Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates' Time in Prison
Published: 2012-02-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Justices Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the custody and care of federal offenders. BOPs population has increased from about 145,000 in 2000 to about 217,000 in 2011 and BOP is operating at 38 percent over capacity. There is no longer parole for federal offenders and BOP has limited authority to affect the length of an inmate's prison sentence. BOP has some statutory authorities and programs to reduce the amount of time an inmate remains in prison, which when balanced with BOPs mission to protect public safety and prepare inmates for reentry, can help reduce crowding and the costs of incarceration. GAO was asked to address: (1) the extent to which BOP utilizes its authorities to reduce a federal prisoners period of incarceration; and (2) what factors, if any, impact BOP's use of these authorities. GAO analyzed relevant laws and BOP policies; obtained nationwide data on inmate participation in relevant programs and sentence reductions from fiscal years 2009 through 2011; conducted site visits to nine BOP institutions selected to cover a range of prison characteristics and at each, interviewed officials responsible for relevant programs; and visited four community-based facilities serving the institutions visited. Though not generalizable, the information obtained from these visits provided insights.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: BOPs use of authorities to reduce a federal prisoners period of incarceration varies. BOP primarily utilizes three authoritiesthe Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP), community corrections, and good conduct time.
(1) Eligible inmates can participate in RDAP before release from prison, but those eligible for a sentence reduction are generally unable to complete RDAP in time to earn the maximum reduction (generally 12 months). During fiscal years 2009 through 2011, of the 15,302 inmates who completed RDAP and were eligible for a sentence reduction, 2,846 (19 percent) received the maximum reduction and the average reduction was 8.0 months. BOP officials said that participants generally do not receive the maximum reduction because they have less than 12 months to serve when they complete RDAP.
(2) To facilitate inmates reintegration into society, BOP may transfer eligible inmates to community corrections locations for up to the final 12 months of their sentences. Inmates may spend this time in contract residential re-entry centers (RRCs)also known as halfway housesand in detention in their homes for up to 6 months. Based on the most recently available data, almost 29,000 inmates completed their sentences through community corrections in fiscal year 2010, after an average placement of about 4 months; 17,672 in RRCs, 11,094 in RRCs then home detention, and 145 in home detention only. RRCs monitor inmates in home detention and charge BOP 50 percent of the daily RRC cost to do so. However, BOP does not require RRC contractors to separate the price of home detention services from the price of RRC beds and thus, does not know the actual costs of home detention. BOP officials stated that they are developing a process to review and amend existing RRC contracts and require new contractors to submit proposals separating out RRC and home detention prices, but did not document the specifics of the review process or establish time frames or milestones for the review. Thus, BOP does not have a roadmap for how it will achieve this goal.
(3) Most eligible inmates receive all of their potential good conduct time credit for exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations54 days taken off their sentence, per year served, if an inmate has earned or is earning a high school diploma; 42 days if not. As of the end of fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, about 87 percent of inmates had earned all of their available credit.
BOP also has other authorities, such as releasing prisoners early for very specialized reasons, but has used these less frequently for various reasons.
Inmate eligibility and lack of capacity impact BOPs use of certain flexibilities and programs that can reduce an inmates time in prison. BOP officials cited inmate ineligibility for RRC placement (e.g., inmates who are likely to escape or be arrested or with sentences of 6 months or less, among other things) as the primary reason that some inmates are not released through community corrections and one of the main reasons that some inmates are not able to participate in RDAP. BOPs lack of additional RRC space has prevented it from increasing the length of its RRC placements. According to BOP, lack of program capacity also prevents eligible inmates from entering and completing RDAP early enough to earn their maximum allowable sentence reductions, which prevents BOP from maximizing the cost savings provided by the authority.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that BOP establish a plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring contractors to submit prices of RRC beds and home detention services. BOP concurred with this recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is  responsible for the custody and care of federal offenders. BOP’s mission  is to confine federal offenders in the controlled, safe, secure, humane,  and cost-efficient environments of prisons and community-based facilities,  and to provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist  offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. BOP’s population has  increased by 50 percent from about 145,000 in 2000 to about 217,000 at  the close of fiscal year 2011, and BOP projects a net increase of roughly  6,000 inmates annually for the next 3 years. In addition, BOP reports that  it is operating at 38 percent over capacity with higher rates of crowding in  its high- and medium-security institutions than in its low- and minimum- security institutions.
The size of the federal prison population is a function of many factors,  including the nation’s crime levels, sentencing laws, and law enforcement  policies, all of which are beyond the control of BOP. In addition, the  Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole for federal offenders,  and subsequent legislation established mandatory minimum sentences  for many federal offenses, which limit the authority BOP has to affect the  size of the prison population or the length of prison sentences. However,  BOP has some statutory authorities whereby it can reduce the period  during which an inmate is incarcerated or remains in BOP custody.  These programs and authorities are primarily intended to rehabilitate  inmates and prepare them for reentry into society, and encourage good  behavior while in BOP custody. Effective BOP use of these authorities,  while adhering to the agency’s stated mission to protect society by  confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and  community-based facilities, has the potential to help reduce overcrowding  and the associated costs of incarceration.
You asked us to review the authorities BOP has to reduce a federal  prisoner’s period of incarceration and how it is using its authorities.  Specifically, this report addresses the following questions:
To what extent does BOP utilize its authorities to reduce a federal  prisoner’s period of incarceration?
What factors, if any, impact BOP’s use of these authorities?
To address the first question, we analyzed relevant federal statutes to  identify what discretionary authorities BOP has to reduce a prisoner’s  period of incarceration.statements, and guidance memos, and interviewed officials from BOP’s   We also analyzed BOP policies, program  Information, Policy, & Public Affairs Division; Office of General Counsel;  Designation and Sentence Computation Center; and Correctional  Programs Division to determine how BOP implements programs that  utilize its discretionary authorities. We obtained nationwide data regarding  inmate participation in relevant BOP programs, program capacity, and  sentence reductions received for program participation, or through other  authorities, during fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. We also obtained  population and cost projections BOP has developed related to various  alternative uses of its authorities. We compared BOP’s methods for  estimating the costs of supervising inmates in home detention with  standard practices for program and project management to determine  whether BOP has a planning process in place to achieve reliable  estimates of these costs. We obtained information from relevant BOP  officials about the steps taken to ensure the accuracy of all of the data,  and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
According to BOP officials, care-level categories are based on both medical treatment  capacity and proximity to an outside hospital. Care-level 1 facilities can treat limited  medical needs, and are generally about 40-60 miles from a hospital; care-level 2 facilities  can treat stable diseases, and are generally about 20-30 miles from a hospital; care-level  3 facilities can provide nursing care and assisted living, as well as mental health  treatment, and are generally about 5-10 miles from a hospital; care-level 4 facilities are  generally hospitals, of which there are six in BOP’s system.
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia). Five of the nine institutions  contained multiple facilities which housed offenders classified at different  security levels.challenges from those officials responsible for the following activities:   At each institution, we obtained perspectives on  conducting disciplinary hearings which could result in the  disallowance of sentence-reduction credit received by inmates for  good conduct while incarcerated; administering BOP’s substance abuse treatment programs, including  the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) which  provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully  complete the program; and  reviewing inmates’ cases to make recommendations regarding the  length of placement in residential re-entry centers (RRCs), also known  as halfway houses, or in home detention at the end of an individual’s  sentence.
We also visited four RRCs in the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.  metropolitan areas—the closest major metropolitan areas to the prisons  we visited, and thus serving inmates released to community corrections  from these prisons—to discuss with BOP community corrections officials  overseeing the operation of these RRCs and RRC managers any factors  that facilitate or hinder placing inmates in the community. We cannot  generalize our work from the facilities and offices we visited to BOP  facilities nationwide, but the information we obtained provides insights  into how BOP implements its discretionary authorities in various locations.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to February 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: BOP Population and Institutions
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2012, BOP had a budget of about $6.6 billion for salaries  and expenses and as of December 2011, BOP had a staff of about  38,000, which includes administrative, program, and support staff  responsible for all of BOP’s activities nationwide. BOP houses inmates  across six geographic regions in 117 federal institutions, 15 privately  managed prisons, 185 RRCs (also known as halfway houses), and home  detention. At the close of fiscal year 2011, about 94 percent of BOP’s  inmate population was incarcerated in either federal institutions or  privately managed prisons, operating at four different security level  designations: minimum, low, medium, and high. The designations depend  on the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to  provide such as the presence of security towers; perimeter barriers; the  type of inmate housing, including dormitory, cubicle, or cell-type housing;  and the staff-to-inmate ratio. Some BOP institutions include multiple  prison facilities with different security classifications under common  management, in part to increase cost efficiencies. According to BOP,  privately managed low-security facilities primarily house criminal aliens.  Figure 1 shows the distribution of BOP institutions, privately managed  prisons, and RRCs across BOP’s six geographic regions.
To house inmates in community corrections locations, BOP contracts with  private organizations to manage 185 RRCs around the country. These  RRCs allow BOP to house inmates outside of a prison environment to  either serve out their full sentence or their remaining sentence prior to  release in the community. Inmates are authorized to leave for approved  activities, such as seeking employment, working, counseling, visiting, or  recreation, but are monitored 24 hours a day through sign-out  procedures, regular head counts, staff visits to the approved locations,  and random phone contacts. Inmates in RRCs are also required to work,  or be actively seeking work, and to pay a percentage of their salaries as a  subsistence fee to cover some of their expenses at the RRC. Some  federal inmates are placed on home detention at the end of their prison  term, either directly from an institution, or following some time in an RRC.  Home detention describes all circumstances under which an inmate is  serving a portion of his or her sentence while residing in his or her home.  Home detention inmates are held to strict schedules and curfews and are  monitored by a nearby RRC or the U.S. Probation Office through random  staff visits, phone contacts, and occasionally through the use of electronic  monitoring.inmate population was housed in RRCs or home detention.
section_title: BOP Discretionary Authorities That Can Reduce a Prisoner’s Period of Incarceration or Time in BOP Custody
paragraphs: BOP has a number of discretionary authorities it can use to impact the  period during which an inmate is incarcerated or remains in BOP custody.  According to BOP officials, many of the programs that arise from these  authorities are primarily intended to rehabilitate inmates and prepare  them for reentry into society, as well as encourage good behavior while in  BOP custody. The authorities can be classified into two main categories:  (1) authorities that reduce the length of the inmate’s sentence, and (2)  authorities that allow BOP to transfer an inmate out of prison to serve the  remainder of his or her sentence in an RRC or home detention. Table 1  provides the statutory provisions allowing for BOP discretion to reduce a  federal prisoner’s period of incarceration.
section_title: BOP’s Use of Authorities That Can Reduce a Federal Prisoner’s Period of Incarceration Varies
subsections: section_title: Eligible Prisoners Can Participate in RDAP in Time to Complete the Program; Few Receive the Maximum Sentence Reduction
paragraphs: BOP is required, subject to the availability of appropriations, to provide  residential substance abuse treatment and make arrangements for  appropriate aftercare for all eligible prisoners. Generally, the process to  determine inmate eligibility for RDAP participation begins when inmates  express interest in the program.nonviolent participants a sentence reduction incentive of up to 12 months   In June 1995, BOP began offering  for successful completion of the program. The amount of sentence  reduction awarded upon completion is based on the length of an inmate’s  sentence.complete RDAP, and receive a sentence reduction if eligible.
Earned GCT credit does not vest until an inmate’s release date, meaning that all credit  is vulnerable to forfeiture for disciplinary cause. generally considered for departures.offenses and being taken advantage of as common mitigating  circumstances. One DHO we spoke with reduced a newer inmate’s  disallowance because the inmate was manipulated by a fellow inmate to  make a prohibited phone call for him. DHOs cited repeated offenses,  egregious acts, and violence against correctional officers as common  aggravating circumstances. One DHO we spoke with recalled forfeiting  over 300 days of an inmate’s earned GCT credit after the inmate was  involved in a prison riot. The six DHOs we spoke with told us that the  disallowance guidelines were clear, and that the discretion to depart from  the guidelines offered them sufficient flexibility and latitude to successfully  impact inmate behavior.
For example, DHOs cited first-time  Although most prisoners receive all of their potential GCT credit, BOP’s  method of awarding GCT credit at the end of each year an inmate serves  results in a maximum of 47 days of GCT credit earned per year of  sentence imposed rather than the 54 days that inmates who have  contested BOP’s method in court maintain was the original intent of the  statute. sentence guidelines with the understanding that inmates would receive  GCT credit so that their actual time served would be 85 percent of the  length of the sentence imposed by the judge, assuming good behavior.  BOP’s method of awarding GCT, however, results in inmates serving  more than 85 percent of their imposed sentences, even after earning the  maximum GCT credit, as can be seen in table 4, for a hypothetical  sentence of 10 years imposed by the sentencing judge.
As authorized in statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), BOP awards “up to 54 days at the end of  each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment,” or 54 days per year of sentence served.  As applied by BOP, this results in 47 days earned per year of sentence imposed because  inmates do not earn GCT credit for years they do not ultimately serve due to being  released early.
Inmate released during  9th year, after completing  8 years and 260 days  38 (GCT for the  remaining 298 days is  prorated to conform to  the ratio of 54 days per  365 served)
Total GCT days granted   470  Total GCT days granted  per year of sentence  imposed  Total time served (days)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld BOP’s methodology against a challenge  brought by inmate petitioners. However, BOP officials told us that the  agency was supportive of amending the statute, and had submitted a  legislative proposal to Congress such that 54 days would be provided for  each year of the term of imprisonment originally imposed by the judge,  which would result in inmates serving 85 percent of their sentence.
BOP  provided us estimates in December 2011 showing that if the GCT credit  allowance was increased by 7 days, as proposed, BOP could save over  $40 million in the first fiscal year after the policy change from the early  release of about 3,900 inmates. As of December 2011, the legislative  proposal had not been introduced on the floors of the House or Senate.
section_title: BOP Has Used Other Authorities Less Frequently to Reduce Federal Prisoners’ Periods of Incarceration
paragraphs: Modification of an imposed sentence: BOP has authority to motion the  court to reduce an inmate’s sentence in certain statutorily authorized  circumstances, but that authority is implemented infrequently, if at all.
The court, upon motion of the Director of BOP, may reduce the term  of imprisonment after considering certain statutory factors to the  extent that they are applicable, if it finds that “extraordinary and  compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” (also known as  “compassionate release”) and the reduction is consistent with  applicable policy statements issued by the USSC. According to BOP  officials, the Director has motioned sentencing judges for inmates’  early releases in a limited number of cases. For instance, BOP has  historically interpreted “extraordinary and compelling circumstances”  as limited to cases where the inmate has a terminal illness with a life  expectancy of 1 year or less or has a profoundly debilitating medical  condition. The USSC issued guidance that listed a number of  additional circumstances, such as the death or incapacitation of the  inmate’s only family member capable of caring for the inmate’s minor  child or children. As of December 2011, BOP had not revised its  written policy to explicitly include all of the circumstances noted in the  USSC guidance although, according to BOP officials, the agency is  reviewing two cases that would fall within these circumstances. Where  “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” may exist, inmates  generally must submit a request explaining their circumstances and  their plans for housing, financial support, and medical care if granted  an early release. The request is to proceed through multiple layers of  review, including the inmate’s warden, the Regional Director, BOP’s  Office of General Counsel, and the BOP Director, who may ultimately  motion the court. BOP officials recorded that from calendar years  2009 through 2011, 55 requests for early release were approved by  the BOP Director and brought as motions to a sentencing judge out of  89 requests approved at lower levels and received at BOP  headquarters.
The court, upon motion of the Director of BOP, may reduce a prison  term after considering certain statutory factors to the extent that they  are applicable, if (1) an inmate is over 70 years old, (2) has served at  least 30 years in prison pursuant to certain sentences imposed by  statute, (3) a determination has been made by the BOP Director that  the inmate is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the  community as provided by statute, and (4) such a reduction is  consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the USSC.  However, according to BOP officials, since the authority was enacted,  BOP has had no inmates in its custody meeting these criteria and is  considering how to implement this authority in the future if an inmate  qualified.
Generally, where a term of imprisonment is based upon a sentencing  range that has subsequently been lowered by the USSC, upon motion  of the BOP Director, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment.
According to BOP officials the BOP Director does not directly motion  the sentencing judge because this is generally accomplished by the  U.S. Attorney’s Office as the litigating body of DOJ. In addition, BOP  officials also stated that it is not necessary for the BOP Director to  motion the judge because inmates and their counsel generally initiate  the process. BOP supports the process in other ways, including  educating inmates about the relevant guidelines changes, notifying  the U.S. Attorneys Offices if inmates who appear to be eligible are  missed, and processing inmate sentence reductions if granted by a  sentencing judge. BOP has estimated that the retroactive change to  the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses that went into  effect on November 1, 2011, will result in 2,391 additional inmates  being released from BOP custody from fiscal years 2012 through  2014, yielding an estimated cost savings of $160 million.
Early release prior to a weekend or holiday: BOP releases inmates on  the last preceding weekday prior to a release date that falls on a  Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
Shock Incarceration Program: Although BOP retains the authority to  operate the shock incarceration program, also known as boot camps, it  discontinued the program in 2005 due to its cost and research showing  that it was not effective in reducing inmate recidivism. Nonviolent,  volunteer, minimum-security inmates serving sentences of more than 12  months but not more than 30 months were eligible for the program, which  combined features of military basic training with traditional BOP  correctional values to promote personal development, self-control, and  discipline. Throughout the typical 6-month program, inmate participants  were required to adhere to a highly regimented schedule of strict  discipline, physical training, hard labor, drill, job training, educational  programs, and substance abuse counseling. BOP provided inmates who  successfully completed the program and were serving sentences of 12 to  30 months with a sentence reduction of up to 6 months. All inmates who  successfully completed the program were eligible to serve the remainder  of their sentences in community corrections locations, such as RRCs or  home detention. A study of one of BOP’s shock incarceration programs,  published in September 1996, found that the program had no effect on  participants’ recidivism rates. According to BOP officials, those and  other evaluation findings and the cost of the program led BOP to  discontinue its use in 2005.
Elderly Offender Pilot Program: Authorization for BOP’s elderly  offender home detention pilot program expired in September 2010.  Generally, the 2-year pilot program enabled BOP to transfer to home  detention inmates who were at least 65 years old, had served at least 10  years and 75 percent of their non-life sentences, had no history of  violence, sexual offenses, or escape or attempted escape from a BOP  institution, and who BOP determined would be of no substantial risk of  engaging in criminal conduct or endangering any person or the public if  released and with respect to whom BOP had determined that release to  home detention will result in a substantial net reduction of costs to the   During the program, 71 inmates were transferred to  federal government. home detention. The statute requires the Attorney General to monitor and  evaluate each eligible elderly offender placed on home detention, and  report to Congress concerning the experience with the program.  According to BOP officials, this report has not been completed. We have  ongoing work looking at the results and costs of the pilot in more detail,  which we will report on later this year.
42 U.S.C. § 17541(g)(5)(A). federal sentencing judge orders that they run concurrently. This includes  cases when a federal judge has not stated whether a state and federal  sentence should run concurrently or consecutively. However, BOP may  review, or the inmates may petition BOP to review, their cases to  determine a federal sentencing judge’s intent. BOP reviews the inmate’s  sentencing documents and custody history, and may also contact the  federal sentencing judge to determine whether the judge intended that the  state and federal sentences should be served consecutively or  concurrently. For example, of the 538 cases BOP reviewed in fiscal year  2011, 99 requests to serve sentences concurrently were granted, for a  total of about 118,700 days of sentence credit, 386 were not granted, and  53 were still under review as of the end of fiscal year 2011.
Credit for criminal custody: BOP has the authority to grant credit for  time served in criminal custody (such as time spent awaiting trial), and  according to BOP policy, it considers detention by Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purposes of deportation to be  administrative custody until criminal charges are brought against a  detainee. According to BOP officials, BOP reviews inmate records for any  criminal custody time that could be credited towards an inmate’s federal  sentence. BOP reviewers may contact ICE for clarification of an inmate’s  custody record, but, according to BOP officials, the various ICE districts  keep records differently and a clear determination of when a federal  charge was filed and an inmate’s criminal custody began may be difficult  to achieve.
section_title: Inmate Eligibility and Lack of Capacity Impact BOP’s Use of Certain Flexibilities
subsections: section_title: Certain Inmates’ Ineligibility for Community Corrections Impacts BOP’s Use of RRCs and RDAP
paragraphs: BOP officials cited inmate ineligibility for placement in community  corrections as the number one reason that all inmates do not get released  through RRCs and one of the chief reasons that some inmates are  precluded from participating in RDAP. Specifically, BOP’s RRC program  statement prohibits certain inmates from placement in an RRC. For  example, inmates with detainers, with sentences of 6 months or less, who  refuse to satisfy BOP’s Financial Responsibility Program, or who are in  civil commitment status are all ineligible for RRC placement. According  to BOP, inmates with detainers are deemed inappropriate for placement  in community corrections due to the increased risk of escape and for  those with immigration detainers, the likelihood of deportation. Moreover,  all inmates who have financial obligations, whether court-ordered  restitution, court fees, or tax liabilities, must comply with the Financial  Responsibility Program to participate in programming including  community corrections. This ineligibility for RRC placement also  disqualifies an inmate from placement in home detention. Figure 4 shows  the number of inmates ineligible for RRC placement from April 2008 to  March 2011.
BOP officials stated that certain offenses committed by inmates may also  make it difficult for BOP to place them in RRCs. For example, according  to BOP officials, some RRCs are required to enter into agreements with  communities regarding the type of inmates they will house and some  communities have enacted local laws that prohibit the placement of  certain inmates such as sex offenders and arsonists in a communal  setting. Other reasons inmates may not be placed in RRCs include the  inmate’s refusal to be placed or the inmate’s medical or mental health  needs that could not be accommodated at the RRC. According to BOP  officials, inmates may refuse RRC placement for a variety of reasons but  the reasons for refusal cited most often by officials during our site visits to  BOP facilities included:  some RRC accommodations are perceived by some inmates to be  subpar compared to prisons;  some minimum-security and low-security inmates do not want to  reside in RRCs with higher security inmates; and  some inmates do not want to pay the 25 percent subsistence fee.
To participate in RDAP, inmates must be able to complete both the  institution and the RRC components of the program. As a result, inmates  who are prohibited from transferring to RRCs are excluded from RDAP.  For instance, BOP estimates that 2,500 criminal aliens would participate  in RDAP each year, but are ineligible due to immigration detainers. Prior  to a 1996 BOP policy change, inmates with detainers could complete the  program by participating in transitional treatment within a BOP institution.  However, according to BOP officials, transitional treatment within an  institution is ineffective because the inmate remains sheltered from the  partial freedoms and outside pressures experienced during an RRC  placement.
Realizing that potential cost savings could result from early releases of  criminal aliens, among other reasons, BOP is considering changing its  policy and allowing eligible nonviolent criminal aliens to complete the  RDAP program without the RRC component and receive sentence  reductions of up to 1 year for successful completion. According to BOP,  this policy shift would require a rule change and the development of  procedures to ensure that no U.S. citizen was displaced from participating  in RDAP. BOP officials stated that decisions on this issue would not be  made until expanded program capacity becomes available, which is  currently uncertain.
section_title: Lack of Available Capacity Impacts BOP’s Use of RRCs and RDAP
paragraphs: A lack of RRC beds limits BOP’s ability to further utilize RRC placements.  Based on the most recently available data, in fiscal year 2010, about  29,000 inmates spent time in an RRC prior to release from BOP custody.  Although BOP officials at institutions we visited stated that they assessed  inmates on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate RRC  placement length, the officials stated that referrals can be reduced due to  RRC capacity constraints. According to BOP officials, in fiscal year 2010,  about 2.7 percent of eligible inmates were denied placement due to a lack  of bed space. BOP faces challenges in increasing its RRC bed space  capacity, which limits its ability to increase the length of RRC placements.  According to BOP community corrections officials, BOP has difficulty  acquiring new RRC contracts and increasing its RRC capacity because of  local zoning restrictions and the unwillingness of many communities to  accept nearby RRCs.
Although the Second Chance Act increased BOP’s flexibility to place  inmates in RRCs for up to 12 months, as reported by BOP officials,  challenges facing the expansion of its RRC capacity limit the impact of  this increased flexibility. As of November 2011, BOP reported that  available contracted RRC bed space was 8,859 estimated beds. For each  available RRC bed, BOP can transfer one inmate to the RRC for a  maximum of 12 months, or BOP could send multiple inmates for shorter  placements (e.g., three inmates for 4 months each). As such, for this  increased flexibility to have an impact on the average length of RRC  placements, RRC capacity would need to increase. To provide all eligible  inmates with the maximum allowable 12 months in an RRC, BOP would  require about 29,000 available beds annually.
Some inmates are more affected by capacity constraints than others,  such as those with criminal records of sex offenses or those being  released into urban areas with few RRCs. According to BOP, only a  limited number of RRCs are able to accept sex offenders, and thus BOP,  at the onset, has a limited number of RRC beds for sex offender  placement. In addition, inmates releasing to urban areas may have their  placement lengths reduced due to capacity constraints. For example,  BOP staff we interviewed during our site visits identified shortages of  RRC beds in Southern California, North Carolina, and the Washington,  D.C. metropolitan area affecting the length of RRC placements. When  referring inmates for RRC placements, BOP considers the inmate’s  original sentencing location to facilitate transition and successful reentry.  As such, BOP’s utilization of RRC placements is limited in geographical  areas that do not have enough RRC beds to accommodate returning  inmates.
According to BOP officials, systemwide program capacity similarly  constrains BOP’s utilization of RDAP sentence reductions—specifically,  BOP’s ability to admit RDAP participants early enough to earn their  maximum allowable sentence reductions. BOP officials stated that the  RDAP sentence reduction incentive caused a backlog for entry into the  program. Long wait lists resulted in inmates entering RDAP with  insufficient time to complete the program in time to receive the maximum  sentence reduction. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, BOP reported to  Congress that long wait lists (over 7,600 systemwide) prevented some  eligible inmates from participating in the program at all—20 percent and 7  percent unable to participate, respectively. RDAP capacity, as measured  by the number of program slots open to inmates at one time throughout  BOP (6,685 in fiscal year 2011), has grown at a relatively steady rate  since the program began in fiscal year 1989, and increased by 400 slots  from fiscal years 2009 to 2011. According to BOP officials, as program  capacity has increased in recent years, wait lists have been reduced,  even with continued growth in the inmate population. This has enabled  inmates to enter the program sooner and resulted in an increase in the  percentage of eligible inmates who complete RDAP and receive the  maximum sentence reductions from 14 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 25  percent in fiscal year 2011. However, according to BOP officials, RDAP is  still catching up to the increased demand and continues to have wait lists.
According to BOP officials, wait lists for entry into RDAP are currently  prioritized in accordance with statute based on inmates’ proximity to their  projected release dates which include GCT credit expected to be earned,  but do not include the potential RDAP sentence reduction that eligible  participants may earn. Two subject matter experts who advocate for  inmate interests whom we spoke with stated that BOP could consider  including the potential RDAP sentence reduction in inmates’ projected  release date calculations. This could ensure that eligible inmates would  enter the program sooner and in enough time to receive the maximum  reduction. For example, if two inmates have the same projected release  date, after accounting for GCT credit, but one inmate would be eligible for  a 1-year sentence reduction on completion of RDAP while the other  would not be eligible for a sentence reduction upon completion of RDAP,  the inmate eligible for the sentence reduction would have a higher  position on the wait list for entry into RDAP than the inmate ineligible for a  sentence reduction. BOP has stated that if it were to prioritize RDAP entry  in this way, some inmates who are not eligible for the sentence reduction  would not be able to enter the program at all, as they would continually be  displaced on the wait lists by inmates who are eligible for the sentence  reduction. BOP is required by statute, subject to the availability of  appropriations, to provide residential substance abuse treatment for all  eligible inmates, regardless of their eligibility for the sentence reduction  incentive, and thus must ensure that all eligible inmates are able to  participate in the program prior to their release from custody. However,  BOP was unable to provide documentation that including RDAP sentence  reduction in computation of the projected release date would continually  displace inmates eligible for RDAP but ineligible for the associated  sentence reduction.
BOP’s fiscal year 2012 budget request included an increase of $15 million  for RDAP, which was not funded. According to BOP, the funding would  have reduced RDAP wait lists and enabled eligible inmates to enter the  program early enough to earn their maximum allowable sentence  reductions. BOP stated that the $15 million increase would have covered  125 new drug treatment staff positions and would have allowed an   BOP officials also  additional 4,000 inmates to complete RDAP annually.told us that if BOP changes its policy to allow criminal aliens to participate  in RDAP, the funding increase for RDAP proposed in the 2012 budget  request would have been sufficient to allow this additional inmate  population to participate in RDAP without impacting the ability of U.S.  citizens to participate and receive the maximum available sentence  reductions.
Timely program admission would result in future cost savings through  additional sentence reductions. For example, if every eligible RDAP  participant who completed the program in fiscal year 2011 had received  their maximum sentence reduction, BOP would have been responsible for  15,729 fewer months of inmate incarceration, yielding an estimated cost  savings of about $13.2 million. BOP estimated that allowing criminal  aliens to participate in RDAP and earn sentence reductions could offer  about $25 million of additional cost savings each year.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Federal inmate populations have been increasing and BOP is operating  at more than a third over capacity. In addition, the absence of parole in  the federal system and other federal statutes limit BOP’s authority to  modify an inmate’s period of incarceration. Inmates, who earn their good  conduct time, as most do, end up serving about 87 percent of their  sentences. BOP’s housing of inmates in community-based facilities or  home detention is a key flexibility it uses to affect a prisoner’s period of  incarceration. However, BOP does not require its RRC contractors to  separate the price of home detention services from the price of RRC  beds. As a result, BOP lacks information on the price of home detention  that could assist it in weighing the costs and benefits of alternative  options for supervising inmates in home detention. While BOP is working  to develop a process to require contractors to submit separate prices for  the price of RRC beds and home detention services, without establishing  a plan, including a time frame for development, BOP does not have a  road map for how it will achieve this goal.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To determine the cost of home detention and potentially achieve cost  savings, we recommend that the Director of BOP establish a plan,  including time frames and milestones for completion, for requiring  contractors to submit separate prices of RRC beds and home detention  services.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for its review and comment.  BOP provided written comments on the draft report, which are  reproduced in full in appendix I. BOP concurred with the findings in the  report. Prior to receiving BOP’s comment letter, on January 20, 2012,  BOP’s audit liaison requested that the wording of our recommendation be  changed from “requiring contractors to identify RRC costs and home  detention costs separately” to “requiring contractors to submit separate  prices of RRC beds and home detention services.” He stated that BOP  was requesting this change because contractors are not required to  disclose financial information, such as the actual costs to them of  providing services to inmates, to BOP. Furthermore, the liaison stated  that obtaining separate prices of RRC and home detention services will  enable BOP to determine the price reasonableness of these services. We  believe that BOP’s proposed language addressed the intent of our  recommendation, and thus we modified the recommendation language.  BOP concurred with our recommendation, as revised, and also provided  technical comments which we incorporated into the report, as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this  report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Federal Bureau of Prisons
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Chris Currie, Assistant Director;  Tom Jessor; Bintou Njie; Michael Kniss; Billy Commons, III; Pedro  Almoguera; and Lara Miklozek made significant contributions to this  report.