projections for  inmate population and capacity?  2.  What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison  population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) within  BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to mitigate  these effects?  3.  What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison  populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar  initiatives?
To address the first question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority and  policies and procedures (e.g., BOP’s inmate classification policy) that  potentially affect growth in the federal prison population and conditions of  confinement in BOP facilities. We also analyzed BOP’s (1) inmate  population data (e.g., demographics and offenses), (2) 2020 long-range  capacity plan based on inmate population projections and future capacity  estimates depending on funding, (3) percentage crowding at all  institutional security levels, (4) staff-to-inmate ratios, and (5) available  infrastructure costs (e.g., water and electricity costs). Unless otherwise  noted, all of these data covered the period from fiscal years 2006 through  2011. We also reviewed Department of Justice (DOJ) and BOP reports  describing BOP’s population and staffing during this period. We assessed  the reliability of BOP’s inmate population data and crowding data by  reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency  officials about how they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating  assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We found BOP’s  inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this engagement.
To determine how BOP developed its population and capacity projection  estimates, we analyzed BOP’s program statements, performance goals,  and congressional budget submissions for fiscal years 2011 through 2013.  We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials to discuss the extent to  which BOP’s population has grown; the reasons for this growth; how BOP  calculates the percentage crowding in its facilities; and how BOP develops  its population growth and capacity projections, including any changes to  this process since our November 2009 report. In that report, we assessed  how BOP developed its population projections and capacity plans. We  compared BOP’s projections with its actual inmate population growth from  fiscal years 1999 through August 20, 2009, and concluded that BOP’s  projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the actual  inmate population growth within this time period. We also reviewed  government and academic studies on federal incarceration determinants.
BOP reports the use of additional cots in areas such as an institution’s halls, gyms,  mezzanines, or television rooms—to address crowding in an institution—as temporary  housing because this temporary living space is to be restored as program space when  circumstances permit. Thus, such temporary use of space is not factored into BOP’s rated  capacity calculation. infrastructure, we conducted visits to 5 of BOP’s 117 institutions. We  chose these prisons on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure  geographic dispersion. As shown in table 1, the five prisons we visited  were located in four of BOP’s six regions. Additionally, to identify  variations in the effects of increased prison populations, we selected  facilities of different security levels (i.e., low, 1; medium, 3; high, 1; and  administrative, 1); the Petersburg Complex included a medium and a low  security facility.
During each site visit, we interviewed institutional management officials  and toured the facility to observe inmate housing, recreational areas, food  service, medical services, and educational and vocational programming.  Because we did not visit all BOP facilities and did not randomly select the  facilities we visited, our results are not generalizable to all BOP facilities.  Nevertheless, these results provided us with examples of the effects of  BOP’s population growth on a facility’s inmates, staff, and infrastructure,  as well as examples of actions taken at the facility level to mitigate these  effects. We also interviewed the six regional directors to obtain their  perspectives on the increased prison population and the effects of this  growth and crowding on BOP institutions within each region. Further, we  discussed the effects of BOP’s population growth on correctional officers  with officials from the Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents  all non-management staff working in BOP facilities. Additionally, we  analyzed American Correctional Association’s (ACA) standards (e.g.,  minimum inmate space standards) and reviewed ACA audits from fiscal  years 2009 through 2011 (the most recent audits available) of the BOP  institutions we visited to try to identify potential effects of growing  populations in these facilities. We also met with ACA officials to identify  any areas where BOP might not be meeting these standards.
Further, to determine the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate  the effects of a growing federal prison population, we analyzed BOP’s  statutory authority to identify provisions that affect BOP’s ability to mitigate  the effects of the growth of the prison population. We also analyzed BOP’s  policies, DOJ and BOP studies, and BOP’s fiscal year 2011 congressional  budget submission to identify actions BOP has taken, including any  proposed legislative changes that could mitigate the effects of the growth of  the prison population. We interviewed BOP headquarters officials to obtain  information on these actions and proposals as well as to discuss the extent  of their statutory authority, which affects their ability to mitigate the effects  of the increased population. During our BOP site visits and interviews with  BOP regional directors, we asked officials to identify any actions taken at  the facility or regional level to mitigate the effects of the growth of the  federal prison population and crowding in facilities in the region. Also, we  discussed actions taken by BOP to mitigate the effects of prison population  growth with officials from the Council of Prison Locals. We also interviewed  corrections experts from DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections (NIC), ACA, Pew Center on the States, and academia. We selected these experts  from our review of the corrections literature and on the recommendation of  BOP officials and other experts. While the views of these experts are not  representative, they provided us with perspectives on BOP’s actions and  ability to mitigate the effects of its increased prison population.
NIC, a component of BOP, provides training, technical assistance, information services, and  policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies.
Wisconsin––that had experienced prison population growth and had  taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison populations. To  select these states, we analyzed DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’s  (BJS) report on 2010 state prison inmate populations. We also reviewed  relevant governmental and nongovernmental reports on state prison  population growth and states’ actions taken to reduce or mitigate the  effects this growth, which were published from 2006 through 2011 (e.g.,  the Pew Center on the States, Vera Institute, and Council of State  Governments). We also interviewed (1) BOP, NIC, and BJS officials; (2)  stakeholder interest groups (e.g., Pew Center on the States, Council of  State Governments, ACA, and Association of State Correctional  Administrators); and (3) academic corrections experts to obtain their  perspectives on state efforts to mitigate the effects of prison population  growth or reduce prison populations.
We selected these five states because they (1) reflected a range of prison  population sizes (e.g., New York and Ohio have two of the largest state  prison populations, with 56,656 and 51,712 inmates, respectively); (2)  were involved in addressing prison crowding issues (e.g., Kansas and  Ohio are working with the Council of State Governments and the Pew  Center on the States to address prison crowding issues as part of the  Justice Reinvestment Initiative); and (3) had taken actions to address  population growth, including actions similar to BOP’s actions.
For each of the five selected states, we obtained available data (e.g., BJS  state correctional population) and reviewed relevant studies on prison  conditions for context. We then interviewed state corrections officials  regarding actions taken in their states to reduce the prison population, as  well as to mitigate the effects of prison population growth. We analyzed  correctional statutes and policies identified by these officials during our  interviews. As shown in table 2, we also conducted site visits to three  facilities in two states.
During our site visits, we discussed with correctional administrators and  observed actions taken within these facilities to mitigate the effects of the  growth of the prison populations.
Additionally, to further address the third question, we assessed the extent  to which actions implemented in the five states to reduce their prison  populations would be possible under current federal law for BOP to  implement. Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems— legally, structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined–– limit the comparability between federal and state correctional systems.  We mitigated the effects of these limitations by the criteria used to select  the five states. We are unable to generalize about the types of actions  states have taken to mitigate the effects of state prison population growth  or reduce their prison populations. Nevertheless, the information we  obtained through these visits provided examples of state responses to  prison population growth. Further, to determine the extent to which BOP  has implemented similar initiatives from states’ experiences, we analyzed  BOP documentation describing BOP initiatives to address the growth of  federal prison populations. We also discussed with BOP officials the state  actions we identified, including the extent to which these actions would be  possible under current federal law for BOP to implement.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to  September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth
paragraphs: This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on BOP’s  population growth. Specifically, it addresses  factors contributing to growth, offense composition of BOP’s population,
BOP’s rated capacity and percentage crowding trends, and
BOP’s long-range capacity plan.
subsections: section_title: Factors Contributing to Growth
paragraphs: Among the factors that contribute to the size of the federal prison  population are national crime levels, law enforcement policies, and  federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control. According  to BOP officials, the length of the sentences that federal inmates serve is  one of the single most important factors in prison population growth. Prior  to the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, most federal  statutes provided only for broad maximum terms of imprisonment and  federal judges had broad discretion in sentencing.the maximum sentence, federal judges imposed a sentence within a  statutory range, and federal parole officials eventually determined the  actual duration of incarceration. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984  abolished parole, and subsequent legislation established mandatory  minimum sentences for many federal offenses; these federal laws limit  the ability of BOP to affect the length of the sentence or the size of the  inmate population.
According to BOP, the increase in sentence length is the primary reason  for the growth in the federal inmate population from 42,000 in 1987 to  over 218,000 today. Drug offenses constitute the largest component of  admissions to BOP. The average time an inmate served for drug offenses  increased 250 percent after 1987, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission  revised the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in order to implement the  Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Most recently, the Administrative Office  of the U. S. Courts reported to BOP that for the year ending March 31,  2012, federal courts had ordered over 8,000 sentences of 6 or more  years, and nearly 3,000 of those prison sentences were for 12 or more  years.almost all federal offenders had increased since the implementation of the  act. For example, immigration offenders currently serve much longer  sentences than they did in the 1980s.
section_title: Offense Composition of BOP’s Population
paragraphs: As shown in table 3, drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses  composed the largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were  incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
BOP explained that the offense composition of BOP’s population  generally shows a higher number of drug offenses than immigration  offenses, because drug offenses carry longer sentences than immigration  offenses. For example, BOP data show that the number of drug offenses  in fiscal year 2011 was four times greater than the number of immigration  offenses that year, although the yearly admission to BOP for each of  these offenses is usually about the same. Further, the number of  admissions for weapons offenses is generally about one-fourth that of  immigration offenses, but the number of weapons offenders in the BOP  population is significantly higher than the number of immigration offenders  because of the much longer sentences for weapons offenses.
The distribution of offenses varied by institutional security level, although,  with the exception of high security facilities, drug violations constituted the  largest number of offenses. In medium and low security facilities, drugs,  weapons/explosives, and immigration were among the three largest  offense categories. In minimum security facilities, drug offenses were  followed by fraud/bribery/extortion and weapons/explosives offenses.high security facilities, weapons/explosives offenses constituted the  largest number of offenses, followed by drugs, robbery,  homicide/aggravated assault, and immigration.
As shown in table 4, drug and immigration offenses accounted for the  largest numbers of offenses among non-U.S. citizen inmates in each year  of the 6-year period. Violent and property offenses increased during the  same period, but were a smaller number of the total offenses.
During each year of the 6-year period, the largest number of non-U.S.  citizen inmates (ranging from about 28,000 to 33,000) were incarcerated in  low security facilities for drug offenses. Among non-U.S. citizen inmates  incarcerated in medium and high security facilities, immigration, followed by  drugs, constituted the largest number of offenses. As to why these inmates  were housed in medium and high security facilities, BOP officials explained  that offenders who were convicted of violent offenses, had a history of  violent behavior, or had been found guilty of serious misconduct while in  BOP custody were usually sent to higher security level facilities. These  officials said that over 45 percent of non-U.S. citizen inmates who were  placed in higher security level facilities had a history of violence.
section_title: BOP’s Rated Capacity and Percentage Crowding Trends
paragraphs: Table 5 below shows BOP’s rated capacity and double, triple, and  quadruple bunking levels as of September 30, 2011.
As a result of the growth in the inmate population in BOP-run facilities  relative to the increased rated capacity, crowding in BOP-run institutions  increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide from fiscal years 2006  through 2011. Nevertheless, within male facilities, the percentage  crowding varied by security level, as shown in figure 4. For example, the  percentage crowding in male medium security facilities increased from 37  percent to 51 percent, and from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security  level facilities (see table 6). Additionally, the percentage crowding in  minimum security facilities more than doubled from fiscal year 2009  through 2010 because of a population increase of more than 1,400  inmates while capacity increased by 69 beds.
During the 6-year period, the overall percentage crowding in female long- term facilities decreased from 39 to 36 percent, but there were some  variations by facility security level (i.e., minimum, secure, and high).  Specifically, the percentage crowding in secure facilities decreased from  73 to 54 percent and the percentage crowding in minimum security  facilities increased from 17 to 21 percent. BOP headquarters officials  explained that BOP was able to increase the number of female secure  facility beds by converting a male facility at Waseca, Minnesota, to a  female facility.
Table 6 shows BOP’s male and female populations, rated capacity, and  percentage crowding data by institutional security level for fiscal years  2006 through 2011.
BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the  federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. The plan  relies on multiple approaches to house the increased federal prison  population, including contracting with the private sector for certain inmate  populations; expanding existing institutions where infrastructure permits;  and acquiring, constructing, and activating new facilities as funding  permits. BOP officials explained that BOP changes its capacity plan  several times each year. For example, rated capacity figures may change  as a result of the reclassification of a facility to address population needs.  BOP also adjusts its actual capacity and population figures each year.
As shown in figure 5, BOP expects the overall inmate population in BOP- run institutions to continue to grow from approximately 182,600 inmates in  fiscal year 2012 to about 204,410 inmates in fiscal year 2020. The plan  also projects an increase in systemwide capacity from 128,433 beds in  2012 to 151,895 beds in 2020, with a projected reduction in crowding  from 42 percent to 35 percent.
Specifically, BOP’s 2020 capacity plan projects the male inmate  populations in long-term institutions at all security levels to continue to  grow or remain stable; however, BOP projects variations in the changes  in rated capacity across the security levels, resulting in respective  differences in crowding percentages. For example, as shown in figure 6,  from fiscal years 2017 through 2020, BOP’s plan projects a decrease in  crowding in male medium security facilities from 71 percent to 58 percent  and in high security facilities from 55 percent to 12 percent, as a result of  the projected increased capacity. Congressional budget requests have  not included funding for this additional bed space, and as a result BOP’s  plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations  processes and are subject to change. During the same period, BOP also  projects crowding in low security facilities to be about 35 percent.
BOP’s plan also projects an increase in the female long-term inmate  population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, but anticipates variations  in percentage crowding across security levels. Specifically, the  projections show an increase in the percentage crowding in female  minimum security facilities from 24 to 37 percent and a decrease in the  percentage crowding in female secure facilities from 58 to 32 percent.  BOP noted that this reduction in crowding is contingent on appropriations  to fund the opening of a secure female facility in Aliceville, Alabama, in  fiscal years 2013 and 2014. According to BOP officials, BOP’s projections  do not include any additional long-term facilities for women, because the  percentage crowding in female facilities is well below the percentage  crowding in, for example, male medium security facilities. Nevertheless,  officials said that BOP will review and adjust capacity needs as it  develops its plan beyond fiscal year 2020.
Table 7 shows BOP’s rated capacity, population, and percentage  crowding projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. According to  BOP officials, BOP’s long-term population projections are always  conservative; therefore, the actual number of inmates would likely be  higher than the projections. Additionally, they said that other factors that  may affect the accuracy of these projections include legislation affecting  federal crimes and sentencing as well as new law enforcement initiatives  leading to more arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.
section_title: Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate Population
paragraphs: This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on the  effects of a growing inmate population on  security and safety.
The growth in the inmate population has affected inmates’ daily living  conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and  visitation.
BOP uses double bunking in excess of the percentages included in a  facility’s rated capacity; triple bunking or converting common space (e.g.,  a television room) temporarily to house its growing population. BOP  counts these additional beds as temporary space rather than increased  rated capacity. As a result of these actions to increase available bed  space, more inmates are sharing cells and other living units, bringing  together for longer periods of time inmates with a higher risk of violence  and more potential victims. Table 8 shows the temporary bed space  BOP added from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 by security level and  male and female facilities. During the 6-year period, the use of temporary  space generally increased in male medium, and high security facilities  and in female minimum security facilities, but the number of temporary  beds fluctuated with changes in the number of general population beds  (e.g., rated capacity).
BOP officials told us that they were aware of the use of temporary beds in  BOP’s 117 institutions, but BOP does not track whether a facility uses  television rooms or triple bunks in a cell. Instead, when temporary beds  are added, BOP generally refers to this as triple bunking. As shown in  table 9, all of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds  during the period from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. At the time of our  visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary space,  with the exception of SeaTac.
According to all of the regional directors and wardens in the two facilities  we visited, different regions and facilities used different approaches to  temporary bed space. For example, one regional director said that all  facilities in his region used some temporary space to house inmates, but  generally, institutions were no longer using television rooms to house  inmates. He said that it is safer to manage 3 inmates in one cell through  triple bunking than to manage 16 inmates in a converted television room.
Alternatively, at a medium security facility we visited in another region,  officials told us that all inmates were double bunked in cells and the  facility had converted four former television rooms to temporarily house 8  to 10 inmates in each. In each housing unit, all televisions were relocated  to a single common room. BOP headquarters officials noted that having a  single television room is a common cause of disciplinary incidents  because fighting may erupt among groups of inmates who want to watch  different programs.
In addition to crowding in a facility’s housing and common areas, inmates  may experience crowded bathroom facilities, reductions in shower times,  shortened meal times coupled with longer waits for food service, and  more limited recreational activities because of the increased inmate  population. For example, with more inmates, it takes longer for  correctional officers to escort inmates to the dining hall and for each  inmate to be served in the food service line. According to BOP officials,  extended wait times at meals in particular can be problematic because  BOP attempts to keep inmates on strict schedules and extended waits  may cause inmates to arrive late for vocational classes or work  assignments, which can delay the start of the class or assignment. The  increased inmate population also affects recreation space and activity  time. For example, according to staff at one BOP facility we visited, in a  crowded arts room, inmates may accidentally bump elbows, resulting in  tension or friction, which may lead to a security incident. At another BOP  facility, with a rated capacity of 850 but housing 1,300 inmates, officials  said that crowding affects accessibility to recreational activities such as  team sports, especially during warmer weather, when 500 inmates may  be in a recreational area supervised by one or two staff.
BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, drug  treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate  inmates and support correctional management. According to BOP  officials, two benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety, and (2)  institutional safety and security because of reduced inmate idleness.  These officials said, however, that the growth in the inmate population  had increased program waiting lists, contributing to inmate idleness.
BOP officials said facility staff offer a variety of education programs, such  as mandatory General Educational Development (GED) courses; 8- to 10- week nonmandatory courses on topics such as parenting, word processing,  and conversational Spanish; occupational training; and computer-based  self-paced courses (e.g., English). According to BOP data, overall inmate  participation in one or more programs ranged from 35 to 37 percent from  fiscal years 2006 through 2011. The percentage participation, number of  inmates on waiting lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by  program. For example, BOP snapshots from fiscal years 2008 through  2012 of the total population at BOP-run facilities showed that between 13  and 14 percent of inmates were enrolled in literacy programs, while  between 11 and 12 percent remained on waiting lists.systemwide participation rates in selected BOP education and training  programs as of September 2011.
BOP provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in a variety of  drug treatment programs. In more than half of its facilities, BOP offers a  residential drug abuse treatment program. In all of its facilities, BOP offers  nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs. All of the drug  treatment and drug education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years  2006 through 2011. According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the  substance abuse treatment or education needs of inmates because it  does not have the staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates  will not receive programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012,  long waiting lists for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP),  which provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully  complete the program, constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants  early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times  served. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the number of slots for  inmates to participate in RDAP increased by 400. According to BOP  officials, as RDAP capacity has increased, BOP has reduced waiting lists  even with continued growth in the inmate population, thereby enabling  inmates to enter the program sooner and increasing the number of  inmates (from 14 to 25 percent) who complete the program and receive a  sentence reduction. Nevertheless, the program continues to experience  long waiting lists, although the average wait has declined. For example, in  low security facilities in fiscal year 2006, 3,547 inmates participated in the  RDAP program, 3,378 inmates were on the waiting list, and the average  waiting time was about 205 days. In contrast, in low security facilities in  fiscal year 2011, 3,082 inmates participated in the program, 3,723 were  on the waiting list, but the average waiting time was approximately 80  days. Tables 11-13 provide additional data on participation, waiting lists,  and average waiting time for BOP drug education and treatment  programs in male facilities.
BOP also implements two faith-based reentry programs through its  Religious Services Branch. Life Connections is BOP’s 18-month  residential program, begun in 2002, that offers a core curriculum taught  by spiritual guides hired from different faiths. The number of enrollments  in the program ranged from 345 to almost 400 inmates systemwide. The  program waiting lists for each security level were generally equal to or  greater than the number of participants. Threshold is BOP’s  nonresidential faith-based program, which began in 2008. Over 550  inmates were enrolled in the program as of January 2012; maintaining a  waiting list for Threshold program participation is at the discretion of  participating institutions’ wardens.
According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate  population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to  find meaningful work for all inmates in a crowded facility, even though  generally all inmates are required to have a job. They said that with the  growth of the prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in  meaningful work. This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy,  resulting in inmate idleness, which can lead to additional tension and  fighting between inmates. Inmate discord can then affect the security and  safety of other inmates and staff. For example, BOP headquarters  officials and the warden at one facility we visited explained that inmate  wages vary with the job. Specifically, wages may range from 12 cents per  hour for sweeping the facility to $1.15 per hour for some jobs in factories  that Federal Prison Industries, also known as UNICOR, runs on the  prison grounds. Tensions may arise because inmates want to be  reassigned from lower- to higher-paying jobs. According to BOP officials,  BOP has tried to develop an index of idleness; however, measuring  idleness is difficult because inmates are usually engaged in some activity,  even though that activity may not be meaningful to their development  (e.g., filling salt shakers in the cafeteria).
Non-U.S. citizens who are currently under an order of deportation, exclusion, or  removal from the United States are precluded from participating in the UNICOR program,  under 28 C.F.R. § 345.35. us that these jobs teach inmates valuable reentry skills, such as coming  to work on time. Such jobs can also teach money management and  budgeting, and because the earnings are higher than those for other  prison jobs, inmates have the opportunity to send money home to their  families. As a result, officials said there is less idleness among inmates  with UNICOR jobs, which helps to support security and safety in the  facility, and that the recidivism rate for participants is lower. Facility  officials also noted that the decline in the number of UNICOR jobs has  resulted in waiting lists and challenged staff to create jobs to support  industrial work programming. Systemwide, the number of UNICOR  factories peaked at 110 in 2007, declining to 88 in 2011. These factories  employed over 23,000 inmates in 2007, declining to 14,200 inmates in  2011. In May 2010 the waiting list for UNICOR jobs was over 26,000  inmates, with an average waiting time of 16 months. According to BOP  officials, a UNICOR waiting list includes inmates from the facility where  the factory is located. An inmate transferring to a facility may be placed  on the waiting list, but an inmate cannot be transferred to a facility to  participate in the UNICOR program. At one facility we visited, officials told  us that approximately 200 inmates were on the waiting list. They  explained that the waiting list consisted of three groups: inmates with  financial responsibilities, inmates with prior UNICOR experience, and  inmates on the general waiting list. When slots opened up, inmates were  selected equally from each of the three lists.
Crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit with their  families. BOP headquarters officials said the quality of the interaction  between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior  in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community.  Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate the number of  inmates that the facility was designed to house and a visitor capacity to  enable staff to manage the visitation process. The infrastructure of the  facility may not support the increase in visitors as a result of the growth in  the prison population. Further, with more inmates, the visitation process  requires more staff resources. BOP officials explained that the visiting  process requires at least four staff––one in the front lobby to process  visitors, one to escort inmates in and out of the visiting room and search  the inmate for contraband following the visit, one to document and search  visitors to prevent the introduction of contraband, and one to walk around  the visiting area supervising interactions.
Limited visiting capacity and the larger numbers of inmates can lead to  frustrations for inmates and visitors, such as when visits are shorter or  visitors are turned away because there are too many visitors on a  particular day. Five of the regional directors and officials at four of the  facilities we visited reported that the effect of the population growth on  visitation varied by region and facilities within the region because of a  number of factors, including proximity of the facility to inmates’ families. If  a large percentage of the inmate population is from the area where the  facility is located, the visiting room is used at a greater frequency.  Conversely, if inmates’ families do not live near the facility, the increase in  the number of inmates does not have a similar effect on visitation. For  example, one regional director told us that the increase in the number of  inmates had not affected overall visitation in the region because of the  large number of inmates who were non-U.S. citizens and whose families  did not visit. In another region, the regional director told us that some  facilities have problems with visitation only on holidays, when families  wish to be together, while others have problems regularly. According to  officials, allowing all inmates rather than none or some inmates to have  visitors helps inmates’ morale and facility management.
Additionally, the larger number of inmates also limits inmate access to the  telephone to call home and computer to e-mail family members and other  contacts. For example, at one facility we visited, each housing unit had  three telephones for about 156 inmates. We reported in September 2011  that BOP provided a variety of options to its inmates for making phone  calls to friends and families; nevertheless, the number of contraband cell  phones in prisons had risen. Given the potential that these phones  provide for furthering criminal activity (e.g., selling drugs), the illicit use of  cell phones can pose a danger to staff and inmates, as well as the public  at large.
Facility officials told us that because of the large prison population,  correctional officers do not have time to use their interpersonal  correctional skills and maintain communication between staff and  individual inmates. Representatives of the correctional workers’ union and  officials at three of the five prisons we visited specifically emphasized the  importance of interaction and communication between inmates and  correctional staff for purposes of inmate reentry and facility management.  During one site visit, we observed that facility department heads and unit  managers stand along the cafeteria serving line during meals to provide  the opportunity for inmates to speak with staff about problems and  concerns. A union representative observed that inmates used to tell correctional staff about problems (e.g., where other inmates were storing  contraband), but with more than one inmate in a cell, inmates may not  want to talk to the correctional officer in front of the other inmates.
Tables 14 through 16 provide historical data on inmate to total BOP staff  ratios, inmate to BOP institutional staff ratios, and inmate to BOP  correctional staff ratios.
More inmates results in greater water usage for heating, laundry,  showers, toilets, sanitation, and food service. As a result, BOP is the  largest energy and water consumer in DOJ. Specifically, BOP estimated  that each inmate uses approximately 150 gallons of water per day. BOP’s  electricity costs also increased about 35 percent, from about $79 million  in fiscal year 2005 to more than $107 million in fiscal year 2011.  According to BOP, the main reason for this increase is the rising cost of  electricity over the last 6 years, although more inmates with more laundry  also have had a marginal impact. BOP regional and facility officials said  that with the increased population, the food service equipment is used to  prepare more meals, thereby shortening the life of the equipment.
In February 2012, BOP reported 150 major unfunded repair projects (i.e.,  each project had an estimated repair cost of $300,000 or more) for a total  projected repair cost of almost $346 million. These included unfunded  repairs totaling about $30 million for four of the five prisons we visited, such  as replacement of a roof, repairs to the perimeter wall, replacement of the  perimeter fence, and upgrading a sewer system. One regional director  observed, however, that when BOP does not have funding for repairs, staff  find a way to “make do.” For example, at one older facility in that region,  staff built a second roof over the computer room, rather than undertake the  more costly roof repair, because the main roof of the facility leaked.
BOP officials said facilities are so crowded that closing older facilities is  not an option. These officials explained that BOP’s goal is to reduce  crowding to 15 percent systemwide. Because BOP projects continued  population growth and does not anticipate a large increase in facility  capacity, a significant decrease in the population would have to occur  before BOP would be able to consider facility closures. Officials said that  before closing BOP-run facilities, BOP would reduce its private prison  contracts, but reductions in facility space would also depend on the  security level of the population where reductions occurred.
According to BOP officials, the increasing inmate population and staffing  ratios negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline,  thereby affecting security and safety. BOP maintains an inmate discipline  program for all inmates in BOP custody, which is to help ensure the  safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, as well as  the protection of the public, by allowing BOP staff to impose sanctions on  inmates who commit prohibited acts. BOP classifies prohibited acts into  four levels according to the severity of the offense and provides a range  of sanctions. Available sanctions are based on the severity of the  offense and include disallowance and forfeiture of good conduct time  credit, disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges (e.g., visitation,  telephone, and commissary). BOP disciplinary hearing data show an  increase from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and a decline in fiscal year  2011. Table 17 shows the trends in the number of guilty findings for  each level of prohibited acts from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.  According to BOP officials, moderate severity (300-level) prohibited acts  include less serious but more frequently committed types of inmate  misconduct, such as insolent behavior toward staff, thus explaining the  large number of findings reported for this category.
During the 6-year period, BOP data indicated that the most frequently  imposed sanctions for guilty findings were loss of privileges, disallowance  of good time credit, and segregation.
In addition to maintaining individual discipline, BOP facility management  may lock down a facility––a temporary situation in which all inmates are  confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to assess the  situation following a critical incident (e.g., a, assaults on staff by several  inmates, or a food or work strike) and can safely return the institution to  normal operations. According to BOP data, BOP systemwide imposed  almost 4,000 lockdowns from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Similar to  the inmate misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from  fiscal years 2006 through 2009, peaking at 1,042 that year and then  declining to 824 in fiscal year 2011.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director;  Pedro Almoguera; Willie Commons; Eric Hauswirth; Lara Miklozek; Linda  Miller; Meghan Squires; Barbara Stolz; and Greg Wilmoth made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating Incarceration and  Community Corrections Costs and Results of the Elderly Offender Pilot.  GAO-12-807R. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2012.
Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to  Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison. GAO-12-320. Washington, D.C.  February 7, 2012.
Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination  Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. GAO-11-893. Washington, D.C.:  September 6, 2011.
Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective Equipment Could  Help Enhance Officer Safety. GAO-11-410. Washington, D.C.:   April 8, 2011.
Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best  Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making.   GAO-10-94. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2009.
Prison Construction: Clear Communication on the Accuracy of Cost  Estimates and Project Changes is Needed. GAO-08-634. Washington,  D.C.: May 29, 2008.
Cost of Prisons: Bureau of Prisons Needs Better Data to Assess  Alternatives for Acquiring Low and Minimum Security Facilities.   GAO-08-6. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2007.
Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs.  GAO-01-483. Washington, D.C. June 18, 2001.
State and Federal Prisoners: Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 1991  and 1997. GAO/GGD-00-117. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2000.